Note: This page and scorecard were updated on April 18, 2025, to reflect the platforms that were released as of April 16, 2025.
Canada’s Economic and Social Challenge: Housing Affordability and Availability
In early April 2025, we released our federal housing platform, with suggestions of policies that we want to see from federal election parties. We outlined six categories that address various areas in which the elected federal government can and should take action to address the housing crisis. As housing affordability and availability remain top-of-mind for Canadians, and as we head to the polls, this score card offers a comparative analysis of how Canada’s major political parties — Canada’s New Democratic Party (NDP), the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC), the Green Party of Canada (GPC) and the Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) propose working towards achieving better housing outcomes.
By evaluating the depth, feasibility, and ambition of each party’s platform, our analysis highlights strengths, and shortcomings, and areas for improvement in the federal housing policy landscape.
Election Day is April 28, 2025 and you can vote at your local polling station beforehand. For more information, visit Elections Canada.
Methodology
The process of grading platforms is an nonpartisan evaluation of what a given political party has proposed. We recognize that i.) there is subjectivity in the interpretation of platforms and the choice of our grading categories and, ii.) party platforms may not align exactly with our suggestions, however the spirit, intent and impact of a platform, especially when implemented as policy, should align with the goal of better housing outcomes across Canada. Given these caveats we welcome any corrections from parties if we have missed or misinterpreted published information.
As of April 16, 2025, Canada’s New Democratic Party (NDP), the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC), the Green Party of Canada (GPC) and the Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) have released key platform promises on housing. This evaluation does not include promises discussed at the April 16, 2025 Federal Leaders Debate. We evaluated these four party platforms based on six categories:
- Lead the Conversation
- Pay for Results
- Reduce Bureaucratic Gatekeeping
- Disincentivize Bad Behaviour
- Non-Market and Social Housing
- Immigration and Housing
We gave each category a grade, and then combined these to assign an overall grade. Parties platforms that explicitly mentioned elements of a given category coupled with fulsome and intentional implementation plans scored highest per category. Additionally, credit was given to platforms that contained the spirit of a desired outcome. Party platforms that did not adequately address, if at all, a criteria within a given category scored lowest.
Overall, the parties somewhat address elements of each category; however, no platform fully balances vision with execution. We acknowledge that election platforms differ from policy statements and therefore may not contain high levels of details. However, for the most part we would appreciate more detailed implementation plans.
- NDP (Grade: C+): Strong moral commitment to housing equity, especially in non-market initiatives. However, a lack of clarity on implementation and regulatory complexity weaken their platform’s practicality.
- CPC (Grade: B-): Strong on setting the housing agenda and proposing assertive tools to garner results. However, they fall short on social housing and implementation detail, with some policies risking inefficiency or unintended consequences .
- GPC (Grade: D+): Advocates for ambitious goals but provides little operational detail. Their limited engagement across key categories prevents them from being competitive in the current housing debate.
- LPC (Grade: B+): Offers a decent housing strategy in most categories, especially in non-market housing and regulatory reform. Their track record tempers optimism, but new leadership may signal real change.
What follows is a scorecard and a detailed analysis of the party platforms relative to each category.
Detailed Scorecard
|
Category |
||||
|
Overall Score |
C+ |
B- |
D+ |
B+ |
|
1. Lead the Conversation |
C |
A- |
D |
B- |
|
Does the party commit to a National Housing Strategy (NHS) renewal? |
Yes |
No |
No |
Not specific to the NHS |
|
Do the parties indicate intent to convene provinces and cities? |
Yes |
No |
No |
Not specifically |
|
Is there a willingness to challenge the status quo? |
Somewhat |
Somewhat |
No |
Somewhat |
|
2. Pay for Results |
B- |
B+ |
D |
B- |
|
Do the platforms offer conditional funding mechanisms? |
No |
Yes |
No |
No |
|
Do platforms include clear metrics and enforcement tools? |
No |
Somewhat |
No |
Somewhat |
|
Do platforms include emphasis on delivery over promises? |
No |
Somewhat |
No |
No |
|
Do the platforms take action to intensify housing near transit? |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Somewhat |
|
3. Reduce Bureaucratic Gatekeeping |
C+ |
C |
D |
A- |
|
Do platforms outline plans for faster timelines and “shot clocks”? |
Yes |
Somewhat |
No |
Yes |
|
Do platforms include plans for one-window permitting systems? |
No |
No |
No |
No |
|
Do platforms outline plans to modernize codes and standards? |
No |
No |
No |
Yes |
|
4. Disincentivize Bad Behavior |
D+ |
C |
D+ |
B |
|
Do platforms outline anti-speculation measures? |
Not specifically |
Somewhat |
No |
Somewhat |
|
Do platforms include plans for protecting and channelling investment into new construction? |
No |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
|
5. Non-Market and Social Housing |
B |
D |
C |
A |
|
Do platforms plan for a public builder and the use of federal lands? |
Somewhat |
Somewhat |
No |
Yes |
|
Do platforms include plans for financing and operating support for non-profit housing? |
Yes |
No |
No |
Somewhat |
|
Do platforms address homelessness, shelters, and supportive housing needs? |
Yes, without details |
No |
Somewhat |
Yes |
|
6. Immigration and Housing |
C |
C- |
C |
C- |
|
Do the platforms address building housing for a growing population? |
Somewhat |
Somewhat |
Somewhat |
No |
|
Do the platforms link immigration to boosting housing supply (skilled trades)? |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
Lead the Conversation
Housing remains one of the most pressing challenges facing Canadians today. In this section we assessed how effectively each federal party is shaping and advancing the national housing conversation. Strong leadership in this area isn’t just about volume—it's about proposing coherent solutions, setting a clear vision, and engaging key players across all levels of government. While some parties are loud on the issue, fewer offer credible pathways forward.
