My question is to the Minister for Seniors and Accessibility.

With the cost of many essential items remaining too high, the issue of affordability is a significant concern for many of my constituents, especially seniors on fixed incomes. They’re worried about rising costs due to global inflation.

For our most vulnerable, food cost inflation can have a detrimental impact on what they are able to buy. The impact of high prices on essential food items is felt first and hardest by the most vulnerable, including low-income seniors.

Could the minister please explain how our government plans to ensure financial support for our seniors who are most in need?

Aside from financial challenges, research shows that approximately 30% of Canadian seniors are at risk of becoming socially isolated. Social isolation can lead to serious adverse health effects and reduced quality of life for our seniors. We must protect our seniors and support them in continuing and expanding their participation in our society.

Can the minister please tell us how our government is helping our seniors in Ontario to stay active, healthy and socially connected in their communities?

Earlier this year, the derecho knocked out power in parts of Ottawa for up to 12 days, leaving residents with mobility issues trapped in apartments because elevators couldn’t run and leaving many residents without clean drinking water, as water pumps failed. This bill requires landlords and condo corporations to install backup power generators that are capable of running at least one elevator, lights in common areas and water pumps for up to two weeks in cases of emergency power failures.

I’d like to take an opportunity to introduce you all to one of my bestest friends. She’s visiting me here today at Queen’s Park. Her name is Keisha. We’ve known each other since 1991. We met on the first day of high school, and I’ve loved her forever. I’m so, so glad that she is here.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Bill 23 is the” Conservative “government’s latest attempt to remove protected land from the greenbelt, allowing developers to bulldoze and pave over 7,000 acres of farmland in the greenbelt;

“Whereas Ontario is already losing 319.6 acres of farmland and green space daily to development;

“Whereas the government’s Housing Affordability Task Force found there are plenty of places to build homes without destroying the greenbelt;

“Whereas” the Conservative Premier’s “repeated moves to tear up farmland and bulldoze wetlands have never been about housing, but are about making the rich richer;

“Whereas green spaces and farmland are what we rely on to grow our food, support natural habitats and prevent flooding;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately amend Bill 23, stop all plans to further remove protected land from the greenbelt and protect existing farmland in the province by passing the NDP’s Protecting Agricultural Land Act.”

Thank you very much, Speaker. I support the petition, have affixed my signature and I’ll hand it over to Scarlett for tabling.

Ma question s’adresse à la ministre des Affaires francophones.

La promotion de la francophonie ontarienne au-delà de nos frontières est essentielle pour créer et renforcer les liens d’affaires avec les autres régions francophones. Notre province est membre de l’Organisation internationale de la Francophonie depuis 2016, et tout récemment, la ministre est revenue du 18^e Sommet de la Francophonie, qui s’est tenu en Tunisie.

Monsieur le Président, la ministre peut-elle expliquer comment l’adhésion de l’Ontario à l’OIF profite considérablement au rayonnement international et au développement économique de l’Ontario?

Les Franco-Ontariens ont une riche histoire dans notre province, et notre gouvernement a fait de nombreux investissements pour stimuler l’économie francophone et le système d’éducation. C’est pourquoi je suis ravie d’entendre parler d’initiatives qui aident à promouvoir la francophonie ontarienne à l’échelle mondiale.

Monsieur le Président, la ministre peut-elle nous en dire plus sur la participation de l’Ontario au Forum économique de la Francophonie qui a suivi le 18^e sommet?

The supplementary question.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1143 to 1148.

On November 17, 2022, Mr. Clark moved second reading of Bill 39, An Act to amend the City of Toronto Act, 2006 and the Municipal Act, 2001 and to enact the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Repeal Act, 2022.

On November 22, 2022, Mr. Coe moved that the question be now put.

All those in favour of Mr. Coe’s motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Mr. Clark has moved second reading of Bill 39, An Act to amend the City of Toronto Act, 2006 and the Municipal Act, 2001 and to enact the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Repeal Act, 2022.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard some noes.

All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1153 to 1154.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Second reading agreed to.

Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

There being no further business this morning, the House stands in recess until after the soccer game.

The House recessed from 1157 to 1500.

First reading agreed to.

First reading agreed to.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Support Gender-Affirming Health Care

“Whereas two-spirit, transgender, non-binary, gender-diverse, and intersex communities face significant challenges to accessing health care services that are friendly, competent, and affirming in Ontario;

“Whereas everyone deserves access to health care, and they shouldn’t have to fight for it, shouldn’t have to wait for it, and should never receive less care or support because of who they are;

“Whereas gender-affirming care is life-saving care;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support the reintroduction of a private member’s bill to create an inclusive and representative committee to advise the Ministry of Health on how to realize accessible and equitable access to and coverage for gender-affirming health care in Ontario.”

I support this petition, will affix my signature and pass it to page Isabelle to take to the table.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas in the First and Second World Wars, over 7,000 First Nation members, as well as an unknown number of Métis, Inuit and other Indigenous recruits, voluntarily served in the Canadian Armed Forces; and

“Whereas countless Indigenous peoples bravely and selflessly served Canada at a time of great challenges for Canada; and

“Whereas this spirit of volunteerism and community marked the life of the late Murray Whetung, who volunteered to serve in the Second World War; and

“Whereas many First Nations individuals lost their status after serving in the wars off-reserve for a period of time; and

“Whereas despite this injustice, many continued to recognize the value in continuously giving back to their community; and

“Whereas the values of volunteerism and community are instilled in the army, air, and sea cadets across Ontario; and

“Whereas the Murray Whetung Community Service Award Act establishes an award for the cadets and tells the story of Indigenous peoples’ sacrifice and mistreatment;

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

“To urge all members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support the passage of the Murray Whetung Community Service Award Act, 2022.”

