Housing
Government, not greed, is behind Canada’s housing problem

By Anthony De Luca-Baratta for Inside Policy
When it comes to housing unaffordability in Canada, Prime Minister Mark Carney has correctly diagnosed the problem – but prescribed the wrong solution. The cost of new homes across the country increasingly exceeds the average family’s budget. But Carney’s proposal to establish a new federal entity, Build Canada Homes, to “get the government back in the business of homebuilding,” will make matters worse.
During the recent election campaign, the Liberal leader promised to make the federal government into an affordable housing developer by, among other proposals, offering low-cost financing to affordable-housing builders. This approach falsely implies that housing is what economists call a public good – something governments provide because the market cannot.
National defence is a perfect example of a public good: private contractors alone would be unable to withhold protection from those who failed to pay for their services, incentivizing many to welcome the security without paying a dime. In economics jargon, this is known as the “free-rider problem.” Defence contractors would quickly go bankrupt, and the nation would be left defenceless. For this reason, the government is the primary provider of national defence in all functioning states.
If housing suffered from the same market failure as national defence, the government’s approach would have some merit. But it does not, indicating that housing is not, in fact, a public good. The laws of supply and demand are thus the most efficient way of determining both the quantity and price of housing.
In a free housing market, when prices begin to rise, builders build more units to earn higher profits. Over time, competition among builders, homeowners, and landlords forces prices back down because individuals who overcharge lose customers to those who do not. Because overcharging is bad for business, the market provides an abundance of housing at prices negotiated among millions of buyers and sellers. The result is a natural supply of affordable housing – no special incentives needed.
Some in Canada might dismiss this logic as hopelessly naïve. According to these individuals, inflated prices come primarily from landlords and developers squeezing Canadians for more profit and greed is running rampant in the Canadian housing market.
The truth is that developers and landlords are responding rationally to bad economic policy, and homebuyers and renters are footing the bill. Municipalities across Canada limit building heights, set aesthetic standards, ban certain types of construction in designated areas, impose parking requirements, and legislate minimum lot sizes, among a host of other land-use regulations.
These rules make housing harder and more costly to build, constraining supply and radically inflating prices. The C.D. Howe Institute estimates that these regulations cost homebuyers an average of $230,000 in Vancouver, Abbotsford, Victoria, Kelowna, Calgary, Toronto, and Ottawa-Gatineau. In Vancouver, that figure is an eye-watering $1 million.
It is this economic reality, not an unwillingness to build affordable housing, that lies at the root of Canada’s housing crisis.
Housing Minister Gregor Robertson inadvertently admitted as much when he cautioned that there would be no quick solution to Canada’s housing crisis because “projects take years to approve and build.” The minister failed to acknowledge that these delays are due to cumbersome municipal regulations.
To solve Canada’s housing crisis, Carney must begin by recognizing that affordable housing in Canada is in short supply because local governments have made it impossible to build. The housing market could provide affordable housing on its own – no taxpayer-funded subsidies required – if only the government would reduce burdensome industry regulations. Just look at jurisdictions with virtually no land-use regulations, like Houston, Texas, where housing is abundant and affordable. Studies have consistently shown that wherever land-use regulations are low, so are home prices.
To be fair, the Liberal Party’s election platform did acknowledge the need to cut federal housing regulations. It also suggested that it wanted local governments to streamline development, though it was short on specifics. But since the election, there is no sign that the government is moving forward with any of these proposals.
The prime minister needs to tell local governments that their federal funds will dry up if they don’t start getting out of the way of housing development. He should also offer bonuses to cities that are especially quick to build new units. Canadians need shovels in the ground now. It is time for the prime minister to use the bully pulpit to put them there.
Anthony De Luca-Baratta is a contributor to the Center for North American Prosperity and Security, a project of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, and a Young Voices Contributor based in Montreal. He holds a master’s degree in international relations from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, DC.
Business
Carney’s housing plan will likely spend a lot for very little

From the Fraser Institute
By Jake Fuss and Austin Thompson
The Carney government recently released its plan for a new federal housing “entity” called Build Canada Homes (BCH). Unfortunately, the plan is rife with conflicting priorities and major risks. Without course correction, Canadians could end up spending more while seeing no real progress on the housing crisis.
BCH’s core mandate is to cut the cost of homebuilding. Yet the plan would require BCH to favour Canadian-made and “net-zero” or environmentally conscious products. These goals are at odds. If a product needs a government preference to be used, it’s not the most cost-effective option. BCH won’t deliver affordable housing if it’s shackled by competing mandates. Simply put, chasing unrealistic “net-zero” targets and propping up domestic industries will drive up building costs.
