Learn what interest rate means in Canadian real estate, how it works in holding deposits and documents, and why it's important for a secure property transaction.
An interest rate is the percentage charged by a lender on the amount borrowed for a mortgage, expressed as an annual rate.
Why Interest Rate Matters in Real Estate
Interest rates directly affect the cost of borrowing and the affordability of homeownership in Canada. A lower interest rate reduces monthly payments and total interest paid over the life of a mortgage, while a higher rate increases borrowing costs.
Interest rates can be fixed (unchanging over the mortgage term) or variable (fluctuating with the lender’s prime rate). Mortgage rates are influenced by the Bank of Canada’s policy rate, inflation trends, and overall economic conditions.
Understanding interest rates helps buyers make informed decisions about mortgage products, budget accurately, and lock in favorable terms during periods of rate volatility. Rate comparisons and pre-approvals can save thousands over time.
Lenders may also offer discounted rates for clients with strong credit, high down payments, or who bundle products (e.g., banking and insurance).
Example of Interest Rate
A buyer secures a 5-year fixed mortgage at a 4.2% interest rate. Over the term, they consistently pay the same rate on the outstanding principal balance.
Key Takeaways
Affects monthly mortgage payments and total borrowing cost.
Can be fixed or variable.
Influenced by central bank rates and economic trends.
Lower rates reduce long-term costs.
Essential to compare rates before committing to a mortgage.
Net operating income (NOI) is the total income generated by a property after operating expenses are deducted but before taxes and financing costs.. more
The proposed development at 248 and 260 High Park Avenue/Medallion Capital Group, Turner Fleischer Architects
More than a year after being placed under receivership, 248 and 260 High Park Avenue has found a buyer. The site of the High Park Alhambra Church has been under construction since November 2019, with TRAC Developments and Medallion Capital Group planning a four-storey, 70-unit condo through adaptive reuse.
But those plans, bogged down by budget overruns, have yet to come to fruition, and now the property’s fate is up to the new owner.
Although filings from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice only reveal the buyers as a numbered company known as 1001136742 Ontario Inc., they do indicate that the entity wasn’t intending to assume any of the existing Agreements of Purchase and Sale. Presale purchasers were informed over email on June 13 that their agreements could be terminated, and that they could seek deposit protection through Tarion. They were also provided with an Approval and Vesting Order Motion update letter on July 16.
According to a July 8 report from the receiver, Ernst & Young Inc., six unit purchasers expressed a desire to retain their agreements. Meanwhile, 18 purchasers were either not opposed or undecided, while the remainder had not replied by the time of the report. As such, a July 11 order approving the sale of the High Park property and authorizing 1001136742 Ontario Inc. to “terminate and disclaim” existing sales agreements, specifies that those six agreements, as well as the agreements of the purchasers who had not yet responded, not be “immediately disclaimed.”
Earlier reports from the receiver said that 64 of the 70 units within the condo planned for 248 and 260 High Park Avenue had been pre-sold.
The proposed development at 248 and 260 High Park Avenue/Medallion Capital Group, Turner Fleischer Architects
Receivership Granted Amid $42M Debt
A receivership order over 248 and 260 High Park Avenue was granted on May 27, 2024, amid allegations that over $42 million was owed to Meridian Credit Union by 260 High Park Limited Partnership, TRAC Developments Inc., and 2486357 Ontario Inc. as of April 9, 2024.
260 High Park Limited Partnership is described in court documents as a single-use real estate development company formed specifically for the High Park Alhambra Church project. Meanwhile, 2486357 Ontario Inc. appears to be the owner of 248 High Park Avenue specifically, and the address on file for that numbered company matches that of Medallion Capital Group. TRAC Developments is referred to in the court documents as the “general partner” of the developer and the owner of the 260 High Park Avenue address.
Meridian’s sworn affidavit, dated May 22, 2024, explains that they entered into a demand credit agreement accepted by 260 High Park Limited Partnership on July 12, 2022. That agreement was later amended on September 25, 2023, with repayment expected less than a week later, on September 30, 2023. Pursuant to the amended credit agreement, the debtors owe just over $42,252,410 to Meridian.
