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”—

I know, right? I started reading this at 5 a.m.

So the definition of “affordability”—this is the definition that they’re looking at proposing: A unit is affordable—which means it would get a reduction in development charges—if it is 80% of market rent or 80% of the purchase price of the average area, and those definitions of affordability will be set by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

There are a few concerns that we’re already hearing about. One is that having developers get a development charge exemption—which is what you’re proposing—by only having an affordable unit for 25 years seems very generous to developers. And to give you an example, in the city of Toronto we just passed an inclusionary zoning law—which the Ontario government is sabotaging—which would require developers to get a development charge discount if the affordable housing units were for 99 years.

There is a move here that I’m seeing with this change to affordable housing where they’re affordable for less period of time and the definition of affordability is linked to market rents, as opposed to what a renter can afford—so based on income—and the discount of fees that developers get has gone from a little bit to completely.

There is a benefit in having lower development fees for affordable housing units, but we have a lot of concerns around this decision to change the definition of affordability. We’re exploring that a little bit more and we’ve got a lot of concerns.

The other piece that we have concerns with when we’re talking about development charges is, how does this impact municipalities? The reason why I say this is because municipalities across Ontario rely on development fees to fund the services that current and future residents use. We’re talking garbage pickup, parks, child care, schools, constructing affordable housing, transit and sewage. When there is a reduction on development fees—some of them are good if it’s for non-market housing, non-profit housing, deeply affordable housing—it means that municipalities are in the hole. And it’s a significant hole.

In the case of Toronto, Toronto has an $800-million funding shortfall. That’s the shortfall that they’re facing right now. We just got a report here. This is the budget that the new city council is going to be debating. They have a deficit of $857 million. What is challenging is that they’re already having to make cuts. The city of Toronto is going to make cuts of $300 million to planned maintenance and repair projects because they don’t have enough money. The provincial and the federal governments have said that they don’t want to pay.

Then we also have the case where interest rates are going up. That means that the ability to access money and pay back money is going to become tougher and tougher and tougher. Matt Elliott, this reporter here, explains it. He says, “As inflation hammers the global economy, interest rates on new city debt have been going up fast. City hall was getting 30-year interest rates as low as 2.4% in 2020. Toronto’s latest 30-year debt issue carried an interest rate of 4.4%.”

So we’ve got this challenge now with this bill where the government has said, “We need affordable housing, we need to reduce development charges to incentivize more affordable housing, but we’re not going to cover the shortfall. We’re going to make municipalities just deal with it”—at a time when we have an inflationary crisis, we have budget shortfalls and we have interest rate hikes, which make these fees, or the ability to borrow, higher and higher and higher.

That is very concerning, that there is not a commitment from the provincial government to help out with this development fee shortfall so that we get the affordable housing but we also have the transit and the services and the child care and the parks and the sewage infrastructure and the electricity infrastructure that is necessary to house current and future residents. That is a big concern.

It’s a concern that AMO shares. They issued a press release—wow, they were quick. They introduced it at 5:51 last night, so maybe they got a heads-up this bill was coming. Who knows? They say, “Municipalities will welcome some of the proposed changes”—like I said, it’s a mixed bag—but are “very concerned about others, such as changes to the Development Charges Act. We will work with the government on the ideas that have the potential to make housing more affordable, and we will oppose changes that undermine good economic and environmental policy.” So they’ve got some concerns about how they’re going to balance their budgets and provide services to residents given that this bill guts their ability to access development fee charges. That’s the concern, and I’m not seeing this government come up with economically wise solutions to that. That’s a concern.

The next piece—like I said, this is a big bill—is schedule 5. Schedule 5 is called the New Home Construction Licensing Act. We heard a lot about this issue in the media because, across Ontario, people are buying homes that, in some cases, are shoddily built. The developer does not build the home to the standard that the homeowner expects: There’s mold, there are leaks, and then the homeowner has to pay the bill because the regulatory authorities are not strong enough at holding developers to account.

