I have a petition entitled “Stop Ford’s Health Care Privatization Plan.” It reads:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Ontarians should get health care based on need—not the size of their wallet;

“Whereas Premier Doug Ford and Health Minister Sylvia Jones say they’re planning to privatize parts of health care;

“Whereas privatization will bleed nurses, doctors and PSWs out of our public hospitals, making the health care crisis worse;

“Whereas privatization always ends with patients getting a bill;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately stop all plans to further privatize Ontario’s health care system, and fix the crisis in health care by:

“—repealing Bill 124 and recruiting, retaining and respecting doctors, nurses and PSWs with better pay and better working conditions;

“—licensing tens of thousands of internationally educated nurses and other health care professionals already in Ontario, who wait years and pay thousands to have their credentials certified...;

“—incentivizing doctors and nurses to choose to live and work in northern Ontario;

“—funding hospitals to have enough nurses on every shift, on every ward.”

I fully support this petition, affix my signature and send it to the table with page Grace.

Thank you very much, Speaker. I’ve been here, I think, 11-and-some years, and it’s still always an honour to be able to stand here, today to talk about Bill 23, a bill that the government is putting forward as one of their solutions to our housing crisis.

I think we all agree that we need more housing in Ontario. I started my presentation before question period on that. I’ve listened to this debate intently throughout, both in the House and in the public realm, and have contributed to it through question period, specifically on the protection of farmland and how it relates to housing, and it’s a big issue.

It was stated in the Legislature by the Minister of Agriculture that the number one issue is labour, and I don’t disagree that it is an incredibly significant issue, but agriculture is like everything else in the province: You can’t look at one issue and not look at the rest. So you need to look at labour. Processors need more labour; farmers need more. You need to look at labour, but you need to look at all the other issues too, because if you’re successful building up your labour force and then you run out of something else, well, your work is for naught. No farm runs like that. No business runs like that. I don’t understand how a government can run like that, saying, “We’re going to focus on one issue and none other at all.”

Although she didn’t say it, it has been—no, I’m going to reword that. For some reason, and I hope people respond to me today on this, the government has been leery even to mention the loss of farmland. And that farmers aren’t concerned with the loss of farmland—I would also like to dispute that. I’d like to read a bit of the presentation of the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Ontario’s largest farm organization. She did get to speak at the committee hearings for Bill 23; others were denied, but she did get to speak.

This is from Peggy Brekveld, and before I continue, I’d like to congratulate Peggy Brekveld on her re-election as president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. She has been pushing land use and farmland preservation for quite a while, so the fact that she was re-elected speaks to how important that is to farmers. I would like to quote from her presentation:

“There is only one landscape. And everything has to fit, but those basics—food, water and shelter—remain the same as they were a hundred years ago. They are the cornerstones of life.

“What has changed is the actual landscape itself. We have lost farmland by sprawling cities with little regard for where. It likely looks like there is farmland everywhere, it shouldn’t matter. But it does. Farmland is a finite resource.

“When something is rare, we treat it as precious, like a gem or diamond. Agricultural land makes up less than 5% of our province. But we don’t hold it as precious.”

I would agree with the remarks of the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture: It doesn’t seem that we hold it as precious.

The member for Brantford–Brant asked a question in questions and answers, and it got me thinking, because I didn’t know the answer. He asked it to another one of our members. But that’s the role of this place: to debate, to put out your ideas and have people challenge them, so you can actually make things better. That’s actually the role of this place. It gets partisan, but that’s actually the role.

There’s 319 acres—point six—but 319 acres a day that we lose of farmland paved over forever—every day. Now, the member for Brantford–Brant asked, “How much of that land that we’re losing is slated for development already?” That’s a good question. I commend him for that question. I couldn’t find the answer, but I did find another answer. And it leads me to another question that I pose to the government.