In addition, construction liens clocking in at over $14 million were registered against the mortgaged lands as of March 6, 2020, according to title searches referenced in the court filings, and the debtor’s failure to clear those liens was considered “a breach of the terms of the credit agreement.”
The affidavit from Meridian says that they had “lost confidence” in the debtor’s “ability to manage and complete” the project due to the extent of “significant construction liens,” and in part, due to project overruns.
While a singular update provided on the condo project’s website in June 2021 indicated that site shoring and excavation on the site were complete, formwork and concrete on parking level 1 was underway, and a tower crane had been installed, court filings reveal that work had come to a halt by late 2023. The filings further say that the trade contractors abandoned the project “due to liquidity challenges and other delays.”
A September 30, 2023, report prepared by Finnegan Marshall explains that there was an increase in the overall project budget to over $95.4 million — and that amount does not include a mezzanine loan interest reserve of around $5 million — marking an overrun of approximately $4.8 million. This was on top of the “unfunded cost overrun” cited in a previous report, which came in at around $3.7 million.
260 High Park Avenue as of July 2023/Google Maps
Sales Process Earned Seven Offers
On October 1, 2024, the Ontario courts granted approval for CBRE Land Services Group to begin the marketing and sale process for the property at 248 and 260 High Park Avenue. CBRE was selected out of three other brokerages.
CBRE’s sales process consisted of a marketing phase followed by a two-round offer submission phase, and the brokerage’s efforts ultimately resulted in 45 non-disclosure agreements being executed and 10 entities touring the project, according to a report from the receiver from later in October. It also says that seven offers were received “that complied with the requirements of the sales process” by the bid deadline on December 3, 2024.
By the second round of bidding, there were only two offers remaining that were being seriously considered, including the purchaser's. “The Purchaser made two different structured offers, one which was all-cash, and the other of which was for a higher amount but that was contingent upon receiving financing from [Meridian Credit Union] at a below market interest rate,” says Ernst & Young’s report.
“The unsuccessful bidder offered to purchase the project at a lower transaction value than the purchaser’s initial all-cash offer and this offer also required financing from MCU at a below market interest rate,” it adds. “The unsuccessful bidder had advised the Receiver that it would also deliver an offer that was conditional on obtaining third party financing other than from MCU, but ultimately did not submit such an offer.”
The Agreement of Purchase and Sale with a finalized purchase price was established on May 1, 2025. It’s unclear from the court documents what the ultimate selling price of the property was.
A massive lakefront development site owned by RAM Developments recently hit the market for $10,995,000, over a year after gaining approvals for a sprawling resort-like redevelopment on Gravenhurst's Sparrow Lake. The development would have transformed the shoreline with 60 three-storey luxury townhome cottages and 20,000 sq. ft of top-of-the-line amenities.
Located at 1711 Delmonte Road on the northeast shore of Muskoka's most southern lake, the property is a 90-minute drive from the city and connected to the Trent-Severn Waterway. Spanning nearly 54 acres and touting around 1,700 feet of west-facing shoreline, it's one of the largest properties for sale on the lake.
The site has been listed by Cayman Marshall International Realty Inc., who also brokered the sale of the property in July 2023 for $9,999,000. In October of that year, RAM Developments submitted a Zoning Bylaw Amendment application to the Town of Gravenhurst that included now-approved plans to redevelop the expansive site. Those plans were approved in January 2024 and RAM got to work on bringing their vision to life.
As of now, progress consists of newly drilled wells, a completed Draft Site Plan, and a number of required pre-development studies that have been finalized, including Environmental, Archaeological, and Hydrogeological studies, according to the listing.
When STOREYS spoke to Principal of RAM Development Group Russell Jacobson last August, Jacobson said that vision for the project was to offer an alternative and more appealing route to cottage ownership. At Luna Bay — the name given to the to-be-developed community — on-site management would tend to owners' units and manage rental bookings in order to cover mortgage costs.
The model was based off of a style of ownership popular in the Caribbean, where the Toronto-based company has developed housing and recreational properties, as well as in the GTA and Florida. If successful, Luna Bay would have been the company's first venture in Ontario's cottage country and one of the largest waterfront developments in the region.