We’re also seeing this disturbing trend where homeowners will buy a home pre-construction. They’ll put down the deposit in the hope of getting access to this home, of buying their home and moving into it within two or three years once the home is built. Their dreams, their hopes are all tied up in this; as well their money is all tied up in this future prospect of living in a home. What we have seen as housing prices have risen, changed, and risen again and changed is that developers have turned around, often for no good reason, and said, “Actually, I know we said that we would let you buy this home for $600,000, but we took another look and we think that you’re going to have to pay $800,000 for that home, and if you don’t like it, too bad, so sad. We’ll give you your deposit back and we’ll just cancel the contract.” Then they turn around and sell it to someone else at a higher bid. That is really unethical. If developers sign a contract with a potential home buyer, that contract should be upheld by the Ontario government in a court of law, and the developer has a responsibility to honour that contract.

We have seen the Premier talk a good talk about how he’s going to slap developers on the wrist and fine them and ensure they have consequences if they do the wrong thing, but we have seen very little action—close to none—to ensure that developers build the homes that they say they’re going to build at the price that they committed to in the contract. It’s a huge concern.

In this schedule, the New Home Construction Licensing Act, there has been a decision to increase the maximum fines for developers that break contracts with first-time home buyers, with home buyers who are looking at moving into these homes. That is a good thing. There is also a broader range of actions the developer can be fined on, which is good. They’ve expanded the powers and the number of things that can be fined—good. It gives the minister the power to decide how much of a fine goes to the home owner. This is a bit confusing to me, because Minister Clark says one thing—that he’ll give it to the home owner—but when I actually read the schedule it says something else. I’m trying to get some more information there. It could be good, could be—I don’t know.

The big thing that we’re not seeing and what we’re hearing from stakeholders, such as Canadians for Properly Built Homes, is that there’s no commitment to actually enforce the laws on the books and ensure that developers are actually held to account. Doubling the fines, good, but it’s not worth anything unless you’re actually going to fine developers that aren’t doing the right thing. That’s what people are calling for and that’s what this government needs to do.

As Karen from Canadians For Properly Built Homes tweeted, “Please show us evidence, any evidence, that you’re ‘cracking down on unethical developers.’ There’s no disciplinary action on the website of your regulator, @hcraontario.” That’s what they’re looking for: They’re looking for enforcement. Let’s see if the government moves through on that.

There are other measures in this bill that we are talking to stakeholders about that could have a significant impact. One is changes to the Ontario Heritage Act, schedule 6. Schedule 25.2 gives the minister the power to override any heritage designation on any provincial property or any public property. That’s a lot of power. I welcome feedback from residents and municipalities on these proposed changes because they seem pretty significant.

Interjection.

There’s the rub.

No, that’s fine. I welcome heckling from this side.

There are also changes in schedule 7 to the Ontario Land Tribunal Act. This government has moved forward with legislation to change the appeal body. It used to be called the OMB, then it got called the LPAT, and now it’s called the land tribunal. Time and time and time again, the changes have always gone in one direction, and that is to make it harder for municipalities and residents to have a say in land tribunal decisions and much easier for developers to override official plans, rules, in order to get a development built.

There are two schedules here that we are looking into to get more information on and that we also have some concerns about. One gives the adjudicator of the land tribunal the right to dismiss a hearing if there’s undue delay, so we interpret that to mean that even if a third party has a valid claim, it could still be dismissed. The second thing is schedule 20, which gives the adjudicator the power to make an unsuccessful party pay costs. That has some concerns as well, and the reason why is that there are cases that go to the land tribunal that benefit affordable housing and that help with housing supply in a way—for affordability purposes.

