Examining Liberal Leadership Housing Promises

Where’s the Vision?

Meredith Martin

Mike Moffatt

, and

Sabrina Maddeaux

Feb 26, 2025

In this episode, conservative pundit Sabrina Maddeaux and economist/housing nerd Mike Moffatt discuss the federal Liberal leadership race, focusing on how the top contenders address Canada's housing crisis. They analyze the candidates' policies, including Mark Carney's vague housing promises, Christia Freeland's tax cuts for first-time homebuyers, and Karina Gould's approach to generational change. The conversation highlights the candidates' proposals and the need for a vision that resonates with younger Canadians. They also advise the candidates and make predictions about the race's outcome. (This episode was recorded on Friday, February 21st at 10 am and Ruby Dhalla was disqualified from the race later that day.)

We’d love for you to subscribe to our YouTube channel, or you can find the pod on various audio-only platforms.

Apple Podcasts

Spotify

Podbean

Below is an AI-generated transcript of the Missing Middle podcast which has been lightly edited.

Mike Moffatt: Sabrina, I'm really curious about how this liberal leadership is resonating with you, if at all. On the one hand, I think we all know that you're not exactly a target liberal voter. You're not a failed liberal academic. So I think it would be easy to ignore this. But on the other hand, you are in the age cohort that is most impacted by the housing crisis. So I'm kind of curious, is there anything any liberal leadership candidate could say or do on housing that would make you think like, okay, that's kind of interesting?

Sabrina Maddeaux: Well, I've certainly been following it closely because I'm a big political nerd, but also being a young person who's personally impacted by the housing crisis, [it] really does matter to me who ultimately wins the leadership and becomes the next Prime Minister and potentially gets reelected down the road. So I have been following it. And before I get into anything else, I want to give a quick breakdown for our listeners of who's actually in this race.

So we have five contenders right now. One is the former Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney. We also have former Finance Minister Christia Freeland, former Government House Leader Karina Gould, a Montreal business leader Frank Baylis, and he also was a one-term MP. And we have another former MP, Ruby Dalla. And if anyone wants more information on the candidates, we'll post a link to bios in the show notes.

In terms of whether I could be swayed?

I haven't seen anything so far that would actually make me think too hard. Unfortunately, when it comes to the housing issue, which has always been my number one issue - that is affordability and cost of living - I think that the topic's been shifted to the side in the background because of all of the understandable attention on Trump's tariff threats and the impact that could have on the economy. And while, of course, that ranges from an issue that could be just economic - it's now been over a month since Justin Trudeau announced his intent to resign and we're rounding the very last corner of the race to replace him not just as liberal leader, but as the next Prime Minister.

So, candidates have had a lot of time now to present their new policies and make their priorities clear. And the final vote is happening on March 9th. Mike, we'll get into more specific policies in a minute, but what's your bird's eye-view impression of how the housing issues are playing out in the race?

Mike Moffatt: Yeah, it really hasn't been top of mind. And so far it hasn't really looked like much of a race. Mark Carney seems to be running away with this, but it's hard to tell- there has been some polling, but it's hard to poll just [the] people who are actually voting in this thing. But if you look at the amount of money that's raised, you look at the profile on social media, Carney seems to have it. And obviously the race has really re-energized the Liberal Party, particularly in the polls. They are now catching up to the Conservatives. I didn't think the next election would be interesting, but they might be making a race of it. And we'll have to see.

I mean we saw the same thing in 1993 when Kim Campbell became PC leader. The PCs went way up for about 30 seconds and then the election happened. So we'll see if this is sustainable. But yeah, I do think it's interesting to see how much Liberal fortunes have gone up and how much New Democrat fortunes have cratered.

On the housing side, yeah, it's disappointing. And in fact, we're not seeing a lot of policy in general. You know, we've seen a lot of Mark Carney going on The Daily Show and I think doing quite well for himself and some media and talk on Trump and tariffs and that kind of thing. As a housing nerd I've been kind of disappointed that it hasn't been front and center.

Sabrina Maddeaux: Yeah, I think although the race has five candidates it hasn't felt like a particularly competitive race. And before Trudeau announced his intent to resign there were a lot of other big names that were floating around potentially getting into the race, other cabinet ministers, other former Premiers. And I think that if we had had more people with a bit more of a track record and gravitas and high public profile in this race, maybe we would have had more of a debate when it comes to some of these policy ideas.

