Thank you to the member opposite for this question. I think, as the Minister of Natural Resources would have responded had it been directed to him, Mr. Speaker, that the conservation lands are being protected here for the purpose that they were set up for when Hurricane Hazel came through in the 1950s. They were set up to protect the lands against floods and propose flood mitigations. That remains at the core of the conservation authorities, and our minister has very articulately put forward concisely that’s what this plan addresses. In fact, they’ve done a very good job to make sure that flood mitigation, that protecting the lands against flooding, to protect homes further downstream—that is their core responsibility. That remains intact, Mr. Speaker, and that is a core part of our plan to move forward.

But at the same time, Mr. Speaker, the status quo is not an option in this province. Some 200,000 more people come to this province every year to call home. Where are they going to live? We have too many people that can’t afford or can’t attain houses for their—front doors and back doors and apartments and rental units that meet their needs, that meet their budgets.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that this plan is dealing with the challenges in front of us boldly, and taking us on behalf of all Ontarians to provide them the dream of home ownership.

The member for Markham–Thornhill.

Thank you.

Next question.

Further debate?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for making sure I respond to that question.

I appreciate the genesis of that very thoughtful question—to the member opposite. What we have to acknowledge in this province is that the dream of home ownership is the dream of many families. It’s the dream of many hard-working Ontarians. It’s the dream of many people that come to this province for the first time, like my family. You’ve heard me say before, I’m the son of Hungarian World War II refugees who came through the ocean into Halifax, into Ontario—my mother, whose family set up in Port Colborne; my father here, with not a nickel in their pockets, not a proficiency in the language. And this province was welcoming to them. They were able to find jobs. They were able to raise a family. They were able to send us to school and had the opportunity and the freedoms that they did not have from where they came.

And one of the core rights, really, for people that come from wherever they come from, is to be able to have a home, Mr. Speaker. We cannot let the people of Ontario down. We didn’t let my family down back in the 1950s and 1960s, and we’re not going to let the people of Ontario down right now. We need more homes. We need faster homes. We have to work federally, provincially, municipally. We have to do it together so the dream of home ownership exists for everyone in this province.

We saw last year, for the first time—I came to this province in 1985, and in 1987, two years later, 100,000 homes were built. The next time over 100,000 homes were built was in 2021. We have not been building enough homes and apartments and condos and family dwellings in this province for 30 years. That is the challenge that we collectively face. Yes, we’ll go through the specifics and make sure we get the best possible policies and programs in place, but we have to agree—

I’ll talk about both the newcomers as well as seniors, because you addressed both in your question.

First, on the newcomers: back to my mother, in 1944, when she separated from her family—didn’t know if they’d ever be connected again. When they moved to Montreal from Ontario, I remember my mother and her brother, my grandmother and my grandfather and three great-grandparents all living under one roof. For many families, that’s the dream of home ownership. Everyone’s circumstances are a little bit different. So we’re trying to do what they were able to do many years ago.

With regard to seniors, I hear it all the time, and you’re absolutely right: making it easier to live at home longer by investing in infrastructure, as well as health care that comes to your home, and other programs like the community paramedicine program. You’re absolutely right: The home and community care, the $1 billion that we’re putting in there, is all driven so that seniors can live at home longer, where they want to be.

But we’re also very mindful that your house—

I have a question to the minister. Under Bill 23, building more houses faster—this government is always in a hurry.

So I’m questioning the government under schedule 8. There are four new sections and subsections that had been proposed under this schedule 8—the Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act. It says here:

“The minister may appoint a chair of the board of directors from among the members ... ”

“The administrator shall report to the minister as the minister requires.”

“The minister may issue directions to the administrator with regard to any matter within the administrator’s jurisdiction and the administrator shall carry them out.”

“No action or other proceeding shall be instituted against the administrator or a former administrator for ... any act done in good faith in the exercise”—you understand where that is going. But the crown is going to be liable for it.

