Good morning, Speaker, and thank you very much. I also want to thank the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for sharing his time with both myself and our parliamentary assistant, Mr. Holland.

I’m very proud to rise for second reading of our government’s proposed More Homes Built Faster Act. I’m proud to speak to a piece of legislation designed to unlock the dream of home ownership for more Ontario families, more than ever before; a piece of legislation that will make it easier to get shovels in the ground and homes built faster.

Speaker, Ontario is facing a housing supply crisis. This isn’t news to anyone. You have heard us speak about it on countless occasions here in this chamber: about how, because of years of inaction on the part of the previous government, Ontario severely lacks the housing supply to meet our growing population; about how, right now, too many Ontarians are chasing too few homes; and how without bold and transformative action and change, we’ll be letting down an entire next generation.

The task ahead of us is to ensure that owning a home is in reach for everyone. That’s our mission, and failure is simply not an option. The message is clear: Our Premier, our government will not rest until we get the homes built to help every single Ontarian achieve the dream they have for themselves, their families and their communities.

More Homes Built Faster is perhaps the boldest change Ontario has seen in the housing sector, and it was developed by carefully listening to our partners. In the weeks leading up to the proposed legislation, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, PA Holland and I travelled across the province to meet with various partners in a series of round table discussions. We spoke with our partners about solutions to the challenges our province is facing in getting homes built. These round tables gave us the chance to hear great ideas from both the public, municipal leaders and housing experts in places like Kitchener-Waterloo, Mississauga, Thunder Bay, Burlington, London, Guelph, York, North Bay and Durham as well.

I heard from young families unable to enter the housing market, seniors on fixed incomes who worry about making their mortgage payments, the builder unable to build due to lengthy delays. I heard from millennials who did everything—who went to school, built their career, contributed to their community—and yet, despite doing everything that was asked, have given up entirely on the dream of ever owning a home. Speaker, that must change, and with More Homes Built Faster, we’re taking real action to ensure that it does.

It’s no secret that municipalities are playing catch-up when it comes to creating enough housing to meet the needs of our province’s growing population, and the solution is clear: More densification is needed where populations are growing quickly. Nearly 80% of the population growth through 2031 is concentrated in Ontario’s large municipalities, 25 of which are in the greater Golden Horseshoe region. We’re asking 29 of the largest and fastest-growing municipalities for their partnership in creating more attainable housing, and Madam Speaker, we’re holding them accountable to do so.

The fact is clear: We need to work together to reach our goal of building 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years. As a result, from now until at least 2032, we’ll give clear housing targets to municipalities, and we will ask them to pledge to fill the gap over the next 10 years in line with our target and based on the needs of their communities and their capacity to grow. These pledges are in addition to existing long-term municipal land use plans that are already in place.

The idea behind the pledge is to have the municipalities demonstrate the strategies that they may use to prioritize and accelerate housing in their communities. We would ask municipalities to submit their pledges to the province by March 1, 2023.

We’re also looking to our federal counterparts for their fair share of funding to help bring these housing pledges to fruition by helping municipalities to access funds available for housing-related infrastructure. This includes building proper water and sewage systems, roads, and transit for areas with increased density.

Speaker, increasing density doesn’t always mean building large towers that stretch to the sky. We’re also focusing on more gentle density in residential neighbourhoods. Proposed changes to the Planning Act would fast-track building up to three units on most lots already zoned as residential. This would apply to communities across the province.

So what does this mean? A family who owns a detached home could create a basement apartment and a garden suite without having to undergo time-consuming and costly planning approvals. This could be for a parent-in-law or a millennial trying to get a head start to save for their down payment. Most units could be added without major changes to the exterior of existing homes and therefore not require rezoning. Units could be added quickly, as the projects would be modest in scale, and in some cases, the only added municipal fees would be the cost of a building permit.

If passed, we could see units being built and occupied within 12 months. We estimate that allowing more as-of-right housing changes would create up to 50,000 new units over the next 10 years. While that might seem like a drop in the bucket, make no mistake, Madam Speaker, every little bit helps, especially when it is adding affordable units as we move to address the province’s housing crisis.

I should note that any changes to a home’s structure beyond what the municipality currently permits would still require planning approvals, and new units would need to meet Ontario’s building code requirements as well.

Our proposed changes would also ensure municipalities do not impose development charges, parkland dedication fees, or cash-in-lieu requirements for the creation of these types of new units.

Speaker, while gentle density works in some cases, there are other times when bringing more housing, jobs, retail and public amenities within close distance to transit is beneficial to a community. The province’s Transit-Oriented Communities Program will help build more housing to address soaring housing prices and provide more options to all Ontarians. This program is part of the province’s plan to build new, complete and mixed-use communities near and around public transit. We’re proposing to unlock new municipal funding tools so that municipalities can collect the fees and charges needed to participate in the transit-oriented community projects.

With more housing being built closer to transit, more people can get to and from their jobs, schools and back home much faster and be with their families. Speaker, living close to work saves money. It allows spending time, as I said, with more families, neighbours and loved ones, and it makes life easier for everyone.

Speaker, we are proud to be working with municipalities to deliver these transit-oriented community projects. It stands to reason that creating housing near transit stations delivers a myriad of benefits. We are increasing ridership, reducing traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions, and stimulating economic growth.

These projects create much-needed local services and convenience, and increase job opportunities to improve residents’ quality of life. It means housing closer to where we work, play and shop. It means less time in traffic, less time commuting and more time with our loved ones. But to get there, we need to remove barriers to building more homes.

One way to do that is through updating tools like inclusionary zoning. Inclusionary zoning requires home builders to include affordable housing options in new developments. That means there would be both market-rate and affordable units in a single development, such as condominiums for example.

There’s been a lot of attention to the need for attainable housing and how people with good jobs and even two incomes in their families can’t find a place to live. But we also need more affordable housing, especially around transit corridors and in other high-density areas. So we’re consulting on how to make inclusionary zoning rules more consistent and predictable in areas where this tool can be used. We’re also proposing a maximum 25-year affordability period, as well as a 5% cap on the number of affordable units, along with a standardized approach to determining affordable prices and rents.

