Affordability in Canada: When the Rhetoric Collides With Reality

For years, the Liberal government has insisted that affordability is its driving mission. The speeches say the middle class is being “supported,” that “historic investments” are transforming housing, and that Canada is “leading the G7” in economic resilience. The rhetoric is polished. But the lived reality of Canadians — and the government’s own data — tells a starkly different story.

Below is the record, not the talking points.

I. Shelter Costs: The Biggest Affordability Crisis in Modern Canadian History

Shelter is no longer one line in the budget. It is the budget.

1. Home prices have decoupled from income.
   In most major markets, the average home is 9–10× the median household income. In Toronto and Vancouver, it’s 12–15× ratios normally seen in financial bubbles, not functioning societies.

2. Rent is crushing an entire generation.
   A one-bedroom unit in Toronto or Vancouver now runs $2,600–$2,800, meaning more than 50–60% of take-home pay for most people under 40. That is not a “housing challenge”; it is economic suffocation.

3. A mortgage-renewal crisis is already unfolding.
   Hundreds of thousands of families who locked in 1.5–2.5% rates during 2020–2022 are renewing at 4.5–6% — adding $1,000–$2,000/month in extra payments.
   This is a silent financial heart attack, playing out one household at a time.

4. Housing starts per capita are lower than in the 1970s.
   The government has spent $80+ billion on housing programs since 2015, yet the vacancy rate is still scraping 1% and supply growth remains anemic.

Rhetoric: “We’re making historic investments.”
Record: Housing has never been less affordable in Canadian history.

II. Food-Bank Usage: A National Disgrace for a G7 Country

Food Banks Canada’s 2024 HungerCount showed more than 2 million visits in just one month — a 90% increase since 2019.

Even worse:

• 33% of users are children.

• 20–25% are employed full-time.

This is not “the vulnerable” or “the marginalized.” This is the working class — the very people the government claims to champion — being crushed by costs and falling wages.

Rhetoric: “Targeted supports are helping families.”
Record: Food-bank dependence is the highest ever recorded.

III. Inflation Moderated — But the Price Level Never Came Back

Politicians boast that inflation is “back under control.” That misses the point.

• Grocery prices are 30–35% higher than in 2019.

• Shelter costs are 50–60% higher in many cities.

• Wages since 2019 are up 18–22%.

The math is not complicated: Canadians are going backward. The cost resets of 2020–2023 are permanent, and households have never caught up.

Rhetoric: “We beat inflation.”
Record: Prices stabilized — at levels millions can no longer afford.

IV. The Government’s Favourite Trick: Announcements vs. Outcomes

The federal government continues to conflate:

• Money spent

• Programs launched

• Press conferences held

with actual outcomes.

But results are stubborn:

• Core-housing-need rates are rising, not falling.

• Housing affordability continues to deteriorate.

• Construction capacity has barely moved in 20 years.

You can’t “announce” your way out of supply-and-demand math.

V. The Structural Forces Behind the Crisis (the part Ottawa avoids)

1. Mass immigration into a supply-constrained country

Canada added:

• ~1.2 million people in 2023

• another 800–900k in 2024

while building only 240–260k housing units per year.

Population growth at 3–4% with housing supply under 1% is not sustainable — it is mathematically guaranteed to detonate shelter costs.

2. Municipal zoning as a co-conspirator

Over 70% of Toronto’s residential land is locked to detached housing. Vancouver is similar.
If density is illegal, affordability is impossible.

3. Bank of Canada missteps

Rates stayed too low for too long, igniting a speculative frenzy, then were raised too fast, crushing those who bought in good faith at peak prices.

All of these were policy decisions — not natural disasters.

VI. What Would Actually Move the Needle (if anyone had the courage)

1. Freeze or radically cut non-permanent-resident immigration until supply catches up.
   Return to ~250–300k permanent residents per year and tighten foreign student and temporary worker inflows.

2. A federal carrot-and-stick for cities
   Tie all infrastructure funding to as-of-right missing-middle density everywhere — not just transit zones.

3. GST/HST removal on all new purpose-built rentals and first-time-buyer homes under a capped price.

4. 30-year amortization for first-time buyers + stress-test reform
   When contract rates are 4–5%, a 7%+ stress test is punitive and unnecessary.

