Ontario is in desperate need of more housing. Since the last election, housing starts have fallen behind the targets needed to build 1.5 million homes by 2031. While interest rates and construction costs have played a role, other provinces have made bolder policy moves and kept building as Ontario has fallen behind. A recent run of completions and changes to immigration have resulted in more available housing supply that has stabilized rents, but it is unlikely to last into the coming years if the trend of falling housing starts continues. With growing homelessness and young people living longer at home or choosing to leave the province altogether, Ontario needs to make a change to preserve the dream of a home and a life here.
Although US relations and tariffs have understandably dominated recent news cycles, and were the stated reason for the snap election call, cost-of-living and housing affordability remain the top issues for Ontarians. Housing makes up the biggest expense in most people’s lives and its availability determines who can live and work in our province. It influences whether people can remain close to friends or family and, sometimes, whether they feel stable enough to start a family at all. Secure and available housing must form the foundation for Ontario to prepare to address every other challenge on the horizon.
Additionally, the United States has a population ten times the size of Canada’s; its economy and politics will always pressure ours. A key way for Canada to assert its independence and obtain more leverage in negotiations is to grow our domestic economy and reduce reliance on others. To prepare for healthy population growth, governments must address the economic burden that sky-high housing costs have on Canadians through transformational, future-oriented growth in housing and infrastructure. Fast and effective action on the housing crisis is critical to Canada’s future prosperity.
More Neighbours Toronto is a volunteer-only organization of housing advocates that believe in building more homes of all kinds for those who dream of building their lives in Toronto. Together, progressives and conservatives put aside their differences to advocate for more market and non-market solutions. We are working to legalize more housing in more neighbourhoods, more transit-oriented development, and advocating for more investments in affordable, supportive, and public housing.
A week ago, we released our housing platform, with suggestions of policies that we want to see from parties. There were five categories that address various failings in the system that the province has power over. Despite the release of the Housing Affordability Task Force (HATF) report and a shift in rhetoric, the Ontario government’s actions have lacked urgency and even backtracked when they received pushback.
While this may reflect the political challenges of implementing pro-housing policies, it also demonstrates the need for strong and confident leadership on the issue. Many municipalities in Ontario have made moves to end exclusionary zoning and simplify processes, such as Hamilton, Burlington, Guelph and Waterloo. Yet the head of the government’s own Housing Supply Action Plan Implementation Team, Mayor Drew Dilkens, refused such changes. While those municipal changes may have been incentivized by the federal Housing Accelerator Fund or the Provincial Building Faster Fund, it also demonstrates that Ontarians are capable of embracing change when they have good leaders who take the time to explain policies, the benefits of change and give the public confidence that the system is fair and transparent.
Despite the short campaign period, we encourage you to reach out to your MPP candidates and find out what they believe. The Premier himself objected to “four storey towers,” and candidates from all parties need to hear that housing matters. In New Zealand, a cross-party approach led to several zoning reform changes that have helped to stabilize rents in Auckland. Consistent support for pro-housing policies is key to building this consensus and making change.
Election Day is February 27, or there are advanced polls February 20-22 as well as the option to vote at your returning office. For more information, visit Elections Ontario.
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 or misinterpreted something.
As of February 18, 2025, only the Ontario Greens have released a full platform with costing and, while we are critical of some of their estimates, we did not penalize questionable cost estimates more than no cost estimates. The Ontario New Democrats have housing commitments on their website and have said that their Homes Ontario plan is costed but we were not able to find this through searching. The Ontario Liberals’ site also lists housing commitments but does not have a full platform, although more detail and an overall cost is provided in their housing backgrounder. The Ontario Progressive Conservatives do not have a platform or housing-specific commitments on their website. We used additional statements in campaign literature, advertisements and stump speeches to supplement, with sources linked below. For the Progressive Conservatives, we have used their statements and their record to evaluate their progress and plans. For other parties, we are not able to guess at the likelihood of following through on promises, although we have attempted to assess whether affordable housing subsidies or offsets are reasonable by comparing with similar Toronto policy implementations.
In some cases, parties make no mention of what we feel are important policies (eg. building code changes to make mid-rises more feasible) and the Ontario Liberals and NDP make no mention of modular housing, although they committed to supporting it in responses to OREA’s survey. Although the Ontario Greens’ platform contains the most detail, some policies might conflict (eg. how would proposals to set minimum provincial zoning standards work with a commitment for municipal collaboration should municipalities object to these standards, a challenge that the Progressive Conservatives have faced). Given all of this, it is challenging to do an overall comparison and we encourage readers to examine the grades in each section against their own priorities, as well as to read the more detailed explanations. We will attempt to update this document if more information becomes available.
