Thank you to the leader of the official opposition. We have been fully transparent with the public in terms of what our intentions are for the site since 2019. We are leasing the lands. We have a tenant in place. We have a development application with the city of Toronto. We are proceeding with environmental assessment work that is underway. We have made tremendous progress on the site.

But what’s most important is the sentiment of the public. People drive by the site and think, “What a waste that we let the site deteriorate to the point of it no longer being safe for people and pedestrians to be able to go there.” We are bringing the site back to life. We will make sure it is there for everyone in Ontario to enjoy.

Our government is making the financial investments necessary to preserve these two treasures, to bring them back to life, to make them a place that everyone can go and enjoy with their families. I 100% think the public is behind us on this one.

My question is for the Attorney General. I’ve heard from many of my constituents, both tenants and landlords, concerning the delays they are experiencing when they engage with the Landlord and Tenant Board. There are many reports of the long delays when it comes to hearings to resolve tenancy disputes, causing uncertainty and confusion to both tenants and landlords. The consensus is that the time frames are way too long, the caseloads are too heavy, and service standards need to be strengthened. As the government, we must put forward resolutions that make wait times shorter and results much faster for those involved.

Speaker, can the Attorney General please explain how our government is taking action to address and resolve disputes at the Landlord and Tenant Board?

The Landlord and Tenant Board is part of our province’s tribunal system, which plays an important role in providing accessible dispute resolution to thousands of Ontarians. It is essential that our government continues to make investments that will modernize services so that the people of our province can have confidence in our tribunal.

Speaker, can the Attorney General please explain further how our government is making investments to improve access?

Thank you, Minister.

It really is an honour to be speaking today about the Helping Homebuyers, Protecting Tenants Act in my new capacity as the Associate Minister of Housing.

Interjections.

I look forward to supporting our government’s initiatives to help deliver on our commitment of 1.5 million homes in Ontario by 2031.

In my own riding of Mississauga–Streetsville, housing is a challenge for many of my constituents.

The Helping Homebuyers, Protecting Tenants Act is proposed legislation that is crucial to our government’s work to get more housing built in the province—housing that Ontarians across the province so desperately need.

Our housing supply action plans have made great progress in addressing our province’s housing crisis. We are now building on the bold actions we have already put forward.

As the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing said, more needs to be done. That is because Ontario’s housing crisis is affecting not just homebuyers. Renters, too, are struggling. This is significant, given that Statistics Canada data reveal the growth in the number of renter households has outpaced the growth of homeowner households from 2011 to 2021 in each of Canada’s 41 large urban centres. Ontario municipalities, like Barrie, Kitchener-Waterloo and Oshawa, saw some of the largest renter increases across the country.

That’s why I’m pleased to have this opportunity to highlight how the proposed Helping Homebuyers, Protecting Tenants Act would better protect tenants in Ontario and make their lives easier.

Speaker, I would like to start by explaining a feature of our proposed legislation that will be welcomed by many renters. This concerns clarifying and enhancing the rules regarding air conditioning in rental units.

As we have seen for decades in summers past, the sun and humidity can take its toll on people if they don’t have access to cool space. 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. This would be subject to, of course, some rules. First, a tenant must give written notice to the landlord of their intention to install an air conditioning unit prior to installation. Second, the air conditioning unit must be installed safely and securely, and the installation must not cause damage to the rental unit or the rental complex. Renters would also have to ensure that the installation and maintenance of the air conditioning unit complies with any applicable laws, including municipal bylaws and any prescribed rules. Finally, tenants who do not pay for electricity—that is, it is included in their rent—could be charged a seasonal fee. This would be based on the actual electricity cost to the landlord, or a reasonable estimate based on the information provided by the tenant.

Of course, we’re not stopping there. Speaker, you can pick up a newspaper just about anywhere in Ontario and read about renters, some of them long-term renters, who are facing an uncertain future about where they and their family are going to live because their rental unit is being renovated. We know this is an issue in the rental system and we’re trying to help. That is why our proposed legislation and future regulations would, if passed, increase tenant protections, specifically against evictions due to renovations as well as those for a landlord’s own use. What our government is proposing to do is to give tenants greater access to remedies and also increase the reporting requirements that landlord must follow.

Our proposed changes state that a landlord, where they are ending a tenancy to do renovations, would be required to provide a report stating that the rental unit needs to be vacant for the renovations. A regulation would outline what details must be included in the report. Regulations would also set out the type of person who can provide this report, such as a professional engineer or an architect, for example. Once these regulations are made, if this document is not provided for the tenant along with an eviction notice, then the eviction notice would not be considered valid.