Realtor.ca
Planned for the site were the 60 luxury townhome units, alongside 60 accompanying boast slips, but also a comprehensive resort-like community with "buckets full" of amenities, as Jacobson had described it. According to the listing, amenities in the current Draft Site Plan include a sports courts, pool pavilion and clubhouse, beach area, and forested paths. STOREYS contacted RAM for comment on the property being listed, but the company stated they are not open to providing comment on Luna Bay at this time.
Currently, the site is occupied by several buildings left over from a well-known resort that had occupied the land for over 100 years: Delmonte In the Pines Resort. According to Sparrow Lake Historical Society, the resort was built in 1906 by David Sanderson and served as a lakeside hotel and locale for dances and live music. The property then changed hands to Mary and Terry Skalosky in 1957 and remained a family-run business.
RAM's resort-style development vision, if carried out by a new owner, would continue the site's long history as a cottage country recreational destination, while adding an ownership/rental property element and upping the luxury factor. With approvals in place and preliminary construction and site planning under way, the listing represents an intriguing development opportunity for investors looking to carve out their slice of the Lakelands.
"This property combines natural beauty, accessibility, and strong development potential," reads the listing. "Bring your vision to life on this one-of-a-kind waterfront canvas."
British statesman Winston Churchill once said, “We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”
In many ways, that characterizes what we are doing with development charges (DCs) on new housing. Municipalities are unilaterally imposing the levies on new development to foot the bill for capital costs of infrastructure like roads, water, sewage and power services to support growth.
In the end, it is self-defeating as new homeowners end up paying exorbitant fees that raise the cost of housing.
Over the years, there’s been tremendous mission creep with these charges. The funds are being used to pay for everything from subways to animal shelters and, in one instance, a cricket pitch.
In some municipal jurisdictions, such as in central Ontario, the GTA and Ottawa, DCs have become a runaway train. In Toronto, DCs on a two-bedroom condo increased to $88,000 from $8,000 over a 10-year period. Hikes like this put housing out of reach of most homebuyers.
And make no mistake. It is homebuyers that are footing the bill. While developers are the ones who initially pay the DCs when they obtain building permits, they are passed on to the buyers of new homes as part of the purchase price.
DCs are traditionally adjusted annually by municipalities to cover inflation and the increasing costs of infrastructure projects. However, these fees account for a large chunk of the tax burden on new housing.
A report for RESCON done by the Canadian Centre for Economic Analysis found that taxes, fees and levies on new housing has jumped to almost 36% in Ontario, up from 31% three years ago.
DCs are a main reason housing has become unaffordable. They are discretionary fees that municipalities can apply to developments to help pay for infrastructure to support new growth. However, there aren’t enough guardrails to stop municipalities from using DCs to fund items not related to housing.
The original idea behind DCs was noble, but they’ve have ballooned out of control. Municipal governments are adding items to the wish list. The levies have become a way of raising money without increasing taxes.
The result?
Prices for new homes and for renters in new properties have risen. It’s a form of hidden taxation.
As mentioned, a big problem has been that builders have had to pay for development charges upfront rather than on closing, which means they must finance the charges while projects are being built. Projects can take years, so it can be a hefty bill. The cost is then added to the price tag.
The math is simple. The higher the development charges are, the harder it is for people to buy housing. This results in fewer projects being started, which restricts housing and pushes up prices.
We’re now seeing that scenario play out in housing starts and sales figures. We are at the point where builders can’t build homes that people can afford to buy.
The provincial government recently introduced legislation called Bill 17, or the Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act, 2025, that enables developers and builders to defer the payment of DCs until the property has been transferred to the ultimate buyer. This will save developers money both on payments and financing charges as well as reduce red tape.
It’s certainly a good start, but to really spur the market DCs ultimately need to be reduced. To fix the problem, the Province must get DCs under control and stop the abuse by municipal governments.
A few municipalities have stepped up and done the right thing. DCs in the City of Vaughan, for example, were cut in half because Mayor Steven Del Duca took action as nothing was being sold. The City of Mississauga followed suit, substantially cutting its DCs in January of this year.
Presently, Ontario’s municipalities are sitting on substantial DC reserve funds. Data shared by the provincial government indicates that the municipalities have $10 billion in the bank. Toronto has $2.8 billion of that figure, Durham Region has $1.1 billion and Ottawa has $800 million.