We have divided our platform scoring into five categories, based on important changes that the province can make to address the housing crisis. These categories are similar to those from the 2022 provincial election, but updated to reflect new ideas from our membership and any progress that has been made:
- Setting Ambitious Goals: Targets and Timelines
- Building More: Measures To Increase Housing Supply
- Housing Justice: More Social, Affordable, Co-op, and Rental, with Tenant Protections
- Changing Behaviour and Aligning Incentives: Taxes, Fees and Municipal Cooperation
- Scaling Up and Building Faster: Innovative Construction Methods, Expedited Processes, New Legal and Financing Structures
We gave each of the five categories a grade, and then combined these to assign an overall grade. A lower weighting was placed on Setting Ambitious Goals since this category is largely about recognizing the scope of the problem and making a promise to address it, but this has become common amongst all parties, while the details and implementation of plans are more challenging.
Detailed Score Table
|
Category |
PCPO |
ONDP |
OLP |
GPO |
|
Overall Score |
C- |
B |
B |
A |
|
Setting Ambitious Goals: Targets and Timelines |
C |
A |
C |
A |
|
Do the platforms commit to building at least 1.5 million homes in the next decade? |
Yes, but includes LTC beds and not on track |
Yes |
Yes, in statements but not platform |
Yes, 2 million |
|
Do the platforms address the limitations of current growth targets? |
No |
No |
No |
Mixed |
|
Do the platforms commit to ending chronic homelessness in the next decade? |
No |
Yes |
No |
No timeline but commit to taking a housing first approach to homelessness |
|
Building More: Measures To Increase Housing Supply |
D |
B |
B |
A+ |
|
Do the platforms take action to legalize four storeys and four units in all neighbourhoods? |
Limited (limited to three units, no height changes. Comments opposing four units and four storeys) |
Yes |
Yes, in Bill 175 but not in platform |
Yes |
|
Do the platforms take action to ensure that municipal rules (eg. setbacks, parking minimums) do not tie up multi-unit housing in red tape? |
Limited |
No |
Yes, in Bill 175 but not in platform |
Yes |
|
Do the platforms address building code changes for small apartments (eg. single stair)? |
No |
No |
No |
Not for single stair |
|
Do the platforms take action to intensify housing near transit? |
Mixed |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Housing Justice: More Social, Affordable, Co-op, and Rental, with Tenant Protections |
C- |
A- |
B+ |
A- |
|
Do the platforms take action to use provincial lands to maximize building new affordable housing? |
Limited |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
|
Do platforms propose creation of a public builder empowered to deliver mixed income housing? |
No |
Yes |
No, would support non-profits through tax changes |
No, but propose to work with non-profit partners |
|
Do the platforms provide appropriate subsidies to increase the number of social, affordable, public, co-op, subsidized, and supportive units (includes rental subsidies, ODSP and OW increases)? |
Canada Ontario Housing Benefit |
ODSP and OW; would subsidize affordable but costs not listed |
ODSP and eviction-prevention rent supplements |
ODSP and OW, rental benefit. Subsidized affordable units but costing unrealistic |
|
Do the platforms provide tenant protection measures with offsets to ensure sufficient supply for new tenants? |
Mixed |
Mixed |
Yes |
Mixed |
|
Changing Behaviour and Aligning Incentives: Taxes, Fees and Municipal Cooperation |
B- |
C- |
A |
A- |
|
Do the platforms take action to limit development charges and/or provincial taxes on housing and provide alternative infrastructure funding methods? |
Mixed |
Propose to upload services |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Do the platforms commit to making more data publicly available and allow for better public accountability of government? |
No |
No |
No |
No |
|
Do the platforms suggest penalties for municipalities who don’t approve enough housing or incentivize more housing beyond provincial mandates? |
Building Faster Fund but levels are too low to incentivize |
No |
BC Fund partly based on number of units |
No |
|
Scaling Up and Building Faster: Innovative Construction Methods, Expedited Processes, New Legal and Financing Structures |
B |
B |
B |
A |
|
Do the platforms seek to encourage processes that allow for greater speed and scaling up of construction, and harmonization of standards with larger markets? |
Yes |
Not in platform, but supported on OREA survey |
Not in platform, but supported on OREA survey |
Yes |
|
Do the platforms address legal and financial barriers to small-scale co-ownership? |
No |
Not in platform, but supported on OREA survey |
Not in platform, but supported on OREA survey |
Yes |
|
Do the platforms seek to expedite approvals (eg. through pre-approved designs, limiting consultation and appeals where appropriate)? |
Mixed |
No |
No |
Mixed |
Category-by-Category Explanation
Setting Ambitious Goals: Targets and Timelines
All of the parties continue to talk about the need for housing and to make broad commitments to build more homes. The differences lie largely in the details of how to make that happen.