Our changes would also require landlords to provide tenants who indicated that they wanted to return to the unit with written notification of the estimated date of when the unit will be ready for occupancy after the renovations are completed. Written notification would also be required for any change in when renovations are expected to wrap up—that includes a new estimated completion date.

When the unit is ready for occupancy, the landlord would have to give the tenant a 60-day grace period to occupy that unit again. This will enable the tenant to provide the required 60-day notice to end their tenancy in their temporary accommodation if they are renting elsewhere while the renovations are completed. Landlords must continue to allow tenants to move back in at a similar rent once renovations are complete.

Currently, if a landlord fails to give the right of first refusal to an evicted tenant after renovations are completed, a tenant is able to file a complaint with the Landlord and Tenant Board within two years. So we’re proposing changes to the Residential Tenancies Act that would give a tenant two years after moving out, or six months after renovations are complete—whichever is longer—to file a complaint. Adding the proposed six-month post-renovation time frame recognizes that some renovations may take more than two years to complete.

Similarly, our proposed legislation and related regulations would tighten the rules regarding evictions when a landlord wishes to use a rental unit for their own use or for the use of one of their family members. In cases like these, in order to address less-than-genuine evictions, our proposed changes would set a time frame, to be prescribed in regulation, within which a landlord or their family member must move into the unit. If this move is not made by that deadline, the landlord would be presumed to have acted in bad faith if and when the tenant applies to the Landlord and Tenant Board for a remedy. The length of this time frame would be set at a future date once our government has consulted on a fair time period.

What’s more, our government is proposing to increase the maximum fine for these offences. If passed, our legislation would amend the Residential Tenancies Act to double the maximum 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. Even currently, Ontario’s maximum fines for residential tenancy offences are the highest in all of Canada. Increasing these fines further will deter ill-intentioned landlords from committing offences such as unlawful evictions.

It is critical that tenants are protected from this type of behaviour.

However, we know that there are still many other kinds of landlord-tenant disputes that get resolved through the Landlord and Tenant Board. Our housing supply action plan wants to ensure tenants and landlords have timely access to justice. That is why the province is also investing $6.5 million to appoint an additional 40 adjudicators and hire five new staff at the Landlord and Tenant Board. This investment is critical to our dispute resolution system, and it should help eliminate the backlog of cases at the LTB and reduce wait times.

Our proposed legislation would also amend the Residential Tenancies Act to mandate the use of the Landlord and Tenant Board’s form for rent repayment agreements. This would be used when a tenant owes back rent and the landlord and the tenant agree to a repayment plan without immediately resorting to eviction. If the parties come to a repayment agreement, this legal document would set out the terms of repayment. Currently, there is no requirement for a repayment agreement to be in a certain form or format. This form provided by the Landlord and Tenant Board sets out, in plain language, that the landlord can apply to evict a tenant if the agreement is breached.

Speaker, I now want to move on to talk about what our proposed legislation would provide in terms of encouraging the building of rental housing. Our government is also working to protect and increase our province’s rental housing stock.

Building on More Homes Built Faster, we propose to make further legislative changes to the Municipal Act and the City of Toronto Act—and other acts, as necessary—to establish regulation-making authority to help create a balanced regulatory framework governing municipality rental replacement bylaws. Where municipalities require landowners to build replacement units, future regulations could require that new units contain the same core features as the original unit—this means features such as the same number of bedrooms, while permitting some flexibility when it comes to the size of the unit. Future regulations could also require municipalities to impose a requirement on landowners to provide existing tenants the right to move back into the unit at similar rent levels.

As well, we will be consulting on future regulations that would help form this balanced package of rules I have just talked about.

Speaker, as you can see, our government’s proposed Helping Homebuyers, Protecting Tenants Act contains stronger protections and new rights for tenants. I truly believe that these proposed changes will make life easier for renters and landlords in Ontario.

I again want to express how much I look forward to supporting our government in my new role as we work towards our goal of helping build 1.5 million homes—homes for renters, homes for first-time homebuyers, homes for empty nesters who want to downsize.

We, as a government, are committed to making Ontario the best place to live, to work and to raise a family.

I encourage all members of this House to vote in favour of this bill.

I would like to now turn the floor over to the parliamentary assistant for municipal affairs and housing.

I thank the member for the question. It’s really important.

He is absolutely right; the changes under the Helping Homebuyers, Protecting Tenants Act, 2023, if passed, will introduce new actions to make life easier for renters by strengthening their rights and their protections. Some of these changes would double the maximum fines for offences under the Residential Tenancies Act—that would be now $100,000 for individuals and $500,000 for corporations. We doubled it in the past. We already have the strongest, and we’re making them even stronger, just to make sure that renters do have those protections.

