220203 Affordable and Attainable Housinng Advisory Committee AGDPage 1 of 2
The Corporation of the Town of Tillsonburg
Affordable and Attainable Housing Advisory Committee
February 23, 2022
4:15 p.m.
Electronic
AGENDA
1.
2.Adoption of Agenda
Proposed Resolution #1
Moved by:
Seconded by:
THAT the Agenda as prepared for the Affordable and Attainable Housing Advisory
Committee meeting of February 23, 2022 be adopted.
3.Minutes of the Previous Meeting
Proposed Resolution #2
Moved by:
Seconded by:
THAT the Minutes as prepared for the Affordable and Attainable Housing Advisory
Committee meeting of January 26, 2022 be adopted.
4.Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof
Call to Order
5.Presentations
(ATTACHED)
Page 2 of 2
7.Round Table
8.Next Meeting
March 23, 2022
9.Adjournment
Proposed Resolution #4
Moved by:
Seconded by:
THAT the February 23, 2022 Affordable and Attainable Housing Advisory
Committee meeting be adjourned at ____ p.m.
6.General business and Reports
6.1 County Housing Master Plan (ATTACHMENT 1) (ATTACHMENT 2)
Proposed Resolution #3
Moved by:
Seconded by:
THAT the Affordable/Attainable Housing Committee recommends to
Council that the excess lands at 31 Earle St and a portion of the 45
Hardy Ave property be supported for inclusion in the Oxford County
Housing Master Plan analysis
6.2 Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force - Review of Most
Appropriate Recommendations for Tillsonburg $77$&+('
Page 1 of 3
The Corporation of the Town of Tillsonburg
Affordable and Attainable Housing Advisory Committee
January 26, 2022
4:15 p.m.
Electronic
Minutes
1.
2.Adoption of Agenda
Resolution #1
Moved by: Councillor Penny Essiltine
Seconded by: Suzanne Renken
THAT the Agenda as prepared for the Affordable and Attainable Housing Advisory
Committee meeting of January 26, 2022 be adopted.
CARRIED
Call to Order
The Affordable and Attainable Housing Advisory Committee meeting weas called
to order at 4:17 p.m.
The Committee welcomed the newly appointed member from the Economic
Development Advisory Committee, who is Dane Wilson.
Present:
Mike Clarkson, Councill Chris Parker (Chair), Council Penny Esseltine, Gary Green,
Stephanie Ellens-Clark, Dane Willson, Elyse Pelland, Mayor Stephen Molnar, Randy Peltz,
Mike Clarkson, Cedric Tomico, Suzanne Renken, Lisa Gilvesy, Rebecca Smith
Staff Present:
Kyle Pratt, Chief Aministrative Officer
Cephas Panschow, Development Commissoner
Kennedy Atkinson, Acting Executive Assistant
Page 2 of 3
5.1 Social Planning Council Oxford (Presentation at 4:30 PM)
- Stephanie Ellens-Clark, Social Planning Council Oxford
- Randy Peltz, Oxford County Community Health Centre
5.2 Town of Tillsonburg Non-Profit Housing Corporation (Presentation at 5 PM)
- Michael Clarkson
5.Presentations
4.Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof
No Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature therefore
Cedric Tomico entered the meeting at 4:19 p.m.
3.Minutes of the Previous Meeting
November 24, 2021
Resolution #2
Moved by: Gary Green
Seconded by: Councillor Penny Esseltine
THAT the Minutes as prepared for the Affordable and Attainable Housing Advisory
Committee meeting of November 24, 2021 be adopted.
CARRIED
Stephanie Ellens- Clark and Randy Peltz joined the Committee to discuss Transitional
Housing in Tillsonburg. Committed group of community partners working together to find
solutions to the local housing crisis, while supporting the positive work and systems that
already exist. They are focused on ensuring that all people in Oxford County are housed
and connected in the community. It was discussed if there are ways this Committee can
support increasing transitional housing in Tillsonburg.
It was recommended that Social Planning Council Oxford make a formal ask to the
Town and the Council.
Michael Clarkson joined the Committtee meeting to discuss his current housing project
on Victoria St in Tillsonburg. This project is directed towards Seniors living.
It was questioned if the Non- Profit Housing Corportation would expand their focus to
housing to include housing for any age as opposed to just Senior living. Michael
discussed that Senior Living is their main focus.
6.5 Additional Residential Units Report by Oxford County Planning
6.6 County Orillia Campus Project
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
Letter from the Honourable Minister Steve Clark 61
Housing Accelerator Fund and Rent-to-Own Program
6.General business and Reports
Rebecca will reach out to Kyle Pratt in rgards to a Master Housing
Strategy similar to that of the County of Wellington
COOX report CAO 2021-09
The Affordable and Attainable Housing Advisory Committee recieved this messaged
and asked if there are any action to this item. Rebecca stated that there is a specific
policy branch that goes through circulation process and any important changes go
forward to the County Council and does get reviewed by planning.
No Comments
No Comments
No Comments
The Affordable and Attainable Advisory Committee stated that they found
this interesting and request staff to remain focused on this. This was
recieved by Council in Jan 18th and a resolution was passed as information
and to investigate.
Resolution #3
Mover: Cedric Tomico
Seconder: Gary Green
THAT the Affordable and Attainable Housing Advisory Committee
Included in oxford county public consultation process.
And THAT that the report be sent to the Affordable and Attainable
Housing Advisor Committee for comment before it goes to Council.
No Comments
Ontario Appoints Housing Affordability Task Force
CARRIED
7.
8.
9.
Next Meeting
February 24, 2022
Round Table
6.7 Highlights from the January 12 County Council agenda
6.8 Update on the 25 Maple Lane Property
Rebecca will Provide more information on the Down Payment Program Launch in March
It was noted that an expression of interest in the Property has been made.
More information to come
It was noted that there is an issue of vacant employment opportunites in the BIA. Cedric
Tomico mentioned that a survey was issued, however recieved a lack of participation. It was
asked if the BIA can make this an action item and report back to the Committee. it was noted
that more engagement on Social media may be beneficial.
Resolution #4
Moved by: Lisa Gilvesy
Seconded by: Suzanne Renken
THAT the January 26, 2022 Affordable and Attainable Housing Advisory Committee
meeting be adjourned at 5:33 p.m.
CARRIED
Adjournment
August 23, 2021
31 Earle St w Zoning
This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and
is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be
accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. This is not a plan of survey
Legend
1020
Notes
NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_17N
51 Meters
Land Use Zoning (Displays
1:16000 to 1:500)
August 23, 2021
Community Centre - 0.57 Ac w Zoning and Area
This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and
is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be
accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. This is not a plan of survey
Legend
510
Notes
NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_17N
26 Meters
Land Use Zoning (Displays
1:16000 to 1:500)
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 2
Contents
Letter to Minister Clark .......................................................................3
Executive summary and recommendations ...............................4
Introduction ............................................................................................6
Focus on getting more homes built ..............................................9
Making land available to build .......................................................10
Cut the red tape so we can
build faster and reduce costs ........................................................15
Reduce the costs to build, buy and rent ....................................18
Support and incentivize
scaling up housing supply .............................................................22
Conclusion ..........................................................................................26
Appendix A: Biographies of Task Force Members ................27
Appendix B: Affordable Housing .................................................29
Appendix C: Government Surplus Land ....................................31
Appendix D: Surety Bonds ............................................................32
References ..........................................................................................33
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 3
Letter to Minister Clark
Dear Minister Clark,
Hard-working Ontarians are facing a housing crisis. For many years, the province has not built enough housing
to meet the needs of our growing population. While the affordability crisis began in our large cities, it has now
spread to smaller towns and rural communities.
Efforts to cool the housing market have only provided temporary relief to home buyers. The long-term trend is
clear: house prices are increasing much faster than Ontarian’s incomes. The time for action is now.
When striking the Housing Affordability Task Force, you and Premier Ford were clear: you wanted actionable,
concrete solutions to help Ontarians and there was no time to waste. You asked us to be bold and gave us the
freedom and independence to develop our recommendations.
In the past two months, we have met municipal leaders, planners, unions, developers and builders, the financial
sector, academics, think tanks and housing advocates. Time was short, but solutions emerged consistently
around these themes:
• More housing density across the province
• End exclusionary municipal rules that block or delay new housing
• Depoliticize the housing approvals process
• Prevent abuse of the housing appeals system
• Financial support to municipalities that build more housing
We present this report to you not as an “all or nothing” proposal, but rather as a list of options that the government
has at its disposal to help address housing affordability for Ontarians and get more homes built. We propose an
ambitious but achievable target: 1.5 million new homes built in the next ten years.
Parents and grandparents are worried that their children will not be able to afford a home when they start working
or decide to start a family. Too many Ontarians are unable to live in their preferred city or town because they
cannot afford to buy or rent.
The way housing is approved and built was designed for a different era when the province was less constrained
by space and had fewer people. But it no longer meets the needs of Ontarians. The balance has swung too far in
favour of lengthy consultations, bureaucratic red tape, and costly appeals. It is too easy to oppose new housing
and too costly to build. We are in a housing crisis and that demands immediate and sweeping reforms.
It has been an honour to serve as Chair, and I am proud to submit this report on behalf of the entire Task Force.
Jake Lawrence
Chair, Housing Affordability Task Force
Chief Executive Officer and Group Head, Global Banking and Markets, Scotiabank
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 4
Executive summary and recommendations
House prices in Ontario have almost tripled in the past 10 years, growing much faster than
incomes. This has home ownership beyond the reach of most first-time buyers across the
province, even those with well-paying jobs. Housing has become too expensive for rental units
and it has become too expensive in rural communities and small towns. The system is not
working as it should.
For too long, we have focused on solutions to “cool” the
housing market. It is now clear that we do not have enough
homes to meet the needs of Ontarians today, and we are
not building enough to meet the needs of our growing
population. If this problem is not fixed – by creating more
housing to meet the growing demand – housing prices will
continue to rise. We need to build more housing in Ontario.
This report sets out recommendations that would set a bold
goal and clear direction for the province, increase density,
remove exclusionary rules that prevent housing growth,
prevent abuse of the appeals process, and make sure
municipalities are treated as partners in this process by
incentivizing success.
Setting bold targets and making
new housing the planning priority
Recommendations 1 and 2 urge Ontario to set a bold
goal of adding 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years
and update planning guidance to make this a priority.
The task force then recommends actions in five main areas
to increase supply:
Require greater density
Land is not being used efficiently across Ontario. In too many
neighbourhoods, municipal rules only allow single-family
homes – not even a granny suite. Taxpayers have invested
heavily in subway, light rail, bus and rail lines and highways,
and the streets nearby are ideally suited for more mid- and
high-rise housing. Underused or redundant commercial and
industrial buildings are ripe to be redeveloped into housing
or mixed commercial and residential use. New housing
on undeveloped land should also be higher density than
traditional suburbs, especially close to highways.
Adding density in all these locations makes better use
of infrastructure and helps to save land outside urban
boundaries. Implementing these recommendations will
provide Ontarians with many more options for housing.
Recommendations 3 through 11 address how Ontario
can quickly create more housing supply by allowing
more housing in more locations “as of right” (without
the need for municipal approval) and make better use
of transportation investments.