So my question is, can the minister provide a specific example and legal case where an administrator was held personally liable to explain why this new section is so imperative when we’re talking about building homes?

I want to thank the finance minister for all his work. He knows I’m very passionate about our seniors in our community, and of course this bill touches a lot of demographics. He’s done a lot of work in terms of letting seniors renovate their homes and be able to stay in their homes longer, but it all comes down to supply in this bill.

I wanted to ask him in terms of the different demographics this helps, from seniors to new immigrants. Yesterday, we heard new census data come out that, in 2021, 23% of our population has been increased by landed immigrants—the largest since Confederation—and that’s going to increase by 34% by 2041. I want to ask him how this bill addresses all different demographics in our province?

It’s a pleasure for me to join the debate on Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act.

Before I begin, though, I just want to say thank you to all the people who have reached out to the member from Hamilton Mountain. She’s suffered a sudden death in her family, and I know the government side and this side, including the independent members, have reached out to her, and I think that that is a hopeful moment for us.

I also wanted to talk about a theme that has emerged over the last four years and now continues into this term, around the legislation that the government brings forward, and it’s sort of the theme of what you see is not always what you get. On housing, though, every member of this Legislature is experiencing huge pressure in our communities to build affordable housing and to ensure that that housing is where people live and work. That’s one of the key pieces that I’m going to be focusing on as I comment on Bill 23.

I wanted to give some context for those comments, because in Waterloo region, with a population of some 600,000, the regional government has just sanctioned a tent city. It’s part of a broader plan, but people in Waterloo region have literally no place to live, and so they’ve taken matters into their own hands. These people are members of our community who have been displaced, who have suffered illness in their family, who have lost their jobs. Many of them were contributing to the local economy prior to the pandemic. Then there’s also the complications around mental health and addiction and the lack of resources.

So it’s really through a combination of circumstances—and in some instances, for some folks, truly a perfect storm—you have people and families who are living in tents in Waterloo region. As the winter approaches I hope that we can all express our collective concern that living in a tent in Canada is something that should fill all of us with a sense of responsibility to address this in a meaningful way and with urgency.

With Bill 23—in some respects there are parts of this legislation that are encouraging. Some of the intensification pieces are exactly some of the stuff that we have advocated for, for years. The fundamental difference, I think, in the way that we approach housing and the way that the government does is that we do see a role for government to play an active role in investing and directly building affordable housing. Prior to the 1990s, the government filled that gap, where the private sector was not building affordable housing. The private sector is not going to build affordable housing. They are not. There is no money in building affordable housing. So there is a role for government to directly play in direct development and funding of truly, deeply affordable housing.

Right now the not-for-profit sector—I’m thinking of an organization in Hamilton and now Waterloo region, Indwell—are filling that gap, but 30 units at a time, 40 units at a time. We know that for the 60 people who are living in tents in Waterloo region, that housing will not come online in time for them. So they are looking at a very cold winter.

It’s not that municipalities have not been trying, but they do have financial limitations to doing so. The mayor of Kitchener, who was just recently elected—congrats to him—said that this hybrid shelter outdoor model—that’s what we’re calling it—obviously it’s a transitional piece of housing programming, but it’s going to require wraparound services. This is a quote from him, that it will need investment from upper levels of government to ensure there will be wraparound supports.

So municipalities—all the hotels, all the motels, everything is booked, everything is full. There’s no other place, so this is where one of the most affluent communities in Ontario is really trying to formalize a tent city.

The region goes on to say that paying for such a plan wasn’t accounted for in the region of Waterloo 2022 budget, which is really interesting, when the Minister of Municipal Affairs says, “Oh, municipalities have all this money in reserve”—$8.2 billion, I think he said. When a municipality like Waterloo is factoring in $3.4 million just from September to December of this year and $10.2 million for 2023 to maintain and protect vulnerable citizens—in tents—I don’t think that the minister is factoring in these costs that municipalities have. One of the regional councillors said, “While the price tag is big, we can’t afford not to do it.”