5. Real transparency on grocery-chain profitability
   If margins exploded post-2019, levy windfall-profit taxes and transfer the proceeds directly to struggling households.

None of these ideas are politically comfortable. All of them would help.

VII. The Bottom Line: Rhetoric Hits a Wall

The government’s story is one of compassion, investment, and “historic action.”
The record shows:

• Highest food-bank usage ever

• Runaway shelter costs

• A generation priced out of home ownership

• Record debt loads

• Evictions and renovictions surging

Canadians no longer need statistics to understand the crisis — they feel it every month, every rent cycle, every grocery bill, every mortgage renewal.

The rhetoric says relief is coming.
The record says it isn’t.

And the real question as we move into 2025 is simple:

Will any major party finally tell Canadians the truth and adopt the hard policies required — or will we get another election cycle of slogans, hashtags, and “help is on the way”?

So far, the evidence isn’t encouraging.

Canada’s Strategic Betrayal: Decades of U.S. Protection, and Carney Turns to Europe and Beijing

 

Canada’s decades of military freeloading on the United States — and the slap-in-the-face pivot to Europe under Carney.

When an Ally Stops Acting Like One
Seven Decades of Taking the American Shield for Granted
The SAFE Pivot: Diversification or Disloyalty?
The China Question: Carney’s Blind Spot, or Carney’s Alignment?
What This Means for the United States

SAFE May Be the Most Dangerous Foreign Policy Decision Canada Has Made in 50 Years

December 2, 2025

When an Ally Stops Acting Like One

Allies don’t always fight on your soil. Sometimes they simply stand there while you carry the weight for both of you. For more than seventy years, the United States has protected Canada militarily, economically, and technologically through NORAD, NATO, missile defence, and intelligence sharing.

America built the radar shield over our Arctic. America provided the jets, the satellites, the command-and-control backbone. America put its own troops where Canada could not, or would not.

And what did Washington receive in return for seven decades of subsidized security?

A country that has consistently spent half of what it pledged on defence. A military eroded by political neglect. And now, under Mark Carney, the clearest signal yet that Canada is pivoting away from the United States in favour of Europe and, in the shadows, China.

SAFE the EU’s new €150-billion defence financing program is only the latest symbol of a deeper trend: a Canadian political class happy to accept U.S. protection, but unwilling to honour the responsibilities that come with the alliance.

This is not “multilateralism.” This is strategic freeloading, followed by strategic betrayal.

Seven Decades of Taking the American Shield for Granted

NORAD: 75% Paid by the United States

NORAD — the bi-national command guarding North American airspace is the single most important security structure Canada has.

The United States pays three-quarters of the operating and modernization costs. Canada pays the rest.

Yet Canada’s fighter jets are decades old, its northern radar chain is obsolete, and its Arctic sovereignty patrols barely register on a map.

NATO: Canada’s 1.3–1.4% Spending vs. the 2% Pledge

For twenty years, Canada has promised 2% of GDP in defence spending. It has delivered:

• 2004–2014: Averaged 1.2%
• 2014–2024: Averaged 1.36%
• 2025: Still well below 1.5%

Meanwhile, the U.S. spends 3.4% and covers 70% of NATO’s budget.

Procurement Reliance: 65–75% of Canada’s Military Hardware Comes from U.S. Firms

For decades, Canadian governments bought American equipment because:

• It was interoperable
• It was reliable
• And it came with U.S. operational support, Canada could not afford to replicate

Carney suddenly wants to cut that to less than 30% not by strengthening Canada, but by substituting U.S. suppliers for European ones.

The U.S. Has Subsidized Canada’s Security for Generations

Missile defence? Arctic surveillance? Nuclear umbrella? Intelligence pipelines? Shared cyber defence?

Canada enjoys them all without paying even close to proportional costs.

This is why U.S. leaders across parties, Trump, Biden, Austin, Blinken, and Congress have called Canada a “free rider.”

SAFE is the moment the U.S. may stop whispering and start acting.

The SAFE Pivot: Diversification or Disloyalty?

What Carney Signed Canada Up For

On December 1, 2025, PM Mark Carney announced that Canada would join the EU’s SAFE (Security Action for Europe) program — a €150-billion rearmament pool designed to rebuild Europe’s defence industries.

Canada becomes the first non-EU country in the program.