Reduce and streamline urban design rules
Municipalities require numerous studies and set all kinds of
rules for adding housing, many of which go well beyond the
requirements of the provincial Planning Act. While some of
this guidance has value for urban design, some rules appear
to be arbitrary and not supported by evidence – for example,
requiring condo buildings to include costly parking stalls
even though many go unsold. These rules and requirements
result in delays and extra costs that make housing either
impossible to build or very expensive for the eventual home
buyer or renter.
Recommendation 12 would set uniform provincial
standards for urban design, including building
shadows and setbacks, do away with rules that
prioritize preservation of neighbourhood physical
character over new housing, no longer require
municipal approval of design matters like a building’s
colour, texture, type of material or window details,
and remove or reduce parking requirements in cities
over 50,000 in population.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 5
Depoliticize the process and cut red tape
NIMBYism (not in my backyard) is a major obstacle to
building housing. It drags out the approval process, pushes
up costs, and keeps out new residents. Because local
councillors depend on the votes of residents who want to
keep the status quo, the planning process has become
politicized. Municipalities allow far more public consultation
than is required, often using formats that make it hard for
working people and families with young children to take
part. Too few technical decisions are delegated to municipal
staff. Pressure to designate buildings with little or no
heritage value as “heritage” if development is proposed
and bulk listings of properties with “heritage potential” are
also standing in the way of getting homes built. Dysfunction
throughout the system, risk aversion and needless
bureaucracy have resulted in a situation where Ontario lags
the rest of Canada and the developed world in approval
times. Ontarians have waited long enough.
Recommendations 13 through 25 would require
municipalities to limit consultations to the legislated
maximum, ensure people can take part digitally,
mandate the delegation of technical decisions, prevent
abuse of the heritage process and see property
owners compensated for financial loss resulting from
designation, restore the right of developers to appeal
Official Plans and Municipal Comprehensive Reviews,
legislate timelines for approvals and enact several other
common sense changes that would allow housing to be
built more quickly and affordably.
Fix the Ontario Land Tribunal
Largely because of the politicization of the planning process,
many proponents look to the Tribunal, a quasi-judicial body,
to give the go-ahead to projects that should have been
approved by the municipality. Even when there is municipal
approval, however, opponents appeal to the Tribunal –
paying only a $400 fee – knowing that this may well
succeed in delaying a project to the point where it might
no longer make economic sense. As a result, the Tribunal
faces a backlog of more than 1,000 cases and is seriously
under-resourced.
Recommendations 26 through 31 seek to weed out or
prevent appeals aimed purely at delaying projects,
allow adjudicators to award costs to proponents in
more cases, including instances where a municipality
has refused an approval to avoid missing a legislated
deadline, reduce the time to issue decisions, increase
funding, and encourage the Tribunal to prioritize cases
that would increase housing supply quickly as it tackles
the backlog.
Support municipalities that commit to transforming
the system
Fixing the housing crisis needs everyone working together.
Delivering 1.5 million homes will require the provincial and
federal governments to invest in change. Municipalities that
make the difficult but necessary choices to grow housing
supply should be rewarded, and those that resist new
housing should see funding reductions.
Recommendations 49 and 50 call for Ontario
government to create a large “Ontario Housing Delivery
Fund” and encourage the federal government to match
funding, and suggest how the province should reward
municipalities that support change and reduce funding
for municipalities that do not.
This executive summary focuses on the actions that will get
the most housing units approved and built in the shortest
time. Other recommendations in the report deal with issues
that are important but may take more time to resolve or
may not directly increase supply (recommendation numbers
are indicated in brackets): improving tax and municipal
financing (32-37, 39, 42-44); encouraging new pathways
to home ownership (38, 40, 41); and addressing labour
shortages in the construction industry (45-47 ).
This is not the first attempt to “fix the housing system”.
There have been efforts for years to tackle increasing
housing prices and find solutions. This time must be
different. Recommendations 50-55 set out ways of helping
to ensure real and concrete progress on providing the
homes Ontarians need.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 6
Introduction
Ontario is in a housing crisis. Prices are skyrocketing: the average price for a house across
Ontario was $923,000 at the end of 2021.[1] Ten years ago, the average price was $329,000.[2]
Over that period, average house prices have climbed 180% while average incomes have
grown roughly 38%.[3] [4]
Not long ago, hard-working Ontarians – teachers,
construction workers, small business owners – could afford
the home they wanted. In small towns, it was reasonable to
expect that you could afford a home in the neighbourhood
you grew up in. Today, home ownership or finding a quality
rental is now out of reach for too many Ontarians. The system
is not working as it should be.
Housing has become too expensive for rental units and
it has become too expensive in rural communities and
small towns.
While people who were able to buy a home a decade or
more ago have built considerable personal equity, the
benefits of having a home aren’t just financial. Having a
place to call home connects people to their community,
creates a gathering place for friends and family, and
becomes a source of pride.
Today, the reality for an ever-increasing number of
Ontarians is quite different. Everyone in Ontario knows
people who are living with the personal and financial stress
of not being able to find housing they can afford. The young
family who can’t buy a house within two hours of where
they work. The tenant with a good job who worries about
where she’ll find a new apartment she can afford if
the owner decides to sell. The recent graduate who will
have to stay at home for a few more years before he can
afford to rent or buy.
While the crisis is widespread, it weighs more heavily on
some groups than on others. Young people starting a family
who need a larger home find themselves priced out of the
market. Black, Indigenous and marginalized people face
even greater challenges. As Ontarians, we have only
recently begun to understand and address the reality
of decades of systemic racism that has resulted in lower
household incomes, making the housing affordability gap
wider than average.
The high cost of housing has pushed minorities and
lower income Ontarians further and further away from
job markets. Black and Indigenous homeownership
rates are less than half of the provincial average.[5] And
homelessness rates among Indigenous Peoples are
11 times the national average. When housing prevents an
individual from reaching their full potential, this represents
a loss to every Ontarian: lost creativity, productivity, and
revenue. Lost prosperity for individuals and for the entire
Ontario economy.
Average price for a
house across Ontario
2021
$923,000
$329,000
2011
+180 %+38 %
Over 10 Years
average
house prices
have climbed
while average
incomes have
grown
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 7
As much as we read about housing affordability being a
challenge in major cities around the world, the depth of the
challenge has become greater in Ontario and Canada than
almost anywhere in the developed world.
How did we get here? Why do we have this problem?
A major factor is that there just isn’t enough housing.
A 2021 Scotiabank study showed that Canada has the
fewest housing units per population of any G7 country – and,
our per capita housing supply has dropped in the past five
years.[6] An update to that study released in January 2022
found that two thirds of Canada’s housing shortage is in
Ontario.[7] Today, Ontario is 1.2 million homes – rental or
owned – short of the G7 average. With projected population
growth, that huge gap is widening, and bridging it will
take immediate, bold and purposeful effort. And to support
population growth in the next decade, we will need
one million more homes.
While governments across Canada have taken steps to
“cool down” the housing market or provide help to first-time
buyers, these demand-side solutions only work if there is
enough supply. Shortages of supply in any market have a
direct impact on affordability. Scarcity breeds price increases.
Simply put, if we want more Ontarians to have housing, we
need to build more housing in Ontario.
Ontario must build 1.5 million homes over the
next 10 years to address the supply shortage
The housing crisis impacts all Ontarians. The ripple effect of
the crisis also holds back Ontario reaching its full potential.
Economy
Businesses of all sizes are facing problems finding and
retaining workers. Even high-paying jobs in technology
and manufacturing are hard to fill because there’s not
enough housing nearby. This doesn’t just dampen the
economic growth of cities, it makes them less vibrant,
diverse, and creative, and strains their ability to provide
essential services.
Public services
Hospitals, school boards and other public service providers
across Ontario report challenges attracting and retaining
staff because of housing costs. One town told us that it
could no longer maintain a volunteer fire department,
because volunteers couldn’t afford to live within 10 minutes
drive of the firehall.
Environment
Long commutes contribute to air pollution and carbon
emissions. An international survey of 74 cities in 16 countries
found that Toronto, at 96 minutes both ways, had the
longest commute times in North America and was
essentially tied with Bogota, Colombia, for the longest
commute time worldwide.[8] Increasing density in our cities
and around major transit hubs helps reduce emissions to
the benefit of everyone.
Our mandate and approach
Ontario’s Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
tasked us with recommending ways to accelerate our
progress in closing the housing supply gap to improve
housing affordability.
Time is of the essence. Building housing now is exactly
what our post-pandemic economy needs. Housing
construction creates good-paying jobs that cannot be
outsourced to other countries. Moreover, the pandemic
gave rise to unprecedented levels of available capital that
can be invested in housing – if we can just put it to work.
We represent a wide range of experience and perspectives
that includes developing, financing and building homes,
delivering affordable housing, and researching housing
market trends, challenges and solutions. Our detailed
biographies appear as Appendix A.
Canada has the lowest amount of housing per
population of any G7 country.
We acknowledge that every house in
Ontario is built on the traditional territory
of Indigenous Peoples.
1.5MOntario must build
homes over the next 10 years
to address the supply shortage.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 8
Our mandate was to focus on how to increase market
housing supply and affordability. By market housing, we are
referring to homes that can be purchased or rented without
government support.
Affordable housing (units provided at below-market rates
with government support) was not part of our mandate.
The Minister and his cabinet colleagues are working on that
issue. Nonetheless, almost every stakeholder we spoke
with had ideas that will help deliver market housing and
also make it easier to deliver affordable housing. However,
affordable housing is a societal responsibility and will
require intentional investments and strategies to bridge the
significant affordable housing gap in this province. We have
included a number of recommendations aimed at affordable
housing in the body of this report, but have also included
further thoughts in Appendix B.
We note that government-owned land was also outside our
mandate. Many stakeholders, however, stressed the value
of surplus or underused public land and land associated
with major transit investments in finding housing solutions.
We agree and have set out some thoughts on that issue in
Appendix C.
How we did our work
Our Task Force was struck in December 2021 and
mandated to deliver a final report to the Minister by the end
of January 2022. We were able to work to that tight timeline
because, in almost all cases, viewpoints and feasible
solutions are well known. In addition, we benefited from
insights gleaned from recent work to solve the problem in
other jurisdictions.
During our deliberations, we met with and talked to over
140 organizations and individuals, including industry
associations representing builders and developers,
planners, architects, realtors and others; labour unions;
social justice advocates; elected officials at the municipal
level; academics and research groups; and municipal
planners. We also received written submissions from many
of these participants. In addition, we drew on the myriad
public reports and papers listed in the References.
We thank everyone who took part in sessions that were
uniformly helpful in giving us a deeper understanding of the
housing crisis and the way out of it. We also thank the staff
of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing who
provided logistical and other support, including technical
briefings and background.
The way forward
The single unifying theme across all participants over the
course of the Task Force’s work has been the urgency
to take decisive action. Today’s housing challenges are
incredibly complex. Moreover, developing land, obtaining
approvals, and building homes takes years.
Some recommendations will produce immediate benefits,
others will take years for the full impact.