All parties committed to building at least 1.5 million homes in the next decade, with the Ontario Greens working to build 2 million homes within urban boundaries. However, the Progressive Conservatives (PCs) include long-term care beds in their targets. While there is a desperate need for more long-term care beds, other parties count these separately, making the PC’s effective target lower. In addition, the PCs committed to this target last election as part of their commitment to the HATF report and have fallen behind the pace needed to reach this goal.
Currently, housing targets are assigned to different municipalities by the province but the method lacks transparency. It appears to be partly based on recent growth trends, which would put more emphasis on suburban areas that have had high recent growth rates, while allowing areas that have fallen behind to lower their standards. Only the Greens make some allusion to any changes, saying that they will plan for unit mix and housing type based on demographic and immigration projections.
The Ontario New Democrats are the only ones who have made a commitment to ending chronic homelessness but the Greens state that they will take a housing-first approach to homelessness.
Building More: Measures To Increase Housing Supply
To meet housing targets, there needs to be land where you can build more housing. Barriers to this include municipal zoning standards related to housing type, density, setbacks and parking minimums. The HATF report recommended legalizing four units and four storeys on all residential land, with additional height and density along transit corridors and near major public transit stations. All four parties committed to not building on the Greenbelt at the debate, although Ford noted that he had made this promise last election before breaking it and then reversed following public outcry. This would mean that new housing would be mainly planned as infill development, brownfield remediation and/or making use of existing greenfield sites within urban boundaries.
Despite committing to the HATF report as their road map last election, the Progressive Conservatives have only legalized three units per lot with no changes to height or setbacks. In fact, they have criticized other parties for committing to the HATF recommendations and said that it would be a “massive mistake” to put four storey buildings in communities. They also criticized the Ontario Greens’ bill to allow mid-rise apartments on transit corridors. The PCs did make regulatory changes to set minimum provincial standards for angular planes, minimum lot size and building separation for additional residential units, but it would be good to see them recognize that similar barriers exist for multiplexes and small apartments. Bill 185 removed parking requirements in protected major transit station areas. On transit-oriented housing, their record is mixed. They made some changes in height permissions at Eglinton LRT stops, and they have proposed transit-oriented communities around future subway and LRT extensions, but they have yet to amend or approve proposals for existing subway stations or Finch West LRT stations in Toronto, some of which were submitted over four years ago. They also revoked a minister’s zoning order for the transit-oriented community near Mimico GO station after the deal with the developer fell through. A PC candidate in Oakville recently released a statement objecting to transit-oriented community plans near Oakville GO station.
The Ontario NDP propose to legalize more housing "like fourplexes and four-storey multiplex apartments" in all neighbourhoods, as well as allowing mid-rise apartments along transit corridors as-of-right. They do not specifically mention additional barriers to housing such as setbacks or parking minimums.
The Ontario Liberals do not list any commitments to change zoning on their website, although they did move a private members' bill to amend Official Plans and zoning by-laws for up to four units and four storeys on any land zoned as residential and the PCs have criticized the Liberals for their commitment to this proposal. This bill included removing floor-area-ratio restrictions for buildings of 3 to 6 units and removing some parking requirements. However, the Ontario Liberal Party candidate in York-South Weston appears to have started a petition objecting to the Ministerial Zoning Order for affordable housing on Lawrence Ave W.
The Greens propose allowing four units and four storeys on all residential lots, sixplexes in cities with populations over 500,000, and mid-rises on main streets and transit corridors in cities with populations over 100,000. They propose to set provincial standards for floor space index, setbacks and angular planes for missing middle and mid-rise housing and to end mandatory parking minimums. They would make transit funding contingent on minimum density requirements at major transit stations and along corridors. They would reverse recent changes to urban boundaries but add incentives to encourage building in existing cities.
None of the parties make mention of legalizing or regulating multi-tenant housing (rooming houses). None of the parties mention changes to the building code that would help make small mid-rise developments more feasible (eg. single stair changes such as those made recently in BC).