And some of it is just the Trump climate. So much attention is being put elsewhere. In particular, I'm a bit disappointed that Carney, as the front runner, is actually the one I think has talked the least about housing and has released the least housing policy and hasn't talked that much about younger generations and the current plight they're experiencing. There's also not been a lot of acknowledgement from the candidates about how the Liberal Party has actually contributed greatly to these issues. There were a lot of disastrous policies under Trudeau and while I don't expect any liberal leadership candidate to necessarily completely disavow the party that they've been a part of or their former leader, I would have liked to see them put a little bit more space between them and the prior administration and also be willing to point out where things went wrong. What I'm seeing is a lot of like, yes- and. Yes, everything from the last nine years was great and we're going to add to it. Whereas I think for young people to take the Liberal Party seriously, and whoever the new leader is, there has to be some reckoning with where they went wrong.

I'd like to get into some specific policies and promises now. Mark Carney, like we've said, is the presumed front-runner, so it probably makes sense to start with him. And as far as I can tell, he's come out with just one major housing promise, which is a somewhat vague plan to incentivize prefabricated and modular homes and boost construction innovation. What do you make of this approach, Mike?

Mike Moffatt: Yeah, it seems to be a classic kind of front-runner campaign where it's like, okay, I'm not going to necessarily say or do anything controversial. So it is a little bit disappointing… Both of these people would hate this comparison, but it reminds me a lot of the provincial campaign here in Ontario and Doug Ford not talking about housing and running a front-runner campaign. There's a lot of similarities there. We do absolutely need more innovation in home building and you know, the government already has a number of programs there. So that's not even necessarily new and novel. I get what Carney is doing politically, like, I get the strategy, but it is disappointing for them to not put out really any specifics.

Folks might not know this, but, about a year ago or so, a group of us got together and put out something called the Blueprint for More and Better Housing. And there were 15 of us on it. I was coordinating it and I had held the final pen on the report, but one of those 15 was Mark Carney. So he knows the file and I know he knows the file because I worked with him on it. So, you know, I would just say if any of his folks are listening: you literally have the blueprint for housing policy your candidate helped author the thing. So if you're looking for housing ideas, just look at the past work.

So, Sabrina, what do you think of the Carney campaign so far? Am I off base here at all, or do you get the same impressions that I have?

Sabrina Maddeaux: No, not off base at all. While certainly we do need to boost innovation in housing and modular housing is a really interesting way to go about that. It's just such a small piece of the puzzle and it feels like he's not taking any sort of risks here, which again is probably that front-runner strategy. But at the same time, you're not the front-runner for the general election, which could happen very, very shortly after your leadership race.

So you do need to work harder to prove to not just younger Canadians, but really all Canadians, that you're taking this issue seriously. Also, his brand is about having that economic experience and that expertise, even beyond the task force that you've talked about. And when housing is one of our biggest economic issues in the country, on an individual level for Canadians, yes, who can't afford a home or can't afford their rent, but also it's a huge economic vulnerability in that it's diverting income from more productive uses.

A lot of our GDP is tied up in the housing sector - probably too much of that. It's an issue that does need to be acknowledged and resolved at scale. And the fact that he's not addressing it leaves a lot to be wanted, in my opinion.

But moving on to Christia Freeland, she's actually taken a different approach to the housing file. Her real headline focus has been on taxes. So specifically, she pledges to cut the GST for first-time home buyers on homes of up to $1.5 million. And she claims this could save young Canadians as much as $75,000 on a new home purchase, which sounds pretty good. But Mike, is this strong enough policy to actually move the needle on affordability?

Mike Moffatt: Yeah, I like what they're trying to do here. We know that Pierre Poilievre has promised to eliminate the GST on all homes under $1 million. And I'm on record in many places as saying that I love the idea. I think it's, I think it's fantastic. It is the one thing that the federal government can definitely do to help restore the dream of home ownership.

