“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas to address the new funding that has been provided to support Ontario’s long-term-care homes, the government is investing $5.5 million in 2023-24 to build new behavioural specialized units in long-term-care homes, including approximately 70 new specialized beds, to expand care for individuals with complex needs; and

“Whereas Ontario is providing $1.2 million to the Ontario Personal Support Workers Association to help with recruitment efforts by promoting the personal support worker profession in the long-term-care sector; and

“Whereas Ontario continues to make progress on its plan to build modern, safe and comfortable long-term-care homes for senior residents:

“—through planned investments that total a historic $6.4 billion since 2019;

“—Ontario is on track to build more than 31,000 new and over 28,000 upgraded beds across the province by 2028; and

“Whereas the government is helping to increase long-term-care capacity in communities across the province by providing development loans and loan guarantees to select non-municipal not-for-profit homes;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To urge all members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support the passage of the Ontario budget bill, Bill 85, Building a Strong Ontario Act.”

I can’t think of a better place to sign my name. Thank you very much.

Today it’s both a pleasure and a privilege to rise for second reading of our government’s proposed Helping Homebuyers, Protecting Tenants Act. At the very start, I’ll indicate that I’ll be sharing the government’s leadoff time today with the Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery, the newly minted Associate Minister of Housing, and my new parliamentary assistant for municipal affairs and housing, who’s being engaged with the Speaker right now in a wonderful conversation—it’s always great to have two Speakers in the House to try to keep me in line. Those other speakers will be touching on some of the finer points of some of the items in our proposed legislation and our corresponding housing supply action plan. Both support our government’s goal of building 1.5 million homes by 2031.

The proposed changes that the government has put forward for debate here today are a reaction to market conditions that have been in place for far too long. In fact, a recent Statistics Canada study reveals that, over a 10-year period, beginning in 2011, Ontario has had the fourth-largest decline in home ownership rates amongst provinces and territories in Canada. This is something that is unprecedented. This isn’t the first time that we’ve heard this sort of thing, but it’s something that the government continually pledges—that we value home ownership, and we want to continue to have a climate where we can build quality, affordable housing that meets people’s needs and their budgets.

Our government is fighting back. Decades of inaction, burdensome red tape and NIMBYism have created Ontario’s housing supply crisis, and we’re seeing its effects, but we are, as I said, fighting back because too many Ontarians have been priced out of the market through no fault of their own; parce que trop d’Ontariennes et d’Ontariens qui n’ont rien à se reprocher ont été exclus du marché du logement à cause des prix. And those who rent their homes want some relief, as well.

That’s why what we’ve proposed today for debate will support our government’s fourth housing supply action plan—the plan, as I’ve said many times, to build 1.5 million homes, which is our goal, because we need to make life easier and more affordable for people across this province.

If passed, the proposed changes and our plan would further support renters. They would strengthen homebuyer protections. They’d reduce the cost of building a new home—something that I know our government feels very strongly about—and they’d streamline the rules around land use planning and encourage the development of more housing.

As I said, this is our fourth housing supply action plan. It builds upon the bold actions that the government has already put in place.

Our government released its first housing supply action plan, More Homes, More Choice, in 2019. That plan cut red tape and made it easier to build the right type of housing in the right places. Its aim was to make housing more affordable and to enable taxpayers to keep more of their hard-earned money.

In the spring of 2022, we released our second housing supply action plan, More Homes for Everyone. Our work leading up to that action plan included extensive consultations across the province, including Ontario’s first Ontario-municipal housing summit. We received further feedback from the rural housing round table, something we had at the 2022 ROMA conference—the Rural Ontario Municipal Association conference—and at meetings that we had with every municipal association in our province. In addition, the Housing Affordability Task Force that we appointed consulted with municipalities, they consulted with experts, they consulted with the industry. As a result of the work with those stakeholders, More Homes for Everyone introduced targeted policies in the immediate term to make housing fairer for hard-working Ontarians and to make it faster to build homes that Ontarians need and, we believe, they deserve. That plan sped up approvals even further, and it took steps to gradually refund fees if municipal decisions weren’t made under legislative time frames. Again, we recognized that more needed to be done, and again the government acted.