Speaker, we’ve been clear that we want to put attainable home ownership and rental within reach for more Ontario families, and we want to give them the opportunity to live closer to where they work so that they can spend more time with one another.

Many of the proposed changes that we have been speaking to today would reduce financial burdens and streamline processes for the building sector, all while putting housing within reach for more Ontarians. In short, they would help to incentivize our partners in the construction industry to invest in building more homes.

We need these types of changes because we know there are times when deciding how and when to get shovels in the ground on new homes can be delayed and even stalled. That’s because in some areas with upper- and lower-tier municipalities, both levels of government have responsibilities for development planning and approvals.

That’s why we’re also proposing changes to the Planning Act that, if passed, would further reduce red tape and help to make it easier for municipalities to make planning decisions. This would limit the amount of input that upper-tier municipalities like Peel region have when lower-tier municipalities like Caledon are making decisions around how their housing supply is planned. This would also give the public more influence over decisions and help clarify responsibilities.

Speaker, another way we’re proposing to streamline development approval timelines would be to eliminate unnecessary steps in the approvals process. Currently, municipalities must hold a public meeting for every draft plan of subdivision. Making this meeting optional would get shovels in the ground faster while the public could continue to provide input at the official plan and zoning bylaw stages.

We’re also proposing to streamline the land lease approval process to encourage more development and increase the number of land lease community homes. Land leases are where the house is owned and the land that it sits on is rented. This arrangement can be a more attainable housing option for many people, particularly in rural parts of the province.

With this new plan, we would also explore ways to enable an alternative home financing model, namely rent-to-own arrangements, as alluded to by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing earlier. To do this, we would launch broad consultations and seek input and advice from experts, industry, renters and landlords.

We’re also working on a new attainable housing program that would combine a variety of tools to create homes that Ontarians can afford to buy. We would take parcels of surplus provincial properties in different communities in Ontario and put them back to create more housing options that meet the people’s needs and budgets. And if needed, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing could consider making minister’s zoning orders on these parcels of provincial land to speed up construction even more.

We could also use ownership models such as land lease or rent-to-own and reduce development charges to cut costs. This would help create a series of mixed-income communities that would help a variety of Ontarians, with a variety of budgets.

Speaker, our government is committed to helping Ontarians across the housing spectrum, which is why our new plan complements the community housing regulatory framework that we established earlier this year when we released our previous housing supply action plan, More Homes for Everyone.

And while we’re proposing ways to make it easier to build a mix of home ownership and rental housing, we also recognize that the community housing sector faces its own set of unique challenges. That’s why we invested nearly $4.4 billion over the past three years through the Community Housing Renewal Strategy, homelessness programs, and response to the COVID-19 pandemic, to grow and enhance community and supportive housing as well as to address homelessness for vulnerable Ontarians.

When people have the housing they need, they have better health, better education experiences and certainly better employment outcomes as well.

And when housing is affordable—as well as in areas near transit, schools, workplaces and amenities—individuals have the opportunity to manage their lives and build a foundation for their families.

There are many ways we can help low-income households, including those who require some form of assistance through the community housing system.

The rising cost of living has a significant impact on low-income households who might have to choose between putting food on the table and paying rent.

For example, between 1991 and 2016, the number of Ontario households needing assistance increased from 12% of total households to approximately 15%.

Finding affordable housing can be especially challenging for those who are working at minimum wage jobs, struggling to find employment or on social assistance. To help ease the burden, we are continuing our work with the community housing sector, including municipal partners and housing providers, to preserve the existing stock of community housing and to modernize the system for those who depend on it. Put simply, we’re working to help vulnerable Ontarians get back on their feet.

Another goal in addressing our housing crisis and improving affordability is to ensure older purpose-built rentals are replaced quickly. If a mid-sized rental apartment—six units or more—is demolished, municipalities may limit what’s built on that site. For example, they may specify the size and number of the replacement units in the new building. And while the goal of a municipality’s bylaw may be to preserve affordable rents and protect tenants, it may be preventing renewal and, as such, limiting the supply of rental units and leading to deteriorating housing stock.

With our plan, we would launch consultations to hear solutions on how to promote the building of more, desperately needed, rental units while continuing to protect the people who rent them.

Speaker, Ontario is in need of bold action to get more shovels in the ground, faster, on all types of housing.

The proposed initiatives I talked about today are designed to create a broader mix of housing and fill in the housing gaps we need in communities right across our province, because we need to help more Ontarians find a home that meets their needs.

This spring we made a promise to the millennial dreaming of owning a home, the family that’s looking to plant their roots, the senior looking to retire in dignity, and the newcomer in search of a more prosperous future that we would not let them down. We promised them that if they’re willing to work hard, if they’re willing to do their part and earn their keep, we would unlock the dream of home ownership; we would say yes to getting more homes built.

We live in the greatest province in the best country in the world, but it cannot be at its best until everyone has a place to come home to. And with the More Homes Built Faster Act, we’re taking bold action to ensure that goal becomes a reality.

I will now hand it over to my colleague the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, who will share more details on this proposed legislation.

Over to the parliamentary assistant of housing.

I would like to thank both the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Associate Minister of Housing for sharing their time with me today. It’s my pleasure to rise for the second reading of our government’s proposed More Homes Built Faster Act. I will echo the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing in saying that Ontario is the best place to call home, yet finding the right home is still challenging. That is why we are dedicated to getting 1.5 million homes built over the next 10 years. I’m honoured to be able to speak to the details of how we plan to reach that goal.

Our new housing supply action plan is a strong foundation, which we’re building on in partnership with eight other ministries, along with municipalities and industry experts. Our goal is to introduce almost 50 new changes to legislation and regulations that will speed up housing creation in Ontario. 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 buyer, 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 or hindered because of opposition from some members of local municipalities. Some projects are even abandoned altogether. Even if the project finally gets the go-ahead, a lot of damage has already been done. Our new plan addresses the barriers that cause housing delays. 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 the driving causes of rising costs in creating delays in building supply.