To boost construction, BCH plans to use taxpayer dollars to reduce the financial risks to housing developers by providing loans, loan guarantees and equity investments for homebuilding. But slow and costly municipal approval processes remain one of the biggest sources of investment risk for housing developers. For example, developers face a 25-month wait, on average, for municipal planning approval in Toronto (compared to just 3.4 months in Edmonton). Federal spending won’t solve this problem—it will simply paper over the problem with expensive subsidies. In other words, to reduce financial risk for housing developers, the Carney government plans to stick Canadian taxpayers with the risks and costs of BCH loans and investments that may fail or underperform.
With BCH, the Carney government is also betting big on modular housing, based on the untested assumption that if Ottawa “drives demand” costs will plummet. Skepticism is warranted. If modular housing truly delivered on its promises of being cheaper, why haven’t private housing developers leapt at the opportunity? A study by Canada’s federal housing regulator found that modular housing is “no silver bullet,” noting that cost savings were uncertain and modular construction faces unique challenges related to transporting large prefabricated sections and protecting materials from weather damage.
At its core, the BCH approach rests upon a flawed assumption that the private sector cannot provide enough affordable housing. But that’s ahistorical—Canada had broadly affordable housing in decades past, provided almost entirely by the private sector. In reality, more private housing would be built today if all levels of government simply got out of the way and reduced taxes on housing development, relaxed rules on what can be built and where, and provided shorter and more certain approval processes.
Instead, through BCH, the Carney government plans to pump federal dollars into a broken housing system. Due to the shortage of construction labour, BCH projects may compete with private development rather than add greatly to the overall stock of houses—all at considerable cost to taxpayers.
Canada’s housing crisis won’t be solved by new agencies or lofty promises. On the contrary—governments should step back and let the private sector build. Build Canada Homes is yet another misguided Ottawa experiment: expensive, overreaching and ineffective.

Austin Thompson
Housing
PBO Refuses to Model Liberal Housing Promise

Liberals pledged to double housing construction (500,000 homes per year), But Parliamentary Budget Office Excludes It from Realistic Projections
You may have seen a new report from Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer—the same office that’s supposed to keep the government honest. It’s called “Household Formation and the Housing Stock: Estimating the Housing Gap in 2035.” Sounds technical? It is. Deliberately so. Because what it’s really doing is papering over one of the greatest policy-driven disasters in modern Canadian history.
You can read it—22 pages of graphs, footnotes, and soft-spoken bureaucratic lingo. But I’ll save you the time.
Here’s what it says:
Canada needs 3.2 million new homes by 2035 just to balance supply and demand. That’s 290,000 new homes a year. Every year. For 11 years straight.
From Immigration Surge to Housing Shortage
Let’s be clear: this didn’t just happen. This wasn’t an asteroid. This wasn’t climate change. This was government failure—Trudeau’s Liberals flooded the country with immigration without a plan to house anyone.
And now? Now they’re pretending to be surprised.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer just told us flat out: Canada will be short 690,000 homes by 2035 unless we add 3.2 million new units—that’s 290,000 completions per year, every year for the next 11 years.
But here’s the kicker: in 2024 alone, household formation hit 482,000 new households—the highest on record. And what did the housing stock grow by that same year? Just 276,000 units. That’s a gap of more than 200,000 homes in a single year.
Why? Demand outpaced Supply due to the Liberal policy on Immigration. In 2023, Canada brought in over 1 million newcomers when you count permanent residents, international students, and temporary foreign workers combined. But we didn’t build for them. We didn’t even try. Instead, Liberals told us to stop worrying—that the math would “work itself out.”
This is what happens when you run a country on slogans instead of arithmetic. The Liberals act like math is racist, like pointing out the obvious—that more people require more homes—is somehow offensive.
But the math doesn’t care about your feelings:
- 1 million people in.
- 276,000 homes built.
- 482,000 households formed.
You don’t need a PhD in economics to see the problem.
Meanwhile, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) the federal housing agency staffed by bureaucrats says we actually need 5.3 million new homes by 2035 to restore affordability. That’s 478,000 completions per year. For context, the all-time Canadian record is 276,000 in 2024. In other words, they’re demanding we build almost double the best year in Canadian history every single year, for a decade.