Later in the year, we came out with our third housing supply action plan, More Homes Built Faster. It built on the concrete actions that we took from our previous action plans, and it took even more direct action to ensure that Ontarians across the province could access a home that truly met their needs.

This, of course, is all while the government passed legislation to give the mayors of Toronto and Ottawa more powers to work effectively with the province to cut red tape, to reduce timelines for developments, and to address local barriers that prevent more homes being built.

These are all the steps that we’re taking to ensure that we can continue to move in the right direction as we build more homes across our province.

That’s why we created the Housing Supply Action Plan Implementation Team—a very important decision by the government to appoint this team to work on our housing supply action plans and to make sure that things get done. It has municipal leaders, and it has industry experts. The mayor of Windsor, Drew Dilkens, is acting as chair; Cheryl Fort, the mayor of the town of Hornepayne, is vice-chair. The team that they’re chairing is made up of experts across the housing and non-profit sectors. There is a wide range of experience and perspective that really reflects the diversity of housing needs across Ontario. I think that was very important for us to hit the right note. The team will evaluate progress, and they’ll provide advice to our government on implementing the housing supply action plans so that we can continue to tackle Ontario’s housing supply crisis.

The range of measures that the government has taken to increase housing supply—and I’m going to be the first to admit it: They’re bold and they’re transformative, and even though we know that their impact will take time to be fully felt throughout the housing sector, we continue to see the growing and positive impact across Ontario that those measures have had today.

In the last two years, housing starts in Ontario have reached levels that we have not seen in our province in over 30 years—

Interjections.

It’s my honour, obviously, to share my time, as we’ve already heard from the great Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the associate minister in this place. It’s an honour to speak on our government’s proposed legislation that would support a much-needed fourth housing supply action plan. Our proposals are crucial to our government’s work to get housing built that Ontarians desperately need.

Speaker, my riding of Perth–Wellington is home to over 4,000 farm operations and many predominantly rural municipalities. These communities, like others across Ontario, are feeling pressure and demand for housing that is greater than the supply currently is. Whether it’s for farm workers, rental housing for young people and new immigrants, or the missing middle, there is a need for housing in every single community in my riding. That’s why I’m pleased to be part of a government that is acting so strongly to support more homes across all areas of Ontario and delivering on our commitment to see 1.5 million new homes built by 2031.

I’m also pleased to speak on behalf of a generation of Ontarians—my generation—which has faced historic difficulties when it comes to finding a home they can actually afford. I’m proud to be part of a government that understands the difficulties that my generation and future generations will face if we do not address this housing crisis.

We’re taking historic action to tackle the housing supply crisis and build the homes Ontarians need. Our housing supply action plans have made great progress, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing alluded to earlier, but more work needs to be done. This proposed legislation and corresponding changes to the provincial policy statement would see that more is done, not only in our urban centres, but also in our rural areas.

Ce projet de loi ferait avancer les choses tant dans nos centres urbains que dans nos régions rurales.

Speaker, our province is layered with planning rules and land use plans. All of Ontario is subject to a set of planning rules called the provincial policy statement, also often referred to as PPS. Where the PPS is the sole set of land use planning rules, it’s fairly clear what rules a developer or a builder must follow to get a proposed residential project approved. However, in the greater Golden Horseshoe, there is an additional set of planning rules called A Place to Grow. If we want to get the homes built that we desperately need now, let alone in the future for the sizable population growth we’re going to see, it is critical that builders and developers have a clear and streamlined set of rules to follow in this and all areas of our province.

Ontario is projected to grow by 5.6 million people by 2046, and the greater Toronto area alone is expected to be home to 2.9 million of those people. Not only that, but the greater Golden Horseshoe generates more than 25% of Canada’s gross domestic product. So I think all members of this House will agree that, as I said, it’s critical we get land use planning right in this region and across all regions of Ontario.

