Ontarians are obsessed with housing, and why shouldn’t they be? Since 2010, the fundamental economic assumptions in our province have changed entirely. Housing costs have nearly tripled, while family incomes rose at just one-tenth of the same pace. You now must be well into the top 3% of families to afford a detached home, and well into the top 10% to afford anything at all.
The rapidly increasing costs of housing are being further chased by accelerating rents, making it harder for those without access to family wealth to live, nonetheless prosper in our province. These extreme burdens are forcing young Ontarians, new immigrants, and everyone left out to abandon their dreams. Dreams of homeownership, of financial security, of family life and children, of entrepreneurship, and so much more. It represents a decline in living standards that our comfortable political leadership has been too slow to admit.
The housing crisis is therefore the dominant election issue for many Ontarians. Virtually every Ontarian cares about cost-of-living or housing directly. Housing is the biggest expense in most people’s lives, which has led to the housing crisis becoming an everything crisis.
Less than a year ago, More Neighbours Toronto launched with an objective to put reforms to end the crisis high on the political agenda. Together, progressives and conservatives put aside their differences to advocate for more market and non-market solutions. From ending exclusionary zoning and encouraging transit oriented development, to advocating for more investments in affordable, supportive, and public housing, we have helped put a growth-oriented end to the housing crisis onto the radar.
We have seen a significant shift in the conversation, especially following the publication of the Housing Affordability Task Force (HATF) report commissioned by the current government. It established a clear objective for the province to build 1.5 million new homes in the next 10 years by doubling the rate of homebuilding. This goal became the bar for serious housing plans, with every major party publicly committing to achieving this outcome.
And yet, there remains a fundamental lack of recognition for the severity and urgency of the housing crisis on the campaign trail. Only the Greens propose the wholesale reform of our planning system needs, with openness to bypassing and overruling municipalities when they fail to equitably meet provincial housing needs. The NDP and Liberal platforms take significant steps forward, but many more steps will be necessary. They deserve praise for commitments to end exclusionary zoning, for investing in a provincial builder, and for identifying new tools to prevent bad housing demand. But still, the platforms remain insufficiently ambitious to end the housing crisis in the long term. If elected, they’ll have to go much further than they’ve proposed.
That leaves the Progressive Conservatives, who are running on their record and 2022 budget instead of releasing a platform. The PCs see the HATF report as their long term roadmap, but have not committed to implementing specific recommendations or timeframes. While they have moved policy in the right direction since coming into office, that movement has been too slow. Ontario’s housing crisis was in full-swing in 2018, and since then, prices have risen 44%. With an opportunity to usher in real change following the HATF report, the Government crumbled when faced with opposition by NIMBY-mayors and municipalities. While backroom conversations may have been enough to earn some endorsements from industry, we cannot evaluate the PCs purely on a positive vibe. Their low score ultimately reflects their lack of public commitments.
In the end, our best recommendation for who to vote for is to find out what your MPP candidates believe. Every party has a mix of candidates who are allies or adversaries to a pro-housing future. The reforms we need in Ontario to end the crisis will be easier when an all-party consensus on reform is achieved, as it has been in New Zealand. Let your candidates know you want more housing by using our tool.
Methodology
Grading platforms, as many other organizations have done, is a simplification of what the parties have proposed. We recognize that there is subjectivity in the interpretation of platforms and the choice of our grading categories. We welcome any corrections from parties if we have missed something, or misinterpreted something from their platform. We also decided not to assign grades based on likelihood of following through. There are too many opinions on the "trustworthiness" of each party to be able to assign a grade.
We have divided our platform scoring into five categories, based on what we think is most important to end the housing crisis. These categories are aligned with those in our submission to the Housing Affordability Task Force in December:
- Setting Ambitious Goals: Taking The Crisis Seriously
- Building More Homes: Measures To Increase Housing Supply
- Housing Justice: More Social, Affordable, Co-op, Rental, and Innovative Housing Options
- Changing Behaviour: Incentivizing Growth and Municipal Cooperation
- Reducing Bad Demand and Strengthening Tenant Protections: Stop Excess Speculation & The Financialization Of Housing
We graded each party out of ten for these five categories, which is then averaged into an overall score out of ten. For simplicity, we did not assign half marks. Each category is divided into more specific questions, which we used to assign our category grade.