The Ford government has recommended that the money be used quickly to reduce the cost of building homes. Meanwhile, we are waiting to see what the federal government will do on DCs.
Prime Minister Mark Carney says Ottawa will be supporting municipalities that reduce DCs and we are hopeful significant measures will be introduced to support homebuilding in the budget this fall.
To alleviate the housing crunch, we must get DCs under control. The Province got the ball rolling with Bill 17. The Feds must now answer the bell.
This past June, the Ontario government kicked off the second round of its three-year, $1.2-billion Building Faster Fund program, announcing over $67 million in funding for the City of Toronto. This was followed by seven other announcements through July to early August, with Kingston, Haldimand County, Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay, Greater Sudbury, North Bay, and Georgina all receiving funding for their housing starts achievements.
Despite the Province’s recognition, Toronto, Haldimand County, and Georgina all did not meet their full targets last year — and according to Ontario’s newly-updated housing supply tracker, they’re part of the vast majority. Updated on Monday, the tracker shows that 35 out of Ontario’s 50 largest municipalities fell short of their 2024 targets, with some achieving as little as 11%. It’s pretty grim.
Comparatively, 31 out of 50 municipalities missed their targets in 2023, marking a lesser 62% share.
Nonetheless, based on the updated tracker, Belleville, East Gwillimbury, Kawartha Lakes, London, and St. Catharines will still be receiving Building Faster Fund rewards for meeting at least 80% of their 2024 target. The 15 municipalities that exceeded their targets will receive bonus funding. [For an up-to-date list of all the municipalities that have received funding through the first and second rounds of Ontario’s Building Faster Fund, check out our tracker.]
On the whole, 94,753 new homes were created across Ontario in 2024. That total breaks down into 73,462 traditional housing starts, 14,381 additional residential units (ARUs), 2,278 long-term care beds, 2,807 post-secondary student housing beds, and 1,825 congregate retirement home suites. It also marks approximately 76% of the Province’s target of 125,000 new homes for the year.
Province of Ontario/compiled by STOREYS
Municipalities That Exceeded Their 2024 Target:
Chatham-Kent
Greater Sudbury
Kingston
Kitchener
Milton
Niagara Falls
North Bay
Oakville
Pickering
Sarnia
Sault Ste. Marie
Thunder Bay
Waterloo
Welland
Windsor
Municipalities That Met At Least 80% Of Their 2024 Target:
Getting your ears pierced at the mall is something of a tween rite of passage, and it’s an experience uniquely associated with Claire’s — but perhaps not for much longer. According to a series of court filings from earlier this month, Claire’s Stores Canada Corp. has applied for creditor’s protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA), citing roughly $8 million (CAD) in net losses in the year-to-date period ending on June 30, 2025.
The global accessories brand operates 120 retail store locations across Canada, and has 703 active employees in Canada, including 133 full-time workers and 570 part-time workers. While the stores will stay open during the restructuring, it’s not been uncommon over the past few years for embattled retailers to have their CCAA proceedings culminate in liquidation — Hudson’s Bay Company and Nordstrom to name a few examples.
The Geographic Distribution of Claire’s Stores As Of July 1, 2025
Ontario — 45
Alberta — 21
British Columbia — 19
Quebec — 13
Saskatchewan — 7
Manitoba — 6
New Brunswick — 3
Nova Scotia — 3
Newfoundland & Labrador — 2
Prince Edward Island — 1
*All stores operate out of leased premises.
According to an August 6 press release, Claire's Holdings LLC — the parent company of Claire’s Canadian arm, which operates Claire's and ICING stores across the US — entered into voluntary Chapter 11 proceedings first, while concurrently noting that it intended to begin CCAA proceedings in Canada.
“This decision is difficult, but a necessary one. Increased competition, consumer spending trends and the ongoing shift away from brick-and-mortar retail, in combination with our current debt obligations and macroeconomic factors, necessitate this course of action for Claire's and its stakeholders," said Claire's CEO Chris Cramer in the release. “We remain in active discussions with potential strategic and financial partners and are committed to completing our review of strategic alternatives.”
