The member from London North Centre spoke about 1270 and 1280 Webster Street, which is really another example of how legislation right now is failing tenants when it comes to renovictions and other ways landlords get creative on how to evict tenants.

An example I have is Lori and Ron. I’ve spoken about them before. They lived in a two-bedroom apartment for 11 years. They were told by the landlord they were going to have renovations for seven to eight months. They’ve been trying to get hold of the landlord. They can’t contact the landlord. They’re renting a hotel room in the meantime, hoping to get back in.

In this piece of legislation, again, with the renovictions, it’s left up to the tenant to do all the investigating and creating a case. Why has the government allowed this piece of legislation to be a loophole, where tenants can’t get justice if they’re the ones acting as the investigators?

I’d like to thank the member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound for the question. I think there has been some misunderstanding on the government side about what we’re suggesting as the official opposition. We do not believe that a private, market-based approach will succeed in creating the truly affordable housing that Ontarians need.

We believe Ontario needs to actually invest. They need to have a public builder who will deliver those non-market homes, so that people have a safe place to call home. Crossing your fingers and hoping for the best and expecting that a private, for-profit industry will do the work the government needs to do is not a plan. Hope is not a plan. There are no legislative guarantees in any of the housing bills that this government has had to really control the number of affordable units or the rate of affordability that will be delivered.

Their plan is not going to succeed. Their budget already shows that they’re not going to succeed with their 1.5 million homes.

This government could pass NDP legislation to protect tenants. It’s on the table right now. We could pass it today. But instead this government chooses to have ironically titled bills that will not protect tenants, that will not do enough.

But the member is absolutely right: The onus, the burden is placed upon tenants, who have to be their own private investigator, and that is wrong. We need to protect tenants before there is an issue rather than having these reactive solutions that simply won’t work.

There is always room for the private market. What the NDP is suggesting is that we have a public builder who is responsible for the funding, delivery, acquisition and protection of truly affordable housing. That’s something that people need. That will also make sure that people have a place to call home because, as I said, housing is health care. This government has responsibility to provide it. Housing is a human right. Housing is a social determinant of health, and this government needs to take proactive steps to make sure that it’s actually being created, not crossing their fingers and hoping for the best, like so many ironically titled pieces of legislation do.

Developers should be responsible for paying for the services that are required for all of these new homes, whether it’s electricity, sewers—all of the utilities that are necessary. But there’s no guarantee in Bill 23 that any affordable housing will actually be created. That is the biggest gap. It’s unbelievable that this government even uses the word “affordable.”

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this august chamber on behalf of the constituents of Don Valley East and on behalf of the people of Ontario, particularly on an issue that is a crisis to so many us, and that is of course on housing.

Just earlier this morning, the member from York Centre spoke about visionary plans, but there’s nothing visionary about rewriting plans over and over and over—because, in fact, this is the third time this government has rewritten urban development policy since October 2022. So you’ll forgive me for believing that sometimes it feels like they’re just making it up as they go along. That’s not intended to be a dig at this government; it’s an expression of concern from the people of Ontario and, of course, for myself included.

When this bill was first announced, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing spoke of flexibility and boosting housing supply. Translated, what he really was saying is that he wants to be able to do whatever he wants. Madam Speaker, Ontario needs housing—we all know that—but Bill 97 fails to consider its agricultural, economic and environmental consequences, nor its consequences for tenants and for residents.

On the matter of agricultural and environmental issues, sweeping, unchecked urban sprawl is an asset to nobody, especially when this government neglects basic city services like hospitals and schools. But this government, sadly, is not interested in feedback. After all, they’re stripping away power from municipalities, the local jurisdictions who know their communities best and know how the negative consequences of Bill 97 could unfold.

Madam Speaker, the consequences may be significant. Had the government bothered to meaningfully consult with stakeholders, they would know that. Here’s one stakeholder: The Ontario Federation of Agriculture, representing over 80% of Ontario’s farmers, has voiced opposition to the bill, as schedule 6 will severely reduce the already diminished amount of agricultural land in our province. This government just wants to plop multi-lot residential areas in prime rural farmland and walk away saying it built a few houses. This simply is not good enough.

This government hasn’t considered the environmental implications of what it is proposing. The changes, for example, made under schedule 6 will tear into green space and exponentially increase our carbon emissions. And without public transport, hospitals, schools, employment areas—residents will need to drive to get where they’re going, emitting even more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

From an economic perspective, cities designate lands as employment lands, places for industry and economic development. This legislation circumvents these rules so that developers can build on those very lands. This will contribute to forcing new residents to commute long distances for basic services and for infrastructure, because it’s an attempt at a housing plan without an accompanying infrastructure plan. This government forgets that livable housing doesn’t just mean access to a roof and four walls. Access to a grocery store, a school, a hospital: These are all critical to the success of a community as well and are not provided under this bill.