There are several challenges brought on by the magnitude of growth that is forecasted.

There will be increased demand for major infrastructure investments—this includes renewing aging infrastructure and addressing infrastructure deficits associated with growth.

There will be increased traffic congestion, with resulting delays in the movement of people and goods. Already we are seeing those delays in the greater Golden Horseshoe, and they are costing billions of dollars in lost GDP every year.

The impacts of globalization are transforming the regional economy at a rapid pace. This makes long-term planning or employment more uncertain.

Speaker, people over the age of 60 are expected to represent more than a quarter of the population by 2041, especially in communities such as mine in Perth–Wellington. That means we will need more age-friendly development that can address unique needs and circumstances. This includes a more appropriate range and mix of housing options, easier access to health care and other amenities, walkable built environments, and an age-friendly approach to community design to meet the needs of all people.

But all these planning rules on top of planning rules result in massive delays in getting land use approvals and enormous costs to the builders or developers and municipalities to get these approvals through. We need to streamline Ontario’s planning rules and encourage more housing.

That’s why, on April 6, our government launched its 60-day consultation on the Environmental Registry of Ontario, seeking input on the proposed combining of the PPS and A Place to Grow into a new province-wide land use planning policy instrument. We propose to integrate these two planning instruments into one streamlined housing-focused policy, which will be called the provincial planning statement. This would increase housing supply and speed up planning approvals by simplifying existing policy and refocusing on achieving housing outcomes. Our proposed provincial planning statement would do this by giving direction for all of Ontario, as well as direction tailored to the unique needs of large, fast-growing municipalities. As the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing already noted, all of Ontario—not just the GTA—should be a place to grow. In our new proposed planning statement, this direction is organized across five key pillars. Those pillars are: generating an appropriate housing supply; making land available for development; providing infrastructure to support development; balancing housing with resources; and, obviously, implementation.

For the first of those pillars, generating an appropriate housing supply, our proposed new land use document would give specific direction to Ontario’s largest and fastest-growing municipalities in planning for major transit station areas and other strategic growth areas and in greenfield lands to ensure an appropriate supply of housing. However, simpler and more flexible policies would be given to all other municipalities to reflect local conditions while encouraging growth. For those large and fast-growing municipalities—we’ve identified 29 in Ontario.

Our proposed new planning policies would also enable more rural housing by allowing greater flexibility in smaller communities such as mine in Perth–Wellington. This could, for example, create more housing for on-farm workers or for farm operators’ children, if they choose to do so. It could also be done through engagement with the private sector in small and rural municipalities to provide infrastructure needed for new housing.

Our proposed policies would also require more housing near transit. This means Ontario’s 29 large and fastest-growing municipalities would need to plan for growth around transit in urban centres and other strategic growth areas such as downtowns, and for undeveloped land, as well. For transit-related growth in what are called the major transit station areas, we provide minimum density targets that municipalities have to meet in their land use planning. Those same municipalities would have the right to see maximums for density and height. As well, municipalities would be encouraged to meet provincial density targets for undeveloped land.

Our next pillar in our proposed provincial policy planning statement is more land for development. This is part of our plan to build all sorts of homes for Ontarians, in urban and suburban areas as well as rural parts our province, while still maintaining our strong environmental protections across Ontario.

Speaker, it’s essential that municipalities plan for future growth with regard to population and employment. Our proposal would therefore require municipalities to ensure that enough land with water and waste water pipe access is ready to meet their communities’ anticipated housing needs over the next three years. We would also require municipalities to adhere to a 25-year planning horizon.

Our government has said this time and time again, but it bears repeating: We will continue to encourage municipalities to build where it makes sense. That means major office and institutional developments should be near transit, and areas of retail and commercial activity that provide jobs should also permit and encourage housing, schools and other community uses to create a complete community. Municipalities would need to consider increasing density on employment lands as well as locations near transit corridors.

