When it comes to solving the housing crisis, Budget 2025 left a lot to be desired

The federal budget was the first big opportunity for Mark Carney’s government to show how it intends to solidify its vision for affordable, attainable and resilient housing across the country. While the Liberals’ economic plan features bold language, purposeful and coordinated action will need to follow to confront a matter as substantial as Canada’s housing crisis. Many of the budget’s housing measures were already announced prior to its official tabling, including the launch of Build Canada Homes, the Co-op Housing Development Program, the expansion of the Union Training and Innovation Program, and the reduction of GST for first-time home buyers. And while there were some new items unveiled when it was released—raising the issuance of Canada Mortgage Bonds from $60 million to $80 million and repealing the Underused Housing Tax—questions remain as to whether these steps together truly constitute a generational investment prepared to meet the scale of Canada’s housing challenges. Affordability cannot be restored by focusing on a certain segment of the housing spectrum. The government has said that 500,000 new homes need to be built, per year, to address Canada’s housing shortage. Housing of many different types is urgently required and a newly established federal agency aiming to build up to 45,000 mostly non-market units is only one part of the solution. And yet, there is no discernible plan in the budget for getting to the stated level. Recognizing that many of the levers related to housing are at the disposal of provincial and municipal governments, the federal level can maximize the use of its own particular tools. There is additional opportunity to utilize a broader swath of fiscal and funding approaches unique to Ottawa’s jurisdiction to productively attract investment into the housing system, and to lay the groundwork for an integrated strategy to build half a million homes annually. But compounding the challenge is the significant realignment of government operations. Some of the inherent complications in disentangling roles and responsibilities between Build Canada Homes and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) were acknowledged in the budget. CMHC has been Canada’s national housing agency since 1946 and has overseen the delivery of the National Housing Strategy since 2017, when, under Justin Trudeau, the federal government re-established a leadership role in housing. Funding for the decade-long strategy has already begun to sunset and there is uncertainty about how federal programs will be operated, or if the same ones will exist, in a couple years’ time. Bureaucrats are also working with fewer resources than in past years, against a backdrop of upheaval. In this context, approaching the desired level of housing starts may be particularly difficult, requiring careful attention to prevent projects from encountering delays and institutional hurdles. Prior to the spring election, the Liberal Housing Plan detailed a suite of measures to improve housing affordability—a plan that was described as the “most ambitious since the Second World War.” Several of the initiatives set out at that time were notably absent from the November budget, including cutting municipal development charges in half for multi-unit residential housing, re-introducing a refreshed Multi-Unit Residential Building tax incentive to support rental construction, and implementing other measures to address regulatory barriers, zoning restrictions, and other roadblocks to improve the speed of homebuilding. Only half a year ago, these were presented as critical elements for doubling home construction and ultimately addressing the housing crisis. There has been disappointment among some market and non-market housing providers with the lack of clarity on what happened to these pledges as they were first set out and whether the announced measures will indeed get more shovels in the ground. When expectations have been established, it seems only natural to try to reconcile these various positions. There was a plan, now there are changes to the plan and it’s not clear if it will meet the aspiration. Detailing how new federal measures constitute a strategic framework on housing and demonstrating alignment with efforts across levels of government is no small endeavour but is critical for getting partners in sync. On a matter as cross-cutting, multi-jurisdictional and important as housing, government at all levels, industry and non-profit housing providers need to keep working together on the path towards increased supply and improved affordability. The long-term stability and viability of housing in our country depends on it.