I fully endorse this petition, will sign it and give it to page Mabel to take to the table.

Mr. Speaker, I’d like to read the petition I received. It says, “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas everyone in Ontario deserves to find housing that is right for them and our government is taking action to increase housing supply and make sure that everyone in Ontario can find a home that meets their needs and their budget; and

“Whereas throughout our consultations with the public, municipalities and the Housing Affordability Task Force, the message is clear: Red tape and bureaucratic inefficiencies are holding back Ontarians from buying homes and driving up the cost of homes;”

Mr. Speaker, it looks like I’ve heard this before also.

“Whereas our government has committed to implementing the task force’s report with a housing supply action plan every year over four years, starting in 2022-23; and

“Whereas delivering bold change that can last requires a strong partnership between all levels of government, to ensure the policies the province introduces will actually be implemented on the ground; and

“Whereas since our government introduced the More Homes, More Choice Act in 2019, we have seen significant progress: 2020 saw the highest level of housing starts in a decade with the highest level of rental starts since 1992”—amazing—“2021 broke even more records, with the highest level of housing starts since 1987 and the highest level of rental starts in 30 years; and

“Whereas our plan is working, but we are just getting started. Under the leadership of Premier Ford, we will continue to get it done for the people of Ontario by building 1.5 million new homes over the next 10 years;

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

“To urge all members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support the ... government’s housing supply action plan and efforts to build 1.5 million homes across Ontario.”

Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly accept and agree to this petition and sign it and give it to page Nicholas. Thank you, Nicholas.

This petition is entitled Building More Homes:

“Whereas the Ontario government introduced the More Homes Built Faster Act, which takes bold action to advance the province’s plan to address the housing crisis by building 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years and the proposals in the More Homes Built Faster Act 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 Ontarians from single family homes to townhomes and mid-rise apartments; and

“Whereas the plan puts in place actions to support the development of gentle density housing like triplexes or garden suites that bridge the gap between single-family homes and high-rise apartments; for example, it would remove exclusionary zoning, which allows for only one single detached home per lot, and instead it would allow property owners to build three units without lengthy approvals and development charges; and

“Whereas the plan, which contains around 50 actions, addresses the housing crisis by reducing government fees and fixing developmental approval delays that slow down housing construction and increase costs;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to pass the More Homes Built Faster Act in order to increase housing supply in Ontario.”

I will proudly affix my signature and give it to page Yusuf.

“Petition to Raise Social Assistance Rates.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Ontario’s social assistance rates are well below Canada’s official Market Basket Measure poverty line and far from adequate to cover the rising costs of food and rent: $733 for individuals on OW and ... $1,227 for ODSP;

“Whereas an open letter to the Premier and two cabinet ministers, signed by over 230 organizations, recommends that social assistance rates be doubled for both Ontario Works (OW) and the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP);

“Whereas the recent small budget increase of 5% for ODSP still leaves these citizens well below the poverty line, both they and those receiving the frozen OW rates are struggling to live in this time of alarming inflation;

“Whereas the government of Canada recognized in its CERB program that a basic income of $2,000 per month was the standard support required by individuals who lost their employment during the pandemic;

“We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly to double social assistance rates for OW and ODSP.”

I wholeheartedly endorse this petition, will sign my name to it and send it to the table with page Aiden.

When we last debated Bill 23, the member for University–Rosedale, I believe, had the floor and still has time.

I have a petition. I gathered these signatures at a rally in Pickering the other day and this has been signed by councillor Joanne Dies of Ajax. It’s entitled “Protect the Greenbelt.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Bills 23 and 39 are the Ford government’s latest attempt to remove protected lands from the greenbelt, allowing developers to bulldoze and pave over 7,000 acres of farmland in the greenbelt;

“Whereas Ontario is already losing 319.6 acres of farmland and green space daily to development;

“Whereas the government’s Housing Affordability Task Force found there are plenty of places to build homes without destroying the greenbelt;

“Whereas Ford’s repeated moves to tear up farmland and bulldoze wetlands have never been about housing, but are about rewarding PC donors and making the rich richer;

“Whereas green spaces and farmland are what we rely on to grow our food, support natural habitats and prevent flooding;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately stop all plans to remove what has long been protected land from the greenbelt, pass the NDP’s Protecting Agricultural Land Act, and protect irreplaceable farmland in the province of Ontario.”

Of course, I support this petition. I will affix my signature and send it to the table with page Kennedy.

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 23, 2022, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 23, An Act to amend various statutes, to revoke various regulations and to enact the Supporting Growth and Housing in York and Durham Regions Act, 2022 / Projet de loi 23, Loi modifiant diverses lois, abrogeant divers règlements et édictant la Loi de 2022 visant à soutenir la croissance et la construction de logements dans les régions de York et de Durham.

I rise again to speak to Bill 23. I want to summarize my take on the bill, and then we’re going to go into what I heard in committee, and then, in the final section, we are going to go into the amendments that we introduced, that the independents introduced, that the Liberals introduced and that the government introduced, and then I’m going to conclude.

So, in short, the government’s bill, Bill 23, claims that it’s all about fixing the housing affordability crisis. That is categorically false. There is no evidence that Bill 23 will lower home prices. There is no evidence that Bill 23 will lower rent prices. What we do know for sure is that Bill 23 will harm democracy. It will pave over the farmland. It will impact the greenbelt. It will impact public services and the quality of services that we have in our municipalities, and it will make life more expensive for renters in cities. I’m very concerned about it.