I wanted the context for where the region of Waterloo is. They’re trying to find creative solutions. I don’t think any one of us ever thought that we would be sanctioning a tent city, though. It’s quite a statement.

I’m going to focus my comments today on schedule 1 and schedule 2, because this is a big piece of legislation. We saw it get walked in and the House leader sort of heckled that it’s an omnibus piece of legislation if it’s more than three pages. There’s a lot in this bill that needs our scrutiny, Madam Speaker.

Schedule 1, in particular, is of concern to us, because it will encourage the displacement of already existing rental units. I’m hoping that the government has a review of schedule 1.

But this is section 111, which the city of Toronto uses to require the replacement of affordable rentals that are demolished or converted during redevelopment. What our concern is, essentially, is that it is unclear what limits the government is seeking to impose. It has launched a consultation after the fact, which I have to say is not always the best way to consult, but this provision puts tenants at risk of being displaced from their neighbourhoods and threatens the inclusivity of growing cities. We’re already seeing this happening in our communities, but schedule 1 may accelerate this development.

In Waterloo region, we’re seeing renovictions, demovictions, and those units are being flipped over and they’re being turned into condos, essentially. In one instance, an entire building of seniors was displaced. Our office worked diligently to try to find them some options; many ended up living with family because they had no other choice and they had no other options. Then one group of ladies, who I like to call the golden girls, three of them who were displaced, found a one-bedroom together and are living together. I’m sure that this is not how they saw their retirement. I’m pretty sure that this is not how they saw themselves living out those last golden years: in a one-bedroom apartment with three senior ladies.

I do like to remind the government that we have a responsibility to seniors in the province of Ontario. Many of these seniors are women, they are on fixed incomes, and they really and truly have no option. When those rental protections are not there for them, they obviously have to find some creative options, but sometimes these moves put them at risk. Our colleague is trying to make some arrangements around regulations around group homes to ensure that when people move from an apartment, if they’re renovicted or demovicted, and they end up in one of these privately run homes in a room, that they’re protected and that they’re safe. Clearly that is not happening in Ontario right now.

Schedule 2: I have to say, I’m going to quote heavily from the Narwhal, because I’m a big fan of the work that they do. Fatima Syed and Emma McIntosh really did a deep dive on this piece of legislation, in addition to our excellent researchers with the NDP. These are the main concerns around the changes to the Conservation Authorities Act: instead of requiring approval of the minister before selling or disposing of land that was paid for by a provincial grant, the conservation authority need only give the minister notice of the sale of disposition; and the ERO notice indicates that the province intends to require, via regulation—so they’re following in the pattern of the Liberals of bumping everything down to the regs—that conservation authorities identify land suitable for housing development.

This is not the work of a conservation authority. This is not their mandate. Their mandate is to protect the land, to prevent flooding and to ensure that watersheds are protected.

There’s a long history of conservation authorities. We went through that last time the government had a go at conservation authorities, so we don’t need to go there again. But I have to say, when the Premier says to the Toronto Region Board of Trade, as he did on Tuesday, “We want to build the right type of housing in the right places,” I feel like the Premier doesn’t really understand the right type of housing that is needed, and has a very different definition of affordability, and also around the right places. We see the right places around the core infrastructure, where you have transit, where you have work and employment options, where there is green space and does not contribute to more sprawl, which actually adds to the tax base. Every new subdivision that is built, the next subdivision is paying for it from a taxation perspective. The costs that municipalities are incurring through this process can’t be downloaded anywhere except to the property tax base. This is something that I wanted to put on the Ford government’s radar.

At the time, though, there was no—when the Premier was at the Toronto board of trade, there was no mention, of course, that the plan depends, in part, on a massive gutting of conservation authorities, which oversee and protect vital and deteriorating watersheds.

