This allows us to talk about how we have a plan and how our plan is working for Ontarians. The latest data shows that Ontario has seen an 11% increase in 2023 on new housing starts, up nearly 1,200 from last year. Rental starts so far are double what they were at the same time last year. Ontario is the number one jurisdiction for business, jobs and newcomers. There are more active cranes right now in the city of Toronto than there are in New York; Chicago; LA; Washington, DC; Seattle; and San Francisco combined.

We’re going to continue to move forward with our aggressive plan to build 1.5 million homes by 2031. Let’s face it, Speaker, it already sounds like the opposition is looking for a reason to, for the fifth time, vote against more housing in our province.

But again, now we’re hearing from the opposition; here it is, after our announcement for Bill 97. Now, we’re starting to hear some of the real NDP coming forward. They’re standing up against farmers having the opportunity to sever a lot for their son or daughter. That’s where the NDP is moving. They’re going to stand against hard-working farmers and giving those sons and daughters the opportunity to create lots, or the opportunity to create housing for workers, something that our government believes is something that we need to move forward on. This is where the NDP are standing. They’re standing against farmers. They’re standing in favour of NIMBYism. That’s—

My question is to the Premier. This month, the government doubled down on expensive sprawl. They’ve forced municipalities to open thousands of more hectares of farmland to development. They’ve eliminated density requirements in new subdivisions. And they’ve eliminated targets to build more housing in areas already zoned for development.

My question is this: Why is this minister doubling down on sprawl when there are better ways to build more housing?

Across Ontario, homeowners are seeing their property taxes go up and their services get cut. These tax hikes are going to continue if this government continues to build spawl, because sprawl is much more expensive for municipalities to service than building more homes in existing neighbourhoods.

My question is to the Premier: Why double down on sprawl when there are cheaper and more affordable ways to build the housing that we need?

I want to thank the honourable member for his question. In fact, in this last budget, under the leadership of our Premier, we recognized the urgent need for adequate housing to meet the basic needs of many First Nations who are moving from their communities into towns and cities like Kenora, Dryden and Sioux Lookout.

That’s why we invested significant resources to ensure that the Homelessness Prevention Program, moving forward, provides those additional houses. It’s sensitive to the nuances of housing requirements for Indigenous peoples displaced from their home communities and are at risk of homelessness, and require wraparound services from community support organizations. It’s a fully integrated model, Mr. Speaker, and we’re endeavouring to address those matters—

Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

The supplementary question.

Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

To reply, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

My question is to the Premier.

In the middle of the night, outside a local shelter, Olivia’s makeshift tent went up in flames. The shelter beds inside weren’t available because provincial funding had run out. Olivia suffered severe burns to nearly half of her body. She’s now fighting for her life. I want to send strength to Olivia’s parents, Sean and Stephanie, as well as her friends and the service providers who knew her so well.

The city of London has double the number of unhoused people compared to two years ago—double—with 1,868 lives hanging in the balance, and the province is ignoring it.

Will this government do the right thing: invest in affordable and supportive housing and wraparound supports, expand rent supplement programs, and fund municipalities properly to ensure that shelters don’t have to close when the need is so high?

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Bills 23 and 39 are the Ford government’s latest attempt to remove protected land from the greenbelt, allowing wealthy developers to profit over bulldozing over 7,000 acres of farmland;

“Whereas green spaces and farmland are what we rely on to grow our food, support natural habitats, prevent flooding, and mitigate from future climate disasters with Ontario losing 319.6 acres of farmland daily to development;

“Whereas the government’s Housing Affordability Task Force found there are plenty of places to build homes without destroying the greenbelt, showcasing that Bill 23 was never about housing but about making the rich richer;

“Whereas the power of conservation authorities will be taken away, weakening environmental protections, and preventing future development;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately repeal Bills 23 and 39, stop all plans to further remove protected land from the greenbelt and protect existing farmland in the province....”

I fully support this petition, will affix my signature and give it to page Senna.

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.

Thank you. That’s very important. That member knows, in Barrie–Innisfil, the impact that our housing supply action plan is making.

Last year, rental housing, something that many members have spoken about—rental housing starts in the province reached and all-time high, something we should all be very proud of—

Interjections.