When evicting a tenant to use the unit themselves or for one of their family members, a landlord would have to move into the unit by a specific deadline.

Having these measures in place is protecting tenants, which is what this government wants to do.

My question is to the Associate Minister of Housing.

In 2022, the landlord and tenant tribunal received more than 5,500 eviction applications in which the landlords sought units for themselves, family members or new buyers. That was an increase of 41% from 2019. At the same time, the number of Ontario tenants filing T5 applications—which allow renters to seek compensation from landlords who are not honest about the reason for requiring the unit—shot up by 58%.

My question to the Associate Minister of Housing is, what is in this bill that will help protect both landlords and tenants in front of the landlord and tenant tribunal?

Thank you to the member for Perth–Wellington for your comments. Yes, we have been very clear that the Residential Tenancies Act needs to be strengthened to ensure that renters are not illegally evicted, either by a landlord claiming own use or by a landlord claiming that they’re going to renovate the apartment, but then once the tenant has moved out, they don’t do renovations or they do modest renovations, and then the tenant can never get back in.

What I am asking this government to do is to listen to stakeholders and what we are telling you, and to fix the massive loophole of enforcement. The government can raise the fines however much they want, but the reality is that landlords are not being fined in Ontario today, because it’s the responsibility of a tenant to become a good Samaritan and a private investigator and to volunteer their time in order for that eviction protection law to be enforced. So please fix that loophole.

Manitoba has similar rent stabilization laws, Quebec has similar rent stabilization laws, and their economies are very healthy. So it is very important that this government look seriously at vacancy-control legislation, so people can afford to live in this province.

Thank you very much for your comments today. It was very informative. I just want to get your comments on a situation in Hamilton that has just been reported on by the CBC: “Hamilton tenant says he’s being ‘eaten alive’ after living with bed bug infestation for over a year.” This tenant said “the bed bug problem in his ... apartment is affecting nearly every aspect of his life. He’s spent hundreds of dollars on laundry—washing and drying ... repeatedly, trying to get rid of the bugs.”

He’s never experienced this; it started right after he moved into his apartment in February 2022, within three weeks. He’s in touch with his landlord quite often. He emailed the landlord quite often, and they did spray, but it did not seem to be effective, so he asked them many times what they could do—could they provide him with another unit?

The day after the landlord was contacted by CBC for comment, this tenant received an N5 eviction notice. So does this bill provide these kinds of tenants any protection when their living conditions that should be—

Thank you very much for that question, member for Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas. On paper, the Residential Tenancies Act requires a landlord to properly maintain a home, but in practice, many tenants are living in abysmal, unsafe, unsanitary living conditions where there are rodents or bed bugs. And unfortunately, the Landlord and Tenant Board has not been a place where tenants can seek redress. It takes upwards of two years for a tenant to have their case heard at the Landlord and Tenant Board. Who’s going to wait two years to get a bed bug issue addressed? And often, the Landlord and Tenant Board is not able to provide the necessary enforcement. They’ll do a rent abatement, but they often don’t properly enforce and require a landlord to fix a unit to a standard that’s acceptable. It’s a big problem.

I want to thank the member from Whitby for his eloquent speech. He always does speak so eloquently here in the House. He touched on all parts of the bill.

In my riding, probably about 64% of my constituents live in condos or apartments, and we’re growing. We grow every day. As I mentioned earlier, we have high-rises coming up constantly. There are cranes everywhere.

We have a lot of calls that I receive from our constituents with regard to the Landlord and Tenant Board. As we all know, it’s certainly not a perfect system right now. You touched on it briefly in your statement.

Can you tell us what the government is doing to help fix some of these problems at the Landlord and Tenant Board? It is an important fix, for sure, for our residents and our communities.

To the member from Sudbury: Thank you for the question.

The housing supply action is the latest in a series of steps we’re taking to increase housing supply and to help more Ontarians find a home that they can afford. I spoke about partnerships. Our plan is a plan that has been developed out of collaboration and consultation with a number of sectors, including municipalities. I purposely alluded in my presentation today—through you, Speaker. I’m sorry—through you to the member for Sudbury.

I spoke earlier in my presentation about the importance of involvement and collaboration with municipalities—

I spoke about the $6.5-million investment in the Landlord and Tenant Board to hire more adjudicators. I think that’s part of what I want to share.

I also want to share proposed changes which would double the maximum fines for offences under the Residential Tenancies Act, which underpins what we’re talking about. Maximum fines for offences under the act would be increasing to $100,000 for individuals, $500,000 for a corporation—the strictest and most comprehensive fines in Canada. This sends a strong message to bad actors overall.

