OPINION: How Do We Solve a Problem When We Can’t Agree on What the Problem Is?

Last week, I wrote about the municipal budgetary pressures currently squeezing our communities, particularly in relation to infrastructure funding. I challenged readers to look inward—at ourselves, our expectations, and our collective responsibility for how we got here.

But this week, I’m going to throw a wrench into that conversation.

Over the past few weeks, I’ve found myself repeating the same question: How do we solve the housing crisis? It seems like a straightforward issue. Developers want to build.

Municipalities want to grow. People need homes. But we’re stuck. Construction is happening, but not at the pace we need. The economics don’t work. Labour is in short supply. Costs are too high. And despite the urgency of the problem, the machine is moving far too slowly.

The Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) released a report in 2022 with a staggering figure: to restore housing affordability in Canada by 2030, an additional 3.5 million affordable housing units are needed. That’s on top of what we’re already projected to build. In total, over 22 million housing units would be required by 2030 to meet demand and restore affordability.

That number should stop us in our tracks.

Let’s break it down. If we need 22 million housing units in 5 years, we should have been on track to start building them five years ago. We are not. And every passing day makes the gap between what we need and what we’re building wider.

But here’s the thing—this isn’t just a housing crisis. It’s a political crisis. A budget crisis. A planning crisis. And ultimately, it’s a crisis of alignment. Because right now, we can’t even agree on what the real problem is. And if we can’t agree on what the problem is, how can we possibly expect to solve it?

Municipalities are in a bind. On one hand, they are seeing explosive growth. Immigration, migration, and internal population shifts are driving more people into our urban and suburban areas. This is a good thing—new residents enrich our communities, fuel our economies, and represent the future of this country.

On the other hand, the housing market cannot keep pace. Not because of a lack of will, but because of a lack of capacity. Municipalities are increasingly finding themselves at a breaking point, forced to make the unthinkable decision: Do we say we can’t handle any more people?

Why? The answer is frustratingly simple: we can’t afford to grow.

Building housing is one thing. Building the infrastructure to support that housing—sewer lines, wastewater treatment facilities, roads, transit systems, parks, emergency services—is another thing entirely. And that’s the part that falls squarely on the shoulders of municipalities.

The problem is, municipalities don’t have the fiscal capacity to meet that demand. We are still living in the shadow of past planning decisions. In the 1980s and 1990s, we grew outwards. We sprawled. And we didn’t stop until just a few years ago. That type of growth came with major costs, and now we’re paying for it. Infrastructure is expensive to build and even more expensive to maintain. And most of it has a lifespan that’s ticking down fast.

Today, the choices made decades ago are limiting our options. We didn’t build smart enough or sustainably enough to support the growth we now face. And now, just when we most need to grow, we’re finding that we’ve backed ourselves into a corner.

Earlier this year, I had a conversation with several developers who were painfully candid with me. Their message was clear: they will not build in communities that haven’t properly prepared their infrastructure. They don’t want to wait six to twelve months for a wastewater station to be approved. They want to start the day their permits are pulled. And if they can’t?

They’ll walk.

One developer told me bluntly, “I’ve pulled permits from rural and small communities due to lack of municipal foresight.”

Harsh? Maybe. But it’s probably not a one-off sentiment. And municipalities across the country are likely hearing this more and more. Unfortunately, so are provincial and federal politicians—who are increasingly laying the blame for the housing crisis at the feet of municipalities.

Here’s where I’m going to ruffle some feathers: That narrative is, frankly, misleading.

Municipalities are not the sole reason why housing isn’t getting built. They’re not sitting on their hands. They’re not obstructing growth out of laziness or stubbornness. They are doing the best they can with the resources they have.

And those resources are woefully inadequate.

If the federal and provincial governments want to point fingers, then they also need to accept their share of the responsibility—and step up. Because here’s the uncomfortable truth: if you want to build more housing, then you have to work with municipalities. And that means funding the infrastructure that makes housing possible.

When a new wastewater treatment facility is required to support growth, municipalities shouldn’t have to shoulder that cost alone. When a lift station is needed to accommodate 1,000 new residents, help pay for it. Don’t just criticize local governments for inaction when you’re standing in the way of the solution.

The system is broken, not because municipalities don’t want to build, but because we’ve designed a system that makes it nearly impossible for them to do so.

Here’s the paradox we now find ourselves in: Developers won’t build where infrastructure isn’t ready. Infrastructure can’t be built without money. Municipalities don’t have the money, and Provincial and federal governments want more housing but won’t commit to funding the infrastructure to support it.

And around and around we go.

We’re caught in a loop of blame and paralysis. And until that cycle is broken, we are not going to build the housing we need. We are not going to meet those CMHC targets. We are not going to restore affordability. And five years from now, when we look back on this moment, we will regret that we spent more time arguing about whose fault it was than we did solving the actual problem.

This is why I keep coming back to the central question: How do we solve a problem when we can’t even agree on what the problem is?

Because right now, there are multiple competing narratives, Municipalities say: We want to build, but we can’t afford to, Developers say: We want to build, but we won’t wait, Provinces say: Municipalities are dragging their feet, and the federal government says: We’ve set ambitious targets—why aren’t you meeting them?

They’re all right, and they’re all wrong. Because no one’s telling the whole story.

The real issue is not laziness or bad faith or even incompetence. It’s misalignment.

Our governments are not aligned on a shared vision of how to solve this problem. Our policies don’t work in concert. Our timelines don’t match. Our funding structures don’t complement each other. And without alignment, even the best-intentioned solutions fall apart.

We’re at a crossroads. And standing still is not an option.

We either choose to work together—to align priorities, coordinate funding, and build the infrastructure needed to support smart growth—or we fall further behind. And the costs of falling behind are not just financial. They are social. They are generational.

Let’s be clear about what needs to happen.

First, we need a national infrastructure accord—a formal, binding commitment between all three levels of government to fund and build the infrastructure that supports housing. This includes everything from transit systems and roads to water treatment facilities and green spaces. Without that foundational support, housing projects will continue to stall.

Second, municipalities need real-time funding mechanisms. They must be equipped with flexible, responsive funding models that allow them to seize growth opportunities as they arise. The current process—waiting years for grants or navigating layers of red tape—wastes precious time we no longer have.

Third, we must stop the blame game and build a system of shared accountability. Every level of government has a role to play in addressing the housing crisis, and none of them can solve it alone. Clear targets and joint responsibility are the only way forward.

Fourth, it’s time to empower local governments. Municipalities know their communities best. They should have the tools, resources, and autonomy to make decisions that reflect local realities. Instead, too often, they are forced to operate under restrictive provincial or federal oversight that doesn’t account for on-the-ground challenges.

Finally, we must address the workforce and supply chain realities of infrastructure and housing development. This isn’t just a funding issue—it’s also a labour issue. Governments need to invest in skilled trades training, strengthen supply chains, and ensure the materials and people needed to build at scale are available and accessible.

We’re not going to build 22 million housing units by 2030 by repeating tired political narratives or playing jurisdictional hot potato.

We’re not going to build it by vilifying municipalities or by expecting developers to do all the heavy lifting.

And we’re certainly not going to build it by underfunding the very infrastructure that makes housing possible.

So we have a choice.

We can either put the horse before the cart—by funding infrastructure first, coordinating across governments, and enabling municipalities to lead—or we can keep pushing the cart forward with no horse and wonder why we’re getting nowhere.

If we don’t change course, we won’t just fail to build the 3.5 million affordable housing units CMHC says we need. That number will look like a cakewalk compared to what we’ll need in 2035.

The time to act is now. And the first step? Agreeing on what the problem really is.