Detailed Score Table
|
Category |
PCPO |
NDP |
OLP |
GPO |
|
Overall Score (Out of 10) |
5/10 |
7/10 |
7/10 |
8/10 |
|
Setting Ambitious Goals: Taking The Crisis Seriously |
5/10 |
8/10 |
7/10 |
9/10 |
|
Taken together, do platform commitments rise to the challenge of ending the housing crisis as quickly as possible? |
No |
Maybe |
Maybe |
Yes |
|
Do the platforms recognize that housing is a human right? |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Do the platforms commit to building at least 1.5 million homes in the next decade? |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Do the platforms commit to ending chronic homelessness in the next decade? |
No |
Yes |
Maybe, no specific timeline |
Yes |
|
Building More Homes: Measures To Increase Housing Supply |
6/10 |
7/10 |
8/10 |
9/10 |
|
Do the platforms take action to end exclusionary zoning? |
Maybe, no timeline on HATF roadmap |
Yes, but did not define it. |
Yes, but “working with municipalities” |
Yes |
|
Do the platforms take action to intensify near transit? |
Maybe Enough (MZOs, OPA reforms, TOCs) |
Not Enough |
Maybe Enough |
Yes |
|
Do the platforms take action to ensure municipal rules do not practically prevent multi-unit housing where it is technically permitted? |
Not Enough |
Not Enough (Parking minimums only) |
Yes |
Not enough (Abolishing parking minimums, ADUs, legalizing mass timber construction) |
|
Do the platforms legalize multi-tenant housing province-wide? |
Maybe (HATF) |
No |
Maybe |
No |
|
Do the platforms take action to reduce regulatory process barriers and timelines to building new housing? |
Yes (Bill 109) |
No |
Partially |
Partially |
|
Housing Justice: More Social, Affordable, Co-op, Rental, and Innovative Housing Options |
3/10 |
9/10 |
8/10 |
8/10 |
|
Do the platforms take action to use provincial lands to maximize building new affordable housing? |
Not Enough |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Do the platforms provide subsidies to increase the number of social, affordable, public, co-op, subsidized, and supportive units? |
Not Enough |
Yes |
Yes, but fewer than NDP/GPO |
Yes |
|
Do platforms propose creation of a public builder empowered to deliver mixed income housing? |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
|
Do the platforms legalize and/or incentivize innovative structures and financing options to support small-scale co-ownership? |
No |
Yes |
Only rent-to-own |
Yes |
|
Changing Behaviour: Incentivizing Growth and Municipal Cooperation |
5/10 |
4/10 |
5/10 |
5/10 |
|
Do the platforms take action to limit public consultation and appeals for small projects, affordable housing projects, and shelters? |
Maybe |
Maybe |
Maybe |
Maybe |
|
Do the platforms suggest penalties for municipalities who don’t approve enough housing? |
Yes |
No |
No |
Partially (conditioning transit funding) |
|
Do the platforms incentivize municipalities to build more housing beyond provincial mandates? |
Maybe |
No |
Yes |
Maybe |
|
Do platforms suggest updating provincially mandated growth policies to incentivize infill growth over sprawl? |
Maybe, but plans for more growth in the 905 than the 416 |
Yes, but unclear on whether “growth policies” means growth plans |
Yes, calls for increasing housing targets in unaffordable communities |
Yes |
|
Reducing Bad Demand and Strengthening Tenant Protections: Stop Excess Speculation & The Financialization Of Housing |
4/10 |
7/10 |
6/10 |
6/10 |
|
Do the platforms take action to reduce the financialization of housing? |
No |
Partially |
Partially |
Partially |
|
Do the platforms strengthen tenant protections, while offsetting possible disincentives to new purpose-built rental? |
Partially |
Partially |
Yes (rent stabilization and no vacancy control) |
Partially |
|
Do the platforms empower tenants in defending their legal rights, through Landlord & Tenant Board improvements or legal aid for tenants? |
Partially |
Yes (Legal aid, strengthen protections) |
Partially (clear LTB backlogs) |
Yes (Legal aid, strengthen protections) |
Setting Ambitious Goals: Taking The Crisis Seriously
Setting goals is an important part of understanding the intentions of each party.
