Subscribe
I recently started reading Marginal Revolution. This recent post, called "Illegal Immigrants Didn't Break the Housing Market; Bad Policy Did," covers many of the things that we talk about on this blog:
If “fixing” housing scarcity means blaming whichever group is politically convenient, you end up cycling through targets: illegal immigrants first, then legal immigrants (as Canada has done), then the children of immigrants, then wealthy buyers, then racial or religious minorities. Indeed, one wonders if the blame is the goal.
If you actually want to solve the problem of housing scarcity, stop the scapegoating and start supporting the disliked people who are actually working to reduce scarcity: the developers. Loosen zoning and cut the rules that choke what can be built. Redirect political energy away from trying to demolish imagined enemies and instead build, baby, build.
As a developer, I naturally chose the most self-serving excerpt to quote, but that doesn't mean that what Alex Tabarrok wrote is incorrect. Blame is, of course, the goal. Such is the reality of politics. Here's another excerpt, this one from one of Howard Mark's investing memos:
I've always gotten a kick out of oxymorons — phrases that are internally contradictory — such as "jumbo shrimp" and "common sense." I'll add "political reality" to the list. The world of politics has its own, altered reality, in which economic reality often seems not to impinge. No choices need to be made: candidates can promise it all. And there are no consequences. If something might have negative consequences in the real world, politicians seem to feel free to ignore them.
This is why immigrants are blamed, foreign buyers are banned, rent freezes are proposed (counterproductive), and we continue to do very little to actually fix traffic congestion in our cities, among an endless list of other things. The real solutions are simply too politically inconvenient; it's more advantageous to blame scapegoats.
Meanwhile, our problems persist.
I woke up this morning to an email from one of our partners with a link to this article talking about a three-storey, 10-unit housing project (plus garden suite) that was just refused by the Committee of Adjustment here in Toronto. It's five minutes from a major subway station. Why?
Because it's always easier to blame someone else.
Cover photo by Frames For Your Heart on Unsplash
The One Canadian Economy Act, which received Royal Assent on June 26, 2025, has two components to it: the Building Canada Act and the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act. Today, I'd like to talk about the first one.
The intent of the act is to expedite the delivery of "nation-building projects." Projects that will strengthen Canada's autonomy, resilience, and security, and turn the country into a global superpower (my words, not theirs).
The government states that this might include things like highways, railways, ports, airports, oil pipelines, critical minerals, mines, nuclear facilities, and electricity transmission systems.
At a high level, the streamlining is intended to work like this:
Projects first need to qualify as a nation-building project.
Then, the federal government approves the project right from the outset.
Following this a single conditions document will be issued by a new Federal Major Projects Office. This is intended to replace the current process of multiple sets of comments, conditions, and federal permits.
Overall, the target is to reduce average approval timelines from ~5 years to ~2 years.
What I particularly like about this sequence is that projects get "approved" right at the start. This is intended to immediately change the conversation from whether we should build to how do we build, which is an important distinction.
As someone who manages projects for a living, I can tell you that decisive and clear direction is critical to moving projects forward. Uncertainty and indecision kill momentum and motivation within teams. You need to be able to say, "this project is going, and going fast, so focus on figuring it out and making it happen!"
The government of Ontario is trying to encourage the construction of a lot of new housing over the next 10 years. More specifically, the plan is for 1.5 million new homes from now until 2033. To have a chance at hitting this target, the province has rightly recognized that some things will need to change around here and so they've been busy coming up with legislative changes such as Bill 23 (the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022).
The Bill is really long, so I personally appreciate it when the act name itself does a good job of summarizing what it's all about: more homes, built faster. But if you'd like to read the entire thing, you can do that over here. I also attended a breakfast this morning -- put on by Goodmans -- that provided a great summary of the key points. I took all of my notes on Twitter through a live stream, so if you'd like something more digestible, click here.
https://twitter.com/donnelly_b/status/1592511205415211009?s=20&t=3m7bkVRf8Mr6B41tYQWHSw
At a very high level, I would say that there are some obviously good changes in the Bill and some other things that will need refinement, such as the proposed changes around third-party appeals. The devil is in the details. And that was actually one of the key takeaways from the breakfast: This government is not afraid of being bold, moving quickly, and then working iteratively with stakeholders. It's a less typical approach for government, but done is better than perfect, right?
