Statistics Canada Reports II

[MonkeyRonin]

You're not really getting an accurate sense of growth by comparing the 2025 estimates to the 2021 census, as these are measuring two different things. The "starting point" of the estimate is not the last census - it's the previous year's estimate. The estimates are almost always higher than the census figures as they account for undercounts and so on.

To get an apples to apples comparison, you'd have to look at the 2025 estimate vs. the 2021 estimate; or otherwise wait to compare the 2026 census to the 2021 census.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

You're not really getting an accurate sense of growth by comparing the 2025 estimates to the 2021 census, as these are measuring two different things. The "starting point" of the estimate is not the last census - it's the previous year's estimate. The estimates are almost always higher than the census figures as they account for undercounts and so on.

To get an apples to apples comparison, you'd have to look at the 2025 estimate vs. the 2021 estimate; or otherwise wait to compare the 2026 census to the 2021 census.

Good point. And the further away from the census we get, the less accurate estimates are likely to be, whatever methodology that Statistics Canada adopt to try to keep them on track. In a year's time, (roughly) the 2026 cenesus data should be available, and with luck there won't be a pandemic to complicate the data collection.

[jc_yyc_ca]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

I largely agree with your position - I'm not wildly opposed to "sprawl" (21st century Canadian greenfield development in it's major cities can hardly be called this as it usually has fairly high densities), but it should "pay it's way" to let the market respond appropriately.

I think what you would find is that even if "sprawl" is priced appropriately to match it's higher service level requirements.. most would still buy it. Most people ultimately view their long-term home as being something ground related with a garage and if they can afford it, will usually make that choice.

I agree. I mean, for me apartment life was fine, but now with a wife and two kids, I want choices for ground floor housing options, which in my case ending up being an inner-city-ish row home, but we were looking at new builds as well. As long as the sprawl is paid for it's not necessarily an issue.

Originally Posted by missing_middle

Is there varying degrees of blame for sprawl or equal blame?

In some ways you end just being punitive to people depending on the year of their birth.

"Hey I was born in 1950 and managed to buy house less far out than someone born in 1990, it's their fault for being born/born later and just tax them more than for causing this trouble"

I mean that's literally the logic. Punitive for being born later.

It's kind of is punitive for younger people buying in newer areas but in the end everyone should have to pay their share. In Calgary properties in inner-city neighborhoods get taxed more than in the new burbs because tax rates are based on market value.
For example an inner city apartment-condo unit often pays more tax than a 1980's bungalow out in the burbs with an alleyway on a corner because the apartment-condo is worth more. The collection of those bungalows however is where the cost of sprawl comes from.

It's a balance of providing affordable options of all types of housing, but also making those contributing to inefficiencies like urban sprawl pay their way.

[Harrison]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

You are describing Development Charges in Ontario. Mississauga does indeed charge $120,000.. which is a huge contributing factor to housing affordability. SFDs in Mississauga are actually at $135,000 right now, and apartments are at $97,000! As a portion of total purchase price, the SFD charge is typically significantly less.. It's not really so much a charge to discourage sprawl but just a massive tax on new development.

I largely agree with your position - I'm not wildly opposed to "sprawl" (21st century Canadian greenfield development in it's major cities can hardly be called this as it usually has fairly high densities), but it should "pay it's way" to let the market respond appropriately.

I think what you would find is that even if "sprawl" is priced appropriately to match it's higher service level requirements.. most would still buy it. Most people ultimately view their long-term home as being something ground related with a garage and if they can afford it, will usually make that choice.

My theory on wild DC levels in Ontario and BC is that those municipalities don't want to put those costs on residents via property taxes (like we see in Edmonton, for example, as DCs are very low here), so instead they make developers pay. This leads to someone paying - either developers who seek to recoup those costs through higher housing costs or residents via higher property tax bills every year. This is why property taxes are, to me, artificially low in Toronto and Vancouver, as examples, compared to Edmonton.