The Greens get the highest marks with a 9/10 because they have the most ambitious housing platform of all the parties, they recognize that housing is a human right, commit to building enough housing supply, and to ending chronic homelessness in the next decade.
The NDP follow with an 8/10. They score slightly lower than the Greens because taken together, their platform is less specific than the Greens.
The Liberals score a 7/10. They score one point lower than the NDP because they commit to ending chronic homelessness, but do not propose a specific timeline. In a province as rich as Ontario, ending homelessness in 10 years is achievable if we want it to happen.
The Progressive Conservatives score the lowest at 5/10. As stated in the introduction, it is very difficult to evaluate a lack of commitments. Some may think a lower score is deserved, however, if the HATF Report is their roadmap as claimed, it is ambitious. Having no plan to end chronic homelessness, however, is inexcusable. But we gave some credit for a legislative record that saw Laneway and Garden Suites mandated in many municipalities, even if too much leeway was given to regions to create rules.
Taken together, do platform commitments rise to the challenge of ending the housing crisis as quickly as possible?
The Greens made housing one of their three core issues and acknowledged a province-wide crisis is making homeownership “a pipedream for most Ontarians”. They have the most aggressive zoning reform policies, are not afraid to bypass municipalities, and will fund affordable housing.
The NDP acknowledged housing early in their opening message and made ending exclusionary zoning the first bullet point in their opening platform section on affordability. They recognize the need to end exclusionary zoning, and fund affordable housing through creating a public builder.
The Liberals also opened their platform with affordability, with housing policy forming a large part of this section. They defer slightly more to municipalities than the NDP, saying they'll "work with municipalities" to end exclusionary zoning, but they are more specific in their commitments overall. Like the NDP, the Liberals will create a public builder to finance affordable housing.
The Progressive Conservatives commissioned the Housing Affordability Task Force (HATF). The HATF recommendations were ambitious and rose to the challenge of ending the housing crisis. While the PCs have said that the HATF report is their long-term roadmap, they have not yet implemented most recommendations and have not made any specific commitments to implement them.
Do the platforms recognize that housing is a human right?
The NDP, Liberals, and Greens all commit to housing as a human right in their platforms. The Conservatives, in their latest budget, or in their latest housing bill have not committed to housing as a human right.
Do the platforms commit to building at least 1.5 million homes in the next decade?
Every party agrees that Ontario needs to build 1.5 million homes in the next ten years. Other questions rate whether their policies are effective at achieving this goal.
Do the platforms commit to ending chronic homelessness in the next decade?
The NDP and Greens commit to ending chronic homelessness in the next ten years. The Liberals commit to ending chronic homelessness, but do not give a firm timeline. The PCs have not committed to ending chronic homelessness.
In a province as wealthy as Ontario, a housing-first strategy is possible, achievable, beneficial, and in all likelihood, a money-saver. Contemporary research shows that the costs of a housing-first strategy to end homelessness are likely to be offset entirely by reduced costs on the social system, health system, policing, and in other areas of public spending.
Building More Homes: Measures To Increase Housing Supply
It is now a consensus that a fundamental cause of the housing crisis is a lack of supply of homes in the places people want to live. Building at least 1.5M homes through efficient policies is crucial to ending the housing crisis.
The Greens score the highest in this section, with a 9/10, because their zoning reform policies are by far the most specific and ambitious: legalizing fourplexes province-wide and pre-zoning for mid-rise along transit routes.
The Liberals score an 8/10, with a less ambitious plan to end exclusionary zoning by "working with municipalities" to quickly permit triplexes that are two storeys across the province. They improve their score by promising to ensure municipal rules do not practically prevent building multi-unit housing, even where it is technically permitted, and regulating, but not straight-up legalizing multi-tenant housing province-wide.
The NDP score a 7/10, with a promise to end exclusionary zoning, but do not specify what density they plan to legalize, nor do they take action to ensure municipal rules do not practically prevent building multi-unit housing beyond ending parking minimums.
Both the NDP and the Liberals deserve praise for proposing a new public builder. A public builder can complement the market, leverage provincial land to build affordable options, set a standard for quality, and ensure labour markets remain healthy and skilled in periods of uncertainty for private industry.