Of course, municipalities would need to balance housing needs against other necessities. That means large parcels of land must be preserved for agriculture and heavy industry that will require separation from residential areas and other sensitive uses. This would help mitigate the potential effects of their operation, such as noise and odours.

We also recognize that residential development cannot happen in a vacuum.

Being one of the former parliamentary assistants to the Minister of Education, I was very pleased to see that we’re encouraging school boards and municipalities to work together to encourage them to innovate and integrate schools into housing developments.

Infrastructure corridors must also be considered and protected. Communities need electricity; they need transit; they need transportation. And our government recognizes the growth demands being placed on large and fast-growing municipalities such as those in the greater Golden Horseshoe. So our proposed land use policies in our provincial planning statement would have special direction for them while giving them flexibility. However, all planning authorities would still be required to integrate storm, sewage and water into development planning so that they can minimize risks and accommodate growth.

Our province is blessed with many resources, and we need to protect them. That’s why our proposal would require municipalities to map and designate prime agricultural areas to support our province’s productive and valuable agri-food network.

I want to state that Ontario would maintain all greenbelt protections, including policies on environmental and agricultural lands.

Just as valuable, Ontario’s water resources need protection. Municipalities would be encouraged to adopt a watershed planning approach rather than requiring watershed plans.

Aggregates, too, are a resource that must be protected. To make it easier to build housing, we must allow access to aggregates—and that is sand and gravel used in making cement. If we’re to work to lower housing costs, we must allow access to these deposits in more cost-efficient locations, as well as streamline the approvals process needed to extract these necessary resources.

Speaker, our proposed policies would also encourage municipalities to focus on improving air quality and addressing the impacts of a changing climate.

Of course, we’re also proposing some further legislative measures to support our actions to streamline land use planning rules to build more housing.

Our proposed changes would allow the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to require landowners to enter into agreements for projects assigned to the Provincial Land and Development Facilitator. This would help ensure commitments made by property owners are fulfilled; for example, in a case where a ministerial zoning order may be contemplated.

Speaker, as you can see, our proposed policies for land use planning in Ontario are extensive. They are just what our province needs to address our housing supply crisis and meet future demand.

As I mentioned earlier, our 60-day public consultation on these proposed policies and our proposed provincial planning statement began on April 6. I encourage those who wish to comment to go to the Environmental Registry of Ontario.

As you’ve heard from my colleagues who spoke before me, our government is committed to our goal of helping build 1.5 million new homes by 2031.

Our Helping Homebuyers, Protecting Tenants plan and its supporting proposed legislation is the package that Ontarians need now and for the projected demand in the future.

Now I’d like to turn it over to the Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery.

I just want to thank everyone who spoke today.

Housing and our housing plan are so important.

Being from a riding in Etobicoke, you see cranes everywhere, building, building, building. They’re doing high-rises everywhere, as an example. But the problem is, not everyone can live in Etobicoke. Not everyone can live in Toronto. It’s also very expensive to live in Toronto, and it’s very expensive to live in Etobicoke.

Minister, I do appreciate the work you have done to date.

Can you tell the people of my riding what you are doing so some of these people can find homes in other places around the province, outside of Toronto?

Just to that member’s comments around “fines are increased”—they increased fines in long-term care. Give me a list of all the long-term-care facilities that have been fined or shut down as they killed people in those facilities.

Building family homes on the farms—this is a question that was delivered this morning and attacked the NDP on this, even though our critic was very clear today during her presentation, saying that it’s something that we’re going to talk to shareholders with to see if it works.

We’re losing 319 acres of prime farmland every week to development.

In my riding, they’re trying to develop on heritage lands to build homes.

So my question is very clear to you—because you mentioned to our member from Oshawa: Do you agree that we should be building homes on the greenbelt?

I’m going to be splitting my time this afternoon with the member from Don Valley West.