On the same day, both a pre-filing report from the monitor, KSV Restructuring Inc, and an initial order from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice confirmed the Claire’s Stores Canada Corp.’s CCAA proceedings, and the circumstances surrounding it. In its report, KSV cites the COVID-19 pandemic and changes in consumer behaviour, tariffs, and Claire's “burdensome” lease portfolio as some of the reasons behind the brand's liquidity constraints.
A summary of the cash flow forecast for the initial stay period prepared by KSV Advisory
KSV further describes instances of rent arrears, noting that the Claire's failed to make payments to “some” of its landlords in June 2025, and all of its landlords in July and August 2025 in an effort to preserve liquidity. “As of the date of this report, the Applicant has received 78 default notices and 26 notices of termination, some of which have been cured,” it adds. “Landlords have also taken steps to restrict the Applicant’s access at 16 retail locations.”
Given the extent of its financial difficulties, KSV says Claire’s initiated a marketing process starting this past June, contacting around 150 possible buyers in respect of the sale of assets in North America and abroad. This resulted in “multiple” non-binding letters of intent, however, none were for Claire’s “business or assets on a standalone basis.”
“The Applicant is not profitable on a standalone basis and has incurred net losses for the year-to-date period ending June 30, 2025, of US $5.8 million,” KSV's report goes on to say.
As the CCAA proceedings play out, the Ontario courts have ordered an initial “stay period” until August 15, under which Claire's is protected from legal action while it attempts to restructure.
Dez Capital Corporation has filed a proposal for a new mixed-use condo development set for Mount Pleasant East. The tower would reach 25 storeys and deliver 256 residential units with retail at grade.
Plans filed in late-July support Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw Amendment applications to transform the 17,964-sq.-ft site — currently occupied by three low-rise commercial buildings and a two-storey residential building — into a high-rise development that would bring much-needed housing within close proximity to higher-order transit.
Located at 544-552 Eglinton Avenue East and 12-14 Bruce Park Avenue, the proposed development would sit around 820 feet from Leaside Station on the forthcoming Eglinton Crosstown LRT line and is currently a 10-minute bus ride from Eglinton Station on Line 1.
Given its proximity to existing and planned transit, the area has witnessed rapid growth over the last several years and a number of recent proposed and approved building applications nearby are continuing this trend, with heights reaching 46 storeys. Just down the street from the proposed development, for example, an eight-storey office building at 586 Eglinton has been proposed by Sanderling Developments to be redeveloped into a 46-storey mixed-use building. Further east at 589 Eglinton, a 40-storey mixed-use development from Terracap has been approved to replace a number of low-rise residential and office buildings.
While residents who may one day call the 550 Eglinton tower home will have superb access to higher-order transit, the site is also located within a well-established neighbourhood. "Conveniently located within walking distance of the future Eglinton Crosstown LRT as well as countless shops, restaurants, and nearby primary and secondary schools, Eglinton and Bayview is the perfect modern address," reads Dez Capital's website.
With designs from Studio JCI, the proposed building will reportedly strike balance between the modern and the traditional. "Striking architectural design emphasizes a sleek and simple aesthetic, incorporating traditional features that enhance the building’s character while maintaining a contemporary feel to create a visually appealing and timeless residential space," reads the website.
550 Eglinton/Studio JCI
Plans envision a building with a seven-storey podium and 18-storey tower element with 1,906 sq. ft of commercial space at grade and fronting onto Eglinton. The residential lobby would be accessed along the less-busy Bruce Park Avenue and would lead to a 2,010-sq.-ft indoor amenity space on the ground floor.
Additional amenity space would be found on levels two and eight where the remaining 9,227 sq. ft of amenity space would be divided into contiguous indoor and outdoor spaces on those levels. These space would service the 256 residential units, which are to be divided into six studio units, 156 one-bedrooms, 66 two-bedrooms, and 28 three-bedrooms. Residents would also have access to 58 vehicle parking spaces and 283 bicycle parking spaces across two levels of underground parking.
Given the push for intensified development along the Eglinton Avenue corridor, especially surrounding stations along the Eglinton Crosstown LRT route set to open before the end of the year, Dez Capital's vision for a 25-storey mixed-use development represents a fitting and exciting addition to the slew of proposed, approved, and constructed developments in the Mount Pleasant East neighbourhood.
