The Ontario government’s ambitious push to build 1.5 million homes by 2031 has ignited passionate debate in communities across the province. Behind the bold headlines and political promises lies a complex reality that’s playing out differently depending on where you stand—or where you live.
“We’re facing two simultaneous crises,” says Margot Willis, executive director at GoodTable Community Food Bank in Ottawa. “Housing insecurity and food insecurity go hand in hand, and Bill 60 addresses one while potentially worsening the other.”
The controversial legislation, officially known as the Get It Done Act, contains sweeping changes to municipal planning regulations, environmental assessments, and heritage protections. Premier Doug Ford’s government frames the bill as essential medicine for Ontario’s housing shortage, but critics warn it could create unforeseen consequences.
At community food banks from Windsor to Thunder Bay, there’s growing concern about what the housing push might mean for vulnerable populations. Food bank usage has already jumped 36% since 2021, according to Feed Ontario’s latest Hunger Report, with many locations reporting record-breaking demand.
“We’re seeing working families who simply can’t make ends meet,” explains Willis. “When you’re spending 60% of your income on housing, food becomes the flexible budget item. That’s when people end up at our door.”
The provincial housing ministry maintains Bill 60 will benefit these same vulnerable populations. Ministry spokesperson Melissa Davidson told Mediawall.news that “increasing housing supply across all affordability levels will create a more balanced market that benefits everyone, especially those struggling with current housing costs.”
But the details of that housing supply—specifically what types of homes will be built and at what price points—remain murky. The legislation encourages development but doesn’t mandate affordability targets, leaving many anti-poverty advocates skeptical.
Urban planner Sameer Patel suggests the reality is more nuanced than either side acknowledges. “We absolutely need more housing across the spectrum. But the bill’s approach to cutting environmental assessments and heritage protections feels like taking a sledgehammer to problems that needed a scalpel.”
The legislation’s impact will vary dramatically between communities. In rapidly growing regions like the Greater Toronto Area and Ottawa, it could accelerate already-planned developments. But in smaller communities with limited infrastructure, the consequences might look different.
Bill 60 effectively overrides many local planning decisions, giving the province unprecedented power to approve developments regardless of municipal concerns. While this could bypass NIMBY opposition that has stalled housing for years, it also raises questions about community self-determination.
“People forget that municipalities are responsible for delivering services to new developments,” notes Kingston city councillor Janet Crawford. “We need housing, but we also need to ensure we can provide water, sewage, transit, and emergency services to these new homes. That planning takes time and money.”
The real estate sector, meanwhile, has largely embraced the legislation. Ontario Real Estate Association president Tim Hudak called it “a bold step toward addressing the province’s housing supply crisis” in a recent press statement.
Market analysts project the bill could increase housing starts by 10-15% annually, though questions remain about construction capacity and material costs in an already stretched industry.
For food security advocates, the concern isn’t just about what gets built, but what gets lost in the process. Several community gardens and urban farms fall within lands now potentially slated for development.
“We run three community garden plots that produce over 2,000 pounds of fresh produce for local families annually,” says Willis. “One of those gardens is on land that could now be fast-tracked for development without the community consultation processes that previously existed.”
The legislation’s relaxed environmental assessment requirements also worry food security experts. Ontario Federation of Agriculture president Peggy Brekveld points out that “preserving farmland isn’t just about pretty scenery—it’s about ensuring we can feed ourselves in the decades ahead.”
The province has lost over 2,000 farms and 319,700 acres of farmland between 2016 and 2021 alone, according to Statistics Canada’s Census of Agriculture.
As communities digest the implications of Bill 60, one thing becomes clear: the intersection of housing policy and food security demands more attention than it’s currently receiving.
“We need to think holistically,” urges Patel. “Solving the housing crisis is essential, but not if it creates new problems in food security, environmental sustainability, or community wellbeing.”
For now, food banks are preparing for potential increases in demand as the housing landscape shifts. Many are developing contingency plans while hoping the province’s housing gambit delivers on its promise of greater affordability.
“The true measure of Bill 60’s success won’t be how many units get built,” Willis reflects. “It will be whether fewer people need emergency food assistance five years from now because they can actually afford both rent and groceries.”
As bulldozers prepare to break new ground across Ontario, that outcome remains very much in question.
