How Carney’s Housing Initiative Can Industrialize Canada’s Mass Timber Sector – CleanTechnica

---

Support CleanTechnica’s work through a Substack subscription or on Stripe.

---

Last Updated on: 24th August 2025, 06:27 pm

Canada’s housing crisis is no longer a problem measured in headlines or political talking points. It is a structural failure that has been building for decades, leaving affordability out of reach for millions of Canadians. At the same time, the country has committed to steep climate targets, and the construction sector is still one of the largest contributors of greenhouse gas emissions. The two problems are linked by the way we build. Every new apartment block poured in concrete and laced with steel locks in emissions before a single light turns on.

Addressing the housing shortfall and the climate challenge at the same time demands a different approach. Mark Carney’s Build Canada Homes initiative proposes a pathway, one I explore in this second article in my series on cross-laminated timber, modular multi-unit residential buildings and Canada’s moment of opportunity. The target of 500,000 new homes per year is paired with low cost loans, equity support, and pattern book designs that point directly at modular and mass timber construction. The opportunity is to treat the program not just as a housing policy but as an anchor customer for a new manufacturing base.

Prefabrication and modular building methods have struggled to take hold in Canada despite technical proof that they can deliver faster, higher quality construction. Part of the problem is that the target has often been detached homes, where scaling is next to impossible. Another problem has been volatility. A factory cannot run efficiently if orders fluctuate wildly, yet housing demand in Canada has been subject to economic cycles and political shifts. When the pipeline of projects dries up, factories sit idle, and when demand surges again, ramping back up takes too long. That cycle has killed off more than one promising modular venture. The other drag on speed is approvals. Every municipality has its own permitting process, and building officials often require custom reviews of designs, even when those designs are repeated in multiple locations. The combination of the wrong target market, uncertain demand and slow permitting cancels out the potential benefits of modular methods. Without the right building target, structural demand and streamlined approvals, Canada cannot rely on prefabrication to help solve the housing crisis.

The guiding policy should be to treat Build Canada Homes as a guaranteed buyer. Government can stabilize the market by issuing multi year offtake contracts to modular and CLT factories, guaranteeing a baseline of orders that keep plants running at high utilization. Alongside that, it should publish pre-approved design templates for six to twelve storey multifamily housing, the bread and butter of urban supply. If a developer or a public agency wants to put up a building within those parameters, the permit should be fast tracked because the design has already been vetted. This removes duplication and delays, and it also makes factories more efficient, since they can produce standardized modules or panels rather than retooling for each project. Other countries have shown the value of this approach. Sweden’s prefab industry has grown under stable demand from government backed housing programs, and Japanese firms deliver thousands of modular homes annually using standardized designs and assembly line methods.

Translating policy into production means real investments on the ground. Canada needs between ten and twelve regional factories dedicated to CLT and modular housing by 2030, spread across the country to serve local markets and reduce transport costs. Each should be capable of producing at least 50,000 cubic meters of CLT annually, which equates to thousands of housing units. The capital required is significant, roughly $200 million per large CLT line, but that is within reach given the $25 billion in low cost loans and $1 billion in equity financing included in Carney’s plan. The federal role is to de-risk the investment, while private capital and developers align their projects with the new manufacturing base. The housing built under this system would not be limited to public stock. Private developers could draw from the same factories, taking advantage of lower costs and faster delivery, while the government guarantees provide the floor of demand needed to keep the lines running.

The numbers illustrate the impact. A single factory producing 50,000 cubic meters of CLT each year could supply structural panels for roughly 2,000 mid rise apartments. With a dozen factories in operation, the output would be enough to cover a significant fraction of the 500,000 annual unit target. Compared to conventional methods, modular CLT buildings can be erected in half the time. Floors that take weeks to pour and cure in concrete can be craned into place in days when made of timber panels. That speed not only accelerates occupancy but also cuts financing costs for developers, creating a financial incentive alongside the climate one.

The embodied carbon savings are real, and increasingly accepted by international standards. Every cubic meter of CLT stores close to a ton of CO2 absorbed by the tree, while emissions from production average about 120 kilograms. An electrified and sustainable forestry industry and distribution can eliminate the production emissions, and that will be the basis of an article in the series. Building with CLT in place of concrete and steel can cut embodied carbon by 15% to 40% depending on the project. Those savings accumulate quickly when scaled to hundreds of thousands of units.

Risks remain. If factories are underfunded or delayed, the capacity will not be there to meet demand. If insurance premiums for mass timber remain several times higher than for concrete, projects will struggle to pencil out. If municipalities resist adopting permit fast lanes or cling to bespoke approval processes, the speed advantage will be lost.

Workforce development is another factor. Modular factories require technicians and assembly line workers, not just carpenters and laborers. Training programs must expand quickly to fill those roles. The enablers are equally clear. Federal financing is in place, provinces are already moving to update building codes to allow taller wood buildings, and Indigenous partnerships offer pathways for sustainable forestry and manufacturing that create regional jobs. With those pieces aligned, the risks can be managed.

The conclusion is simple. Build Canada Homes can be more than a housing policy. It can be the foundation of a new advanced manufacturing sector that delivers housing at scale, cuts embodied carbon, and provides stable jobs in regions that need them. Treating the initiative as an anchor customer for modular and CLT factories ensures that the investment in capacity pays back in square footage on the ground. If Canada moves quickly, the program can stabilize housing supply, build a globally competitive timber industry, and make measurable progress on climate commitments. The choice is between repeating the old cycles of scarcity and volatility or creating a stable, industrialized system that meets the needs of people and the planet.