Larco Investments is pushing forward with plans to intensify the historic Dominion Public Building on Front Street West with two high-rise towers, according to a revised application submitted to the City of Toronto in mid-June. The existing building is iconic in its own right, spans the block between Bay and Yonge streets, and has occupied that prime stretch of the downtown core since around 1935.
According to the resubmission, Larco continues to plan 45- and 49-storey buildings atop the building at 1 Front — the built-form was allowed by the Ontario Land Tribunal in August 2022 — however, now it’s seeking less non-residential gross floor area (GFA) in favour of more residential GFA. More notable still, Larco is seeking a land use amendment to nix the previously proposed hotel component slated for floors 11 to 33 of the 49-storey tower.
View of the proposed towers at 1 Front Street from Berczy Park
“Through market sounding undertaken following the 2022 approval, Larco determined that the hotel program would not be viable. Therefore, this application seeks to reallocate this space for residential units,” says the planning report. “While this change will result in a lower non-residential GFA, this revised plan will still result in a net increase in non-residential GFA compared to the existing building today. The table below compares the proposed GFA by use mix with the GFA approved under SASP 589, ZBL 1251-2022, and the existing building.”
North elevation showing the permitted uses within the approved built form
North elevation of approved built form with the proposed changes
Larco is now proposing around 465,000 sq. ft of residential GFA between the two towers, as well as 592 rental units, including 300 one-bedrooms, 222 two-bedrooms, and 70 three-bedrooms (translating to a 50% share of larger family-sized units). In terms of amenity around 13,863 sq. ft is planned indoors on the sixth floor, which would flow into around 11,668 sq. ft of outdoor amenity atop the Dominion Public Building roof.
In addition, 360,268 sq. ft of office space (to be located within the Dominion Public Building, and on levels six to nine), 137,778 sq. ft of retail space (to be located at grade), and 5383 sq. ft of community space (at the southwest corner of the building) are planned, as well as 81 parking spaces and 812 bicycle parking spaces.
The Long Room in 1931, shortly after construction of the Dominion Public Building from the City of Toronto Archives
Notably, the Long Room — dubbed a “significant historic space within the Dominion Public Building, and one of few interior spaces where the original heritage fabric is intact” — is planned to be retained as part of the redevelopment. Once the development is completed, the public will have access to the space for the first time since the 1980s.
Renderings prepared by architects—Alliance show the majority of the existing frontage intact (57%), with the most notable changes to the base building being 14 lowered windows. Eight of those windows are planned to be converted into retail entrances in an effort to “enliven” the pedestrian walkway.
View from Yonge Street looking southwest with the lowered windows
The proposed lowered windows and new retail entrances
As for the tower elements, set to rise from the seventh level onwards, they’re depicted as sleek, slender, and angular with vertical slats running from top to bottom emphasizing the building heights.
In addition to requiring official plan and zoning bylaw amendments for resubmission, Larco’s proposal will also have to undergo review by the Toronto Preservation Board and approval by City Council with respect to the proposed modifications to the Dominion Public Building, which is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, according to the planning report. “The report to City Council will also require an amendment to the registered Heritage Easement Agreement.”
In late-July, when a group of Vancouver developers published an open letter to the Government of Canada asking them to reconsider the foreign buyer ban, a match was lit that reignited the debate around the divisive issue of foreign investment in Vancouver real estate.
It's clear that many who have been affected by the housing crisis place some (or maybe even all) of the blame on foreign buyers, who they believe flooded the Vancouver real estate market and drove up prices.
Developers feel differently. Some have historically been more reliant on foreign buyers to fund their presale projects than others. Regardless, all of them would undoubtedly argue that restricting investment in any way is a net negative decision and counter-productive to overall growth in the industry.
Many developers also recognize the divisiveness of the issue, thus not all developers who were asked to sign the open letter did so. One such developer is Vancouver-based Townline, whose projects include the rehabilitation and transformation of the Hudson's Bay building in downtown Victoria and the upcoming Langara YMCA redevelopment in Vancouver with the Musqueam Nation.
In an interview with STOREYS last week, Townline Founder and CEO Rick Ilich explained how he views foreign investment, outlines his proposal for a regulated program that would require condos purchased by foreign buyers to be rented out for the first five years, and discusses the overregulation by government.