This is why there is no time to waste. We urge the Minister
of Municipal Affairs and Housing and his cabinet colleagues
to continue measures they have already taken to accelerate
housing supply and to move quickly in turning the
recommendations in this report into decisive new actions.
The province must set an ambitious and bold goal to
build 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years. If we build
1.5 million new homes over the next ten years, Ontario can
fill the housing gap with more affordable choices, catch up
to the rest of Canada and keep up with population growth.
By working together, we can resolve Ontario’s housing
crisis. In so doing, we can build a more prosperous future
for everyone.
The balance of this report lays out our recommendations.
People in households that spend 30% or more of total household income on shelter expenses are defined as
having a “housing affordability” problem. Shelter expenses include electricity, oil, gas, coal, wood or other fuels,
water and other municipal services, monthly mortgage payments, property taxes, condominium fees, and rent.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 9
Focus on getting more homes built
Resolving a crisis requires intense focus and a clear goal. The province is responsible for the
legislation and policy that establishes the planning, land use, and home building goals, which guide
municipalities, land tribunals, and courts. Municipalities are then responsible for implementing
provincial policy in a way that works for their communities. The province is uniquely positioned to
lead by shining a spotlight on this issue, setting the tone, and creating a single, galvanizing goal
around which federal support, provincial legislation, municipal policy, and the housing market
can be aligned.
In 2020, Ontario built about 75,000 housing units.[9] For this
report, we define a housing unit (home) as a single dwelling
(detached, semi-detached, or attached), apartment, suite,
condominium or mobile home. Since 2018, housing
completions have grown every year as a result of positive
measures that the province and some municipalities have
implemented to encourage more home building. But we
are still 1.2 million homes short when compared to other
G7 countries and our population is growing. The goal of
1.5 million homes feels daunting – but reflects both the need
and what is possible. In fact, throughout the 1970s Ontario
built more housing units each year than we do today.[10]
The second recommendation is designed to address the
growing complexity and volume of rules in the legislation,
policy, plans and by-laws, and their competing priorities,
by providing clear direction to provincial agencies,
municipalities, tribunals, and courts on the overriding
priorities for housing.
1. Set a goal of building 1.5 million new homes in
ten years.
2. Amend the Planning Act, Provincial Policy
Statement, and Growth Plans to set “growth in the
full spectrum of housing supply” and “intensification
within existing built-up areas” of municipalities as
the most important residential housing priorities in
the mandate and purpose.
The “missing middle” is often cited as an important part of the housing solution. We define the missing
middle as mid-rise condo or rental housing, smaller houses on subdivided lots or in laneways and other
additional units in existing houses.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 10
Making land available to build
The Greater Toronto Area is bordered on one side by Lake Ontario and on the other by the
protected Greenbelt. Similarly, the Ottawa River and another Greenbelt constrain land supply
in Ottawa, the province’s second-largest city.
But a shortage of land isn’t the cause of the problem.
Land is available, both inside the existing built-up areas
and on undeveloped land outside greenbelts.
We need to make better use of land. Zoning defines what
we can build and where we can build. If we want to make
better use of land to create more housing, then we need
to modernize our zoning rules. We heard from planners,
municipal councillors, and developers that “as of right”
zoning – the ability to by-pass long, drawn out consultations
and zoning by-law amendments – is the most effective tool
in the provincial toolkit. We agree.
Stop using exclusionary zoning
that restricts more housing
Too much land inside cities is tied up by outdated rules.
For example, it’s estimated that 70% of land zoned for
housing in Toronto is restricted to single-detached or
semi-detached homes.[11] This type of zoning prevents
homeowners from adding additional suites to create
housing for Ontarians and income for themselves. As one
person said, “my neighbour can tear down what was there
to build a monster home, but I’m not allowed to add a
basement suite to my home.”
While less analysis has been done in other Ontario
communities, it’s estimated that about half of all residential
land in Ottawa is zoned for single-detached housing,
meaning nothing else may be built on a lot without public
consultation and an amendment to the zoning by-law. In
some suburbs around Toronto, single unit zoning dominates
residential land use, even close to GO Transit stations and
major highways.
One result is that more growth is pushing past urban
boundaries and turning farmland into housing. Undeveloped
land inside and outside existing municipal boundaries must
be part of the solution, particularly in northern and rural
communities, but isn’t nearly enough on its own. Most of the
solution must come from densification. Greenbelts and other
environmentally sensitive areas must be protected, and
farms provide food and food security. Relying too heavily
on undeveloped land would whittle away too much of the
already small share of land devoted to agriculture.
Modernizing zoning would also open the door to more
rental housing, which in turn would make communities
more inclusive.
Allowing more gentle density also makes better use of
roads, water and wastewater systems, transit and other
public services that are already in place and have capacity,
instead of having to be built in new areas.
The Ontario government took a positive step by allowing
secondary suites (e.g., basement apartments) across the
province in 2019. However, too many municipalities still
place too many restrictions on implementation. For the last
three years, the total number of secondary suites in Toronto
has actually declined each year, as few units get permitted
and owners convert two units into one.[12]
These are the types of renovations and home construction
performed by small businesses and local trades, providing
them with a boost.
70 %It’s estimated that
of land zoned for housing in Toronto
is restricted to single-detached
or semi-detached homes.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 11
Underused and vacant commercial and industrial properties
are another potential source of land for housing. It was
suggested to us that one area ripe for redevelopment into
a mix of commercial and residential uses is the strip mall,
a leftover from the 1950s that runs along major suburban
streets in most large Ontario cities.
“As of right” zoning allows more kinds of housing that are
accessible to more kinds of people. It makes neighbourhoods
stronger, richer, and fairer. And it will get more housing
built in existing neighbourhoods more quickly than any
other measure.
3. Limit exclusionary zoning in municipalities through
binding provincial action:
a) Allow “as of right” residential housing up to
four units and up to four storeys on a single
residential lot.
b) Modernize the Building Code and other policies
to remove any barriers to affordable construction
and to ensure meaningful implementation
(e.g., allow single-staircase construction for
up to four storeys, allow single egress, etc.).
4. Permit “as of right” conversion of underutilized or
redundant commercial properties to residential
or mixed residential and commercial use.
5. Permit “as of right” secondary suites, garden suites,
and laneway houses province-wide.
6. Permit “as of right” multi-tenant housing (renting
rooms within a dwelling) province-wide.
7. Encourage and incentivize municipalities to increase
density in areas with excess school capacity to
benefit families with children.
Align investments in roads and transit
with growth
Governments have invested billions of dollars in highways,
light rail, buses, subways and trains in Ontario. But
without ensuring more people can live close to those
transit routes, we’re not getting the best return on those
infrastructure investments.
Access to transit is linked to making housing more
affordable: when reliable transit options are nearby, people
can get to work more easily. They can live further from the
centre of the city in less expensive areas without the
added cost of car ownership.
The impacts of expanding public transit go far beyond
serving riders. These investments also spur economic
growth and reduce traffic congestion and emissions. We all
pay for the cost of transit spending, and we should all share
in the benefits.
If municipalities achieve the right development near
transit – a mix of housing at high- and medium-density,
office space and retail – this would open the door to better
ways of funding the costs. Other cities, like London, UK
and Hong Kong, have captured the impacts of increased
land value and business activity along new transit routes
to help with their financing.
Ontario recently created requirements (residents/hectare)
for municipalities to zone for higher density in transit
corridors and “major transit station areas”.[13] These are
areas surrounding subway and other rapid transit stations
and hubs. However, we heard troubling reports that local
opposition is blocking access to these neighbourhoods
and to critical public transit stations. City staff, councillors,
and the province need to stand up to these tactics and
speak up for the Ontarians who need housing.
The Province is also building new highways in the Greater
Golden Horseshoe, and it’s important to plan thoughtfully
for the communities that will follow from these investments,
to make sure they are compact and liveable.
Population density
(people per km2)
Tokyo
London
New York
Toronto
4,200
1,700
450
1,800
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 12
8. Allow “as of right” zoning up to unlimited height
and unlimited density in the immediate proximity
of individual major transit stations within two years
if municipal zoning remains insufficient to meet
provincial density targets.
9. Allow “as of right” zoning of six to 11 storeys with
no minimum parking requirements on any streets
utilized by public transit (including streets on bus
and streetcar routes).
10. Designate or rezone as mixed commercial and
residential use all land along transit corridors and
redesignate all Residential Apartment to mixed
commercial and residential zoning in Toronto.
11. Support responsible housing growth on
undeveloped land, including outside existing
municipal boundaries, by building necessary
infrastructure to support higher density
housing and complete communities and applying
the recommendations of this report to all
undeveloped land.
Start saying “yes in my backyard”
Even where higher density is allowed in theory, the official
plans of most cities in Ontario contain conflicting goals like
maintaining “prevailing neighbourhood character”. This bias
is reinforced by detailed guidance that often follows from
the official plan. Although requirements are presented as
“guidelines”, they are often treated as rules.
Examples include:
• Angular plane rules that require successively higher
floors to be stepped further back, cutting the number
of units that can be built by up to half and making
many projects uneconomic
• Detailed rules around the shadows a building casts
• Guidelines around finishes, colours and other design details
One resident’s desire to prevent a shadow being cast in their
backyard or a local park frequently prevails over concrete
proposals to build more housing for multiple families. By-laws
and guidelines that preserve “neighbourhood character”
often prevent simple renovations to add new suites to
existing homes. The people who suffer are mostly young,
visible minorities, and marginalized people. It is the perfect
example of a policy that appears neutral on its surface but
is discriminatory in its application.[14]
Far too much time and money are spent reviewing and
holding consultations for large projects which conform with
the official plan or zoning by-law and small projects which
would cause minimal disruption. The cost of needless
delays is passed on to new home buyers and tenants.
Minimum parking requirements for each new unit are another
example of outdated municipal requirements that increase
the cost of housing and are increasingly less relevant with
public transit and ride share services. Minimum parking
requirements add as much as $165,000 to the cost of a new
housing unit, even as demand for parking spaces is falling:
data from the Residential Construction Council of Ontario
shows that in new condo projects, one in three parking
stalls goes unsold. We applaud the recent vote by Toronto
City Council to scrap most minimum parking requirements.
We believe other cities should follow suit.
While true heritage sites are important, heritage preservation
has also become a tool to block more housing. For example,
some municipalities add thousands of properties at a time to
a heritage register because they have “potential” heritage
value. Even where a building isn’t heritage designated or
registered, neighbours increasingly demand it be as soon
as a development is proposed.
This brings us to the role of the “not in my backyard” or
NIMBY sentiment in delaying or stopping more homes from
being built.
New housing is often the last priority
A proposed building with market and affordable
housing units would have increased the midday
shadow by 6.5% on a nearby park at the fall
and spring equinox, with no impact during the summer
months. To conform to a policy that does not permit
“new net shadow on specific parks”, seven floors
of housing, including 26 affordable housing units,
were sacrificed.
Multiple dry cleaners along a transit route were
designated as heritage sites to prevent new housing
being built. It is hard not to feel outrage when our laws
are being used to prevent families from moving into
neighbourhoods and into homes they can afford along
transit routes.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 13
NIMBY versus YIMBY
NIMBYism (not in my backyard) is a large and constant
obstacle to providing housing everywhere. Neighbourhood
pushback drags out the approval process, pushes up
costs and discourages investment in housing. It also keeps
out new residents. While building housing is very costly,
opposing new housing costs almost nothing.