The PCs score a 6/10, bringing their score up only because they have aggressively used MZOs and modified municipal Official Plan Amendments (OPAs) to build densely near transit, and taken some action to reduce timelines to building new housing through Bill 109. Their lack of commitments makes it hard to evaluate their intentions on supply.
Do the platforms take action to end exclusionary zoning?
The NDP, Liberals and Greens all promise to end exclusionary zoning - to a different extent. The PCs promise to use the Housing Affordability Task Force (HATF) report, which proposed legalizing fourplexes provincewide, as their roadmap. However, they make no firm commitment as to if they will implement that specific point.
The Greens are the strongest, and most specific. They promise to legalize fourplexes provincewide. They also propose amending planning legislation to require municipalities meet intensification targets with density spread throughout urbanized areas. This will force municipalities to abandon the "tall and sprawl" planning patter,, and actually build missing middle and midrise in existing neighbourhoods that are currently exclusionary.
The NDP promise to "end exclusionary zoning" and "reform land use planning rules" to enable building missing middle. While they use New Zealand's zoning reforms as an example, they are not specific with what they mean by "exclusionary zoning", or the density they plan to permit.
The Liberals promise to "work with municipalities" to permit triplexes that are two storeys or less as-of-right, with these permissions also applying to laneway and secondary suites. This language is weak: multiplexes should just straight out be legalized. Permitting triplexes that are two storeys is incremental progress, but falls short of what the HATF and Greens are proposing. The Liberals do propose creating neighbourhood transition zones, which are a good mechanism for permitting more density in neighbourhoods even beyond multiplexes.
Do the platforms take action to intensify near transit?
Legalizing multiplexes will not be sufficient to build 1.5 million homes over the next decade in the places people want to live. We will need to build mid-rise, and high-rise buildings, especially near billion-dollar transit investments.
The Greens have the strongest approach. They will pre-zone for missing middle and mid-rise on transit corridors and main streets, not only major transit stations. They also propose to require minimum densities along transit corridors, and condition transit funding on minimum densities. They will, however, have to ensure that municipalities do not choose to cut transit to avoid having to build more housing.
The PCs have taken action to densify near transit. They have used MZOs in transit-oriented communities, and they amended some secondary plans to permit higher density near major transit stations. However, this approach is not as strong as pre-zoning along all transit corridors like the Greens proposed.
The Liberals promise to encourage the development of "low-rise 'missing middle' multiplexes and other mid-rise housing options near rapid transit stations and routes." This is a good start, but not to the level of pre-zoning along all transit corridors. They do promise to implement parking maximums around transit, which will drive down the cost of construction. They will also include tie-in measures with inclusionary zoning to increase the number of overall homes allowed to be built around transit.
The NDP promise to "align growth with transit investments", but nothing more specific.
Do the platforms take action to ensure municipal rules do not practically prevent multi-unit housing where it is technically permitted?
Many municipal rules and design guidelines make it infeasible to build multi-unit housing, even where the Official Plan or zoning may technically allow it. It is important to relax these rules that prioritize aesthetics over housing.
The Liberals have the strongest language, promising to simplify and modernize rules like parking, floor space, and lot splitting requirements. They will also modify planning legislation to overtly say that building homes is a priority. This could cause city planners to put more weight on getting homes built instead of design guidelines when evaluating development proposals.
The Greens' only specific reference is to end parking minimums province-wide, and improving rules to help homeowners add accessory dwellings (e.g. garden suites, laneway suites, garage conversions).
The PCs have promised to follow the HATF report as their long-term roadmap, but have no specific commitment to enacting provincial standards around these types of municipal rules.
The NDP promise to end parking minimums in transit-served areas. They also propose a new Residents’ Rights Act to make it easier to convert garages, basements and floors into affordable rentals, but they do not discuss changes to make it easier to build new structures.
Do the platforms legalize multi-tenant housing province-wide?
Multi-tenant housing, also known as rooming houses, are one of the cheapest forms of housing available. They provide people a home, who may otherwise not be able to afford one. They should be legal, and regulated for safety province-wide. Unfortunately, even Toronto City Council has not succeeded in legalizing them. The province needs to step in and legalize them across Ontario.