Housing Justice: More Social, Affordable, Co-op, and Rental, with Tenant Protections
Market rate housing, even with more efficient approval processes and scalable construction methods, will remain out-of-reach for some Ontario residents. This can be addressed through subsidies to individuals (eg. rental supplements, welfare programs, Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) and Ontario Works) and/or by subsidizing dedicated affordable housing units (social and below-market housing). In addition, a diversity of developer, ownership and operating models are possible, including a public builder, non-profit partnerships and co-ops. It is important that such subsidies and operating models are designed to cover not just the construction but the ongoing operational costs to maintain the buildings. This is also true for tenant protection measures, which can make new rental development less appealing and shift the market toward condo and ownership units.
The Progressive Conservatives do not propose changes to ODSP or Ontario Works. They partnered with the Federal government on the Canada Ontario Housing Benefit. They have promised that affordable housing will be considered as part of the transit-oriented communities along the Ontario Line, but have not provided details. They worked with the Federal government to remove HST on new purpose-built rental buildings, as well as removing Development Charges for affordable housing and reducing them for 2- and 3-bedroom rentals (Bill 23). Despite a focus on removing encampments, they have not made significant investments in supportive or transitional housing and they withheld a minister’s zoning order for supportive housing at the request of the local Willowdale MPP after granting several previous MZOs. The Progressive Conservatives have made investments in the Landlord-Tenant Board, although it isn’t clear that tenants’ cases are being heard more quickly and they made cuts to legal aid when first elected.
The Ontario NDP are proposing at least 300,000 affordable rental homes over 10 years, although this commitment includes acquisitions as well as new builds. The costing is not currently available on their site for evaluation but the plan includes grants, low-cost financing and public land. They also propose to build 60,000 new supportive housing units and to upload shelter funding from municipalities to the province. They will double ODSP and Ontario Works. They are proposing to add rent controls to units constructed after 2018 and to implement vacancy control (so that rent cannot be increased between tenants) but they do not describe plans to ensure that rents cover operating costs or how they will limit effects on new market rental construction. Finally, they propose to fix the Landlord-Tenant Board by changing rules and cracking down on renovictions.
The Ontario Liberals will remove Community Benefits Charges on co-op and rental housing, as well as removing the land transfer tax for non-profit housing providers. They estimate a $3.6 billion cost for their full plan, but a significant portion of this is likely for their development charge and infrastructure plan; it is not clear how many affordable units they anticipate from these changes. The Liberals propose doubling ODSP and creating a Rental Emergency Support for Tenants Fund to reduce evictions. They will phase in rent controls on new builds to mitigate potential effects on new rental supply; the plan doesn’t provide details other than saying it will be modelled on places like Manitoba, which exempts new rental complexes from rent controls for the first 20 years after construction. They are proposing to clear the backlog at the Landlord-Tenant Board and resolve new cases in under two months by adding adjudicators and support staff. They will also reverse the Conservatives’ legal aid cuts.
The Greens propose to build 250,000 affordable and co-op homes; 60,000 supportive homes and 22,000 deeply affordable for-indigenous, by-indigenous homes over ten years. They budgeted $687 million per year for this. Assuming the proposed units are evenly distributed over the ten years, this works out to a $20,700 subsidy per unit. The Greens are the only party to provide clear cost estimates but this number appears an order of magnitude too low (eg. Toronto estimated that they would need about $20 billion of subsidy in addition to low-cost loans and free land to construct 65,000 affordable, deeply affordable and rent-controlled market units, or about $308,000 per unit). When combined with the Greens’ plan to re-implement rent controls and add vacancy controls without other offsets, the operating model that would allow for building maintenance is also unclear. The Greens also propose to lease all suitable public land for non-profit and co-op housing and would introduce a brownfield remediation fund for affordable housing, as well as providing low-interest loans. They propose to double ODSP and OW as the first step to a basic income program and would introduce a portable housing benefit for 311,000 households. They would reform the Landlord-Tenant Board and increase legal aid funding. They support rental replacement by-laws and would introduce a rental registry.
