Yes, let’s hear it for the housing starts.

We’re also, Speaker, seeing very, very encouraging numbers for 2023. In early 2023, for the same period last year, Ontario saw an increase of over 3,700 housing starts. It’s about a 16% rise over 2022. Purpose-built rentals, for the same year: more than double a year ago at this time.

So, Speaker, why are the numbers up? Well, it’s pretty simple. They’re up because of the results of what our government has accomplished because of our housing supply action plans. They’re a direct result of the measures that this government has put in place to ensure that we can get shovels in the ground faster. That’s why the government is going to continue to move forward. We’re going to continue to champion new proposals to further help increase supply.

I want to again emphasize, Speaker, that the proposed changes that we’re debating today, changes that form the basis of the Helping Homebuyers, Protecting Tenants plan, build upon the government’s actions that I’ve outlined in my remarks. In addition to new rental housing units, which our past policies are helping to bolster, our new proposed changes would help make other aspects of life easier for renters.

First, our proposed legislation would clarify and enhance a tenant’s right to install portable or window air conditioning in their unit. Second, our proposed changes will, if passed, further strengthen renter protections against evictions due to renovations or repairs, and evictions for landlord’s own use of the unit. We also propose to double the maximum fines on offences under the Residential Tenancies Act: $100,000 for individuals, half a million dollars for corporations.

We’re also—I want to do a shout-out to our fantastic Attorney General, Doug Downey. As well, outside of this bill—again, I want to talk about some things that are outside of this bill but have direct, positive impact to our housing supply action plan—is the decision that the Attorney General made to make that historic investment: $6.5 million to increase the Landlord and Tenant Board, to effectively double the amount of adjudicators. We’re adding 40 new adjudicators, five additional support staff to deal with the backlog. I don’t care what side of the LTB hearing you’re at, whether you’re a landlord or a tenant, this is going to be transformational for the LTB. Again, I want to thank Attorney General Downey for his commitment to working with us and adding this critical piece to our housing supply action plan. Thanks to the Attorney General.

Speaker, our plan would also better protect homebuyers and their financial investments. In March, I was pleased to join Minister Rasheed and Associate Minister Tangri for the announcement that our government is expanding deposit insurance for credit union members saving for the purchase of their first home. First home savings accounts were introduced by the federal government, and credit union members can use them to save for that purchase of their first home. Now the money in a first home savings account is fully protected through the province’s deposit insurance regime, just like RRSPs and TFSAs.

We also have two other initiatives outside of Bill 97 that the government is exploring to support the buyers of new homes. First, we’re looking at a cooling-off period on the purchases of new freehold homes, and second, we’re exploring a requirement that purchasers of all new homes receive legal advice on their purchase agreements. The minister is going to outline more details on those proposals later on in our government’s leadoff.

Speaker, our proposals in this new action plan would continue to support greater intensification, while at the same time making sure sufficient land is available to accommodate the new homes our province needs. As I announced very clearly when we first tabled this bill, there are some measures that are outside of Bill 97, and I’m carefully clarifying that because there’s been some miscategorization of this. Part of what we announced at the same time we tabled this bill was our intention to integrate key elements of two documents, the provincial policy statement and A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The reason this is so important is it would create a single, province-wide, housing-focused, land use planning policy document. We believe it’s very important for us to simplify existing policies, to refocus on achieving the housing outcomes that this government has indicated on many occasions we want to get to by 2031, and it would give large and fast-growing municipalities the tools they need to deliver housing. A single planning document would reflect our government’s belief that all of Ontario, not just the greater Golden Horseshoe, should be a place to grow.

The other item that we announced, again, outside of the actual legislation is our intention to reduce the cost of building housing. We’re planning on freezing 74 provincial fees at their current level. This is something that came as a direct result of our first housing summit, where big-city mayors told us and regional chairs said that it can’t just be fees at the municipal level. So in response to direct municipal feedback, those 74 provincial fees are going to be kept at their current levels. These include several fees related to Tribunals Ontario, the Ontario Land Tribunal and the building code, and we’re consulting on implementation of the fee freezes through Ontario’s Regulatory Registry.

Speaker, I just want to deviate from my notes a bit, because there has been significant confusion about some of the things that are in Bill 97 and some of those consultation pieces that I spoke of. For example, today, my local Green Party president has told all the media that he’s protesting the severance issues in Bill 97. Well, as members of the government know, there aren’t any severance provisions in Bill 97. Again, one of the things I learned when I first came to the Legislature was that I wanted to read bills before I decided to take an aggressive stance. So I say to the leader of the Green Party and his local president, I’ve got a couple of copies of Bill 97 waiting at the constituency office today, so I hope you’ll pick it up when you’re there.

But I also encourage Ontarians, no matter whether it’s the provincial policy statement and our growth plan consultation, whether it’s the consultations of the Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery—I encourage all Ontarians to use the opportunities that the government is affording to them to give us real feedback. Some of the things I spoke about today that are in Bill 97 came as a direct result of feedback we received from stakeholders, like our municipal partners.

Speaker, I want to conclude by again emphasizing that our proposed Helping Homebuyers, Protecting Tenants Act builds upon previous actions put in place by the government, which I’ve detailed to the House this morning. These are all actions aimed to support homeowners, renters, landlords, non-profits, private sector builders and our municipal partners across Ontario. By working together, and with the tools and the support of the housing supply action plans, we can realize that goal of creating 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years.

Speaker, I want to thank you. It’s great to see you in the chair this morning and, at this point, I’m going to yield the floor to the Associate Minister of Housing, the Honourable Nina Tangri.

I want to thank the minister for his earlier remarks.

Speaker, it really is my privilege to speak today on further details of the proposed Helping Homebuyers, Protecting Tenants Act. I want to thank the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for providing a very concise overview of this bill. You will be hearing later from the Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery for a detailed exploration of the advantages of this proposed legislation for new home buyers.

But let me remind the members of this House about the work our government has done to help those Ontarians who rent their homes and what we’re proposing to continue to make life better for tenants across this province.

Our government recognizes that rentals make up a big part of Ontario’s overall housing market. That’s why our previous housing supply action plans have included initiatives to enable the construction of new rental housing. Since 2019, we’ve made changes to boost the supply of rental housing to help increase affordability and choice for Ontarians. And we’re seeing progress. New rental construction is at a record high, with almost 7,200 starts so far this year. That’s more than double the number of rental starts from the same period last year.

But we’re doing more than just working to increase rental housing supply. Protecting tenants remains a top priority for our government. Since our government was elected in 2018, we’ve introduced and implemented numerous measures to help tenants. We’ve changed the rules to enable the construction of more rental units. We’ve implemented measures to protect against bad-faith evictions while clamping down on bad landlords. We’ve made ongoing investments in the Landlord and Tenant Board to modernize their processes. When renters were facing challenges during the height of the pandemic, we froze 2021 rents and we temporarily suspended the enforcement of evictions so tenants could remain safe in their homes.

