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.

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.

My question is to the member for Mississauga East–Cooksville. We have been contacted by many prospective homeowners—people in Durham region, in the Ottawa West–Nepean area, in the area of Stayner—who bought homes at pre-construction, put up hundreds of thousands of dollars in some cases in deposit money, and years later, they’re waiting for their home to be built. The developer isn’t building it unless they turn around and pay a whole lot more. They have contacted the Home Construction Regulatory Authority again and again and again, and they’re not getting the answers that they want. They’re stressed. They’re worried they’re going to lose their life savings. They want this government to take action. What is this government going to do to ensure these people get the homes they purchased at the price they agreed to?

In committee, ACTO, the Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario, summarized how broken our illegal-eviction protection laws are. They did a review of how many tenants get back into their home after a bad-faith eviction: essentially none. And then they did a review of what the average fine is that a bad landlord gets if they illegally evict a tenant: It’s between $500 and $3,000. How do you expect Bill 97 to be effective if the Landlord and Tenant Board is not issuing significant fines to landlords that illegally evict?

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.

My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. We are working with tenants across the city of Toronto whose purpose-built rentals are slated to be demolished. They’re terrified because they’re worried they’re never going to be able to get back into their homes once the construction of the new, bigger building is complete.

This government is looking at creating new rental replacement laws, and this is my question: When I look at the Residential Tenancies Act, there’s no guaranteed right of return for a tenant who’s evicted because of demolition. There’s no guaranteed right of return. In this government’s new rental replacement bylaw, are you going to allow cities to guarantee a tenant’s right to return to their home?

I’d like to thank the member from University–Rosedale for her effective analysis of Bill 97.

Really, what we see with Bill 97 is something like closing the barn door after the horses run free.

I want to thank the member for bringing forward positive and proactive solutions such as Bill 25, Bill 58, and all the amendments that the NDP brought forward to strengthen this legislation.

Despite having these proactive protections on the table, we see a government that continually says no to tenants. They continue to put forward reactive legislation and fines that won’t work to address the issues that renters face.

My question to the member is, why does proactive NDP legislation make far better sense than reactive Conservative legislation?

I’d like to thank the member from University–Rosedale for her presentation. I did take note that during her presentation, she did speak about the need for strengthening protections for tenants.

In fact, in the past, our government has brought in measures to strengthen protections for tenants. For example, we increased fines for bad landlords, and we also took action to prevent evictions. The opposition did choose to vote against those measures, which is truly unfortunate.

But this time, we do have an opportunity to work together and support measures that will once again provide better protections for tenants in this province. So my question to the member is, will you join us in supporting these enhanced protections, or will you continue to oppose them?

Madam Speaker, I generously invited the NDP to demonstrate how they were going to get to $125 billion. The member from Waterloo has demonstrated how she would get to $3 billion. Okay, you’ve got $122 billion to go, and that gets you one sixth of the way to 1.5 million homes. Great—she did a great job and demonstrated how she would get to $3 billion.

Interjection.

What this legislation does is that it requires an application being made by a landlord to be supported by evidence, which evidence has to be delivered to the tenant at the time the notice of termination is delivered. That’s very useful for tenants. In fact, I can tell you that when I represented tenants at the Landlord and Tenant Board, I routinely represented good tenants and good landlords and routinely defeated applications of termination, on a routine basis. So the assertion made by the NDP that somehow this legislation isn’t working for tenants is flatly wrong.

Well, so many things have come up, it’s hard to know where to start. I’ve heard from the member from Essex that things are grand in the landlord-tenant tribunals, but that’s of course in direct contrast to the Ombudsman’s report, which says, “The Ombudsman received more than 4,000 complaints from people on both sides of the landlord-tenant relationship. Many described the financial and mental harm they suffered while ‘trapped in the queue,’ waiting for their applications to be heard.”

There’s quite a lot here: “a shortage of qualified adjudicators ... compounded by a lengthy, cumbersome appointment and training process”.

I’d like to say, the problems at the Landlord and Tenant Board fall squarely on the shoulders of this government, because when they came to power in 2018, they decided not to renew any contracts. They had to put their own stamp and their own people in regardless of the fact that they were not trained, and so they left those positions empty for years. We are finally seeing some of those adjudicating positions filled, but it takes a long time to actually acquire the insight to be a good adjudicator. So instead, what we’re seeing is that—everything is online now. Even though, on paper, it might still say, yes, you can get in-person hearing, you can’t.