This government likes to say that they’re solving the housing affordability crisis. When I look at this government’s track record over the last four and a half years, the government’s record at helping people find a home that meets their needs, that they can afford, is abysmal. I give it an F. During the government’s reign, the cost of buying or renting a home has reached record heights. The Conservatives have betrayed the Canadian dream that a good home can be found if you work hard. In fact, the Conservatives have betrayed the basic human right that if you work very hard, you will find a home that you can afford to rent, and if you did, the government has now made it easier for a developer to kick you out and convert your rental into a luxury condo. That’s what Bill 23 will allow to happen.

In committee, we heard from such a broad spectrum of society, such a broad spectrum of Ontario. We heard from municipalities. We heard from regional municipalities. We heard from renters and housing advocates. We heard from environmentalists and conservation authorities. We heard from citizens who were very concerned about their democratic rights being threatened. And the overall message we heard was, “Stop. Let’s look at the unintended consequences of this bill. Let’s analyze the consequences of this bill, and let’s stop.” There are better ways to address our housing shortage than what this bill has planned.

I’m going to move into what I heard in committee, and I do want to start off by saying thank you to all the people that sent in written submissions; there were hundreds of you. Thank you to the people that signed up to speak. There were over a hundred people that signed up to speak. Not all of them got the chance to do so. We did call for additional days of hearings, so we could make sure this sweeping land use planning bill had the proper consultation that it deserves, and this government turned those motions to extend hearings down.

I do want to summarize some of the submissions that I heard in committee. The first one that I would like to share is from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. They were very concerned by Bill 23. They used the word “radical.” I’ve never heard the Association of Municipalities of Ontario use the word “radical,” but they did in their submission, because they’re so concerned about this bill. They said, “The province has offered no evidence that the radical elements of the bill will improve housing affordability. It is more likely that the bill will enhance the profitability of the development industry at the expense of taxpayers and the natural environment.”

They went on and itemized the financial impact of Bill 23 on municipalities across Ontario, and the analysis is scary. Their preliminary analysis indicates that Bill 23, if enacted, would reduce the municipal resources available to service new development by more than $5.1 billion over the next nine years. That is a huge amount of money, and that’s a huge amount of money at a time when we need to improve and expand upon our infrastructure so that we can have the services we need for current Ontarians and new Ontarians. We’re heading in the wrong direction.

They also talked about this bill’s impact on parks, and the reason why I bring up parkland dedication is that what Bill 23 is doing is it reduces the amount of space that a development needs to allocate to parks, or the funding that will be allocated to parks, by approximately half. As an individual who lives in a riding that is very dense—we have one of the densest ridings across Canada, along with Toronto Centre, Etobicoke–Lakeshore and Spadina–Fort York—the idea of having MPPs that do not represent Toronto decide how much park space is going to be allocated in Toronto is really quite shocking, especially at a time when more and more people are living in apartments, the size of apartments is shrinking and park space is that lifeline to get that break, to walk your dog, to play with your kids, to just relax. That’s being cut by this bill. It’s a shame, and they were very angry that they were not given the chance to speak to committee.

Another submission: This is one of the first submissions and one of the most interesting submissions that we received. This is from Carolyn Whitzman. She has worked with the CMHC before. She’s an expert adviser to the Housing Assessment Resource Tools project. Like me, there were some things in Bill 23 that she likes. She was fairly balanced in her approach. She, like us, agrees that we need to build 1.5 million new homes to meet the needs of current and future Ontarians, but she recommends that we not just focus on homes as a target but have sub-targets so we can meet the actual needs of Ontarians who intend to live in the homes they buy or rent, raise children in these homes, have pets and retire, as opposed to seeing them as a place for profit. She is very focused on ensuring we build homes for Ontarians to live in.

She breaks it down about how this government needs to have sub-targets that focus on homes based on income and homes based on square footage, so we’re not just building those 600-square-foot condos, we’re not just building those 3,000-square-foot multi-million-dollar McMansions on farmland, but we’re really thinking about the kind of homes that students need, that low-income people need, that people who want to downsize need, that families need. In her analysis she estimates that, based on need, we are short about 748,000 homes right now, and overwhelmingly, the people who need homes are people who are poor, people who are working poor, people who are homeless, people who are moderate income and people who are middle income.

When I look at Bill 23, I see a lot of talk about addressing the housing supply crisis. I see nothing about actually drilling into the details to build homes that meet the need based on income and size and who is actually going to live in them. I encourage you to look at Caroline Whitzman’s analysis because it is excellent.

This is another submission we received. This from the Toronto Atmospheric Fund. The minute that Bill 23 came out they immediately sounded the alarm and said, “Oh, my goodness. Bill 23, by eliminating site plan control on buildings 10 units or less, guts green building standards because it means municipalities have very little control over green building standards.”

Green building standards are really important. That is the future for us. That is where our building stock should go. It enables us to build well-made, energy-efficient homes where our energy bills are cheaper, where we can control stormwater runoff, where we can encourage the growth of our tree canopy. It’s our future. But in order for these sustainable design standards, these green building standards, to be encouraged—this is the building industry asking for this. We shouldn’t gut the green building standards.

These are the municipalities that already have sustainable design standards. There’s Toronto, Ottawa, Brampton, Ajax, Whitby, Pickering and Markham. They are very concerned. They are very concerned.

Then there was a submission from the Ontario Alliance to End Homelessness. I found this to be a very good submission because it talks about something that this government never talks about—I never hear them talk about homelessness—when we are talking about Bill 23. A lot of this submission is very rational and factual, but what really struck me was their closing paragraph, where, taking away the statistics, I could see the desperation and the urgency of the person who wrote this.