The Helping Homebuyers, Protecting Tenants Act and the plan now represent our government’s latest efforts to make life better for tenants. According to Statistics Canada data, the growth in the number of renter households has outpaced the growth in homeowner households, from 2011 to 2021, in Canada’s 41 large urban centres. The time for this House to pass our government’s proposed legislation that will improve the lives of so many of Ontario’s renters is now.

Speaker, through you, let me give the members of this House some examples of how our bill would help renters.

Our proposed legislation would clarify and enhance the rules regarding air conditioning in rental units. We propose to amend the Residential Tenancies Act so that when a landlord does not provide air conditioning, tenants would be permitted to install a window-mounted or portable air conditioning unit. Of course, this would be subject to some rules. A tenant would need to give written notice to the landlord of their intention to install an air conditioning unit prior to its installation. In addition, the air conditioning unit would need to be installed safely and securely, without causing damage, while complying with any applicable laws. Renters would pay for the air conditioner, the installation and the maintenance. And tenants who have electricity included in their rent could be charged a seasonal fee by the landlord, based on the actual electricity cost to the landlord or a reasonable estimate.

Our bill has even more advantages for renters. At a time when renters are faced with uncertain economic forces like inflation, our government is acting.

Our proposed legislation, if passed—along with future regulations—would increase tenant protections against evictions due to renovations or repairs, as well as evictions for a landlord’s own use of a unit. We intend to do this by giving tenants greater access to remedies and by increasing the reporting requirements that landlords must follow. If passed, this bill would require a landlord who is ending a tenancy to do renovations or repairs to provide a report stating that the rental unit needs to be vacant while that work is taking place. A future regulation would outline the details that must be included in that report. Regulations would also set out the required qualifications of the persons who could provide this report. Once these regulations are made, this document must be provided to the tenant along with an eviction notice; otherwise, the eviction notice would be considered invalid.

In situations where tenants have indicated they want to return to their old unit, our proposed changes would require landlords to provide written notification, without delay, of the estimated date when the unit will be ready for occupancy after the renovations or repairs are completed. In addition, written notification would again be required for any changes to that expected completion date and would need to include a new estimated completion date. And finally, when the unit is ready for occupancy, the landlord would be required to give the tenant a minimum 60-day grace period to move back in. This grace period is intended to accommodate the tenant’s requirement to provide 60-day notice to end their tenancy in their temporary accommodation if they are renting elsewhere while renovations are completed. If the tenant does move back in, the landlord would be required—as is the case currently—to charge the tenant a rent similar to what was charged before the renovations.

Speaker, as the law now stands, if a landlord fails to give the right of first refusal to an evicted tenant after renovations or repairs are completed, the tenant has two years within which to file a complaint with the Landlord and Tenant Board. Our proposed legislation would change the Residential Tenancies Act so that a tenant would have two years after moving out or six months after the renovations are complete, whichever is longer, to file their complaint. This would extend the tenant’s access to justice.

Our proposed legislation and related regulations would also tighten the rules regarding evictions when a landlord wishes to use a rental unit for their own use or for one of their family members. To help ensure these types of evictions are genuine, our proposed changes would set a time frame, to be prescribed in the regulation, within which a landlord or their family member must move into the unit after the unit becomes vacant. If the move is not made by that deadline, the landlord would be presumed to have acted in bad faith. The tenant could then apply to the Landlord and Tenant Board for a remedy, and the landlord would have the onus to prove to the board that the eviction was not in bad faith. The amount of time that a landlord would have to move in would be set at a future date, once our government has consulted on a fair and reasonable time period.

Our proposed legislation would also increase the maximum fines for offences under the Residential Tenancies Act. If passed, our legislation would amend the Residential Tenancies Act to double the fines under this act. The maximum fines would rise to $100,000 from $50,000 for individuals, and to $500,000 from $250,000 for corporations. We believe that increasing these fines would help deter rental housing offences such as unlawful evictions. Our government knows it is critical that tenants be protected from this type of behaviour.

Speaker, I’ve mentioned the Landlord and Tenant Board several times in regard to renovictions and own-use situations. However, there are many kinds of landlord-tenant disputes that get resolved through the Landlord and Tenant Board, and it is essential that the LTB be ready to adjudicate these disputes. That’s why our government is doubling the number of adjudicators to eliminate the backlog of cases at the LTB and reduce wait times for landlords and for tenants.

Our proposed legislation would also introduce other welcome improvements. It would amend the Residential Tenancies Act to mandate the use of the Landlord and Tenant Board’s form for rent repayment agreements. These agreements are used when a landlord has applied to the Landlord and Tenant Board to evict a tenant for owed rent, and the landlord and the tenant agree to a repayment plan. The LTB’s rent repayment agreement form is a legal document that sets out the terms of payment. Currently, there is no requirement for a specific form or format to be used for a repayment agreement. This would standardize these agreements, setting out in plain language the rights and obligations of both renters and landlords and the potential consequences if the agreement is breached.

Speaker, our government knows it is crucially important to protect and increase our province’s stock of rental housing. Building on More Homes Built Faster, one of our government’s earlier housing supply action plans which I mentioned earlier, our proposed legislation would make changes to the Municipal Act and the City of Toronto Act. These changes would be necessary to give the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing the regulation-making authority necessary to create a balanced regulatory framework governing municipal rental replacement bylaws. This would help streamline the construction and revitalization of rental housing, while protecting tenants.

Speaker, as things stand, rental replacement bylaws vary amongst municipalities. This includes requirements that municipalities impose around number, size, height and cost of rental units, as well as right of first refusal for existing tenants.

Our government envisions a regulatory framework where any municipality that establishes a bylaw must require that replacement units contain the same core features as the units they are replacing. By this we mean features such as the same number of bedrooms. We’re also considering permitting some flexibility when it comes to the overall size of the unit and the size of, for example, the bedrooms.

This regulatory framework could also require municipalities to impose a requirement on landowners to provide existing tenants with the right to move back into the replacement unit at similar rent levels. Our government is consulting on future regulations that would help ensure a balanced package of rules for these replacement bylaws.

I’ve outlined how our government’s proposed Helping Homebuyers, Protecting Tenants Act would strengthen protections and new rights for tenants. This legislation represents our government’s latest efforts to make life better for tenants and homebuyers across this great province. We have a responsibility to the people of Ontario to ensure that they have access to safe, affordable housing. This bill, if passed, will help us achieve that goal by strengthening protections and providing new rights for tenants, while also encouraging the construction of new rental housing.

I urge each and every one of the members here today to consider the impacts this legislation will have on the lives of so many Ontarians. Let us come together and pass this bill so that we can continue to make life better for renters and landlords across Ontario. We have done so much already, and yet there is still so much more to be done as we work towards our goal of building 1.5 million homes to ensure that every Ontarian has a safe and affordable place to call home.