I know of a case in Thunder Bay where, with the support of, actually, one of the legal clinics—so this person wasn’t necessarily on their own. But the technology failed. Well, the adjudicator decided that was that. That was the end of the hearing. That person is out of luck. They’ve been waiting for years and years to have the opportunity to have their hearing before the Landlord and Tenant Board, and because of the technology and the refusal to have any in-person hearings, it was a bust. That person is out of luck. That is not unusual, and frankly, I’m surprised that the member from Essex was really singing the praises of how things were going for people, both small landowners and also tenants. It’s harming both. I’ve certainly gotten letters from both tenants and landlords saying that they are in crisis because they’re waiting eight months to 12 months to longer to get a hearing.

But I will go back to my original plan here, because there are a few things in the bill that I like. I do like that there’s some movement towards mandating air conditioning. I think it could be stronger. I think that you need to set an upper limit on temperature, and I think you’ve got to get rid of all the wiggle room for getting out of it.

Now, I see that there are guidelines being set for long-term care, with a maximum of 25 degrees Celsius, but really, that needs to apply to tenants everywhere, whether in free-standing apartment buildings, units within people’s homes or in seniors’ residences. For example, my mother lives in a retirement home owned by Revera. Her unit has been over 30 degrees Celsius for weeks. There’s air conditioning there, but it’s not the right date to turn it on, apparently. It was, “So sad, you’re out of luck. Go buy a fan.”

People pay a great deal of money to live in those seniors’ residences. I would like to see it mandated that the air conditioning be turned on the moment it is above 25 degrees in any single unit in the building.

Fines for violations: Well, it’s interesting to see the fines increased, but I would love to do a freedom-of-information inquiry to see how many times landlords have actually had a fine imposed on them for evicting somebody in order to move themselves or a member of their family into the unit, because the fines have not stopped illegal renovictions—far from it.

Part of this is that Bill 97 leaves the entire burden on renters to protest and to bring charges, and frankly, they don’t have the means to do that. In fact, once they’ve been evicted, they have the overwhelming problem of finding a new place to live in an extremely tight market where there is little to no affordable housing available. So they don’t exactly have time on their hands to launch a legal battle with a landlord outside the tribunal system. Of course, we know within the tribunal system, they’re going to be waiting for over half a year at least, so where do they go in the meantime?

The need for meaningful rent control: In 2018, the government basically gave landlords a get-out-of-jail-free card by not including buildings from that period under rent control, so we’re seeing increases of up to 57%. It’s absurd. It’s really hard to fathom that that makes sense in anybody’s world.

Then I looked at something else in here, this mysterious office, the Provincial Land and Development Facilitator, that addresses undisclosed projects requiring undisclosed payments to provide for other undisclosed things. There will be four deputy facilitators added to this office at a cost of just shy of $1 million. That’s $234,000 a year. That’s a lot of money to work in an office that very few people know anything about. The minister will also have new powers over this office of undisclosed purpose, something I think the people of Ontario would love to learn more about. Unfortunately, there is no information about that.

Bill 97, once again, relies almost entirely on deregulation and tax cuts to incentivize the for-profit private market to deliver 1.5 million homes over a decade. This narrow-minded approach is evidently failing, with the recent budget revealing that projected housing starts in Ontario are actually going down instead of up. In contrast, the NDP has called for a strong public sector role to deliver new affordable and non-market housing that the for-profit private sector can’t or won’t deliver. There is no provision in Bill 97 to facilitate new non-market housing.

We know that the Liberals had 15 years to help. By the way, it was preceding that that we had wonderful development of co-op housing. We have two really solid co-op housing developments in Thunder Bay. They continue to have affordable rent. They also have rent-geared-to-income, but even for the people who are not getting a subsidized rent, it’s affordable. It’s a very nice place to live and it’s been a very successful model.

The Liberals, yes, had 15 years after that to do something; they chose not to. For 14 of 15 years in power—supported by the Conservatives, I might add—the Liberal rent control policy was the same as the Harris PC rent control policy before it, shifting enormous power to private landlords and away from tenants, while failing to deliver new purpose-built rental housing.