These trends have continued in 2023. I talked about it this morning in question period. I’ll repeat some of the statistics that I quoted in my answer this morning. Compared to last year, Ontario has already seen an increase of nearly 1,200 housing starts, which is an 11% rise—very positive numbers, so far, in 2023. Purpose-built rental starts are currently more than double compared to the same period last year—again, very positive steps. Whether you look at the housing starts or the rental—again, very good numbers, so far, this year.

Let’s take a look the city of Toronto, where Ontario’s housing supply has been felt pretty acutely. There have been more than 4,600 housing starts in the first two months of this year alone. What’s that number? It’s 50% higher than compared to the same numbers just a year ago—very good numbers. Even better is that more than 1,500 of these units were rental starts, which is five times the amount from last year—again, wonderful numbers.

These positive trends are a really good sign for the government that our policies that we’ve championed—that is why we’re continuing to move forward with new proposals to increase housing supply. It’s very, very good news.

Let’s talk about the bill that I’ve entitled Helping Homebuyers, Protecting Tenants Act. The government’s proposed changes are really the basis of a number of strong measures that I speak about when I use the term “helping homebuyers and protecting tenants.” The proposed changes would obviously make life easier for renters in the province.

It would clarify and enhance a tenant’s right to install air conditioning in their own unit. These changes would really stress the importance of ensuring that an air conditioner is installed safely and securely. And if the landlord supplies the electricity, they would be allowed to charge tenants a fee for any additional electricity costs.

The proposed changes would, if passed, also further strengthen tenant protections against evictions due to renovations, as well as those for the landlord’s own use.

The other measure that I think is very important, even though the opposition voted against similar measures when we put it in Bill 124—we’re proposing to double the maximum fines for offences under the Residential Tenancies Act to $100,000 for individuals and $500,000 for corporations. Folks, these would be the highest maximum fines in Canada for these types of events. We’re serious about putting these measures forward. We were serious in our previous bill, in the middle of the pandemic.

We have looked at other ways to increase housing supply. We’ve made a number of changes in More Homes Built Faster. The plan that we’ve identified changes the opportunity for home builders to replace older, mid-size rental apartments with more modern rental buildings, something that we’ve heard, as part of our consultations, that people wanted us to consider—

Interjections.

We’re also proposing to create a new regulation-making authority to enable a balanced regulatory framework governing municipal rental replacement bylaws. It really will do a couple of things: It will create consistency across and between municipalities—something we felt needed to take place in this space when they establish these types of bylaws—and it really could help streamline the construction and revitalization of rental housing, while at the same point protecting tenants, which is something that we heard as part of our More Homes Built Faster consultation.

An example: Where municipalities are requiring landowners to build replacement units, we’re considering regulations that could require that these units retain the same core features. I’ll get to that in a moment. We’re also looking at measures to give existing tenants the right to move back into the unit at a similar rent. This would help keep rental housing affordable in those communities, while at the same point encouraging revitalization of older, deteriorating buildings and, at the end of the day, increasing rental housing supply. In other words, we’d be taking steps to help Ontarians who rent units that are no longer in satisfactory condition so that they can access more modern and appropriate housing, but at the same time, if they leave a two-bedroom apartment, they can return to a two-bedroom apartment, at the same level of rent as before.

We’re also—and the Attorney General talked about this this morning—making a huge investment in the Landlord and Tenant Board. As I said when we made the announcement a week and a half ago in London, this is the largest investment in the Landlord and Tenant Board since its inception—a very, very good decision. It’s $6.5 million to appoint 40 new adjudicators and hire five more additional staff in hopes of tackling the backlog. It’s very, very important right now. Minister Downey was asked a question at that announcement. You’re essentially doubling the amount of adjudicators—you’re at 39 right now; you’re going to add another 40. You’re going to add another five administrative staff—something that we were responsive to. That $6.5-million investment is a game-changer in the management of that tribunal. I think everyone in this House can agree, no matter what political stripe, that we need to have an adjudicative tribunal—the Landlord and Tenant Board—that works in a fair system both for landlords and tenants. I want to thank Minister Downey for accompanying this bill with this very, very strong policy that has been celebrated from both landlords and tenants across the province.

Our plan will also better protect homebuyers and their financial investments. I was pleased to join Minister Rasheed in Toronto three weeks ago, along with Associate Minister Tangri, to announce that our government is expanding deposit insurance for credit union members saving for the purchase of their first home. The first-home savings account which was introduced by the federal government—credit union members can now use them to save for the purchase of their first home. In the event that the credit union fails, the credit union member’s money in a first-home savings account would be protected.