Just last month, the Building Industry and Land Development Association, or BILD, found municipal approval times in the greater Toronto area are among the worst of major municipalities in the country. 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. When it comes to costs, BILD also found development charge rates for a two-bedroom apartment unit exceeded $70,000 in five of our province’s most populous municipalities. This drives up costs for builders, for renters and for homeowners alike, and it’s why we are 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. They are 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 benefit 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. Affordable housing units as well as inclusionary zoning units would not be required to pay development charges, parkland dedication fees and community benefit charges. Where a charge is not levied on a per-unit basis, the maximum charge would be lowered to reflect both the affordable and inclusionary zoning units. Likewise, select attainable housing projects would see some relief from these three charges. Non-profit housing developments would also be relieved from paying development charges and parkland dedication fees. With our proposed changes, development charges for rental construction would be discounted for home builders, with deeper discounts for family-sized units.

We’re also working to reduce the administrative burden on municipalities by extending the deadline for reviewing development charge bylaws from every five years to every 10 years. If and when new development charge bylaws are passed, the charges would be phased in over five years, making increases more manageable for home builders.

Speaker, I also mentioned parkland dedication requirements. In our plan, we’re proposing to reduce maximum parkland dedication requirements for higher density developments by 50% and putting a tiered maximum parkland rate of 15% of the land or its value for sites greater than five hectares. For sites that are five hectares or less, the maximum parkland rate would be 10%. This would help reduce costs to build new condos and apartment buildings.

Changes like this would make it easier for builders to predict the cost of fees, which would, of course, encourage the start of construction. We would make changes to freeze parkland rates earlier in the development process, at the time of the site plan or zoning application, instead of at the time the building permit is issued, which is later in the development process. Parkland dedication requirements would not be imposed on existing units and parcels of land.

Together, these changes to charges would help incentivize the development of a mix of rentals, mid-rise buildings, single and semi-detached homes, duplexes and triplexes for everyone.

We are also proposing to amend the Planning Act by adjusting how community benefits charges are applied. I mentioned that we would ensure that affordable housing units would not be subject to community benefits charges. In addition, when someone builds infill development or units on a parcel of land with existing development on it, the community benefits charge would be based on just the new units rather than the entire parcel of land.

Speaker, municipal fees and charges ought to be collected to build infrastructure, not earn interest. We’re proposing to require municipalities to use or allocate at least 60% of their development charge reserves for services like water, waste water and roads each year. Similarly, the same requirement would be put in place for parkland reserves, because we need municipalities to build the infrastructure and parks that our growing communities need now.

As we propose to help reduce costs for new developments, we need to look at the other challenges that builders often face. When people are unable to resolve their differences on community planning issues or have disputes with their municipal council that can’t be settled, the Ontario Land Tribunal provides a forum to resolve these disputes. So we’re moving to ensure the OLT can recruit more adjudicators and staff to resolve disputes faster. We want to speed up decision-making at the OLT and help increase housing supply by proposing changes that would prioritize the cases that create the most housing, establish service standards and clarify the Ontario Land Tribunal’s powers to dismiss appeals due to unreasonable delay or failure to comply with a tribunal order.

We would also place a limit on appeals from individuals and community groups, for instance, that would further hinder the progress of official plan amendments and zoning bylaw amendments. This would help reduce the tribunal’s backlog and speed up approvals.

This requires well-thought-out policies. As the minister talked about, one of our main priorities is looking at how we are planning for growth. A recent study by Re/Max Canada found that our housing inventory is depleted in part thanks to our rapidly growing population. Our housing stock has already fallen behind, and it’s not on track to keep pace with population growth. That means we need to take action now to keep up. We have to ensure that our province has the necessary amount of housing required to meet the needs of Ontarians and all newcomers. One of our top priorities is making sure that we have these supports in place.

That’s why we’re taking another look at the growth plan for the greater Golden Horseshoe and its policies, to make sure that unnecessary red tape around building homes is eliminated. We have to look again and be nimble enough in our approach to make sure that our plan for growth isn’t inadvertently hindering our ability to build more homes.

We’re undertaking a housing-focused review of A Place to Grow and the provincial policy statement, which will result in a new outcome-based, province-wide policy instrument for municipalities in Ontario.

To elaborate on what the minister touched on earlier, these changes would include a review of six main themes.

The first would be residential land supply. We would update policies relating to boundary expansions, rural housing and converting employment areas to areas suitable for housing.

The second would be attainable housing supply. We would develop a strong mix of housing in areas where urban growth is occurring.

The third theme of this review would be growth management. By working to forecast population and employment, and enlarge fast-growing municipalities, we can ensure we have enough housing stock.

The fourth theme of our review of this plan includes protecting environmental and natural resources, looking at agricultural policies and maintaining our province’s natural heritage.

For the fifth theme, we would look at the current supply and capacity of community infrastructure, including how to integrate urban schools into our communities.

Finally, our last theme would be a streamlined planning framework, one that ensures our reviews of these policies are focused on positive impact and are flexible enough to keep up with quickly changing demands, as I described. In all, increasing the supply of attainable housing would put housing in reach for more people across Ontario.

We know that change is challenging, but we must take action, no matter how challenging it is. Our plan would help to create more consistency, which should reduce the disputes that often arise in municipal council meetings over land use planning issues. The proposals would, if passed, ensure that cities, towns and rural communities grow with a mix of ownership and rental housing types that meet the needs of all Ontarians.

It is because of this demand for a variety of housing that we are proposing to remove site plan control requirements for projects with fewer than 10 units. Let me elaborate. Site plan control is a planning tool that a municipality usually uses to evaluate things like walkways, parking areas, landscaping or exterior design on land where development is proposed. Site plan control works in tandem with provincial policy statements, official plans, zoning bylaws, community planning permit systems and building permits. Removing site plan controls for projects with less than 10 units would reduce the number of approvals in the pipeline, speeding things up for these housing proposals, and would ensure that essential building permits, as well as the building code and fire code requirements, will continue to protect public safety.