Added to that, we’re going to bring more clarity and transparency to both landlords and tenants, as well.

Any thought would be nice, the member from Hamilton just said.

Again, I want to close the time I have, Speaker, before entertaining questions by remembering how residents have come together to defend their affordable housing. This is a good story. There’s an elderly couple that I’ve worked with on Elgin Street in downtown Ottawa that were forced to move from their home on Elgin Street, which they have lived in for 38 years, because of a building fire. But what was curious about the fact that this elderly couple—who would like me to not use their names now because we negotiated an amicable agreement with the landlord. They were told to move out of their home, as were many people in this building, because of the fire damage. But as people started to move back in that were actually closer to the fire in the building, they found it curious that they were still being told to stay out.

Their insurance was running out. Their ability to stay in a hotel was running out, because these are low-income seniors, so they gave me a call. They said, “Joel, we don’t know what we’re going to do. There’s a new, shady, kind of property manager guy around our building all the time and he gives us the evil look. He’s changed our locks; we didn’t even know about it. We can’t go in to get our stuff. This doesn’t seem right.” We hooked them up with Community Legal Ottawa to get access to their property and their stuff.

But what stepped into the breach once again was ACORN Canada. A bunch of neighbours came together at the doorstep with a locksmith they hired. They got into that building. They defied the landlord. The police came, and we said calmly to the police officers who came, “These tenants are being prevented from accessing their property. They are about to run out of their ability to pay for housing outside of this building and everybody else has moved back in.” Wouldn’t you know it, Speaker, they were living in a rent-controlled unit for all that time and everybody around them were more recent tenants, paying at least twice, if not three times what they were paying.

So this couple fought back. They got in the news. They organized their neighbours. They pressured the landlord, and thankfully, I’m happy to tell this House, they are back in there. They sent me pictures of their newly repainted room. It’s beautiful. They have a beautiful mauve dining room with an old table where they love to enjoy meals with friends.

But again, it shouldn’t have to come to this. There should be clear rules that make sure landlords cannot engage in this kind of activity. And you’re not going to stop this, Speaker, by increasing fines. You’re going to stop this, if I understand what the Attorney General is saying, by increasing the capacity at the Landlord and Tenant Board to give tenants and landlords access to justice, so when they are being harmed, they can get decisions.

But that’s not the Ontario we’re living in right now. We’re living in an Ontario where, under this particular government, the cost of a home has doubled, if you’re in the ownership market. Rent is going through the roof. Costs of life are going through the roof. And there are a lot of people lining up to help: the real estate investment trusts of the world, the Timbercreeks, the Smart Living Properties. They’ve got all the consultants and lawyers they want. What we need is a government that’s going to stand up for tenants, stand up for homeowners and stand up for communities. Bill 97 does not do that.

We need legislation with teeth to help people who are in a tough position, and that’s not what’s here.

What is driving up the cost of living, Speaker, are rich folks connected to this government driving up rent, driving up the price of food, ruining our communities. This government is not standing up and fighting for people. They are fighting for Galen Weston. They are fighting for the De Gasperis family. We will fight for people.

Interjections.

My question to the member opposite is—I’ll quote from one of his colleagues, from Toronto Centre: “We are seeing many people struggling as they’re waiting for their hearing date, and of course, while they’re waiting, that means everything is in limbo.... It benefits no one when the tribunal system doesn’t work.” As my colleagues have alluded to earlier today, we invested an additional $6.5 million in the Landlord and Tenant Board to clear the backlog and provide timely service, both for the landlords and the tenants.

So my question to the opposition is, will they not walk their talk and support this common-sense move?

I think what we’ve seen in our legislation is a commitment to taking as balanced an approach as possible to the competing interests of landlord and tenant. Obviously, we see here legislation about preventing and reducing renovictions, the air conditioning legislation.

Ultimately, the existence of private landlords—they provide a key source of rental housing in the market. The more we penalize landlords or force landlords to subsidize housing, the fewer of them will bother to be in the business, and we will end up having far less access to a diverse range of rental properties than we currently have.

While I hear these concerns, it’s really about balancing it, because losing the landlords will not help the housing crisis.

Waterloo region takes its farming history very clear—and again, I come back to that context of national emergency.

I think what’s important here is for communities and municipalities to come together when it comes to identifying the green spaces, the farmland, the wetlands that need to be protected, and at the same time, looking at areas that can be turned over for housing and taking a very critical and practical view of it. I think what this bill is making clear is that that is the goal—to be trying to identify that type of land.