So to understand the full scope, there was a briefing. Our critic has done a great job on this file; she did her one-hour lead yesterday. But there was also an internal government document which was shared with some stakeholders. In that document, which was actually later confirmed through the legislation, some of these changes are unprecedented around conservation authorities. The legislation will repeal 36 specific regulations that allow conservation authorities to directly oversee the development process. If passed, it would mean Ontario’s conservation authorities will no longer be able to consider pollution and conservation of land when weighing whether they will allow development.

There is a climate crisis. It’s pretty bad when the Insurance Bureau of Canada issued a response to this legislation and said, “Hey, listen, people. Climate change is real. There’s a cost to not planning for and being responsible for sustainable development, and this actually impacts the entire well-being of the province—not just our health, but also the economy of the province of Ontario.”

The government is also seeking to force the agencies to issue permits for projects that are subject to “a community infrastructure and housing accelerator.” So this is a new tool that allows the province to expedite zoning changes. The important part, on this piece, is that it will limit authorities’ ability to weigh in on developments to issues of natural hazards. Once again, this is the core business of conservation authorities. The changes are aimed at reducing the financial burden on developers and landowners making development-related applications and seeking permits from conservation authorities.

The Ford government repeatedly denied this Tuesday, and I’m probably going to hear this again today. Yet, under the new proposed rules, conservation authorities would also be compelled to identify and give up any land that they hold that could be “suitable for housing.” This is a major change. Conservation authorities have been looking around the crown property that they are duly responsible for, and saying, “Oh, I think some nice houses could go over there in that corner.” And our agriculture critic has already pointed out—how many acres of land are we losing?

Three hundred and twenty.

Questions and answers?

Three hundred and twenty acres a day we lose in the province of Ontario to development. Of the 36 conservation authorities, 31 of them are in high-density areas in Ontario, in the southern part of the province. So there is no doubt that schedule 2, as it’s currently constructed, will have a negative impact on sustainable development and planning.

I think that they’re here today. Conservation authorities—are they here today? I’m sure that they have some very interesting things to say.

I do want to say, the provincial government, the 444 regional and local municipalities, and the 36 conservation authorities—of these, the ones most directly tasked with looking out for animals, land and environment during the planning process are conservation authorities. Today, for the second time in under four and a half years, this government has had a go at them.

I think that we have to remember the Premier’s comments in 2018 when he said, “Listen, on paper we’re not going to go into the green belt.” Then he met with those developers and said, “You know what? We can open this up,” and then had to backtrack again.

The focus on conservation authorities, I think, for us, is worrisome on a couple of levels. I do think it’s important to also point out that conservation authorities are doing their job well, especially given the history of the province. If it’s not broken, at least try to embrace this philosophy of doing no harm.

Moving on, I think the response from communities like Waterloo, for instance, is going to be really interesting, because we just went through an extensive planning process. The developers are not that happy with it, but the focus has been on the intensification of housing within a hard line around Waterloo region, and I think Hamilton has actually had the same conversation.

Schedule 9, just to move off conservation authorities for a second, specifically deals with the Planning Act, this elimination of the land use planning responsibilities of the following upper-tier municipalities: Simcoe, Durham, Halton, Niagara, Peel, Waterloo, York and other prescribed upper-tier municipalities. This means decisions about official plans, zoning bylaws, subdivision plans and consents within a region will now be made only by lower-tier municipalities.

For the last two-plus years, Waterloo region has been meeting with community groups. Waterloo region is a very engaged group of citizens who care deeply about how their community grows. The good places to grow legislation that the previous Liberal government brought forward, which had us intensify—that has been working. It may not be always the prettiest housing, but it ensures that people actually have a place to live, and it’s primarily around transit.

So when you have a regional municipality like Waterloo doing exactly what government has asked them to do and then you throw schedule 9 in and you remove that responsibility for the very thing that you asked them to do, I would have to say it’s a little bit insulting.

