The past may offer fixes for the housing problems of today

By Michael Giles

Feb. 6, 2026

In the dark days after the commencement of the Second World War, things looked undeniably bleak for Britain as the country faced a powerful and evil enemy. Things became even more dire after the fall of France in spring 1940.

One of the most pressing challenges facing then new Prime Minister Winston Churchill in that uncertain summer was how to ensure that wartime production would be sufficient to produce what was needed to execute the war, and to replace military equipment lost at Dunkirk and on an ongoing basis as the war was prosecuted daily.

What Churchill recognized was the reality that conventional governmental practices and existing bureaucracies simply were not going to be able to meet the enormous challenges associated with fighting the war and solving multiple supply crises in terms of material and implementation methods.

He arrived at a solution that aggravated many but which, in the end, got the job done, perhaps in the only way possible.

He appointed Lord Beaverbrook, an overly sensitive Canadian-born newspaper baron whose real name was Max Aitken, to the position of Minister of Aircraft Production. It helped that Beaverbrook was completely convinced of his own genius in getting things done.

While initially focused on aircraft production, ensuring that the output of Spitfires and Hurricane fighter planes was sufficient to win the Battle of Britain, Beaverbrook eventually morphed the role into all sorts of production initiatives. 

What was critical to his role was the power given to him by Churchill. Recognizing that it was a time of unparalleled crisis where conventional means of management, procurement and production were unsuited to the task at hand, Beaverbrook was given oversight power that essentially could not be overruled.  

The manifestation of this authority often irked a large number of people. Beaverbrook used his power to rachet up production even if it meant labour working much longer hours than conventional workdays. He also had the authority, and he used it, to order reallocation of resources from one site or project to another.

In essence, Beaverbrook had unchecked authority other than his reporting to Churchill himself.  

The story of wartime production manifested in Churchill and Beaverbrook is a tale of extraordinary measures being taken to address what at first appeared to be an insurmountable challenge.

While fighting an all-out war may not be comparable, there are lessons to be learned from the Churchill-Beaverbrook experience for us as we contend with the most serious and enduring housing crisis we have ever faced, particularly in the Greater Toronto Hamilton Area and southwestern British Columbia.  

The reality is that to varying degrees governments at all levels have moved to institute their own, often-siloed solutions that they hope will move the dial on the housing affordability and supply crisis. However, regardless of the measures taken or the focus applied to date, the dire situation we find ourselves in simply continues to endure and persist.

While some measures have been able to bridge the divide over governmental jurisdictional considerations, like the finally aligned sales tax rebate, the majority of actions taken to date fall into a miasma that is not interconnected. The result is a mediocrity of solutions which fails to realize any significant or enduring progress towards a restoration of the homebuilding market.  

So, while it may sound fanciful in terms of contemporary political and jurisdictional realities, one can only imagine the potential that would come from introducing a modern-day housing crisis Beaverbrook to the current landscape. Invested with virtually unlimited jurisdiction, ranging from taxation to planning policies, such a figure could move the dial and introduce needed solutions. 

As noted, most will say this could never happen as systems are now. But it’s worth the conversation in the context of a reality where nothing is moving us towards a solution.