For larger projects, we are proposing to speed up approvals by streamlining site plan reviews to focus on health and safety issues, such as safe access to and from the site, rather than focus on the unnecessary regulation of architectural or aesthetic landscaping design details.

Our new housing supply action plan has, as I’ve described, thoughtful solutions and innovative ways that will help us to quickly approve new builds, and it will allow us to quickly make changes to the charges and delays incurred by builders and consumers to keep up and get ahead.

Speaker, as you can see, we’re leading innovations that will create more housing in Ontario and will make it easier for our partners in municipalities to keep up with demand. These proposed approaches to breaking down barriers, streamlining processes and cutting costs would, if passed, further our goal of making housing more attainable for all Ontarians. With our proposed changes, we would help renters cross over and become homeowners, and we would increase the number of homes available to all people, because everyone in Ontario should be able to find a home that is right for them.

Thank you very much, and congratulations. It’s good to see you in the chair.

My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, about Bill 23, this new bill. One measure that I’m particularly concerned about is the proposal to do away with protection for tenants who live in purpose-built buildings, who might find that their purpose-built rental will be converted to a condo and they will have no right to return to their unit at the same rent that they’re currently living at. Can you commit to ensuring that renters can return to their original unit once construction is complete?

My question is to the minister. Yesterday, there was new data released from rentals.ca showing that London’s average rents increased 33% over the last year. That’s faster than any other city in Canada. We had previously seen data from Statistics Canada showing that London is Ontario’s fastest-growing city. When you combine those population pressures with this rapid increase in rent and not enough supply, renters are really, really struggling.

Speaker, my question is around the elimination of rental replacement requirements in this legislation. We saw planners say that this will make it open season on low-income apartment buildings. What is this minister doing to ensure that tenants in London and across Ontario have access to the affordable rental housing that they need?

Thank you, Speaker. It’s good to see you in the chair. My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. It’s good to see him. I’m very excited about this. It’s time that we move forward on this.

One of the biggest struggles that we face and that I faced also when I was on county council a few years before coming here was just NIMBYism. There is a consensus that we need to get housing built by all sides of the House here; however, often the attitude is that people don’t want it in their backyards.

I was wondering if I could ask, through you, Madam Speaker, how the More Homes Built Faster Act would reduce NIMBYism and the tendency for local councillors to block or downscale new housing developments. Because obviously politics is always local. It happens on the ground. I was wondering if the minister could help us understand how this will get rid of some of that NIMBYism.

I’m proud to rise to speak to Bill 23, the government’s new housing bill. This government’s bill is big, very big. It’s sweeping. And it was introduced yesterday at 3 p.m., which means that we are still digesting the changes, going through the schedules, consulting with planners, municipalities, housing experts, renters and the building sector to determine what this bill means, how it will affect our province and how it will affect the housing sector.

A few things come to mind just off the top. One is that this bill gives the province far greater control over development and planning. The minister has much greater authority to change heritage, to give fines to consumers, to change municipal laws that hurt developer profits. That’s our initial take.

The other measure that advocates have raised very quickly with us is the decision to get rid of cities’ right—the rental housing replacement program. The reason why I just want to dwell on this for my first few minutes is because this measure ensures that a renter, if they need to move because a building is being demolished, has the right to return once the new building is complete at approximately the same rent that they were paying before.

The reason why this is important is because, in Ontario today, we have thousands and thousands of purpose-built rentals that were built in the 1960s and 1970s. These are typically buildings that have far more affordable rents than the kind of unit you’re going to get if you move into a new condo downtown; you might be paying closer to $1,100 to $1,600 for a one- to two-bedroom apartment.

In my riding, many of the people who live in these buildings are older. They are rent-controlled. They have lived there for many years, and the beauty of a purpose-built rental is that it provides a tenant with more certainty that they’re going to be able to stay there year in and year out. That’s very different if you move into a rental property that’s part of a single-family home. Maybe it’s being bought by an investor who wants to flip the property within a year to five years. It does mean that if you live in a semi-detached or a single-family home, it’s far more likely that you could be evicted because the landlord wants to move in or sell it or the property has a new homeowner.

Those people who live in purpose-built rentals deserve protections, and they deserve to keep the protections they’ve got. Getting rid of the requirement—that any renter that is evicted is then potentially not allowed to move back into the new development means that every renter who lives in a purpose-built rental, every renter who is living under rent control, every renter who has more affordable rent could be in a situation where they could face eviction because their corporate landlord or a potential investor could see these properties as an opportunity to convert into luxury condos and force these tenants out. That’s where our affordable units are in the city, so I’m very concerned to see that measure in there.

We are already hearing from housing stakeholders who have raised this issue, and the reason why I’m focusing on this to such a great extent is because if we are going to build new homes, which we absolutely need to do, we also need to keep the affordable homes that we have.

I’ll give you an example of an individual, Carolyn Whitzman. She is an expert on housing supply, including meeting new housing supply. One of her biggest concerns is the decision to get rid of section 11, and this is what they say: “This would have a disastrous impact on net affordable housing. Canadians lost 15 homes renting at $750 or less for every one new affordable home created at that price point between 2011 and 2016. Most of this net loss was due to demolition and renovation of residential rental properties.”

What that means is that this rental housing protection bylaw that exists in some municipalities, including the city of Toronto, is the main reason why many of these—

I want to thank the hard-working member from Mississauga Centre for that very important question.

Speaker, we know that the status quo is simply not working. If we continue on this path without making bold and transformative changes, the next generation will not have the same opportunities for success as previous generations had. The proposed legislation will take several steps to make sure Ontarians get the additional housing supply we so critically need.

By permitting more gentle intensification, an issue that the opposition have many times said transcends party lines, our proposed changes will lay the foundation for more missing-middle housing, giving Ontarians more choice and flexibility. Additionally, we’re reducing building costs to incentivize our private sector and non-profit partners to get more housing built faster.

Together, with all hands on deck, we can ensure that home ownership is attainable for all Ontarians across our great province.

My question is for the Associate Minister of Housing.

