Canada’s Housing Crunch: A Conversation with Dr. Ren Thomas

Dr. Ren Thomas is a registered professional planner, associate professor at Dalhousie University, and a member of the Canadian Infrastructure Council. The Council recently released Canada’s first National Infrastructure Assessment (NIA), which examined the infrastructure needed to support long-term housing growth. She spoke about the key findings of the NIA.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

What is the significance of the first National Infrastructure Assessment?

It’s the first time Canada has taken a comprehensive look at the infrastructure required to support housing growth over the long term. It’s grounded in broad evidence and comes at a moment when population growth and climate change are putting serious pressure on our systems. The assessment looks not only at shortages, but at how we plan, finance and maintain infrastructure. The objective is better long-term decision-making across the country.

If you had to give Canada’s infrastructure a grade, what would it be?

It’s a mixed picture. Canada is vast, and conditions vary significantly by region and community size. Much of the infrastructure is still functioning well, but it’s under strain, particularly in high-growth cities and in regions facing climate impacts. About 11% of infrastructure nationally is in poor or very poor condition. Some communities are relying on systems they’ve outgrown. A single national grade doesn’t capture these variations.

Water and wastewater capacity is critical for housing growth. What are the biggest challenges?

Roughly 10% of water and wastewater assets are in poor or very poor condition, with estimated replacement costs around $107 billion. These are often aging systems, like underground pipes, that require significant reinvestment.

Canadians consume a lot of water, and not all jurisdictions use metering. Where usage-based billing exists, consumption tends to fall, reducing strain on systems. On top of that, about 17% of treated drinking water is lost before it reaches users due to leaks. That’s a significant inefficiency.

There are also notable regional disparities when it comes to water and wastewater capacity. Many Indigenous communities continue to face drinking water advisories because of service gaps.

What’s the state of Canada’s solid waste management infrastructure?

Overall, publicly-owned solid waste infrastructure is in good shape. Canada is diverting more waste away from landfills than it did about 20 years ago, but the key longer-term pressure is landfill capacity.

This is especially true for remote and northern communities and in parts of Ontario and Quebec that have limited reserves of land set aside for landfills. In some cases, there is a lack of engineered landfills and recycling depots because of high costs and logistical barriers.

How does public transit and active transportation factor into the housing conversation?

Transportation is central to how communities function. From an asset perspective, about 13% of public transit infrastructure is in poor or very poor condition, with replacement costs estimated at roughly $15 billion.

There are viable alternatives to private vehicles, yet roughly 79% of Canadians still commute by car. That reflects decades of planning housing and transportation separately. Historically, these systems were developed in silos, often in separate municipal departments. That led to low-density land use patterns where cars became the default.

We’ve seen more transit-oriented development and compact growth strategies since then, but the shift hasn’t fully transformed Canadian cities.

Workforce capacity came up in the NIA. How serious is that issue?

It’s significant. There’s a shortage of skilled trades across Canada, which contributes to delays and rising costs for infrastructure projects. The issue is particularly acute in smaller and remote communities. Some jurisdictions are responding with targeted training programs, but labour capacity is clearly a limiting factor in delivering infrastructure at scale.

Financing is always part of the infrastructure discussion. What are the constraints?

Local governments own and operate most infrastructure, but their revenue tools (e.g., property taxes, user fees and development charges) don’t align well with their infrastructure needs. Infrastructure is inherently long-term.

Public funding alone won’t be sufficient. That’s why there’s growing discussion about alternative financing models, including greater private sector participation and improved risk-sharing structures. Procurement reform is part of that conversation; moving beyond lowest-bid approaches toward methods that reduce cost overruns and improve project outcomes over the long term.

With broader climate policy debates shifting, is there a risk that resilience in the context of infrastructure gets sidelined?

You can’t really separate climate resilience from infrastructure decisions and housing decisions. We’re already seeing climate impacts disrupt systems: flooding, storms, boil water advisories, washed-out roads and bridges. If we’re investing billions in infrastructure, it’s simply not prudent to ignore the climate risks that will determine whether those assets last. Resilience is about protecting public investments.

Listen to the full interview on Spotify.