I commented on this briefly, but one of the things that bothers me so much about what I think is literally a missing middle type of housing is that we do not build apartments, high-rise, condo-style living for families, for people with pets, children and hobbies. I refuse to accept that it’s because it’s impossible. We just haven’t done it. There hasn’t been a great deal of incentive for developers and home builders to do so, partly because of development charges and also because of the way that these builds are financed. You need to sell most of them before you can actually build it. Right now, a four-bedroom, family-style apartment is a bit of an unknown quantity on the market, and so it would be harder to sell. But again, that’s where I think that comes in—saying, “Hey, if you’re going urban, if you’re going infill, if you’re building family-style, reducing or waiving the development charges.”

So I think that’s where you need to look at—unconventional types of housing and how we’re encouraging that.

Exactly.

What is going on here, that there is such a huge call for tenants to be evicted from their buildings? There must be a financial incentive. I can’t think of any other reason why landlords and property owners would seek to evict tenants at such a great rate, a large rate.

There are no real rental protections in the province of Ontario. This government, in whatever wisdom, if I can even say that, has exempted all new buildings in the province from any rent controls at all.

So you can see why there is a financial incentive—where the financial incentive would be for landlords to want to evict tenants, raise the rents, and put new people in those units. And this government has not provided strict enforcement or follow-up.

At the Landlord and Tenant Board, it has been said, it takes up to two years for anybody to get a response, despite your government increasing—which is great—the amount of money to support the Landlord and Tenant Board. It’s still not enough—because it’s not only the hearing, but it’s the tracking and the enforcement of orders, which is not mentioned anywhere in this bill that is purporting to protect tenants.

I’m just going to talk a little bit about a Hamilton tenant who is a perfect example of what could happen to any of us in how they’re being failed by this government in their ability to be protected under the Landlord and Tenant Board. There’s a tenant in Hamilton who says he’s being eaten alive after living with a bedbug infestation for over a year. And so, this tenant said that he has had a bedbug problem in his apartment that is affecting nearly every aspect of his life. He’s spending hundreds of dollars washing and drying his clothes, buying new bedding, including new beds, trying to get rid of the bedbugs. The landlord has sprayed—the landlord has done that, but it has not been effective. He continues to live with this horrible situation. He says he rarely gets a good night’s sleep without feeling the tiny pests crawl across his skin or itching the bites. I mean, this is what this young man is living with and he said he never experienced this in his life. In fact, he started experiencing it just within three weeks of moving into his new building.

Despite going back and forth with the landlord, trying to get some resolution to this horrible problem, he emailed the property owner—it’s a group, a corporation—about the bedbugs and he finally said, “You either need to book a spray or find me different accommodation because I’m getting bit daily.” And he said, “Why should I have to suffer through this?” And this is really a legitimate question to ask.

Despite his efforts to get his home rid of these bedbugs and to live in the kind of condition that everyone should expect to live in, he ended up being served with an eviction notice. The suspicion of this is that the day after the landlords were contacted by CBC for this article, he was served with an N5 eviction notice. And so, not only has this person had to live in these conditions forever, despite trying to get the landlord to help him out, he’s now facing an eviction notice.

My question is, what is going to be this tenant’s experience if he decides to fight this at the Landlord and Tenant Board? We know that it’s costly, we know that it’s difficult and we know that it’s rarely the case that the tenants are on the proper side, or on the winning side, of remedies of the Landlord and Tenant Board. And even if they are, the enforcement is not there, so people can take the time and effort to go advocate for their rights, but when they do get a judgment, there’s no follow-up, there’s no enforcement on the part of this government. And you would think that, in a bill—like, these problems are common. They’re common to all of our constituents and all of our communities. You would think that, in this bill, the government would choose to be very clear about putting in here protections and enforcement so that people are not left just at the mercy of landlords and developers, that they actually have a government that stands up for them when they most need help. This certainly is the case for this gentleman, who now is facing an eviction and facing the problem of trying to find a new affordable home for himself to live in.

Let me just say that renovictions are illegal evictions. They’re one of the biggest contributors to people being homeless and not being able to find a place to live, not being able to put a roof over their heads. The financial incentive that appears to be here for renovictions is something this government is just not addressing and is turning a blind eye to, but it’s causing real harm to people in our communities. What happens to people and families when they’re evicted or they can’t find a safe place to live? We see in all of our communities that people are dying living on the streets. They live on the streets and they are dying living on the streets.