And here’s the part no one in Ottawa wants to say out loud: even the Parliamentary Budget Officer admits the current pace is smoke and mirrors. Yes, completions will look strong for the next three years a little sugar high averaging about 256,000 a year. But after that? It falls right back to normal, around 227,000 units annually.
And if you actually want to close the gap? If you want to make up for the 690,000 homes Canadians will be short by 2035? The math is brutal: we’d need 290,000 completions every single year. Not once. Not twice. For eleven years straight. That means outperforming 2024’s all-time record the best year in Canadian history every single year until 2035.
And how do they want to do it? By deliberately overbuilding until the vacancy rate hits 13%. Their idea of “affordability” is to flood the country with so many empty units that prices collapse. They actually admit this would mean abnormally high levels of unoccupied housing units and households with second homes.
This isn’t serious policy. This is what happens when the only tool in your toolbox is a spreadsheet. Instead of asking the obvious question—maybe stop importing more people than you can possibly house—they double down on fantasy construction targets they’ve never hit and never will.
So the supply-and-demand math works out like this: Liberals open the floodgates on immigration, CMHC panics, and then Ottawa tells you the “solution” is to build ghost condos no one lives in.
Final Thoughts
Let’s remember who Mark Carney is. He’s not a carpenter. He’s not even an economist in the traditional sense. He’s a Davos guy, a former Bank of Canada and Bank of England governor with deep ties to Wall Street, Bay Street, and the World Economic Forum.
And now this is the man presiding over the very same government that created this crisis. Nothing has changed. No one has been fired. It’s the same Prime Minister’s Office, the same Liberal MPs, the same Ottawa swamp that told you for years everything was under control. They opened the immigration floodgates without building homes, they inflated demand, and now they stand around pretending to be shocked at the results.
And here’s the proof: the Parliamentary Budget Officer spells it out in black and white this government has completely decoupled housing from affordability.
“Our estimate is not linked to a targeted measure of affordability.”
What does that tell you? It tells you the people in charge of housing policy in Canada don’t even pretend to care if you can afford a home. Affordability isn’t even on the whiteboard.
And here’s the part that’s so insulting: they have the numbers. They know exactly how many people they’re letting into the country. They set the immigration levels themselves. In fact, by 2027, Ottawa projects non-permanent residents will make up 5.3% of Canada’s population. That’s millions of people—on top of permanent resident intake, on top of natural population growth.
They know how many households will form. They know how many housing completions are projected—227,000 a year on average through 2035. And they know how many are required to even come close to balance—290,000 a year.
So what’s the plan? The Liberals say they’re going to “double housing construction.” Sounds great, except the PBO wouldn’t even bother modeling it. Why? Because it isn’t credible. They treated it as a press release, not a policy.
Think about that: Canada’s independent budget watchdog looked at the government’s big campaign promise and said, essentially, “We’re not wasting time pretending this will happen.” That’s how unserious it is.
Meanwhile, you the ordinary Canadian are told it’s normal if you can’t afford a home to raise a family. Normal if you’re stuck in your parents’ basement until you’re 40. Normal if your dream of owning a modest house has been outsourced to hedge funds, pension managers, or foreign buyers.
The Liberals know the math. They have the data. They’re the ones opening the front door to record levels of newcomers while refusing to build at scale. They’re the ones who could slow intake to match supply but won’t. Because in their view, it’s perfectly fine if you never own anything.
And that’s the real scandal here. This isn’t some bureaucratic mistake. This isn’t a rounding error. Canada’s housing crisis is deliberate Liberal policy, dressed up as incompetence. The same Liberal MPs, the same Prime Minister’s Office, the same swamp creatures have been running this file for years, and they’re never held accountable. No one gets fired. No one takes responsibility.
So let’s stop pretending they’ll suddenly have a change of heart. They won’t. The only way these Liberals will ever change their tune is if Canadians vote them out and throw them out of power. Period.
Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
-
Addictions1 day ago
Why North America’s Drug Decriminalization Experiments Failed
-
Business1 day ago
Disney scrambles as young men reject DEI-filled franchises
-
Alberta1 day ago
Good Sense Beats Team Canada’s Hysteria
-
Health1 day ago
The Hidden Risk of an Abortion
-
Alberta21 hours ago
New Calgary plant to produce luxury vinyl flooring with Alberta oil and gas
-
Business1 day ago
Carney’s housing plan will likely spend a lot for very little
-
Energy3 hours ago
Geothermal Energy in Canada: Overview, Developments, Exploration Areas, and Leading Companies
-
Business1 hour ago
Investors Fleeing Green Energy Scene After Death Of Biden’s Freebies