Unfortunately, there is a strong incentive for individual
municipal councillors to fall in behind community opposition –
it’s existing residents who elect them, not future ones. The
outcry of even a handful of constituents (helped by the rise
of social media) has been enough, in far too many cases, to
persuade their local councillor to vote against development
even while admitting its merits in private. There is a sense
among some that it’s better to let the Ontario Land Tribunal
approve the development on appeal, even if it causes long
delays and large cost increases, then to take the political heat.
Mayors and councillors across the province are fed up and
many have called for limits on public consultations and
more “as of right” zoning. In fact, some have created a new
term for NIMBYism: BANANAs – Build Absolutely Nothing
Anywhere Near Anything, causing one mayor to comment
“NIMBYism has gone BANANAs”. We agree. In a growing,
thriving society, that approach is not just bad policy, it is
exclusionary and wrong.
As a result, technical planning decisions have become
politicized. One major city has delegated many decisions to
senior staff, but an individual councillor can withdraw the
delegation when there is local opposition and force a vote
at Council. We heard that this situation is common across
the province, creating an electoral incentive for a councillor
to delay or stop a housing proposal, or forcing a councillor
to pay the electoral cost of supporting it. Approvals of
individual housing applications should be the role of
professional staff, free from political interference.
The pressure to stop any development is now so intense that
it has given rise to a counter-movement – YIMBYism, or “yes
in my backyard,” led by millennials who recognize entrenched
opposition to change as a huge obstacle to finding a home.
They provide a voice at public consultations for young people,
new immigrants and refugees, minority groups, and Ontarians
struggling to access housing by connecting our ideals to
the reality of housing. People who welcome immigrants to
Canada should welcome them to the neighbourhood, fighting
climate change means supporting higher-density housing,
and “keeping the neighbourhood the way it is” means
keeping it off-limits. While anti-housing voices can be loud,
a member of More Neighbours Toronto, a YIMBY group that
regularly attends public consultations, has said that the most
vocal opponents usually don’t represent the majority in a
neighbourhood. Survey data from the Ontario Real Estate
Association backs that up, with almost 80% of Ontarians
saying they are in favour of zoning in urban areas that would
encourage more homes.
Ontarians want a solution to the housing crisis. We
cannot allow opposition and politicization of individual
housing projects to prevent us from meeting the needs
of all Ontarians.
12. Create a more permissive land use, planning, and
approvals system:
a) Repeal or override municipal policies, zoning,
or plans that prioritize the preservation of
physical character of neighbourhood
b) Exempt from site plan approval and public
consultation all projects of 10 units or less that
conform to the Official Plan and require only
minor variances
c) Establish province-wide zoning standards, or
prohibitions, for minimum lot sizes, maximum
building setbacks, minimum heights, angular
planes, shadow rules, front doors, building depth,
landscaping, floor space index, and heritage
view cones, and planes; restore pre-2006 site
plan exclusions (colour, texture, and type of
materials, window details, etc.) to the Planning
Act and reduce or eliminate minimum parking
requirements; and
d) Remove any floorplate restrictions to allow
larger, more efficient high-density towers.
13. Limit municipalities from requesting or hosting
additional public meetings beyond those that are
required under the Planning Act.
14. Require that public consultations provide digital
participation options.
15. Require mandatory delegation of site plan
approvals and minor variances to staff or
pre-approved qualified third-party technical
consultants through a simplified review and
approval process, without the ability to withdraw
Council’s delegation.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 14
16. Prevent abuse of the heritage preservation and
designation process by:
a) Prohibiting the use of bulk listing on municipal
heritage registers
b) Prohibiting reactive heritage designations after
a Planning Act development application has
been filed
17. Requiring municipalities to compensate property
owners for loss of property value as a result of
heritage designations, based on the principle of
best economic use of land.
18. Restore the right of developers to appeal Official
Plans and Municipal Comprehensive Reviews.
We have heard mixed feedback on Committees of
Adjustment. While they are seen to be working well in some
cities, in others they are seen to simply add another lengthy
step in the process. We would urge the government to first
implement our recommendation to delegate minor variances
and site plan approvals to municipal staff and then assess
whether Committees of Adjustment are necessary and an
improvement over staff-level decision making.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 15
Cut the red tape so we can build faster and reduce costs
One of the strongest signs that our approval process is not working: of 35 OECD countries,
only the Slovak Republic takes longer than Canada to approve a building project. The UK and
the US approve projects three times faster without sacrificing quality or safety. And they save
home buyers and tenants money as a result, making housing more affordable.[15]
A 2020 survey of development approval times in
23 Canadian cities shows Ontario seriously lagging:
Hamilton (15th), Toronto (17th), Ottawa (21st) with approval
times averaging between 20-24 months. These timelines
do not include building permits, which take about two years
for an apartment building in Toronto. Nor did they count the
time it takes for undeveloped land to be designated for
housing, which the study notes can take five to ten years.[16]
Despite the good intentions of many people involved in
the approvals and home-building process, decades of
dysfunction in the system and needless bureaucracy have
made it too difficult for housing approvals to keep up with
the needs of Ontarians. There appear to be numerous
reasons why Ontario performs so poorly against other
Canadian cities and the rest of the developed world. We
believe that the major problems can be summed up as:
• Too much complexity in the planning process, with the
page count in legislation, regulation, policies, plans, and
by-laws growing every year
• Too many studies, guidelines, meetings and other
requirements of the type we outlined in the previous
section, including many that go well beyond the scope
of Ontario’s Planning Act
• Reviews within municipalities and with outside agencies
that are piecemeal, duplicative (although often with
conflicting outcomes) and poorly coordinated
• Process flaws that include reliance on paper
• Some provincial policies that are more relevant
to urban development but result in burdensome,
irrelevant requirements when applied in some rural
and northern communities.
All of this has contributed to widespread failure on the part
of municipalities to meet required timelines. The provincial
Planning Act sets out deadlines of 90 days for decisions
on zoning by-law amendments, 120 days for plans of
subdivision, and 30 days for site plan approval, but
municipalities routinely miss these without penalty. For
other processes, like site plan approval or provincial
approvals, there are no timelines and delays drag on. The
cost of delay falls on the ultimate homeowner or tenant.
The consequences for homeowners and renters are
enormous. Ultimately, whatever cost a builder pays gets
passed on to the buyer or renter. As one person said:
“Process is the biggest project killer in Toronto because
developers have to carry timeline risk.”
Site plan control was often brought up as a frustration.
Under the Planning Act, this is meant to be a technical
review of the external features of a building. In practice,
municipalities often expand on what is required and take
too long to respond.
8,200
Then & Now
Total words in:
1996
Provincial Policy
Statement
17,000
2020
17,000
1970
Planning Act
96,000
2020
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 16
An Ontario Association of Architects study calculating the
cost of delays between site plan application and approval
concluded that for a 100-unit condominium apartment
building, each additional month of delay costs the applicant
an estimated $193,000, or $1,930 a month for each unit.[17]
A 2020 study done for the Building Industry and Land
Development Association (BILD) looked at impacts of delay
on low-rise construction, including single-detached homes. It
estimated that every month an approval is delayed adds, on
average, $1.46 per square foot to the cost of a single home.
A two-year delay, which is not unusual for this housing type,
adds more than $70,000 to the cost of a 2,000-square-foot
house in the GTA.[16]
Getting rid of so much unnecessary and unproductive
additional work would significantly reduce the burden on
staff. It would help address the widespread shortages of
planners and building officials. It would also bring a stronger
sense among municipal staff that they are part of the housing
solution and can take pride in helping cut approval times and
lower the costs of delivering homes.
Adopt common sense approaches that save
construction costs
Wood using “mass timber” – an engineer compressed wood,
made for strength and weight-bearing – can provide a
lower-cost alternative to reinforced concrete in many mid-rise
projects, but Ontario’s Building Code is hampering its use.
Building taller with wood offers advantages beyond cost:
• Wood is a renewable resource that naturally sequesters
carbon, helping us reach our climate change goals
• Using wood supports Ontario’s forestry sector and
creates jobs, including for Indigenous people
British Columbia’s and Quebec’s building codes allow
woodframe construction up to 12 storeys, but Ontario limits
it to six. By amending the Building Code to allow 12-storey
woodframe construction, Ontario would encourage increased
use of forestry products and reduce building costs.
Finally, we were told that a shift in how builders are required
to guarantee their performance would free up billions of
dollars to build more housing. Pay on demand surety bonds
are a much less onerous option than letters or credit,
and are already accepted in Hamilton, Pickering, Innisfil,
Whitchurch-Stouffville and other Ontario municipalities.
We outline the technical details in Appendix D.
19. Legislate timelines at each stage of the provincial
and municipal review process, including site plan,
minor variance, and provincial reviews, and deem
an application approved if the legislated response
time is exceeded.
20. Fund the creation of “approvals facilitators” with
the authority to quickly resolve conflicts among
municipal and/or provincial authorities and ensure
timelines are met.
21. Require a pre-consultation with all relevant parties
at which the municipality sets out a binding list that
defines what constitutes a complete application;
confirms the number of consultations established
in the previous recommendations; and clarifies that
if a member of a regulated profession such as a
professional engineer has stamped an application,
the municipality has no liability and no additional
stamp is needed.
22. Simplify planning legislation and policy documents.
23. Create a common, province-wide definition of plan
of subdivision and standard set of conditions which
clarify which may be included; require the use of
standard province-wide legal agreements and,
where feasible, plans of subdivision.
24. Allow wood construction of up to 12 storeys.
25. Require municipalities to provide the option of pay
on demand surety bonds and letters of credit.
Then: In 1966, a draft plan of subdivision in a town in
southwestern Ontario to provide 529 low-rise and
mid-rise housing units, a school site, a shopping centre
and parks was approved by way of a two-page letter
setting out 10 conditions. It took seven months to clear
conditions for final approval.
And now: In 2013, a builder started the approval
process to build on a piece of serviced residential land
in a seasonal resort town. Over the next seven years,
18 professional consultant reports were required,
culminating in draft plan approval containing 50
clearance conditions. The second approval, issued
by the Local Planning Appeals Board in 2020, ran to
23 pages. The developer estimates it will be almost
10 years before final approval is received.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 17
Prevent abuse of the appeal process
Part of the challenge with housing approvals is that, by the
time a project has been appealed to the Ontario Land
Tribunal (the Tribunal), it has usually already faced delay and
compromises have been made to reduce the size and scope
of the proposal. When an approved project is appealed, the
appellant – which could just be a single individual – may pay
$400 and tie up new housing for years.
The most recent published report showed 1,300 unresolved
cases.[18] While under-resourcing does contribute to delays,
this caseload also reflects the low barrier to launching an
appeal and the minimal risks if an appeal is unsuccessful:
• After a builder has spent time and money to ensure a
proposal conforms with a municipality’s requirements,
the municipal council can still reject it – even if its own
planning staff has given its support. Very often this is to
appease local opponents.