Keeping multi-tenant homes illegal does not keep them away: they already exist in all communities in Ontario. Students, young people, new immigrants, and anyone in desperate need of the cheapest market-rate housing in Ontario depend on multi-tenant homes, but the status quo lets them all down by keeping multi-tenant houses unsafe, illegal, and in the black market.
The Liberals promise to "work with municipalities" to regulate multi-tenant housing. This is better than the other parties, but not enough. Multi-tenant housing should be legalized province-wide, regardless of municipal opposition.
The PCs have promised to follow the HATF report as their long-term roadmap. While the HATF report specifically called for legalizing multi-tenant homes provincewide, the PCs have not provided a timeline or a specific commitment to legalizing multi-tenant housing.
Neither the NDP or the Greens promise to legalize multi-tenant housing.
Do the platforms take action to reduce regulatory process barriers and timelines to building new housing?
The PCs have taken some action to reduce timelines to building new housing through Bill 109, which sets out penalties to municipalities for not approving housing according to the legislated timeline. There remains some debate on how effective those measures will be, and whether there may be some adverse side-effects. They have also promised a Streamline Development Approval Fund of $45M to help municipalities speed up approvals.
The Liberals promise a $300M fund to speed up planning approvals and support the use of community planning permits that help reduce approval timelines.
The Greens promise to streamline approvals in certain situations, such as for affordable housing, or innovative co-housing situations.
The NDP do not have any proposed action to reduce regulatory process barriers.
Housing Justice: More Social, Affordable, Co-op, Rental, and Innovative Housing Options
Even with additional supply, there will still be a need for below-market housing for those who cannot afford market-rate housing. That is why it is important to invest in building affordable housing.
The NDP score highest with a 9/10 because of their commitments to maximize building on provincial lands for affordable housing, creating a new public builder, providing direct subsidy to create affordable housing, and their high targets for affordable housing.
The Liberals score an 8/10, slightly lower because their affordable housing targets are lower than the NDP and Greens.
The Greens also score an 8/10 because they do not propose a creation of a public builder.
The PCs score the lowest with a 3/10, because they have not provided enough direct subsidy for affordable housing, nor have they used provincial land to maximize building affordable housing.
Do the platforms take action to use provincial lands to maximize building new affordable housing?
The Greens have the most specific and wide definition of provincial land. They will build affordable housing on top of transit facilities and transit surface parking lots in addition to the overall inventory. They will develop long-term leases for permanently affordable rental, and attainable homeownership and will sign low-cost leases with non-market housing providers. They will also accelerate the deployment of supportive modular housing on provincially owned land.
The Liberals will develop surplus lands, including on hydro corridors. They will maximize student housing on university and college lands by providing as-of-right zoning for student residences and eliminating development charges for student housing. This is important, as actual population growth has surpassed predictions used for planning, largely due to higher immigration from international students.
The NDP will require Metrolinx to make surplus lands available for social and affordable housing. They do not specify whether surface parking lots are considered surplus, which is an important point since most suburban GO stations are surrounded by a sea of surface parking. They will make public land available to land trusts, and non-market housing providers through their public agency.
The PCs have used public land in transit-oriented communities to build some affordable and non-market housing, but have not done so to the extent that the other parties are proposing.
Do the platforms provide subsidies to increase the number of social, affordable, public, co-op, subsidized, and supportive units?
The NDP have the strongest proposal. They will finance and build 250,000 affordable and non-market rental homes, including 100,000 deeply affordable, and 150,000 below market homes. They will provide direct subsidy to finance 40% of the capital repairs, matched with the federal government, with the remaining financed by municipalities and housing providers to extend the lifespan of 260,000 affordable homes. They will restore the co-op housing seed fund, starting with $10M in co-op homes, and work with the Federal government to establish a co-op housing trust. They will build 60,000 supportive homes, 22,000 homes for Indigenous peoples. One negative is their proposal to expand inclusionary zoning without any offsets, which relies on new residents subsidizing affordable housing, instead of direct government subsidy.
The Greens will build 100,000 new permanently affordable rental homes over the next decade. They will increase incentives for homeowners to add affordable rental units to their property. They will create a seed fund of $100M for co-ops, increase incentives for permanently affordable housing developments. They will fund extending the lifespan of 260,000 community housing homes, and fund 50% of the costs for operating and maintaining shelters and community housing. They will provide low-interest loans for affordable housing, increase incentives for infill affordable housing. They will fund 22,000 homes for Indigenous people and build 60,000 supportive units. However, the Greens are promising to mandate 20% affordable units via inclusionary zoning (IZ) province-wide which could have the unintended effect of killing the feasibility of some housing projects, and relies on future residents subsidizing affordable housing, instead of direct government subsidy.