The example that comes to mind, for me, is the city’s short-term rental rules in Toronto. The city, after years of consultation, developed short-term rental rules that would ban short-term rentals and investment properties. You can only do short-term rentals on your own property. But you couldn’t just buy up a house, kick out all the long-term tenants, and make it a short-term rental property—which continues to happen in the city of Toronto, because there’s no enforcement—so short-term rental providers took that to the land tribunal, or the OMB, to contest it. It got held up at the land tribunal for years, until eventually it got overridden or it got rejected and the city of Toronto was able to move forward with its short-term rental rules.

I wouldn’t want a situation where Fairbnb and the federation of metro tenants is fined because they’re making a genuine claim to the land tribunal about a short-term rental law that is turning long-term rental units into short-term investment properties. So that’s a concern.

The same thing is happening in Ottawa right now. Ottawa’s short-term rental rules to clamp down on investor-led short-term hotels and increase long-term rental units are being held up at the land tribunal.

We are calling for land tribunal reform, but we need to make sure that municipalities and residents have a say and that the land tribunal is a force for good, meaning that it benefits the public interest and it really addresses the issues of affordability—because sometimes it doesn’t.

So that’s where we’re at on that.

I have three minutes to go, so I’m just going to conclude with what we are calling for.

We want to see this government move forward with a comprehensive housing affordability plan that looks at building new homes as well as building more affordable homes and more supportive housing. That is key. This bill moves forward with building more homes, but I’m not seeing a lot of evidence here that we are going to see a net increase in the number of affordable homes that exist in Ontario. And I’m very concerned about the decision to get rid of protections that would allow for purpose-built rentals to be turned into condos and tenants to not be able to move back into their affordable rent-controlled units. That is very concerning.

What we also want to see from this government is a commitment to move forward with better protections for renters, so that the million-plus renters in Ontario can have an affordable and safe home that they can live in and can commit to a community in.

We absolutely need to clamp down on investor-led speculation. It’s absolutely critical. Increasing the non-resident speculation tax from 20% to 25% is a step in the right direction. I’m never going to criticize that; it’s a good thing. But we need to augment that with measures that really focus on domestic speculation as well. A vacant home tax and an annual speculation tax are measures that have worked effectively in other provinces, and I ask this government to really look into implementing those kinds of changes in this province as well.

I believe that’s all I have time for for now. If there are stakeholders, residents, community groups, experts who want to give us feedback, I encourage you to do that. This bill will be going to committee I hope, and I encourage you to sign up to speak to committee as well so that we can ensure this sweeping housing bill is as good as it can be.

I, too, would like to congratulate my colleague on doing a great job on very short notice on a very large bill. Thank you for that.

My question has to do with renters. Comment came out from city of Toronto planners, I believe yesterday, that this bill meant open season on tenants. With her experience in Toronto, being from a riding in Toronto, I’d like to know: Does she agree with the statement that this is open season on tenants? What are the red flags she sees in terms of rents going up as a result of this bill?

I want to thank the member from University–Rosedale for reading the bill. I know she is quite passionate about things like fast-tracking what we talked about, this missing middle. You see folks in the greater Toronto area, in the riding that she represents, that can’t have families because there are no units for the families to live in, and so they have to self-construct their units. She lives in a riding where they have a subway station, the Rosedale stop, and it’s flat; you could have many apartment buildings built above that.

She also lives in an area where there’s a lot of yellowbelt that can be developed. This bill talks about building those two-to-three-bedroom apartments. This bill talks about laneway housing. I wanted to ask her what her advocacy in her riding is in terms of transit-oriented development at the Rosedale station and things like laneway houses that could work in that yellowbelt that she represents in her riding of Rosedale.

I just want to bring a bit of a Waterloo-region lens to the perspective of the conversation here. Waterloo region is slated to need somewhere in the neighbourhood of about 70,000 homes to meet targets over the next—well, looking at roughly by 2031. That’s coming up pretty quick. There are a lot of pieces of this legislation that I can really get behind, because we’re looking at ways to really move the needle forward in a much more expeditious measure.