Changing Behaviour and Aligning Incentives: Taxes, Fees and Municipal Cooperation
Current taxes and fees on housing are estimated to be almost 30% of a new home’s cost. In addition to provincial HST and land transfer taxes, the province sets the rules that govern municipal development charges, parkland fees, community benefits charges and, in Toronto’s case, a municipal land transfer tax. These influence what gets built and set a price floor for new housing. While municipalities use these charges for water and sewer upgrades, they also cover services that were downloaded from the province. Alternative models, such as municipal corporations or provincial uploading, could reduce up-front costs for housing. With more general revenue sources and more available public data, scrutiny for rising infrastructure costs, such as the 70% increase in development charges that Toronto has seen over the last five years, would likely face greater public accountability.
The Progressive Conservatives have had a tumultuous relationship with development charges this past term. With Bill 23, they removed development charges on affordable housing, reduced them for multi-bedroom purpose-built rentals and removed the ability to charge for some services that were not growth-related. They also put limits on how development charge increases could be phased in, promising to reimburse municipalities following audits, but later cancelled the audits and then reversed the phase-in limits with Bill 185. The PCs also capped Community Benefits Charges at 4% of the land value, reducing the uncertainty of previous site-by-site negotiations. The PCs worked with the Federal government to remove HST on purpose built rentals. They launched the Building Faster Fund to reward municipalities that hit their housing targets, although the amounts are much smaller than development charges in some cities (eg. Toronto received about $3600 per unit through the BFF, but charges $80,000 in development charges on a 2-bedroom apartment). The PCs are promising to add an additional $5 billion to the Building Ontario Fund, $2 billion to Municipal Housing Infrastructure Fund and $300 million for community infrastructure. However, this money is not tied to housing starts or reduced housing taxes. The Ontario government has also held MPAC assessments at 2016 levels, which can affect the distribution of property taxes.
The Ontario NDP have not proposed changes to taxes or development charges. They promise to upload housing and shelter services back to the province, but this is not specifically tied to commitments for housing starts or municipal housing fee changes.
The Ontario Liberals promise to remove development charges on all units under 3000 square feet and to remove the provincial land transfer tax for first-time homebuyers, downsizing seniors and non-profit builders. They would remove Community Benefits Charges for co-op and rental housing. They would reimburse municipalities for infrastructure with the Better Communities Fund, which would link funding to the number, type and speed of housing approvals. Development charges for infrastructure would still be applied for greenfield projects. The Liberals give an overall cost estimate for their program of $3.6 billion. The majority of this is likely for the Better Communities Fund that is intended to replace Development Charges but, if this is the cost for a four-year term rather than the annual cost, this is unlikely to be enough to fully reimburse municipalities (compare to the Greens cost estimate for service upload and municipal reimbursement of $5 billion per year).
The Ontario Greens would remove development charges on units under 2000 square feet inside urban boundaries and reimburse municipalities for revenue losses. They would remove the land transfer tax for first-time homebuyers. They would also upload costs for community housing, shelters, and transit funding from municipalities to the province, as well as allowing municipalities to implement new revenue tools for infrastructure and critical services. They would offer low-cost loans for small-scale builders of missing middle and mid-rise housing, as well as increasing legal supports.
No parties suggested making data on available infrastructure more accessible to the public to improve transparency, guide decision-making and allow the public to better hold governments to account on housing and infrastructure.
Scaling Up and Building Faster: Innovative Construction Methods, Expedited Processes, New Legal and Financing Structures
The Progressive Conservatives have engaged with modular home builders and the government website includes some information for interested homeowners and developers. They updated the building code to allow mass timber construction up to 18 storeys. They provide information about co-ownership but do not provide standard forms or legal templates. They attempted to legislate faster approval times in Bill 109 but reversed penalties in Bill 185 following municipal pushback. They also removed the ability for third parties to appeal decisions to the Ontario Land Tribunal but took a blanket approach rather than limiting to provincial priorities.
Neither the Ontario NDP nor the Ontario Liberals address these issues on their websites but, in a response to questions from OREA, both committed to supporting modular and other innovative construction methods, as well as implementing a condo-style framework for multiplexes.
The Ontario Greens would require municipalities to permit pre-approved designs. They would also update the building code and financial tools to incentivize modular and mass timber construction. They would address red tape and financial barriers associated with co-housing. One potential concern is their commitment to increasing collaboration and consultation with municipalities, a strategy that the Progressive Conservatives have occasionally fallen back on and that has resulted in many municipalities missing their housing targets. This idea seems to conflict with some other policies: for example, if municipalities are required to permit pre-approved designs but some municipalities do not want to, how will collaboration work?
Make Your Voice Heard
We hope that these summaries are useful and can inform your vote to make housing a priority in Ontario. Election Day is February 27 and several early voting options are available.