We’re also exploring, through Minister Rasheed’s ministry, a cooling-off period on purchases of newly built freehold homes.

We’re also exploring the requirement that purchasers of all new homes receive legal advice on their purchase agreements—something I think that, again, is responsive to many of the things that we’ve heard as part of our consultation.

These changes that are in this bill would continue to support a number of very important measures—things like intensification—while making sure that there is sufficient land to accommodate new homes and jobs that our province needs.

So to increase housing supply and speed up planning approvals, this bill and our consultations—we’re proposing to update the provincial policy statement and integrate it with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. This would create a single province-wide, housing-focused land use planning document for Ontario. This proposed merged document would simplify existing policies. It would also refocus them on achieving housing outcomes while giving large and fast-growing municipalities the tools that they need to deliver more housing. As I’ve said many, many times, all of Ontario, not just the greater Golden Horseshoe, is a place to grow. And that’s what our policies in this bill are reflecting.

More Homes for Everyone required municipalities to gradually refund zoning bylaw and site plan application fees if they fail to make a decision in a specified time period. We’ve listened to municipal feedback: We’re proposing to postpone the start date from January 1 to July 1 of this year to give them time to adjust. I want to thank municipalities for their engagement on this.

Municipalities also told us, as part of More Homes for Everyone, that some of the smaller projects need to be able to address concerns stemming from a site plan review. So we’re proposing, based on feedback, to allow municipalities to use site plan control for residential projects with 10 or fewer units in very certain circumstances—very specific recommendations that, again, responded to the feedback we received from our municipal partners.

This bill also—it was part of the announcement: We’re reducing the cost of building housing. We’re planning to freeze 74 provincial fees at current levels. This includes several fees related to Tribunals Ontario, the Ontario Land Tribunal, the building code. One of the things we heard when we had the consultation with municipalities and we talked about fees and charges—municipalities said, “What about the provincial fees?” So this decision by the government to freeze 74 provincial fees is a direct result of municipal feedback that we heard as part of consultation. We’re consulting on implementation of the fee freezes via Ontario’s Regulatory Registry, so there’s more to come on that.

In conclusion, our proposed Helping Homebuyers, Protecting Tenants Act, as I said at the outset of the speech, really builds on our previous actions that I detailed in the House. These are actions that support homeowners, renters and landlords, not-for-profit and private sector builders, and our municipal partners, so that, together, we can realize our goal of helping to build those 1.5 million homes by 2031.

This is a very bold and transformative plan, but under the leadership of Premier Ford, we said to the people last summer that we would put a plan in place to do this so that we can realize that goal of building 1.5 million new homes by 2031; pour que nous puissions réaliser ensemble notre but de contribuer à la construction de 1,5 million d’habitations d’ici 2031.

Thank you, Speaker, for giving me the chance to kick off debate. I’m now going to turn it over to my fantastic Associate Minister of Housing, the Honourable Nina Tangri.

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.

The Associate Minister of Housing.

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 want to thank the members from Mississauga–Streetsville and Mississauga East–Cooksville for your comments today. I’ll address my question to either one of you, whoever wants to answer it.

This government has had all kinds of housing bills. You’ve overridden the democratic right of the people of Toronto, Niagara, York and Peel to majority-vote democracy in our municipalities. You’re paving over the greenbelt. You’re giving a $5-billion taxpayer-funded donation to developers. And yet, the price of housing keeps going up.

When you were elected in 2018, the cost of a one-bedroom apartment in Mississauga was $1,800; today, it’s $2,299. That’s a 24% increase over last year.

When will you start reducing the cost of housing in Mississauga? And what will the cost of a one-bedroom apartment in Mississauga be in 2026, at the end of eight years of Conservative rule?

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?

I listened to the minister and the government members talking about this bill, and I wanted to share with them a report last week from rentals.ca that showed London was second only to Brampton in terms of the rate of year-over-year increases in rents. There was a whopping 27% jump in one-bedroom rents compared to the last year. London is also the fastest-growing city in Ontario. This has nothing to do with permit fees. This has to do with the number of people in our city who need housing. Any new housing that is being constructed doesn’t have any rent control whatsoever.

So what exactly is this government doing to protect the tenants in London who are facing these huge rent increases and who are looking at getting into units with no rent control at all?