I’m going to read it to you: “I’ll close by sharing that our member agencies include homeless shelters and outreach organizations that support people living in encampments.” The housing sector does not cater to these people. “It is dire out there. Shelters are appealing to the public for donations of tents to give out when their beds are full. They are seeing people who never dreamed they would one day lose their housing; people who have worked their whole life, recently evicted, terrified, being handed a tent and given advice on where to pitch it to avoid police and bylaw officers. The number of newly homeless people is alarming, and our shelter system is already completely overwhelmed as the inflow into homelessness greatly outnumbers our ability to move people from shelter into affordable housing. We must collectively work diligently to create affordable housing options for all, including people living in our lowest-income households. Thank you.”

I was really struck by that paragraph because that is the reality of not just what’s happening in Ottawa but is happening in many cities all across Ontario. I don’t see that being addressed in Bill 23.

This was a statement from the Ontario Public Health Association. They also didn’t get the chance to speak, and their submission was quite comprehensive. They also talked about the impact of Bill 23 on green building standards and sustainable design for our building stock, which is up there with transportation and building that’s contributing to our greenhouse gas emissions.

They also talked about the impact of this government’s decision to gut the ability of conservation authorities to protect us in extreme weather events. They said:

“As noted in the Independent Review of the 2019 Flood Events in Ontario report commissioned by the government of Ontario, the first core component of emergency management is prevention, which includes ‘... actions taken to prevent flood-related emergencies or disasters from occurring, and includes land use planning and regulatory restrictions to keep development out of the floodplains and other hazardous areas.’”

That is exactly what conservation authorities and upper-tier municipalities do, and this government, in Bill 23, has decided to severely curtail their ability to do our job to protect us. It’s very concerning.

Next up, I have the FONTRA, the Federation of North Toronto Residents’ Associations. They also didn’t have the chance to speak—one of many that were not able to—and they were very concerned about it. They talked about the impact of climate change. They mentioned, and it’s good to mention this, that at the very same time Bill 23 is being debated, the UN Climate Change Conference is happening right now where the UN is sending out dire warnings, saying if we don’t turn the U-boat, we are in for a very difficult future. Green building standards are our future; protecting our natural environment in our greenbelt and our farmland, that is our future. And this bill threatens all of that.

Next, I have ABC Residents Association, which is an association that represents the Yorkville area, an area of huge development. For them, parks really matter because many of the buildings in their area are 20 to 40 storeys high. Most people live in condos. For them, parks are critically important, and the parks there are small, but they’re important. They’re very concerned about the elimination of park space and green space in our natural environment. They’re very concerned about it. They’re also concerned about the restrictions in development fees, which I’ll get to with other submissions.

Next, I have Friends of the Golden Horseshoe. This was another loose organization that was also not given the chance to speak in committee. They are very concerned, and what they said is—I’ll read it out:

“In fact, none of the following elements proposed in Bill 23 would do anything to increase housing supply in Ontario:

“—elimination of upper-tier planning

“—elimination of conservation authority participation in watershed planning

“—forced reductions in development charges

“—cutting developer parkland requirements in half

“—taking lands out of the greenbelt....”

The reason why I bring these up as examples of measures in this bill that have nothing to do with addressing housing supply is that your government’s own Housing Affordability Task Force essentially said the same thing. Conservation authorities are not the issue. The greenbelt is not the issue. Access to land is not the issue when it comes to addressing our housing affordability crisis and our housing supply crisis, and the Friends of the Golden Horseshoe area agree with that.

Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario: Douglas Kwan, one of the leaders at ACTO, came and spoke in committee. I was also struck by what he had to say. He raised an issue which is very important in my riding, which is the government’s decision in schedule 1 and schedule 4 to eliminate the rental replacement bylaw. Now, I heard a lot of talk from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing that they’re just consulting. I don’t believe that for one second, because you just gutted Ottawa’s rental replacement bylaw. And it looks like you’re going to be gutting the city of Toronto’s rental replacement bylaw, Mississauga’s rental replacement bylaw, and you’re going to stop Hamilton and Ottawa and all municipalities across Ontario to protect renters as well.

Douglas Kwan talked about what is happening in the rental market right now. He talked about how we are currently losing affordable rental units at a much higher rate than we are creating them. He goes on to explain that between 2016 and 2021, units renting for under $1,000 have decreased by 36%. These are those affordable units—they’re usually not very well maintained, but these are more affordable units, almost always in buildings and purpose-built rentals. Yet, at the same time, in this five-year period, there has been an increase in luxury rentals renting for over $3,000, and that segment of the market has increased by 87%.

What we are seeing in our rental market today is a transfer of wealth from those who don’t have a lot to investors who already have a hell of a lot. It’s contributing significantly to income and wealth inequality, and it’s happening right here in our housing sector and the rental market. What I fear when we are talking about this rental replacement bylaw and eviscerating it is that that’s just going to speed up that process of making rent more unaffordable for more Ontarians, because it makes it very easy for a developer to look at a building, a purpose-built rental, in an area that’s already being zoned for height, and say, “I’m going to demolish that building and I’m going to convert it to luxury rentals or I’m going to convert it to a luxury condo.” Because that’s exactly what’s happening in my riding already. The only difference is that renters are given protection and they get their right of return guaranteed, so they can move into that larger building once construction is complete. Some units are affordable, and then there are additional units which are sold off to ensure that the developer can make their profit. That’s all going to change now. Developers just get to make their profit, renters get to lose their homes, and affordable rental units and rental affordability in general is going to decline. It’s very concerning.

Conservation Ontario: This organization represents conservation authorities all across Ontario. In their submission—they’re one of the people that came and spoke, I believe in either Markham or Brampton. They spoke about how the proposed changes in Bill 23 really will make it very difficult for conservation authorities to do their job. They are concerned that this bill places new responsibilities on municipalities for natural hazards and natural resources that may lead to inefficiencies, uncertainties and delays in the development review process—they’re being polite. It weakens the ability of conservation authorities to protect people and property from natural hazards, and it reduces critical natural infrastructure, like wetlands and green spaces, that reduce flooding and protect waters in our lakes and rivers. Next time your basement floods, blame a Conservative. If Bill 23 passes, next time your basement floods because of an extreme weather event, blame a Conservative.

