As the housing crisis deepens across the country, every major federal party has placed housing at the center of its platform. This isn’t surprising —housing affordability, supply, and livability are issues that demand national attention. Yet as we examine the promises laid out in the current election, a recurring theme emerges: a focus on large-scale development, financial tools, and federal spending, with far less attention paid to a quieter but essential piece of the solution—small-scale, ground-oriented housing.
These forms of housing—duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, laneway homes, secondary suites, and other “missing middle” options—won’t solve the crisis on their own. But they are critical to building supply quickly, more affordably, and in ways that align with the fabric of existing communities. They’re also increasingly enabled by recent provincial zoning reforms in British Columbia and Ontario, which open the door to more housing on traditional single-family lots. And they make a real difference for the people who need homes close to where they work and live — seniors looking to age in place, young families seeking a foothold in the market, caregivers and frontline workers, multigenerational households, and community members who want to stay rooted in the neighbourhoods they call home.
The question is: will the next federal government help municipalities, builders, and communities walk through that door?
A Closer Look at the Platforms
Each party brings forward different tools and ideas—but few speak directly to the practical needs of small-scale, low-impact housing solutions.
The Liberals propose a suite of supply-side measures, including the continued use of the Housing Accelerator Fund, incentives for cities to update zoning, and streamlining regulations to help unlock prefabricated and modular construction. They have also committed to creating “Build Canada Homes”, a new federal entity that the party has pledged to create that would get the government “back into the business of homebuilding”.
There is some language around supporting “gentle density,” but little detail about how the federal government will directly enable its implementation at the local level—particularly when it comes to smaller developers and homeowners.
The Conservatives’ focus is on removing “gatekeepers,” awarding municipalities that achieve federally set housing targets while penalizing those that fail to meet theirs, while also tying infrastructure funding to higher-density approvals. While these measures may create pressure for change, they don’t differentiate between different forms of density— and risk reinforcing a binary between towers and single-family sprawl, without much attention to the moderate-density forms that many communities are more ready to accept.
The NDP place strong emphasis on non-market housing and cooperative models, alongside commitments to support zoning reform. This could benefit missing middle housing, particularly when delivered through non-profit or land trust models. However, much of the focus remains on new builds at scale, with limited tools for accelerating incremental, neighborhood-level housing additions.
The Greens advocate for walkable, 15-minute communities and strong climate integration into housing policy, which aligns well with gentle density principles. However, their platform lacks concrete detail on implementation mechanisms—particularly in areas like permitting reform, homeowner incentives, or support for small-scale builders.
What’s Missing
What’s largely absent across platforms is a recognition of how small-scale housing is built—and who builds it. Most gentle density projects are undertaken by homeowners, small builders, or community developers—not large corporate entities. They’re often constrained not just by zoning, but by outdated permitting systems, lack of financing, and absence of standardized designs that can streamline approvals.
There is also a missed opportunity to support municipalities in the practical work of local implementation. It’s one thing to enable zoning change at the provincial level—but without federal investment in planning capacity, digital permitting systems, and publicly accessible design tools, that zoning change may not translate into homes on the ground.
Programs like CMHC’s Housing Supply Challenge or early moves toward a standardized design catalogue in BC, hint at what’s possible. But they remain under-supported and under-scaled.
What Federal Leadership Could Look Like
The federal government has a powerful role to play—not in dictating land use, but in aligning its funding, financing, and policy tools with the kinds of housing that can be delivered quickly, affordably, and sustainably.
This includes:
- Funding the development and adoption of standardized, pre-approved housing designs that municipalities can use to fast-track approvals.
- Creating incentives for infill and gentle density projects, particularly for homeowners and small-scale developers.
- Supporting the modernization of local permitting systems and capacity-building in planning departments.
- Expanding low-interest financing and insurance tools tailored to small and moderate-sized projects—not just large towers or developments on federal land.
Beyond the Ballot
The housing crisis will not be resolved in a single mandate, nor by one level of government. But it will be shaped—decisively—by how future federal policies support or overlook the spaces in between: between detached homes and high-rises, between provincial policy shifts and municipal implementation, between top-down investment and bottom-up community-led change.
If we’re serious about building homes Canadians can afford—and neighborhoods they actually want to live in—we can’t afford to keep missing the middle.