Speaker, I would now like to turn the floor over to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

The Associate Minister of Housing.

Thank you to my honourable colleague for reminding everyone of the acronym for my ministry—peanut butter sandwich delivery.

Good morning, and thank you, Speaker, for this great opportunity to speak on such a wonderful bill, and it’s all about housing.

I’m pleased to speak in the House today in support of the third reading of our government’s Bill 97, Helping Homebuyers, Protecting Tenants Act, 2023.

Together with my esteemed colleagues the Honourable Steve Clark, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; Associate Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Nina Tangri; and their parliamentary assistant, PA Rae, we have been working relentlessly to address Ontario’s housing supply challenges.

Our great province is filled with hard-working Ontarians seeking the perfect place to call home and one that fits both their needs and their budget. We are dedicated to helping them achieve their dream of home ownership and ensuring they can confidently spend their hard-earned money. Using every tool at our disposal, we support Ontarians in making informed choices when it comes to finding a forever home in our province.

Speaker, we are all aware of the housing crisis in Ontario, and we recognize the immense economic impact of home building. Our goal is to construct 1.5 million homes by 2031, effectively addressing the housing supply crisis.

A strong residential construction industry is crucial for the prosperity of our province.

Under our Premier’s leadership, we have focused on cutting red tape and modernizing processes to accelerate home construction. That’s why our government introduced Ontario’s first-ever housing supply action plan in 2019, and look how far we have come since 2019. I believe this is our housing supply action plan 4.0. Speaker, I want to acknowledge my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for his hard work on these initiatives. It seems like a movie or one of those dramas: season 1, season 2, season 3. So I will say this is season number 4, and I’m sure the minister will say soon there will be season 5, season 6, season 7 of the housing supply action plan—not that I’m saying anything, but just wanted to mention: hint, hint.

Speaker, housing supply action plan 4.0, recently announced by Minister Clark, includes our plan to strengthen protections for buyers and enhance their confidence in purchasing a new home. As the Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery, we oversee Ontario’s legislation for new homes, including the New Home Construction Licensing Act, and the builder regulator, the Home Construction Regulatory Authority, or the HCRA.

We are committed to innovating and strengthening our protections for homebuyers, and here’s how we plan to do it: In the coming weeks, we will consult with the public, consumer groups and the homebuilding sector. Through the Ontario Regulatory Registry, we aim to explore the possibility of a cooling-off period for buyers of new freehold homes and whether to create new requirements that buyers of all new homes receive legal advice on their purchase agreements. Speaker, we will explore whether a purchaser of a new freehold home should be able to cancel their purchase agreement within a specific time frame and how builders could be required to disclose a cooling-off period to purchasers. Additionally, we intend to consult on issues related to price escalation in the new home construction sector. These proposed changes would enhance consumers’ understanding of their rights and obligations, and empower all new home buyers to make confident decisions in the most significant purchase of their lives.

Our government is committed to strengthening consumer confidence in the new home sector and protecting Ontarians from unethical practices in the home-building marketplace. Speaker, just in 2021, we established the Home Construction Regulatory Authority, the HCRA, an independent not-for-profit corporation that administers and enforces the New Home Construction Licensing Act, 2017, and licensing act regulations. The HCRA’s mandate includes upholding professional standards for new home builders, protecting the public interest and educating consumers to make informed decisions. It is also to regulate builders of new homes and ensure compliance with a mandatory code of ethics. The HCRA has the authority to enforce compliance through education, warnings, placing conditions on a builder’s licence or by suspending or revoking a builder’s licence, and the HCRA has taken such steps to better protect consumers.

Speaker, just last fall, in fact, I believe our government passed changes to the licensing act that crack down on predatory actions by builders of new homes in Ontario. These changes increase the existing maximum financial penalties against unethical builders who unfairly cancel a contract. Those bad actors now face the risk of permanently losing their licence.

Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, through the housing supply action plan 4.0, our government is taking bold actions to tackle Ontario’s housing supply crisis. We have introduced various measures to increase the supply of housing, accelerate construction and strengthen consumer protection. We will continue to execute housing supply action plans every year of our current mandate, as we promised, to reach our goal of building 1.5 million new homes by 2031.

In 2021, we witnessed the highest number of new housing starts in Ontario in over three decades, and the credit goes to Premier Ford as well as the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Steve Clark, and our entire government, all government members, for making sure that Ontarians can have their dream homes. I’m sure all of us are working to make sure that we continue to make that dream a reality. As a government, Speaker, we are proud of this achievement, but we also know that it is just the beginning.

I must also address the rapidly growing condominium sector in Ontario and our ongoing efforts to enhance protections for condo owners and residents. I want to start with something that affects more than a million of our fellow Ontarians’ condo living. Condos are not just homes. They play a major role as a housing option for millions of individuals and families, and are a testament to the strength and growth of our province, accounting for half of all new homes being built.

This robust expansion of the condo sector, which is valued at nearly $45 billion and provides jobs for over 300,000 Ontarians, is something we can all be proud of, but it means we must constantly re-evaluate our laws and consumer protections. While most condos are well run and satisfy their owners and residents, we are aware that there are challenges. Therefore, we will continue to assess the potential future expansion of the Condominium Authority Tribunal’s jurisdiction to support Ontario’s valued condo communities.

Speaker, it is no secret that buying or selling a home is a significant milestone. As such, Ontarians should feel confident in the professionals who guide them through this process. That is why we are doubling down on protections for Ontarians navigating the real estate market.

The Trust in Real Estate Services Act, 2020, or as we say, TRESA 2020, makes important changes to how real estate professionals interact with the public, ensuring their practices reflects the changing realities of the industry. In the first phase of TRESA 2020, changes were made to allow registrants and brokers to incorporate and be paid through a personal real estate corporation. This first phase has also allowed registrants to use more recognizable terms, such as real estate agent and realtor, to describe brokers and salespersons in their advertisements.

The second phase of legislative and associated regulation changes, once in force, will also encourage transparency and ethical practices by introducing a new code of ethics regulation, strengthening disclosure requirements and other registrants’ obligations, to better protect the public. In addition, the changes will allow a registrant to conduct an open offer process and disclose the details of competing offers, of course without divulging personal or identifying information contained in the offers at the seller’s direction. These changes, backed by the stakeholders and the Real Estate Council of Ontario, are all part of our commitment to Ontarians.

Speaker, we also want to speed up residential home construction. Our partnership with Ontario One Call is crucial in achieving this. It aims to increase the efficiency, timeliness and coordination of digging activities by excavators and promote safe digging practices. Their role in coordinating excavation work and promoting safe digging practices is a cornerstone of our construction projects.

