FEDERAL PLATFORM
More Neighbours Toronto
2025 Federal Election Housing Platform
Evaluation Framework
Housing affordability is now at the forefront of Canada’s economic and social challenges. The cost of housing has eclipsed all other expenses for many Canadians, directly affecting where people can live and work, whether they can stay near family, and even if they feel secure enough to start a family. In recent years, surging rents and home prices have fueled intergenerational inequality – with young adults forced to live with parents longer or leave the country in search of opportunity, undermining social cohesion and fairness. Secure and available housing must form the foundation for Canada to tackle every other looming challenge.
Housing is also a cornerstone of Canada’s long-term prosperity and resilience. With global trade uncertainties and Canada’s economy often pressured by larger partners, strengthening domestic industries like housing can provide stability . Boosting housing supply and affordability will not only ensure Canadians have homes – it will make our cities more competitive in attracting and retaining talent and investment.
Fast and effective action on the housing crisis is critical to Canada’s future prosperity. Public and private leaders increasingly recognize that if we fail to solve housing affordability, we put our entire economy at risk by driving away talent and eroding the next generation’s prospects.
Housing construction is key to boosting Canada’s economic prosperity and resiliency as a home-grown, labour-intensive industry with powerful economic multipliers across regions. Building homes stimulates a wide supply chain – from trades workers and material suppliers to engineers and local services – making it a robust domestic growth engine. Every new housing project creates good-paying jobs that cannot be offshored, spreading prosperity in communities across the country. Expanding housing supply can also ease the cost of living, improve productivity, and give Canada leverage in trade by reducing reliance on foreign capital flows into our real estate. Major financial institutions echo this urgency: “If we don’t solve [housing], it’s too expensive to live here, we don’t attract the talent, we don’t retain the next generation,” warned the CEO of RBC, emphasizing that Canada’s economic future rests on housing affordability. In short, housing is not just a social issue – it is fundamental to Canada’s economic resilience, productivity growth, and national interest.
The following evaluation framework lays out the thematic categories and policy expectations More Neighbours Toronto (MNTO) will use to grade federal major political parties on their housing platforms in the upcoming election. It lays out what we expect to see in credible, ambitious housing plans. We will focus on how parties plan to make housing abundant and affordable through bold federal leadership, coordination with other governments, and smart policy design. Housing is a national priority, and our grading will reflect which parties demonstrate the vision and courage to treat it as such. The evaluation is structured in six sections, each addressing a critical aspect of the housing crisis and the solutions needed.
1. Lead the Conversation
Parties will be evaluated on their commitment to take national leadership in housing reform and “lead the conversation” on breaking down barriers.
This means explicitly recognizing housing affordability as a cross-jurisdictional crisis that demands Prime Ministerial and Cabinet-level priority. We expect platforms to propose a proactive federal role in coordinating and incentivizing provincial and municipal action, rather than deferring entirely to other levels of government.
A pledge to renew or reform Canada’s National Housing Strategy to aggressively tackle supply shortages and affordability. The strategy should shift from abstract goals to concrete measures that accelerate homebuilding and remove obstacles.
For example, parties might call for overhauling federal housing programs so they better support rapid construction in today’s high-cost environment (the current strategy has struggled to deliver units fast enough). We will look for acknowledgement that past approaches need strengthening and a clear plan to realign federal efforts with the scale of the crisis.
A plan to bring provincial governments – especially unaffordable housing hotbeds like Ontario and B.C. – and big-city mayors (Toronto, Vancouver, and other GTA/GVA municipalities) to the table to forge intergovernmental agreements on housing. This could include establishing a federal-provincial task force or summit on housing supply.
The platform should propose using federal convening power to negotiate binding accords that require land use reform (e.g., ending exclusionary zoning), tax reform (e.g., eliminating or rebating taxes on new housing construction), streamlined permitting, and modernized building codes across jurisdictions. The goal is a Canada-wide push to remove bottlenecks – akin to historic federal-provincial efforts on health care or infrastructure, but for housing. Vague promises of “working with” other governments will score poorly; we want to see concrete proposals like linking funding to provincial actions (details in section 2) or model zoning template legislation offered to provinces.
A demonstrated willingness to challenge regulatory barriers and push for changes even when they are politically difficult. Federal leaders have often been hands-off with local zoning or permitting issues, but a top grade here requires assertiveness.
For example, a party might pledge to tie transit funding to city densification (thus pressuring cities to upzone), or threaten to withhold certain transfers from provinces that obstruct development. We will assess whether the platform signals urgent national leadership – treating housing like the emergency it is – or whether it shies away with “that’s not our jurisdiction” excuses.
