Subscribe
Benjamin Couillard is a PhD candidate at the University of Toronto whose research looks at things like residential choice and housing supply. And in this recently published paper, he studies the causal effects of rising housing costs on fertility. Here's what he found when examining US Census Bureau data:
...rising [housing] costs since 1990 are responsible for 11% fewer children, 51% of the total fertility rate decline between the 2000s and 2010s, and 7 percentage points fewer young families in the 2010s. Policy counterfactuals indicate that a supply shift for large units generates 2.3 times more births than an equal-cost shift for small units. This analysis concludes that the supply of housing suitable for families can meaningfully contribute to demographic sustainability.
Intuitively, it makes sense that rational adults might consider where they would put a child if they had one, or had one more, and consider the cost of this incremental space. Housing is expensive in major urban centers. Perhaps it's no surprise that Canada, which is known for its broadly unaffordable housing, has fallen into the "ultra-low fertility" category.
But I think this fertility-housing relationship is an important one to call out when considering appropriate public policies. Housing is often viewed through the lens of what bad things will happen if we build it. That's why we do shadow studies, force stepbacks, charge development charges (impact fees), and the list goes on.
What is harder to grasp is what happens when we don't build new housing. Most — or at least many — seem to agree that not building enough housing hurts overall affordability. But what this study also demonstrates is that not building enough family-sized housing is bad for making babies!
This has all sorts of socio-economic repercussions, one of which is that a country now has to rely more heavily on immigration in order to offset a shrinking population base. It becomes a larger economic problem. When framed this way, it makes me wonder: why do we tax new family-sized homes the way we do?
An alternative approach to encourage more infill family housing might be to eliminate development charges, building permit fees, parkland fees, and as many other government fees as possible on all three-bedroom or larger homes. And the reason you would do this is because the economic and demographic cost of not building is even greater.
Based on the work of Couillard, we know at least one of the outcomes: more babies.
Cover photo by Lotus Design N Print on Unsplash
The silver lining to the US starting a trade war with Canada and regularly threatening annexation is that it has forced this country out of complacency. Indeed, I'm hard pressed to think of a time, at least in my lifetime, when patriotism and nationalism has united so much of Canada.
According to a recent survey by Angus Reid, the percentage of Canadians expressing a "deep emotional attachment" to the country jumped from 49% in December 2024 to 59% in February 2025. And as further evidence of just how unifying this moment in time is, the province with the biggest increase in attachment to country was Québec.
What it means to be a Canadian is sometimes lazily defined according to who or what we are not. But this precarious moment in time is seemingly reminding us who we are. Of course, it also begs the questions: Where do we want to go from here? And do we have the leadership to take us there?
Let's start by looking at some, but of course not all, of the things that we have going for us as a country:
Second-largest country in the world by land mass.
World's longest coastline, with access to both the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, and increasingly the Arctic Ocean.
Third-largest proven oil reserves in the world (estimated at close to 300 billion barrels), behind Saudi Arabia.
World's largest producer and exporter of potash (which is a key component in fertilizers).
Energy independent and broadly rich in resources (see below diagram).
A fifth of the planet's surface freshwater.
According to a recent study in the New York Times, the average age of a first-time mother in Manhattan is 31.1 years old. In San Francisco County, the number is nearly 32. And in the US as a whole, it was 26.3 in 2016.
This is what the national distribution looked like in 1980:
And this is what it looked like in 2016:
Multi-cultural country — over 20% of Canadians are foreign-born.
Robust immigration system that attracts top talent from around the world.
Highly-educated workforce with some of the world's best universities — over 60% of Canadian adults have a post-secondary education which is one of the highest rates globally.
Average life expectancy of 82.3 years (2023 data), which is about 5 years higher than that of the US.
Leader in AI, quantum computing, green tech, and space robotics — Canada produces more AI research papers per capita than almost any other country and the Stanford AI Index (2023) ranked Canada 4th behind only the US, China, and the UK.
Here's some of our bounty (via the Financial Times):
And yet, we are not a global superpower.
Worse, we are lagging behind our G7 peers in GDP growth, we are plagued by declining productivity levels, we are not investing enough in new business creation and entrepreneurship, and we have one of the worst affordable housing shortages in the developed world, among other things. We have been complacent for far too long, and a big part of this is because we have, or at least had, the world's largest economy next door demanding our goods.