A lot of the policy leavers on housing, at least the housing supply side, are with the provincial government or municipal governments, but this is a direct one they control, right? The taxation of new housing construction. The important part here that I think people miss sometimes is that you only pay GST on new homes. You don't pay it if you’re buying a pre-existing home. So basically the GST acts like this kind of de facto development charge. So I think the poly folks are right to want to eliminate that for homes. I think the one issue with the policy approach is that to get the full rebate, you get all your GST money back for any home up to a million dollars. But once it goes to a million dollars and one, there's this fiscal cliff and you don't get anything. That works in most of the country, but it doesn't work in the Greater Vancouver Area or the Greater Toronto Area. You know, I defy anyone to find a new home, a family-size home in, say, York Region for under a million dollars. It can't be done. So I like what Freeland is doing here. Saying: You know what? The 1 million doesn't work everywhere. We're going to raise it to 1.5, but I think limiting it to first-time home buyers is a little bit too cute. Because one of the things we should want to do is encourage seniors, and others, to downsize from their homes. Right? And one of the ways that you can do that is by having the GST cut. Say: “If you're a senior and you're selling your home and you're going to buy a new condo or whatever, you don't have to pay GST.” So I think it's a little bit too cute and too overly segmented, but again, I gotta say, I really liked the fact that out of all the candidates, she's the one who has a direct response to Poilievre in a way that the others don't. That's my take on it. And love to, love to get yours.

Sabrina Maddeaux: Yeah, there are things I like about both policies. The one thing I will say, though, is that Poilievre tried to push through this tax cut - his version of it - in, I believe it was December, and the Liberals voted against it. And at the time, I don't think they came out and said: “No, it should just be for first-time buyers,” or “it should be a higher ceiling to 1.5 million.” They just didn't pass it through. And here we are again with no progress on the issue.

So it's a little bit rich to see Freeland coming back just a couple of months later and be building on top of that policy. I agree with you that targeting to first-time buyers - while I'm usually a big fan of targeting first-time buyers - you always want to be wary of stoking demand with these sorts of measures. We need to get taxes off of supply so that we can get more supply, which we're not even close to hitting the targets we need to be hitting across the country right now.

When it comes to new construction, a lot of the time it's not first-time buyers necessarily buying those homes. I know that in my peer group, anyone who has been able to buy a new construction place already owned a place previously. You talked about seniors looking to downsize - it shouldn't really matter who's buying this new supply. We just need the new supply to come online. And I just don't know that it's realistic to think that there's going to be this huge swath of first-time buyers who can suddenly afford, or are interested in, new builds. I agree with you though that definitely the 1.5 million threshold makes more sense just because of where house prices are right now - especially in major urban centers and their surroundings. So I think it's a good policy, but perhaps needs to be tweaked to be more realistic and actually effective.

Freeland has also touched on a couple of other key housing issues that also echo promises made by Pierre Poilievre. She says she plans to tie the number of immigrants Canada admits to housing availability. And she also says she'll withhold federal infrastructure funding from municipalities if they don't slash development charges, one of your favourite subjects. What do you make of these promises?

Mike Moffatt: Yeah, I'm happy that she has a direct response to Poilievre. I think it's one of the things that liberals have been lacking. You know, on the immigration side it's fine for both her and Poilievre to say, but you know, the devil's in the details on this one. Like, what does that actually mean? What does that formula look like to tie immigration to housing and so on? But yeah, it makes sense conceptually, but the details matter.

On the infrastructure funding, if they don't slash development charges, I mean, that kind of exists already in the federal infrastructure plan. Now the federal infrastructure plan only has it that municipalities need to freeze development charges, not raise them. And it only applies to municipalities that have over 300,000 people. There are a lot of municipalities that have very high development charges that don't meet that threshold. So it's kind of limited, but even with those limitations, we're seeing municipalities in Canada basically say: “We'll keep raising development charges and we'll forgo the money.” Niagara region just recently said that: “We'll actually make more money through higher development charges than we will through this infrastructure program.” So you wonder is there enough money there to actually change behavior? I think if the federal government goes too far on the development charge changes, people will just say: “Okay, well, we won't take the infrastructure money” which is fine to do. But then if nobody's taking the money, it really doesn't accomplish anything.

Both Freeland and Poilievre have conceptually - I like what they're trying to do. I just question whether or not the details work.