Strong language recognizing that federal intervention is justified by the severity of the crisis will perform well. The party should make clear it will use federal tools (spending, convening, even constitutional powers if needed) to overcome NIMBYism and inertia at other levels. As an example of leadership, in Budget 2022 the federal government made transit aid contingent on provinces working with cities to build more homes, hinting at the kind of bold coordination we expect parties to expand upon.
Overall, high-scoring platforms will frame housing as a national priority on par with jobs or healthcare, and present a vision for federal leadership that inspires and compels other stakeholders to act. We want to see federal politicians who are ready to say: “We will champion housing reform from the top, break down silos between governments, and not hesitate to call out or challenge rules that keep homes from being built.” Anything less – such as merely continuing existing programs or deferring entirely to provinces – will indicate a lack of leadership in this category.
.
2. Pay for Results
This category assesses whether parties commit to tying federal funding to actual housing results. In the current economic climate and the state of the housing crisis, it is critical that every dollar is spent efficiently and gets Canadians the most housing units possible. MNTO will grade parties on plans to reform federal housing investments so that they “pay for results,” not just announcements.
Specifically, we expect platforms to pledge that major federal funding streams – such as the Housing Accelerator Fund, infrastructure grants, transit funding, and other city-building investments – will be conditional on measurable housing outcomes. High-level support for housing is not enough; parties must explain how they will ensure federal dollars directly incentivize the swift creation of housing supply.
A clear intention to make federal funds contingent on performance in enabling new housing. For example, a party might promise that cities will receive infrastructure or transit funding only if they meet targets for new housing approvals or construction starts. If a municipality drags its feet on updating zoning or speeds of permitting, it would risk losing federal dollars. This approach follows the principle of “funding for housing, not just funding for planning.”
We will look for concrete proposals, such as expanding the Housing Accelerator Fund’s requirements or the timely introduction of new legislation that mandates housing targets be met as a pre-condition for certain transfers. The idea has precedent – the 2022 federal budget rescue package for transit operations required provinces to agree to speed up housing construction. Similarly, federal housing programs abroad have successfully used competitive grants to reward cities that reform zoning. A top-grade platform will incorporate this philosophy throughout its housing commitments.
The platform should specify achievable metrics for success and how they will be monitored and enforced. It’s not enough to say “we’ll invest $X in housing” – we want “this investment will yield Y units by year Z, and if not, consequences follow.” For instance, a party could task CMHC or an independent housing auditor to track units permitted and built in each jurisdiction that receives federal aid.
Funding agreements could include claw-back clauses or bonus payments based on outcomes. We will grade highly any plan that includes transparent tracking (e.g. an online dashboard of housing outcomes by city) and real accountability if targets are missed. This demonstrates seriousness about follow-through, not just announcements.
Parties should acknowledge the implementation gap that often plagues housing policy. Many past initiatives failed to significantly boost supply despite big budget line items. In grading, we will favor language that focuses on delivery. For example, committing to reform the National Housing Strategy to fund projects upon completion or occupancy, rather than upfront, would be a positive sign.
Likewise, proposals to streamline federal approvals or reduce overlap to accelerate project timelines (ensuring federal processes don’t become their own bottleneck) fit here. The overarching question: does the party show that it will use federal funding as leverage to get the right housing built, rather than just as unconditional financial transfers?
Platforms strong in this category will convey a philosophy of “trust, but verify” – partnering with provinces and cities on housing, but insisting on results. As evidence that this approach works, we note that federal incentive funds have already spurred some municipalities to enact zoning changes they previously resisted. We will look for parties to double down on this strategy.
Conversely, platforms that simply promise large sums for housing without mechanisms to guarantee those dollars translate into roofs over heads will score poorly on accountability.
.
3. Reduce Bureaucratic Gatekeeping
Even when political will and funding align, housing can be delayed or derailed by slow, onerous approval processes. This category grades whether parties propose credible reforms to drastically cut red tape in housing development.
Canadians cannot afford multi-year delays for projects that should be routine. We will evaluate platforms on their plans to streamline and fast-track the permitting and approval of new housing, particularly by encouraging or enforcing improvements at the municipal level (where most delays occur).
A commitment to establishing accelerated timelines for development approvals. Canada ranked 34th out of 35 OECD countries for its permitting approval periods at 249 days. In Toronto, getting a project approved still takes over two years on average – a timeline that was improved from an even worse 32 months, yet remains far too long.
These delays drive up costs substantially, adding an estimated $2,700–$5,500 in extra cost per unit for each month a project is stuck in approval. Parties should pledge support for “shot clock” legislation or agreements that set hard maximum timelines for approvals (for example, requiring that rezoning or permit decisions be made within 6–12 months).
