Post Overview
This post presents a point-form summary of the January 16, 2026 letter submitted to the
Planning and Housing Committee by Gord Perks.
It highlights the key arguments, data points, and policy considerations related to the protection and long-term importance of Toronto’s employment lands.
Context & Timing (January 2026)
- Toronto is facing major economic shifts driven by global trade uncertainty, protectionist policies, and supply chain disruptions.
- Mayor Chow’s Economic Action Plan emphasizes economic resilience, job protection, and domestic production.
- Employment lands are increasingly critical to Toronto’s long-term economic competitiveness.
Planning & Housing Committee – January 22, 2026
- Four employment land applications under appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal will be considered.
- These cases highlight growing pressure to convert employment lands.
- Together, they underscore a narrowing window to act decisively on employment land protection.
Why Employment Lands Matter
- Employment lands are economic assets, not surplus industrial real estate.
- They are essential for responding to trade disruptions, strengthening domestic production, and reducing supply-chain vulnerability.
- Without a coordinated strategy, Toronto risks undermining a core pillar of regional competitiveness.
Economic Impact at a Glance
- Employment lands occupy less than 12% of Toronto’s land area.
- They support 25% of all jobs city-wide.
- They host 30% of all business establishments.
Employment Lands as Investment
- Industrial building permits averaged over $63 million annually (2021–2024).
- This reflects sustained employer confidence and long-term reinvestment.
- Employment lands support modernization, innovation, and economic stability.
Jobs, Equity & Workforce Inclusion
- Employment lands house 92% of Toronto’s manufacturing jobs.
- Manufacturing and goods-producing jobs offer accessible, living-wage employment.
- These sectors are especially important for newcomers and equity-deserving communities.
- Toronto’s diverse workforce is a competitive advantage for global trade diversification.
Business Ecosystems at Risk
- Employment lands support small businesses, entrepreneurs, and start-ups.
- They underpin key growth sectors such as food & beverage and film.
- Several of these sectors are directly affected by the applications under appeal.
Vulnerability to Trade Shocks
- Tariff-exposed sectors account for 77% of establishments and 81% of jobs in employment lands.
- Manufacturing, wholesale trade, and logistics are almost entirely located in these areas.
- With Toronto generating over half of Ontario’s GDP, impacts extend far beyond city limits.
Employment Lands vs. Housing Affordability
- Converting employment lands does not make housing more affordable.
- It reduces access to good jobs and increases commuting distances.
- Loss of local production increases costs for consumers and businesses.
Policy Direction & Urgency
- Employment lands are a limited and finite resource requiring urgent protection.
- Official Plan Amendment 804 provides clearer rules and predictability.
- Policy alone is not enough — a strong, cohesive narrative is needed.
- Employment lands must remain investment-ready, innovative, and resilient.
Source & Attribution
This post is a summarized, point-form interpretation of a letter dated
January 16, 2026 submitted by Gord Perks to the
City of Toronto Planning and Housing Committee.
The original background document is available from the City of Toronto:
1 Comment
“Employment lands” zoning can be harmful to an area’s growth and development. Look at the Stockyards, for instance. A lot of the land is zoned “employment lands”. This stems from the fact that in the past, there were many industrial uses there.
The industrial users were attracted to the area because it was at the intersection of the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National railways. However, as industry started to become reliant on truck transportation, the Stockyards lost its appeal to industrial users.
Now, no one wants to build factories in this area that’s far from major highways and in very close proximity to residential homes. No one wants to build a lot of office space there. With “employment lands” zoning, the only thing that gets built are big box stores.
These stores don’t offer high-quality employment options for the most part. Many of the positions pay minimum wage. They don’t represent good urban planning because they’re designed for everyone to drive there. They don’t have attractive architecture. These stores don’t organize community events or work to keep the streets of the area clean and well maintained like the Junction BIA does.
These stores generate a lot of vehicular traffic, noise, pollution, and litter (which blows off of their parking lots into the surrounding neighbourhoods). Their massive parking lots contribute greatly to the urban heat island effect and stormwater runoff. It would be far better to have a mix of employment and residential uses in the same district, so that people can walk to work and for shopping.
Having more people living in employment areas would also keep the pressure on the city to maintain the public realm. A lot of the commercial side streets in the Stockyards area look neglected, with pavement in bad shape, weeds growing along the sidewalks, missing sidewalks, and nothing in terms of public realm improvements. These streets would be better maintained if there were homeowners there to keep the pressure on the city to maintain them properly.
I believe that the “employment lands” zoning has been a failure in the Stockyards and that the area should be allowed to evolve into a thriving mixed-use district by removing the zoning.