What did you make of the open letter? While Townline did not sign the letter, were you asked to and then declined, or were you not asked at all?
Yeah, there was an opportunity to participate in that, but I didn't necessarily agree with the approach. There is no point looking backwards. It's about models moving forward and that's really what I'm trying to suggest. I think the messaging that went out there, it was going backwards versus going forward.
I think the letter from the panel of self-acclaimed experts was also really based on old school thinking. We've got to stop looking at government for handouts. They're saying we should just subsidize more social housing and forget about the free market. That's just very unfortunate thinking. In a free market world, I think we should have less of that thinking.
But regardless, do we need government support for the industry and providing homes? Absolutely. But the support we need is to start looking at providing housing as a necessary infrastructure product — particularly rentals, but don't ignore people that aspire to do well and want to have ownership.
I think it's time to work together, rather than regulate the industry to death and that's what all three levels of government have done. They just can't help themselves to extract rather than provide assistance — and assistance, again, doesn't need to be in the form of subsidy, it needs to be in the form of treating this industry like a desired industry, like they do for resource exploration and renewable energy. They're incentivizing through tax benefits for those areas of employment, but actually they employ less people than the housing industry. They've got this [belief] in their head that providing houses shouldn't be a profit centre. Well, you know, why would people take hundreds of millions of dollars, or billions of dollars, of risk if there wasn't a return? That's kind of my point. Canadian pension funds that are investing dollars that are earned by Canadians, it's not by chance that most of their money is invested outside of Canada. They simply can't make money here because we're so regulated.
What do you make of the proposal to carve out exceptions in the foreign buyer ban for presales? Do you think it would make a difference, or do you disagree with that as well?
No, I don't disagree with it. Foreign investment, whether it be in the form of housing or whatever, has always been part of the capital stack providing solutions to business. So in the case of housing, foreign investment doesn't mean that there's a bunch of folks who are going to buy a bunch of houses, leave them sitting empty, and treat them like playing cards. They're trying to inject money into a safe economy, a relatively stable government, and they want their money to be protected, and in a perfect world, they want to make money doing it.
So, my [suggestion] is creating a system of inviting the capital back into the market and have it be part of a solution for providing rental housing. We need more time to build more rental housing and we can build more rental housing if government would start to deregulate, so let's throw all those condominiums that are coming to the market, throw them into a rental pool, but under the finance structure that we're all having to work with. We need buyers to throw that product into rental pools and I think that foreign capital would be appreciative of that opportunity. And in the meantime, industry gets to catch up and build purpose-built rental during that five or six-year window where these condos are regulated to be rental. It's a win-win.
Where did you get this idea? Have you seen this in other places?
I haven't seen it done elsewhere. I'm not saying that it hasn't, but I haven't seen it. I'm just simply trying to be a solutions provider, and the quicker housing providers like ourselves are able to turn over the capital that they already have locked up in some of this [condo] product, we can reinvest that dollar into more housing, which is what we're lacking. We need more capital in the housing market, and with our capital all trapped in standing inventory, that serves nobody. So, get the money, free up the capital in some fashion, and I think this is a solution to it, so we can reinvest in more housing and keep that system of cycling through housing going. We need inventory, we need a means of creating more affordability, which we're all advocating very hard for, and I think we can get there. This is just one piece of that cycle.
Have you raised this idea with others in the industry?
Yeah. Most that have reached out to me like the idea. Some don't — they want more instant gratification. But, again, I don't think you're going to get much support [on that]. But a lot of folks appreciate the nuanced approach to it and I can't see why it wouldn't work.
Government blamed foreign investment in housing as a catch-all for all of their problems, which is just totally inaccurate. But regardless, it has become a popular topic. And in the straw polls, it's popular to keep the capital out. But I think if it was framed appropriately — that capital can actually bring good and provide more rental housing — I'm pretty confident that if the public had that full understanding, there would be a lot of support for it.