If the clock expires without a decision, the project could be deemed approved by default. Such automatic approval mechanisms would strongly incentivize quicker processing. We will reward platforms that explicitly endorse this type of reform, including implementing expansive as-of-right development, to end interminable waiting periods.
Support for moving to one-stop, unified permitting processes. Builders currently must navigate a labyrinth of departments and agencies. A strong platform might reference creating single online portals or “one window” systems where all necessary reviews are coordinated together.
For instance, British Columbia recently launched a digital Building Permit Hub to streamline local permitting across multiple jurisdictions – a one-stop shop that standardizes requirements and reduces duplicative steps. Federal parties could encourage or fund municipalities to adopt similar one-window e-permitting systems that vastly simplify and accelerate the steps to get shovels in the ground.
A pledge to condition federal tech funding on cities implementing e-permitting would score well here.
Plans to work with provinces and the National Building Code to update regulations that unnecessarily slow down or raise costs for new housing. This includes pushing for modern construction techniques (like mass timber or modular housing approvals), allowing innovative designs (for example, removing regulatory barriers to single-staircase apartment buildings, which Canada’s current code forbids in mid-rises), and standardizing codes across provinces to create efficiency for builders.
Parties should signal they are ready to cut outdated or overly prescriptive rules that act as gatekeepers without improving safety. We will also look for support to train and equip municipal planning offices to handle approvals faster (possibly via federal grants for additional staffing or technology in high-growth areas).
In essence, this category rewards platforms that grasp that time is money in construction, and that Canada’s bureaucratic status quo is unacceptable. A top-tier plan will detail how a party would use federal levers – whether funding incentives, convening power, or tying infrastructure grants to permitting performance – to pressure municipalities into clearing housing proposals faster.
Parties might, for example, promise to expand the Housing Accelerator Fund’s mandate to specifically reward cities that cut approval times below a certain benchmark. We will especially applaud any platform that names the problem (e.g. “25-month approvals in Toronto are untenable”) and offers a clear strategy to slash that timeline.
Reducing permitting delays is one of the quickest ways to lower housing costs and boost supply, and we expect all serious housing platforms to address it head-on.
.
4. Disincentivize Bad Behavior
This category examines whether parties propose measures to reduce harmful speculation and “paper flipping” in the housing market, while ensuring policies distinguish between unproductive investment in existing homes and investment in building new homes.
In Canada’s housing crisis, we need capital flowing into construction and development – not into bidding wars for the same limited stock of houses. We will grade platforms on their nuance and effectiveness in disincentivizing bad behaviors like hoarding and flipping homes, without chilling the financing and building of new supply.
We expect parties to put forward ideas to dampen speculative demand for existing housing. This could take the form of stricter taxes or regulations on quick flips (reselling a home after a very short holding period), vacant homes, or multiple property ownership.
For example, an anti-flipping tax that deems any profit from a home resale within 12 months as fully taxable (unless due to legitimate life changes) was recently implemented federally – parties could propose extending the required holding period beyond one year or increasing the tax rate on rapid flips. A higher surtax on owners of multiple residential properties (beyond their first or second home) could be another tool.
We will favor platforms that explicitly aim to deter practices like buying pre-construction condos purely to flip for gain, or parking money in empty homes, both of which make housing less affordable for end-users. The evidence is clear that speculative investment activity has been a driver of housing price inflation.
In 2021, investors (people with multiple properties) increased their share of home purchases significantly, which research links to higher prices and reduced affordability. Parties should demonstrate they will discourage this kind of demand that treats homes as speculative investments rather than places to live.
Importantly, any anti-speculation policy must be carefully designed not to deter investment in new housing supply. We will look for parties to articulate this distinction. For instance, applying a flipping tax to a condo unit resale is good to curb speculation – but offering exemptions or deferrals for investors who are actually developing new housing (e.g. building rental projects or adding units to a property) is also important. Similarly, parties might propose tightening taxes on assignment sales (where initial buyers sell purchase contracts before a home is built) to dissuade pure speculators, while expanding tax incentives for those who invest in rental construction or infill development. A high grade in this category goes to platforms that include targeted measures such as: a speculation tax aimed at non-resident owners of existing homes; progressive land value taxes or vacancy taxes to prompt under-used properties back onto the market; or reforms to limit excessive rent-seeking in the existing housing stock (for example, tightening rules on short-term rentals that remove units from the long-term market). At the same time, the platform should reassure that bona fide landlords, builders, and housing providers won’t be unfairly penalized – ideally through specific incentives for new builds (like low-cost financing, accelerated depreciation, or selling federal land cheaply for development). We will also check for recognition that investment is not the enemy – misallocated investment is. Capital must be reoriented from speculative resale into productive homebuilding.