This was an interesting one: the city of Toronto. The city of Toronto is understandably very concerned about Bill 23, and they had some very alarming statistics in their report. This was one of the first reports that I saw, but I have found over the last few weeks that other municipalities have come out with similar reports where they’ve documented the impact of Bill 23 on their finances and their ability to provide infrastructure and their ability to provide services. I’m going to read out a few things that the city of Toronto identified:

It will reduce municipal revenues needed to fund growth-related infrastructure. Development fees partially pay, just partially pay, for the costs of providing infrastructure—the capital costs. They do not provide the operating costs; they provide the capital costs. When that is gone, that infrastructure is going to have to be paid for by someone else, which means there will either be tax hikes or service cuts.

They quote, “Without an offsetting funding source, the proposal would impact the city’s ability to provide servicing such as new roads, transit, water services, community centres, libraries and parkland to support new population and create complete communities.”

Once again, if your library is no longer open on a Friday, blame a Conservative. If there’s a pothole on a main road that is not getting fixed week after week, blame a Conservative. If transit service in your area has been cut because they need to deal with this development fee shortfall, blame a Conservative, because all these roads will lead back to Bill 23. It is that radical and that drastic. And I’m sure you’re hearing it from your municipalities as well. It can’t just be the city of Toronto that’s concerned and is complaining.

What the city of Toronto also was concerned about is the impact of Bill 23 on the city of Toronto’s innovative new inclusionary zoning laws. Now, the city of Toronto passed an inclusionary zoning law recently after years of consultation and talking to experts, doing studies, communicating with developers, working out if it’s worthwhile, if it will impact development, what it could look like, how many affordable homes are required. It was a long, negotiated, careful process with extensive public consultation.

They came up with a proposal that was meant to go into force just a few months ago. And our inclusionary zoning law required developers that were building buildings of 100 units or more to have a percentage of homes in that building that were affordable for 99 years, so affordable for a long period of time. It’s considered—it’s a definition of permanent. They also created a definition of affordability that is based on income, which means a home is affordable based on the income of the individual who moves in, essentially. It’s for the area.

What that means, for all practical purposes, is that a one-bedroom unit—an affordable-to-own one-bedroom unit—would be about $190,000, which would mean a household earning $58,000 per year could afford it. That’s the “own” piece; there’s also a “rental” piece. And it would be permanently. Well, this government has decided to upend the definition of affordability and say, “Whoa, whoa, whoa, we’re no longer going to base affordability on what the individual who is going to live there can pay; we’re going to base affordability on the market,” which is utterly unaffordable right now. It’s one of the most unaffordable markets in the world.

So the city of Toronto crunched the numbers and said, “Okay, what is the government’s new definition of affordability?” They explain it here: It’s only for 25 years, not 99, so we’re just kicking the can down to the next generation, and the definition of affordability for that one-bedroom unit—it’s different levels depending on the size of the unit and if it’s own or rent—is $444,000 now for that one-bedroom condo, requiring a household annual income of at least $130,000.

Now, the reason why I go into those details is to point out that Bill 23 is going to be giving a development fee exemption for homes to be built that are not affordable for even middle-income Ontarians. They are not affordable for middle-income Ontarians. And at the same time, you’re drastically weakening Toronto’s inclusionary zoning law that already required a much better definition of affordability and a much higher quota for how many homes in a big building needed to be affordable. You’re just saying, “No, no, no. We are going to give development fee cuts to developers and we are going to build unaffordable homes.” That’s the essence of it and it’s a shame. It’s a shame.

The city of Toronto also expressed concern that the province can override decisions on official plan matters now, based on Bill 23, cutting the amount of parkland space available, threatening the city’s ability to protect natural heritage—very concerning; all very concerning.

CELA, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, expressed similar concerns to what conservation authorities raised. They’re very concerned about the impact of this bill on farmland, on our natural environment. Their overall concern is that this is doubling down on very expensive and unsustainable suburban sprawl, and it’s ignoring the kind of solutions that we really need, that we absolutely need, to address our housing crisis. It was very concerning.

Next, I have the Canadian Centre for Housing Rights, an excellent group that does a lot of work helping tenants across Canada now; it’s extremely important. They submitted and they also spoke in committee. They expressed great concern about the province’s decision to gut the rental replacement bylaw, and they also pointed out the level of income and wealth that renters have compared to homeowners, which is also important to point out. Renters, as a whole, earn about half as much as homeowners do, so we are talking about people who are acutely affected by the inflationary crisis we have right now and the affordability crisis we have right now. Bill 23 is going to make their housing costs even worse. It’s very concerning.

We had Hemson Consulting come in and do a deep dive into the impact of the development fee cuts. Thank you very much for that.

We had the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority come in and talk about the impact of the bill. They had similar things to say about the bill—similar to what Conservation Ontario had to say—and they proposed amendments, which I will go into shortly, to take out the worst parts of schedule 2. Stay tuned: The government rejected those amendments, but I’ll get to them in a minute.

Then we had some recent articles and submissions that reminded the MPPs in committee about the reason why we established conservation authorities in the first place. I would like to read this to you: The conservation authorities, which you’re gutting, “were actually created under a Progressive Conservative government, led by Premier George Drew, in 1946. At the time, habitat degradation by settlers was starting to take a toll. Much of it was due to deforestation....

“Then came Hurricane Hazel in 1954, which washed away homes that had been built on flood plains and killed 81 Ontarians.” As a result, “the province expanded conservation authorities’ power, tasking them with monitoring waterways for potential floods....

