By now, it’s clear that housing affordability is poised to be a defining issue of the next federal election. As home prices soar and supply dwindles, Canadians—especially younger ones—are wondering if they’ll ever get a foot on the property ladder. Enter Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, who has been pounding the pavement with a bold housing proposal that promises to cut $100,000 off the cost of a newly constructed home. On paper, it sounds like a breath of fresh air. But does the plan actually address the root of the housing crisis, or is it just political scaffolding?
Poilievre’s pitch is to eliminate the federal sales tax (GST) on new homes up to $1.3 million and to partner with municipalities by reimbursing them for slashing local development fees. The savings would, in theory, be split evenly—$50,000 from the federal side, $50,000 from local government cooperation. And municipalities wouldn’t be left holding the bag: Ottawa would cover half their revenue loss from cutting building taxes, incentivizing them to ease up on what Poilievre calls a bureaucratic burden on homebuilders.
There’s a simple, compelling narrative here. Too much of the cost of building a home is wrapped up in red tape and fees—not in bricks, wood, or the skilled hands of carpenters and electricians. Poilievre paints a picture of hardworking tradespeople being held back by over-regulation, consultants, and municipal inefficiency. It’s a narrative that resonates with many Canadians, particularly in cities like Toronto and Vancouver where the cost of housing is enough to make anyone wince.
But here’s the question: is cutting taxes and speeding up permits enough to fix a fundamentally broken housing market?
The answer depends on whether municipalities are willing—and able—to play ball. Many cities rely heavily on development charges to fund infrastructure like roads, transit, and utilities. If that funding is cut, even partially offset by federal reimbursement, what gets left behind? And who ensures that savings are actually passed on to homebuyers, not pocketed by developers?
To his credit, Poilievre does include accountability measures in his plan. Municipalities would be required to report on how they use federal funds and justify their development charges. That kind of transparency is long overdue. But critics may rightly point out that these are carrots, not sticks—and in a crisis, carrots may not be enough.
Poilievre’s plan stands in stark contrast to what the Liberals are offering under leadership hopeful Mark Carney. Their strategy hinges on scaling up modular housing through a new federal body called Build Canada Homes. The idea is to churn out prefabricated homes in bulk and use them to stimulate the construction industry while also tackling the labour shortage by expanding apprenticeships.
It’s an ambitious plan, but also one that raises eyebrows. Carney’s ties to Brookfield Asset Management—an investment firm with major interests in modular housing—have drawn fire from Poilievre, who didn’t waste a moment calling out a potential conflict of interest. While Carney has promised to go “above and beyond” ethics rules, it’s a concern that won’t disappear easily, especially in today’s climate of skepticism toward political elites.
At the end of the day, Canadians aren’t looking for ideological purity—they just want homes they can afford. Poilievre’s plan is refreshingly focused on reducing costs quickly and getting government out of the way. But it also leans heavily on the assumption that deregulation alone will spark a building boom. Without addressing broader issues like skilled labour shortages, land use, and speculative buying, the plan may not deliver the volume of homes Canada desperately needs.
Still, for voters fed up with housing unaffordability and government inertia, Poilievre’s pitch may hit the right note: less bureaucracy, more building, and some much-needed relief on the price tag. Whether or not that’s enough remains to be seen—but at least the conversation is finally shifting from hand-wringing to action.