I have a very sad story to share about a young man in Hamilton who died on our streets. He was homeless. He could not find supportive housing. He couldn’t find support for his mental health challenges. And he was living in buildings that were slated for demolition in the Westdale area. A number of times, police were called because there was a fire started; he started a fire to keep himself warm living in these buildings with no heat. Sadly, at some point, he died from the impact of being in a fire. The building caught fire and this young person died. This was a 20-year-old. In what world does a 20-year-old—a child living on the streets and dying on the streets because they don’t have a safe place to live, they don’t have a warm bed to sleep in, they don’t have somewhere to cook their meals. When you look at the pictures of where he was living, you could see that he was trying to feed himself—some of the cans of food. I mean, it’s just deplorable and it’s really nothing short of a humanitarian crisis. It’s a tragedy.

This is the ultimate failure of the system. It’s a perfect storm of failure that led to this young homeless man’s death: the failure to provide adequate housing, the failure to provide any of supports that he needed. We have an opioid crisis, we have a mental health crisis, and none of the supports are there. That’s why the municipalities are declaring states of emergency. That’s why the city of Hamilton has declared an emergency, not only to do with homelessness, but to do with an opioid and mental health crisis.

These are real stories of young people that are dying in our province, and this bill lacks any kind of the humanity, any kind of the urgency. It doesn’t seem to address what is needed when we talk about protecting tenants, when we talk about trying to provide supportive housing for people that have been evicted, that have fallen through the cracks. This government seems to think that just deregulation—taking regulations away, reducing red tape, giving tax breaks to developers—is going to solve the problem, but it’s not solving the problem. The problem is getting worse in this province. Housing starts have gone down. Rents are skyrocketing. The cost of housing is not going anywhere but up. So your plan is not working, and not only is it failing at the housing, it’s failing people actually to keep them safe and to keep them alive.

I just want to talk about the confluence of this government letting developers essentially off the hook for development charges. Development charges are what municipalities use to pay for services like supportive housing, to pay for services like mental health and addiction programs, to pay for—

Interjection: Water and sewer.

Thank you.

The second thing I want to talk about, which is really key, is this government’s changes to eviction laws in the Residential Tenancies Act. There are some good changes in this bill when we’re talking about eviction protection. I want to summarize them before I get to the loophole that I see.

One, it is encouraging to see that Bill 97 doubles the maximum fine for violations under the Residential Tenancies Act—so it’s for the entire Residential Tenancies Act; it’s not just for evictions—to $100,000 for an individual and $500,000 for a corporation. But let’s also be clear: That money doesn’t go to the wronged tenant; it goes to the board or to the government. It’s not like a tenant walks away with a $500,000 windfall. Let’s be clear about that.

The second thing that I see as a positive move is that this government is looking, with Bill 97, to require landlords to get a report justifying a home must be vacated for renovations before a tenant has to leave. There needs to be some criteria there to ensure it’s not just some Joe Blow writing this report so a landlord can just say, “Look, here’s a one-page summary: Renovations need to be done, bye-bye tenant.” This government is acknowledging that a landlord needs to have some kind of evidence and needs to do some due diligence before they move to the LTB to evict a tenant. I see that as a step forward as well.

I also see as a step forward in the right direction this government’s decision to be more flexible around the time frame that a tenant has to apply to the Landlord and Tenant Board for a remedy, if they are renovicted, to go to the Landlord and Tenant Board to say, “Hey, look, I think I’ve been illegally evicted and I want to seek redress.” Currently it’s two years, and this government is looking at adding up to six months after renovations are complete. The reason why that’s important is because in many cases, renovations—especially big renovations when you’re looking at demolitions—take longer than two years. We also have situations in our ridings where developers are just running the clock. They know that after two years the tenant can’t apply to the Landlord and Tenant Board for redress, so they just wait them out.

We actually have a situation like that in our riding, at 11 Walmer Road. Shortly after I was elected, we canvassed the building, and we very quickly learned that the new property manager, Cromwell property management, was looking at doing some renovations to the building and was actively encouraging—and I’m being polite there—to have tenants leave. So tenants agreed to leave, and there were a few tenants—we are currently working with an individual called Caitlin and an individual called Delroy who is 83, who made it clear in writing that they want to move back in after renovations are complete. It has been over two and a half years. We have sent numerous emails, made numerous calls to Cromwell property management. Caitlin lives nearby; so does Delroy. They see U-Haul units come in as new tenants come into the building to move into these units, but Cromwell has never approached them and said, “Now it’s time for you to move in to your unit.” So they’re waiting, and there’s nothing they can do. There’s nowhere they can go. The two-year time frame has passed. So they’re worried. It is good to see that they now have six months after renovations are complete to apply to the Landlord and Tenant Board for a remedy. My hope is that they will be eligible to apply.

