Mark Carney has emphasized the need to cut red tape and reduce fees to accelerate housing construction. (markcarney.ca) This market resolves to 'Yes' if the Canadian federal government officially announces a nationwide policy aimed at deregulating housing construction before July 18, 2025. Official announcements from the Government of Canada will serve as the resolution source.
Update 2025-06-18 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator specified what types of policies would or would not count as deregulation.
The policy must focus on removing existing regulatory barriers rather than creating new government interventions (e.g., financial incentives).
Examples of policies that would count:
Eliminating or reducing zoning restrictions, height/density limits, development charges, parking requirements, or rent control.
Streamlining permitting processes.
Examples of policies that would NOT count:
New tax incentives or subsidies (including resurrecting the MURB allowance).
Increased government spending on housing.
New programs for first-time buyers.
Update 2025-06-19 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): A federal policy that uses funding to incentivize or require municipalities to implement deregulation will count towards a 'Yes' resolution. The key factor is that the policy's outcome is genuine regulatory reform (e.g., removing zoning restrictions), as opposed to being purely a financial subsidy without attached requirements.
1,000People are also trading
Would count as deregulation:
- Eliminating or reducing zoning restrictions (e.g., allowing multi-family housing in single-family zones)
- Streamlining permitting processes or reducing approval timelines
- Removing height restrictions or density limits
- Eliminating or reducing development charges/fees
- Reducing parking requirements for new developments
- Removing rent control measures
Would NOT count as deregulation:
- New tax incentives or subsidies (including resurrecting MURB)
- Increased government spending on housing
- New programs to help first-time buyers
- Creating new government housing agencies
Regarding MURB specifically: No, I don’t think resurrecting the MURB allowance would count as deregulation. MURB is a tax incentive/subsidy program rather than the removal of regulatory barriers. Deregulation refers to eliminating rules, restrictions, or bureaucratic processes rather than adding new financial incentives.
The policy would need to focus on removing existing regulatory barriers rather than creating new government interventions in the market.
@stephenfayAzzP does encouraging municipalities to remove building restrictions via the Housing Affordability Fund (HAF) count? For example what recently happened in Winnipeg? https://bsky.app/profile/cbailey6.bsky.social/post/3lr6xahcz3k2z
@Seanny123 The HAF mechanism is a hybrid approach that uses federal funding to incentivize municipalities to implement deregulation. While the money itself is a subsidy, the condition for receiving it requires actual deregulation (removing zoning restrictions, streamlining approvals, etc.).
So yes, I think encouraging municipalities to remove building restrictions via HAF would count as deregulation, even though it’s facilitated through government funding. The key is that the actual policy changes being implemented are deregulatory in nature - they’re removing barriers and restrictions, not just providing money.
The funding mechanism is the carrot, but the stick is requiring genuine regulatory reform. The federal government imposed zoning change requirements as conditions for HAF funding , forcing cities to actually deregulate rather than just receive subsidies.
This distinguishes it from something like MURB, which would be purely a tax incentive without requiring any removal of regulatory barriers.