In what many observers are calling an unforced political error, newly appointed Housing Minister Sean Fraser ignited a firestorm of criticism after suggesting the government must balance housing affordability with “maintaining the value” of existing homes. The comments, delivered during an interview with CTV’s Question Period, have exposed tensions within the Liberal government’s housing strategy and raised questions about whose interests are being prioritized in Canada’s ongoing housing crisis.
“We have to recognize that for many Canadians, their only retirement savings is the investment they’ve made in their home,” Fraser said during the Sunday interview. “So we need to increase the supply of housing to help with affordability challenges, while maintaining the value of the investments that Canadians have already made.”
The backlash was swift and came from across the political spectrum. Critics, including economists and housing advocates, argue Fraser’s statement reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the housing crisis facing millions of Canadians.
“You can’t simultaneously make housing more affordable and protect the inflated values of existing homes. It’s mathematically impossible,” said Mike Moffatt, an economist at the Smart Prosperity Institute and former Liberal government advisor. “The minister’s comments suggest a policy contradiction that undermines the government’s stated commitment to affordability.”
Fraser’s comments come at a particularly sensitive moment. Recent data from the Canadian Real Estate Association shows the average home price hovering around $718,000 nationally, with significantly higher figures in major urban centers. Meanwhile, a report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer indicates that nearly 40 percent of Canadians under 40 have effectively been priced out of homeownership without significant family assistance.
In Vancouver, where the average home now costs over $1.2 million, housing advocate Jill Atkey didn’t mince words. “When government officials talk about ‘maintaining values’ for current homeowners while addressing affordability, they’re essentially saying they want the impossible. Housing can’t become more affordable while prices remain at their current levels relative to incomes.”
The controversy has highlighted the political tightrope the Trudeau government is walking. With an aging population of homeowners who view their properties as retirement nest eggs, and younger generations increasingly shut out of the market, the Liberals appear caught between competing voter interests.
Conservative housing critic Pierre Paul-Hus seized on Fraser’s comments, calling them “further proof that the Liberals have no real plan to address Canada’s housing crisis.” He added, “They want to appear concerned about affordability while reassuring wealthy homeowners that nothing will fundamentally change.”
NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, whose party props up the minority Liberal government through a supply-and-confidence agreement, demanded clarity from the minister. “You can build more housing without promising to keep prices artificially high,” Singh said in a statement. “This government needs to decide if they’re working for speculators or for people who need homes.”
Fraser attempted to clarify his position on Monday, stating that the government remains committed to its Housing Accelerator Fund and other measures designed to increase supply. “When we build more housing, we take pressure off the market in a way that creates more options for Canadians,” he told reporters on Parliament Hill.
But economists point out that meaningful affordability improvements would necessarily involve some market correction. Benjamin Tal, deputy chief economist at CIBC, explained the contradiction: “If we’re serious about returning to historical affordability metrics, either incomes need to rise dramatically or housing prices need to adjust downward in many markets. There’s no third option.”
The controversy has also exposed regional tensions. In communities like Kitchener-Waterloo, where prices have jumped nearly 140 percent in the past decade, city councillor Sarah Marsh expressed frustration with the federal messaging. “People in our community are living in cars or moving away because housing costs are completely disconnected from local wages. Protecting current valuations isn’t just bad policy – it’s cruel to those being left behind.”
Minister Fraser’s comments appear especially disconnected from the Liberal government’s own National Housing Strategy, which explicitly aims to improve housing affordability for vulnerable Canadians. The Strategy’s website promises to “ensure Canadians have access to housing that meets their needs and is affordable,” a goal that many experts say is incompatible with maintaining current price levels.
Public polling suggests the minister may have miscalculated politically as well. Recent Abacus Data research indicates that 72 percent of Canadians now view housing affordability as a crisis, with the issue ranking as the top concern among voters under 45.
As Fraser works to clarify his position and the government’s approach to housing, many observers note that the controversy reveals a deeper challenge: the mathematical reality that improved affordability may require some adjustment in home values, especially in the nation’s most overheated markets.
As Scotiabank’s senior economist Jean-François Perrault noted, “The fundamental issue is that we’ve allowed housing to become both shelter and a financial asset class. When government tries to serve both purposes equally, they create policy paralysis that serves neither well.”
For millions of Canadians currently struggling with housing costs or locked out of the market entirely, the minister’s comments have raised a pointed question: whose housing needs is this government prioritizing?
