Canada's Housing Fix: A Win-Win Plan or a Developer's Playbook?

BURLINGTON, ON – November 25, 2025 – A new study from Concordia University, conducted in collaboration with private real estate investment firm Equiton Inc., is making a bold claim: incentivizing homebuilding isn't just a social necessity, but a powerful engine for economic growth. The report, titled Build and Benefit, reframes the housing debate by arguing that policies designed to accelerate construction offer a sustainable fiscal strategy for cities, promising a win-win for homeowners, local economies, and municipal budgets.

This new analysis arrives at a critical juncture in Canada's protracted housing crisis, where affordability has evaporated in major urban centers and the dream of homeownership feels increasingly distant for millions. The study's central thesis is that by streamlining regulations and lowering costs for developers, governments can unlock a cascade of positive economic outcomes.

"Affordability is not just a social issue, it's really an economic one, too," stated Dr. Erkan Yönder, the study's author and an Associate Professor at Concordia's John Molson School of Business, in the accompanying press release. "High housing costs affect the entire economy, everything from family finances to business productivity and municipal budgets."

The 'Build and Benefit' Blueprint

The study lays out a stark challenge, arguing that Canada must more than double its 2024 rate of home construction just to start moving the needle on affordability. The scale of this proposed ramp-up is immense. For Toronto, it would mean building an additional 96,000 units annually. Montreal and Vancouver would need 77,000 and 44,000 more units per year, respectively, figures that dwarf current output.

The report's most compelling talking point hinges on a new metric it introduces: the 'Mortgage Pressure Index' (MPI). According to the study, a 20% reduction in municipal approval delays for new projects could lead to a 17% improvement in affordability as measured by this index. The logic is that faster approvals reduce carrying costs for builders, which can then translate into lower end prices for buyers.

Furthermore, the study posits that these improvements would create a virtuous cycle. As housing becomes more affordable, households would have more disposable income, fueling local business activity and increasing municipal revenue. The benefits would also ripple outward; the report models that a 20% affordability improvement in major cities could reduce median home prices in surrounding peripheral regions by as much as 5-15%, easing pressure across entire metropolitan areas.

A Question of Interest

While the study's conclusions present an appealingly straightforward solution, its origins warrant closer inspection. The research is the product of a formal, funded partnership between Concordia University and Equiton Inc., a major player in Canada's real estate market. Equiton is not merely a sponsor; the report was produced "in collaboration with" the firm, which is also its primary distributor.

This close relationship raises questions about the study's independence. Equiton's business model is deeply vested in the policies the report advocates for. The firm is a vertically integrated real estate company with divisions for property management (Equiton Living) and development (Equiton Developments). Its portfolio includes over 40 rental properties and a burgeoning development pipeline valued at $1.45 billion, encompassing over 2,000 condominium units, with a heavy concentration in the Greater Toronto Area.

For a company with multiple large-scale condo projects navigating the approvals process, policies that reduce delays and cut input costs—such as development charges—translate directly into lower expenses, faster timelines, and higher profits for its investors. The study's lack of a formal peer-review process, a standard validation step for academic research making significant policy claims, further positions it more as a sophisticated piece of corporate advocacy than as impartial scholarship.

Reality Check: Can The Targets Even Be Met?

Beyond the issue of motivation lies the even larger question of feasibility. The construction targets proposed in the Build and Benefit report are, by almost any industry measure, staggeringly ambitious. Juxtaposed with the current state of the Canadian construction sector, they appear less like a policy goal and more like a statistical fantasy.

The industry is grappling with a severe and deepening labor crisis. BuildForce Canada projects a shortfall of over 85,000 skilled workers by 2033, with nearly a quarter of the current residential construction workforce expected to retire within the decade. In British Columbia, the situation is so acute that a majority of contractors report turning down projects due to a lack of workers. Doubling Toronto's housing output would require a massive influx of skilled labor that simply does not exist.

Compounding this is the issue of cost. The residential construction price index has soared 51% since the pandemic began, far outpacing general inflation. High interest rates have simultaneously dampened buyer demand and made financing for new projects prohibitively expensive for many builders. This has led to a sharp downturn in activity, with housing starts in Toronto plummeting in the first half of 2025. The notion of dramatically scaling up construction runs directly counter to the economic headwinds and on-the-ground realities facing the industry.

Beyond the Blueprint: Alternative Paths to Affordability

Critics of the supply-centric model argue that it overlooks fundamental aspects of the housing crisis. Housing advocacy groups like the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives contend that the "trickle-down" theory—that building more market-rate housing will eventually create affordability for all—is a fallacy. New supply, they argue, is often absorbed by investors and high-income households, doing little to help those most in need.

These groups advocate for a balanced approach that includes strong demand-side regulations, such as vacancy taxes and restrictions on the financialization of housing, where homes are treated as assets rather than places to live. More importantly, they call for massive public investment in non-market housing, including social, public, and co-operative housing projects that are permanently affordable because they operate outside the profit-driven market.

Experts in urban planning also warn of the potential negative consequences of a rapid, developer-incentivized building boom. Without careful management, it can fuel gentrification that displaces long-term residents, encourage environmentally damaging urban sprawl, and lead to the demolition of existing, older, and more affordable rental stock. The debate underscores that while increasing supply is part of the equation, the type of supply and the policies that protect vulnerable residents are just as critical in forging a truly affordable housing future for Canada.