“Today, the province has 36 conservation authorities, and all but five are in heavily-developed” areas in “southern Ontario.” Their job is to protect us from extreme weather events like Hurricane Hazel, and you’re limiting their ability to do that—a Progressive Conservative government.

Now I’m going to talk about committee. There were a lot of amendments introduced in committee during clause-by-clause. We went through this on Monday night. There were amendments that were introduced by our side and by the independent MPP for Beaches–East York, as well as the government side, because I think they’re very quickly realizing that there are a lot of flaws with Bill 23 and a lot of unintended consequences. I’m going to go through those amendments now.

We introduced an amendment to improve the rental replacement bylaw so we can protect renters—lower-income, moderate-income people in our city, who run our city—not just from demolition and conversion, but also in situations where they’re renovicted. We are in a situation today where there’s been a sharp rise in illegal evictions. It’s very concerning. People living in a home get a notice saying they have to move out—because of a renoviction. Maybe they contest it at the Landlord and Tenant Board, if they want to wait two years, or they give up and they move out because they assume they’re going to lose.

The problem is that maybe they walk by, down that street, a year later, and they realize that the landlord had no intention of renovating that property; they just wanted to move that rent-controlled tenant out and move another tenant in. That’s happening with increasing frequency, not just in Toronto. The housing crisis has spread, as we all know. It’s happening in cities all over Ontario.

So we proposed a bylaw, a motion change, saying that tenants whose building is being demolished or converted or undergoing renovation deserve to have compensation, and they deserve to have their right to return to that unit at about the same rent enforced by municipalities. It would give them protection and make our city affordable. The government turned down that motion, but we will continue to fight for that change, because it’s essential to keep our city affordable.

We also introduced amendments to maintain the green building standards in Toronto and other municipalities. The reason why we felt it was important to introduce amendments to protect the green building standards is because green building standards ensure that we get well-maintained and energy-efficient homes. It means our energy bills are lower. It means that we can protect our birds and our species. We can reduce waste. We can reduce stormwater run-off. We can reduce the heat island effect. It’s very important. It is our future. Government rejected the independents’ motions and our motions.

And then, interestingly, they proposed their own. This took me a minute, because I’m like, “Oh my gosh. Is the government actually going to care about green building standards?” We read this. We sent it out to stakeholders. They had lawyers look at it, and they came back and they concluded that, no, the government’s motions to allow municipalities to regulate green building standards do not go far enough to allow municipalities to do it. We have raised this issue with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

What these motions do is they will allow municipalities to manage green roofs—oversee green roofs—and it will allow municipalities to oversee landscaping. We are not sure yet whether it will allow municipalities to oversee bird-friendly design; we’re hearing mixed reports on that. But what we know for certain is that green building standards in municipalities cannot proceed in their current form if Bill 23 passes as it is.

I am hopeful that the government will delay proclaiming some of these motions so that municipalities can continue to oversee green building standards, and I’m looking forward to the government, hopefully, introducing a provincial green building standard in the future. I’m very much looking forward to that. Hopeful, I’m going to be hopeful.

We also introduced an amendment to bring in use-it-or-lose-it building policies. This came from municipalities who approached us and said, “Whoa, whoa, whoa, we’re getting a little sick and tired of being seen as sole culprit for why we’re not moving housing supply quickly, so we would like to have the province introduce a build-it-or-lose-it policy,” which means that if a developer is given a permit to build and they’re given the green light to build, yet they sit on it instead of moving forward on it, through no fault but their own, then over a period of time, if they don’t build, they should lose it. The reason why is because we want building permits, once they’re given out, for homes to be built, and that’s the purpose of the use-it-or-lose-it policy. The government rejected that. You should rethink that.

Then we also introduced amendments just to delay the proclamation of the rental replacement bylaw, because it is so bad. It is so bad. They didn’t like that one either, which is a real pity.

Then we got to schedule 2, which is the conservation authorities piece. Oh my God, schedule 2 is so bad. So we introduced some measures to try to move from horrible to just bad. We introduced two key measures. One, we wanted conservation authorities to retain the right to work with municipalities to engage in land use planning and protect the natural environment, because right now, with Bill 23, conservation authorities are banned from taking a contract with a municipality to do this planning work for them. They’re banned; they’re explicitly banned from doing it, even though municipalities, we’re hearing time and time again, don’t have the expertise to do this work and conservation authorities do, and municipalities for many decades now have relied on conservation authorities to do this work. So we said, “Okay. Let’s at least give municipalities the option to contract with conservation authorities if they want.” You rejected that—very concerning.

Then we introduced some motions saying that, look, conservation authorities should not just have the right to look at a few pieces of land use planning—flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches—but they should also look at pollution and conservation of land, because if you get that holistic approach, then you can actually do your planning job well.

It gets a little complicated, but this is what conservation authorities were asking for. We wrote it up in a motion. You folks looked at it and said, “No, thank you. Suburban sprawl, that’s what we want to do. Flooded basements, that’s the Conservative way. No, we’re not doing that.”

So now we introduced some more motions to bring in a real, strong definition of affordable housing. If we are looking at giving development fee reductions, then we need to make sure that those development fee reductions are for houses that are truly affordable. And this is what many municipalities already do. The Open Door program at the city of Toronto already offers significant development fee reductions for homes that are affordable.

We introduced some amendments calling for affordable housing to be based on income, not just the market; an income-based definition, where the rent does not exceed 30% of gross annual household income, or where the mortgage, if you’re doing a rent-to-own program, doesn’t exceed 30% of gross household income. That’s what we called for. We also called for the affordable housing definition to move from just being for 25 years to being permanent. The government rejected these, even though the provincial policy statement already has these affordable housing definitions. So all we’re really asking you to do is just use the definitions that are already on the Ontario government’s books—nope; didn’t like that, not at all, which is a real pity.