We are actively improving the locate delivery system to ensure businesses can start their projects quicker, avoiding unnecessary delays. In particular, we are looking at innovative models for locate delivery through a dedicated-locator model, which is currently in place for all broadband projects. This means a faster rollout of critical infrastructure commitments like new homes, improved public transit and expanded broadband services in underserved areas. These changes will help businesses get shovels in the ground faster and reduce delays in obtaining necessary information about the location of underground infrastructure, such as telecommunications, gas, electrical and water lines, helping the province deliver on the many infrastructure projects that are, in turn, helping Ontarians and fuelling our economic growth.

Speaker, our efforts don’t stop here. We are also creating new data standards that support e-permitting for planning and development applications. Working with municipalities and home builders, the new data standard will provide clear, uniform rules and guidance about how data should be captured, shared and used.

I know I only have 50 seconds, but, Speaker, let’s make our shared vision of a bright and prosperous future for all Ontarians a reality. The quicker we get shovels in the ground, the faster we can help Ontarians realize their dream of home ownership, or as my grandfather says, the Canadian dream.

I know you all will have valuable feedback on the proposed amendments. We definitely encourage everyone to give us your feedback, and I look forward to a productive debate conversation.

But in the end, I just want to say thank you to the minister, Premier, associate minister, PA and everyone—all my colleagues—for all the great work they are doing in making sure that Ontarians can have a home they all can enjoy with their families.

[Inaudible] by Jon, and Jon is an owner of farmland. He is struggling to find housing for his family members, and he asked, what is this government doing to support his family? I just wanted to ask the minister—he’s probably had many such emails—what he would say to Jon about creating more housing in Ontario.

Thank you to my colleague from Thornhill. As we made very clear almost a year—Friday’s a year. In the election last year, we made a very clear commitment to build 1.5 million homes, and I’d also like to highlight the two other major parties in this place also committed to doing that.

We’re actually taking action on that, Speaker, which this housing supply action plan bill does in Bill 97 through our protections for tenants and homebuyers, but also, again, the proposed provincial planning statement and those aspects, even in the city of Thornhill, reducing duplication and ensuring that there’s one planning document. Right now, there are two, and that causes confusion and extra red tape for housing construction. So working with—whether that’s mixed use, whether that’s condos, whether that’s semi-detached housing, ensuring those houses get built in all communities across Ontario.

It appears, Speaker, just like there is in the federal House, there’s a bit of Liberal-NDP alliance here in question period this morning provincially.

We’ve been crystal clear. We took a plan to the people last June under the leadership of Premier Ford that our government would build upon our success with our housing supply action plans and not only have a housing supply action plan each and every year under a re-elected government, under Premier Ford’s leadership, but that we would build 1.5 million homes by 2031.

Every measure we’ve put forward, whether it was More Homes, More Choice in 2019; More Homes for Everyone; More Homes Built Faster, and now we have the Helping Homebuyers, Protecting Tenants Act, New Democrats have not supported it.

We’ve said many times we want to work with the federal government. We’ve got a great relationship with Minister Hussen, the housing minister. I don’t have a relationship with Mr. Guilbeault, so I can’t speak to that. But we want to move forward, and I know at our upcoming provincial-territorial meeting, we’ll have more to say about how the federal government can support our government.

Earlier today we had a young class group up there. This is what motivates our government, to ensure that those young people who want an opportunity to have housing close to where they grow up or that senior who decides that, at their stage of life, they want to downsize but there’s nothing that’s available in their price range where they’ve grown up and where they’ve raised their family—these are the people that our government, under the leadership of Premier Ford, are standing up for. These are the people for whom we’re going to ensure that by 2031 we’re going to hit our housing targets. We’re going to ensure that we have a plan in place that we build upon.

For the last two years, we’ve had 30-year highs in terms of housing starts. We’ve had an all-time high when it comes to rental starts. The one consistent measure is NDP opposition to—

So many. If you open up an act, I’m going to try to introduce an amendment to change it. That’s how it works. That’s my job. There are a lot of things I would like to change with how this government approaches housing and the real estate sector to ensure that our housing sector provides homes to people first. That’s the goal. And they should be affordable homes that meet their needs.

Another measure we introduced was around “use it or lose it.

This is how it works: If a developer gets all the approvals that they need to build and they don’t build within a fair and reasonable period of time, and they don’t have a good reason for not building, then there should be penalties imposed, because that will stimulate the construction of homes so we have enough homes for current residents to move out of their parents’ basements and for newcomers who are moving in who want to call Ontario home. Maybe they’re studying at the University of Toronto or the University of Waterloo and they need a home. It makes a lot of sense to me, and it’s something that municipalities are recommending. Unfortunately, the government chose to reject that amendment, which is interesting, because you’re A-okay with targeting municipalities, fining them, but you’re not okay with looking at developers who are choosing to sit on properties and sit on building permits for no good reason. I can imagine that if a municipality was going to move forward with this kind of amendment, there would be some reasonable conditions that we’d set up. Maybe it’s an affordable housing project; maybe it’s a project that’s in the public interest; maybe the developer had a really good reason and they’ve come into financial difficulty and they can’t get the financing that they originally thought they could. That’s a reason not to impose a penalty. But then there are some who sit on permits and they don’t build. This could be a very effective way, and a very cheap way, to increase supply. That was rejected.

This was an interesting amendment—I would say of all the schedules in Bill 97, schedule 4 is a complete and total mystery to me. It seems to be a mystery for the Conservative members, as well, because I’ve asked numerous questions in committee to the Minister for Municipal Affairs and Housing, to the committee members present, even to people who came in and spoke. I asked, “What does this actually mean?” People couldn’t really give a straight answer. I’ll explain it for the people listening. Essentially, schedule 4 of Bill 97 allows the minister to appoint a facilitator to give advice and recommendations “to the minister in respect of growth, land use and other matters,” and to “perform ... other functions”—not specified—“as the minister may specify.” So we don’t even know what they are. They can sign agreements with landowners. We don’t know what they are. Are they transparent? There’s no requirement here. Where’s the accountability? I have no idea. Could a facilitator, through the ministry, sign an agreement and bypass elected officials? Maybe. I don’t know. Does this apply to the divorce that’s happening between Brampton and Caledon and Mississauga? I don’t know. No one knows. So we thought, “Let’s introduce an amendment. Let’s keep it real simple. We’ll say that if the facilitator is making an agreement with a landowner or giving advice to the minister about growth and planning, then that needs to be transparent. Put it on a website, all the decisions and recommendations, so we all know what’s going on.” That makes a lot of sense, but you rejected that. I thought Conservatives were for transparency and accountability, but I guess not.

So that was a pity. The thing that disappointed me most about that is that no one really could answer questions about what that actually means. That’s really what surprises me about that one.