The Liberals promise less than the NDP and Greens: 138,000 deeply affordable homes, including 78,000 social and community homes, 38,000 supportive homes, and 22,000 homes for Indigenous peoples. They will provide $360M in operating funds to municipal and non-profit housing providers. They will also provide offsets for IZ, such as increasing the number of homes allowed to be built, which is a more effective policy than mandate-only IZ.
The PCs have not promised any new investments in non-market housing, and their current investment is insufficient.
Do platforms propose creation of a public builder empowered to deliver mixed income housing?
Canada and Ontario’s past experience with public housing should not bias us against public
housing as one of many solutions to our housing crisis. In Paris (France), more than 30% of
residents live in mixed income public housing. In Vienna (Austria), which is often ranked in the
top five cities for quality of life, more than half of residents live in mixed income public
housing. In Singapore, one of the most prosperous cities on earth, more than 80% of
residents live in publicly built housing, with more than 90% of them owning their homes. The
common theme in the approach taken by these city-regions is that their public builders create
a mix of housing and complete communities that include market rate units. This facilitates
public housing and communities that are economically self-sustaining after their
development is completed.
A public builder is an excellent mechanism for building mixed-income public housing quickly, with minimal financial and process overhead. A public builder can pool expertise and capital to build a lot more mixed-income and cross-subsidized affordable housing faster than would otherwise happen in public-private partnerships.
Only the NDP and Liberals will create a public builder.
Do the platforms legalize and/or incentivize innovative structures and financing options to support small-scale co-ownership?
The NDP propose enabling small groups of friends, families or communities, to "build a shared home or community they want, including zero or limited equity co-ops" (baugruppen model).
The Greens will develop pilot programs such as cohousing, tiny homes, rent-to-own and shared equity plans. They will also allow single family homes to be divided into multiple condos.
The Liberals only propose legalizing rent-to-own.
The PCs have not promised to legalize innovative structures.
Changing Behaviour: Incentivizing Growth and Municipal Cooperation
Municipalities are the largest barrier to building new housing in Ontario. The next provincial government needs to take a carrot and stick approach with municipalities to ensure that they do not circumvent any reforms put forward.
No party scores well in this category.
The PCs score a 5/10 because they have used MZOs for some affordable housing projects, albeit in an arbitrary manner, and implemented penalties for municipalities who do not approve housing fast enough.
The Liberals score a 5/10 because they suggest improving public consultation, but not limiting it in situations where it is an unnecessary requirement, and provide financial incentives for municipalities to build housing beyond their targets.
The Greens score a 5/10 because they also suggest improving public consultation, but not limiting it in situations where it is an unnecessary requirement, provide some financial incentives for municipalities to build more housing, and condition transit funding on minimum densities.
The NDP score a 4/10 because they also suggest improving public consultation, but do not have any penalties or incentives for municipalities who do not approve enough housing.
Do the platforms take action to limit public consultation and appeals for small projects, affordable housing projects, and shelters?
Onerous public consultation requirements, and threats of appeal add costs, delay, and risk to housing projects. Limiting public consultation for small developments, affordable housing, and shelters is a way to get housing built now.
The three opposition parties say they will reform planning appeals and consultations to be more inclusive, but none of the parties propose concrete actions to limit public consultation and appeals in a systematic way.
The NDP say they'll reform the planning appeal system to make sure that the planning appeal process is fair, efficient and serves the public interest. That can mean a lot of possible outcomes.
The OLP say they will use MZOs only for critical provincial projects like affordable housing, but require transparent consultations with affected communities. They will expand the reach of community consultations by requiring municipalities to proactively reach out to equity-deserving groups, advertise on social media, provide online options, and schedule meeting times outside of working hours.
The Greens want to make consultations more inclusive by engaging people in community locations such as coffee shops, or transit, or providing childcare at consultations. They will also work on a provincial yes in my backyard (YIMBY) initiative to address NIMBYism. They do say they want to commit to robust public consultation and only use MZOs in exceptional circumstances. They also say they'll reverse damaging changes to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, but it is unclear whether they will replace it with.