One of the things that we talk about a lot in Waterloo region is student housing. When we look at what this does with as-of-right zoning for multi-unit housing, whether that be duplexes or triplexes, and not having to go through rezoning and being able to speed those things up—I’d love to hear some of your comments on that, looking at it from not just the people that are going to be living in these places, but students that often come to our country to experience our fantastic education system here or folks that are maybe coming from your riding to come out to one of our fantastic universities.

Speaker, we know that municipal fees on new developments have continued to increase and approval delays have continued to grow longer and longer. Delays on new housing developments are now 40% longer than they were only two years ago, averaging 20 to 24 months. For every month those approval delays drag on, an additional $2,600 to $3,300 is added to construction costs. Since 2020, average municipal charges levied on new housing in the GTA have increased anywhere from 30% to 36%. Municipal charges are adding an average of $116,900, or $53 per square foot, to the cost of a low-rise home in the GTA.

At a time when we find ourselves in a housing affordability crisis, who does the opposition think picks up the cost of these excessive fees and who do these costs get passed down to?

Questions?

Thank you very much. I’m pleased that you raised the issue of development charges. The reason why I’ve discussed development charges is because development charges go to paying for the necessary services that current and new residents use. It’s not an abstract fee. It goes to pay for sewage, water, electricity, transit, child care, roads, parks, and it doesn’t cover the whole. It covers some of the capital costs, and then municipalities need to step up and provide that additional fee, and then the operating costs are almost exclusively covered by municipalities.

My issue is, if we are looking at reducing development fees for non-market housing, for deeply affordable housing, okay, but how are municipalities going to cover that gap? Is the province going to step in and cover that gap? Because that’s a very real issue when municipalities are budget-strapped all across Ontario. It’s a question for you.

We are also in support of increasing density near transit stations. It makes a lot of sense. It’s a sustainable thing to do. It provides more options for people. So thank you for raising that, as well.

We are already seeing an increase in applications from developers that are choosing to look at purpose-built rentals that already have good heights—12, 14 or even more storeys—and saying, “Do you know what? It is cost-effective for us to demolish that building and then build even taller.” The challenge is, what happens to those renters that are evicted? What happens to them and their affordable units? We need to make sure that we keep those affordable units.

Thank you. Further debate?

I’m so pleased you raised that question. I’ve spoken to your former planner in the Waterloo region about what Waterloo is doing right to plan, and they’ve moved forward with really sensible regulation to encourage the construction of homes for students, because that is a real need, and also for baby boomers that want to downsize into smaller units but don’t really want to move into a retirement home and are certainly not ready for a long-term-care home. There’s been a lot of thought there—as well as increasing density along transit zones. There’s a lot of sensible development happening in the Waterloo region.

We certainly need new student housing. Enabling three units within a property will help that. It’s something that we support, and we also need to augment that with better protections for students. What we see with the Residential Tenancies Act is that a lot of student housing is exempt from rent control and Residential Tenancies Act protections. There’s a real need to expand it to ensure that students have the same kind of protections as older people, people who—

I’m so pleased to rise today to debate the More Homes Built Faster Act, a bill that would, if passed, help tackle Ontario’s housing crisis and build more housing that meets the needs of people in every part of Ontario. I’ll be splitting my time with the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

But before I begin the bill that we’re discussing today, I want to acknowledge and thank all the stakeholders. I want to thank all the stakeholders and I want to thank all the staff, especially Minister Clark, Minister Parsa and PA Holland for all the work they did. I know they consulted all across Ontario, in every corner, to try to find solutions to build 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years—the contributions that people made, the practical insights. In every town, every city, every community in Ontario, people are looking for the same thing: They’re looking for affordable and attainable housing that meets the needs and goals of their budgets. Whether it’s a young person starting out in the market, a family that needs space, a senior couple that wants to move to different accommodations that opens up housing markets—we need more homes. It’s as simple as that.