There are 88,000 acres in Ontario right now that are slated for development—88,000 acres—yet that doesn’t seem to be enough. The government’s own housing task force identified that there was enough land. Some of that is agricultural land—I’m fully aware of that—but it has already been zoned for other development, so it’s not what’s holding the building of housing back. The housing task force said it. I challenge the government to prove or to show that the 88,000 acres that’s already slated for development in the province of Ontario isn’t enough, that the solution is actually pushing farther out—pushing the boundaries farther out—to eat up more agricultural land or more conservation land. I don’t think they have the answer to that. I’d love to see the answer.

It might not be enough to build housing where others want it built, where there’s more profit for it to be built; that, I don’t know. But I challenge that 88,000 acres isn’t enough to take a good chunk out of—between infilling, which is significant—there are some things in this bill that work, that should be more aggressive. There are good and bad things in every bill. In some, the bad very much outweighs the good.

For the members who haven’t been here for a long time, usually you put a bill forward or the government puts a bill forward, you actually have a committee process, a few amendments are accepted and actually that makes the legislation stronger. It lasts longer, and it benefits the people of Ontario much more. When you don’t do things like that—the members here who were just elected, you have the distinction of being the first government to stand and vote and clap for a bill that used the “notwithstanding” clause, and then have to rescind the very same bill within two weeks. That is a number one; you are number one. And I question how many of you actually signed up for that. Because the way the Legislature is supposed to work—those things don’t happen when the Legislature is working correctly.

With these bills, it’s the same thing. So my question to the government is, 88,000 acres isn’t enough? Show us why you need more than the 88,000 acres that are zoned for development right now. Find out why that land isn’t being used now, as opposed to grabbing more land.

Another question, I think, that needs to be asked: development charges. No one wants to pay development charges. No one wants to pay taxes. That’s not a new phenomenon. The question is, development charges pay for services, pay for infrastructure, that aren’t directly attached, or are in some ways directly attached, to the residence: water, sewer—all of those things, all things you need. So, if the development charges aren’t going to be paid by the people building the house, who is going to pay?

Many of you also come from a municipal background, as do I. We had an asset management plan. You have to keep your current infrastructure in good repair—or you try to—and it’s always hard. Specifically in rural Ontario, we know, it’s always hard. I am assuming in urban Ontario it’s equally hard, but I don’t have as much personal experience. But I do in rural.

If the new development isn’t going to pay for its own services or isn’t going to pay its share to increase the services that are needed to service it, who is going to pay? The government’s response, from what I’ve heard so far is, “We’ll just eat up reserves.” That’s the answer.

I question the business validity of that argument, because when I was a councillor we needed to keep reserves. You needed to keep reserves to be stable. You had to be able to weather something that hit you; otherwise you’d have to run to another level of government and beg for forgiveness—and I know this because I have done this for some other municipalities—for not taking that into account. When something happened you needed your hand out because you didn’t account for having to have reserves. Now the government is saying, “Use your reserves. Use your reserves.”

If some municipalities are building up way too high a level of reserves, that isn’t across the province. That is not across the province. I believe the number you quoted—$9 billion—isn’t across the province. And if that was so easy, then why is the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, who are usually very supportive of the Conservative government—usually incredibly supportive—why are they raising the warning flags and saying, “Wait a second”? There is going to be a billion dollars, in their calculations, transferred from new development costs to existing taxpayers. They didn’t say it was going to disappear. It’s not going to disappear; somebody’s going to pay for it. That is a question.

I know everyone is trying to put their bill—the government, certainly, and I think every government will do that—in the best light possible. You are demonizing development charges. If we can find a way to lower them and make them realistic—but to just say that they serve no purpose and basically we can just rip it out of reserves, you are simplifying it to the extreme and, once again, to the detriment of the future. You are.

You need to look at those issues. You really do. The land, you need to look at. You need to look at the development charges.