I recently started reading Marginal Revolution. This recent post, called "Illegal Immigrants Didn't Break the Housing Market; Bad Policy Did," covers many of the things that we talk about on this blog:
If “fixing” housing scarcity means blaming whichever group is politically convenient, you end up cycling through targets: illegal immigrants first, then legal immigrants (as Canada has done), then the children of immigrants, then wealthy buyers, then racial or religious minorities. Indeed, one wonders if the blame is the goal.
If you actually want to solve the problem of housing scarcity, stop the scapegoating and start supporting the disliked people who are actually working to reduce scarcity: the developers. Loosen zoning and cut the rules that choke what can be built. Redirect political energy away from trying to demolish imagined enemies and instead build, baby, build.
As a developer, I naturally chose the most self-serving excerpt to quote, but that doesn't mean that what Alex Tabarrok wrote is incorrect. Blame is, of course, the goal. Such is the reality of politics. Here's another excerpt, this one from one of Howard Mark's investing memos:
I've always gotten a kick out of oxymorons — phrases that are internally contradictory — such as "jumbo shrimp" and "common sense." I'll add "political reality" to the list. The world of politics has its own, altered reality, in which economic reality often seems not to impinge. No choices need to be made: candidates can promise it all. And there are no consequences. If something might have negative consequences in the real world, politicians seem to feel free to ignore them.
This is why immigrants are blamed, foreign buyers are banned, rent freezes are proposed (counterproductive), and we continue to do very little to actually fix traffic congestion in our cities, among an endless list of other things. The real solutions are simply too politically inconvenient; it's more advantageous to blame scapegoats.
Meanwhile, our problems persist.
I woke up this morning to an email from one of our partners with a link to this article talking about a three-storey, 10-unit housing project (plus garden suite) that was just refused by the Committee of Adjustment here in Toronto. It's five minutes from a major subway station. Why?
Because it's always easier to blame someone else.
Cover photo by Frames For Your Heart on Unsplash
The One Canadian Economy Act, which received Royal Assent on June 26, 2025, has two components to it: the Building Canada Act and the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act. Today, I'd like to talk about the first one.
The intent of the act is to expedite the delivery of "nation-building projects." Projects that will strengthen Canada's autonomy, resilience, and security, and turn the country into a global superpower (my words, not theirs).
The government states that this might include things like highways, railways, ports, airports, oil pipelines, critical minerals, mines, nuclear facilities, and electricity transmission systems.
At a high level, the streamlining is intended to work like this:
Projects first need to qualify as a nation-building project.
Then, the federal government approves the project right from the outset.
Following this a single conditions document will be issued by a new Federal Major Projects Office. This is intended to replace the current process of multiple sets of comments, conditions, and federal permits.
Overall, the target is to reduce average approval timelines from ~5 years to ~2 years.
What I particularly like about this sequence is that projects get "approved" right at the start. This is intended to immediately change the conversation from whether we should build to how do we build, which is an important distinction.
As someone who manages projects for a living, I can tell you that decisive and clear direction is critical to moving projects forward. Uncertainty and indecision kill momentum and motivation within teams. You need to be able to say, "this project is going, and going fast, so focus on figuring it out and making it happen!"
The government of Ontario is trying to encourage the construction of a lot of new housing over the next 10 years. More specifically, the plan is for 1.5 million new homes from now until 2033. To have a chance at hitting this target, the province has rightly recognized that some things will need to change around here and so they've been busy coming up with legislative changes such as Bill 23 (the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022).
The Bill is really long, so I personally appreciate it when the act name itself does a good job of summarizing what it's all about: more homes, built faster. But if you'd like to read the entire thing, you can do that over here. I also attended a breakfast this morning -- put on by Goodmans -- that provided a great summary of the key points. I took all of my notes on Twitter through a live stream, so if you'd like something more digestible, click here.
https://twitter.com/donnelly_b/status/1592511205415211009?s=20&t=3m7bkVRf8Mr6B41tYQWHSw
At a very high level, I would say that there are some obviously good changes in the Bill and some other things that will need refinement, such as the proposed changes around third-party appeals. The devil is in the details. And that was actually one of the key takeaways from the breakfast: This government is not afraid of being bold, moving quickly, and then working iteratively with stakeholders. It's a less typical approach for government, but done is better than perfect, right?
Ultimately, everything comes down to execution. But at least we're taking positive steps toward becoming a country that once again builds — and builds big.
Ultimately, everything comes down to execution. But at least we're taking positive steps toward becoming a country that once again builds — and builds big.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
