The federal ban on foreign buyers is the kind of policy that sounds like action. It names a villain, requires no construction crews, and fits neatly on a lawn sign. It also leaves the arithmetic of affordability almost untouched. The reason a family in Kitchener can't find a modest three-bedroom, or a nurse in Moncton hands over most of her paycheque for a one-bedroom, has less to do with who else is bidding and more to do with what the law allows to be built on the lot next door.
A ban on buyers is not a policy on supply
The Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Non-Canadians Act came into force in 2023 and has since been extended. Its logic is simple enough: cool demand from outside the country and prices should ease. That logic holds only if outside demand is large. By most accounts, non-resident purchases were always a small slice of activity in most Canadian markets, concentrated in a handful of cities and often in newer condo towers. Meanwhile, the ban produces exactly zero new homes.
Rules aimed at a category of purchaser are also porous and fussy to enforce. Shell companies, relatives, and financing arranged abroad all complicate the picture, and none of it helps the family already priced out. Pouring political energy into a narrow restriction while leaving zoning untouched is a bit like fixing a leaky roof by asking the rain to stop.
The missing middle went missing on purpose
What counts as missing middle
"Missing middle" is planning jargon for something most Canadians recognize on sight: the housing between a detached house and a glass tower. These were ordinary buildings in our cities before the Second World War.
- Duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes, often on a single residential lot
- Rowhouses and stacked townhouses
- Laneway suites, garden suites and legal basement apartments
- Walk-up apartment buildings of three to six storeys
- Small mixed-use buildings, with a shop at street level and homes above
Per unit, these are usually cheaper to build than high-rises, easier to finance in small batches, and they slot into streets that already have water mains, sidewalks and bus routes.
Why it stopped being built
Mostly because it is illegal on the majority of residential land in most Canadian cities. Post-war zoning reserved enormous swaths of our towns for one house per lot, then layered on parking minimums, setback rules and floor-area limits that make anything else impractical. Add slow approvals and hefty development charges, and the math often only closes two ways: a very large project, or a single luxury house.
Zoning is the choke point
Here is the distinction that matters more than any federal announcement: what you can build as of right versus what requires permission. In much of Canada, one house is allowed by right. Two to four units typically require a rezoning, which means an application, a fee, a planning report, a public meeting, and the risk that council or a neighbour appeals it. That process can swallow years and tens of thousands of dollars before a shovel moves.
Change the baseline and behaviour changes. British Columbia has moved to require many municipalities to permit more units on lots long reserved for a single home. Ontario has pushed similar reforms. Edmonton rewrote its zoning bylaw to allow a wider range of small-scale housing across most of the city, and Calgary did something comparable. None of that guarantees a fourplex on every corner, and none of it fixes everything on its own. But it moves modest density from "exceptional" to "normal," and normal is where financing gets easier.
Density only works if it is built well
Opposition to intensification is rarely about density itself. It is about what density looks like when it goes wrong: a blank wall where a porch used to be, a driveway where a tree stood, five cars parked across a lawn, and no plan for the school or the water main. Those concerns are reasonable, and dismissing them is how a neighbourhood ends up fighting every proposal for a decade.
Good density is small-scale, has front doors on the street, keeps the trees, and treats parking as something to manage rather than mandate. A fourplex that looks like a large house is not a tower. Cities that make this work pair upzoning with infrastructure plans, tree protection, and design rules short enough for a homeowner to follow. They also put the tallest buildings near transit, where the extra trips are already paid for.
Supply alone won't house everyone
New market-rate homes do help over time. When more units exist, competition eases and older housing becomes the affordable tier. But that filtering process is slow and uneven, and it is no comfort to someone on a fixed income who needs a rent they can cover this month. Intensification has to be paired with non-market housing: co-ops, non-profit providers, and purpose-built rental that isn't at the mercy of an individual owner deciding to sell.
In practice that means protecting the stock we have, streamlining permits for non-profit builders, offering public land at low or no cost, and keeping funding programs predictable enough that a housing organization can plan five years ahead. Zoning reform makes room for homes. It doesn't pay for them.
What you can actually do
Photo: Pexels / Pixabay
