Committee endorses housing, homelessness plan but postpones council vote

GUELPH – A housing and homelessness framework released the Friday before the Labour Day weekend irked Guelph politicians at a joint Guelph-Wellington County social services committee on Sept. 9.

“This has been talked about more than any other issue in Guelph … to get a document on a Friday and for our councillors to be here approving a 10-year plan, I hope you understand this is serious,” Guelph councillor Cathy Downer said, addressing county housing services director Dave Purdy.

The framework, which does not contain hard targets, checks off a provincial requirement to submit an updated plan every five years for government review.

Titled A Place to Call Home, the 2025-35 plan envisions a county and city where everyone has access to appropriate, safe and affordable housing.

That vision carries forward from the previous 2015-24 plan, and hinges on four objectives: ending homelessness, increasing affordable housing, retaining existing housing and strengthening services.

According to the 60-page document, there were at least 263 homeless people in Guelph and Wellington in 2025, up from 186 in 2023. The plan projects that number could grow to more than 1,000 people by 2030 without intervention.

The county and city are more than 14,000 affordable units short for low-income households, and at least 282 additional supportive units are needed, according to the plan. Average market rent in 2025, at $1,711, was up 62% from 2017. Vacancy was less than 2% last year.

At the end of 2025, there were 3,582 household on a waitlist for rent-geared-to-income housing. Just 166 were housed last year.

Guelph Mayor Cam Guthrie and Guelph councillors Downer, Linda Busuttil and Carly Klassen said the lack of firm targets, in addition to the lack of time to review the final plan, was problematic.

“It doesn't feel to me like an actual goal-oriented plan of how we're going to actually implement [the] thing,” Guthrie said, adding it felt “aspirational.”

Busuttil, the committee chair, said she can’t take the plan to council to argue for spending in the city’s budget because of a lack of concrete information.

“I put this down as a plan to make a plan,” Busuttil said.

Purdy, the county's housing services director, said the “broad-based plan” steers practical decisions by municipal staff and councils.

“With council endorsement, we would start to begin an implementation plan and strategy,” Purdy said.

Purdy also noted feedback from community members and organizations involved in housing and homelessness feed into the plan.

“The plan was developed through a collaborative process that combined research, data analysis and engagement input representing individuals with lived experience, community partners, service providers, residents, councillors, county staff ... received through eight consultations between January and March 2026,” he said.

Downer said meetings she attended had few people, a point also noted by county councillor Matthew Bulmer.

“I’m concerned about Guelph’s input and how the word wasn’t spread within Guelph about this happening,” Downer said.

County councillor Mary Lloyd said the plan wasn’t a surprise, noting work has been ongoing for years.

“I have at least two years of reading and going to meetings and being in online sessions and participating and listening,” Lloyd said.

County Warden Chris White said the plan is adjustable and flexible.

“I think we’re at the point now where we can move ahead; let’s get some action going, let’s get things on the ground, let’s get moving,” he said.

The committee endorsed the plan, but a full county council vote is needed to approve it and send it to the province.

Guthrie motioned to delay the plan’s appearance before county council until Oct. 29, following the upcoming municipal election, to give Guelph councillors more time to provide feedback and potentially ask for amendments.

However, because of the election there are no committee meetings scheduled before October’s council meeting, so Guelph won’t get input at the committee level (the city has no representation on county council).

“We want to make sure that all members of this committee get equal input, so I think it's a little unfair to get public input directly to county council,” White said.

“We got to work together and unify on this; I don't want county councillors making decisions that are integral to the city that city members don't get to comment on.”

Guthrie said “there is a level of trust” in county council to make the right decision based on the committee’s unanimous approval of the plan.

“This is not an issue to be worried about,” he said.

County councillors tried to kill Guthrie’s motion on the floor, however it survived after councillor Dave Anderson didn’t object. The plan will bypass this month’s county council meeting and is set to be dealt with in October.