Archived edition · View the latest edition
Ottawa’s housing debate has two connected questions: how to get useful homes built, and how to pay for the infrastructure and services that let people live in them.
The Ottawa Real Estate Board’s candidate survey, released October 15 ahead of the October 26 municipal election, shows broad support for more predictable approvals. It also exposes a disagreement over reducing growth-related fees. New Purveyors Lab reviewed the published responses and invited 12 candidates to explain their positions, identify a measurable commitment and discuss a local example.
Three supplied substantive answers by our October 20 noon deadline: mayoral candidate Ali Shayvard, Ward 6 candidate Kevin Hua and Ward 14 candidate Ariel Troster. Their replies describe different approaches to funding, affordability and implementation. They are not a representative sample of all candidates, and this article is not an endorsement.
Disclosure: Author Matt Richling is a director of the Ottawa Real Estate Board. This is New Purveyors Lab’s reporting and analysis, not an OREB statement or endorsement. OREB administered the original survey; the Lab sent the follow-up questions separately.
What the survey actually shows
OREB published responses from six mayoral candidates and 45 councillor candidates. The figures below are the Lab’s count of the 45 individual councillor response pages. The two questions used different formats: one allowed candidates to select multiple housing measures; the other required one position on reducing fees.
| Question or response | Councillor respondents | Share of 45 |
|---|---|---|
| Selected approval and building-permit timelines with performance targets | 41 | 91.1% |
| Agreed or strongly agreed with reducing development charges and other growth-related fees | 18 | 40.0% |
| Disagreed or strongly disagreed with reducing those fees | 10 | 22.2% |
| Neutral on reducing those fees | 17 | 37.8% |
The charge responses comprise five strongly agree, 13 agree, 17 neutral, eight disagree and two strongly disagree. Those categories sum to 45. A neutral answer is not support or opposition. An unselected option in the multiple-choice housing question is not an explicit vote against it.
The groups should also remain separate. OREB’s headline figure of 88% for approval targets includes both mayoral and councillor respondents; our 91.1% figure covers councillor respondents only. Among the six mayoral respondents, five supported the statement on reducing growth-related fees and one opposed it. That is a description of survey respondents, not a forecast of the election or a measure of public opinion.
Sources: OREB’s release, councillor responses and mayoral responses.
Three answers to the infrastructure-funding question
| Respondent | Survey answer on reducing fees | Explanation in the Lab follow-up |
|---|---|---|
| Ali Shayvard — Mayor | Agree | Review costs and duplication; attach public benefits and enforceable affordability commitments to reductions; identify replacement infrastructure funding first. |
| Kevin Hua — Ward 6 | Disagree | Retain infrastructure funding while improving approvals and targeting support, including fee waivers, to non-profit housing providers. |
| Ariel Troster — Ward 14 | Neutral | Assess existing changes before adding more; protect planning capacity and consider how infrastructure costs should be shared. |
Shayvard’s reply makes his support conditional. He proposes examining unnecessary costs and duplication, but says reductions should bring clear public benefits and enforceable commitments. Before approving a reduction, he would identify replacement funding, including secured federal or provincial contributions.
“Reductions should come with clear public benefits and enforceable commitments,” Shayvard wrote.
He also emphasizes affordable rental and co-operative housing, development within the existing urban area, and suitable City-owned land near transit. His answer does not promise an across-the-board fee reduction without conditions.
Hua’s disagreement does not extend to every form of relief. He argues that development charges help fund infrastructure for growing communities, while supporting faster approvals and targeted assistance for non-profit providers.
“I'd like the City to do more to support non-profit housing providers in speeding up approvals and waiving fees for them,” Hua wrote.
He points to 2 Pretty Street as an example of using municipal land for non-profit housing. The City’s September 2026 construction notice describes demolition and site preparation for future not-for-profit housing there. It should not be counted as completed housing. City project notice.
Troster says her neutral response reflects a preference to assess the changes already adopted and their effect on housing starts before proposing more. She questions whether provincial funding will fully replace foregone revenue and argues that spreading infrastructure costs through a levy or property taxes could be more progressive. That is her policy assessment, rather than an established finding about who ultimately bears those costs.