The move comes with:

• An undisclosed entry fee (likely $1–2 billion CAD)
• Commitments to buy European-made equipment
• Restrictions on U.S. defence suppliers
• Favourable loans that tie Canada to EU procurement chains

Why Americans See This as a Slap in the Face

Carney explicitly stated he wants over 70% of future Canadian procurement not to come from the United States.

The subtext is clear:

“We trusted the U.S. too much. We’re hedging. Europe is more reliable.”

That is not what allies say. That is what opportunists say.

SAFE Is Not Complementary, It’s Competitive

The F-35 program depends on U.S.-Canadian synergy. Canada is now exploring Swedish Gripens instead. NORAD depends on radar and missile systems built with U.S. standards. SAFE funding pushes Canada toward Franco-German systems incompatible with U.S. platforms. Canada’s submarine bid is now leaning towards German or South Korean, bypassing U.S. defence entirely.

This is not “diversification.” It is an economic and military pivot.

The China Question: Carney’s Blind Spot, or Carney’s Alignment?

This part, Peter, is where the gloves come off because much of the Canadian media soft-pedals this.

Carney’s Deep Ties to China Are Not Speculation, They Are Documented

As Bank of England Governor:

• Pushed for renminbi internationalization.
• Signed agreements opening London’s financial sector to Chinese state banks.
• Promoted UK participation in Belt and Road–linked financing streams.

As UN Climate Envoy:

• Worked closely with the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) headed by Jin Liqun, a long-time CCP operative.
• Structured climate-financing vehicles that funnelled Western capital into Chinese renewable giants.

As Chair of Brookfield Asset Management, Brookfield expanded its China exposure under Carney:

• $2B Shanghai commercial real estate holdings
• A $276M refinancing deal with Bank of China in 2024, weeks after Carney met PBOC leadership
• $750M stake in China Xintiandi
• Several green-energy JVs with Chinese state-linked conglomerates

Investigators like Sam Cooper have laid out how these deals connect, indirectly, to CCP United Front networks.

The Ethical Nightmare

Carney now controls:

• Canadian defence procurement strategy
• Canada’s foreign policy posture
• Canada’s alliance architecture
• Canada’s economic diversification strategy

While having spent a decade building relationships with CCP financiers.

SAFE does not distance Canada from China. It distances Canada from the U.S. while keeping China channels quietly warm.

What This Means for the United States

The U.S. will not ignore a decades-long free rider now shopping in Europe and cozying up to Beijing.

Expect:

• Tariffs on Canadian autos and energy
• NORAD modernization cost-shifts
• Possible Five Eyes downgrades
• Reduced access to U.S. defence technology
• Reprioritization of Arctic strategies without assuming Canadian reliability

America does not punish allies for being poor. America loses patience with allies who exploit U.S. strength, then pivot away when politically convenient.

Conclusion: SAFE May Be the Most Dangerous Foreign Policy Decision Canada Has Made in 50 Years

Canada has every right to diversify, strengthen its military, and modernize its industry.

But turning your back on the nation that protected you for seven decades while entertaining ever-closer ties with Beijing is not a strategy.

It is short-sighted opportunism, executed by a Prime Minister whose global financial networks raise legitimate questions about whose interests he truly serves.

If Canada wants to be treated like an ally, it must start acting like one.

Otherwise, the United States will eventually respond, and when it does, the shock in Ottawa will be entirely self-inflicted.

Eliminate or Radically Downsize the Department of Canadian Heritage

 A 30-Year Experiment That Has Largely Failed

Pragmatic Canadian – Revised January 2025

In December 2023, Argentina’s new president cut the number of federal ministries from 18 to 9 and eliminated tens of thousands of public-service positions in a matter of weeks. The exercise forced a simple question: which parts of our own federal government actually deliver more value than they cost—and which do the opposite?

Canada now has 42 federal departments and separate ministries (not counting agencies and Crown corporations). Few Canadians can name more than a dozen. One that rarely makes the list, yet wields outsized influence, is the Department of Canadian Heritage (PCH). Created only in 1993, it has grown into a $1.7 billion-per-year department (2024–25 Main Estimates, excluding CBC) with 1,850 employees and oversight of 11 Crown corporations.

Most Canadians assume a “Heritage” department preserves museums, promotes the arts, and protects national symbols. In reality, its current footprint is far broader—and far more controversial.