My thanks to the member for University–Rosedale for her participation today in debate, I listened with interest to her contributions this afternoon, and one of the pieces that I thought was fairly interesting was her commentary around BC, and specifically—I know you mentioned Burnaby and what they’re doing. “We support Burnaby’s plan,” I think was what you were saying. You said there’s a lot of building happening there.

I think that’s great. I think it’s really important, as legislators, that we’re looking at other jurisdictions who are bringing forward ideas. I think there’s always more that can be done. I think there’s a lot that’s good in this bill, that’s moving things forward to help tenants and to build more housing stock.

But I’m wondering if she could elaborate a bit further as to what she is seeing in Burnaby, where, as she mentioned, a lot of housing is being built and a lot of progress is being made. What is she seeing there that she believes could be learned here, as well, in future housing bills?

Right. And we know the effect of that on the economic development of the city of Oshawa in particular but also Bowmanville and Whitby, Ajax, and, to a degree, in Pickering as well.

The new policies would make more land available for development, with fewer and more flexible requirements for expanding settlement area boundaries and a more focused approach, Speaker, to protecting lands for employment. Why is that important? Well, you’ll know, from your own practical experience as a municipal politician, it’s going to allow and support the implementation of individual economic development plans at the municipal level. And if you’re an upper-tier government, that’s going to affect the implementation and evaluation of economic recovery plans overall. It’s going to underpin that process. So that’s a significant development.

The new policies would balance the need for housing with a need to protect resources by making it simpler and easier to plan for and encourage housing development while protecting prime agricultural areas, including specialty crop areas, and continuing to direct development away from hazard land.

I mentioned I was up in Myrtle Station, talking to the farmers about developing and building, taking an acre of land and building another house for their daughter or son. But I also talked about specialty crop areas, because we have a big agri business up in the region of Durham as well.

These new policies would ensure the creation of the necessary infrastructure to support housing developments by integrating planning for land use and infrastructure, protecting corridors for major infrastructure and coordinating school and municipal planning. So why is the coordination of school and municipal planning important? I’ll give you a practical example: I’ve had five new developments built in the west part of the town of Whitby since 2020, now 2022. I would suggest that what those new developments have brought, 20,000 people—there was an opportunity for a more coordinated level of dialogue both at the town level but also with the trustees of all three boards that find a place in the town of Whitby: the Catholic board, the public school board and the francophone board as well. The focus here is to ensure the coordination between municipalities and school boards to consider school and child care needs earlier in the planning process.

My colleague from Niagara West, who is just behind me, will appreciate this as a former parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education, because it’s an area that has pressure points throughout the province. He has contributed in a strong way some of the solutions that you see evident here today and which I bring forward as part of debate, and I thank him for that.

These new policies, Speaker, will allow that families moving to new housing can expect that local schools will be available for their children. That’s part of the discussion that ensues on the capital priorities that we bring to the Ministry of Education and that’s worked well. I can speak to millions of dollars that have come into the town of Whitby either to build new schools, refurbish schools or develop child care spaces, whether it’s Willows Walk school or other schools of that type. I’m thankful to the Ministry of Education for their level of investment in hard-working families in the town of Whitby.

Speaker, through the new proposed provincial policy statement, we would continue to protect and support our province’s agriculture, including within the region of Durham. Within the region of Durham, we have a very strong agricultural-agribusiness plank as part of our economic recovery plan for the region of Durham. In fact, we have a standing committee within the region of Durham dealing with agriculture and they have contributed significantly over the years in this particular area. As under the current provincial policy statement and A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the proposed new document would continue to require planning authorities, such as municipalities, to protect specialty crop areas with policies to support agricultural uses, agriculture-related uses, and various uses on the farm.

I just spoke about a standing committee of the region of Durham. That particular committee deals with certain aspects of what I just said. More directly, the actual policy base falls within other standing committees of the Durham regional council.

Speaker, planning authorities would be required to map and designate prime agricultural areas and to support an agri-food network along the lines that I’ve just described. My colleague from Oshawa is well familiar with it because, in the north part of Oshawa in particular, there still are aspects that are agri-food-based, contribute to the region of Durham’s economic recovery plan, and contribute well to job creation and our local economies, whether it’s Oshawa, Whitby or, for that matter, Clarington, which borders the Oshawa riding.