I heard this morning, and I read it as well, about no development charges on affordable housing. I’m not going to complain about that because there is a difference between someone who can afford to pay $1 million for a house and someone who can’t afford to pay $150,000 or $200,000. There is a difference. We need to recognize that. I’m not disputing that. But these blanket statements that housing trumps all, that housing trumps wetlands, that housing trumps—I think the insurance industry is going to have a say about this too. When we start without any regard and we just plunk, plunk, plunk houses wherever, and then all of a sudden we start getting more floods, more floods and—pardon me, Speaker, I’m going the wrong way. The insurance industry is already warning, because their costs are going up considerably. They want more houses too, but they want more houses built as safely as possible in as safe areas as possible. I want my insurance company to be stable so if I do have a catastrophe, I can afford to pay it and they can afford to actually reimburse me if something happens. When someone does buy a new house, I hope that they can have faith that their basement won’t flood, that planning has been done, and I don’t see that in this bill. I don’t.

I’m putting that forward—hopefully you can enlighten me and grill me. That’s what this place is for. It’s really not for quick talking points and calling each other names. I try not to do that, including to the Minister of Labour. Thank you for your time listening to me today.

When we last debated this bill, the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane had the floor. He still has some time, if he chooses to do so. I recognize the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane.

I think I heard three questions in there. When you take 7,000 acres out and you pave it over, and you make the greenbelt 9,200 acres bigger, you still lose 7,000 acres of farmland. You still have a net loss of 7,000 acres. Regardless of how much bigger you make the greenbelt, you’ve got a net loss of 7,000 acres of farmland.

Why we all live on farmland is because cities were once villages and villages grew up around farms. There’s no denying that. But just because we did that before, doesn’t mean that you can’t learn and try to do things better in the future. That’s what we’re doing right now, or what you’re trying to do. We disagree with some of the things you are doing, but I don’t disagree you’re trying to do things better.

What reserves are—reserves are a buffer. In our township, when we had a huge road collapse, we didn’t have to run to the bank, run to the government and beg, we could fix the road because—

Questions?

Thank you to my friend from Timiskaming–Cochrane for his speech. He’s our agriculture critic, so I want to ask him: I find it incredible that at a time when we just went through COVID and we learned all of the lessons about supply chains and food security—and we have inflation largely because of those issues—that the government would take the situation where we’re losing 319 acres a day of prime farmland and actually speed that process up by taking land out of the greenbelt and using up farmland.

What does that say for the future, whether you’re a newcomer or you’re a young person today, that we’re going to lose all that farmland? What happens if we no longer have food security?

As always, I enjoy the member opposite’s comments. We share a deep love of agricultural and business and all things southern Ontario—and northern Ontario for that matter.

A few comments and then a question: 9,200 acres coming into the greenbelt, 7,000 coming out. We’re growing the footprint. That’s a good thing. I hope you would agree.

The other thing I’d like to point out, probably, in this House, when I look around: Who here doesn’t live in their house, in their home, that wasn’t once—even in this city, below this Legislature—a farm at some point in their life? Everybody. Is it good for us so we can afford our homes, but new Canadians, older Canadians, first-time homebuyers don’t get that opportunity? When I grew up, this province wasn’t as big. It’s going to be a lot bigger. We need the land. I think we need to sometimes put a little balance in our thinking.

Back to the infrastructure: If you don’t want the reserves to be spent, what’s the use of them sitting there? Why wouldn’t we invest those reserves in this province now? We need homes now.

I’d like to thank my colleague for the question. I think what it says—we’re losing 319 a day now; the government is grabbing more land that was completely protected. What that says is, this government is extremely short-sighted. That’s what it says. And it’s not for our own food security, because we can grow food to feed the world. We’re one of the few places that has the capacity to grow much more food. But just because you can grow more food doesn’t mean you should waste the land you have. There are parts of this that are going to be developed, but it is precious and we should treat it as such, and this government, based on the legislation we’re seeing, isn’t doing that.

We all ran on building more homes. You didn’t run on changing how councils work. You didn’t run on appointing municipal chairs. You didn’t run on any of those things. You didn’t run—the Premier specifically ran on not touching the greenbelt. He specifically ran on it, and that specifically changed. You didn’t run on the things you’re doing now.

My thanks to the member opposite for his debate this afternoon, and I appreciate his concern for farmland. I was born and raised on 100 acres in Niagara. My father did cash cropping and chased hogs as well; we had a mixed operation there. Of course, I understand the importance of that, and I respect where he’s coming from and the unique northern Ontario perspective as well.