Then we moved into development fees—huge issues with development fees. We introduced this motion calling on the Ontario government and saying, “Look, if you’re going to cut development fees and put municipalities into a financial hole, then come up with a provincial program to fund the loss so that the municipalities can repair roads and make sure that we have transit service; make sure our schools aren’t overcrowded; make sure we have parks nearby; make sure that we can deal with stormwater runoff, because our infrastructure system and our sewage system can handle it.” Nope, nope, nope; they didn’t like that one either. It’s very interesting. No wonder you’re getting tons and tons of emails and calls from councillors right now saying, “What are you doing?” It’s very concerning. That was another one.

Then we introduced a motion saying, “Please, please, please delay proclamation. Give us some time to think about this bill; it’s very concerning.” They didn’t like that, either.

Okay, I’m going to be a little positive for a minute. I’m going to talk about schedule 5. I kind of like schedule 5. Schedule 5 amends the HCRA, which is the Home Construction Regulatory Authority, and this is a regulatory authority that oversees builders and developers who are building new homes. If you’re a first-time homebuyer or a homebuyer and you’re buying that home, maybe in preconstruction—it’s a new home—and you move in and everything is great, you’re not even going to ever want to call the HCRA because you’re going to be nice and happy living in your nice, good home. But if you’ve got some defects—maybe you’ve got mould or flooding or you’ve found out that you’ve actually got a second-hand furnace when you thought you were buying a new one—then it’s the HCRA that you call to seek recourse and to make sure these shoddy builders are held to account.

It is good that the government has decided to increase fines for developers and builders that don’t do the right thing. Good; I’m happy about that. But I also think that we can go further, and the reason why I think we can go further is because consumer advocates are telling us to go further. So we introduced some amendments calling on the government to go further.

We asked for the HCRA, the regulatory authority, to have some citizens on the board so the regulatory authority is not just a developer/builder-run board overseeing builders—you can see the conflict of interest there—but also it has some citizens’ groups there who can look out for consumers. The government didn’t like that. I’m hoping you’re going to put that in another bill, because this is really good stuff.

We called for a ban on people who have a clear conflict of interest sitting on the HCRA board so this regulatory authority can do its job. They didn’t like that one, either. That’s a pity. I think that’s really good.

Then we called for the HCRA to be overseen by the Ombudsman—standard practice for a good regulatory authority. We’ve got this place that people can complain to, the Ombudsman, if the regulatory authority is not doing its job. Nope, you didn’t like that. I actually think this one is really good. It doesn’t cost you money. It means first-time homebuyers—it’s more likely they’re going to get a well-built home; good.

And then we introduced an amendment, and I really like this one too, which is to have, essentially, a builder directory on the HCRA’s website. So if an individual is going out there, looking for a home, they can go to the HRCA website and look to see that builder’s record. If they’re a builder that has a checkered history, they can maybe think twice about buying a home in pre-construction from that builder, and instead, they can buy a home from a builder that has a very good track record. That’s a carrot-oriented approach which would ensure that we’re more likely to get a well-built home. You didn’t like this one either, but I actually think it’s really good, and I do hope that you bring that in future government bills—because apparently you’re going to bring out one a year.

I’m going to keep going on. Then we introduced some amendments calling on upper-tier municipalities to regain their right to plan. The reason why this is so important is because upper-tier municipalities see a much larger area. They’ve got all of these smaller municipalities in their area, and they make sure that there is regional coordination when there’s planning. That means we’re more likely to get sensible, well-planned infrastructure, because they can see the big picture, and we’re more likely to get less sprawl. But instead, this government was like, “No, no, no. We’re going to download responsibility for planning to all these little municipalities.” When we do that, the problem is we’re more likely to get expensive, poorly planned and environmentally destructive sprawl. I’m very concerned about that. You rejected that motion.

Then we introduced a motion taking some of the insight that Carolyn Whitzman had around housing targets. We said, “Okay, so we’ve got this 1.5-million-housing-starts goal. Let’s make sure those homes are for Ontarians who want to raise children in them, retire in them—people who intend to live in them. Let’s also add some sub-targets that really focus on building the kinds of homes that are affordable for different levels of income and building homes of different square footage size, so we’re not just building big and we’re not just building too tiny, but we’re building the missing middle, the 1,400-square-foots, the kinds of homes that were the starter homes in the 1950s and the 1960s that we don’t build anymore.” They’re actually cheaper to build, and they’re what we actually need for students, for people who want to downsize, for families, for affordable homes. Those are the real gaps in our housing sector right now. So we thought, “Let’s put some evidence-based decision-making into those housing targets.” You didn’t like that one either.

We introduced the motion to expand inclusionary zoning, meaning developers do their part and play their fair share in addressing the housing affordability crisis. Right now, inclusionary zoning is only allowed in protected major transit station areas. The city of Toronto wanted it across the municipality. This government came in and said, “No, no, no. We’re just going to shrink it right next to transit stations, because we’re getting a lot of calls.” The city would much prefer to have the authority to expand it so we’d get more affordable homes in big developments. So we introduced an amendment to do exactly that. The government rejected it. That’s a pity.

We introduced amendments to increase parkland dedication to what they currently are. The government rejected that. It’s a real pity.

And then we also identified and expressed great concern that this government is exempting major infrastructure projects from the environmental assessment process. That’s a bit scary. The government is exempting the York region sewage waste plan that you have in this bill from the environmental assessment process—very worrying—and this government is also exempting the Lake Simcoe phosphorus project from the environmental assessment process as well. Why not do one? Don’t you want to know so you can plan? It makes sense; it’s there for a reason.