Speaker, as you know, Ontario’s housing supply is in crisis. Skyrocketing demand has far outpaced the construction of new supply, making the Canadian dream of home ownership far out of reach for many Ontarians. And with Ontario’s population projected to grow by millions in the coming years, the demand will only increase.

Many of my constituents in Mississauga Centre—from hard-working young professionals to young families, students, new Ontarians, and seniors looking to downsize—are finding themselves priced out of the market and unable to find housing options that meet their needs.

Can the minister elaborate on what steps our government’s newly proposed housing supply action plan will take to ensure that our province is able to achieve our goal of building 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years?

Again, I want to thank my honourable colleague for that follow-up question. Speaker, at a time when Ontarians are facing a rising cost of living, we recognize the need to keep costs down for all Ontarians. It’s a concerning trend to see municipal fees and charges levied on new and affordable housing skyrocket by up to 36%. Without considering the impact fee increases have upon tenants and future homeowners, housing prices will rise and affordability will worsen.

Our proposal, if passed, will reduce the cost of residential development by freezing, reducing and slowing future growth of municipal charges. Speaker, as I’ve said before, our government will not shy away from bold and decisive action, under the leadership of this Premier, to streamline municipal approval processes and reduce costs for Ontarians entering the housing market. Like we’ve said time and time again, the previous government let down the people of this province. We will not.

I thank the minister for that response, and I also thank him for recently visiting Mississauga and sitting down with stakeholders on this topic. Speaker, as the minister mentioned, the proposed changes will make alterations to current municipal fees levied on new developments and construction of new housing units across the province. I understand that for every month that approvals are delayed, it can add anywhere from $2,600 to $3,300 onto the cost of building a single-family home or condominium unit in the greater Toronto area, including in Mississauga. Furthermore, many municipalities have increased fees, which are ultimately passed on to the new homebuyer.

Can the minister let us know how this legislation will address this very problem?

First of all, I want to thank the member for University–Rosedale. I saw her on CP24 this morning praising our government for Bill 23 and the fact that it would be creating new housing in the province. So I look forward to her party and the other opposition members who asked us to put many of these measures into the bill—I look forward to them supporting Bill 23 as we move forward.

In debate this morning, both her and the opposition House leader mentioned this consultation that the government is doing on the rent replacement bylaws that are in a very few select communities in Ontario. I’m just wondering about the motive of the question. Is this setting up the opposition for voting against a bill?

Many times, the members opposite have presented suggestions on increasing Ontario’s housing supply, and a lot of those suggestions are incorporated in Bill 23. We think it’s a bill that everyone in this chamber can support, because we desperately need more rental housing stock—

We are launching consultations to determine how to protect our supply of housing. I want to make sure, for the people who are in the gallery—it’s important to keep in mind that the proposed amendments would not impact renter protections or requirements under the Residential Tenancies Act. Our government has made changes to the RTA to better protect tenants, to stop renovictions, to avoid evictions. I just wish the opposition would have supported it.

On the issue of the charges: We have to get those baseline costs down so that we have more affordable housing and more attainable housing. But even in our own financial information returns, it shows that municipalities have $8 billion in their DC reserves, including $2.25 billion in the city of Toronto.

We’re going to continue to work with our municipal partners. We’re also going to work with the federal government on their $4-billion Housing Accelerator Fund. We think that would help municipalities as well.

Minister, we need to build more housing supply and more rental stock but not—

Interjections.

Interjections.

My question is back to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

This government wants to reduce and exempt development fees for some homes. These fees pay for transit, for daycares, for parks, and for the services that residents need. They also help build new affordable housing. Toronto is already experiencing a funding shortfall of more than $800 million.

What is this government’s plan to help municipalities make up for this massive loss in funding?

Speaker, through you to the member from Toronto–St. Paul’s, I appreciate her passion on this issue. I’m glad she’s talking about housing supply.

During debate on one of our previous housing supply action plan, the member for Toronto–St. Paul’s actually stated in this House the statement that more houses is not necessarily the answer. So I’m glad that we can look forward.

In fact, the member for Toronto-Rosedale said last week that she wanted to see a comprehensive plan. This is exactly what we’ve put forward.

Interjection.

Interjection.

I appreciate the fact that the honourable member is bringing forward the shelter challenges. We’ve been very open with the DSSAB in Thunder Bay. We’ve provided a significant amount of dollars under the social services relief fund to support the shelter and to support the vulnerable populations. We’ll continue to work with the DSSAB as we move forward. My understanding is they haven’t allocated their fifth phase of the social services relief fund. We’ll continue to work with them on homelessness programs in Thunder Bay. I appreciate the member bringing the matter forward.

Thank you for that question. Just recently—actually, last week—I was in Thunder Bay and had the opportunity, along with our member from Thunder Bay–Atikokan, to meet at the United Way and to meet the people who were involved in SOS and look at it as an important part of the continuum of care that we’re looking to build, not just in Thunder Bay but around the province, in all rural, remote communities and in the cities.

One of the things that we learned about it was that it’s a piece that’s necessary. But in addition to that, we also have to look at the housing needs, and that’s something that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is looking at. We are taking an all-of-government approach, along with the legislation that we’re looking to bring forward and have passed, to ensure we have that continuum of care, because we understand that the individuals, whether they be living on the street or whether they’re individuals in need of support, need to have housing if we want to ensure that they do not end up on the street again.

We are looking at it and we are working with the community to ensure that those supports and services are there.

To respond, the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

The supplementary question.

To reply on behalf of the government, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Call in the members. This is a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1147 to 1152.

Motion negatived.

The House recessed from 1156 to 1500.

Report deemed received.

First reading agreed to.

First reading agreed to.

First reading agreed to.

My question is to the Premier. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities states that person-centred care, secure housing of choice for life and participation in community life are human rights for people with disabilities. But for Jonathan, a constituent of mine with developmental disabilities—he’s been deprived of each of these as he’s been warehoused in a hospital for over a year. The very basics he deserves as a human being, like a hug from his mother or simply having his nails clipped, have been kept out of reach from him. Meanwhile, the wait for the supportive housing he needs in community is up to 40 years long.