The PCs have reformed land planning tribunals into the OLT, but have not proposed to limit third-party appeals. They have used MZOs to limit public consultation and appeals, but in an often arbitrary manner. For example, they have not issued a MZO for the supportive housing project at 175 Cummer.
Do the platforms suggest penalties for municipalities who don’t approve enough housing?
Municipalities are responsible for approving housing. A carrot and stick approach is required to reward municipalities that carry their weight in approving housing in a timely manner, and penalize municipalities that seek to block or delay housing to appease NIMBY interests.
With their Bill 109, the PCs imposed financial penalties on municipalities if they do not meet timelines for approving housing at each stage of the development applications.
The Greens propose conditioning transit funding on meeting minimum densities along transit corridors.
The NDP and the OLP do not propose penalties for municipalities that don't approve enough housing, although the Liberals will require more data on approval timelines and building permits to be released.
Do the platforms incentivize municipalities to build more housing beyond provincial mandates?
Changing municipal behaviour means rewarding municipalities that welcome more neighbours than the minimum set out in the growth plan. Financial incentives can help municipalities embrace the benefits of growth and building housing.
The Liberals will give dedicated capital funding for municipalities that meet or exceed growth targets for "local priorities and amenities". They will also allow for street votes, which could be a mechanism to allow streets to exceed the bare minimum density allowed by zoning.
The Greens will reinstate the brownfield remediation fund to incentivize municipalities to build affordable infill housing in former industrial sites.
The PCs and NDP do not describe specific incentives for municipalities that build more housing, although they both advocate for tying growth to transit.
Do platforms suggest updating provincially mandated growth policies to incentivize infill growth over sprawl?
Building housing is good, but building housing where people want to live is better. Overwhelmingly, people want to live in 15 minute neighbourhoods, close to their friends, family and community. Forcing people to move to faraway places because not enough housing is being built in existing communities is not a true solution to the housing crisis.
The current Growth Plan, set in 2020, significantly underestimates and under-plans for urban growth in Toronto. The Growth Plan expects Toronto to get roughly 30,000 new residents between now and 2051, while Toronto has grown at a much faster 50,000 new residents per year since 2016. By planning for more 905 suburban growth over Toronto growth, the current Growth Plan is a sprawl-and-traffic plan that expects Toronto homes to remain increasingly out-of-reach for most.
The Greens have the strongest policy on this question. They will review development charges to stop subsidizing sprawl, start with a density assessment before a land needs assessment, and freeze urban growth boundaries.
The NDP promise to protect farmland from sprawl, and encourage "responsible development" within existing urban boundaries.
The OLP do not promise to freeze current urban boundaries, but they promise to increase housing targets in existing unaffordable communities, a more direct mention of growth planning than in any of the other parties’ platforms.
The PCs have taken action to ensure that infill growth is possible through legalizing laneway suites, garden suites, but they have also decreased minimum densities for greenfield development within urban boundaries. They also drafted the current Growth Plan that undercuts urban growth and have signalled that they want to continue to expand urban boundaries for sprawl-like development.
Reducing Bad Demand and Strengthening Tenant Protections: Stop Excess Speculation & The Financialization Of Housing
Reducing speculation can provide some relief to the housing market in the short-term.
The best way to reduce financialization and speculation is through housing abundance. Corporate property owners, multiple property owners, and even primary homeowners are all speculating on continued housing scarcity. Landlords should be competing for tenants, not vice-versa.
The second best way to reduce financialization and speculation is through a land value tax, or eliminating the primary residence capital gains exemption. Less optimal policies can introduce unintended consequences, such as advantaging homeowners over renters or limiting the housing options for new arrivals to Canada in ways that can put them in precarious housing situations.
With regards to tenant protections, landlords will always have some market power over tenants due to moving and search costs. As with speculation, the best way to reduce landlords' market power is through housing abundance. Even in a world with housing abundance, strong tenant protections remain important to stop landlords from taking advantage of the most vulnerable tenants.
