Bratty premiers out of line on feds’ housing conditions

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 22/04/2024 (542 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

It’s a moment all parents have experienced: asking their children to do something they don’t want to do.

It doesn’t matter if what they are asking is something entirely reasonable. The mere act of asking is objectionable on a single principle that all teenagers eventually learn and express: you can’t tell me what to do.

Lamentably, child rearing is not only the time in our lives when we see this kind of phenomenon.

Right now, some of Canada’s premiers are demonstrating very similar, childish behaviour to a federal Liberal government offer to provide $6 billion for a Canada Housing Infrastructure Fund to spark the construction of millions of new homes by the end of the decade.

The Liberal housing program includes $1 billion for supporting infrastructure (waste, stormwater and solid waste systems) and up to $5 billion for deals with individual provinces. However, there’s a catch.

Ottawa wants provinces and municipalities to impose fewer restrictions on residential development. This would include allowing the construction of more duplexes, triplexes and townhouses in older neighborhoods, a freeze on development fees, and an agreement that municipalities will adopt a broader range of housing designs into their “as-of-right” construction approvals.

If any province balks at these conditions, Prime Minister Trudeau has threatened to take the money and go directly to municipalities to get the money flowing.

Like astonished teenagers being told that they need to get more sleep, the premiers have expressed differing degrees of outrage at the federal conditions. Some have called it a blatant intrusion into provincial jurisdiction.

It’s not an intrusion, and it’s certainly not the first time we’ve been through this type of melodrama.

In last year’s debate over health-care transfers, Ottawa offered annual funding increases, a one-time $2 billion top-up and $25 billion for bilateral deals with individual provinces. To access those funds, provinces were asked to show progress in increasing access to family medicine, expanding mental health and substance abuse services and collecting more data on funding outcomes through new health information systems.

As is the case now with housing, the premiers screamed bloody murder about the temerity of a federal government dictating terms for a clear area of provincial jurisdiction.

Partly because they were not getting as much money as requested, and partly because Ottawa imposed conditions, many of the country’s premiers spent months denouncing Ottawa’s intrusion into provincial jurisdiction before — you’ve probably already guessed it — accepting the deals and taking the money.

The beefs as expressed by the premiers are not entirely baseless.

With both housing and health care, the premiers would have preferred the Trudeau government had negotiated with each province before revealing a new national funding program in a “take-it-or-leave-it” format. There is undoubtedly an inherent hubris to the way Ottawa unleashes these programs on the country.

However, when you consider provinces start off with a “you can’t tell me what to do” mindset, it’s unclear what advance negotiation would accomplish.

If you assess the federal programs more on what they are trying to accomplish, and less on arcane principals of provincial jurisdiction, you start to realize that none of this would be an issue if more provinces were more progressive in attacking big issues like health care and housing.

Once again, let’s consider some of the conditions of the additional health-care funding offered to provinces through bilateral deals. To get the money, each province had to set up a data-tracking system to show that meaningful progress was being made.

Unfortunately, not all provinces report health-care data in a timely fashion, and they don’t offer the same categories of data. When you’re trying to set national benchmarks for priority services, a lack of data is a huge problem. Thus, the ask from Ottawa really shouldn’t have been that big a deal.

The situation is admittedly more complex with the housing money.

Winnipeg Free Press | Newsletter

Dan Lett | Not for Attribution

Tuesdays

A weekly look at politics close to home and around the world.

Sign up for Dan Lett | Not for Attribution

Sign Up

I agree to the Terms and Conditions, Cookie and Privacy Policies, and CASL agreement.

Ottawa is asking for bold changes to development rules and zoning in exchange for money. However, it’s important to note that what they are asking for are changes that are not only appealing to both housing advocates and developers, but increasingly common in Canada’s largest cities.

The City of Winnipeg has already hired a consultant to study the federal housing program and figure out how to adopt new development rules that would allow immediate approval for plans that would eliminate the need for public hearings and committee approvals to vet proposals for four-plexes on single lots, developments up to four storeys on land within 800 metres of a transit corridor, and mid-rise developments for mall-area sites.

Ottawa’s requirements will definitely reduce the amount of public input on projects that aim to increase density. But if you’ve studied the individual stories of how local input has derailed or delayed much needed housing, then you can see the need for a more direct approach to expanding the country’s housing stock.

Perhaps it’s unfair of the federal government to tell the provinces how to manage issues within provincial jurisdiction. But the premiers’ outrage can be mitigated when you consider what Ottawa is asking is, dare we say, good for the country.

dan.lett@winnipegfreepress.com

Dan Lett
Columnist

Dan Lett is a columnist for the Free Press, providing opinion and commentary on politics in Winnipeg and beyond. Born and raised in Toronto, Dan joined the Free Press in 1986.  Read more about Dan.

Dan’s columns are built on facts and reactions, but offer his personal views through arguments and analysis. The Free Press’ editing team reviews Dan’s columns before they are posted online or published in print — part of the our tradition, since 1872, of producing reliable independent journalism. Read more about Free Press’s history and mandate, and learn how our newsroom operates.