My question to the Premier: Can the government explain the choice to deprive Jonathan of his fundamental human rights? And can the government explain why the Premier has not responded to Janet Abramson, who is sitting in the gallery, who is Jonathan’s mother? For over a year now she’s been asking the Premier for five minutes on a phone call and they will not respond.

Can the government explain why Jonathan is being left behind in hospitals? Why is he being left behind? He needs supportive housing today.

My question is back to the Premier. Report after report shows that investment in independent living doesn’t just respect Jonathan’s human rights, it is far more cost-efficient. Without it, people with developmental disabilities end up in hospitals or long-term care, where their care is compromised because of this government’s cuts. This is why we, the official opposition, prioritize the building of 60,000 supportive housing units in Ontario, because it’s an investment that is fiscally responsible and also ethical.

My question is back to the Premier. This government talks a big game on being fiscally responsible. Will you turn your words into action? Will you house Jonathan? Will the government create independent living for tens of thousands of people with developmental disabilities who deserve to live their best life? And will you give her five minutes on the phone? Your staff said you were too busy. She’s right there. Look at her. Thank you.

Today, I rise to speak to Bill 23. It is a bill to increase housing supply, among many other things, across Ontario. It is a really big bill. I have it right here. It’s large. It’s over 130 pages. We received it yesterday at about 3 p.m., and we’ve been working hard and doing outreach with stakeholders to better understand what this bill means, what the legislative changes mean, what the proposed regulatory changes mean for a whole host of things in Ontario, from our housing sector, how it is going to affect renters, its effect on the building code, its effect on conservation authorities, on development charges, on municipalities, on consumer protections for new homeowners and new condo owners.

It is a significant bill. It is also a mixed bag. There are some things that I look at and I think, “That could make sense,” and there are other things that I look at and I think, “That’s going to have some pretty serious consequences on municipalities, on environmental protections, on renters.” It does look like Bill 23 will build more homes in existing neighbourhoods, but our assessment is that it will likely make renting more expensive, it will likely encourage urban sprawl, and it will certainly harm municipalities’ ability to provide services like transit and daycare to residents.

What we were wanting to see from this government after the election was a bill that didn’t just focus on building new homes, which is absolutely essential to tackling our housing affordability crisis, but also a comprehensive approach that deals with the housing affordability crisis overall. That means building new homes. It also means building more affordable homes and supportive housing homes. It means clamping down on investor-led speculation. It means bringing in—and this is extremely important—better protections for renters as well.

The reason why it’s very important to have a comprehensive approach as opposed to just focusing on one piece of the problem is that we have a massive housing affordability crisis in Ontario. It is the number one issue in my riding, and it affects all Ontarians in different ways. On a basic level, in our riding in particular, we have a very high homeless population. University–Rosedale, Toronto Centre and Spadina–Fort York have some of the highest densities of people who are experiencing homelessness across Ontario. Many of the services for people who are experiencing homelessness are in our ridings. Many of the shelters are in our ridings. As well, many of the encampments are in our ridings. What I’m hearing from my colleagues is that the number of people who are homeless, living on the streets, living in encampments, has spread from Toronto to areas all across Ontario. It’s extremely concerning.

We have an encampment at College Street right now. It’s a new encampment, and the people who are living in this encampment literally have nowhere else to go. We have communicated with local service agencies, including The Neighbourhood Group, the church, and we have communicated with the city to try and find more permanent supportive housing for people who are living in tents, and there is nowhere for them to go. There are no permanently supportive homes available. And there are very few shelter beds available, and the shelter beds that are occasionally available—shelters are about 98% full—many of these shelters are hard for people to live in. They’re often dangerous. People are concerned that their belongings are going to be stolen. They’re worried about COVID, especially since we’re going into another wave. They have to leave every morning at a certain time. It’s very unstable.

What we also know is that many of the hotels that were established to house people during the COVID period, their contracts are up for renewal, and many of these contracts are not going to be renewed. So we have this perfect storm of rising inflation, a homelessness crisis and these hotel contracts that could be ending, which could lead to even more homelessness challenges. So it’s very concerning.

Then when we move up to the rental market, we see that our rental market is extremely expensive. We saw a dip in rental prices during the COVID crisis, but now what we’re seeing is rental prices going up. In the case of Toronto, we’re seeing rent prices reach record levels—levels that we have never seen before in Toronto, ever. I just went and had a look at the cost of a one-bedroom rental. For an available one-bedroom rental in the city, it will now cost you an average of $2,329 a month, which is a 17.1% year-over-year increase from August 2021. So rents have gone up 17% in the last year. The average amount for a two-bedroom apartment is now $3,266 for an available market apartment. That is staggering. There are estimates that you need to earn over $100,000 a year to afford just to rent in Toronto at this point.

Then when we move to the dream of owning a home, and that is a desire of many newcomers, many younger people—anybody who doesn’t have a home yet would love to own their own home, and that has become increasingly out of reach. There has been a softening in housing prices since the housing peak in February and March 2022, but with the rise in interest rates, we have actually entered, according to RBC, the worst housing affordability crisis when it comes to home prices that Canada has seen in decades because interest rates have made it even harder for people to save up the deposit and then also cover the carrying costs of having a mortgage.

This has happened under this government’s watch. The cost of buying a home, the cost of renting a home and the homelessness crisis, which is escalating, has happened on this government’s watch. It also happened under the Liberal government’s watch, but it has happened under this government’s watch. That is a legacy.

There is a need to certainly address the housing affordability crisis, and there were measures that we wanted to see in this bill to really tackle the housing affordability crisis in a comprehensive way. I want to flesh them out a little bit more before I get to the bill itself.

One, we agree with the Conservative government that building more homes, market homes and non-market homes, is necessary to address the housing affordability crisis.

Interjection.

Yes. It is necessary—non-market and market homes. Thank you.

What is also important is that we need to make sure that the homes that we are building are the kinds of homes that people can afford and the kinds of homes that Ontarians want to live in. So we’re not just building homes for investors; we’re also building homes—we are prioritizing building homes for people who live in Ontario and for people who are planning on moving to Ontario.