On this new planning framework, yes, there’s a consultation under way. It started early in April and concludes June 6, 2023.

But meanwhile, Speaker, the government continues to work with municipal partners, whether it’s the town of Whitby or the city of Oshawa or other municipalities that form the region of Durham, to ensure that cities, towns and rural communities throughout the region grow with a mix of ownership and rental housing that meets the needs of people across the province. We live in a very diverse region of Durham.

Speaker, we’re also proposing several changes to further protect renters while supporting landlords. There has been a $6.5-million investment to appoint an additional 40 adjudicators and hire five staff to improve service standards and continue to reduce active applications and decision time frames at the Landlord and Tenant Board. This increase more than doubles the number of full-time adjudicators at the Landlord and Tenant Board, further strengthening protections against evictions due to renovations, demolitions and conversions, as well as those for a landlord’s own use, and clarify tenants’ rights to install air conditioners.

Our government has been steadfastly focused on Ontario’s housing supply crisis since the moment we first took office. We’ve introduced policies that are helping to get more homes built across Ontario, but we know more needs to be done. We absolutely know that more needs to be done. This legislation is the next step in our plan to ensure that Ontario’s housing supply continues to grow over the long term so more Ontarians can find a home they can actually afford.

Speaker, facts matter. In 2022, Ontario saw the second-highest number of housing starts since 1988, with just over 96,000 new homes. This is 30% higher than the annual average for the past 20 years. Ontario also broke ground on nearly 15,000 new purpose-built rentals—the highest number on record.

Importantly, Ontario will continue to call on the federal government to defer the Harmonized Sales Tax on all new large-scale purpose-built rental housing projects to tackle the ongoing housing affordability crisis. We’re going to support this measure, as it would help spur the construction of more rental housing units while helping to create jobs, encourage economic development and support growth.

The province is also continuing the process of launching third-party audits of select municipalities to get a factual understanding of their finances, including their reserve funds and development charge administration, as part of its commitment to ensure there should be no funding shortfall for housing-enabling infrastructure as a result of the More Homes Built Faster Act, provided municipalities achieve and exceed their housing pledge levels and growth targets. And 27 of 29 of those municipalities have already submitted their pledge.

Speaker, I’ve got two minutes, so I’m just going to move into my conclusion right now.

Always a leader in innovation, Ontario is looking at modular construction and other leading-edge options to reduce the cost of building attainable housing and speed up the creation of housing. As part of this work, we’ll engage with the housing sector, municipalities and Indigenous communities to consider different opportunities to build housing using modular and other technologies in communities across the province.

Speaker, the Helping Homebuyers, Protecting Tenants Act is the latest in a series of steps our government is taking to increase housing supply and help more Ontarians find a home they can actually afford. In my case, that means the region of Durham, the town of Whitby. In partnership with the eight municipalities throughout the region of Durham and in other parts of the province, Speaker, be assured we will help create the homes that hard-working Ontarians need today, tomorrow and in the decades to come.

Thank you to the member for Whitby for his debate.

We’re talking about affordability for housing. I looked up the average price of a one-bedroom in Sudbury, and it’s $1,472; in Toronto, it’s $2,400, and it says Toronto has had a 20% increase in the last year. With minimum wage at $15.50 until October, that means if you work 40 hours a week, four weeks every month, you go home with $2,480, which is gross—obviously, that’s not all the money you go home with. But if it was all the money you went home with, that means in Toronto you would be short being able to pay your rent every month—actually, you’d have $80 in your pocket.

In the housing plan, what is the design to provide affordable housing? I grew up in geared-to-income rent housing; I have never seen more built again. I think the government is ignoring the fact that people who cannot afford to buy a house need a place they can afford to rent.

Again, I draw on my experience as both a regional councillor and a local councillor—and also stepping back and reflecting on my time as the president of the Durham Region Non-Profit Housing Corp.

What I see that this legislation does—I’m just looking at my notes here. I think what it does is, it provides, for fast-growing municipalities like mine—I alluded to having five new developments in my riding since 2018-22—specific policy direction to ensure sufficient land and housing supply. Yes, the town of Whitby has an official plan, but the town’s—just like the seven other municipalities and cities—has to be consistent with the region of Durham’s official plan. This specific policy direction that we’re providing does come with some flexibility. I think it’s going to ensure the land and housing supply that this fourth plan and others have been looking to do, and I think it’s going to have the type of effect to provide—

It’s why we’re working with municipalities. That’s what we’re doing through the official plan process to support growth. As part of that, when you’re developing an official plan for a local municipality, you’re looking at affordability as well. And there are features that I’ve alluded to, both in my presentation earlier and in my responses earlier, that speak to that.