I want to try to say a few good things, because I always try to. The non-profit housing developments, including co-ops and residential units mandated under an inclusionary zoning bylaw are exempt from development charges. That should help with some of the barriers that the not-for-profit sector has seen in our respective communities. Also, the intensification piece, as I’ve mentioned, that Bill 23 actually deals with, is somewhat encouraging. We’ll have to see how that plays itself out.

But the municipalities under this piece of legislation now have to waive community benefit charges and parkland dedications for the percentage of a development that is affordable or attainable residential units as defined under the Development Charges Act, as well as for residential units required under an inclusionary zoning bylaw—that may raise some ire of the municipalities.

In summary, Madam Speaker, I just want to say, I feel like if the government was truly concerned and interested in accelerating affordable housing, having a more reasonable definition of what affordable is would be a good start, and we do need a strong public sector role to get done what the private sector will not do and can’t be done. The private market can’t be expected to build homes for low-income people, and increasingly, it isn’t even building homes for the middle class.

Unfortunately, this piece of legislation misses that part, but as I said, there are good parts of it that we’re still exploring, and I look forward to the questions and answers from the members of the Conservative caucus.

What we have said, actually, is that we fought for inclusionary zoning. The Conservatives did not support that. We fought for intensification. The Conservatives did not vote for that. What the member failed to address in my comments is why you are insisting on building housing that actually will be unsustainable, that the Insurance Bureau of Canada says is financially and fiscally irresponsible.

If you want to have a discussion around our record on housing, it is very strong. In fact, some of the aspects are even contained in the legislation. But what we’re not willing to do is move forward without a sustainable plan that’s focused on affordability and attainability. We want to make the legislation better. That’s part of our job.

We know that when push comes to shove the opposition always opposes building more homes. The NDP often selects their candidates by looking for the most NIMBY—not in my backyard—local city councillors.

The MPP for Toronto Centre and former Toronto city councillor is quoted in the media saying, “Good luck trying to build your tower or ... condo if we don’t give you the road occupancy permit. Good luck if we don’t give you that permission to remove that single ... little tree. It is ... not going to happen.”

Speaker, my question to the member opposite is, how can they support the building of more homes while their own members have a history of putting up roadblocks to new housing?

Speaker, during the member from Waterloo’s comments, I think she said words to the effect of the following: “The private sector isn’t even building homes for the middle class.”

Now, when I heard those words, it sounded like she was blaming private sector home builders for whatever delays or lack of supply is happening. But in my experience, home builders are coming to me all the time and saying, “Anthony, we want to build homes. We’re getting blocked by municipalities. We’re getting blocked by conservation authorities. We’re getting blocked by regulation and taxes and fees, and it’s just terrible. Let us build homes.” They’re begging us, “Let us build homes.”

So I’m asking the member from Waterloo to clarify her comments. When she said, “The private sector isn’t even building homes for the middle class,” was she blaming private home builders? Was that what she was doing?

During the last session, this government already undermined the ability of conservation authorities to manage where development takes place in relation to wetlands and watersheds. In this new legislation, they’ve further undermined their ability to fulfill their responsibilities by removing the ability to monitor potential development for pollution. No community is going to be happy with development that threatens the health of the land, air or waterways. So it’s beyond me that they would remove this ability from conservation authorities.

Second, they are pressing conservation authorities to offer up conservation lands for development. We have these lands for a reason. They’ve been fought over, fought to attain. So I’m wondering why the government is creating conflict within communities over revered conservation areas, and equally, why they are asking conservation authorities to abandon their responsibility to monitor for pollution.

It’s an honour to rise in this House today to participate in second reading debate of Bill 23. I think everyone in this House, and everyone across the province, agrees that we are in a housing crisis. We have a whole generation of young people wondering if they’ll ever be able to afford a home. We have many people across this province struggling to pay the rent and meet their bills.