The federal government has made the decision to increase immigration rates. That is a good thing. And we need homes for people who are moving to Toronto and moving to Ontario so they can rebuild and build their lives here. It’s extremely important.

We called for in our election platform a commitment to engage in ending exclusionary zoning and moving forward on zoning reform to encourage the construction of missing-middle homes—those duplexes, those triplexes and those townhomes—in existing neighbourhoods.

We call, and we continue to call for, more family-friendly rent-controlled purpose-built rental. When you go to Toronto today and you look at what homes are available, you increasingly see homes that are 600 square feet in size. That’s the average size for a condo in Toronto today. You cannot raise a family and stay sane raising a family in a 600-square-foot condo. It’s not a sustainable or healthy way to live. We need to be building bigger purpose-built rentals and bigger condos—family-friendly apartments—in order to have homes for people that work for families as well. And we have excellent examples of that in University–Rosedale. The Manulife building on Charles Street is an excellent example of a well-made building with purpose-built rentals that families live in because they are larger in size—two-, three-, sometimes even four-bedroom apartments. These are the kinds of measures that will require government regulation to ensure that those kinds of homes are built.

We are also in support of opening up public land to build non-market affordable homes. Ontario has over 6,000 properties that have been identified as being available and worthwhile—like, you could actually build non-market housing on them, and the land is serviceable.

We’re also calling for a public builder to build homes for Ontarians at cost. It makes a lot of sense. It’s been done in other countries. It should be done here.

But it cannot just be about supply. It also needs to be about bringing in better protections for renters and clamping down on speculation.

This government’s track record on improving protections for the 1.4 million households in Ontario that rent has not been strong. This government has made a decision with Bill 184 to make it easier to evict tenants that have fallen behind on their rent, often through no fault of their own. They’ve made it so that they lose their right to return to the Landlord and Tenant Board if they’ve already had a hearing.

This government has also made the awful decision to end rent control on new buildings. The reason why that is very concerning is that it means that when a new renter—maybe they’re new to Ontario or they’ve just moved out of their home—they found a place, they move in and then very quickly they discover that they’re not protected by rent control, which means that they’re not going to have steady, small increases year in and year out of 1.2%—or in this case, for 2023, 2.5%. Their landlord could turn around and raise the rent to however much they want. The challenge with that is that renters cannot prepare for a $500- or $1,000-a-month rent increase, and that is extremely concerning. What it does also mean is that renters can be economically evicted, because they cannot afford the rent increase that could come at any time. That is deeply concerning. It certainly benefits investor landlords, but who it doesn’t benefit—who it hurts—are renters, many of them working Ontarians who are running our cities: our paramedics, our students, our paralegals, the people who work in our supermarkets, our child care workers, our teachers. They’re the people that struggle as a result of that.

It’s been very concerning over the last four years to see this government’s moves to make it even harder to rent in Ontario.

So what we have been calling for, and what we are urging this government to do—and the MPP for Parkdale–High Park introduced a measure today which is related to that—is, instead of allowing rent to exponentially increase, to move forward with rent stabilization, move forward with a plan to bring in vacancy control, so there is a cap on how much rent can be increased when a tenant leaves and a new tenant comes in, and also to bring in better protections for renters so that their home is properly maintained. This government has shown no interest in moving forward with measures that would allow renters to live in safe and affordable homes.

The other measure that we have called for, which this government has been very reluctant to do, is to improve the functioning of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

Interjection.

Yes. It is something that I’m sure the corporate real estate lobby and the big development sector has been advocating for, for a long time, and it seems like they got it in this bill.

I am already hearing from housing advocates and tenant advocates that this is a very concerning measure. Carolyn Whitzman, who is a housing expert, who is a long-time researcher at the CMHC, said that this could have a disastrous impact on net affordable housing. Canadians lost 15 homes renting at $750 or less for every one new affordable home created at that price point between 2011 and 2016, and most of this net loss was due to demolition and renovation of residential rental properties. So these affordable private-market apartments are in these purpose-built rentals. I see no value in increasing housing supply at the expense of the affordable homes that we already have, and this bylaw will do exactly that. I’m very concerned about it. I strongly urge you to remove that schedule from the bill. There’s no other way to describe it; it’s extremely concerning.

The next thing that I want to raise is changes to conservation authorities. We are getting some feedback on this. I just want to summarize: The role of conservation authorities is to work with municipalities and the province to try and make sure that we protect the wetlands, the precious green space that we have, and also to make sure that homes aren’t going to be swept away in a flood or fall over the Scarborough Bluffs. It’s a way to ensure that homes aren’t built on a flood plain.

This has become even more crucial because we are facing a climate crisis with an increasing number of extreme weather events that are increasing in frequency and strength. We just saw this with the hurricane that swept from Florida to Atlantic Canada. It has gotten so bad. I mean, every day there’s new disturbing news about the impact of the climate crisis. It’s our new horrible reality for today. But even just this week, the Insurance Bureau of Canada put out a press release stating the urgent need for the housing industry and governments to more openly consider and disclose natural hazard and climate risk “because of the increasing frequency and severity of natural disasters.” The reason why I’m bringing up that quote is that the insurance industry is essentially telling you that conservation authorities have a really important job. Their job is to make sure that homes and developments are not built on flood plains. Their job is to ensure that we build in a sustainable way and that we protect our natural green space and our natural environment. It’s extremely important.

When I read this bill and I read statements about what this bill means, it seems that the government is giving itself more power to review and change any conditions that a conservation authority might place on a new building permit. That’s a lot of power. That’s concerning.

It is also concerning to hear that the ministry is looking at asking conservation authorities to evaluate their lands to identify areas of development, possibly with the goal of building more development on green space, natural habitat and areas that we should be protecting because they’re on a flood plain or they’re critical to natural wildlife. That is very concerning, and we are looking more into this and getting feedback from stakeholders.

