On June 16, 2023, Canada’s population reached 40 million, a historic milestone for the country. Sixteen weeks later, on October 1, 2023, Statistics Canada dutifully reported that our population increased yet another 528,396, a stunning spike. This exponential surge has triggered a fierce debate over Canada’s already acute national housing shortage. A national housing crisis has been declared. The housing supply gap has been quantified by Canada’s Housing Agency (CMHC). We need an additional 3.5 million residential units by 2030.
Remarkably, our national, provincial, and municipal authorities have seemingly agreed on strategies to treat our immediate housing trauma, but what is our strategy for accommodating the flood of future arrivals that will increase Canada’s population by at least another 16 million by 2068? (or 34 million at the current rate).
The question of how we house our growing population begs a related but unasked question. Since 81.75 per cent of Canadians are urbanites, what is our overall national strategy for where our growing population should live?
We dwell in our cities as well as our dwellings. Which cities will be home to our next 16 million Canadians when we celebrate Canada’s Bicentennial in 2067? Shall we take a laissez-faire approach? Shall we rely on the diktats of our provincial governments (who might fill our greenbelts with homes) or our municipalities (who are struggling with parochial short-term local issues)? This macro-demographic and geographic challenge needs to include a national perspective to forge a Pan-Canadian urban strategy. Why don’t we have one?
In 1971, the Federal Government, led by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, created a revolutionary and ambitious Ministry of State for Urban Affairs (MSUA). Following 26 years of explosive post-war demographic and urban growth, when Canada had only 22 million people, it had become evident that a national urban strategy was needed to address the future of our urban settlements strung out along the length of the US-Canada border— a welcome national awakening.
So what happened? In 1979, the innovative MSUA was suddenly euthanized. Why? One: it challenged the jealously guarded provincial jurisdiction over municipalities granted by the Canadian constitution. Two: It threatened the federal government’s established departments who feared the loss of authority to a new entity. Three: Urban issues were overtaken by other political urgencies like inflation and the 1970’s oil crisis. The opportunity for a national policy on the future of Canada’s cities was thrown under a bus. Is now the time to re-examine the future of Urban Canada through a national lens? Yes, and here’s why.
Half of Canada’s population (20 million) currently lives and works in the Quebec City-Windsor Corridor, a densely urbanized ribbon whose geographic area compares with Great Britain. The Federal government, after decades of procrastination, has finally committed to realizing a High Frequency Rail Project for this Corridor, linking Quebec, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, and 15 of Canada’s airports. But where is our transit-oriented urbanization strategy?
Should the Corridor’s share of future population growth (8.0 million by 2068) continue to be absorbed primarily in the auto-dependent suburbs of our existing cities? Or should some of it be directed to clusters of new cities along this planned ribbon of steel? Or should Canada’s population growth be encouraged elsewhere, say in the Maritimes, the Pacific coast and prairie provinces?
And what about the North? With climate change, is Richard Rohmer’s 1960’s resource-rich Mid-Canada Corridor settlement strategy worth re-examining? The need for a fresh Pan-Canadian analysis and vision for the future of our Canadian cities as a network is long overdue.
Which urban growth scenarios will more effectively advance Canada’s net-zero greenhouse gas emissions commitment by 2050? Which growth scenarios will respect the capacity of existing cities without degrading —and even enhance—their livability? Which growth scenarios will lead to more affordable and compassionate cities? Is freezing population growth an option?
The outcome of this analysis should lead to a national urban strategy that promotes the sustainability and livability of Canada’s future cities—and our planet. Lets think Civitas not Urbs.
Ottawa-based architect Barry Padolsky has served on Ottawa’s Built Heritage Subcommittee (2013–2022) and numerous design juries and panels. He is a Fellow of the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (RAIC), a member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals, and a member of the Royal Canadian Academy of Arts.