So that’s the good.

Now I want to talk about the very bad which undercuts many of the modest improvements that you’ve made. The massive loophole that this government is not addressing with Bill 97 is the fact that there’s no enforcement. I want to explain to you what happens if a tenant is illegally evicted, so that you can understand this enforcement issue as well, in the hope that you’ll take illegal eviction seriously and work to address it. This is the loophole: For a landlord to be fined, a wronged tenant must become a volunteer private investigator and a good Samaritan for at least a year to make a case to the Landlord and Tenant Board, because it’s an average of a year for a tenant to get a hearing at the Landlord and Tenant Board, compared to six months for a landlord. Landlords are getting fast-tracked right now. It takes a year. Successful tenants—

Interjection.

Successful tenants almost never get their home back.

One of the most high-profile examples of tenants trying to get back into their units is something that happened in my riding, actually, a few years ago, at 795 College Street. These people decided to take their illegal eviction seriously. They took it to the Landlord and Tenant Board. It took them two years, and the landlord got a $75,000 fine. None of it went to the tenants. Then they took it to court, and the landlord got a $48,000 fine. The tenants never got their rent-controlled apartments back, and they got $12,000 in compensation for two years of work.

That’s why this enforcement issue—it destroys all the work you want to do to address illegal evictions. That is a massive loophole. I’m very concerned about it.

I asked FMTA how many fines were issued last year for the one million rental units in Ontario. Their response was flippant. They said it was maybe more than 20. Was it more than 20? I doubt it. Fines don’t happen. I have asked the Attorney General now. I’ve just done an order paper question to ask them how many fines have been issued for landlords who illegally evict, and the average amount of fine, and how many times a tenant is returned to their unit, so we can get these statistics. But I know these numbers are going to be extremely low. So we’ll see about that. That’s a big hole.

Excuse me for spending so much time on that, but we just get so many calls from renters who are terrified that they’re going to lose their home, and it really matters. You need to get this right. So please get it right.

The next piece that I want to talk about is this government’s decision to listen to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and the advocacy we have done and thousands of tenants have done—including this Speaker and the work that she has done—to ensure that tenants have a right to reasonably enjoy their unit and have a maximum temperature set for Ontario of 26 degrees. Other municipalities have this, and it’s time for the province to have this as well. This government has taken a step in the right direction to enshrine the right for a tenant to install their own air conditioning unit, provided that it’s done safely, they inform the landlord they intend to do so, and they pay for any excess electricity costs. The right to have an air conditioning unit in these extreme heat wave summers that we now have because of all governments’ lack of action on climate change—and yours is up there—is the right thing to do. But I want to repeat a statement that I said earlier, which is that only the Conservatives could turn a human rights tribunal ruling into a rent hike for low- and moderate-income renters, and it seems like you’ve successfully done that here.

This government is starting to have a bit of a track record of doing a bit of a rush job when they write their legislation, and I’m finding that they make amendments and changes in future legislation because they realize they’ve made a mistake or an error or they were a bit too quick to listen to one side but not the other. I also see this here. You might notice that the Residential Tenancies Act actually explicitly bans the use of seasonal fees, and there’s nothing in this bill to address that pretty core feature of the Residential Tenancies Act. So that’s a problem. The Residential Tenancies Act also enshrines the right to reasonably enjoy your unit, which—at this point, it is becoming essential to have an air conditioning unit, if you don’t have air conditioning. So there are some contradictions with this legislation here, which really just shows that sometimes you’re rushing a little bit when it comes to legislation. You’re not doing the kind of due diligence and taking the care that you need to get it right. That means listening to stakeholders and doing those consultations before you write the legislation—as well as during. So I hope to see some amendments in the committee to really look into this issue of keeping tenants reasonably cool, protecting them from heatstroke, ensuring that they’re not miserably hot in summer, especially given how much rent they’re paying right now.

The next thing I want to address is some of the planning changes to Bill 97 that talk about supply and housing supply. This is really twinned with what the members opposite have been talking about when it comes to this government’s decision to merge the provincial policy statement with the growth plan to create a new, I would say, radical vision for how we plan in this province—a very expensive and unsustainable radical vision for how we build. So I’m going to address them in turn.