I want to move on. The other measure that we are getting some feedback on is around the zoning reform pieces in this bill. This is mainly referring to the changes to schedule 9, which is the Planning Act. I want to be clear: During the election, we called very clearly for an ending to exclusionary zoning to allow more missing-middle housing—the duplexes, the triplexes, the townhomes in existing neighbourhoods—as well as higher density and transit. And there’s a good reason why: If we build in areas that are already zoned for development, then we get to protect farmland, which we’re losing at a very rapid rate, and our natural green spaces. It is a sustainable way to build more homes and more affordable homes for current and future Ontarians.

There are changes to the zoning laws to allow three homes on one lot: three in a primary building, or two in the primary building and one in a laneway suite, provided the square footage of the property essentially remains the same. And the changes would apply across the board to any urban residential area that has sewage and water services, so we’re not saying yes to new developments on areas that rely on septic tanks that don’t have the infrastructure necessary to enable a huge increase or a big increase in population.

Changing zoning laws to allow more homes in existing neighbourhoods is a good move. This is a step towards ending exclusionary zoning, and there are a lot of benefits to it. That’s one of the measures in this bill that we look at and we say, “Okay, this is interesting. There are some benefits to this.”

We are actually hearing from some stakeholders to move further, to look at expanding missing middle to allow for increased height, as well as stakeholders that are very interested in measures this government is interested in doing to enshrine affordability requirements in any missing-middle changes. I’ll explain that in a little more detail.

I want to quote an individual called Cherise Burda, who wrote a very interesting op-ed today about the need to increase density, allow for missing-middle housing—the need to ensure that there are affordability principles enshrined in that so that we’re not just building more homes; we’re also ensuring some of these homes that we’re building are also affordable. It’s a really interesting area of research that I’m following very closely.

Here is her op-ed—I want to clarify: It’s Karen Chapple from U of T School of Cities and Cherise Burda from TMU. They write:

“Most Ontarians know that we are in a housing affordability crisis, but the province is reframing this as a housing supply crisis to justify construction wherever developers want to build.”

She digs into the need to make sure that the housing that we do build also meets affordability requirements as well.

They write: “To that end, we laud one of the province’s proposed tools: Eliminating exclusionary zoning across municipalities to build missing-middle housing in existing neighbourhoods. Early evidence, however, suggests that ‘missing middle’ homes are being delivered at market rate costs, even pushing up land values and making these neighbourhoods more exclusive. Policy, programs and funding from all levels of government should focus on creating affordable and equitable missing-middle homes.”

That is a really interesting analysis. They’re looking at what is happening across California and the west coast, as well as Oregon, about the impact of the missing middle on affordability and how many more affordable missing-middle homes we can get around increasing density. I encourage this government to look into this, to meet with these stakeholders to make sure we don’t miss out on this opportunity where we build more non-market homes but we also build more affordable homes at the same time.

The second piece that I would very much like to see in this bill, when we are talking about moving forward with ending exclusionary zoning, is the need to ensure that renters are protected when homes are renovated. That gets back to this very issue of renters and how we can do everything possible to not force a renter to be evicted and to move into a more expensive apartment and to keep as many affordable units as we can. I encourage this government to look into some of the measures that other municipalities are moving forward on as well as what stakeholders such as ACORN are advocating for, which is to provide stronger protections for renters who need to be moved out of a home because it is undergoing a renovation of some kind.

Right now, let’s say a single-family home is going to be turned into a duplex. The Residential Tenancies Act, in theory, ensures that a renter has a right to return. So once the renovation is done, the renter can then move back into that home with the same square footage and at the same rent. That is their right to return.

The challenge is that the enforcement components of the Residential Tenancies Act are not strong. We have renters in University–Rosedale who have been evicted from their purpose-built rentals because the property manager wants to renovate, and two, three years later they’re still waiting to move back into their units, even though, when they walk by the purpose-built rental, they see moving trucks with people’s belongings parked outside and students and young people moving in. So they know these units are being filled, but the property manager is not giving them the right to move into the units even though they’re supposed to under the Residential Tenancies Act. That is a concern. There needs to be better enforcement.

When we’re looking at zoning reform—and this bill does move forward on that—I encourage this government to also look at how we can enshrine the creation of affordable housing units into the missing middle and how we can ensure that renters don’t suffer as a result of these changes to density. Their homes need to be protected as well. And there are examples of where that is being done, and I look forward to communicating with you in committee about how this could be a valuable change.

The next thing I want to address—and I’m not going to get to all of the bill; it’s too comprehensive, so I’m pulling out some of the biggest highlights that I’m hearing from stakeholders and that we saw ourselves. The next change that we noticed, and it’s significant, is around the Development Charges Act. That’s schedule 3. There are a lot of changes here. I’m going to summarize them. One is that there will be development charge exemptions for secondary units that are built into a home as well as the third unit that is built into a home. There are some benefits to doing that. There’s also a development charge discount for rental housing, and how this is spelled out is: There will be a development charge discount of a 15% reduction for one-bedroom units for purpose-built rentals, a 20% reduction for units where there’s a two-bedroom unit and a 25% reduction if there’s a three-bedroom unit.

I should go back for a minute. Development charges pay for all the services that the new residents will need when they move into that building: the sewage, the water, the transit, the daycares, the parks—all these necessary services. The development fees don’t cover all the costs of that. They only cover a portion of the capital costs. But they cover a lot of it, and then the city also contributes, and then there are operating costs as well that overwhelmingly the city contributes.

The challenge with the rental housing piece and the discounts to the development charges to the rental housing piece—I can see the logic; you want to make sure the development sector is building these bigger, more family-friendly units. But one of the issues that I’m concerned about here is that the rental housing that will be created is not affordable. So you can have a situation where you’ve got a three-bedroom unit—in my riding, they rent for about $3,000 or more a month. Maybe it will be a 1,000 to 1,100 square feet, because they’re really good at creating good design to get those three bedrooms in a small square footage, but it will cost $3,000. Why would we want to give a developer, who is not building rent-controlled units, that are priced at $3,000 a month, a discount on development charges? That seems like a concern to me. So we’ve got some red flags there.

Another piece where we have red flags is around the provincial government’s decision to change the definition of “affordability”—