The Conservatives have taken a prominent role in raising housing as a national issue. Their emphasis on affordability has kept the issue in the public eye, and they were the first to propose cutting GST on new homes under $1.3 million—prompting the Liberals to follow suit. However, despite strong rhetoric, their platform lacks depth and innovation, falling short of initiatives like the original National Housing Strategy. Their proposed mechanism of tying federal funding to municipal results might spur action but risks alienating stakeholders and may not foster the collaborative environment needed for long-term solutions.
As is a broader trend in our analysis, the Greens received a lower score due to the limited detail in their housing platform. While they state the intention to “get back to building housing,” they do not outline how they will overcome barriers or coordinate efforts across provinces and municipalities. Without a clear plan to drive action, their contribution to the conversation remains minimal.
The Liberal Party has made visible efforts in recent months to position housing as a central national issue, underscored by their campaign slogan “it’s time to build.” Their pledge to double the rate of residential construction over the next decade signals ambition—but also raises questions about feasibility. While a new party leader does mark a potential shift in direction, it’s difficult to separate this from the party’s ten-year record in government, where action often lagged behind rhetoric. This tension between renewed ambition and past inaction impacted their score in this category.
The NDP has consistently emphasized affordable housing and has proposed building 3 million homes by 2030—or 600,000 per year. They promise cooperation with provinces and municipalities to achieve this goal. However, the lack of specificity on implementation, aside from cutting development charges and encouraging prefabrication, weakens their credibility. Many of their housing promises read more like slogans than actionable plans.
Pay for Results
All major political parties that released campaign proposals seem to recognize the importance of addressing Canada’s housing crisis by tying federal funding to housing outcomes. This shared acknowledgment marks a promising foundational step, demonstrating a basic understanding of supply-side solutions. However, while the rhetoric is present, a common shortfall across the board is the lack of detailed implementation strategies or clear accountability mechanisms. Additionally, we would have appreciated robust strategies for Indigenous, rural, and remote housing—some of the most underserved communities in Canada.
While tying federal funding to housing outcomes is a common theme, the approaches of these proposals vary widely. The Conservatives propose direct conditionality, the Liberals and NDP lean on incentives, and the Greens lack any substantial tie-in altogether.
The Conservatives emphasize performance-based incentives and direct conditionality, proposing to tie federal infrastructure funding to a 15 percent annual increase in housing starts. Municipalities that exceed these targets would be awarded a “super bonus,” an approach designed to reward rapid development. However, the platform fails to explain how this bonus would be calculated or enforced and lacks critical details on performance monitoring and equitable application across municipalities. Furthermore, it assumes all municipalities have the same capacity to grow, which could unfairly penalize those with geographic or infrastructural limitations. Although the Conservative platform is appealing to market-oriented reformers for its accountability framework, it notably lacks a focus on the mechanisms required to ensure these outcomes are met.