As of 2024, 61% of all imported oil to the US came from Canada. And US refineries are specifically setup to refine our crude and viscous varietal. This is good for them. They buy our goopy oil at a discount, refine it, and then sell it for a profit. But now the US is clearly saying there's nothing they need or want from Canada. They've also demonstrated through their actions that, under the current administration, they can no longer be trusted as an ally and trading partner. So it behooves us to evolve. It behooves us to take matters into our own hands.
Here are some ideas:
Firstly, Canada should become a republic. For me, this is less about the monarchy being outdated (though it is) and more about the fact that a sovereign superpower like Canada should have its own head of state, and not a foreign King.
Canada needs to increase defense spending and exert much stronger sovereignty over its Arctic lands. For fiscal year 2024-2025, defense spending is projected to reach 1.37% of GDP. This obviously falls short of NATO's 2% target.
Remove red tape and unleash the Canadian economy. Last year, Canada exported more to the US than between its own provinces and territories. Huh? By some estimates, our economy could grow by up to $5,100 per capita simply by eliminating internal trade barriers.
Barriers also need to be removed from the delivery of new housing. Canadians have been over-indexing on housing because of eroding affordability. Our current market environment is an ideal time for market reforms. Here's just one recent post that offers a few concrete suggestions for how to do this.
Grow the Canadian population to 100 million people by 2100. Obviously there are two main ways to do this: We can help Canadians have more babies (more affordable housing certainly assists with this) and we can continue to attract the smartest and most ambitious people from around the world. As of 2022, Canada's fertility rate sat at 1.33, which is below the OECD average of 1.5 births per woman. (The above population target is the focus of a charitable organization called the "Century Initiative.")
Create a sovereign wealth fund akin to what Norway did. Today, Norway has the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world (based on assets under management) and it translates to over US$325,000 per Norwegian citizen and one of the highest GDPs per capita on the planet. Canada also has abundant natural resources as we know. The revenues generated from these resources should (1) accrue to the Canadian population and future generations and (2) steer the global economy toward a more sustainable future.
Invest heavily in new infrastructure. This includes everything from high-speed rail to oil pipelines. In 2020, Canada exported 82% of the crude oil it produced, with most of it going to the US via pipeline from western provinces. If the US no longer wants this, then we ought to find some new customers.
At the same time, we cannot let our abundant natural resources become a curse (see "the paradox of plenty"). We need to be a leader in the new economy. As I've written about before, I find it shocking, for example, that Canada is not stepping up more when it comes to new technologies like crypto. Vitalik Buterin, who is one of the founders of Ethereum and its most prominent figurehead, grew up in Toronto. He went to the University of Waterloo. We should be leveraging this homegrown talent to become a capital of crypto. And this is just one specific example.
Do everything we can to spur more innovation, more risk-taking, and more private investment. It's one thing to have great Universities that publish a lot of research, but ultimately we need to turn this into thriving companies that employ Canadians and generate wealth for Canadians. Here's a post I published in 2023 called, "Canada has an existential productivity problem."
This is obviously not a comprehensive list of all the things that Canada should be doing as a country. And invariably, some or many of you will disagree with some or most of what I have put forward here. But hopefully we can all agree that now, more than ever, we need a strong Canada. We need to start thinking of ourselves as an emerging global superpower.
Cover photo by Juan Rojas on Unsplash
Perhaps not surprisingly, the biggest factor influencing the age of a first-time mother is education. Becoming educated and building a career takes time. First-time mothers tend to be older in big cities (particularly on the coasts) compared to rural areas.
The concern that researchers have with all of this is that it is symptomatic of growing inequality. Scrolling over the NY Times’ map, it would appear that there’s nearly a 10 year gap between the coasts and many parts of the country.
On the one hand you have people who are finishing high school and having kids fairly soon after. And on the other hand, you have people going to college, establishing their career, and waiting, in some cases a decade, to have kids.
This is significant because it can create a virtuous circle (excerpt from article):
“A college degree is increasingly essential to earning a middle-class wage, and older parents have more years to earn money to invest in violin lessons, math tutoring and college savings accounts — all of which can set children on very different paths.”
Unequal childhoods can lead to unequal outcomes.
Images: New York Times
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