But I also know that people in my riding, when I hear from young people my age, frankly, most of them can’t get into the housing market, and they’re very frustrated by the lack of access to housing. They were excited when, in the June election, we ran on a commitment to build 1.5 million homes. I know many people who—some of them had never voted Conservative before, and they voted for the Ontario PCs because of that commitment to build 1.5 million homes.

So the question to the member would be, looking at the results of the June election, wouldn’t you say that we have a mandate to build 1.5 million homes and take the actions necessary to make that happen?

I know that the member opposite speaks a lot about farmland. I respect that. I understand that. But I’m just wondering, since he cares so much about farmland, if he could tell me how many of the acres that he refers to which are being taken out of the greenbelt were actually in crop production as of last week.

It is a privilege to rise today to speak to Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act. I will be sharing my time with the member for Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston.

Madam Speaker, Ontario is a flourishing and thriving province, with close to 15 million Canadians calling this beautiful piece of land home. Ontario is also Canada’s leading and primary economic hub, a place of research, innovation, academia and entrepreneurship—simply put, the economic engine of our country. Ontario is recognized for our cultural and linguistic diversity, where cultures of the world are celebrated and encouraged to thrive while contributing creatively to our multicultural mosaic. Indeed, Ontario is the whole world in one province. Ontario is also known for our rich natural diversity, numerous beautiful provincial parks, the four Great Lakes and the world-famous Niagara Falls, one of the seven wonders of the world. It is therefore no wonder that Ontario is a top destination for immigrants, businessmen and women and entrepreneurs alike.

It is also no surprise that owning a home in Ontario, with that proverbial white picket fence, is one of the most thought-about and talked-about Canadian dreams. Yet, Madam Speaker, it is just that: a thought, a conversation, a remote dream for many Canadians and Ontarians. Finding a home has become unattainable, far out of reach for many. Whether it be immigrant families like mine, looking for a new start; young couples starting their lives together and wanting to move out of their parents’ basement; seniors looking to downsize but still have a place to call home; or, frankly, employers looking to house seasonal or international employees, the road to finding a home has become the opposite of reality, the opposite of affordable or attainable.

Il n’est pas surprenant que posséder une maison dans cette province soit l’un des rêves canadiens les plus pensés et les plus discutés. Pourtant, madame la Présidente, ce n’est que cela : une pensée, une conversation, pour la plupart des Canadiens et Canadiennes, Ontariens et Ontariennes.

Trouver la maison idéale est un défi de taille depuis de nombreuses années. Que ce soit pour les nouveaux arrivants qui cherchent à démarrer et à planter leurs racines dans notre belle et diversifiée province, ou pour un jeune couple qui commence sa vie ensemble, la route pour trouver une maison est devenue le contraire de la réalité.

Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022, will not only make it easier, faster and more affordable for individuals and families to buy a home, but it will also allow them to buy the home they deserve. The bill, if passed, would amend the Development Charges Act, the Planning Act and other laws. The suggested modifications are meant to be the next step in our audacious and revolutionary plan to build 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years.

La Loi de 2022 visant à accélérer la construction de plus de logements modifiera la Loi sur les redevances d’aménagement, la Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire et d’autres lois. Les modifications suggérées sont censées être la prochaine étape de notre plan audacieux et révolutionnaire de construire 1,5 million de maisons au cours des 10 prochaines années.

Speaker, I want to set the stage today with some statistics. In the year 2000, the year my family and I immigrated to Canada, the average price of a home in Ontario was $243,000. In 2020, 20 years later, the average price of a home in Ontario increased to $594,000, making Ontario the second most expensive housing market in Canada, preceded only by British Columbia at $736,000 per home—governed by an NDP government, unsurprisingly.

In the last two decades, the cost of housing increased significantly in Ontario, with the average resale cost of a home increasing fivefold, or 410%. Today, in 2020, the average Ontario home is costed at a staggering $943,000, far over the Canadian average of $717,000. In my city of Mississauga, the average home prices are even higher than that, at $987,000—almost $1 million.