The Liberals propose an incentive-driven strategy, relying heavily on investment through the Housing Accelerator Fund (HAF). Their platform includes public reporting of municipal housing outcomes and a resurgence of the Multiple Unit Rental Building (MURB) tax allowance (a tax incentive intended to spur construction of rentals by shifting behaviour to favour home building over buying). While the Liberal Party set an ambitious goal of building 500,000 homes per year, this figure is presented without supporting evidence or a detailed implementation roadmap. Their emphasis on reducing zoning regulations is also presented without specificity, weakening the credibility of this commitment. Moreover, while the platform encourages municipalities to adopt pro-housing reforms, there are no strong enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance. This approach, while transparent and well-intentioned, relies heavily on policy and planning instead of delivery and accountability and may falter in implementation.
The NDP Party takes an equity-focused stance, emphasizing affordability, tenant protections, and non-market housing development. Their platform proposes tying federal funding to tenant rights and rent control, and they advocate for a substantial investment in social housing. While this approach offers a social equity vision, it is hampered by vague enforcement mechanisms and a poorly articulated funding model. The NDP’s goal to build 500,000 affordable units is commendable, yet questions remain about its feasibility given proposed funding and current labor, material, and jurisdictional challenges.
The Green Party received a low score due to the absence of a policy linking federal funding to housing outcomes. Although their overall platform includes a strong focus on public housing, it does not address supply-side levers. As a result, their proposal lacks the tools needed to drive large-scale change or hold municipalities accountable for results.
While most parties signal a willingness to use federal dollars to influence tangible housing outcomes, their approaches differ in philosophy, structure, and strength. The Conservatives propose a conditional, performance-based model, while the Liberals offer incentives tied to transparency. The NDP centers its plan on tenant rights, and the Greens largely omit key policy levers in this area.
Reduce Bureaucratic Gatekeeping
Critical to our analysis in this category is how Canada’s major federal parties aim to reduce bureaucratic gatekeeping in housing policy, with a focus on their plans to streamline approval processes, cut red tape, and enable faster homebuilding across municipalities.
The Conservatives propose a NIMBY penalty on big city gatekeepers for egregious cases of NIMBYism. They would empower residents to file complaints about NIMBYism with a federal ministry. For well-founded complaints, they would withhold infrastructure dollars until municipalities remove the blockage and allow homebuilding to take place. They would also reward cities who are removing gatekeepers and getting homes built by providing a building bonus for municipalities who boost homebuilding, and require those seeking federal funds to pre-approve building permits for high-density housing and employment on all available land surrounding transit stations.
However, the practicality of their proposed “NIMBY hotline” is questionable. Delegating complaint management to a federal ministry could add more bureaucracy rather than eliminate it. While their support for pre-approving permits near transit is welcome, there is little clarity on implementation. The absence of explicit commitments to zoning and building code reforms limits their effectiveness in this area.
The Green Party has not made any announcements related to reducing housing-related bureaucracy, and thus could not be awarded anything higher than “D”.
The Liberal Party’s platform includes specific and promising proposals, such as:
- Streamlining regulations for prefabricated housing
- Promoting pre-approved, standardized designs
- Accelerating permit approvals, especially for repeat applicants
- Reforming the Building Code to simplify construction standards
- Cutting municipal development charges for multi-unit housing
While these measures are thoughtful, the platform does not fully explain how the federal government would enforce or coordinate them, given jurisdictional limits. Despite a mixed track record, the Liberals renewed focus and new leadership suggest a potentially more effective future approach.
The NDP would replace the Housing Accelerator Fund (HAF) with two new initiatives: the Canadian Homes Transfer (CHT) and the Communities First Fund (CFF). These programs would:
- Mandate multi-unit housing across all neighborhoods
- Speed up approvals and cut development charges
- Encourage prefabricated construction
- Require Project Labour and Community Benefits Agreements
- Demand national rent control compliance and end exclusionary zoning
Although the vision is bold and contains many desirable elements, the additional requirements may add complexity and slow implementation. A clearer policy design would improve credibility.
While each party offers varying levels of ambition and detail, the effectiveness of their proposals hinges on practical implementation and federal-provincial coordination; ultimately, the Liberals and NDP demonstrate more comprehensive planning, though not without limitations, while the Conservatives and Greens fall short in key areas of clarity and feasibility.
Disincentivize Bad Behaviour
Large investments in housing are required to tackle the housing affordability crisis, which makes it imperative that these investments are channeled towards bringing new supply into the market rather than inflating the value of existing housing assets.
The Green Party focuses on Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITS) and stopping corporations from buying single family homes. While we do not believe these two forms of investment are barriers to bringing more supply to the market, these changes are unlikely to materially change the affordability of prices or rents. Their anti-money laundering proposals are laudable but similarly would have a limited effect on supply. The absence of meaningful policies linked to direct investment earns the Greens a low score in this category.