I have been trying since August, really, to deliver—I have two fantastic housing projects in Thunder Bay that would provide 104 new affordable units. One of them, called Suomi Koti, is for seniors. I actually had the pleasure of touring Suomi Koti when the leader of the official opposition was in Thunder Bay. It’s a 30-year-old facility. You would never know it was 30 years old. It’s been kept immaculately. People love living there. You can even have your own garden. It’s a beautiful, beautiful space. All of this was put together by a volunteer board. Now, for 30 years, they have intended to build a second building. There is a seven-year wait-list to get into Suomi Koti, as there is to get into any of the reasonably priced seniors’ residences. So they’ve been trying. They have done all kinds of things to raise money. They’ve used their own money to hire accountants, to get the designs done. Everything has been done, but unfortunately there is no support available from this government to support what I’m going to call non-market housing. So 20% of that building would be rent-geared-to-income, but the other 80% would be still below commercial rental rates. It’s a very desirable place to live, but there’s no support for this middle-level housing, and if people were able to move into this space—for example, my mother looked at this—it’s impossible. This would have been affordable. Instead, she, like many other people, are using up their life savings, hoping they don’t live too long and run out of money.

Another housing project, also a beautiful one, sponsored by a Biigtigong Nishnaabeg First Nation, is called Giwaa on Court. It involves actually using a historical building, so it would be recovering, repurposing a historical building in the middle of downtown Port Arthur. It’s the old post office. Their plan, again, is affordable housing, 20% rent-geared-to-income, the remaining below commercial, at 80% of commercial rates.

Both of these projects have been ready to go. To me, they’re a gift on a platter to the Conservative government to show that they’re prepared to support mid-level housing, non-profit housing, but there is nothing there. They may in a pinch qualify. I do want to acknowledge that the government has given my region a considerable amount of money to alleviate the homelessness crisis. Okay, but that is a very specific kind of housing, and whether either of these projects will qualify under the terms of that agreement, I don’t know. They don’t know either at this point. When we talk about all of this housing that you’re going to build, and we have two projects that have been ready to go, shovel-ready for months, and there’s no support—and they don’t need a lot of support, but they need enough support in order to qualify for CMHC grants—so, nothing, nada.

Now, I like to think about what is actually going to bring rents down, and I really want to question this whole thing about supply and demand. Supply and demand is really a simplistic, narrow doctrine that we can hear continually about from the government side of the House, and frankly—and I’ve heard this from the Minister of Housing. I know the minister is a smart person, so I’m pretty confident that he knows full well that the vast majority of supply is actually in very few hands and they will control the prices no matter how much unmet demand there is. This doctrine also masks the role of housing speculation and housing financialization that continues to drive up the cost of housing beyond the reach of ordinary Canadians.

Imagine this: If we actually had enough housing that was affordable, so there’s more housing available, guess what? We’re going to see the costs come down, but they’re not going to come down when the supply is at this upper, upper level that so many people can’t afford. And frankly, it’s controlled by far too few people, and then there is also all the speculation that goes into it.

I’m even seeing this in small communities. Where mines are going in, I’m seeing people going in and buying up all the potential rental housing. It’s going to be owned by one person and that person is going to set the rates in that community. That is not that much different from what is happening in other places.

I think it’s time that this myth of supply and demand without context, without depth—

Interjections.

It’s an honour to rise this afternoon for the third reading of Bill 97, the Helping Homebuyers, Protecting Tenants Act. I want to thank the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the associate minister and the parliamentary assistant and their team for all their work on this bill.

Speaker, before I begin, I should note that I will be sharing my time today with my friend the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

As the minister said, this is another bill that will help support our government’s goal to build 1.5 million homes by 2031, including 120,000 in Mississauga. It will continue to lay the foundation for growth to build the housing that we desperately need.

Speaker, I’ve said this before, but it’s worth repeating that Canada has the least housing per capita in the G7, as Scotiabank reported in 2021: There were an average of 471 homes per thousand people across the G7; in Canada, there were 424; in Ontario, it was under 400; and in the GTA, we had only 360 homes per 1,000 people. At the same time, Ontario grew by 445,000 people in 2022—more than every US state, including faster-growing states like Florida and Texas. Just to stay at 400 homes per 1,000 people, Ontario would need 178,000 more homes for their 445,000 new residents in 2022. And this growth will only continue with the new federal immigration targets to bring 500,000 people to Canada each year. Of course, we know that most of them will come to Ontario and the GTA.

Many years of neglect under the previous government and many years of mayors and councillors pandering to NIMBYism and BANANAism—far too many Ontario families and new Canadians are being priced out of the housing market, through no fault of their own. I spoke about some of them on Monday who have given up hope and are looking for housing outside Ontario.