In summary, parties should “disincentivize bad behavior” by making it less attractive to treat our existing homes as get-rich-quick assets, while encouraging the nation’s financial resources to go into creating housing.
One telling metric: as of 2020, about one in five housing units in several provinces were owned by investors rather than owner-occupants. Many of these investments provide rental housing, which is valuable – but many also represent folks with multiple properties outbidding first-time buyers and banking on perpetual appreciation.
A strong platform will propose to tilt the playing field back in favor of end users and builders. We will reward nuance and concrete policy in this area. Platforms that only focus on demand suppression (e.g. proposing to cut immigration or growth, which is addressed in section 6) without addressing speculative dynamics, or vice versa, will not score as highly as those that balance both sides of the equation. Overall, we seek a sensible mix of carrots and sticks: sticks for speculative hoarding of housing, carrots for productive investment in new supply.
.
5. Non-Market and Social Housing
While market-driven housing supply is crucial, the evaluation will also grade parties on their plans to support non-market housing options – including affordable rentals, cooperatives, not-for-profit housing, and public or social housing – and to provide housing for those whom the market will likely never serve adequately.
A comprehensive housing platform must recognize that market solutions alone will not reach everyone. This section examines whether parties have robust proposals to build and sustain housing that is decommodified and aimed at lower-income and vulnerable populations, as a complement (not a substitute) to overall supply expansion.
A bold idea increasingly discussed is establishing a federal or federally-backed public builder that can develop housing at cost on publicly owned lands. Parties will be rewarded for including a plan to inventory and unlock federal lands (such as underused government properties, surplus military bases, etc.) for affordable housing development.
Even better is a commitment to create a crown corporation or enhance CMHC’s mandate to directly build mixed-income housing on these lands. By acting as a master developer or partnering with non-profits and co-ops, a public builder could ensure long-term affordable units (below-market rentals or sale units with price controls) are created at scale.
We will look for concrete targets or pilot projects – e.g. “construct 50,000 homes on federal lands over 10 years, through a new Public Builder entity.” This would demonstrate a serious intent to expand non-market supply directly.
Beyond construction, platforms should address how they will support the ongoing viability of non-market housing. Social and affordable housing providers often struggle with operating costs once units are built.
A strong platform might propose: increasing the federal contribution to rent subsidies (like a significant expansion of the Canada Housing Benefit to help low-income tenants), providing low-interest financing or grants to non-profits to acquire existing rental buildings (thus preserving affordability), and offering annual operating subsidies for deeply affordable or supportive housing projects that can’t pay for themselves with low rents.
We will give high marks to parties that acknowledge the need for operational funding, not just capital. For instance, building new shelters or supportive housing for people exiting homelessness requires funding for support staff and services. A top platform will include dollar commitments or programs to ensure non-market housing providers (co-ops, community land trusts, municipal housing companies, etc.) have stable, long-term financing. This could include rebooting federal co-op housing programs, extending rent-geared-to-income agreements, or enhancing tax incentives for charitable housing providers. The key is that the platform treats non-market housing as a vital part of the solution, worthy of significant federal investment and support. Canada’s social housing stock as a share of total housing is well below the OECD average, and experts suggest doubling our social housing supply to catch up – we will check if party platforms rise to that challenge.
We expect parties to address the acute end of the housing spectrum – those experiencing homelessness or requiring supportive housing (such as people with mental health or addiction challenges). This includes commitments to funding shelters, transitional and supportive housing units, and programs like “Housing First” to end chronic homelessness.
High-scoring platforms will, for example, commit to a clear goal like ending chronic homelessness within a decade (as some parties have provincially) and back it up with federal dollars to cities and non-profits for shelter spaces, supportive housing construction, and associated support services.
Additionally, a recognition of Indigenous housing needs (both on- and off-reserve) and dedicated strategies to fund urban Indigenous housing and northern housing will boost a platform’s grade in this section. The moral and economic case is clear – providing housing with supports for those in need saves money in policing and health care and is essential for an inclusive prosperity. We will look for compassion backed by funding in party platforms.
As noted by housing advocates, a diversity of models – public, non-profit, co-op, and private – is needed to fix this crisis. Top marks will go to parties that show a deep commitment to build more affordable and supportive housing and to sustain it for the long term, covering not just construction but maintenance and operations.
Canada must significantly ramp up its non-market housing to ensure those left behind by the private market have a secure home. Platforms recognizing that reality, with serious funding attached, will excel in this category.