• Unlike a court, costs are not automatically awarded to
the successful party at the Tribunal. The winning side
must bring a motion and prove that the party bringing
the appeal was unreasonable, clearly trying to delay the
project, and/or being vexatious or frivolous. Because the
bar is set so high, the winning side seldom asks for costs
in residential cases.
This has resulted in abuse of the Tribunal to delay new
housing. Throughout our consultations, we heard from
municipalities, not-for-profits, and developers that affordable
housing was a particular target for appeals which, even if
unsuccessful, can make projects too costly to build.
Clearly the Tribunal needs more resources to clear its
backlog. But the bigger issue is the need for so many
appeals: we believe it would better to have well-defined
goals and rules for municipalities and builders to avoid this
costly and time-consuming quasi-judicial process. Those who
bring appeals aimed at stopping development that meets
established criteria should pay the legal costs of the successful
party and face the risk of a larger project being approved.
The solution is not more appeals, it’s fixing the system. We
have proposed a series of reforms that would ensure only
meritorious appeals proceeded, that every participant faces
some risk and cost of losing, and that abuse of the Tribunal
will be penalized. We believe that if Ontario accepts our
recommendations, the Tribunal will not face the same volume
of appeals. But getting to that point will take time, and the
Tribunal needs more resources and better tools now.
Recommendation 1 will provide legislative direction to
adjudicators that they must prioritize housing growth and
intensification over competing priorities contained in
provincial and municipal policies. We further recommend
the following:
26. Require appellants to promptly seek permission
(“leave to appeal”) of the Tribunal and demonstrate
that an appeal has merit, relying on evidence
and expert reports, before it is accepted.
27. Prevent abuse of process:
a) Remove right of appeal for projects with at
least 30% affordable housing in which units
are guaranteed affordable for at least 40 years.
b) Require a $10,000 filing fee for third-party
appeals.
c) Provide discretion to adjudicators to award
full costs to the successful party in any appeal
brought by a third party or by a municipality
where its council has overridden a
recommended staff approval.
28. Encourage greater use of oral decisions issued the
day of the hearing, with written reasons to follow,
and allow those decisions to become binding the
day that they are issued.
29. Where it is found that a municipality has refused
an application simply to avoid a deemed approval
for lack of decision, allow the Tribunal to award
punitive damages.
30. Provide funding to increase staffing (adjudicators
and case managers), provide market-competitive
salaries, outsource more matters to mediators,
and set shorter time targets.
31. In clearing the existing backlog, encourage
the Tribunal to prioritize projects close to the
finish line that will support housing growth and
intensification, as well as regional water or utility
infrastructure decisions that will unlock significant
housing capacity.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 18
Reduce the costs to build, buy and rent
The price you pay to buy or rent a home is driven directly by how much it costs to build a home.
In Ontario, costs to build homes have dramatically increased at an unprecedented pace over
the past decade. In most of our cities and towns, materials and labour only account for about
half of the costs. The rest comes from land, which we have addressed in the previous section,
and government fees.
A careful balance is required on government fees because,
as much as we would like to see them lowered, governments
need revenues from fees and taxes to build critically
needed infrastructure and pay for all the other services that
make Ontario work. So, it is a question of balance and of
ensuring that our approach to government fees encourages
rather than discourages developers to build the full range
of housing we need in our Ontario communities.
Align government fees and charges
with the goal of building more housing
Improve the municipal funding model
Housing requires more than just the land it is built on. It
requires roads, sewers, parks, utilities and other infrastructure.
The provincial government provides municipalities with a way
to secure funding for this infrastructure through development
charges, community benefit charges and parkland dedication
(providing 5% of land for public parks or the cash equivalent).
These charges are founded on the belief that growth – not
current taxpayers – should pay for growth. As a concept, it
is compelling. In practice, it means that new home buyers
pay the entire cost of sewers, parks, affordable housing, or
colleges that will be around for generations and may not be
located in their neighbourhood. And, although building
affordable housing is a societal responsibility, because
affordable units pay all the same charges as a market
unit, the cost is passed to new home buyers in the same
building or the not-for-profit organization supporting the
project. We do not believe that government fees should
create a disincentive to affordable housing.
If you ask any developer of homes – whether they are
for-profit or non-profit – they will tell you that development
charges are a special pain point. In Ontario, they can be
as much as $135,000 per home. In some municipalities,
development charges have increased as much as 900%
in less than 20 years.[20] As development charges go up, the
prices of homes go up. And development charges on a
modest semi-detached home are the same as on a luxury
6,000 square foot home, resulting in a disincentive to build
housing that is more affordable. Timing is also a challenge
as development charges have to be paid up front, before
a shovel even goes into the ground.
To help relieve the pressure, the Ontario government
passed recent legislation allowing builders to determine
development charges earlier in the building process. But
they must pay interest on the assessed development charge
to the municipality until a building permit is issued, and there
is no cap on the rate, which in one major city is 13% annually.
Cash payments to satisfy parkland dedication also
significantly boost the costs of higher-density projects,
adding on average $17,000 to the cost of a high-rise condo
across the GTA.[21] We heard concerns not just about the
amount of cash collected, but also about the money not
being spent in the neighbourhood or possibly not being
spent on parks at all. As an example, in 2019 the City of
Toronto held $644 million in parkland cash-in-lieu payments.[22]
Everyone can agree that we need to invest in parks as our
communities grow, but if the funds are not being spent,
perhaps it means that more money is being collected for
parklands than is needed and we could lower the cost of
housing if we adjusted these parkland fees.
A 2019 study carried out for BILD
showed that in the Greater Toronto Area,
development charges for low-rise housing are
on average more than three times higher per unit than
in six comparable US metropolitan areas, and roughly
1.75-times higher than in the other Canadian cities.
For high-rise developments the average per unit
charges in the GTA are roughly 50% higher than in the
US areas, and roughly 30% higher than in the other
Canadian urban areas.[19]
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 19
Modernizing HST Thresholds
Harmonized sales tax (HST) applies to all new housing –
including purpose-built rental. Today, the federal component
is 5% and provincial component is 8%. The federal and
provincial government provide a partial HST rebate. Two
decades ago, the maximum home price eligible for a rebate
was set at $450,000 federally and $400,000 provincially,
resulting in a maximum rebate of $6,300 federally and
$24,000 provincially, less than half of today’s average home
price. Buyers of new homes above this ceiling face a
significant clawback. Indexing the rebate would immediately
reduce the cost of building new homes, savings that can be
passed on to Ontarians. When both levels of government
agree that we are facing a housing crisis, they should not
be adding over 10% to the cost of almost all new homes.
32. Waive development charges and parkland
cash-in-lieu and charge only modest connection
fees for all infill residential projects up to 10 units
or for any development where no new material
infrastructure will be required.
33. Waive development charges on all forms of
affordable housing guaranteed to be affordable
for 40 years.
34. Prohibit interest rates on development charges
higher than a municipality’s borrowing rate.
35. Regarding cash in lieu of parkland, s.37, Community
Benefit Charges, and development charges:
a) Provincial review of reserve levels, collections
and drawdowns annually to ensure funds are
being used in a timely fashion and for the
intended purpose, and, where review points
to a significant concern, do not allow further
collection until the situation has been corrected.
b) Except where allocated towards municipality-wide
infrastructure projects, require municipalities to
spend funds in the neighbourhoods where they
were collected. However, where there’s a
significant community need in a priority area of
the City, allow for specific ward-to-ward allocation
of unspent and unallocated reserves.
36. Recommend that the federal government and
provincial governments update HST rebate to
reflect current home prices and begin indexing the
thresholds to housing prices, and that the federal
government match the provincial 75% rebate and
remove any clawback.
Make it easier to build rental
In cities and towns across Ontario, it is increasingly hard to
find a vacant rental unit, let alone a vacant rental unit at an
affordable price. Today, 66% of all purpose-built rental
units in the City of Toronto were built between 1960 and
1979. Less than 15% of Toronto’s purpose-built rentals were
constructed over the ensuing 40 years in spite of the
significant population growth during that time. In fact,
between 2006 and 2016, growth in condo apartments
increased by 186% while purpose-built rental only grew by
0.6%.[12] In 2018, the Ontario government introduced positive
changes that have created growth in purpose-built rental
units – with last year seeing 18,000 units under construction
and 93,000 proposed against a 5-year average prior to 2020
of 3,400 annually.[23]
Long-term renters often now feel trapped in apartments
that don’t make sense for them as their needs change. And
because they can’t or don’t want to move up the housing
ladder, many of the people coming up behind them who
would gladly take those apartments are instead living in
crowded spaces with family members or roommates.
Others feel forced to commit to rental units at prices way
beyond what they can afford. Others are trying their luck
in getting on the wait list for an affordable unit or housing
co-op – wait lists that are years long. Others are leaving
Ontario altogether.
Government charges on a new single-detached home
averaged roughly $186,300, or almost 22% of the price,
across six municipalities in southcentral Ontario. For a
new condominium apartment, the average was almost
$123,000, or roughly 24% of a unit’s price.
of all purpose-built rental units
in the City of Toronto were
built between 1960 and 1979.
66%
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 20
A pattern in every community, and particularly large
cities, is that the apartments and rented rooms that
we do have are disappearing. Apartment buildings are
being converted to condos or upgraded to much more
expensive rental units. Duplexes get purchased and
turned into larger single-family homes.
A major challenge in bridging the gap of rental supply is that,
more often than not, purpose-built rental projects don’t make
economic sense for builders and investors. Ironically, there is
no shortage of Canadian investor capital seeking housing
investments, particularly large pension funds – but the
economics of investing in purpose-built rental in Ontario just
don’t make sense. So, investments get made in apartment
projects in other provinces or countries, or in condo projects
that have a better and safer return-on-investment. What can
governments do to get that investor capital pointed in the
right direction so we can create jobs and get more of the
housing we need built?
Some of our earlier recommendations will help, particularly
indexing the HST rebate. So will actions by government to
require purpose-built rental on surplus government land
that is made available for sale. (Appendix C)
Municipal property taxes on purpose-built rental can
be as much as 2.5 times greater than property taxes
for condominium or other ownership housing.[24]
The Task Force recommends:
37. Align property taxes for purpose-built rental with
those of condos and low-rise homes.
Make homeownership possible for
hardworking Ontarians who want it
Home ownership has always been part of the Canadian
dream. You don’t have to look far back to find a time when
the housing landscape was very different. The norm was for
young people to rent an apartment in their twenties, work
hard and save for a down payment, then buy their first
home in their late twenties or early thirties. It was the same
for many new Canadians: arrive, rent, work hard and buy.
The house might be modest, but it brought a sense of
ownership, stability and security. And after that first step
onto the ownership ladder, there was always the possibility
of selling and moving up. Home ownership felt like a real
possibility for anyone who wanted it.
That’s not how it works now. Too many young people
who would like their own place are living with one or both
parents well into adulthood.
