‘Unfortunate approach’

Dear Editor:

Recently, the Wellington County Museum and Archives hosted an excellent and informative exhibition: Not Just Dirt: Digging into the Science of Soil. 

In contrast, Pierre Poilievre’s recent assertion in an interview with Jordan Peterson that housing should be affordable because “dirt is cheap” and “Canada has lots of dirt” trivializes the complexities of housing costs and land use. While catchy, his claim either betrays a fundamental lack of understanding or is a deliberate attempt to mislead – an unfortunate approach to a pressing issue in this riding and many others.

Canada’s vast land mass does not equate to affordable housing. As Canadians are well aware, much of this country is uninhabitable or remote, far from infrastructure, services and employment opportunities. Most Canadians live near the southern border because that’s where suitable land, tied to urban amenities, trade and jobs, is concentrated. 

This land area is small, in demand and therefore expensive. The population density of the Golden Horseshoe, including Wellington County, exceeds that of the Netherlands. Greater Vancouver’s is even higher. Desirability and access, not merely the abundance of “dirt,” drive land prices.

Moreover, “dirt” is a relatively small component of housing costs. Building homes and communities requires significant investments in labour, materials, roads, water systems, schools and health care. Oversight is essential to ensure safe, sustainable communities. 

Governments cannot simply “get out of the way” to make housing cheap. This is just an empty slogan, not policy. Furthermore, the restrictive municipal zoning regulations which Poilievere bemoans are often the products of property owner and developer demands to build and preserve low-density neighborhoods with single-family, detached homes to boost property values. They are not all sinister bureaucratic plots. This is an obvious conundrum for a populist. 

In the face of this, Mr. Poilievere’s “proposals” are largely impractical and impotent threats and hand-waving, especially given the reality that the federal government has limited jurisdiction in zoning or municipal planning. 

Finally, arable “dirt” is a finite, valuable, living resource, a fact wonderfully illustrated by the exhibition at the Wellington County Museum. Urban sprawl already threatens land crucial for food production and environmental sustainability. Our local farmers can certainly attest that conserving healthy soil is as vital as addressing housing issues. Sacrificing it to poorly planned, inefficient urban expansion jeopardizes future food security, groundwater, livelihoods and exports. Its price should motivate careful and intelligent use.

Our housing challenges demand thoughtful solutions addressing zoning reform, affordability and rampant speculation.

Poilievre’s soundbites trivialize these challenges. It would be splendid if his colleague Michael Chong, having grown up in rural Wellington County, could take a moment to remind his leader about the true value of “dirt”.

Jonathan Schmidt,
Elora