Canada is facing an affordability crisis. But instead of confronting the root causes, political leaders have turned to an old culprit: low productivity. If we just produce more, work harder, and grow the economy faster, the story goes, affordability will somehow follow.

This narrative has been reinforced in recent federal communications, from the Prime Minister’s mandate letter to the latest Throne Speech. Both lean heavily on productivity as a prerequisite for affordability and public investment. Take this line from the mandate letter:

“Our long-standing weak productivity is making life less affordable for Canadian families, straining government finances, and threatening the sustainability of vital social programs.”

It sounds reasonable. The dominant economic view holds that long-term productivity growth leads to higher incomes and stronger public services. But that story leaves out a critical truth—affordability isn’t just about how much we produce, it’s about how the gains are shared.

Canada already generates enough wealth for everyone to live with dignity. Yet over the past four decades, most productivity gains have gone to the top 10 per cent of income earners—not to average workers,  Indigenous peoples, racialized communities, women, or people with disabilities.

The deeper issue is that productivity gains haven’t translated into shared prosperity.

According to the conventional story, Canada’s affordability challenges stem from decades of underperformance. Government underinvestment in innovation, skills training, and research has dragged down wages and competitiveness. Meanwhile, slow productivity means slower GDP growth and a weaker tax base, which makes it harder to fund public services without raising taxes or borrowing. And with an aging population, these pressures are only intensifying.

This argument rests on the flawed premise that economic growth naturally translates into wealth distribution. It ignores that all levels of government in Canada have pursued supposedly productivity-enhancing policies—like corporate tax cuts, deregulation, and privatization—for decades without delivering broad-based prosperity. In fact, these strategies have widened inequality and eroded public trust.

Take housing, one of the most urgent affordability crises. It’s not a productivity problem but the outcome of bad political choices. The financialization of housing and years of governments’ failure to invest in public infrastructure have pushed millions into precarious living situations. No productivity metric can explain away those choices.

The same is true for public services like child care, pharmacare, and income security. These aren’t luxuries contingent on future economic growth. They’re foundational investments in a fair and functioning society. Government spending is a question of priorities. 

The federal government has revenue tools available that could help stabilize public finances. Yet recent policy decisions, such as the promised “middle class” tax cut, signal a reluctance to go down that path. This cut does nothing for people living in poverty and offers negligible benefit to those with modest incomes. It amounts to little more than political posturing at a time when we need more, not less, public revenue. 

It’s time to stop waiting for growth to fix inequality, and start building a system that delivers dignity now.

Yes, productivity does matter. But it isn’t a silver bullet—and it isn’t the reason Canada is facing an affordability crisis. We’ve had decades of policy focused on boosting productivity without improving living standards for most Canadians. With nearly 10 million Canadians struggling to afford food, it’s time for a new conversation—one that integrates a respectful, inclusive and sustainable approach to infrastructure spending with strong redistributive policies.

The measure of a good economy isn’t how fast it grows. It’s how well it cares for its people. Can everyone afford a meal? Does everyone have a warm bed to sleep in? That’s where the conversation should begin.