The postwar Canadian Dream: Don Mills, unveiled in 1953, was Canada’s first self-contained, suburban New Town. The brainchild of industrialist E.P. Taylor (top right), it offered young Canadian families the opportunity to abandon hectic downtown living for a more bucolic lifestyle in the suburbs.

By John Roe

Prime Minister Mark Carney says his plan to end Canada’s interminable housing crisis is to “Build Baby Build”. We can hope.

Unfortunately, Carney’s current plan is little more than a collection of unproven proposals and old policy mistakes including modular homes, boutique tax breaks, billions of taxpayer dollars in loans or subsidies and a new federal building authority.

The enormity of the task demands much broader thinking. Rather than simply encouraging a stacked townhouse here, and a condo there, Canada needs to remember what has worked in the past. And what other countries are doing today. With this in mind, Carney should embrace New Towns.

Also known as Garden Cities or Satellite Cities, New Towns are brand-new, planned communities of 10,000 or more citizens and that stand apart from existing urban centres. These are more than the suburbs reflexively loathed by so many planners and environmentalists. Rather, New Towns can offer a diverse mixture of living options, ranging from ground-level housing to built-to-purpose rental apartments and condominiums. As self-contained communities, they include schools, community centres along with shopping and employment opportunities.

New Towns represent the marriage of inspired utopianism with pragmatic realism. And they can provide the home so many of us crave.

Originally conceived in Britain during the Industrial Age, Canada witnessed its own New Town building boom during the post-war era. Communities built in the 1950s and 1960s including Don Mills, Bramalea, and Erin Mills in Ontario were all designed as separate entities meant to relieve population pressure on nearby Toronto. Other New Towns took advantage of new resource opportunities. Examples here including Thompson, Manitoba which sprang up around a nickel mine, and Kitimat, B.C., which was built to house workers in the aluminum industry.

While New Town development largely died off in the 1970s and 1980s, it is enjoying a revival today in many other countries.

Facing his own housing crisis and building on his country’s past experience, British Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer has established a New Towns Taskforce that will soon choose 12 sites where construction on new communities will begin by 2029.

On the other side of the Atlantic — and the political spectrum — U.S. President Donald Trump — has proposed awarding 10 new city charters for building New Towns on underdeveloped federal land.

Meanwhile, several Silicon Valley billionaires are backing Solano, a planned city 60 miles east of San Francisco with a goal of creating a new community of up to 400,000 people by 2040. And Elon Musk is already building a New Town at Starbase, Texas as the headquarters for his SpaceX rocket firm.

To be fair, not every New Town has been a success. In the late 1960s, Ontario tried to build a brand-new city on the shores of Lake Erie known as Townsend. Planned as a home for up to 100,000 people, the project fizzled for a variety of reasons, including a lack of proper transportation links and other important infrastructure, such as schools or a hospital. Today, fewer than 1,000 people live there.

Despite the lessons of the past, there are three compelling reasons why Carney should include New Towns as part of his solution to Canada’s housing crisis.

First, by starting with a blank canvas, a New Town offers the chance to avoid the stultifying NIMBYism of existing home owners and municipal officials who often stand in the way of new development. The status quo is one of the biggest obstacles to ending the housing crisis, and New Towns are by their very nature new.

Second, because New Towns are located outside existing urban centres, they offer the promise of delivering ground-level homes with a yard and driveway that so many young Canadians say they want. Focusing growth exclusively in existing urban centres such as Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal – as Carney seems to be doing – will deliver greater density, but not fulfil the housing dreams of Canadian families.

Third, New Towns can herald a more prosperous and unified Canada for the 21 st century. New Towns could be built in regions such as Ontario’s Ring of Fire, rich with minerals the world demands. New Towns could also tighten the east-west ties that bind the country together. Further, this growth can be focused on areas with marginal farmland, such as the Canadian Shield, which in Ontario starts just a 90 minute drive north of
Toronto.