One—and this is a real mystery for me; I don’t even know what this fully means yet, but I’m sure we’ll learn in time—is that with Bill 97, it requires landowners and municipalities to enter into agreements where a provincial land development facilitator has been appointed. I’ve heard this government talk a bit about what these facilitators could mean. I don’t know what municipalities or areas these facilitators are going to be assigned to. We don’t know how much power these facilitators are going to have. But what we are concerned about is that these facilitators, in partnership with the ministry, will likely have the power to change official plans as they go, to change municipal laws around planning as they go. These are very powerful changes to include in a bill, especially since we don’t exactly know what they mean, what they are, or what kind of powers they’re going to have. That seems like a real black box to me—that you’re going to have this unelected, unaccountable individual, who reports directly to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, being able to meddle in official plans that, as the member for Waterloo was explaining, sometimes take years to develop, involve the work of elected officials, and require hundreds of hours of public consultation. So I’m concerned about that power grab. It kind of falls into your track record when it comes to planning and how you like to control all of it. It is a concern, and I look forward to seeing more details of that piece.

The other piece that I see here with Bill 97 is that the municipal zoning orders are made even stronger. It gives the minister the ability to exempt MZO-designated lands from other provincial policies and official plans, such as farmland and wetland preservation. As we all know, MZOs can’t be appealed, and they do not require public consultation before approval. In short, the government loves these MZO tools. You want to keep making them stronger and stronger, so in case there’s an obstacle coming up, you can override it. That’s one piece.

And then the second thing is, I really think it’s important to also look at what these MZOs are being used for.

When I look in my riding, there have been examples of MZOs which I am quite comfortable with. The city of Toronto has requested them. One was used to lower parking requirements for a supportive housing facility at 877 Yonge Street—good. The other one will likely be used, if it hasn’t been used already, to expand the emergency room at Toronto Western Hospital—good. You’re not going to be seeing any objections from me on those kinds of important, publicly beneficial zoning changes to expand hospital capacity and ensure that affordable housing gets built quickly, and the city of Toronto supported them—good.

What concerns me, and what I’ve seen this government doing, is using MZOs to help your developer donor friends build housing that is incredibly expensive in areas that are precious, that are on flood plains, that are in wetlands, that are on farmland, that are on greenbelt land. That’s where I start to see the red flags, and I’m not the only one who has been raising those flags. Some reporters have done some deep dives into this, and they’ve seen that these MZOs have benefited developers who have donated over—this is a while back, so I’m sure the number is higher—$262,915 to Progressive Conservatives and Ontario Proud. These are the very developers who are now tangibly and immediately benefiting from these donations, because they get to maybe call up the minister, get an MZO, and get their development fast-tracked. It seems like it’s a bit of a pay-to-play, and I don’t think that’s how 14 million Ontarians want to see their government operate. I think they want a government that’s more accountable and transparent and that puts people first. And there are a lot of people who are questioning who this government prioritizes and who this government doesn’t. We see that with the use of MZOs.

These changes to the MZOs and these changes to the facilitators—it’s all part of this grand plan that the government keeps going back to time and time again, to really upend and change our planning process so that we are building sprawl on land that many of your developer donors either bought on cheap or already owned. It’s not the kind of planning that is sustainable, that is affordable, that is modern, and that’s really going to build the kind of houses that people want to see and need. That’s where I see this government going.

I want to spend a few minutes looking at the provincial planning statement changes so that the public understands what exactly this government is doing.

This government is ending firm density requirements for new developments. So there can be a single-family home on a half-acre lot and a single-family home on a half-acre lot, and that’s precious farmland. You would think, if we’re looking at building, that we’d want to take advantage of every acre of land we’ve got, which means building up, increasing density; not building out. That’s very concerning. It’s a fundamental change.

We’re also seeing that now municipalities are no longer required to meet minimum density targets of 50 residents per hectare, but they are just encouraged to set their own density targets, which is a fundamental change to the trajectory of planning and development in this province. You’re fundamentally changing it so that it’s now advisory only—that’s pretty concerning. It used to be 80, this government reduced the per-hectare standard to 50, and now you’re just saying, “It will be encouraged.” That’s not good.

This government is also making it easier for municipalities to expand their urban boundaries and permit development on nearby green space and farmland whenever they want. Previously, municipalities could only expand their boundaries as part of a review process and only if certain conditions were met—such as housing needs that couldn’t be met by increasing density on areas zoned for development.

This government is just declaring open season on farmland even though the farming sector in Ontario is one of the most productive farming sectors in the world. We are one of the few provinces and regions in the world that is a net exporter of food, and it is one of the biggest economic drivers of our province—all these jobs. They need to grow food somewhere, so we should be doing everything we can to keep the farmland we’ve got. Instead, this government is saying, “Nope.” We could be building homes that are more affordable and building them more cheaply in areas already zoned for development, but instead we are just going to declare open season on one of the most productive economic drivers in the province, and that is our farming sector. It’s bananas; it really is.