Speaker, we are in a housing crisis, and the status quo is simply not going to cut it anymore. With the federal government announcing their plan to bring in 500,000 immigrants per year to Canada, many of whom will settle in Ontario, we must act now to ensure that these newcomers have the appropriate housing and dignified housing conditions when they arrive.

Our government is committed to building 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years, and that is no small task. We must use every tool in our tool box, every regulation at our disposal, to make this ambitious goal a reality. And Bill 23 does just that.

The majority of individuals living in Mississauga are immigrants, young couples and seniors. As a result, the city of Mississauga has become one of the fastest-growing municipalities in Ontario. The 2031 municipal housing target for the city of Mississauga is 120,000 homes. That is 120,000 homes that my riding’s residents could live in—“could,” Speaker, because first these 120,000 homes must be built.

The 2031 housing target for the town of Caledon and the city of Brampton is 126,000. It is an ambitious target indeed, so let’s make that target a reality. And Bill 23 does just that.

Our government is committed to reducing costs, fees and taxes. These charges, levied by different government bodies, are one of the few reasons why housing costs have become overwhelming. Temporarily freezing conservation authority fees for development permits as well as proposals will help reduce building costs. That will keep more money in Ontarians’ pockets and allow them to afford housing. Rental construction will reduce development charges, with further discounts of up to 25% for family-sized units.

Speaker, we have called on the federal government to address the housing issue and help us build these homes. In addition, we have asked the federal government to work with us on potential GST/HST incentives. This would help support new home ownership and rental housing developments within Canada.

We also know that delays make housing more expensive. For example, the Ontario Association of Architects noted that the total cost of delays in site plan reviews was between $300 million and $900 million per year. Furthermore, a 2022 Building Industry and Land Development Association report found that for each unit in a high-density development, a month of delay costs about $2,600 to $3,000 in additional construction costs per month. I want to emphasize “per month” because, Speaker, in some regions these approvals and delays take almost 11 years. That is not acceptable. We need homes today, not 11 years from now.

The time to complete development approvals for a four-storey apartment and a 40-storey condominium is nearly the same—imagine, Speaker. Removing site plan control requirements for projects with less than 10 units will save time and money.

Nous avons prévu des approbations municipales plus efficaces. Par exemple, dans ma circonscription de Mississauga, une partie de la région de Peel, les deux paliers de gouvernement ont des politiques d’aménagement du territoire et des rôles dans les approbations d’aménagement. Cela entraîne non seulement des retards plus importants, mais cela coûte également de l’argent en raison des longs retards.

Madam Speaker, we are at the forefront of technologies that will increase the supply of housing in Ontario and make it simpler for our local partners to meet demand. If implemented, these suggested methods for removing obstacles, simplifying procedures and reducing expenses will further our objective of making housing more affordable and more attainable for all Ontarians.

In Ontario, everyone should be able to choose a house that is ideal for them and their family. Thus, with our suggested modifications, we would assist renters in making the transition from being tenants to being homeowners and expand the number of homes accessible for everyone.

En Ontario, tout le monde devrait pouvoir choisir une maison qui lui convient. Ainsi, avec nos modifications suggérées, nous aiderions les locataires à faire la transition de locataires à propriétaires et augmenterions le nombre de maisons accessibles à tous.

Madam Speaker, we are building homes, roads, schools, long-term care and hospitals in Ontario. Let’s continue getting it done.

Further questions?

Thank you to the member from Mississauga Centre for sharing her time.

It remains a privilege for me to rise and speak in this House on this bill. It’s especially fortunate for me to do that, given the bill has been put forward by my constituency neighbour, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. As we all know, the minister has done a lot of work, as have the associate minister and the PA, in consultations and moving this bill to its present state.

As Ontarians face the rising cost of living and a shortage of homes, our government has a strong mandate to help more Ontarians find a home that meets their needs and budget. Everyone in Ontario should be able to find a home that is right for them, but too many people are struggling with the rising cost of living and with finding housing that meets their family needs. Ontario needs more housing, and we need it now.