Bill 97 also removes the rule for municipalities that stipulates they must prove the need to expand before they push their municipal urban boundaries outward. Municipalities could rezone land without requiring evidence or studies. This bill seeks to do away with the municipal comprehensive review. This is, as you know, the review every five years that municipalities undertake about lands which should be employment lands and which lands should no longer be those. The land needs assessment is also being done away with—a valuable assessment that looks at populations to determine employment lands. All of this means fewer local jobs, more commuting, more pollution.

On the topic of affordable housing—because this is not just an environmental issue or even a complete disregard towards protecting agricultural lands—this bill offers little to no substantial policies to address or promote affordable housing. For example, schedule 2 doesn’t just diminish the authority of municipalities, which is a point I will get back to, but it also opens up many avenues to avoid the development of affordable housing units and fair treatment for tenants. The new regulatory control over demolition and conversion of rental units could easily give the province the power to weaken or even eliminate rental replacement bylaws.

Rental replacement bylaws play an integral role in ensuring tenants who are forced out of their homes due to demolition or conversion are properly supported, either through financial compensation or replacement homes. In a report done by the city of Toronto which highlighted concerns of Bill 97, it stated, “From 2018 to 2022, the city approved nearly 2,500 replacement units at below-market rents (i.e., meeting the city’s definition of affordable or mid-range rents). Without the ability to regulate replacement rents, this existing stock of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households would have been lost.”

This government loves to talk about the housing crisis as though it is only an issue of lack of supply. While that certainly is one of the issues, affordable housing must be and remain a key priority. Nothing in this bill suggests that policies would be put in place to help ensure and guarantee that homebuyers are given affordable options or that tenants are protected against price gouging or given fair rights.

On my final point about the diminishment of municipal power, what seems very apparent in this bill is that this government is intent to suggest that municipalities are ill-equipped to understand and address the unique needs of their own region. It also seems to suggest that every municipality in Ontario is facing identical issues when it comes to housing, even though this is simply not true. The housing crisis looks very different in northern regions of Ontario versus more urban regions. The unique needs of each region cannot be solved by a one-size-fits-all approach. Yet this is exactly what Bill 97 is proposing by diminishing the authority of municipalities completely and giving that complete control to the ministry.

For example, changes in schedule 1 of the bill allow the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to appoint his own inspectors necessary for the enforcement of this act. This required appealing subsection 4(4) of the Building Code Act, which once stipulated that inspectors would be appointed under part III of the Public Service of Ontario Act, the Public Service Commission in charge of appointing public servants. Their mandate is to ensure “non-partisan”—non-partisan—“recruitment and employment of public servants that PSC or its delegates appoint to employment by the crown.” Can the minister make that guarantee? Can the people of Ontario expect that of this government? If the past is any indication of the future, then the answer, unfortunately, is no. This matters, because this government has promised to build Ontarians 1.5 million homes by 2030, and they’re afraid of delivering on that. As it is, they’re behind schedule. It’s worrisome that the minister can now appoint his own inspectors who could easily be directed to fast-track the inspection process in order to expedite the number of homes built. Building homes is good; building them recklessly is not.

When I see that the minister has been given the power to “make regulations prescribing anything that is referred to in section 14” when section 14 has within it 14 major subsections, I’m concerned. In fact, it gives me flashbacks to Bill 60. As a result, a concerning pattern of unaccountability is established in this bill.

In closing, this bill would make sweeping changes to how municipalities grow. It could force 444 Ontario municipalities to grow the same way. Municipalities in northern Ontario would be subject to the same rules as municipalities in southwestern Ontario, despite having completely different needs. That is not acceptable. This is not a one-size-fits-all province, and we can’t govern like that.

For once, this government is actually being transparent. They have shown that Bill 97 is their chosen mechanism for throwing out every rule and protection meant to ensure that growth in Ontario is fiscally and environmentally responsible. Just because the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has a promise to deliver on for the Premier doesn’t mean he has carte blanche to get us there.

I absolutely, categorically support increased protections for tenants. It’s a little bit hypocritical to hear from the other side that they support those protections when they have, for example, done away with rent control and implemented policies that have resulted in unprecedented economic hardship for my constituents in Don Valley East.

I’m proud to stand here on behalf of those same constituents to hold this government to account, to point out that they have made life more difficult for tenants, more difficult for renters, more expensive for renters, and to point out that, unfortunately, to call these piecemeal efforts that are unclear—it’s inappropriate to do so.

I was just in St. Catharines and in the Niagara region within the last few days. I’ve heard from your constituents—who thank you for your advocacy, by the way—but who point out that housing is out of control for them, that rent is out of control for them and that this government, the present government, hasn’t done anything for them in order to make that issue go away. This bill certainly won’t.

The member for Don Valley East I’m sure is aware that there are thousands of residential tenants—families in rental accommodation—that they call home. Our government has in the past brought in measures to strengthen protections for tenants, including fines for bad landlords and measures to prevent evictions. Unfortunately, the opposition chose to vote against those measures. This time, there’s an opportunity for the member opposite to support better protections for tenants in this province once again.

My question to the member from Don Valley East: On behalf of his constituents, will he join us in supporting these enhanced protections for tenants?