Sabrina Maddeaux: Yeah, the devil is definitely in the details and immigration is certainly, in my point of view, one of the biggest pieces of the housing puzzle because it's just surged demand so much. And while she does have that line about tying immigration to housing levels, it's like two sentences in her plan and there haven't been any details in terms of what streams that would target. Certainly nothing on actual numbers. And I would really like to see those to be able to properly evaluate the promise and see how serious she really is about that. I did see something that wasn't actually in her 10-point housing plan. It was stuck under how she was going to respond to Trump's tariffs and innovation. And it was about changing the streams to prioritize skilled trades workers from other countries and getting them here and being able to work. And that's also such a key piece of the puzzle. So I thought that was really interesting. And she also had promises in there about making trade schools potentially free. And I thought that was interesting as well. So I'd love to see those ideas be discussed a little bit more. Do you have any thoughts on them, Mike?

Mike Moffatt: Yeah, I do like what she's trying to do. And I particularly like that she's kind of pointing out all the kind of bottlenecks that are preventing us from building more housing and trying to come up with policies for each going, okay, yeah: “We don't have enough skilled trades workers. Could we have a policy for that? Taxes are too high on development. Okay, let's deal with that.” So I like the approach. Again, though, I think the details matter. I'm trying to be fair to these folks, I get that this is a leadership campaign and not a general election. So there is time to, you know, dot those I’s and cross those T's, but I'm a policy dork. You know, I want all the details and I want them right now. And I will blast you on Twitter if I don't get them. That's how it is, you know, that's just the reality of it.

Sabrina Maddeaux: Beware.

Yeah, I think on top of the details for me, the last thing I'll say about Freeland is she's supposed to be supposedly this amazing communicator. And I just haven't seen her seriousness about the housing issue or any of these policy details or they are not really communicated. When we were researching this episode I had to go into her website and she has this plan up there that you can read through but a lot of it I hadn't even heard before. And I'm someone who follows this issue incredibly closely. So, I don't know why she's not talking about it more or she's not doing so effectively, but that's a big miss on her part. And it's actually a way that she could be differentiating herself from the Carney campaign which doesn't have as much detail in his plan as of right now.

But I'd like to move on to Karina Gould because she's an interesting candidate. She's the only Millennial in the race and she is running on a theme of generational change. So you'd expect her to have a strong housing policy to match. So far, Gould has a three-pillar housing plan to reduce homelessness, increase housing supply, and support first-time buyers. And her key policy proposals include ending homelessness through integrating housing with mental health and addiction support. Scaling up co-op housing - an industrial housing strategy that includes modular homes, and partnering with municipalities to streamline up zoning via a new housing accelerator round. She also wants to boost the first-time homebuyer incentive.

So Mike, her plan certainly seems a bit more detailed than the others, but is it hitting the right marks?

Mike Moffatt: Yeah, I do like her additional detail here. I like that she is more so than the other candidates really focused on the challenges that younger Canadians have. You know, her campaign reminds me a little bit of when Kate Graham ran for Ontario Liberal leader a few years ago - something that I was helping out with because Kate's a friend - where she's focusing on segments of the population who've been kind of left behind and trying to be a little bit wonkier. I like it.

So I think the questions are in the details. Like, I listened to a lot of this and go: okay, well, is that really much different than what the government's doing now? You know, when you kind of boil it down, it sounds like: Let's do a housing accelerator 2.0. That's a little bit more bold. Okay, it seems like a decent idea. And increasing the first-time home buyer incentive - I don't love that one - I think is a bit problematic. The key difference is that the GST cut only applies to new housing. It creates incentives to build housing. Whereas the first-time-home buyer incentive applies to everything. So it's not only trying to encourage new build, but it also basically just bids up the price of existing homes, which we don't need. So, part marks here. I like the fact that she's being detailed. I like the fact that she's trying to be a little bit wonky. I like the fact that she's recognizing that the housing crisis is essentially a youth crisis. But this mix of policies is really missing the mark for me.

Sabrina Maddeaux: I agree with you that her platform here seems like a little bit of a jumble and a lot of different puzzle pieces that don't necessarily add up to being a coherent picture. So, I'd like to see something that's more sticking to a theme. Also, being the younger candidate and someone who's not a front-runner and is probably in the race more to boost her career and profile long-term, I would have loved to have seen something really big and bold and different from her. And that's not what we've seen here. Like you said, a lot of these policies either already exist or they exist in some form, or they're just not really radical ideas. I would have liked to see some sort of big swing, even if that ended up being a miss. Because we need those sorts of conversations to actually shake up the conversation in Canadian politics and put pressure on other Liberal Leaders, but also leaders of other parties to keep innovating and bring these ideas to the forefront.