Our government introduced the More Homes Built Faster Act, which takes bold action to advance our plan to address the housing crisis by building one and a half million homes over the next 10 years. The proposals, if passed, would help cities, towns and rural communities grow with a mix of ownership and rental housing types that meet the needs of all Ontarians, from single-family homes to townhomes and mid-rise apartments. Our plan will build more homes near transit, unlock innovative approaches to design and construction, and get shovels in the ground faster. We have also introduced consumer protection measures for homebuyers and will use provincial lands to build more attainable homes so that more Ontarians can realize their dream of home ownership.

Ontario’s housing supply crisis is a problem which has been decades in the making. It will take both short-term strategies and long-term commitment from all levels of government, the private sector and not-for-profits to drive change. That is why we’ll be releasing a new action plan every year over four years, starting with today’s plan, to help build more homes and make life more affordable for Ontario families.

This is not just a big-city crisis. I know first-hand, as a father of three smart, highly educated, hard-working adult children that the housing supply shortage affects all Ontarians—rural, urban and suburban, north and south, young and old. Speaker, as the minister shared in this House, “The problem is clear: There simply aren’t enough homes being built to meet our demand. And the solution is equally clear: We need to get more homes built faster.”

Ontario is projected to grow our population by over two million residents in the coming decade. That’s two million people wanting to join the prosperity this government has and continues to foster and welcome, as we are open for business, Speaker. With the projected growth in our province, these new residents will not only seek to embrace the prosperity we’re delivering every day, but these people—like when I was starting out—will dream of the opportunity of owning their own home. That’s why I’m proud to be here supporting this important bill, in support of our great minister and in support of this government.

As a government we are taking the proactive action that has eluded so many others before us. We must not only dream of our future; we must plan for our future. That is why we have made a long-term commitment to get shovels in the ground and build 1.5 million homes in 10 years.

In years past, previous governments have been taking a reactive approach to the province’s challenges. This government is engaged in a proactive approach, making decisions for the success of this great province’s future. In doing so, we need both short- and long-term solutions to address the housing shortage. That is why, if passed, Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, is so important in the short and long term to rectify our housing needs.

We know that if we reduce delays and get the cost of building homes down, we can lower the price of a home for the average homebuyer. Because delays in building housing drive up costs, delays are contributing to the housing supply shortage, even as we try diligently to make up the time we lost when the pandemic first hit. Throughout the province, we need to significantly increase the speed of new home building in order to meet demand and lower costs for Ontarians.

Study after study has found that development approvals and appropriate zoning are often delayed. Some projects are even abandoned altogether due to upfront cost and delays. Even if the project finally gets the go-ahead, the cost of delay has already been incurred, and it gets passed on to the homebuyer. These barriers include land access in urban areas due to complex land use policies, on top of lengthy planning approvals for new housing. Coupled with high development charges, these issues are driving causes of rising costs and creating delays in building supply.

Think about this: Our current requirements for approvals can add, on average, from 27% to 51% more time on a new build, based on a 2020 study. This drives up costs for builders, for renters and for homeowners alike, and it’s why we’re proposing to look at ways we can update and streamline how and when these types of charges are required, in order to help build more housing faster.

There are three main charges levied on new residential developments by municipalities:

—development charges, which fund infrastructure like water and roads;

—parkland dedication fees, which can be either money or land and are used to create parks; and

—community benefits charges, which help build libraries and community centres.

Our proposed changes, if passed, would revise the way these charges are implemented to help spur much-needed development, and we will continue to develop policies that make it easier to get shovels in the ground faster.

Last year, we saw over 100,000 new housing starts in Ontario. That’s the highest level since 1987 and well above the annual average of 67,500 starts over the past 30 years. But we know we can and have to do more.

That is why, this past spring, our Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing committed to releasing a new housing supply action plan each year for the next four years. With our commitment to continue to strengthen housing policies, we recently named the chair and vice-chair of the new Housing Supply Action Plan Implementation Team. This team will support improvements to our annual housing supply action plans.