MNTO emphasizes that non-market housing proposals should be in addition to, not in place of, market-driven supply measures. Parties that only talk about subsidized housing but ignore overall supply will be scored down elsewhere, and vice versa. The ideal platform pairs aggressive market reforms with equally ambitious affordable housing investments – reflecting our philosophy of “more homes of all kinds.” For example, one could allow mid-rise apartments everywhere (market reform) and create a federal acquisition fund for non-profits to buy older rental buildings (non-market intervention). We will reward such comprehensive approaches.
.
6. Immigration and Housing
Canada’s population is growing rapidly, in part due to deliberate increases in immigration – a key driver of our economy and labor force. However, housing supply has not kept pace with this growth, contributing to the strain on home prices and rentals. In this final category, we assess whether parties present a coherent approach to connect immigration policy with housing policy.
This has two aspects: (1) ensuring housing construction is scaled up to meet the needs of a growing population, and (2) leveraging immigration to help solve housing supply constraints by bringing in skills and labour for building homes. Parties will be graded on acknowledging this linkage and proposing strategies so that Canada’s welcome to newcomers is matched by a plan to house everyone affordably.
We will check if parties connect the dots between their housing supply plans and the government’s immigration forecasts. For instance, if Canada plans to welcome ~500,000 permanent residents per year, plus hundreds of thousands of students and temporary workers, that could mean roughly 200,000+ new households forming each year (given that many newcomers arrive as family units).
Do the platforms explicitly acknowledge this demand? A top-tier platform might set a national homebuilding goal that exceeds population growth – for example, committing to a target of housing starts (say 500,000 per year within 5 years) that outstrips new household formation, thereby easing the shortage over time.
It is crucial to incentivize provinces with high immigration to aggressively upzone and build, such as tying some immigration funding or settlement funding to housing outcomes. Similarly, federal investments targeted at high-growth cities to expand housing are necessary, recognizing that those cities shoulder the largest burden of accommodating newcomers.
We will reward honesty and proactiveness – parties that say, in effect, “We support continued immigration, but we will make sure housing supply is expanded in lockstep so that newcomers and existing Canadians alike can find homes” and provide details on how.
The other side of this coin is using immigration as a tool to increase housing construction capacity. Canada faces a skilled labour shortage in construction – we simply don’t have enough tradespeople (carpenters, electricians, plumbers, etc.) to build at the needed scale, especially as many current workers near retirement.
Parties will be graded well if they propose reforms to immigration programs to attract and retain the trades needed for homebuilding. This could include: creating or expanding a dedicated immigration stream for construction workers, fast-tracking visas and credentials for internationally trained trades, and regularizing the status of undocumented workers already building homes in Canada.
Notably, the federal government just announced new measures to bring in more construction tradespeople and to allow more flexibility for immigrants working in construction. We will look for parties to build on these initiatives – for example, by setting a target to welcome tens of thousands of construction workers per year through economic immigration programs or by working with unions and colleges to recruit talent from abroad. Parties should also address how they will ensure newcomers can actually work in their fields (through credential recognition, training, etc.).
A standout platform might say it will convene industry and immigration officials to align the annual immigration mix with labour market needs, heavily weighting occupations that will directly alleviate the housing shortage. The message should be “We will welcome the people who help build the housing we need.”
In grading this section, MNTO will favour realism and integration. Given Canada's significant population growth, housing policy cannot be developed in isolation from immigration. Strong proposals will outline plans to scale housing alongside immigration, such as funding municipalities for newcomers with zoning reform conditions, adjusting student visa policies to promote campus housing, or offering provinces funding incentives for meeting immigration and housing targets.
Platforms that solely focus on demand reduction, such as drastically cutting immigration, or only on supply without considering increasing demand may be viewed as one-dimensional. Canada can grow its economy and housing stock together, but the federal government must actively manage both. The best platforms will demonstrate a long-term vision: a prosperous Canada with a larger population must ensure that everyone has a home, with housing and immigration strategies aligned toward this goal.
.
Conclusion
This framework outlines the criteria More Neighbours Toronto will use to evaluate federal parties’ housing platforms in the upcoming election. It is designed to be an objective tool reflecting our commitment to serious housing reform. We have centered housing as fundamental to Canada’s national interest – for economic growth, trade resilience, social stability, and generational fairness.
When parties release their platforms, we will grade them against the expectations in each of these six categories. We hope this transparent criteria guide pushes all parties to be more ambitious and detailed in their housing solutions. The housing crisis can be solved – but it requires leadership, accountability, creativity, and courage from our federal leaders. Our evaluation will shine a light on who is stepping up to that challenge.