The NDP’s proposal centers upon banning price-fixing by corporate landlords. While this intervention may address equity concerns, it does not tackle the key issue of affordability. Additional inferences about banning corporations from buying affordable homes, which absent further detail is a proposal too vague to evaluate. The lack of policies that aim to direct investment to more productive ends earns the NDP a low score in this category.
The star promise of the Conservative Party is to remove GST on new homes up to $1.3 million. GST currently applies to new builds but not to existing homes, making it a disincentive to buy a new home. This behaviour is exactly what we want to change. Notably this proposal is more expansive than the Liberals equivalent; in effect eliminating the first-time home buyer and primary residence requirement. While both changes increase the cost of the proposal substantially, we do expect positive supply effects. However, the effectiveness of these proposals is undermined by the plan to finance them through the elimination of the Housing Accelerator Fund. Other Conservative Party proposals include deferring taxes on capital gains when making investments in homebuilding, which explicitly channels investment into building. Overall, they receive credit for promising two strong investment-oriented reforms but lose points for the lack of anti-speculation measures.
The Liberals propose a GST cut applied to homes under $1 million but this intervention is limited to first-time buyers. While still beneficial, the measure would be more effective with broader applicability—for example, by including seniors downsizing after their children leave home or individuals relocating between cities. Additionally, the return of the Multiple Unit Residential Building (MURB) tax deduction for rental construction is a well-targeted incentive. The reintroduction of this initiative first launched in the 1970s should promote the construction of purpose-built rentals by allowing investors to deduct capital cost allowance losses from other income sources. This particularly encourages small-scale investors to build rental properties of varying types. While the Liberal Party’s platform is thoughtful about directing investment into building, their platform is silent on measures to curb speculation.
All parties acknowledge the need for investment in housing, but only the Conservatives and Liberals offer concrete proposals to channel funds toward new supply. However, both fall short in addressing speculative activity, and the Greens and NDP lack clear, targeted policies to drive productive housing investment.
Non-Market and Social Housing
While market-driven housing supply is crucial, investments in non-market and social housing are critical, particularly for lower-income and vulnerable populations that are ill-served by the private market. Several party platforms acknowledge this need, with one party making major commitments to build more public housing.
The Conservative Party platform makes little to no mention of social and non-market housing, aside from a plan to sell and convert 15% of federal buildings into “affordable housing”. “Affordable” is not defined nor is any enforcement mechanism detailed. Additionally, the platform demonstrates a lack of interest in federal support for non-market housing, and the absence of social and non-market housing in the platform earns the party a low grade in this category.
The Green Party proposes (this is one of the few categories with content to evaluate) a return to federal housing construction on a 1970s scale - promising to “get the federal government back in the business of building housing”. Publicly-funded housing will cost buyers or renters no more than 30% of their income, an affordability requirement to be enforced through unspecified “covenants.” The Greens’ plans for social and non-market housing are big on broad strokes but light on details and substance. They score slightly higher here due to intent, but the vagueness holds them back.
We might expect social housing to be the bread and butter (or jam, if you prefer) of the NDP platform, and this is indeed the category in which they score best. The NDP pledges to build 100,000 rent-controlled homes on public land in the next 10 years. They propose investing $1 billion into the Public Land Acquisition Fund over five years to purchase additional land for the purpose of building rent-controlled homes. They promise $4 billion to help non-profit providers buy rentals that might otherwise be purchased and run by for-profit companies. A new Canada Homes Transfer fund would reward cities that “commit to 20 percent non-market housing in every neighbourhood,” though it’s unclear how this could be achieved. Additionally, the Communities First Fund, would incentivize provinces to bring forward strategies for ending homelessness and encampments. These are strong commitments but would benefit from more detail on feasibility and coordination.
The Liberals deliver a centrist social housing plan. Their “Build Canada Homes” crown corporation proposal would provide $10 billion in low-cost financing, 60% of which would support deeply affordable, supportive, and Indigenous housing. Their use of a Housing First strategy and tailored housing for vulnerable populations is both innovative and practical. This earns them the highest grade in this category.
The NDP and Liberals offer the most substantial commitments to non-market and social housing, the Liberals stand out for their robust and targeted approach. The Greens show decent intent but lack specifics, and the Conservatives fall significantly short by excluding meaningful support for this critical housing sector.