These are amendments all about helping renters who are in buildings that are facing demolition. We introduced a bunch of amendments—because we had the City of Toronto Act we needed to introduce amendments to, and then also the Municipal Act. So we got busy there.

Then, we introduced an amendment that really looks at the issue of renovictions. This amendment is focused on making sure that if a landlord is going to evict, they have a good reason to evict; that the renovation that is needed actually requires a tenant to leave. Right now, with Bill 97, you can get any kind of report, and you can say, “Oh, the tenant needs to leave. These renovations are significant.” And that’s it.

I looked at what other municipalities have done that have really effectively clamped down on illegal evictions. The example I’d like to use is New Westminster, BC. They brought in this interesting new law that says that if a landlord is going to renovict a tenant, they need to show that they have got the building permits necessary to prove that they’re actually going to do the renovation. It makes a lot of sense, because if a landlord is going to do the renovation, they have to get the building permits anyway. So why not make sure they do their due diligence so that we stop illegal renovictions, where some landlords say they’re going to renovate, but really, they have no intention of doing so; they just want to move in another tenant who’s going to pay the higher rent. This is simple. Landlords are doing it already. Get a permit, show us that you got a permit, put it in your application to the Landlord and Tenant Board in your application to evict. Conservatives didn’t like that, so that was a no, which is a real pity. But hopefully we’ll see that in future bills.

Then we had 4.2—we’re in schedule 6 now; this is the Planning Act. With the Planning Act, with Bill 23 and also with Bill 97, the Conservatives have brought in a whole lot of measures to really transform how we plan and build. One issue that’s particularly concerning to me is that Bill 23 changed the definition of what affordable housing is, which is really concerning. Bill 23 changed the definition of affordable housing so that it’s based on the market: A house is affordable if you can rent it for about 80% of average market rent, and a home is considered affordable if it sells for 80% of the sale price. That’s the new definition of affordable housing for the Ontario government. It’s different than what it used to be. It’s different than what the federal government has. It’s different from what the city of Toronto is looking at doing. The Conservatives decided to create their own. And why that’s so messed up is because they’re looking at giving upwards of $100,000 in development fee discounts to any developer that meets this new, completely unaffordable definition of affordable housing. So you could build a home in Brampton, sell it for $800,000, and you still get that affordable housing development fee exemption, and it’s taxpayers who are going to have to make up the difference. I don’t know how on earth that is fair for anyone, because $800,000 for a home in Brampton is not affordable for a middle-income person, for a moderate-income person, for a low-income person.

As a result of those development fee discounts, municipalities all across the GTHA have imposed a Ford tax, a property tax increase, to pay for the infrastructure that we need to build—because if we’re going to give developers a discount, someone else has to pay for it, and it’s Ontarians. I’m just going to review this again: Durham region, 5% tax hike; Pickering, 6% to 8%; Clarington, 4%; Waterloo region, 8.55%; Burlington, 7.5%; Niagara region, 7.58%—I had a wonderful co-op student help me gather this information, and I’m very grateful for them—York region, 3.9%; Newmarket, 7.67%. It goes on and on and on. And what’s hard to stomach with these property tax increases is that residents are not going to see improvements in their services. Most regions are going to see cuts in their services, and they’re going to see a delay in the rollout of infrastructure and the improvement of infrastructure because of these tax hikes. It’s a shame.

So we proposed to bring in an affordable housing amendment that goes back to the original definition that Ontario has for affordable housing. And the definition of affordable housing that we are proposing is that it’s based on what the resident can pay—not what the ever-increasing market is, but what the resident can pay, and that is 30% of gross annual household income for low- and moderate-income households; they shouldn’t pay any more than that on rent or the carrying costs of a mortgage for it to be affordable. And for a home to be bought, it’s essentially the same thing: They shouldn’t be spending more than 30% of their income. It’s standard. It’s what all levels of government are aiming towards. It’s what we had, and the government rejected it. I think that’s a shame.

I am waiting for this government to release what the actual affordable housing definitions are going to be—I know you’ve put 80%, but we’re actually waiting for the release of how much the rent will be and how much the home prices will be in each region, because the Conservatives said they’d release that every year. I am eagerly waiting for that to come out, because that’s really going to show how unaffordable this government’s definition is. I can’t wait for that template to come out.

So then we move to 5.1; this was a government amendment. There’s nothing I look forward to like seeing the amendments that the government makes to bills, because that’s when we realize what you’re going to change and what you’re not. I found this really interesting.

With Bill 97, the government is moving forward with making changes to converting lands that are zoned for employment into housing, and it’s being done very quickly. We had some stakeholders come in to express their enthusiasm and their concern for opening up employment lands to housing—their enthusiasm and some concern. I want to read out a few, because this is a big deal.

We had the Toronto Board of Trade express some concern. They asked the Conservatives to press “pause.” They liked the idea in principle, as do I, but they asked the government to press “pause” and think carefully before proceeding, because right now we have a housing supply crisis, but in 10 years’ time we could have an employment lands crisis.

How we’ve designed all our employment lands is that that’s where all the transit nodes are. If we’re going to turn downtown Toronto and much of that area into housing instead of commercial, then how is that going to affect employment trends and commuting patterns? Does that mean we’re going to have to change our transit systems? What’s it going to look like, exactly? People have some genuine concerns.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture also had some concerns. They said to reconsider this amendment: “The resulting impacts of reduced protections for employment lands could result in increased pressure to utilize ... prime agricultural lands and specialty crop areas for employment uses in the future.”

You’ve introduced some amendments—I’m interested to see what this is going to look like. My request to you, and what I heard from stakeholders, is to just tread carefully. If we’re going to convert employment lands, do it carefully.

That was a government amendment, so you passed that one.

Oh, this is one of my favourites—we’re also in the Planning Act now, and we introduced an amendment to really improve the Conservatives’ position on allowing missing-middle housing. We introduced an amendment that would allow townhomes, duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes in areas zoned for development, in neighbourhoods people want to live in, in order to increase housing supply and also to increase a more affordable housing supply.

When you look at how much homes cost, a semi-detached home is usually half a million dollars cheaper than a single detached home, and a townhome is cheaper than a semi-detached home. If you’ve got a duplex and you sever it, those two homes are cheaper. So when you’re a family who wants to start out or you’re a couple who wants to start out—and you want to increase the supply of more affordable homes, there’s a real benefit in gently increasing density in municipal areas. It makes a lot of sense to me. It’s about the missing middle.

So we introduced this motion and, surprisingly, the government chose to vote that down, which is a pity. It’s a pity, because Bill 23 makes some modest improvements to missing-middle housing but not enough. We gave the Conservatives the opportunity to do the right thing, to walk and talk, and instead the Conservatives just chose to focus on talking. That’s a pity. You voted it down.