For example, for 2025, my house in Edmonton was assessed at $382,500 and I paid a smidge over $4,000 in taxes (combo of municipal and provincial education taxes). If I plugged that same assessed value in Toronto's calculator, 2025 taxes would only be $2,900 - quite a large difference.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Harrison

This is why property taxes are, to me, artificially low in Toronto and Vancouver, as examples, compared to Edmonton.

It goes farther than this as there is also the homeowner's tax credit here and below-inflation property tax deferment. If you are 55 or older in BC you don't even really pay the tax bill; it shrinks over the years in real terms.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Harrison

My theory on wild DC levels in Ontario and BC is that those municipalities don't want to put those costs on residents via property taxes (like we see in Edmonton, for example, as DCs are very low here), so instead they make developers pay. This leads to someone paying - either developers who seek to recoup those costs through higher housing costs or residents via higher property tax bills every year. This is why property taxes are, to me, artificially low in Toronto and Vancouver, as examples, compared to Edmonton.

For example, for 2025, my house in Edmonton was assessed at $382,500 and I paid a smidge over $4,000 in taxes (combo of municipal and provincial education taxes). If I plugged that same assessed value in Toronto's calculator, 2025 taxes would only be $2,900 - quite a large difference.

Can you even find a property assessed at $382,500 in Toronto?

What's the tax bill a homeowner in Toronto or Vancouver pays who own a similar property to your Edmonton house?

[niwell]

Median total property tax paid (including Education Property Tax) in Toronto is in the range of $5,500 IIRC. This includes both houses and condos, so varies up and down accordingly.

Assessments are very out of date in Ontario as the 2020 reassessment has been postponed since COVID, meaning that properties are taxed on their 2016 value. Still, not much in Toronto would be assessed at $382k other than smallish condos.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by niwell

Median total property tax paid (including Education Property Tax) in Toronto is in the range of $5,500 IIRC. This includes both houses and condos, so varies up and down accordingly.

Assessments are very out of date in Ontario as the 2020 reassessment has been postponed since COVID, meaning that properties are taxed on their 2016 value. Still, not much in Toronto would be assessed at $382k other than smallish condos.

BC updates their assessments every year (so many fell in 2025, after big increases in the previous few years). 'Vancouver', isn't an amalgamated entity, so different municxipalities charge different taxes. BC publish a 'typical house' tax bill for every municipality, based on the average tax take (including school, transit etc) for the single family homes in each city. Vancouver CMA averages range from $6,977 in Langley to $13,721 in West Vancouver. The City of Vancouver was $10,811.

[Wigs]

Calgary CMA

[craner]

^ Thanks Wigs!
It’s a short list.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by someone123

...If you are 55 or older in BC you don't even really pay the tax bill; it shrinks over the years in real terms.

I'm pretty sure we're still paying the property tax. Otherwise, I'd really like to know where that money is going every year...

You may be thinking of the PT deferral option for people 55 and over in BC, but that's not automatic; you have to apply for it, there are several conditions and restrictions, and the province places a lien and charges interest (admittedly, not a lot).

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by Wigs

Calgary CMA

You are the best, Wigs.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by craner

^ Thanks Wigs!
It’s a short list.

You're welcome, it was very easy. In the Edmonton construction thread you can see the two together. I didn't bother posting anything in the Calgary subforum since a few spammers killed that section years ago
I'm dreading the Montreal one because there's so many goddamn CSDs (Census subdivisions).

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

You are the best, Wigs.

Thanks

[giallo]

These are great. An easy-to-read format and super convenient when you want to see a municipal population.

You wouldn't have a Vancouver one in ya, would you, Wigs?

[theman23]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

You're not really getting an accurate sense of growth by comparing the 2025 estimates to the 2021 census, as these are measuring two different things. The "starting point" of the estimate is not the last census - it's the previous year's estimate. The estimates are almost always higher than the census figures as they account for undercounts and so on.