So I’ve been eagerly awaiting this legislation, eagerly awaiting the provincial government actually taking aggressive action to meet the scale of the crisis, because every day they delay the crisis gets worse. That’s exactly why, a year and a half ago, the Ontario Greens put out a housing affordability strategy that Canada’s largest circulation newspaper called a master class plan in delivering the solutions we need to address the housing crisis, solutions that showed how we could build 1.5 million homes through gentle density and missing middle and mid-rise developments so that we don’t have to pave over the farmland that feeds us and the wetlands that protect us, so that people can actually have an affordable home where they want to live, close to where they want to live, work and play.

We talked about how we could both spark private sector development and also non-profit co-ops and non-profit housing to address deeply affordable housing needs that especially the most vulnerable in our province need.

Speaker, the government delivered some of those solutions in Bill 23. They started to move on getting rid of exclusionary zoning. They’ve come up with some ideas to speed up the approvals process. They’ve made things less expensive for non-profit and co-op housing providers—though I’d say they haven’t provided the financial support that governments used to provide for those housing supporters.

But I want to say, to sum up this bill—the good things aside—it’s underwhelming on supply, it’s missing in action on affordability and it’s dangerous on environmental protections. So I’m hoping the government will work with the opposition at committee to solve these problems with the bill, because the bill is creating a false choice between building housing supply and environmental protections.

Let’s talk about supply. If we really want to get rid of exclusionary zoning in this province, we should not only go to triplexes, we should go to quadplexes. We should also allow for walk-up apartments in residential neighbourhoods. So let’s take exclusionary zoning further. Some municipalities are actually doing that, and let’s work with them to do that across the province. We need to have mid-rise development along the entire major transit corridors and major arterial roads in this province—not just around transit stations, but along the entire strips of those roads, to be able to build the supply we need along the entire transit or major arterial road corridor.

When it comes to affordability—and we’re talking deep affordability, affordability that is 30% of people’s income, not 80% of high market rates—we need the government to step up and support co-op and non-profit housing. We need to remove the caps in this bill for inclusionary zoning and expand exclusionary zoning across our communities. We need to tackle speculation, especially the kinds of speculation that’s buying up rentals for low-income people, tearing them down and then building luxury apartments that middle-class and working people can’t afford.

Speaker, when it comes to environmental protections, this government has been systematically, over the last four years, dismantling environmental protections. They continue with that in this bill by weakening conservation authorities.

Let’s remember: Why were conservation authorities strengthened? In 1954, Hurricane Hazel hit this province: 81 people died in the flooding; 2,000 homes were damaged or destroyed. And the province said, “Never again.” We would learn from that mistake, and that’s why we strengthened conservation authorities. That’s why we said we were not going to build housing in places that it wasn’t safe to build housing. Just ask the folks in Atlantic Canada right now what they’re going through. Conservation authorities—by the way, brought in by a Conservative government—were brought in to protect people’s property, to protect their livelihoods and their lives.

You know, it’s ironic that on the day the Insurance Bureau of Canada issued a statement saying that we have to stop building homes in unsafe places in this country, because the cost of doing that is escalating, because the extreme weather events are escalating, this government put forward a housing bill that actually opens the door to building more housing in unsafe areas. It’s unaffordable for people. It’s unaffordable for government.

A report was just released. The cost of sprawl to municipal government: $3,462 per home. The cost of gentle density: $1,460 for homes. Let’s—

Question?

The member from Toronto Centre was a city councillor just before she became an MPP. Toronto has 252 cranes working on construction projects in this city. It’s five times the second-highest number of cranes in the crane index, which is Los Angeles. This government sets population targets for our cities, including the city of Toronto. Toronto is on track to exceeding the population targets and the housing that’s needed to achieve those.

So the question is, why is this government, through this bill and through the strong-mayors bill, undermining the power of the city council of Toronto, which has been so successful in achieving the population targets and building the housing that we need in the city of Toronto?