The next amendment we introduced was really about moving forward with density and intensification, and the reason we introduced this amendment is because in the new provincial planning statement, the Conservatives are looking at getting rid of all mandatory density requirements for municipalities, and the Conservatives are looking at getting rid of all mandatory density requirements for new subdivisions. What that means is that if a developer wants to come along—maybe they bought some greenbelt land or some farm-belt land—they’re not required to build for density so that we can efficiently provide services, provide transit and schools and daycares and roads in an efficient way. They can build single-family homes on quarter-acre lots and then have the municipality pay for that servicing. It is incredibly unsustainable, it is incredibly expensive, and it really jeopardizes our precious farmland.

You heard from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture that we only have so much farmland in Canada, and Ontario is so unique. We have some of the most productive and precious farmland in the world. We should be doing everything we can to protect it, but we’re not. Once it’s paved, it is gone. Eliminating density requirements and intensification requirements makes it even easier for land to be paved over, and it will make it harder for us to meet our housing supply targets, because we’re building less homes per acre than we could and we should.

We called for an amendment to go back to the 2018 density targets and intensification targets—pretty standard, part of the growth plan. The government chose to vote that down, which says a lot about this government’s interest in building expensive sprawl and this government’s disinterest in protecting farmland and building homes for Ontarians to meet supply. It’s a real concern.

We introduced an amendment that would allow inclusionary zoning in municipalities that want it. This is a really important amendment. The reason why this is important is because other cities have brought in inclusionary zoning. In the case of Montreal, for example, they have built thousands of affordable housing units at minimal cost to government since 2005. Municipalities in Ontario also want that right to move forward on inclusionary zoning. Inclusionary zoning is this: If there’s a new development that’s going to be built, then there’s a requirement that a percentage of those homes are affordable.

The city of Toronto spent years and years studying, listening to people, developing bylaws. They came up with a compromise: a fair inclusionary zoning law. The inclusionary zoning law said we’re going to exempt purpose-built rentals for a while. We’re going to focus on condos. For any new condo that is 100 homes or more—so these are the big buildings—we are going to require developers to have a percentage of them be affordable. It would be phased in over time. They looked at how much profit developers make. They looked at it very closely. They concluded that developers could continue to make the profit that they need to make it viable and build these affordable housing units. The law is on the books. It’s ready to go. However, the Ontario government, the Conservative government, is refusing to allow the city of Toronto to move forward with this new law. You’re refusing to allow them—they’ve made dozens and dozens and dozens of requests to the government, and you refuse to allow them—

Thank you for the hour leadoff from the official opposition.I first want to welcome—although they have already had to leave for more exciting things, I think—the grade 8 students from McNab Public School in my riding who are here on a school trip. Welcome to the Legislature of Ontario.

I have to point out to the member, it is really hard to sit here and listen to the fantasy that goes on for an hour—dreaming that somehow homes are going to just magically fall from the sky here in the province of Ontario, or the tooth fairy is going to build them as she whistles by, or Peter Pan is coming to Ontario.

I’m not sure what they are thinking over there. We’re doing all of the things that are required and everybody understands are necessary.

She says it’s not about supply; it is absolutely about supply, because supply is what will bring down the price. But, no, they want to artificially invent a housing system in the province of Ontario that simply won’t get it done.

I will ask the member one more time—four different bills that will bring that supply up by 1.5 million homes by 2031. Why won’t you support it?

Thank you very much for that question.

We have been very clear that we are very much in support of increasing housing supply and meeting our 1.5 million housing target by 2031. But what we are also very clear about is that it is not just about increasing supply; it’s also about addressing affordability. They’re related, but one doesn’t automatically solve the other, which is why we are proposing a comprehensive approach where we build homes for Ontarians first and not investors; we clamp down on investor-led speculation; we make renting safe and affordable so people can save up enough for a down payment to buy a home—I don’t know anyone who can save up a down payment, paying $3,000 a month in rent—and we get serious about building affordable housing.

There’s very little in this bill that looks at creating housing and meeting the housing needs for people who are in a really tough spot. Maybe they are on a fixed income. Maybe they are fleeing an abusive relationship. Maybe they’ve just moved to Canada and they don’t know the laws and they moved into a housing situation that’s really not good. There’s very little in this bill for that.

The Conservatives have done a few things that concern me, around making housing affordable for people who are struggling. The government has decided to cut funding to municipalities and housing, which means there’s less funding available for shelters. The government also decided to cut funding to the rent top-up program. So if someone wants to find a rental home and get a top-up from the government so that they can afford the rent, rebuild their lives, have a home, move into the private market, get that little bit of help—that’s also being cut. It’s those kinds of programs that we need to really help people who are struggling.

When we talk about affordable housing, I think that means different things to different people. When I hear from folks who are renting a room, which is not covered or protected by anyone, for $800 and they get there and find out that the other half has been rented to a stranger and that’s just how it is; when we have folks who are survivors of human trafficking, and I find out from victim services and from the different support agencies that there isn’t safe housing for them to go to, which, of course, puts them in danger of having to return to that world—transitional housing, supportive housing really does have to take the shape of its community; they are such different specific needs, and people are at different stages of recovery or healing. What is this bill going to do to reassure communities that that type of housing, that supportive wraparound service, will be there for them?

I’ll be sharing my time with the awesome member from Newmarket–Aurora.

During my brief speaking time on this particular topic, I’m going to be doing some contrasting and comparing, and that will be my contribution to this debate. With that in mind, I’ll start by referring to what the NDP refer to as their housing plan, and I’m going to contrast and compare that with the government’s housing plan, which we are now in our fourth stage of. The reason I use the words “fourth stage” is because we’ve already introduced three bills, this is the fourth, and we intend to continue introducing more.

With reference to the NDP plan, this comes from page 18 of the NDP plan, and it says this: The NDP will “establish a new public agency, Housing Ontario, to finance and build 250,000 new affordable and non-market rental homes.” That’s the first thing I want to refer to in this practice of contrasting and comparing, and I’d like to take an opportunity to unpack that. I’m going to concentrate on this word “finance.” The NDP say that they are going to finance 250,000 homes. Let’s keep that in mind. Financing means somehow they’re going to get the money for 250,000 homes, and that means, I presume—I don’t want to put words into the members’ mouths, but they’ll have an opportunity to give their interpretation of their own policy. I presume that means they’re going to try to find that money from taxpayers somewhere, because they want to set up something called Housing Ontario, an agency of the government, and they say they’re going to finance 250,000 homes.

I’m just going to use an example. I’m going to use the example of a very modest home, a $500,000 home—$500,000 is different in the riding of Essex, it’s different in the riding of Toronto Centre, but I will unilaterally just choose the number $500,000. The NDP want to build 250,000 homes at $500,000 apiece. That is $500,000 times 250,000 homes, which is $125 billion—that’s billion with a B. That’s 125 followed by nine zeros. That is essentially 62% of the entire annual provincial budget, which the NDP say they’re going to finance to build 250,000 homes. Remember, that number of 250,000 homes comes not from the government’s plan; that comes from the NDP proposal, and they say they’re going to finance 250,000 homes in their own proposal.