“The money to maintain and build infrastructure needs to come from somewhere,” Troster wrote.
These replies expose distinctions the survey alone cannot settle: general reductions versus targeted relief, the source and certainty of replacement funding, and the affordability conditions attached to public support.
Ottawa is already changing fees and approvals
The starting point matters. In its May 5, 2026 progress update, the City reported that it had temporarily reduced Community Benefits Charges, deferred residential development-charge collection and cash-in-lieu of parkland, simplified development-application study requirements, and increased Legal Services capacity for development reviews. City progress update.
A deferral changes when a charge is paid. It is different from reducing or waiving the charge itself. Community Benefits Charges and development charges are also distinct. Candidate claims about further relief should identify the specific measure, its beneficiaries, its timing and the funding consequences.
The City also already offers online applications, payments, document uploads, inspection booking and status checks for Building Code Services through My ServiceOttawa. An election promise to improve digital permitting therefore needs to explain what will improve: coverage, usability, coordination or processing time. The existence of this portal does not establish that every planning approval is available through it. City online-permit information.
What would count as progress?
The follow-up responses offer different levels of measurement detail.
Shayvard proposes a coordinated pathway for affordable, co-operative and mixed-income housing, with one accountable City contact and a schedule for each application. He would publish quarterly measures including median approval time, the share meeting timelines, and time awaiting City action versus applicant responses. He also wants reporting on homes approved, started and completed, and on affordability commitments.
Hua proposes improved digital permitting and online approvals, judged by efficiency and accessibility. His reply does not specify a numeric service target or reporting timetable.
Troster emphasizes maintaining enough planning staff to implement existing changes. She also wants better tools to assess development viability. Her reply does not set a numeric approval-time target. This should be read alongside her survey selection of approval timelines with performance targets, rather than interpreted as opposition to measurement.
For readers assessing any candidate’s proposal, four questions provide a useful test:
- What is the starting point? Identify the existing service, fee or approval process and a dated baseline.
- What will change? Specify the action, responsible decision-maker, resources and intended timetable.
- Who pays, and who benefits? Identify replacement infrastructure funding and the terms of any affordability commitment.
- What will be reported? Separate processing time, approvals, starts, completed homes and continuing affordability.
An approval is not a housing start, and a start is not a completed home. Changes in any one measure do not, by themselves, prove that a particular fee policy caused the result. The Lab’s housing-pipeline research explains why these stages need separate counts.
How this article was prepared
The Lab counted the 45 councillor response pages and reviewed the six-column mayoral results supplied by OREB. Percentages use the relevant respondent group, with councillor figures rounded to one decimal place. The survey is a voluntary account of candidate positions, not a random sample of residents or all candidates. Its selection questions and agreement scales should not be combined into a candidate score.
On October 16, the Lab sent the same three core follow-up questions to all six mayoral survey respondents and six councillor respondents, selected to include two supportive, two opposed and two neutral positions on fee reductions. The invitation identified New Purveyors Lab, requested on-the-record answers and set a noon October 20 deadline.
The councillor invitees were Yvette Ashiri, Bob Bell, Marie-Ange Yindaki Ahinful, Kevin Hua, Julie Fiala Chartrand and Ariel Troster. The mayoral invitees were Suraj Harish, Ali Shayvard, Peter Westaway, Alex Lawson, Mark Sutcliffe and Queen Divine Priya Amber Bakshi. Substantive responses were received from Shayvard, Hua and Troster. Automatic acknowledgements from Ashiri, Bell and Lawson are not counted as answers. No substantive response was located from the remaining invitees at the October 20 review cutoff; that is not evidence of their views beyond the published survey.
Excerpts preserve the respondents’ meaning and qualifications. Candidate proposals and assessments are attributed to them. The Lab has not independently established that any proposed measure will lower purchase prices, rents or approval times. Future substantive replies or corrections can be incorporated in a dated update.
Discuss these findings
For help applying these findings to a property or a move, contact Matt Richling. Include the area, property type and timing that matter to you.
Cite this edition
Richling, Matt. “Ottawa candidates agree on faster housing approvals. Who should pay for growth?” New Purveyors Lab. 2026 municipal candidate survey. Updated October 24, 2026. Permanent edition.