Immigration and Housing
Given the importance of immigration in Canada's social and economic fabric, we were hopeful that parties would issue election platforms that aligned immigration and housing policy as a tool to solve current supply and demand challenges. We also hoped to see this tension addressed through non-immigration restrictionist approaches. At the time of writing, no party has released a housing-integrated immigration strategy. All parties acknowledge that immigration targets should reflect provincial capacity, but most fall short on linking this notion with housing supply policy. As such we awarded all parties a moderately low score in this category.
The NDP and Greens take a slightly more productive approach, discussing skilled worker recruitment and welcoming displaced U.S. talent. However, specifics are lacking.The Conservatives and Liberals both use limiting language when discussing immigration targets. The Conservatives are particularly explicit about cuts.
Conclusion
Overall grades reflect a combination of each party’s performance across our six evaluation categories, including leading the conversation, paying for results, reducing bureaucracy, disincentivizing bad behaviour, support for non-market and social housing and immigration/housing policy. While partially based on a simple average of these scores, final grades also account for the overall feasibility, practicality, and coherence of each platform. In particular, we assessed whether parties not only identified the right goals, but also offered credible, actionable plans for achievement.
The Conservative Party has clearly and consistently elevated housing as a central issue in this election. Their platform takes an assertive, results-oriented approach, emphasizing performance-based incentives and holding municipalities accountable through conditional funding. This signals a serious intent to push for more homebuilding in Canada. However, the platform lacks a credible strategy for addressing Canada’s deep affordability challenges. There is no clear plan to support or expand social and non-market housing, nor is there meaningful attention to zoning reform or building code modernization. The tools proposed—such as the “NIMBY hotline”—often appear more symbolic than practical, and risk adding new layers of bureaucracy rather than reducing them. While the Conservatives are clearly driving the conversation and proposing bold measures to spur supply, the lack of detail, questionable execution, and absence of inclusive housing policies ultimately limit the platform’s effectiveness. As a result, we gave the Conservative Party a final grade of B-.
The Liberal Party received a final grade of B+, reflecting a platform that combines innovative, well-targeted policy tools with a comprehensive approach to non-market housing. Their proposals to revive the Multiple Unit Residential Building (MURB) tax incentive, to invest in public builders like the new Canada Builds Homes (BCH) program, and to cut development charges for multi-unit housing all demonstrate a clear understanding of the supply challenges and the need to direct investment toward new construction. Notably, they are the strongest among all parties when it comes to social and non-market housing, with detailed, ambitious commitments that acknowledge the scale and complexity of Canada’s housing needs. However, this forward-looking platform must be weighed against the party’s mixed track record over the past decade, during which significant gaps persisted despite federal leadership. While recent efforts suggest a shift in direction, the Liberals must demonstrate stronger leadership in shaping the national conversation and translating policy into delivery and positive outcomes. Their grade reflects both the quality of their current platform and the lingering credibility gap they must still overcome.
The Green Party received a final grade of D+ due to the lack of concrete, actionable policies in their housing platform. While they recognize the urgency of Canada’s housing crisis and express a desire to build more housing, their platform lacks the detail and mechanisms needed to translate that ambition into results. Key levers such as tying federal funding to outcomes, streamlining approvals, or incentivizing new construction are absent. Instead, the Greens focus on curbing corporate ownership and foreign investment, which may reflect broader concerns about housing equity but are unlikely to meaningfully increase supply or improve affordability. Their proposal to reintroduce federally-funded housing at a 1970s scale is bold in spirit, but vague in execution. With few specifics on implementation, coordination with other governments, or timelines for delivery, the platform falls short of offering a credible roadmap to tackle the crisis—resulting in a below-average grade.
The New Democratic Party received a final grade of C+ for presenting a platform that articulates the right priorities—such as ending exclusionary zoning, expanding non-market housing, and accelerating construction—but falls short on implementation. The NDP clearly understands that Canada’s housing crisis is rooted in both affordability and supply, and their commitments to build 3 million homes and mandate pro-housing reforms at the municipal level reflect a commendable sense of urgency. However, the platform lacks a credible roadmap for delivering on these goals. Many of the proposed initiatives are heavy on rhetoric and light on practical details, with unclear timelines, funding mechanisms, and jurisdictional coordination. Some elements of their platform may unintentionally slow down housing delivery. While the platform reflects strong values and an equity-driven vision, its limited operational clarity and potential barriers to building prevent them from achieving a higher score.
Make Your Voice Heard
We hope that these summaries are useful and can inform your vote to advance housing across Canada. Election Day is April 28, 2025.