Well, let’s imagine that. You can’t build a home for $500,000 in many of those ridings, but, like I said, I’m going to be generous and I’m going to give them that number. Now, they don’t offer any other explanation as to where they are going to get the $125 billion. I’m making a supposition. I admit, I’m making a supposition. I am assuming they are going to get it out of Ontario taxpayers. I don’t know how they would do that, because, as I said, it’s 62% of the annual budget, but I will graciously give them an opportunity to explain how they propose to do that. I have asked this question of NDP members before; I have not received an explanation—

So the Ontario housing agency proposed by the NDP, I presume that it’s going to be a government-run agency. I have asked this question of several NDP members in the House, just like I’m asking it now: What does your agency look like and how is it going to be run? I did not get any answers to that. What I anticipated what the NDP would say was this—

I’d like thank my colleague from Essex for his dynamic presentation.

I’m honoured to rise today in this chamber, representing the amazing constituents of Newmarket–Aurora, to speak to actions our government is taking to help more and more Ontarians realize their dream of home ownership. The Helping Homebuyers, Protecting Tenants Act, 2023, is the latest in a series of steps our government is taking to increase housing supply and help more Ontarians find a home they can afford.

I’m going to tell you about some of the housing challenges that I have heard from a variety of people in my riding and beyond. Afterwards, I’m going to address how our plan will help each of those challenges.

First off, and I think we’ve heard this: The cost of homes is a challenge for young people to enter into the market—even for a young couple. Example: both living at home, not paying rent, but earning good salaries of well over 80K, but holding off getting married until they can afford a home. Let’s look at the implications of this scenario. Young couples staying home longer—this delays parents’ consideration of downsizing. Young couples waiting longer to start a family, which then means family planning is delayed—delay of getting into the market means a delay for young people to start building their own personal development and self-reliance.

Secondly: seniors—people retiring—who would like to downsize and stay in their community, but there are no homes applicable to their age. Thus, where are the age-friendly communities that meet the needs of people of all ages?

Thirdly: retired people living in their home and who have an apartment suite, who are landlords, yet having challenges with their tenants. I have heard of this situation far too often—retired, house is paid for, and they turn an in-law suite into a rental to generate income for their retirement, and then all of a sudden it becomes a nightmare.

Fourthly: seniors and retirees who are purchasing new-build homes for retirement purposes and then are faced with a situation where the builder is not building within the agreed-upon time frame. This puts the buyer in a precarious situation, as they need to sell their home but have no home to go to due to challenges faced by the builder.

I note all of these challenges—as it has been explained to me—as these are real challenges that residents of our communities are facing.

So what is the role of government? It is to ensure that we create an environment that addresses this housing crisis by making certain we propose changes that react to market conditions and encourage development of all types of housing and significantly increase our housing supply. We have already introduced a range of measures to increase housing supply, and we can see their growing and positive impact.

A Statistics Canada study revealed that from 2011 to 2021 Ontario had the fourth-largest decline in home ownership rates amongst provinces and territories in Canada. What does that tell us? Well, it reveals that there were decades of inaction, burdensome red tape, and the “not in my backyard” ideology—that all-so-unfortunate opposition by residents to proposed developments in their local areas—as well as support for strict land use regulations.

I am proud that we are a government who want to provide housing for people of this province—for all the people in this province. With the steps taken to date, housing starts in Ontario reached a level not seen in more than 30 years. Just last year, rental housing starts in our province reached an all-time high. These trends have continued into 2023. For the first quarter of this year, we have had an 11% rise in housing starts compared with this time last year, and purpose-built rental housing starts are currently more than double compared to the same period since last year.

I want to address the four points that I raised from listening to real resident challenges. How does our plan make housing more affordable? Well, we’re streamlining land use planning policies, making policies for land use planning in Ontario easier to follow; providing the tools to support growth in large and fast-growing municipalities near transit stations and other strategic areas; allowing more homes to be build in rural areas; giving municipalities the flexibility to expand settlement area boundaries at any time; and making planning policies simpler and more flexible while balancing the need to protect employment lands, agriculture and the environment.

The second item that I had addressed, the various types of homes required for the various type of Ontarians: Here, I am speaking to age-friendly communities. Our proposed changes would help refocus by maintaining a mix of housing types. This is critical, as all municipalities would be required to provide a range and mix of housing options, such as low- and mid-rise apartments or multi-generational housing, and work with service managers to address the full range of housing options, including housing affordability needs, increasing housing supply and includes building up near transit.

Currently, 29 of Ontario’s largest and fastest-growing municipalities would be required to plan for growth in major transit station areas and other strategic growth areas—for example, downtowns. We’re also addressing minimum density targets that would apply to major transit station areas and strategic growth areas in the large and fastest-growing municipalities.

In addition, we are looking at attainable housing programs, specifically modular housing construction and other innovative options to reduce the cost of building attainable housing and speed up the creation of housing. As part of this work, the government will engage with the housing sector, municipalities and Indigenous communities to consider different opportunities to build housing using modular and other technologies. This is just another step for the development of the attainable housing program, which will leverage crown lands and seek partnerships for development lands across the province.

Now to helping vulnerable Ontarians, funding for homelessness: Starting in 2023-24, Ontario is investing an additional $202 million each year in the Homelessness Prevention Program and the Indigenous Supportive Housing Program. This is an increase of over 40% from 2022-23. These are truly historic investments in homelessness prevention and respond directly to the requests of the municipalities and Indigenous partners.

I was so proud to announce a 76% increase compared to the previous year to the municipality of York region’s HPP. This program gives local supportive housing service managers the flexibility to allocate funding where it is most needed—for example, to capital projects—as well as to make better use of existing resources. It reduces the red tape that service managers encounter and ensures the focus is on delivering support that our most vulnerable rely on every day instead of spending time on administrative tasks and reporting.

Thirdly—and I’ve got to speed up—helping tenants and landlords: To address the concerns raised around tenants who are in arrears of rent, this bill proposes a rent arrears repayment agreement. A tenant enters into agreement with their landlord to pay the rent they owe and avoid eviction. To make it easier for both tenants and landlords, the government is proposing to require use of the Landlord and Tenant Board’s plain language repayment agreement form. This would help ensure all parties better understand their rights and responsibilities and the rental rules that apply should the agreement be breached.

I’m running out of time, Madam Speaker, so I’m going to get to the point here that, in conclusion, the measures outlined in this latest plan will continue laying the groundwork for increased housing supply as market conditions improve. But more needs to be—

Well, I don’t know if that would happen, but I anticipated the answer would be some kind of provincially owned corporation, the shares of which would be owned by the taxpayers of Ontario and represented by perhaps a minister of the government, who would hold the shares in trust for the taxpayers of the province of Ontario. That’s the answer I was anticipating, but I didn’t get that answer. I didn’t get any answers.