The NDP score a 7/10. Some of their policies to reduce the financialization and speculation of housing could cause adverse consequences for the rental market compared to something like a land value tax, but they do differentiate themselves from the other parties by permitting municipalities to implement progressive property tax. They will strengthen various tenant protections more than the OLP and PCs, but do not propose offsets for disincentives to new purpose-built rental induced by vacancy control.
The Greens score a 6/10 because they propose almost the same policies as the NDP, but with the very small offset to vacancy control of making it easier for homeowners to add a rental accessory dwelling unit on their property.
The Liberals score a 6/10 because they will reintroduce rent control, but offset disincentives to new purpose-built rental construction. Like the NDP and Greens, some of their proposals to reduce speculation could cause adverse consequences to the rental market. They also do not have as many proposals on empowering tenants as the NDP or the Greens.
The PCs score a 4/10 as they have incentivized new purpose-built rental by removing rent control, and have committed to clearing the LTB backlog, but have not taken action to reduce the financialization of housing, nor strengthen tenant protections.
Do the platforms take action to reduce the financialization of housing?
The NDP promise to introduce annual speculation and vacancy taxes, applying to out-of-province residents at 2% of value. They will limit investor purchases of resale homes, implement progressive property taxes, regulate short-term rentals, and crack down on money laundering. They propose a limited form of land value tax in a “use it or lose it” tax for developers with permits in place who have not begun construction, but do not account for how their inclusionary zoning policy might affect land values and project viability.
The OLP will implement a vacant homes tax and extend the federal non-resident ban for four years. They will implement a limited form of a land value tax through taxing unused land owned by developers with project approvals that have not yet begun construction. They cite that 250,000 homes are approved, but not yet constructed. This is most likely an overestimate, as the approval process is so long that, by the time projects are approved, they are no longer economically feasible. They will also crack-down on money laundering and pre-construction flipping.
The Greens will implement a vacant homes tax, expand non-resident speculation tax to the entire province starting at 20% for third homes and increasing for each home thereafter, anti-flipping tax and increase land transfer tax on all single-family homes over $3M. They will create a task force to address the financialization of housing and regulate short-term rentals, by limiting them to primary residences in areas like Toronto. They will crack down on money laundering and pre-construction condo flipping.
The PCs increased the non-resident speculation tax from 15% to 20% in March and expanded its range from the Greater Golden Horseshoe to the whole province.
Do the platforms strengthen tenant protections, while offsetting possible disincentives to new purpose-built rental?
Rent control is a useful policy to prevent the displacement of the working class, middle class,
and minority groups from their homes and communities in a market with rapidly accelerating
prices. However, our politicians often only wish to implement rent control for their existing
renting constituents, and then proceed to push back against pro-housing policy in their wards. It is important to recognize the possible negative effects of rent control and vacancy control on new purpose-built rental and apply offsets for them.
The Liberals propose applying rent control to all rental properties. They offset possible disincentives to new purpose-built rental by allowing as-of-right additions to purpose rental properties.
The Greens propose vacancy control and rent control. They have a small offset of making it easier for homeowners to add an accessory dwelling unit on their property.
The NDP propose vacancy control and rent control with no offsets.
The PCs will not apply rent control on any new built purpose rental buildings. This does incentivize construction of purpose-built rental.
Do the platforms empower tenants in defending their legal rights, through Landlord & Tenant Board (LTB) improvements or legal aid for tenants?
The Greens will establish a clear system for above-guideline rent increases, strengthen the Residential Tenancies Act to deal with the state of good repair, strengthen rules for bad-faith evictions, increase penalties and enforcement for discrimination in rental process, increase funding to the LTB to address delays, restore the right to in-person hearing, increase access to legal aid by increasing funding to legal aid ontario, bring back stronger LTB oversight of payment agreements between landlords and tenants, and allow tenants to bring group applications to the LTB for repair and maintenance.
The NDP will strengthen penalties for renoviction, return a right to in-person hearings that are prompt, fund legal aid so tenants have access to legal aid, strengthen right-to-return laws and guarantee elevator availability.
The OLP will invest $15M into the OLT and LTB to make review prompt, strengthen provincial oversight over elevators, and reverse cuts to legal aid.
The PCs have promised to spend $19M over three years to clear the LTB backlog. However, they make no promises to provide legal aid to tenants to help them navigate the tribunals.