It’s an honour to rise to speak to Bill 97 with all of you this evening. Of course, this government has had nearly five years to improve the housing affordability crisis that is facing our province. But under this government’s watch, we’ve continued to see both the rental market and the price of home ownership reach all-time highs. Middle-class families starting out are having a nearly impossible time entering the housing market. Couples with a combined income that is higher than the Canadian average are spending years and years and years looking for an affordable option to enter the market and begin their families. When they do finally find something, new homeowners are struck immediately with another phenomenon made worse by this government. Not only is the price of housing skyrocketing, but the price of heating their new home is going up. The price of electricity for their new home is skyrocketing. The price of putting food on the table for their family in their new home is skyrocketing. And, of course, as a result of this government’s policies and their actions towards municipalities, these new homeowners are facing skyrocketing property taxes, as well—property tax increases that haven’t been seen in many parts of this province in nearly a generation. So when these young couples can finally enter the market, when they can finally afford a home, all of their costs to manage and maintain their new home are skyrocketing, without any support from this government. Because of their policies to starve municipalities, the neighbourhoods that these new homes are in are becoming more and more incomplete. The roads and sidewalks aren’t going to be built for years and years because the cities can’t afford to do them. The parks and community centres won’t be ready until after the children are grown.

When you starve municipalities of the funding necessary to build complete neighbourhoods, you end up with incomplete communities.

The government has set a goal of building 1.5 million new homes by 2031. They’ve all but explicitly acknowledged that their efforts aren’t working. This is, I believe, their fourth attempt to get things right, their fourth attempt to move the market in the right direction. The government’s biggest problem has always been, as we know, their inability to take responsibility for the failure to deliver on their promises. Clearly, what the government has been doing, what the government has been trying to do, what the government further promises to do isn’t working.

So what might work? Instead of putting all of their eggs in the basket of private builders—and unlike the New Democrats, I’m not attacking home builders. Many of Ontario’s home builders are family-owned and family-operated businesses. Most of us, if not all of us, live in a home that was built by a developer or a home builder. They contribute immensely to our communities, both with their core business and of course with their charitable work. But the reality is, their business is making money. There’s nothing wrong with that, but if we want to bring prices down, perhaps we should be looking at more not-for-profit options.

We need a government that is going to make the province a true partner in building affordable homes in Ontario. We need a government that won’t continue to push responsibility for building affordable housing onto overloaded and financially starved municipalities, unlike nearly every other province in Confederation.

To help double the pace of homebuilding, just last year, the Ontario Liberals proposed the creation of the Ontario homebuilding corporation. What is the Ontario homebuilding corporation? The corporation would allow the government to work with communities, not-for-profit housing partners and developers to build and maintain affordable homes of all types for new home buyers, either as a primary financing source or as a builder. This corporation could leverage provincially owned and underutilized lands—efforts I think the Minister of Education might have been talking about earlier this afternoon. We don’t need to be paving over the greenbelt to develop surplus lands and to build affordable housing. The corporation should be provided with the capital funding, subject to strict oversight by whatever measures the government wants to bring in, including a hard cap on the administrative expenses and salaries and a 15-year mandate to ensure housing is built rapidly. It will help cool the housing market, and it will end the wait-list for affordable public housing. Most importantly, homes sold by the corporation should only be made available to first-time homebuyers, and all the proceeds could go directly back into creating more affordable homes—it would be the never-ending cycle of financing of new home construction for new home buyers and so on and so forth.

In summary, if the government wants to address the affordability of housing, their actions to date haven’t done so. We’ve seen skyrocketing prices, both in the home ownership market and in the rental market, and it’s time for the government to explore more not-for-profit options.

Unlike the Premier, who claims that the finance minister is a close personal friend who is in almost daily contact, I’m not a friend of Mr. Trudeau’s and I don’t have his phone number—although I’m happy to talk to him next time I see him.