What we’re also addressing is opportunities in areas of high growth near transit, and I spoke about the opportunity that exists in the southern part of the town of Whitby.

To the question from the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore—I also spoke about some of the opportunities this legislation brings.

Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity of presenting today and responding to the questions.

I’m rising today to debate the government’s latest housing legislation, Bill 97. There are many things that come to mind for folks in Ottawa Centre. I do want to ask your indulgence, Speaker, to be able to say a few things off the top that I believe are related to this legislation, if not directly in some of the schedules and some of the aspects of the proposed bill.

First of all, we need housing, of course, but there’s also the question of how we get to our housing. A major way in which Ontarians want to get to their housing, certainly in urban centres, is with public transit.

I want to take this opportunity, as I begin my debate on this bill, to thank the Ottawa firefighters who rescued people on April 5 from our LRT, which stalled for a second time—a second time, Speaker, if you can believe it—given an ice storm. We live in a Nordic climate. We invested $2.1 billion in this light rail transit system. We managed to convince the government, in the last Parliament, to declare a judicial inquiry into this system because of the mess it has become. I want to note for the record: Transit is critical for how we get to our homes, and twice in 2023, in January and on April 5, first responders had to be called to the crossover by the Rideau River near the Lees station to cut a hole through a chain-link fence that people had to crawl under and through, to get out of an unheated train they had been waiting on for over an hour—including frail seniors, people with disabilities. I mention this for the record of this House, because I respect the job and the responsibility of this House, and it deserves mention that this is an absolute abomination, when we think about how we’re supposed to be building public transit that works. So I hope government members are listening to that. I do want to thank the firefighters and the first responders, and I do want to thank the people who took to Twitter as they waited, freezing, on the train. I want to thank them, but it shouldn’t have to come to that.

Secondly, I want to give a shout-out to some of our neighbours in Ottawa, who, sadly—because we have to think about how we pay for our housing, don’t we? We work for a living to pay for our housing. And 155,000 members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada have given the Trudeau government a deadline of 9 p.m. tomorrow night, after two years of delay and obfuscation at the bargaining table, to finally come to a mutual collective agreement. It shouldn’t have to come to this. The very people, when nine million Canadians were unemployed in the pandemic, who made sure that that Canada economic recovery benefit that my colleagues in the NDP federally fought hard for—they’re the people who set that system up, they’re the folks who made sure people could get income when they were unemployed and their small businesses were shuttered. And now the Trudeau government is insulting them by threatening to throw them out on the picket lines. I want to say to all the PSAC members at home that going on strike is not an easy decision, but we support you 100%. We will be mobilizing to support you 100%, and I hope the Prime Minister gives you the deal that you deserve at the bargaining table. It is not a lot to ask, for people making $45,000 to $60,000 a year in key occupations in our public service, at the Canada Revenue Agency and at the Treasury Board. You deserve a deal, and we will be with you on your picket lines to support you.

Thank you, Speaker, for your indulgence. Let’s get into this bill.

Let’s talk about rent protection bylaws—schedules 2 and 5 of this bill. Once again, after Bill 23, we see another measure being introduced here to diminish the capacity of rent protection bylaws. Why is this important? It’s critically important because when these large, often investor, companies swoop in and buy up buildings in many of our major municipalities, there is an obligation in the city of Mississauga, there is an obligation in the city of Toronto, and there is an obligation in the city of Hamilton to compensate people. And why? Because we are losing the affordable housing stock we have at an incredible rate.

The research that I have, which comes from the great Carolyn Whitzman, the housing professor at the University of Ottawa, shows us that for every one unit of affordable housing—“affordable” defined by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp.—that is being built in Canada right now, we are losing seven. When large real estate investment trusts swoop into a community, buy up a property that a landlord has not maintained effectively—in some cases, for decades—and turfs them out on the street, it’s called a renoviction, and it’s one of the things that my friends in government are talking about addressing with this bill. But it’s one thing to increase fines on individuals or companies—$100,000 for individuals; $500,000 for companies. That’s negative liberty. That’s one thing. But where’s the positive liberty? Where’s the support you give people? It’s through rental protection bylaws.