The escalation of housing prices over the last decade has
put the dream of homeownership out of reach of a growing
number of aspiring first-time home buyers. While 73% of
Canadians are homeowners, that drops to 48% for Black
people, 47% for LGBTQ people[5] (StatsCan is studying rates
for other populations, including Indigenous People who are
severely underhoused). This is also an issue for younger
adults: a 2021 study showed only 24% of Torontonians
aged 30 to 39 are homeowners.[25]
In Canada, responsibility for Indigenous housing programs
has historically been a shared between the federal and
provincial governments. The federal government works
closely with its provincial and territorial counterparts to
improve access to housing for Indigenous peoples both on
and off reserve. More than 85% of Indigenous people live in
urban and rural areas, are 11 times more likely to experience
homelessness and have incidence of housing need that is
52% greater than all Canadians. The Murdered and Missing
Indigenous Women and Girls report mentions housing
299 times – the lack of which being a significant, contributing
cause to violence and the provision of which as a significant,
contributing solution. The Province of Ontario has made
significant investments in Urban Indigenous Housing, but
we need the Federal Government to re-engage as an
active partner.
While measures to address supply will have an impact on
housing prices, many aspiring homeowners will continue
to face a gap that is simply too great to bridge through
traditional methods.
The Task Force recognizes the need for caution about
measures that would spur demand for housing before the
supply bottleneck is fixed. At the same time, a growing
number of organizations – both non-profit and for-profit are
proposing a range of unique home equity models. Some
of these organizations are aiming at households who have
sufficient income to pay the mortgage but lack a sufficient
down payment. Others are aiming at households who fall
short in both income and down payment requirements for
current market housing.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 21
The Task Force heard about a range of models to help
aspiring first-time home buyers, including:
• Shared equity models with a government, non-profit or
for-profit lender holding a second “shared equity mortgage”
payable at time of sale of the home
• Land lease models that allow residents to own their home
but lease the land, reducing costs
• Rent-to-own approaches in which a portion of an occupant’s
rent is used to build equity, which can be used as a
down payment on their current unit or another market
unit in the future
• Models where the equity gain is shared between the
homeowner and the non-profit provider, such that the
non-profit will always be able to buy the home back and
sell it to another qualified buyer, thus retaining the home’s
affordability from one homeowner to the next.
Proponents of these models identified barriers that thwart
progress in implementing new solutions.
• The Planning Act limits land leases to a maximum of
21 years. This provision prevents home buyers from
accessing the same type of mortgages from a bank or
credit union that are available to them when they buy
through traditional homeownership.
• The Perpetuities Act has a similar 21-year limit on any
options placed on land. This limits innovative non-profit
models from using equity formulas for re-sale and
repurchase of homes.
• Land Transfer Tax (LTT) is charged each time a home is
sold and is collected by the province; and in Toronto, this
tax is also collected by the City. This creates a double-tax
in rent-to-own/equity building models where LTT ends up
being paid first by the home equity organization and then
by the occupant when they are able to buy the unit.
• HST is charged based on the market value of the home.
In shared equity models where the homeowner neither
owns nor gains from the shared equity portion of their
home, HST on the shared equity portion of the home
simply reduces affordability.
• Residential mortgages are highly regulated by the federal
government and reflective of traditional homeownership.
Modifications in regulations may be required to adapt to
new co-ownership and other models.
The Task Force encourages the Ontario government
to devote further attention to avenues to support new
homeownership options. As a starting point, the Task
Force offers the following recommendations:
38. Amend the Planning Act and Perpetuities Act to
extend the maximum period for land leases and
restrictive covenants on land to 40 or more years.
39. Eliminate or reduce tax disincentives to
housing growth.
40. Call on the Federal Government to implement
an Urban, Rural and Northern Indigenous
Housing Strategy.
41. Funding for pilot projects that create innovative
pathways to homeownership, for Black,
Indigenous, and marginalized people and
first-generation homeowners.
42. Provide provincial and federal loan guarantees
for purpose-built rental, affordable rental and
affordable ownership projects.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 22
Support and incentivize scaling up housing supply
Our goal of building 1.5 million homes in ten years means doubling how many homes Ontario
creates each year. As much as the Task Force’s recommendations will remove barriers to
realizing this ambitious goal, we also need to ensure we have the capacity across Ontario’s
communities to deliver this new housing supply. This includes capacity of our housing
infrastructure, capacity within our municipal planning teams, and boots on the ground
with the skills to build new homes.
There is much to be done and the price of failure for
the people of Ontario is high. This is why the provincial
government must make an unwavering commitment to
keeping the spotlight on housing supply. This is also
why the province must be dogged in its determination to
galvanize and align efforts and incentives across all levels
of government so that working together, we all can get
the job done.
Our final set of recommendations turns to these issues of
capacity to deliver, and the role the provincial government
can play in putting the incentives and alignment in place
to achieve the 1.5 million home goal.
Invest in municipal infrastructure
Housing can’t get built without water, sewage,
and other infrastructure
When the Task Force met with municipal leaders, they
emphasized how much future housing supply relies on
having the water, storm water and wastewater systems,
roads, sidewalks, fire stations, and all the other parts of
community infrastructure to support new homes and
new residents.
Infrastructure is essential where housing is being built
for the first time. And, it can be a factor in intensification
when added density exceeds the capacity of existing
infrastructure, one of the reasons we urge new
infrastructure in new developments to be designed for
future capacity. In Ontario, there are multiple municipalities
where the number one barrier to approving new housing
projects is a lack of infrastructure to support them.
Municipalities face a myriad of challenges in getting this
infrastructure in place. Often, infrastructure investments
are required long before new projects are approved and
funding must be secured. Notwithstanding the burden
development charges place on the price of new housing,
most municipalities report that development charges are
still not enough to fully cover the costs of building new
infrastructure and retrofitting existing infrastructure in
neighbourhoods that are intensifying. Often infrastructure
crosses municipal boundaries creating complicated and
time-consuming “who pays?” questions. Municipal leaders
also shared their frustrations with situations where new
housing projects are approved and water, sewage and
other infrastructure capacity is allocated to the project –
only to have the developer land bank the project and
put off building. Environmental considerations with new
infrastructure add further cost and complexity. The Task
Force recommends:
43. Enable municipalities, subject to adverse external
economic events, to withdraw infrastructure
allocations from any permitted projects where
construction has not been initiated within three
years of build permits being issued.
44. Work with municipalities to develop and
implement a municipal services corporation
utility model for water and wastewater under
which the municipal corporation would borrow
and amortize costs among customers instead
of using development charges.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 23
Create the Labour Force to meet
the housing supply need
The labour force is shrinking in many segments
of the market
You can’t start to build housing without infrastructure.
You can’t build it without people – skilled trades people
in every community who can build the homes we need.
The concern that we are already facing a shortage in
skilled trades came through loud and clear in our
consultations. We heard from many sources that our
education system funnels young people to university
rather than colleges or apprenticeships and creates the
perception that careers in the skilled trades are of less
value. Unions and builders are working to fill the pipeline
domestically and recruit internationally, but mass
retirements are making it challenging to maintain the
workforce at its current level, let alone increase it.
Increased economic immigration could ease this
bottleneck, but it appears difficult for a skilled labourer
with no Canadian work experience to qualify under
Ontario’s rules. Moreover, Canada’s immigration policies
also favour university education over skills our economy
and society desperately need. We ought to be welcoming
immigrants with the skills needed to build roads and
houses that will accommodate our growing population.
The shortage may be less acute, however, among
smaller developers and contractors that could renovate
and build new “missing middle” homes arising from the
changes in neighbourhood zoning described earlier.
These smaller companies tap into a different workforce
from the one needed to build high rises and new
subdivisions. Nonetheless, 1.5 million more homes will
require a major investment in attracting and developing
the skilled trades workforce to deliver this critically
needed housing supply. We recommend:
45. Improve funding for colleges, trade schools,
and apprenticeships; encourage and incentivize
municipalities, unions and employers to provide
more on-the-job training.
46. Undertake multi-stakeholder education program
to promote skilled trades.
47. Recommend that the federal and provincial
government prioritize skilled trades and adjust
the immigration points system to strongly favour
needed trades and expedite immigration status
for these workers, and encourage the federal
government to increase from 9,000 to 20,000
the number of immigrants admitted through
Ontario’s program.
Create a large Ontario Housing Delivery
Fund to align efforts and incent new
housing supply
Build alignment between governments to enable
builders to deliver more homes than ever before
All levels of government play a role in housing.
The federal government sets immigration policy, which has
a major impact on population growth and many tax policies.
The province sets the framework for planning, approvals, and
growth that municipalities rely upon, and is responsible for
many other areas that touch on housing supply, like investing
in highways and transit, training workers, the building code
and protecting the environment. Municipalities are on the
front lines, expected to translate the impacts of federal
immigration policy, provincial guidance and other factors,
some very localized, into official plans and the overall
process through which homes are approved to be built.
The efficiency with which home builders can build, whether
for-profit or non-profit, is influenced by policies and decisions
at every level of government. In turn, how many home
developers can deliver, and at what cost, translates directly
into the availability of homes that Ontarians can afford.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 24
Collectively, governments have not been sufficiently
aligned in their efforts to provide the frameworks and
incentives that meet the broad spectrum of housing needs in
Ontario. Much action, though, has been taken in recent years.
• The Ontario government has taken several steps to
make it easier to build additional suites in your own
home: reduced disincentives to building rental housing,
improved the appeal process, focused on density around
transit stations, made upfront development charges more
predictable, and provided options for municipalities to
create community benefits through development.
• The federal government has launched the National
Housing Strategy and committed over $70 billion in
funding.[26] Most recently, it has announced a $4 billion
Housing Accelerator Fund aimed at helping municipalities
remove barriers to building housing more quickly.[27]
• Municipalities have been looking at ways to change
outdated processes, rules, and ways of thinking that
create delays and increases costs of delivering homes.
Several municipalities have taken initial steps towards
eliminating exclusionary zoning and addressing other
barriers described in this report.
All governments agree that we are facing a housing crisis.
Now we must turn the sense of urgency into action and
alignment across governments.
Mirror policy changes with financial incentives
aligned across governments
The policy recommendations in this report will go a long way
to align efforts and position builders to deliver more homes.
Having the capacity in our communities to build these homes
will take more than policy. It will take money. Rewarding
municipalities that meet housing growth and approval
timelines will help them to invest in system upgrades, hire
additional staff, and invest in their communities. Similarly,
municipalities that resist new housing, succumb to NIMBY
pressure, and close off their neighbourhoods should see
funding reductions. Fixing the housing crisis is a societal
responsibility, and our limited tax dollars should be directed
to those municipalities making the difficult but necessary
choices to grow housing supply.
In late January 2022, the provincial government
announced $45 million for a new Streamline Development
Approval Fund to “unlock housing supply by cutting red
tape and improving processes for residential and industrial
developments”.[28] This is encouraging. More is needed.
Ontario should also receive its fair share of federal
funding but today faces a shortfall of almost $500 million,[29]
despite two thirds of the Canadian housing shortage being
in Ontario. We call on the federal government to address
this funding gap.
48. The Ontario government should establish a
large “Ontario Housing Delivery Fund” and
encourage the federal government to match
funding. This fund should reward:
a) Annual housing growth that meets or
exceeds provincial targets
b) Reductions in total approval times for
new housing
c) The speedy removal of exclusionary
zoning practices
49. Reductions in funding to municipalities that fail
to meet provincial housing growth and approval
timeline targets.
We believe that the province should consider partial grants
to subsidize municipalities that waive development charges
for affordable housing and for purpose-built rental.