But we are making progress. As the minister said, in 2021, there were over 100,000 housing starts in Ontario, which is the highest level since David Peterson was the Premier in 1987; last year, there were almost as many: 96,000 housing starts, 30% higher than the average over the last 20 years. There were also 15,000 rental housing starts last year, which is the highest level in Ontario’s history. As the minister said, there are more cranes in Toronto right now than there are in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, DC, Seattle, and San Francisco combined. Still, we recognize that there is much more to do.

If passed, Bill 97 would help to speed up the approval process for new housing by updating the provincial policy statement and A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, to create a single province-wide land use planning policy document with a special focus on housing. The public consultation on this began on April 6, and I want to thank the minister for extending the comment period from 60 to 120 days. I urge everyone to read the policy. It is available online at the Environmental Registry, and you can submit your comments until August 4. Michael Collins-Williams, the CEO of the West End Home Builders’ Association, said this proposal “will help get shovels in the ground faster.” He said, “These policy changes will move us towards more of the only thing that really matters”—building more homes.

As I said on Monday, Mississauga is Ontario’s third-largest city, but over the last 10 years, the city approved an average of 2,100 new homes each year, far below the 12,000 we need. Mississauga was the only major city in Canada to actually shrink in the last census—from 722,000 in the 2016 census to 718,000 in the 2021 census. We were the sixth-largest city in Canada, but we have fallen to the seventh, behind Winnipeg, which grew from 705,000 to 750,000, or about 9,000 each year. On Monday, I said that’s the growth we need to see in Mississauga. Mayor Hazel McCallion understood this. Our city grew by about 12,000 people each year for 36 years under her leadership, but we have lost almost 1,000 people every year under Mayor Crombie. In the Globe and Mail, Oliver Moore wrote that the city is “shrinking because of deliberate municipal policies.” He said that the hollowing out of our neighbourhoods makes it harder to run businesses, fill schools or justify spending on city priorities. This week, we’re granting the city’s request for independence with Bill 112.

But as I said on Monday, we need all levels of government, including our municipal partners, to do their part and allow more homes to be built where it makes sense, where there are existing services, infrastructure and transit. We expect the city of Mississauga to keep their pledge of at least 120,000 new homes over the next 10 years. But this message might not have been received, because later on Monday night, the Mississauga planning and development committee rejected more applications for new housing, including 530 new units and a daycare centre in a shiny tower on a transit corridor, just south of the Port Credit GO station, just west of the Port Credit LRT station and just east of the Mississauga Transit bus terminal. There would be three transit lines about 30 to 40 metres away from this building. The councillors were actually concerned that the building might be too close to the Lakeshore West rail corridor. Mayor Crombie said last night that she’s not opposed to building height and density “in the right locations,” but it’s hard to think of a better location.

As the minister said, many years of NIMBYism and BANANAism have created Ontario’s housing supply crisis. Our government is fighting back, and we will continue to use every available tool to support the construction of new homes that Ontario families need and deserve.

Speaker, we also recognize that renters need help, and I’d like to take a moment now to speak about schedule 7 of Bill 97, which would strengthen the protections against renovictions and also clarify the right of tenants to install air conditioning.

As Federation of Rental-housing Providers of Ontario president Tony Irwin said, “From protecting tenants’ ability to use air conditioning as we approach the summer season to enhancing right-of-first-refusal protections after renovations, to doubling fines for bad apple operators, the NDP should have no reason to vote against this bill.”

Bill 97 and the changes to the regulations the minister has proposed in regulation 332/12 would also freeze 74 provincial fees to help reduce the cost of housing. This includes fees related to new developments like land use planning and building fees, including fees related to the building code and Ontario Land Tribunal and fees paid to renters and landlords at Tribunals Ontario. Again, this is only one of many steps this government is taking.

In closing, again, I want to thank the minister and his team for all their work on another important bill to help increase the supply of housing to provide more affordable options for Ontario families. I hope that all members will support this bill going forward.

In my own riding of Mississauga–Lakeshore, there is a lot of NIMBYism and BANANAism going on there—that we cannot be building buildings at a GO train station. That’s where we should be building more density, but there are a lot of community groups that are against that, and I really do not know why.

We’re going to continue building the homes for our children and our future immigrants who are coming to this country.