Canada’s housing crisis is the result of a chronic shortage of homes in the locations where people want and need to live. This is not a new problem, nor is it a particularly complex one.

Yet, every election cycle, we see a wave of policy announcements, promises and campaign slogans that suggest the solution lies in financial incentives or one-off programs.

In reality, the single most impactful step politicians could take is to make housing delivery less political.

The real barrier: Local governance and NIMBYism

At the root of the housing crisis is a governance structure that gives disproportionate influence to a small segment of the population: those who oppose change in their own neighbourhoods. Municipal councils — tasked with approving new housing — are often more responsive to vocal opposition than to long-term planning goals or demographic needs.

Projects that align with an official plan can take years to approve, often facing delays, redesigns and appeals. In practice, this means that even well-intentioned policies at the federal or provincial levels are routinely undermined by municipal processes that are highly susceptible to political pressure and short-term local interests.

Housing should be a planning issue, not a political debate

Housing is a fundamental need. It should be treated as infrastructure — planned, delivered and maintained through clear rules and predictable systems.

Instead, it is politicized at every level. Debates over density, height, tenure and tenure mix become opportunities for elected officials to posture, delay, or block projects based on the loudest voices in the room.

This is not how we deliver transit, schools, or utilities — nor should it be how we manage the production of housing.

What needs to change

If governments are serious about addressing the housing crisis, they must depoliticize the production process. This can be achieved through several key actions:

• Provincial oversight: Provinces must set clear housing targets and hold municipalities accountable for meeting them, using funding and regulatory tools as leverage.
• As-of-right zoning: Legalize more housing — particularly multifamily (midrise on avenues) and missing-middle typologies — through zoning reform that allows projects to proceed without discretionary approvals.
• Planning certainty: Establish and enforce rules that give clarity to both communities and developers. When a proposal meets the established criteria, it should be approved without delay.

Reducing politics doesn’t mean reducing democracy

Critics may argue that reducing political involvement in housing undermines democracy, but the opposite is true. Democracy depends on fair, transparent and accountable systems that serve the public good — not on ad hoc decision-making driven by whomever shows up to a council meeting.

Planning based on clear rules and long-term policy protects the democratic interest of all residents, including those who are not yet housed or cannot attend local hearings. Making housing delivery more predictable and less political is about strengthening democracy, not weakening it.

It’s time to take politics out of housing delivery

Canada’s housing crisis is not the result of a lack of ideas, funding or public interest.

We have a clear understanding of what needs to be done: increase the supply of housing in areas with jobs, transit, and services; reduce regulatory delays; and ensure a mix of housing types and tenures. What stands in the way is not technical complexity — it is the way we govern housing.

Our current system allows and even encourages delay. It enables well-organized opposition groups to obstruct new housing, even when it meets all official requirements. And it forces every project to become a debate, rather than a process guided by clear, predictable rules.

If politicians are serious about solving this crisis, they should focus on systemic reform — especially reforms that limit the role of politics in housing delivery. That means empowering planners, setting enforceable targets and building systems where good projects move forward without needing political approval at every stage.

We do not subject critical infrastructure like water systems or schools to endless political debate each time they are needed. These investments are guided by clear standards, long-term planning and professional expertise.

Housing should be approached the same way.

Until we recognize it as essential infrastructure — planned and delivered through consistent policy rather than short-term political interests — we will continue to face the same avoidable barriers and shortages.