We have to do something in this crisis that’s developed for demographics in our province. And the house prices in Ontario, they’ve tripled in the past 10 years. They’ve tripled in the past 10 years. We all have family and friends and children who would like to be in the housing market that are finding it very difficult. The answer is simple. We’re hearing it across the board, and the members opposite agree with us. We’re not hearing anybody say that the problem isn’t supply. The problem is supply, so we agree on the premise. We need to do something to build those 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years.

Cities are getting larger. Towns are getting spread out. It’s small towns, it’s rural areas, it’s cities, it’s everywhere. We have to do something, and we are doing something. It’s getting more difficult to find housing. It’s getting more expensive. Our government is going to bring a solution.

We’re committed to creating and growing strong and safe communities. To do so, we need to build the housing that fits the needs of people and families in every community across our great province. Ontarians deserve the opportunity to find the right home in the right place at the right price, and get away from government bureaucracy that is standing in the way. That’s why, as part of the More Homes Built Faster Act, we’re investing $2.5 million in the Ontario Land Tribunal to ensure disputes holding up housing growth are resolved faster.

When I think of the Ontario Land Tribunal, I think about the great work that we’ve done to date—that our government has done to date—to move things forward. I would be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge Marie Hubbard, who was the chair of the Ontario Land Tribunal. She was a force. Unfortunately, she has passed. She was a visionary. She had deep experience and she amassed a team of professionals who heard matters over the last several years, ably assisted by Greg Bishop, the associate chair. Together, they built a system that is working very well, but the need is even greater. So further investment in the resources for the Ontario Land Tribunal were needed, and I can tell you that Marie would be very proud of the work that we’re doing.

I just want, if I can, to mention a little bit about Marie’s background. She was such a force. I remember meeting her for the first time. I went into her office and she had a great command of how many files were lined up, what kinds of files, the kind of work that needed to be done, what the time frames looked like, and she helped shepherd when we brought five different land tribunals together into one land tribunal. It was phenomenal. I left that meeting with her and I thought to myself—I didn’t just think to myself, I actually said to my assistant, “I want to be Marie Hubbard when I grow up. She is in such command of what she does, and she has such a handle on what needs to happen.”

I just want to read a little bit from a piece in Clarington that was posted when she passed and part of her bio: “Marie Hubbard was appointed to the Ontario Municipal Tribunal ... in 1997. Six years later, in 2003, Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant appointed” her “as the interim chair of the OMB. When the OMB transitioned to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal in 2019, Marie Hubbard became the interim associate chairperson.”

Then she went on to accept an appointment from our government, and as I mentioned, led the way in cutting the path to clear out the backlog. And we’re doing more of that good work now. We got $2.5 million to the Ontario Land Tribunal to ensure the disputes that are holding up growth are being dealt with. That comes in addition to the investment that we made in last year’s budget that provided an extra $14.7 million in resources to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

I know numbers are hard to follow, but what I can tell you is, these are sizable investments but in such a critical part of what we’re trying to do as a government. We have targets; we’re going to meet the targets. But we have to have the infrastructure in place, and under Minister Clark’s leadership, who often sets the rules for some tribunals and then I run the tribunals—they’re actually independent, but I oversee the tribunals—it’s been a really great partnership in terms of moving things forward, creating housing stock and getting us there.

Now I just want to talk a little bit about why the Ontario Land Tribunal fits into this bill and into this equation. It plays a pivotal role in the housing strategy in our action plans. It’s an impartial, independent adjudicator. It helps create more housing by resolving proposed development disputes to help break the cycle of delays caused by appeals.

Madam Speaker, people don’t always agree on how their community should develop or change, and that’s okay. Disputes often arise over land use planning issues, such as where industry should be located, where roads should be, where transit should be, where housing should be. When community members can’t resolve their planning issues or they’re having disputes with their municipal councils, if they can’t settle them independently, they can go to the Ontario Land Tribunal and they help them resolve them, either through mediation or through hearings, and it’s exactly that that we need to deal with.