I wasn’t here for the 15 years of the previous government. I was on Ottawa city council, and when I was on council we were building homes faster than any pace before that. My signature is on subdivision plans and com-munity-design plans for the construction of thousands of new homes which I was happy to oversee as councillor for Cumberland, one of the fastest-growing parts of Ottawa. And I’m sure the city of Ottawa will continue those efforts to expand housing.

If they were truly listening to municipalities, they would provide the financial assistance to bridge the challenges that cities are going to face financially as a result of losing development charges; they would provide the transit funding bridge to address the enormous impacts that COVID-19 has continued to have on transit systems. Those are the kinds of things they would do if they were listening to municipalities.

So, no, I don’t really see anything getting more affordable for families. Things are only getting tougher and tougher and tougher, and what we’ve seen from this government are policies that will make that worse and a budget that really ignores middle-class families right across the province.

To either one of my colleagues here—I’m just wondering if you feel that these policies that we’re looking at in all these different bills are going far enough for this goal of 1.5 million homes in 10 years? Three units per property, not looking at main streets but instead looking at the greenbelt—what do you think of actually having the backbone to push further and get four units per property, build up main streets, especially along the subway corridor? Why not just upzone main streets to six storeys and really get behind that 1.5 million goal and build in urban centres where the services are, where people want to live?

I have a question for my friend from Orléans.

I couldn’t help but notice the assertion there that we hate developers here in the New Democratic caucus. It will come as a surprise to my uncles in the development industry, I will say. But what I can say we don’t like are developers who build improper homes.

So my question to the member, because that isn’t something focused in this bill—Cardinal Creek is a community in the member’s constituency that has had serious problems with improperly built homes, with zero help from Tarion and zero help so far from this government. Do you have a message for them, some vision for them, about how we can make sure that when people make that risk of buying that home, that it’s a properly built home?

Thank you to my colleague for the question.

Yes, the latest budget showed that this government’s plan to build 1.5 million new homes is not working. They’re only at half the target. Their plan seems to be, as I say, all about tall or sprawl.

In my riding of Don Valley West, we continue to see applications for 35-storey condo buildings get approved at the OLT, despite the objections of the city, because the infrastructure isn’t there.

There are lots of opportunities to build that missing middle, to build those six-storey buildings, to build walk-ups and other options for people who don’t want to live in tall condos.

So I think there are lots of other opportunities this government could be taking to increase density in our cities and our towns without going into the greenbelt and causing further environmental harm.

What I am aware of is, the last time the NDP was in power, they sent public servants home without pay for two weeks a year.

Liberals have a strong track record of investing in education, investing in health care, and, as I said, investing in home construction across the province.

If the NDP want to go back in time and recall Bob Rae and the infamous government of the 1990s, I’m sure both the government—and, I know over here, we would love to have that conversation over the next couple of years.

One of the major challenges with Bill 23 was the definition of “attainable housing,” the yet-to-be-defined “attainable housing,” and the risk that that provides.

Most cities and most suburban or outlying cities that are building new subdivisions are building with densities that are much higher than in the past. Many of those homes are townhomes, executive townhomes etc., which would be considered attainable housing by many definitions.

If cities lose development charges for 50% or 60% of new builds, that’s going to create a financial crisis within cities.

That was one of the major problems with Bill 23 and the yet-to-be-defined definition of “attainable housing.”

I just want to talk real quickly, because one of the members over there talked and he said that seniors live in these big homes. Well, I’m going to tell you, in their riding, in my riding and in ridings right across the province of Ontario, we have seniors hurting today. They’re living in poverty. They’re living on the streets. It’s wrong.

Here, at 5:15 today, I got an email from somebody, Jennifer Leigh—I won’t say her last name.

“Hi Wayne,

“I’m hoping you can help me out, please. Okay? My name is on the list for Ontario housing. I have been since 2012. I’m on disability for my hearing. I’m floating from couch to couch to try to get back into the good graces of housing. Can you please”—in big letters—“help me?

“Thank you,

“Jennifer Leigh”

So my question is, why is there nothing in this bill to address the housing affordability crisis in our communities, to help people like Jennifer?