In the city of Toronto, the latest research I’ve seen from city staff in this city—over 16,000 units of actually affordable housing that we have have been protected with rental replacement bylaws. That’s critical. If you’re trying to maintain a family on an extremely low income—and so many people, as every member of every caucus in this place has risen to speak about since this Parliament resumed, are suffering out there, scraping by, barely making ends meet given the price of housing, food, getting around. This is critical that we have something to replace rent. I heard a friend over there say that it was all because of the carbon tax. I want to acknowledge that transportation costs are significant. But I want to remind the government that one of the major costs to any person, whether they rent or own, is housing. The poverty line, according to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp.—where they say you’re getting into trouble is if over 30% of your income is going into housing. What I’m talking about in situations I’m going to describe this afternoon are situations in which, for affordable housing—affordable housing people are trying to cling on to—42% to 45% of their income is going into housing.

I want to talk about Amanda, a mom of four who lives in Manor Village, which is an area in the south of Ottawa. Manor Village was targeted for renovictions by its owner, Smart Living Properties. Smart Living Properties said to the low-income, working-class tenants of Manor Village, “You’re going to have to move out. The building is dilapidated. We need to do some repairs.” In Ottawa, unfortunately, unlike Hamilton, Mississauga and Toronto, we don’t have rental replacement bylaws. We were fighting for that in our latest municipal plan, but Bill 23 that this government proposed didn’t help us towards addressing any of it. So Amanda and so many other folks in Manor Village faced the threat of losing their homes. Amanda lived in a three-bedroom home in Manor Village for $1,400 a month. You cannot find a three-bedroom home for a low-income family in the city of Ottawa for that price—impossible. They faced the threat of losing it.

Years before, in 2018, we had the largest mass eviction in Canadian history since the terrible story of Africville. I invite members, if you don’t know what happened in Africville in the great city of Halifax, to look it up. It was an instance where Black residents of Halifax were literally moved out of their community, with their possessions, in dump trucks. It was a mass eviction led by the city.

That inglorious chapter of Canadian history was actually made worse with Heron Gate in our city, where 500 residents were evicted summarily by Timbercreek. It has since changed its corporate name. I guess when you get a bad reputation for turfing low-income tenants, you’ve got to change your corporate name.

We needed a rental replacement bylaw to make sure that these folks could actually find comparable housing. It doesn’t exist in the city of Ottawa.

So what is in Bill 97 to make sure there are robust rental replacement rules so that tenants, who have rights, as the member for University–Rosedale said very well, can get access to similar housing? I don’t see it. I see fines, but everybody in this place knows that smart, well-resourced people in housing can wait out a judicial process; they can drag their feet. And it puts the onus on the complainant to lawyer up to the same extent that the well-resourced person has. What you needed were resources off the top, a rental replacement bylaw system that actually works, that compels the landlord if they want to massively renovate a property and make a margin for that. Fine—make sure that the tenants have comparable housing. That’s what a fair regime would do, and I don’t see that in Bill 97.

What did residents in Heron Gate and Manor Village do to fight for their rights, in the absence of a rental replacement bylaw—because as I said, we don’t have it in the city of Ottawa. They worked with great organizations like ACORN in our city. They organized home to home, and they made sure that those landlords were held accountable for their decisions. I’m happy to say that the residents of Heron Gate negotiated an agreement with the landlord who threw them out, and people have found new homes, but not without a massive fight. And I’m happy to say that the residents of Manor Village persuaded the city of Ottawa to re-route our LRT so it wasn’t going directly though their community, to save their housing, and they are fighting, as I’m saying these words, to make sure they have comparable-quality and comparable-cost apartments—but by citizen action, people on their own, neighbour to neighbour. It’s important.

But we should actually have a safety net that matters in this province. I don’t see it in this bill.