Sustain focus, measure, monitor, improve
Digitize and modernize the approvals and
planning process
Some large municipalities have moved to electronic
tracking of development applications and/or electronic
building permits (“e-permits”) and report promising
results, but there is no consistency and many smaller
places don’t have the capacity to make the change.
Municipalities, the provincial government and agencies use
different systems to collect data and information relevant to
housing approvals, which slows down processes and leaves
much of the “big picture” blank. This could be addressed by
ensuring uniform data architecture standards.
Improve the quality of our housing data to inform
decision making
Having accurate data is key to understanding any challenge and
making the best decisions in response. The Task Force heard
from multiple housing experts that we are not always using
the best data, and we do not always have the data we need.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 25
Having good population forecasts is essential in each
municipality as they develop plans to meet future land
and housing needs. Yet, we heard many concerns about
inconsistent approaches to population forecasts. In the
Greater Golden Horseshoe, the forecast provided to
municipalities by the province is updated only when the
Growth Plan is updated, generally every seven years; but
federal immigration policy, which is a key driver of growth,
changes much more frequently. The provincial Ministry
of Finance produces a population forecast on a more
regular basis than the Growth Plan, but these are not
used consistently across municipalities or even by other
provincial ministries.
Population forecasts get translated into housing need in
different ways across the province, and there is a lack of data
about how (or whether) the need will be met. Others pointed
to the inconsistent availability of land inventories. Another
challenge is the lack of information on how much land is
permitted and how much housing is actually getting built
once permitted, and how fast. The Task Force also heard
that, although the Provincial Policy Statement requires
municipalities to maintain a three-year supply of short-term
(build-ready) land and report it each year to the province,
many municipalities are not meeting that requirement.
At a provincial and municipal level, we need better data on
the housing we have today, housing needed to close the
gap, consistent projections of what we need in the future,
and data on how we are doing at keeping up. Improved
data will help anticipate local and provincial supply
bottlenecks and constraints, making it easier to determine
the appropriate level and degree of response.
It will also be important to have better data to assess how
much new housing stock is becoming available to groups
that have been disproportionately excluded from home
ownership and rental housing.
Put eyes on the crisis and change the conversation
around housing
Ours is not the first attempt to “fix the housing system”.
There have been efforts for years to tackle increasing
housing prices and find solutions so everyone in Ontario
can find and afford the housing they need. This time must
be different.
The recommendations in this report must receive sustained
attention, results must be monitored, significant financial
investment by all levels of government must be made. And,
the people of Ontario must embrace a housing landscape
in which the housing needs of tomorrow’s citizens and
those who have been left behind are given equal weight
to the housing advantages of those who are already well
established in homes that they own.
50. Fund the adoption of consistent municipal
e-permitting systems and encourage the
federal government to match funding. Fund
the development of common data architecture
standards across municipalities and provincial
agencies and require municipalities to provide
their zoning bylaws with open data standards.
Set an implementation goal of 2025 and make
funding conditional on established targets.
51. Require municipalities and the provincial
government to use the Ministry of Finance
population projections as the basis for housing
need analysis and related land use requirements.
52. Resume reporting on housing data and
require consistent municipal reporting,
enforcing compliance as a requirement for
accessing programs under the Ontario
Housing Delivery Fund.
53. Report each year at the municipal and provincial
level on any gap between demand and supply by
housing type and location, and make underlying
data freely available to the public.
54. Empower the Deputy Minister of Municipal
Affairs and Housing to lead an all-of-government
committee, including key provincial ministries
and agencies, that meets weekly to ensure our
remaining recommendations and any other
productive ideas are implemented.
55. Commit to evaluate these recommendations
for the next three years with public reporting
on progress.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 26
Conclusion
We have set a bold goal for Ontario: building 1.5 million homes in the next 10 years.
We believe this can be done. What struck us was that
everyone we talked to – builders, housing advocates,
elected officials, planners – understands the need to act now.
As one long-time industry participant said, “for the first time
in memory, everyone is aligned, and we need to take
advantage of that.”
Such unity of purpose is rare, but powerful.
To leverage that power, we offer solutions that are bold but
workable, backed by evidence, and that position Ontario
for the future.
Our recommendations focus on ramping up the supply
of housing. Measures are already in place to try to cool
demand, but they will not fill Ontario’s housing need.
More supply is key. Building more homes will reduce the
competition for our scarce supply of homes and will give
Ontarians more housing choices. It will improve housing
affordability across the board.
Everyone wants more Ontarians to have housing.
So let’s get to work to build more housing in Ontario.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 27
APPENDIX A:Biographies of Task Force Members
Lalit Aggarwal is President of Manor Park Holdings, a
real estate development and operating company active
in Eastern Ontario. Previously, Lalit was an investor for
institutional fund management firms, such as H.I.G. European
Capital Partners, Soros Fund Management, and Goldman
Sachs. He is a past fellow of the C.D. Howe Institute and a
former Director of both Bridgepoint Health and the Centre for
the Commercialization of Regenerative Medicine. Lalit holds
degrees from the University of Oxford and the University of
Pennsylvania. He is also a current Director of the Hospital for
Sick Children Foundation, the Sterling Hall School and the
Chair of the Alcohol & Gaming Commission of Ontario.
David Amborski is a professional Urban Planner, Professor
at Ryerson University’s School of Urban and Regional
Planning and the founding Director of the Centre for Urban
Research and Land Development (CUR). His research and
consulting work explore topics where urban planning
interfaces with economics, including land and housing
markets. He is an academic advisor to the National
Executive Forum on Public Property, and he is a member
of Lambda Alpha (Honorary Land Economics Society).
He has undertaken consulting for the Federal, Provincial
and a range of municipal governments. Internationally,
he has undertaken work for the Canadian International
Development Agency (CIDA), the World Bank, the
Inter-American Development Bank, the Lincoln Institute
of Land Policy, and several other organizations in Eastern
Europe, Latin America, South Africa, and Asia. He also
serves on the editorial boards of several international
academic journals.
Andrew Garrett is a real estate executive responsible for
growing IMCO’s $11+ Billion Global Real Estate portfolio to
secure public pensions and insurance for Ontario families.
IMCO is the only Ontario fund manager purpose built to
onboard public clients such as pensions, insurance,
municipal reserve funds, and endowments. Andrew has
significant non-profit sector experience founding a B Corp
certified social enterprise called WeBuild to help incubate
social purpose real estate projects. He currently volunteers
on non-profit boards supporting social purpose real estate
projects, youth programs and the visual arts at Art Gallery
of Ontario. Andrew sits on board advisory committees for
private equity firms and holds a Global Executive MBA
from Kellogg School Management and a Real Estate
Development Certification from MIT Centre for Real Estate.
Tim Hudak is the CEO of the Ontario Real Estate Association
(OREA). With a passion and voice for championing the
dream of home ownership, Tim came to OREA following a
distinguished 21-year career in politics, including five years
as Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario.
In his role, Tim has focused on transforming OREA into
Ontario’s most cutting-edge professional association at
the forefront of advocacy on behalf of REALTORS® and
consumers, and providing world-class conferences, standard
forms, leadership training and professional guidance to its
Members. As part of his work at OREA, Tim was named one
of the most powerful people in North American residential
real estate by Swanepoel Power 200 for the last five years.
Tim is married to Deb Hutton, and together they have two
daughters, Miller and Maitland. In his spare time, Tim enjoys
trails less taken on his mountain bike or hiking shoes as well
as grilling outdoors.
Jake Lawrence was appointed Chief Executive Officer and
Group Head, Global Banking and Markets in January 2021.
In this role, Jake is responsible for the Bank’s Global
Banking and Markets business line and strategy across its
global footprint. Jake joined Scotiabank in 2002 and has
held progressively senior roles in Finance, Group Treasury
and Global Banking and Markets. From December 2018 to
January 2021, Jake was Co-Group Head of Global Banking
and Markets with specific responsibility for its Capital
Markets businesses, focused on building alignment across
product groups and priority markets to best serve our
clients throughout our global footprint. Previously, Jake was
Executive Vice President and Head of Global Banking and
Markets in the U.S., providing overall strategic direction and
execution of Scotiabank’s U.S. businesses. Prior to moving
into GBM, Jake served as Senior Vice President and Deputy
Treasurer, responsible for Scotiabank’s wholesale funding
activities and liquidity management as well as Senior Vice
President, Investor Relations.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 28
Julie Di Lorenzo (GPLLM, University of Toronto 2020), is
self-employed since 1982, operates one of the largest
female-run Real Estate Development Companies in
North America. She was instrumental in the Daniel Burnham
award-winning Ontario Growth Management Plan (2004)
as President of BILD. Julie served as the first female-owner
President of GTHBA (BILD) and on the boards of the Ontario
Science Centre, Harbourfront Toronto, Tarion (ONHWP),
St. Michael’s Hospital, NEXT36, Waterfront Toronto, Chair
of IREC Committee WT, Havergal College (Co-Chair of
Facilities), York School (interim Vice-Chair), and Canadian
Civil Liberties Association Board. Julie has served various
governments in advisory capacity on Women’s issues,
Economic Development, Innovation and Entrepreneurship.
Awards include Lifetime Achievement BILD 2017, ICCO
Business Excellence 2005 & ICCO Businesswoman of the
Year 2021.
Justin Marchand (CIHCM, CPA, CMA, BComm) is Métis and
was appointed Chief Executive Officer of Ontario Aboriginal
Housing Services (OAHS) in 2018. Justin has over 20 years of
progressive experience in a broad range of sectors, including
two publicly listed corporations, a large accounting and
consulting firm, and a major crown corporation, and holds
numerous designations across financial, operations, and
housing disciplines. He was most recently selected as Chair
of the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association’s (CHRA’s)
Indigenous Caucus Working Group and is also board
member for CHRA. Justin is also an active board member for
both the Coalition of Hamilton Indigenous Leadership (CHIL)
as well as Shingwauk Kinoomaage Gamig, located in
Bawaating. Justin believes that Housing is a fundamental
human right and that when Indigenous people have access
to safe, affordable, and culture-based Housing this provides
the opportunity to improve other areas of their lives.
Ene Underwood is CEO of Habitat for Humanity Greater
Toronto Area), a non-profit housing developer that helps
working, lower income families build strength, stability and
self-reliance through affordable homeownership. Homes
are delivered through a combination of volunteer builds,
contractor builds, and partnerships with non-profit and
for-profit developers. Ene’s career began in the private
sector as a strategy consultant with McKinsey & Company
before transitioning to not-for-profit sector leadership. Ene
holds a Bachelor of Arts (Honours) from the University of
Waterloo and a Master of Business Administration from
Ivey Business School.
Dave Wilkes is the President and CEO of the Building
Industry and Land Development Association of the GTA
(BILD). The Association has 1,300 members and proudly
represents builders, developers, professional renovators
and those who support the industry.
Dave is committed to supporting volunteer boards and
organizations. He has previously served on the George
Brown College Board of Directors, Ontario Curling
Association, and is currently engaged with Black North
Initiative (Housing Committee) and R-Labs I+T Council.