Again, we're a country in economic distress and the last thing we need to do is tell the world we're not open for business. Canada makes it very challenging for companies to make money, to attract new capital. That's why the pension funds aren't paying attention to Canada. So, what can we all do to attract more capital, to create more housing? That comes down to deregulating and allowing some of these ideas to come to the surface. And I think some foreign capital, if small investors buying one or two homes and they get thrown into a rental pool, I don't see how that could not be a win.
Since the open letter was published, I have seen many people ask the question of why developers previously said that foreign buyers make up a small portion of buyers, but are now saying that foreign buyers are important and can make a difference. Can you explain why foreign buyers are so critical right now?
The government has aggressively put a lid on the demand side of housing, while they keep raising the cost of producing it. To your question about the importance of foreign capital, it's not the end-all be-all. It's simply part of an equation that has made it challenging to continue to produce housing. So we're saying "invite that capital into this market." And if it's directed to [a rental pool], that's not a bad thing. That's smart economics.
Before we had that kind of thinking and we were taking our projects out for presale, we were getting some foreign investment, but — I'm trying to think of the highest point for Townline — it might have been 5%, maybe 6%. It's certainly not 50% or 75% like some people profess. But it's still 3% to 5%. What's wrong with that? That's 3% or 5% more consumer spending than we have now. Every bit helps.
Government just was extracting the hell out of housing. Every level of government had their hand out and they're creating these taxes and these fees. These fees, they always kind of have a fancy name around it, like school taxes and such, but they're wealth taxes. They were thinking, "How do we extract more capital out of this product that is being produced" and they choked it to death. There's way too many fees. In the City of Vancouver, 30% of the cost of producing a new home are fees. That's a lot of money. And if you look at the policies that they've created, every political ideology you can think of that's layered onto housing is impacting the cost of it.
We've been in an extensive market downturn now for two or so years. How has Townline been affected and how have you adapted?
Townline is quite a diverse company. We're not just a developer of speculative housing. Yes, we do that and that's part of our core business, but we're also a contractor, we build for others, we also have a building and a development solutions provider to the not-for-profit sector, so we're always busy with social housing. We've been very busy building market rental housing, which is coming to a stop, just due to the cost of producing the housing. But it's impacted us. We're not chasing anything. We're looking at maybe some of the distressed opportunities and trying to help lenders and other developers work out of their problems. And, unfortunately like a lot of our peers, we've had to look around and let a lot of people go seek employment elsewhere, which they're struggling to find. That kind of unfortunate rejigging is going on in every office right now and I think we've stripped ourselves down to the core working group and we'll do our best to satisfy and keep everybody busy. But it's not for the faint of heart right now. There's a lot of small and medium-size developers that are just not going to be here next year.
You alluded to TL Housing Solutions. How has the social housing sector been affected by the market downturn? I imagine it has been impacted even more than market housing.
In many cases, it costs more to build subsidized housing than it does to build market housing. And that's because of government policy, wrapped around trying to tackle every ideological good you can think of, from climate change to carbon offsets to various livability issues that, you know, people really can't afford. The more government layers on ideology and policy on social housing, the less of it is gonna get built. So, what we're seeing is a lot of our not-for-profit providers, just to service the debt that they're gonna take on, they have to build more and more housing that is closer to market rents, when really they should be doing less of that and more of the deeper-subsidized homes for the folks that really need it. Government policy is driving that direction.
And even policy is chasing the same ideology, in all three levels of government they all layer on their take on that topic, such as the energy code issues. And they actually often conflict. So then you've got to spend a lot of time, months and sometimes years, trying to get around the conflict between the levels of government that are all trying to do the right thing, but they're simply not communicating and talking, so you get this unnecessary waste of time and resources, because someone's drawn a line in the sand and said this is how we're going to approach that topic. It's shocking how infrequently the three levels of the government can agree on something. It's an old model of management and an old model of thinking, and I'd like to believe that's going to change and somebody's going to wake up.
We have a cost of delivery crisis and the only release valve left is government. Some of the people that I've seen in the media are talking about land prices being too high, "land is just a conduit for speculation." That boat sailed a long time ago. Land prices are dramatically reduced. I can show you pro formas from some areas around the Lower Mainland and the land can be free and the math still doesn't work. And the cost of land in Richmond, Victoria, Vancouver is down 40 to 60% from a couple years ago. It's still challenging to work because various siloed parts of government just keep layering on more costs.