As a millennial, either herself or I'm sure people in her peer group, have been impacted by the housing crisis. And I'd like to see a little bit more heart and emotion as to just how serious this is because she's in a position to actually sway the conversation. Like you, I'm concerned that a couple of those points she has might actually induce demand and make the crisis worse. So that's a problem. Also, at the top of her housing plan, while homelessness is certainly important, I worry that there's not as much of a focus on market housing and how that impacts affordability. I think when we see progressives talk about housing, sometimes they talk too much about non-market housing and homelessness, forgetting that a lot of homelessness is happening because the person who used to live in a basement apartment - that basement apartment is now something that only a young professional can afford in Toronto. So it all gets trickled down and then eventually someone ends up on the street. So, I think there's some acknowledgement of that missing as well.

We've talked about what the Liberal Leadership contenders have announced. Now let's talk about what they haven't. Mike, is there any policy track that you've been surprised hasn't been included in any of the platforms or an area you'd like to see get more attention that's been ignored?

Mike Moffatt: So, what I would have liked to see is, first, a stronger response to Poilievre - something that goes above and beyond his GST cut. I would even go further than that, I actually think one of the…you mentioned things that progressives get wrong and I'm going to add one to the list. Progressives often sound too much like me and that's not a good thing. Progressive politics, like, if you have this job, it's a great thing. Sound like me. It's awesome! But I'm not running for political office. In part because I don't talk like regular people talk. It's not always about having the best 10-point plan. It's not always about figuring out whether something should be a 10 % accelerated capital costs allowance or provision or a 12 % one. It has to be about vision. And you and I talked about this on a recent episode - while I'm critical of Ford, you were more critical of Ford. We were both critical of Ford - but the one thing I'll give Ford credit for is he provides a vision when he talks about a family being able to purchase a $500,000 single detached home. It's something that people can picture and it's something that creates at least the belief that we can restore home ownership to younger people again.

You know, young people have lost the feeling that they'll ever be able to afford a home and the candidates aren't speaking about it in that language, right? It's all about housing accelerators and things like that. I would love for these candidates to get on stage and say, we will restore the dream of home ownership to young families. Full stop. Then talk about the policies. Instead, they jump right into the policies without providing that vision.

So that sounds really wonky, or weird complaint coming from a policy guy - that these guys… they’re talking about policy. But policies have to be grounded within a vision, right? Everything what we do here at the Missing Middle is grounded around the vision that we have, which is that every middle-class individual or family in Canada should have a high quality of life and access to both market-rate rental and market-rate ownership housing options that are affordable, adequate, suitable, resilient, and climate-friendly in every city in Canada. That's probably too wonky for a politician, but it's that vision that's lacking. So that's what I would have loved to see more of.

What would you have liked to have seen?

Sabrina Maddeaux: I agree with you that there's just this lack of emotion - like being able to prove that you really understand the issue on an emotional level. The policy is one thing, and hopefully, there will be more details that are coming down the road, but do you get me as a renter? As a young Canadian who's struggling to afford a home? [As someone] who's struggling to be able to start a family because of all those affordability issues? I haven't really seen any of the candidates come out with a convincing message that hits home on that or be able to get into the storytelling that would be effective there.

So then that leads to questions of how serious are you about this issue? Can you be trusted to follow through on the promises you've made that I may like? I'm just not convinced on that level. And I would say going beyond housing accelerators or cutting taxes, just the issue of generational fairness and what the economic situation looks like for young Canadians over the coming decades, there hasn't been a lot of talk about that. Can we give young Canadians other types of tax advantages to make up for not having that principal residence exemption if they aren't able or don't want to own a home in today's climate?

How can we get more young people involved in political decision-making? I mean, there's just such a plethora of issues out there. And I really do think perhaps it's because the polls have shown that it's actually older Canadians who are still supporting the Liberals and [are] more likely to vote for them, that we've been a bit of an ignored demographic. But long-term, I think that's going to come back to bite candidates in the butt if they just choose to ignore young Canadians, even if it might be politically convenient right now.

With that, I will give Gould credit because I feel like she's trying to do that. You know, it's not necessarily always landing or always perfectly successful, but I do feel that of all the candidates, she is at least trying to go there.

Mike Moffatt: You know, since you're not a liberal, you're a conservative-leaning voter, I'd love to know what advice you'd give to these leadership hopefuls. We know there's going to be an election - a federal election sometime in the next few months. What advice would you give to Liberal Party members who are casting a vote in the next couple of weeks for a federal leader?

Sabrina Maddeaux: I think keep your focus [should be] not just on the short term, but also the medium and long term. Obviously the Trump tariff threat and other threats coming from the United States are really big right now. They will remain important but the cost of living isn't going away. Housing isn't going away. In fact, I think the housing issue is poised to only get worse. So you're going to want to prove that you're serious well in advance of them coming back and being headline news. Because part of the issue with Trudeau is he took a very long time to admit there was even a housing crisis and then a very long time to formulate any type of response and then that response was very lacklustre. So, by the time that happens again, you're behind the [eight] ball.

Now is the time to prove you're serious and start building up that credibility because ultimately the survival of any political party in Canada and certainly the Liberal Party is through younger voters and younger generations voting for them. And when you're talking about Millennials, this is a demographic that is now in their 30s and early 40s - they're starting families. I think you're going to start to see higher voter turnout rates from this demographic. And now is the time to get their vote and lock them in for the future, no matter what party you are. What are your thoughts on that, Mike?

Mike Moffatt: Just remember, this campaign is a ranked ballot system. So you don't have to employ strategic voting. So, you know, if you prefer one of the two main candidates, but there's somebody at the bottom that you really like - that you think is doing a good job - put them first. If you think Frank Baylis has some great ideas about whatever, don't hesitate to put him number one. And that applies to all the candidates. I'm not out here shilling for Frank. And then, you know, put the main contender as two or three. I actually think [it] helps to give some love to some of the lesser candidates if they're bringing something new and attractive, because it causes the party to go: “Okay, there's something here. There's something that we need to pay attention to.”

That's my advice. Who knows if they'll take it, but based on that advice, Sabrina, do you care to make a prediction? Who do you think is going to win this thing? How do you think it's going to shake out?

Sabrina Maddeaux: Well, predictions are always a bit of a dangerous game, but I think at this point, Mark Carney just seems like such the front-runner. He's running away with it on top of the fact that polls are showing that he could actually potentially bring a fight to Poilievre and winability and survival of the Liberal Party are probably the biggest issues within the party, itself, right now. So I would be shocked if it didn't go to Carney at this point. What about you?

Mike Moffatt: Yeah, I think so. I think he takes this on the first ballot. The other thing I’ll say is I think Gould might do better than people think. And this is actually going out on a limb - so, you know, three or four weeks from now, people can rub this in my face when I'm completely wrong - I just have a sense that she has surprised a lot of people. And I think the fact that people are now thinking Carney is going to win this on the first ballot might create some space for people to go: “You know what? I'm going to, as a way to show some love, I will put her higher up.” How the Liberal Leadership works - it's like the Conservative leadership where it's a point system based on ridings. And I think this is going to largely be won by a bunch of ridings outside of the City of Toronto where there might not be that many candidates, right? So you wonder with a candidate like Freeland, if a lot of her support is downtown Toronto, if a lot of her support is Bay Street, she might get a lot of votes, but she might not get a lot of points in the system because every riding is worth the same. Toronto Center is worth the same as London North Center is worth the same as one of the ridings in PEI.

I'm going out on a limb here, but I think Gould might do better. She might even finish ahead of Freeland because she's attracting an audience that is more geographically dispersed, focusing on young people. I just get the sense that Freeland’s support is very heavily downtown Toronto. And that might hurt her in the point system.

Sabrina Madeaux: Yeah, I think that's probably the most interesting race within the race to watch - who comes in that second place. And Karina has had some impressive indications of support and some big fundraising numbers. So these last couple of weeks and of course, the debates could be pivotal for that place.

But thank you everyone so much for watching and listening and to our producer, Meredith Martin.

Mike Moffatt: And if you have any thoughts or questions about ranked balloting and geographic point systems, please send us an email to [email protected]

Sabrina Madeaux: And we'll see you next time.