So, I openly invite the NDP to once again explain to this House: What is their agency going to look like and how will it operate? Now I’m going to add a third question: How will that housing agency, proposed by the NDP, raise $125 billion to build the houses they propose? Those are questions that are legitimately asked. I invite them to answer those questions.

Interjection: How will it be staffed? Property expenses—

The question that my colleague put was: How is NDP plan going to do that? Are they going to hire carpenters, framers? Are they going to pour concrete? Where are they going to acquire these resources? Are they going to compete against the Jones Group? Are they going to compete against Nor-Built Construction? Where is the Ontario housing agency, as proposed by the NDP, going to acquire any of this? How are you going to finance your agency? How are you going to raise $125 billion? Those are good questions.

Now the contrast—the contrast and compare, as I spoke about before: What this government is doing is changing legislation to do exactly what I said previously. We’re going to let people like Jones Group, Nor-Built Construction and Valente do what they already know how to do, but they’re going to do it faster and they’re going to do it without taxpayers’ money. They’re going to do it because we’re going to change things like the definition of area of employment. That’s pretty technical. That’s pretty—I don’t know—legal, pretty academic. A lot of people haven’t spoken about that. I’m going to speak about it because it’s in this bill.

So “area of employment”: that’s a definition that’s in the provincial legislation. If your land falls within “area of employment,” that definition, then there’s certain restrictions on it, and it cannot easily be converted into residential land. That’s very hard to do. In fact, in some cases, it may not be converted into residential land.

Let’s imagine—and I don’t have to imagine because I can give you lots of examples in my area of land which is zoned with the definition “area of employment” that is no longer useful for that purpose. It’s either not commercially viable or not industrially viable, and that designation should be removed and a different designation should be put on that land. I would say residential. If you can remove that designation from the land and convert it to residential land, then you can do what you need to do with that land: Give it its highest and best use, which is build residences on that land. That’s how we can get to 1.5 million homes. That’s not the only way, of course, but that’s one of the ways we can get there.

I go back to the proposal by the NDP. Remember, their proposal only wants to build 250,000 homes at $125 billion. That only gets us one sixth of the way to the target 1.5 million.

That is what I have to offer and contribute to this debate today. I have been very specific about two very specific points.

And on that, Madam Speaker, I thank you.

The member from Essex referenced our former member, MPP Natyshak, and asked where he’s been. He’s spent some time on the Windsor Salt picket line of late, supporting those workers, and I think that that’s a good place for him to put energy.

But he asked a financing question, and financing and budgets are about priorities. We learned in public accounts just this week that this government has been subsidizing the building of private casinos in Ontario to the tune of $3.3 billion. By the end of this fiscal year, it will be up to $5 billion.

What we would do—instead of financing the capital costs of casinos in a housing crisis, we would be investing directly and partnering with not-for-profits, the co-op housing movement, municipalities who are ready and willing to come to the table. That funding, that $3.3 billion, would be going into housing—affordable, attainable housing, which are words that your government doesn’t seem to be able to say.

Do you think it’s appropriate to be financing private casinos in a housing crisis?

In 2022, housing starts were at 96,000; in 2023, at 80,300; in 2024, by your own budget, your housing starts are down to 82,700. So you are going in the wrong direction. Maybe you should stop focusing on our plan and actually bring forward a plan that actually will work for the people of this province.

It’s interesting that the member from Essex comes at this position as a lawyer. Let me be clear: The lawyers in Ontario are doing very well these days. I mean, you’re in so many court cases as a government for violation of human rights, including housing rights, that the lawyers are doing okay.

But I do want to just touch on some of the issues that the member from Newmarket–Aurora had referenced. I want to ask her a question around air conditioning, because when the minister was in the media studio, he was asked by one of the reporters, “You know, people can’t stay in their rental housing situation. They can’t afford the rent. How are they going to afford paying for the hydro of an air conditioner?”

If the member could please address that other financial burden of the cost of high hydro as it relates to air conditioning, I would be really appreciative.

I do appreciate the conversation today. I agree with the member from Newmarket: Really, this is about supply, and it is about building more supply in order to drive prices down. I live in a constituency where there is one of the highest growths of new homes in all of Canada, as has been evidenced by the fact that I have had four different ridings in the past 18 years.

I would like to speak to both the members who spoke on our behalf to talk about those housing starts, because I heard—and I think my ears may be a bit clogged—the member from Kitchener-Waterloo mention that the housing starts were down. Now, if she would drive in Nepean, if she would drive anywhere in Peel, if she would drive anywhere in Vaughan, if she would drive anywhere in the GTA or in the greater Ottawa area, she would see that people from around the world are choosing Ontario as their home, because we are competitive and, as a result of that, prices are going up because we don’t have the supply for housing. But the housing is starting to occur because of this government, because this government has the critical decisions that are required—

I know that the member has an area with a lot of need, and as she had mentioned, there is lots of opportunity and need for investment with struggling populations.

Not too long ago, I visited the Back Door Mission in Oshawa, which does important outreach to street-involved and unsheltered communities. One of the things that I heard—and the Associate Minister of Mental Health and Addictions heard—is that there are housing units available, but there isn’t subsidy available. The government isn’t keeping up with the need, and the cost is going through the roof.

So we have agencies that could house people across Durham region, but they don’t have the subsidy and they can’t afford to. That’s a failure of government, whether that’s a matter of emails getting lost in the chain or whatever.

What is in this bill that would help the folks who are really desperately needing housing—especially with help from agencies?

Thank you to the member from Thunder Bay.

I can understand that you say the two projects in Thunder Bay have not been able to work, because we understand that the status quo cannot give us the solution for the crisis we’re facing right now. That’s why this is the fourth time we’re putting together all these actions to help us against this housing crisis. I would hope that, if you go through each and every one of them slowly, then you will really understand the solutions that we’re going to bring.

I also want to point out one thing and see if you can see this through and be able to support us in this bill. As part of our plan, we are consulting on having a cooling-off or cancellation period for new freehold home purchases. First-time homebuyers deserve peace of mind when making what is likely the biggest purchase of their life in their new home. Does the member of the opposition not support consumer-friendly solutions such as this?

The member and I both represent ridings from the north. We know that the situation with the opioid epidemic is deadly. We also know that we have a huge problem with people who are homeless, who are not housed. Those are the realities of the north. We have four times more opioid deaths in northern Ontario—in her riding, in my riding—than we do in the rest of Ontario. Lots of it is directly linked to people being unhoused.

Did you see anything in the bill that speaks directly to the hardship that people are facing in trying to find housing in northern Ontario?