We have to keep the momentum up, especially in these turbulent economic times. That’s why, in our new housing supply action plan, we are proposing even more steps to get housing built faster across this great province. If passed, our proposed changes would help reduce unnecessary burdens and red tape that are delaying construction and driving the cost of a home even higher. They would also allow for more homes to be built near transit by encouraging municipalities to update their zoning and help enable more gentle density in residential areas. These changes would also support and protect homebuyers and use surplus provincial properties to build more attainable homes.

The More Homes Built Faster Act contains practical measures and will have a real and positive impact, making it easier for all Ontarians to find the right home for their needs and their budget.

Further debate?

Thank you so much for that question. As the member said, our government has introduced two pieces of legislation in our last mandate, the housing supply action plan, More Homes, More Choice, in 2019, and More Homes for Everyone in 2022. These have helped to substantially increase housing starts in recent years, but we know that more needs to be done to hit our target.

Last year, 2021, saw a record amount of starts in 30 years with 100,000 starts. This is very simple math. Over 10 years, if we only build 100,000 homes—and this is the highest in 30 years—we will not reach our ambitious goal of 1.5 million homes over 10 years. This is very simple math. That’s why it will take short-term strategies and long-term commitments from all levels of government, the private sector and not-for-profits to drive this change.

Under the leadership of Premier Ford, this government and this party will get it done.

In 2000, when my family arrived to Canada, my mom, as a single mom and immigrant nonetheless was able to put a down payment on a townhouse. Today, that same townhouse is far out of reach for young professionals like me. This is a top concern for residents in Mississauga and across the region of Peel. That’s why we’re introducing these measures to get these houses built.

It’s time for questions.

I’ll address my question to the member from Mississauga Centre. Thank you for your comments today. You said that your government is taking all measures to get housing built, and so I’ve got a two-part question. One is, can you not build housing while respecting democratic rights?

The second part of my question is, what are you hearing from your constituents in Mississauga? We just had municipal elections across this province, and the people of Mississauga went to the ballot box, they elected their councillors, and they expected those councillors to be electing a regional chair. Now your government is going to be appointing that regional chair and allowing that regional chair to make decisions with only one third of the councillors on that body. It’s incredibly undemocratic.

My question is, what are you hearing from constituents about the government’s anti-democratic actions, and can you not build housing while respecting democratic rights?

Thank you to both members for their comments on the bill. My question is to the member for Mississauga Centre. I’m very pleased to see that this government continues to take the housing supply crisis seriously. It’s about time, after decades. This is the government’s third housing supply action plan, which builds upon the success of the first two, More Homes, More Choice and the More Homes for Everyone plan. More Homes for Everyone was introduced this past year.

Can the member please let us know why the government is moving on this housing supply crisis so urgently and introducing yet another plan?

I will agree with something with the Conservative Party—I don’t do that very often. Ontario does have a crisis. We have a crisis in health care. We have a crisis in education. We have a crisis in long-term care. We have a crisis in housing. We have a crisis in affordability—housing, rent, food, gas—so I do agree with you on that.

My question is very clear: How will this bill help my area of Niagara region take on the financial hardship it will likely face from Bill 23 and the reduction of development fees? In the Niagara region, this is what they’re responsible for: policing—something very, very important, as crime has gone through the roof in Niagara—corrections officers, our jails; ambulance, paramedics; long-term care; retirement homes; water waste; our roads. Where are they going to get the resources if we allow developers to make more money, more profit by not paying development fees?

Thank you to the member for Niagara for reminding us of all the challenges this government is facing and that moving fast on all of those challenges is so important. In fact, I’ll quote the member from Niagara: “The analogy I would use is if your house is on fire, you don’t slowly walk to the kitchen and get a glass of water.”

This government is getting things done. Development charges: Yes, they are very important and they will continue to be important and they’ll continue to be in existence; however, over a 30% increase, $9 billion in development charge reserves, is not acceptable. They’re driving up the cost and they’re being directly related and passed on to the homeowner/consumer. That is why this government is taking measures to control those costs and get homes built faster.