New Towns are already beginning to pop up in Canada. In 2017, for example, construction began on Seaton Community, a satellite town adjacent to Pickering Ontario that will eventually grow into six neighbourhoods with up to 70,000 residents. And this spring, the southwestern Ontario municipality of Central Elgin unveiled plans for a New Town of 9,000 residents on the edge of St. Thomas.

Having promised Canadians fast and decisive “elbows up” leadership, our prime minister should throw his weight behind New Towns. To begin, he could appoint a New Town Task Force, similar to the one in Britain to get to work identifying potential locations. Even better, he could simply say his government thinks New Towns are a good idea and let the private sector do all the heavy lifting.

If the millions of Canadians currently shut out of the housing market are to have any chance at owning the home of their dreams, New Towns need to be in the mix.

John Roe is a Kitchener, Ont. freelance writer and former editorial page editor of the Waterloo Region Record. The original and longer version of this story first appeared at C2CJournal.ca

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Prime Minister Carney recently unveiled his new cabinet, and he made some changes in some key policy areas including Energy and Natural Resources, Environment and Climate Change, and Transport and Internal Trade. What do these cabinet picks tell us about the potential policy focus of Carney’s government moving forward?

At the helm of the Energy and Natural Resource portfolio, Carney appointed Timothy Hodgson, a former banker and chair of Ontario’s massive Hydro One electricity utility. A quick search of Hodgson’s previous experience and opinions on matters of energy and natural resource policy comes up rather dry—he is something of a cypher. Acquaintances are quoted in several articles suggesting he has a pragmatic, pro-business orientation, but that is about all we can glean.

Still, what we do know is that Hodgson is replacing Jonathan Wilkinson, previously a supporter of highly aggressive greenhouse gas emission reductions, and aggressive regulation in the energy and natural resource policy spaces when part of Trudeau’s cabinet. So, with a mostly blank slate to stand on, and an ostensibly pragmatic “banker” mentality, we can expect (hope?) that Minister Hodgson blazes a less extreme path forward on energy and natural resource issues, balancing in a more even-handed fashion protection of the environment and natural resources with Canada’s need for economic productivity.

Hodgson’s partner on the energy, natural resource environmental policy front will be Julie Dabrusin, new Minister of Environment and Climate Change, replacing Uber-environmentalist Steven Guilbeault. Dabrusin was previously Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, and Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources in the Trudeau government. The most logical expectation would be to expect she will continue to champion Trudeau-esque policies, tempering any hopes we might have for the potentially more moderate Minister Hodgson as bellwether of Canada’s energy, natural resource and environmental policies.

Finally, Carney appointed Chrystia Freeland as Minister of Transport and Internal Trade. Freeland is a strong believer in the climate crisis, an intense regulator thereof, and seems to believe that transportation must be electrified, pedalized and mass-transificated (okay, I made that last term up) to save the planet. So, anyone hoping for a move away from the green-transportation agenda, away from an all electric-car, mass-transit oriented future, and back to something favouring (or at least not-demonizing) an automobile-centric lifestyle might want to rein in their expectations.

Unfortunately, in Carney’s cavalcade of cabinet officials, he did not create a new Minister of Regulatory Reform and Right-Sizing (again, my term). One of Canada’s biggest public policy illnesses is its plague of regulations. Canada is drowning under a mountain of regulatory red-tape and badly needs a minister with scissors. Canada wants no part of a U.S.-style Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), but a Minister of Regulatory Reform and Right-Sizing, akin to what British Columbia had briefly in 2001, would be a policy tonic Canada needs badly.

Little is known about exactly where the bulk of Prime Minister Carney’s new cabinet will take us, but the safe betting—in areas of environment, natural resources, climate change and transportation—is that we’re likely to see a continuance of Trudeau-era policies, though promulgated by somewhat more bland less-obviously-zealous eco-warriors. Time will tell.

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute