Why is Canadian housing so expensive, and why are we getting so little for our money? In this episode of the Missing Middle Podcast, Mike Moffatt talks with Adam Mongrain of More and Better Housing about how Canada can build more affordable, better-quality homes while also tackling climate change and housing affordability.
Can Canada build homes that are better, cheaper, and more sustainable? Adam thinks we can.
If you enjoy the show and would like to support our work, please consider subscribing to our YouTube channel. The pod is also available on various audio-only platforms, including:
Below is an AI-generated transcript of the Missing Middle podcast, lightly edited.
Mike Moffatt: In large parts of Canada, particularly Lower Mainland B.C. and southern Ontario, it seems the only housing built in the last 10 to 15 years is either small apartments in high-rises or large homes well outside our major cities. Missing middle housing is truly missing.
Today’s guest is working hard to change that. Adam Mongrain was recently named the executive director of More and Better Housing, an organization tasked with finding the ways and means to deliver millions of new, affordable, low-carbon, and resilient homes to Canadians everywhere. Adam is a longtime resident of Montreal, a city that has historically punched above its weight when it comes to building missing middle housing. So, Adam, thank you so much for being our guest today.
Adam Mongrain: Mike, thank you for having me on.
Mike Moffatt: Let’s talk about More and Better Housing, an organization that has always had a close affiliation with the Missing Middle Initiative. Your organization was originally called the Task Force for Housing and Climate. It was co-chaired by former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister Lisa Raitt and former mayor of Edmonton Don Iveson. I acted as secretariat for that group. For those who don’t know what that means, the secretariat’s responsibility is to herd all the members of the task force - which is like herding cats - take all their great ideas, lock yourself in a dark basement with an unlimited supply of coffee, and bang out draft after draft of a final report or blueprint. That eventually became the blueprint for More and Better Housing. That blueprint contained dozens of recommendations to all three orders of government, many of which have since been implemented.
There were about a dozen other members of the task force, including well-known names in housing policy like Cherise Burda and Richard Joy. Adam was one of the members. I remember we also had someone named Mark from Canada 2020. What was his last name again? Oh, yeah, Carney. Mark Carney. I heard he went on to another job afterwards. Prime Minister of something or other.
Jokes aside, out of that report, an organization was created that took on the More and Better Housing branding from the blueprint, which you now run. What made you decide to take on this challenge?
Adam Mongrain: First, I want to thank you, Mike, for herding us cats. I was in there, and I know it’s really hard to get 15 people to agree on housing in the best of circumstances. I’m pretty proud of the work we managed to do under that stewardship. That’s really what made me decide to say yes to this. When you think through what we managed to do in the short time we had, with the means we had, it’s really impressive that we got so far. But the work is never done.
One key difference between the work we did initially and where we are now is that we were working off the CMHC recommendation in 2022 to build 5.8 million homes, and we wanted to make sure those homes would be low-carbon without bankrupting the country. Our recommendations led to improved outcomes, but things are changing rapidly. The work ahead for me is to take that great foundation and move it in new directions to adjust for how the world is changing before our eyes.
Mike Moffatt: When you have a blueprint with 140 recommendations, you might think, “How could we have missed anything?” But looking back now, I see things I wish we had included. I’m glad you’re filling in those holes and stepping back from specific policies to a 30,000-foot view of what the organization is trying to accomplish, particularly the word “better” in More and Better Housing.
One challenge when talking about infill-missing-middle housing, or gentle density, is that people can’t visualize it, or they catastrophize and picture the worst-case scenario of cramped homes that are less livable than what we have now. How can we show people that it’s possible to build homes differently in a way that improves their quality of life?
Adam Mongrain: This is going to be a big part of our activities going forward. Better housing can’t just be a promise; it has to be something real and tangible that everyday people can attain and dream about. To deliver that kind of better housing, we have to pass ambitious reforms to make denser housing legal and improve building codes. These things are complex, take time, and demand committed leadership. When you can’t imagine the outcome of these big swings, it’s hard to stay focused and commit to the reform.
We plan to show that better housing exists right now in Canadian communities. You can see it, touch it, look at pictures of the interiors, and realize, “I can see myself living in this, and my life would improve.” That’s what we mean by more and better housing. It’s practical, real, and meant for the consumer.
Mike Moffatt: I love that you’re giving positive examples. The Missing Middle Initiative is often fairly criticized for coming across as negative - telling governments all the things they’re doing wrong. You’re approaching this by saying we get a lot of things right, and we just need more of those things. This touches on trade-offs. The biggest challenge with infill or multiplexes is the belief that building green or dense comes at the cost of affordability during an already severe affordability crisis.
The ethos of More and Better Housing acknowledges that while trade-offs exist, building differently can simultaneously make life more affordable and yield better environmental outcomes. Can you walk us through how we can achieve better affordability and better environmental outcomes at the same time?
Adam Mongrain: Even without extra requirements, the cheapest housing we can build right now is still expensive compared to prices 20-years-ago. We are paying top dollar for homes that are, in many respects, pretty crummy. Looking at it that way, it feels unreasonable to consider improving quality when we struggle to find buyers for entry-level homes. But maybe the problem with new construction isn’t just that it’s too expensive; it’s that it’s not worth the asking price.
Who wants to pay a million dollars for a house that is smaller, uglier, or darker than their current home? People with a million dollars to spend are usually currently housed, and they see the trade-offs at a consumer level. It’s a false choice between better homes and cheaper homes.
The only way we’ll get people to move into new construction is by improving quality. When you look into the details of what it takes to improve construction quality, you find ways to reduce construction costs. For example, to build high-quality European-style flats, we need construction methods that are cheaper than current ones, yielding high ceilings and natural light at lower costs than tiny modern condos. High-performance materials that make homes easier to heat, cool, and insure can also be cheaper than current builds. The path forward is making higher-quality housing cheaper than the cheapest housing we have right now.
Mike Moffatt: Having that North Star around what success looks like is exciting. Moving down to the 20,000-foot level on how to get there: More and Better Housing has five focus areas called “game changers.” The first is legalizing density. People often ask what that means. What does legalizing density mean to you, and what specific changes do you have in mind?
Adam Mongrain: When we see pictures of beautiful, naturally lit European flats, people look happy, and their housing needs are solved. But when we try to build that in Canada, the response is usually either: “You can build it, but you’ll spend years arguing over feasibility,” or “No, you should feel bad for attempting to build that here.” If the law doesn’t make this explicitly possible, delivering improved housing and climate outcomes is extremely challenging.
Also, people advocating for legalizing density might shoot themselves in the foot by framing it as “deregulation.” It’s not necessarily about having fewer rules. A rule allowing up to four units per lot involves the same amount of regulation as a rule restricting a lot to one unit. Legalizing density isn’t removing laws; it’s improving laws so they align with our desired outcomes.
Mike Moffatt: It’s not deregulation; it’s rewriting the rules.
People often ask if we can create incentives for builders to construct certain types of housing, but often those housing types are completely illegal under current rules. Aside from zoning, building codes are a major barrier. Can you give examples of changes you’d like to see in Canada’s building codes?
Adam Mongrain: A study by the Center for Building in North America showed that elevators for a four-story building in Canada are four times as expensive as those for a four-story building in Switzerland. In Europe, provisions in building codes keep costs down. Because our code inflates costs, we have very few elevators per capita compared to places like Spain, Greece, or Switzerland, which creates serious issues for our aging population and people with disabilities. We can lower elevator costs by changing the building code.
A recent report by the Neptis Foundation, authored by Conrad Becker and Jack Keyes, outlines eight recommendations for the Ontario Building Code. These include big shifts like single-stair designs, which unlock massive potential for missing middle housing.
Another practical recommendation is adopting a Quebec provision: if you add a mezzanine on the fourth floor that takes up only 40% of the third story’s floor area, the building still counts as a three-story building. Once a building crosses into four stories under our current code, thousands of costly requirements trigger, which is why so few four-story buildings get built. Modernizing building codes is a critical game changer for untangling these issues.
Mike Moffatt: The risk aversion here is wild. Suggesting European standards gets pushback as if it’s too risky, despite no evidence of safety issues over there.
Moving to the third game changer: modern methods of construction, such as factory-built homes, low-carbon cement, and mass timber. What specifically should governments do differently to advance modern methods of construction?
Adam Mongrain: The primary problem is a lack of standardization. Because the industry isn’t standardized, every prefabricated or industrial component is a bespoke solution, with everyone creating their own rules as they go. When governments issue calls for proposals, they often fail to define modern methods of construction or specify how components should integrate across vendors.
Beyond funding innovation through tax credits and programs, the most important step is creating clear policy and industry standards for inputs, outputs, and connection points. If a panel from Factory X and a panel from Factory Y use the same standards for screw placement and wall thickness, they can work together seamlessly. Standardization will make modern construction methods a true game changer for lowering costs and improving quality.
Mike Moffatt: The fourth game changer is framing climate resilience and location. In plain terms, it boils down to: don’t build homes where they are likely to burn down or flood. What is the role for government here?
Adam Mongrain: Homes are increasingly exposed to extreme weather events. When disasters displace families, it puts immense pressure on the housing market. If we know certain areas are at risk of flooding or wildfires, we shouldn’t build there.
The fourth game changer is building for a changing world. We have the data and intelligence to ensure new homes are safe for the future. While nothing is completely future-proof, we can do much better, and these considerations must be folded into all housing plans.
Mike Moffatt: The fifth game changer is building far more social and not-for-profit housing, millions more units. How can Canada afford to scale not-for-profit housing to that degree alongside competing spending priorities like healthcare and defence?
Adam Mongrain: Housing is fundamental. Without proper housing, people lack the stability and safety to address other priorities. We’ve seen housing conditions deteriorate across Canada, with the clearest crisis being the explosion of homelessness. Ensuring everyone is housed with dignity and safety should be item zero on the priority list.
Delivering millions of community housing units at current construction costs is financially unfeasible. However, the other four game changers directly address that problem. As we work to deliver housing to those who need it most, driving down overall construction costs through regulatory and technical reform will make scaling community and not-for-profit housing financially viable.
Mike Moffatt: This has been fantastic. Thank you so much for being here. Where can people find you to learn more?
Adam Mongrain: You can find us at More and Better Housing. We want to hear from people across Canada about their challenges, opportunities, and policy ideas. Get in touch with us at More and Better Housing.
Mike Moffatt: Thanks again to Adam Mongrain, to our producer Cara Stern, and to our editor Sean Foreman. If you have thoughts or questions, please email us at [email protected], and we’ll see you next time.
Additional Reading/Listening that Helped Inform the Episode:
More and Better Housing Canada website
This is how we could fix a problem Canada has been overlooking for decades
Blueprint for More and Better Housing: https://housingandclimate.ca/blueprint/
Four Pathways to Housing Affordability report
Funded by the Neptis Foundation
Brought to you by the Missing Middle Initiative