Our government is working hard to ensure that the Ontario Land Tribunal has what it needs in terms of resources and technological capabilities. The investments we’re making that I referenced, the $2.5 million and the $14.7 million, are going to the back office, they’re going to adjudicators, they’re going to processes. Putting the five into one has made that possible, to make it seamless.

But there’s more to be done, Madam Speaker, which is why at every step the government has taken, we’re moving to making housing that’s affordable and attainable, more accessible in the province, for it to be built and for it to be expanded. We have to give it the tools it needs, and we’re doing that; we’re doing exactly that.

We need to improve, enhance and modernize the way the tribunal functions so that it’s geared to solving disputes faster, more efficiently and fairly to meet the supply needs that we have today. It’s a critical player in creating more housing, Madam Speaker.

I just want to say that in terms of efficiency—as a practising lawyer I practised real estate law and development law for 20 years. I had an OMB file that lasted 10 years, and do you know what the issue hung on? Whether a horse is a pet or livestock. Ten years, Madam Speaker—shocking. Well, that is no more because we’ve taken steps to make sure that the tribunal that hears these important matters allows projects with merit to move forward, and that’s exactly what we’re doing.

The message we want to send is very clear: The Ontario Land Tribunal is there to help resolve disputes constructively and efficiently. It is not to be used as a delay tactic. We’re also seeking to clarify the OLT’s powers to order an unsuccessful party to pay a successful party’s costs. That is not unheard of in any other forum. It’s an important part of making sure that those that oppose come to the table and stay at the table—or they don’t come to the table at all. This approach would help discourage parties from bringing appeals to the OLT that don’t have merit. This is supposed to be a merit-based process, Madam Speaker, and I can tell you the changes we’re making are going to make a difference. It will give us the ability to consult and talk about how we prioritize what’s heard before the Ontario Land Tribunal, to make sure that the things that matter to Ontarians the most—to allow us to achieve our goal of 1.5 million homes in 10 years.

As the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and Minister Parsa and MPP Holland have all talked about, we have to do this because the opposition will not do this. They have not done this. And the only way we are going to get there is to create the systems that allow everybody to achieve the goals of homeownership, attainable housing, to make sure that we are creating safe and wonderful communities for all of our constituents in Ontario.

Madam Speaker, I’m watching the clock. I’m going to cede the balance of my time to my friend MPP Yakabuski.

Reserves.

The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Housing?

I want to thank the Attorney General, as well, for his address today. And of course, he is bang on in everything that he said. I want to remind people that each one of us, we were—it’s not that long ago we had the election in June. Every one of us, no matter what our riding is, when issues were talked about during the campaign—housing, housing, housing, from all corners of the province. What was one of the key issues, what was one of the crises that Ontario was facing? Housing. And then just the other day, we had our municipal election. And what were municipal candidates talking about?

So what it says to us in no small way is that this is an issue that no one can deny is a critical issue for Ontario at this time. And our government ran on the platform that we are going to build 1.5 million homes in the next 10 years in Ontario. That’s building upon the 100,000 homes that were built last year, which is a record not seen in over 30 years in the province of Ontario. But 100,000 homes a year for 10 years? I think we can all do the math. That doesn’t get us there. I say this to the opposition, and I say this respectfully: Laying back and hoping for something to happen will not get it happening. Taking only one section of housing and saying that that’s the priority will not make it happen. We have got to be singularly focused, laser-focused on making sure that housing is the priority in this province.

I want to thank Minister Clark, Minister Parsa and PA Holland for following through—and Premier Ford for his leadership on this—and acting so quickly. This piece that we have before the House today, Bill 23, is transformative legislation. This is the ultimate game-changer when it comes to the housing crisis in the province of Ontario.

I hope that the opposition understands that and stops focusing on some issue that is not specifically addressed in the bill and gets behind this, because you will be evaluated on your position on housing in this province.