To get an apples to apples comparison, you'd have to look at the 2025 estimate vs. the 2021 estimate; or otherwise wait to compare the 2026 census to the 2021 census.

Yeah, the charts are overstating growth by 4-5% absolute percentage points. The census by its nature will always be an undercount of the population at any given time.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

I'm pretty sure we're still paying the property tax. Otherwise, I'd really like to know where that money is going every year...

You may be thinking of the PT deferral option for people 55 and over in BC, but that's not automatic; you have to apply for it, there are several conditions and restrictions, and the province places a lien and charges interest (admittedly, not a lot).

My previous sentence which you edited out in the quote referenced the homeowner's tax credit here and below-inflation property tax deferment. Since the interest charged is below inflation, it tends to shrink the real debt in size every year. If you compound this over 2-3 decades the effect is large. If you get 30 years of homeowner's grant and deferment you're paying under half of the base rate. If you include the subsidy from other ratepayers and the development fee pyramid scheme, I'd expect this group is only paying a small fraction of their service costs, although the particulars will depend a lot on the property type.

Some provinces also have assessment caps of one form or another.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by someone123

My previous sentence which you edited out in the quote referenced the homeowner's tax credit here and below-inflation property tax deferment. Since the interest charged is below inflation, it tends to shrink the real debt in size every year. If you compound this over 2-3 decades the effect is large. If you get 30 years of homeowner's grant and deferment you're paying under half of the base rate. If you include the subsidy from other ratepayers and the development fee pyramid scheme, I'd expect this group is only paying a small fraction of their service costs, although the particulars will depend a lot on the property type.

Some provinces also have assessment caps of one form or another.

The Interest rate charged in BC this year is 2.95%. That isn't below the Bank of Canada's inflation rate.

[Innsertnamehere]

The discussion of property taxes brings me to a major complaint with the Ford PCs that nobody seems to think about.. Ford has consistently cancelled and deferred the updating of provincial tax assessments. MPAC is still operating on 2016 assessment values - which means many properties are unfairly paying much higher taxes than they should. And the province is mum on when they are actually going to do something about it, while the media never reports on it because it's such a dry topic.. meanwhile many households are randomly subsidizing others by up to thousands of dollars a year as MPAC is not able to properly assess taxes due..

And every year it gets more and more obvious with wider and wider gaps as the market changes more and more from what it was in 2016. This generally benefits aging properties as well.... i..e. retirees.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

The discussion of property taxes brings me to a major complaint with the Ford PCs that nobody seems to think about.. Ford has consistently cancelled and deferred the updating of provincial tax assessments. MPAC is still operating on 2016 assessment values - which means many properties are unfairly paying much higher taxes than they should. And the province is mum on when they are actually going to do something about it, while the media never reports on it because it's such a dry topic.. meanwhile many households are randomly subsidizing others by up to thousands of dollars a year as MPAC is not able to properly assess taxes due..

And every year it gets more and more obvious with wider and wider gaps as the market changes more and more from what it was in 2016. This generally benefits aging properties as well.... i..e. retirees.

Yep. While assessment alone doesn't change property tax revenue a municipality collects, the tax shifts within property classes caused by postponement have gotten significant in some cases. The properties that "should" pay more are largely single family homes in highly desirable, central areas, while those overpaying tend to be smaller homes and/or condos. Education Property Tax is also a factor given that it's a flat rate for the residential property class across the Province and increased prices haven't exactly been uniform. Though I'll say business properties are more disproportionately affected than residential on the whole.

AMO, individual municipalities and business associations have been beating this drum for some time now. But yeah, property tax is not a sexy media release. And the media gets the details incorrect more often than not.

As an aside I appreciate your use of "Ford" rather than the government. Which I unfortunately can't get into!

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by giallo

These are great. An easy-to-read format and super convenient when you want to see a municipal population.

You wouldn't have a Vancouver one in ya, would you, Wigs?

After I finish the Montreal one for MolsonExport, sure!