Three high-profile failures in 18 months

1. Bill C-18 (Online News Act) – 2023 Intended to force Google and Meta to pay Canadian media for links. Meta responded by blocking all news for 35 million Canadian users. Google eventually agreed to pay ≈$100 million annually into a fund. Net result according to most independent analyses: less news circulation, no new sustainable revenue model for most outlets, and a precedent for state-managed news compensation.
2. Bill C-11 (Online Streaming Act) – 2022–2024 Extended 20th-century Canadian-content rules to YouTube, TikTok, Spotify, Netflix, etc. The CRTC is still writing thousands of pages of regulations that will determine discoverability, mandatory financial contributions, and (in some cases) what individual user-generated content is promoted or demoted. Critics across the political spectrum—from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute to the Michael Geist law clinic—warn of inevitable free-expression chill and bureaucratic overreach.
3. Ongoing CBC “modernization” mandate, PCH is the sponsoring department for a Crown corporation that receives ≈$1.4 billion annually, while its English television audience has fallen below 2 % nationally in most prime-time slots. The department’s 2024–25 plan lists “support the transformation of CBC/Radio-Canada” as a core objective—meaning the same ministry that regulates private broadcasters is now in charge of restructuring its largest publicly funded competitor.

A mandate that overlaps everywhere

The department’s own 2023–24 Departmental Plan lists five “core responsibilities”:

1. Creativity, arts and culture
2. Heritage and celebration
3. Sport
4. Diversity and inclusion
5. Official languages

At least 60 % of these already belong to other full departments or ministries:

• Sport → Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs + separate Minister of Sport
• Diversity & Inclusion → separate Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Persons with Disabilities
• Official languages → Treasury Board + Justice + separate coordination secretariat
• Indigenous cultural heritage → Indigenous Services + Crown-Indigenous Relations
• Gender equality and 2SLGBTQI+ issues → Women and Gender Equality Canada (WAGE)

In other words, Canadian Heritage duplicates work that six other organizations are already paid to do.

The commemorative-days test

Perhaps the clearest window into the department’s current priorities is its official list of “National Days, Weeks, Months and Observances.” As of 2024, the list contains 62 separate recognitions.

• 12 focus on gender, sexual orientation or women (with dedicated months/weeks for International Women’s Day, Pride, Trans Day of Visibility, etc.)
• 30 celebrate specific ethnic, racial or Indigenous identities or histories
• 8 are framed around overcoming historic or ongoing oppression
• 19 lasts an entire week or month (Pride is a full season in some regions)

By contrast, only five single days are dedicated to the country as a whole: Canada Day, National Flag Day, Victoria Day, Remembrance Day, and Sir John A. Macdonald Day.

Whatever one thinks of each individual observance, a department whose statutory mission is to “foster Canadian identity and values” now formally recognizes a new identity-based commemoration roughly once every six days while giving only five days to shared national moments. That ratio speaks for itself.

A modest proposal

Canada functioned perfectly well for its first 126 years without a standalone Department of Canadian Heritage. Its legitimate functions (museums, national parks, historic sites, archives, grants to arms-length arts organizations) were handled by smaller, more focused entities.

There is no compelling reason that those functions require:

• a regulator of internet speech (C-11)
• a negotiator of link taxes with global tech platforms (C-18)
• a $1.4 billion annual subsidy to one broadcaster plus oversight of its “transformation.”
• a sixth bureaucracy doing diversity, sport, and official languages work already done elsewhere

A future government could, with a single piece of legislation, dissolve the department and redistribute the few genuinely necessary pieces:

• Museums, Library and Archives Canada, and historic sites → a strengthened Parks Canada or a new arm’s-length National Heritage Agency
• Core arts-granting councils (Canada Council, Telefilm) → independent again, as they were before 1993
• Broadcasting policy and internet regulation → either eliminated entirely or moved to a slimmed-down Industry Canada
• CBC funding and oversight → direct reporting to Parliament or sunset over a fixed transition period

Argentina showed that large-scale government downsizing is politically possible when the case is clear. The Department of Canadian Heritage is one place where the case is overwhelming: three decades of mission creep, repeated policy debacles, and a track record of amplifying division rather than shared identity.

It is time to admit the 1993 experiment has run its course.