I’m running out of time, sadly. I want to talk a little bit about the amendments the government introduced. They could also see that there were some flaws with Bill 23. I know you’re getting a lot of calls and emails right now—and you’ve just extended the consultation process so you must be feeling some heat. These are the amendments that this government introduced. This one is really crappy. This one makes it so that the development fee cuts that you are imposing are retroactive. So developments that are already in the works can now go back and say, “We actually want that development fee exemption and the development fee cut as well”—very concerning.

When I think about the development fee cuts, one thing that bothers me the most about the development fee cuts is that the biggest cut, $1,000 a unit, is the funding that goes to help municipalities provide affordable housing and supportive housing. That’s where the bulk of the development fee cut is coming from—the city’s Open Door program; the city’s Housing Now program to build affordable housing on public land; funding that goes to shelters. That’s the funding being cut from Bill 23. There’s nothing about this that will make housing affordable for people who are low-income or moderate-income. I’m very concerned about that. The government got the motion passed to make the development fee cuts retroactive for developers that have already been given the green light to build.

This government loves to talk about how they want to clear red tape. Well, this is like the red-tapiest government motion I have ever seen. What this motion does is, it eliminates the two-year timeout that exists when an official plan is approved. Let’s say Ottawa, for example, creates an official plan on how they’re going to build. Then, there’s a two-year timeout, so that bylaw, that official plan can’t be appealed for two years. It gives staff time to study the rules, enact the rules, know what they do and implement them. Now, you’ve made it so that once an official plan, a secondary plan or a bylaw goes through, immediately someone can appeal them—immediately. So that’s going to create a massive backlog of appeals—crazy, crazy, crazy.

Then, the other thing you did is you changed the land tribunal process a little bit. In the original definition or understanding of Bill 23, you eliminated the ability for individuals, citizens to appeal to the land tribunal. It was only municipalities and developers that could appeal to the land tribunal and have a say over planning that everyday citizens, people who had some concerns about a gravel pit, people who were concerned about water pollution—they were banned from appealing to the land tribunal. Now you’ve changed it a bit. You’re allowing a third-party appeal—MPP for Willowdale, I wonder if you had something to do with that—

The member from University–Rosedale made comments in the speech about not needing extra lands that we could do infill on. In Peterborough, in 2019, five single-family home building permits were issued. Six multi-unit buildings were put forward, and the NIMBYism blocked it. In fact, they’ve gone to the LTB. Three of those have already been heard and have been found to be in favour of the developer. The city didn’t actually send anyone to defend their position.

The argument that’s being put forward by the NDP is that there is enough land already for infill, that we don’t have to have any other land. Yet the example in my community is that there has been no development done, and the population has grown by more than 4,000 in the last four years. We have not had enough housing for 1,000 of them to actually be put in.

Why does the member think that status quo will work, when it is demonstrated over the last two decades that we’re not able to develop enough housing for the people who are coming to Ontario? The 100,000 new starts last year are 50,000 short of what we actually need. Why does the member believe that we do not need more land, that infill will work?

It was very interesting listening to the member from University–Rosedale. I was interested in the part about rent control that this government has changed. What would real rent control that helps people afford the apartments they live in look like?

Yes, okay—but what you’ve done is, you’ve made it so that the adjudicator can award costs. What that means is, the losing party is likely to pay costs to the winning party. What that means, for all intents and purposes, is that well-off groups can use the land tribunal but citizens’ groups cannot; they’ll think twice, and that’s very concerning. That passed, too, which is very unfortunate.

I have a request of this government. This is the government’s vision for how we should address the housing crisis. This is not going to address our housing affordability crisis. It’s going to harm democracy, public services, our farmland, municipal budgets and rental affordability. We do not need to sacrifice everything we hold dear to help developers and your wealthy developer donor friends.

There are other ways to address our housing affordability crisis. We can say yes to government investment in affordable homes. We certainly say yes to building 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years. We say yes to zoning reform so that we can build more townhomes, duplexes and triplexes in existing neighbourhoods. We say yes to increasing density near transit so we can build those walkable, transit-oriented neighbourhoods, those neighbourhoods people want to live in. We can build them too. We also say yes to building on public land so we can build affordable housing on public land, which is something this government is not doing. We should say yes and we are saying yes to real rent controls to make housing affordable, and we’re saying yes to addressing the homelessness crisis and the affordable housing crisis and the supportive housing crisis that exists in all our municipalities by saying yes to rent control and yes to building affordable housing and supportive housing.

Housing is a human right. We should be housing based on need. We should be building housing for Ontarians.

When it comes to reducing and eliminating development fees for co-ops and non-market housing, that is a measure that we support and we are pleased to see that in the bill.

Questions?

It is no small task to stand up in the Legislature and speak for that long, so, to the member from University–Rosedale, kudos to you for that. However, I do take issue with a few things that you did bring up. One of them—and we did talk about this a little bit earlier when we were debating this this morning—is development charges. There’s a lot of that that always comes up. I’ve had municipalities at home say, “Oh, you know, we’re going to have to raise taxes, we’re going to have to do this.” There are some municipalities in Waterloo region, if you total them all up, our seven municipalities, they’re sitting on over $200 million—$200 million—of reserve funds from development charges that have already been collected.

The member opposite was talking about developers sitting on land or what have you. What about municipalities that are sitting on this money that aren’t using it for the projects that they’re supposed to be going towards? Why wouldn’t she support incentives or discounts—I’m being very honest; I’m not trying to be overly political with this—that will spur on not-for-profit development and that will spur on purpose-built rentals? These are important. They’re things that they talk about all the time. Will she support that part of the bill?

That’s uncalled for, Jess—uncalled for.