If you go to downtown Ottawa, in the neighbourhood of Centretown, 142 Nepean Street is a three-storey walk-up that you’ll see. The city council at home just recently made the decision to demolish 142 Nepean Street—for a 27- or 25- or 34-storey building, you would think. It makes sense. Densification—that’s what we need. No, for a parking lot—for a parking lot. Despite the fact that there are parking lots at adjacent buildings, that was the priority for the developer. They told those residents of that affordable building right in the downtown, close to work, close to transit, close to amenities, that they had to move out. They fought back, but there is no rental-replacement bylaw that exists. The landlord offered spaces for a certain amount of time, three years, but then after that the rent can be jacked up by whatever the landlord would seek to charge, because, as the member from London North Centre said, after 2018, all bets are off when it comes to rent control in Ontario. It’s the Wild West.

So what was Amanda’s reaction from Manor Village when she was facing the loss of her housing for her four kids? She said to the CBC, “I don’t know what we’re gonna do. We could ... end up on the street or living in my van.”

That, sadly, is the reality of so many of our cities’ neighbours, who have become destitute or homeless, because the housing rules that we have favour large, multi-property owners and real estate investment trusts and they don’t work for people.

In the time I have left, I want to talk about the expansion of the urban boundary, which this legislation proposes, by changing a previous standard that had been talked about for development of 80 residents per hectare to 50 people per hectare. And the worry advocacy groups have with this bill is that you’re going to be encouraging housing further and further from urban centres and not moving towards what everybody seems to agree upon, as we work towards these 1.5 million homes we need to build, which is more densification in the downtown.

I love to ride my road bike at home, Speaker. It’s one of the ways I get my mental health. One of the communities I love to roll through when I have the chance is Piperville, southeast of Ottawa, Carlsbad Springs area. There’s a great park out there called the Ludger Landry Park on Piperville Road. Well, there was a bunch of neighbours recently there at a protest because they were awoken at 4 o’clock in the morning to the sound of clear-cutting of thousands of trees—thousands of trees.

And this is an area that wasn’t zoned for development of housing. This was an area, unbeknownst to the residents of the community, that had historically been farmland, but there had been an urban forest that had grown up. Kids went in there to play—I certainly have that memory from my youth, of just going into the adjacent forest to play, in rural eastern Ontario. People would walk their dogs in there.

But at four in the morning, for some reason, a mass clear-cutting operation happened, unbeknownst to the neighbourhood of Carlsbad Springs. It caused a complete uproar. And my question, Speaker, is the allegation here from Taggart Group—which is the developer—is that this is going to be used for farming, and that we need arable land for farming—no question. But I find it curious—for the record of this place, it is right adjacent to a development that is barely inside the urban boundary, once it was expanded by this government, called the Tewin development. City staff told Taggart that it was extremely expensive to pay for the utilities to be worked out there, to think about public transit to be worked out there, to extend municipal services out there. They actually recommended to city council, in the last iteration of city council, not to approve this development, to reject it. But this government changed the urban boundary. The Tewin project was approved. And just last month, residents in a plot of land even further away were awoken to the sound of clear-cutting in the middle of the night. I ask you, Speaker, is this the way we do development in Ontario now, where communities have to be surprised?

If I were in the government, if I were at their tables, I would be encouraging them to not move forward with that kind of an adversarial approach. The government has to be present. There have to be clear rules of engagement. And we have lots of success stories in Ottawa of great densification developments that happened, where neighbourhoods are consulted and they work, and everybody wins. But that’s not what’s happening right now, and I don’t see it being fixed with Bill 97.

So the rationale that was given to the residents of Carlsbad Springs—because immediately, when the city found out about the possibility of a clear-cutting operation on February 17, they sent their bylaw folk out there with a stop-work order. But apparently, after the clear-cutting happened, what city council learned last week is that there’s a gap in the bylaw. According to the city, in the reading of the bylaw, the injury or destruction of trees is required for farming practices. Again, I wish I could show the members of this House on some screen here, because members of the community flew drones to take pictures of the thousands of trees that were felled in the middle of the night. It is not starting off on a good foot to be treating communities like this. Community consultation should not be an afterthought. That’s what I’m trying to say.

It’s interesting; we sit in the Legislature and listen to different sides of debate at different portions of time of day. This morning, I was completely attacked for talking about cost of living against seniors. And now, here, again, we see another bill for housing. I believe it’s the fourth one from this government, and yet rents continue to rise.

In Hamilton, a very simple, basic one-bedroom apartment is over $1,800; a two-bedroom is $2,200.

Where in this legislation does the member see the cost of living actually decreasing for the benefit of people who are actually the tenants in these units and not to the benefit of builders who are building housing for, more than likely, people who can’t afford to live in them?