Canada proudly welcomes hundreds of thousands of immigrants each year. We recognize their immense contributions as workers, entrepreneurs and taxpayers.

We also welcome their dependents, children, spouses and elderly parents, understanding that while not all may contribute economically right away, the long-term value of the family unit strengthens our communities. The immigration system is designed to integrate, not penalize.

Yet, when it comes to new homebuyers, many of whom are newcomers to our communities, we take the opposite approach. Instead of treating them as assets, we treat them as liabilities.

If Canada treated immigrants the way we treat new homebuyers, it would be considered unjust. So why do we ask new homebuyers to pay their full freight up front, as if their arrival is a burden rather than a benefit?

The contradiction in how we treat newcomers

When immigrants are accepted into Canada, they must demonstrate sufficient financial means, but that is where the obligation ends. We don’t require them to spend those funds on infrastructure. We don’t levy “newcomer fees” to build the hospitals, schools, roads, parks and transit they will use.

We rightly trust their long-term taxes and economic participation will more than repay the public investment made on their behalf.

Contrast that with new homebuyers.

In many Ontario municipalities, development charges can exceed $100,000 per unit. In British Columbia, development cost charges (DCCs) and community amenity contributions (CACs) often add millions to projects. In Alberta, offsite levies are lower but rising steadily.

These charges are justified under the mantra of “growth paying for growth,” but in practice municipalities view new residents as immediate costs to be recovered, not as long-term contributors. Homebuyers must pay before even turning on the lights in their new homes.

Development charges: A municipal piggy bank

Most builders and Canadians agree development should pay its way. But development charges have evolved into a municipal piggy bank. Instead of funding infrastructure directly tied to new development, they are increasingly used for projects only loosely connected to growth.

We also forget developers already build and pay for local infrastructure: roads, sewers, water systems, streetlights, stormwater ponds and more. These costs are embedded in home prices and ultimately borne by buyers.

The missing conversation is the value new residents add over time.

Once a home is occupied, it begins generating property taxes, typically far more than the land previously produced. This revenue functions like an annuity: a steady, long-term income stream that starts immediately.

Yet the major municipal costs tied to new subdivisions don’t arrive for decades: roads, pipes and other infrastructure usually last 40 to 50 years before significant reinvestment is needed. Water, wastewater and stormwater fees are already billed directly to users.

In other words, the revenues and the expenses are not aligned: municipalities collect full taxes from Day One, but the big costs don’t come due until much later. Instead of recognizing this mismatch as a financial advantage, municipalities act as though growth is an immediate burden, chasing short-term fees rather than planning for long-term value.

Gold-plated infrastructure and rising charges

Another driver of ballooning charges is the escalating ambition of municipal projects. Straightforward capital works are now routinely gold-plated: $116-million net-zero community centres, LEED-certified “waste resource facilities,” $100-million libraries.

While these aspirations are laudable, their costs are piled onto new homebuyers. Municipalities frequently plan infrastructure to the highest possible standard without asking whether the scale or expense is proportionate. The result is fees that reflect idealism more than realism.

It’s worth recalling much of Canada’s beloved civic “soft infrastructure” - parks, arenas, community halls - were not built on development charges. They came from local fundraising, volunteerism and community pride. Carnegie Libraries, Rotary arenas, and Legion halls were grassroots-driven.

Somewhere along the way, municipalities blurred their role. Their job is not to pursue prestige projects but to balance budgets, invest in durable infrastructure and deliver services that build long-term value. Growth should fund essentials, not vanity projects.

Until expectations are realigned with affordability and practicality, new housing will remain weighed down by civic overreach.

A better way to see growth

What if we treated property taxes from new homes as a long-term revenue stream rather than insisting all costs be front-loaded? Remember, most major infrastructure is built and paid for by developers, lasting 50 years before major maintenance is needed. Water and wastewater services are billed to users.

Meanwhile, municipalities start collecting full property taxes from Day One. That is an immediate and ongoing benefit.

Each new home represents an annuity: tax revenue that compounds over time. If financed properly, these flows could support infrastructure the same way utilities are financed, through user rates and predictable revenues, rather than massive upfront fees.

We already use this model. When households connect to the hydro grid, they don’t pay for transmission towers or decades of maintenance. They pay a modest connection fee, then ongoing user rates.

Housing growth could be financed the same way: long-lived assets aligned with long-lived revenues.

The forgotten purpose of housing

Immigration may drive population growth, but family formation sustains it. The sharp decline in family-oriented, low-rise housing, singles, semis, townhomes and larger-sized apartments in Ontario and B.C. is eroding opportunities for young people to start families.

High housing costs and lack of suitable homes are forcing couples to delay or forgo children. This is no longer just personal preference; it’s an economic consequence. Without attainable family housing, fertility rates decline, communities hollow out and long-term stability suffers.

Housing policy is population policy. If we only build for renters and singles, not for families, we shape Ontario’s future with every home we fail to build.

The result: A broken model, front-loaded costs and deferred benefits

Heavy reliance on development charges creates a hidden tax on new homebuyers, worsening affordability and distorting growth. It can even incentivize municipalities to resist growth not because it is a burden, but because they haven’t aligned their financing with its long-term value.

The problem is compounded by billions in unspent charges.

In Toronto, reserve funds swelled from $172 million in 2007 to over $3.1 billion in 2023 — a 1,700 per cent increase. Across Ontario, municipalities hold more than $10 billion in unspent funds.

If these projects were truly urgent, why are the funds sitting idle? Either the infrastructure was not needed when the charges were collected, or municipalities cannot deliver. Either way the public pays the price: higher home costs, deferred benefits.

If we treated new homebuyers like immigrants, people who add value over time, we would design a very different system. One rooted in inclusion, partnership and shared responsibility.

Conclusion: A smarter, more transparent way to grow

As BILD president and CEO Dave Wilkes recently wrote in the Toronto Star: “Protect consumers from unnecessary costs and double taxation by adopting a transparent billing model where municipal development charges are charged directly to buyers rather than embedded in builders’ costs.”

In the GTA, up to 30 per cent of a new home’s price is taxes, fees and charges, costs families are shocked to discover are not bricks and mortar, but levies. Municipalities have hidden behind builders for too long, passing costs to the public without transparency.

Growth should be a partnership, not a penalty.

Canada’s housing crisis demands we rethink how we fund infrastructure and services. Development charges, levies and CACs are not borne by developers, they're borne by buyers. In a housing crisis, we cannot afford a system that treats immigrants as future contributors, but new homebuyers as immediate revenue sources.

We must keep the principle that development pays its way but stop misusing charges as a front-loaded tax grab. We must acknowledge the annuity-like value of new homes and consider utility-style models that align investment with long-term growth.

If we can welcome immigrants as vital to our future, we can do the same for new homeowners. It’s time housing policy reflected our immigration values: treating new homebuyers as citizens of tomorrow, not just line items in today’s budget.