We all know that municipal fees on new developments have continued to increase and approval delays continue to grow longer and longer. I think of members opposite here—in London, I think it’s over five years or close to five years, from beginning to end, before we can even begin to build a house.

Delays in new housing are now 40% longer than they were only two years ago. Since 2020, in the GTA, we’ve got a 36% increase. Municipal charges are adding nearly $117,000, or $53 per square foot, to the cost of a low-rise home in the GTA.

So a simple question: At the time we find ourselves now, with a housing crisis throughout this province, who does the opposition think picks up the costs of these excessive development fees? Who do these costs get passed down to?

I think that based on a previous question and based on the member from Spadina–Fort York’s question, people see affordable housing very differently, and that is very clear, unfortunately, in this legislation.

The government is actually changing what is considered to be affordable and—well, I think they made it to 80%. Yes. They defined an affordable residential unit as being a rental unit where the rent is no greater than 80% of the average market rent—80%. That doesn’t leave a lot of extra money for food, for living your life.

Toronto has its own challenges, Waterloo region has its own challenges. A piece of legislation that recognizes that those communities are different and plan differently—I think by this stage of the game the government could have brought forward legislation which recognizes those differences.

I know the government side views municipalities—they are creatures of the provincial government, and you have overridden many of their rights and responsibilities over the years.

Come November 15, there are a number of new councillors that are elected across the province. I think schedule 9 is going to be hugely problematic for the government.

So in the end, this legislation will increase property taxes on the tax base.

I think the conservation authority piece—the government is betting on the housing pressures to outweigh the environmental and progressive sustainable planning practices. It’s a bit of a gamble, I would have to say.

Brian Denney, who is the former chair of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, said, “So when the government tells” conservation authorities “to get back to their core mandate, it’s just another way of saying, from a developer’s perspective, that they want conservation authorities to get out of the way.”

Then another quote: “Conservation Authorities can be an easy scapegoat” for governments “because it’s an extra layer, an extra body, an extra approval that’s required before shovels can go into the ground,” said Kellie McCormack, Conservation Halton’s director of planning and regulations.

Conservation authorities are not out to stop development. They’re out to stop unsustainable, dangerous development.

What I’ve said is that we need a strong public sector role to get done what the private sector won’t and can’t get done. The private sector is about making money. That is their core business, and that’s fine, but they’re not building affordable housing for low-income people because there’s no money in it. There’s no money in it. I’m sure that the former member from Essex, God love him—did I mention that I miss him? He fought hard for affordable housing because he understood that government has a role in building that housing in a sustainable way because it strengthens and supports the economy. I wish this member understood that.

Speaker, 1.5 years ago I put forward a proposal to end exclusionary zoning in this province. I believe I was the first in this Legislature to do that, to say we can build fourplexes and laneway suites and secondary suites and granny suites in existing neighbourhoods in this province. So I’m all for ending exclusionary zoning, and I recognize—and I said this in my comments—that this bill goes part of the way to ending exclusionary zoning. But I think it could go further. Why not fourplexes? Why not walk-up apartments? That’s what housing experts are asking for.

In communities like Mississauga, for example, if we would bring in the types of exclusionary zoning exemptions that I’ve been advocating for, we could build 435,000 additional homes within the existing urban boundary alone. That’s the affordable, fiscally responsible and cost-effective way to build more homes.

We need market solutions, and there are market solutions in this bill, and I support many of those market solutions. But if we’re truly going to address the deep affordability people need, we need to define affordability as 30% of income, not 80% of already sky-high market rates.

No person who works minimum wage in this province can afford to rent a one-bedroom apartment in any city in this province: in Guelph or Sudbury or Windsor or Toronto, Ottawa, Timmins—wherever you go. People need deeply affordable housing. Most of the deeply affordable housing built in this country was built in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, when governments provided support. Let’s do that again.

So what I would ask the members opposite: Are you ready to work with the opposition at committee to amend this bill so we can actually build homes that young people can afford in places that aren’t dangerous for their property to build those homes?