Let’s remember: The whole province knew that housing was a key issue in the campaign. They made a choice as to which party they believed would actually get the job done, and that’s the Progressive Conservative Party under Doug Ford and our minister Steve Clark.

I heard today—I may not have it 100% right, but usually I’m 93% or so—that Mayor John Tory, re-elected to his third term, in Pembroke, actually said that he is going to use the strong mayors act to ensure that he gets housing built in Toronto. You see, our minister has thrown it out there to people like John Tory that 285,000 homes in the next 10 years, in addition to their current plans, is the expectation from the province, in Toronto. These are not small numbers. You’re not going to get there by being shy, and you’re not going to get there if you just think the status quo, without ruffling some feathers, without making some changes—there is an old saying that you can’t make an omelette if you don’t crack some eggs. Well, we’re cracking some eggs and we’re changing things. We’re making sure that municipalities understand that this is not a debate; this is an absolute necessity. Two million more people coming to the greater Golden Horseshoe in the next 10 years—you heard that from Minister Clark this morning. We’ve got to be able to put them somewhere. If you’re going to have housing—and affordable housing is housing—you’ve got to start somewhere, you’ve got to build more. There’s no other way around it.

I hear the NDP talking about, “Minister Clark is planning to reduce or eliminate development charges.” Minister Clark is trying to remove the impediments, the barriers, the burdens to getting more housing built. Well, folks, development charges are one of those burdens. What does it do? It adds tens of thousands of dollars, in some cases, to the cost of building a home. If you’re adding tens of thousands of dollars, that home becomes less affordable. As Minister Clark said, municipalities have in the neighbourhood of about $8 billion in development charge—

Governments don’t build homes. Builders, contractors, developers build homes. We’ve got to ensure that we have them on board so that they can get the job done, with help and direction from the provincial government, working in concert with the municipalities all across this province—including the federal government, which has to be a partner in this as well. We’re not going to get to 1.5 million homes if our plan is, “Oh, no, we better not do that because this group doesn’t like it” or “You better not do that because those neighbourhoods”—folks, this is not an easy task, but you’ve got to have the stomach for it, and this government has the stomach for it. We’re going to ensure that job gets done.

I don’t have a lot of time left.

A lot of people will see this as primarily an urban, city issue. The bulk of those homes, as you saw from the chart, will be built in the greater Golden Horseshoe and the 29 municipalities that have been identified by the minister.

But we want to build more homes in rural Ontario, too, and I will continue to have discussions with the minister and the ministry about ways we can encourage more building of homes in rural Ontario as well, ensuring that the burdens that exist are minimalized or dealt with, because we have people who want to move to the great parts of this province—such as Renfrew county, where, I want to say, the minister was very helpful in making some changes with regard to the official plans that will help to encourage more homes being built. But there is work to be done there as well, and we’re going to continue to work with the minister in that regard.

Let’s get back to the point here: We need 1.5 million—and I’m not even sure that that’s going to do it, but that’s the number that we’re doing. And we’re going to have a housing supply bill each year of this mandate. We are not resting on our laurels, bringing in this piece of legislation and saying, “The job’s done.” No, the job is actually just beginning. But we need all members of this House, on both sides of this House, to recognize and accept that this is a critical point in Ontario’s history and a critical point for the ability of families to afford a home. If we’re going to bring down the prices of those homes—supply, supply, supply. If you don’t have any supply, then the price for the limited supply that you have only goes up.

So I ask the people on the other side: Stop the politics. This is a critical time in Ontario. You know this is the right thing to do. This government is moving in the right direction to solve this crisis. Let’s get on board together so that we all get it done.

Questions?

Thank you, our members from this side, for explaining to us the importance of this housing crisis. Actually, when I’m going around in my riding, everybody is just coming to us, telling us about the problem of affordable housing.

But I also know there are some, especially at the municipal level—a lot of them will be saying, “Not in my backyard.” How are we going to overcome that and make sure that we can achieve our goals?