Dave received his Bachelor of Arts (Applied Geography)
from Ryerson.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 29
APPENDIX B:Affordable Housing
Ontario’s affordable housing shortfall was raised in almost every conversation. With rapidly
rising prices, more lower-priced market rental units are being converted into housing far out
of reach of lower-income households. In parallel, higher costs to deliver housing and limited
government funding have resulted in a net decrease in the number of affordable housing units
run by non-profits. The result is untenable: more people need affordable housing after being
displaced from the market at the very time that affordable supply is shrinking.
Throughout our consultations, we were reminded of the
housing inequities experienced by Black, Indigenous
and marginalized people. We also received submissions
describing the unique challenges faced by off-reserve
Indigenous Peoples both in the province’s urban centres
and in the north.
While many of the changes that will help deliver market
housing will also help make it easier to deliver affordable
housing, affordable housing is a societal responsibility.
We cannot rely exclusively on for-profit developers nor
on increases in the supply of market housing to fully solve
the problem.
The non-profit housing sector faces all the same barriers,
fees, risks and complexities outlined in this report as for-profit
builders. Several participants from the non-profit sector
referred to current or future partnerships with for-profit
developers that tap into the development and construction
expertise and efficiencies of the private sector. Successful
examples of leveraging such partnerships were cited with
Indigenous housing, supportive housing, and affordable
homeownership.
We were also reminded by program participants that,
while partnerships with for-profit developers can be very
impactful, non-profit providers have unique competencies
in the actual delivery of affordable housing. This includes
confirming eligibility of affordable housing applicants,
supporting independence of occupants of affordable
housing, and ensuring affordable housing units remain
affordable from one occupant to the next.
One avenue for delivering more affordable housing
that has received much recent attention is inclusionary
zoning. In simple terms, inclusionary zoning (IZ) requires
developers to deliver a share of affordable units in new
housing developments in prescribed areas. The previous
Ontario government passed legislation in April 2018
providing a framework within which municipalities could
enact Inclusionary Zoning bylaws.
Ontario’s first inclusionary zoning policy was introduced in
fall 2021 by the City of Toronto and applies to major transit
station areas. Internationally, inclusionary zoning has been
used successfully to incentivize developers to create new
affordable housing by providing density bonuses (more units
than they would normally be allowed, if some are affordable)
or reductions in government fees. Unfortunately, the City’s
approach did not include any incentives or bonuses.
Instead, Toronto requires market-rate fees and charges for
below-market affordable units. This absence of incentives
together with lack of clarity on the overall density that will be
approved for projects has led developers and some housing
advocates to claim that these projects may be uneconomic
and thus will not get financed or built. Municipalities shared
with us their concerns regarding the restriction in the
provincial IZ legislation that prohibits “cash in lieu” payments.
Municipalities advised that having the option of accepting the
equivalent value of IZ units in cash from the developer would
enable even greater impact in some circumstances (for
example, a luxury building in an expensive neighbourhood,
where the cost of living is too high for a low-income resident).
Funding for affordable housing is the responsibility of
all levels of government. The federal government has
committed to large funding transfers to the provinces
to support affordable housing. The Task Force heard,
however, that Ontario’s share of this funding does not
reflect our proportionate affordable housing needs. This,
in turn, creates further financial pressure on both the
province and municipalities, which further exacerbates the
affordable housing shortages in Ontario’s communities.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 30
Finally, many participants in Task Force consultations
pointed to surplus government lands as an avenue for
building more affordable housing and this is discussed
in Appendix C.
We have made recommendations throughout the report
intended to have a positive impact on new affordable
housing supply. We offer these additional recommendations
specific to affordable housing:
• Call upon the federal government to provide equitable
affordable housing funding to Ontario.
• Develop and legislate a clear, province-wide definition of
“affordable housing” to create certainty and predictability.
• Create an Affordable Housing Trust from a portion of Land
Transfer Tax Revenue (i.e., the windfall resulting from
property price appreciation) to be used in partnership
with developers, non-profits, and municipalities in the
creation of more affordable housing units. This Trust
should create incentives for projects serving and brought
forward by Black- and Indigenous-led developers and
marginalized groups.
• Amend legislation to:
• Allow cash-in-lieu payments for Inclusive Zoning units
at the discretion of the municipality.
• Require that municipalities utilize density bonusing or
other incentives in all Inclusionary Zoning and Affordable
Housing policies that apply to market housing.
• Permit municipalities that have not passed Inclusionary
Zoning policies to offer incentives and bonuses for
affordable housing units.
• Encourage government to closely monitor the
effectiveness of Inclusionary Zoning policy in creating
new affordable housing and to explore alternative
funding methods that are predictable, consistent and
transparent as a more viable alternative option to
Inclusionary Zoning policies in the provision of
affordable housing.
• Rebate MPAC market rate property tax assessment
on below-market affordable homes.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 31
APPENDIX C:Government Surplus Land
Surplus government lands fell outside the mandate of the Task Force. However, this question
came up repeatedly as a solution to housing supply. While we take no view on the disposition of
specific parcels of land, several stakeholders raised issues that we believe merit consideration:
• Review surplus lands and accelerate the sale and
development through RFP of surplus government land
and surrounding land by provincially pre-zoning for
density, affordable housing, and mixed or residential use.
• All future government land sales, whether commercial or
residential, should have an affordable housing component
of at least 20%.
• Purposefully upzone underdeveloped or underutilized
Crown property (e.g., LCBO).
• Sell Crown land and reoccupy as a tenant in a higher
density building or relocate services outside of
major population centres where land is considerably
less expensive.
• The policy priority of adding to the housing supply,
including affordable units, should be reflected in the
way surplus land is offered for sale, allowing bidders
to structure their proposals accordingly.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 32
APPENDIX D:Surety Bonds
Moving to surety bonds would free up billions of dollars for building
When a development proposal goes ahead, the developer typically needs to make site
improvements, such as installing common services. The development agreement details
how the developer must perform to the municipality’s satisfaction.
Up until the 1980s, it was common practice for Ontario
municipalities to accept bonds as financial security for
subdivision agreements and site plans. Today, however,
they almost exclusively require letters of credit from a
chartered bank. The problem with letters of credit is that
developers are often required to collateralize the letter of
credit dollar-for-dollar against the value of the municipal
works they are performing.
Often this means developers can only afford to finance
one or two housing projects at a time, constraining housing
supply. The Ontario Home Builders’ Association estimates
that across Ontario, billions of dollars are tied up in
collateral or borrowing capacity that could be used to
advance more projects.
Modern “pay on demand surety bonds” are proven to
provide the same benefits and security as a letter of credit,
while not tying up private capital the way letters of credit
do. Moving to this option would give municipalities across
Ontario access to all the features of a letter of credit with
the added benefit of professional underwriting, carried
out by licensed bonding companies, ensuring that the
developer is qualified to fulfill its obligations under the
municipal agreement.
Most important from a municipal perspective, the financial
obligation is secured. If a problem arises, the secure bond
is fully payable by the bond company on demand. Surety
companies, similar to banks, are regulated by Ontario’s Office
of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to ensure they
have sufficient funds in place to pay out bond claims.
More widespread use of this instrument could unlock billions
of dollars of private sector financial liquidity that could be
used to build new infrastructure and housing projects,
provide for more units in each development and accelerate
the delivery of housing of all types.
Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 33
References
1. Ontario Housing Market Report
https://wowa.ca/ontario-housing-market
2. Global Property Guide
https://www.globalpropertyguide.com/North-America/Canada/
Price-History-Archive/canadian-housing-market-strong-127030
3. National Household Survey Factsheet
https://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/economy/demographics/census/
nhshi11-6.html#:~:text=Median%20After%2Dtax%20Income%20
of,and%20British%20Columbia%20at%20%2467%2C900
4. CMHC
https://www03.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/hmip-pimh/en/TableMapChart/
5. The Globe And Mail
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/
article-black-canadians-have-some-of-the-lowest-home-
ownership-rates-in-canada/
6. Scotiabank
https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about/economics/
economics-publications/post.other-publications.housing.
housing-note.housing-note--may-12-2021-.html
7. Scotiabank
https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about/economics/
economics-publications/post.other-publications.housing.
housing-note.housing-note--january-12-2022-.html
8. Expert Market
https://www.expertmarket.co.uk/vehicle-tracking/
best-and-worst-cities-for-commuting
9. Statista
https://www.statista.com/statistics/198063/total-number-of-
housing-starts-in-ontario-since-1995/
10. Poltext
https://www.poltext.org/sites/poltext.org/files/discoursV2/DB/
Ontario/ON_DB_1975_29_5.pdf
11. Toronto City Planning
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/ph/bgrd/
backgroundfile-173165.pdf
12. Federation of Rental-housing Providers of Ontario (FRPO)
https://www.frpo.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/
Urbanation-FRPO-Ontario-Rental-Market-Report-Summer-2020.pdf
13. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
https://www.ontario.ca/document/growth-plan-greater-golden-
horseshoe/where-and-how-grow
14. More Neighbours Toronto
https://www.moreneighbours.ca/
15. The World Bank
https://www.doingbusiness.org/en/data/exploretopics/
dealing-with-construction-permits
16. The Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD)
https://bildgta.ca/Assets/BILD%20Municipal%20
Benchmarking%20Study%20-%20FINAL%20-%20Sept%20
2020%20BILD.pdf
17. Construction and Design Alliance of Ontario (CDAO)
http://www.cdao.ca/files/OAA/P5727%20-%20OAA%20Site%20
Plan%20Delay%20Study%20Update%20(2018).pdf
18. Tribunals Ontario 2019-20 Annual Report
https://olt.gov.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Tribunals_
Ontario_2019-2020_Annual_Report_EN_v2.html
19. The Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD)
https://bildgta.ca/Assets/Bild/FINAL%20-%20BILD%20-%20
Comparison%20of%20Government%20Charges%20in%20
Canada%20and%20US%20-%20Sept%2013%202019.pdf
20. The Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD)
https://bildgta.ca/Assets/FINAL%20GTA%20-%20
Development%20Charges%20-%2009%202020.pdf
21. Toronto Star
https://www.thestar.com/life/homes/2018/09/01/
where-did-the-money-go-parkland-dedication-fees-should-be-
used-to-build-parks-in-gta.html
22. The Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD)
https://bildgta.ca/Assets/misc/BILD%20-%20New%20
Homeowner%20Money%20Report%20-%20Oct%205%20
2021%20(002)_Redacted.pdf
23. Urbanation Inc.
https://www.urbanation.ca/news/336-gta-rental-construction-
surged-2021-vacancy-fell
24. Federation of Rental-housing Providers of Ontario (FRPO)
https://www.frpo.org/lobby-view/cities-still-ripping-off-renters
25. Edison Financial
https://edisonfinancial.ca/millennial-home-ownership-canada/
26. Government of Canada National Housing Strategy
https://www.placetocallhome.ca/what-is-the-strategy
27. CMHC
https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/media-newsroom/
news-releases/2021/housing-accelerator-fund-rent-to-own-program
28. Toronto Star
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2022/01/19/
ford-government-announces-45-million-to-cut-red-tape-and-
speed-up-applications-for-new-home-construction.html
29. Canadian Real Estate Wealth
https://www.canadianrealestatemagazine.ca/news/
federal-funds-must-flow-for-housing-programs-334810.aspx