This bill is very interesting to me, because it’s going to affect municipalities probably the most, and I know there are some people who have been councillors. Do you know what didn’t happen in this bill? There was little to no consultation with AMO and with the mayors in the province of Ontario who it’s going to affect the most. There was some, a select few, but in my riding there was little to no consultation—little to no consultation. I wanted to get that out.

We would say yes, it was in the betterment of the province of Ontario, but you’ve got to talk to the people who are going to be affected. We just had elections. Why do we have elections if you’re not going to talk to them? It makes no sense to me.

So my question is, through you: What is in this bill that will protect renters from unjust evictions and rent increases?

I appreciate the comments from the member for Windsor–Tecumseh. You know what I would like to see? I would like to see the government say yes to the proposals that the NDP has put forward to really meet this crisis that we are facing, to meet the challenge head-on to actually achieve the 1.5 million homes target that we must meet if we are to serve the needs of the people of this province.

As I said, yes, we need intensification, but we also need much stronger protections for tenants. Why is there no rent control on post-November 2018 builds? Those tenants deserve protections, and the tenants who will be affected by the removal of the rent replacement provisions that is set out in this legislation will be deeply affected by the lack of protection—

Thank you to the member from London West for her remarks. I will say I’m disappointed that the status quo is better than what’s in Bill 23, from what I’m understanding from that statement.

We’ve said many times that due to the severity of the housing crisis, there is no single silver-bullet solution. That’s why our government has put forward many pieces of legislation to tackle that crisis. In fact, the members opposite have long advocated for many of the policies that this government has implemented. In the NDP housing plan released in 2021, the opposition put forward proposals to expand on protections for renters and homebuyers, then we put in new protections for tenants through Bill 184—and the opposition voted no. The opposition proposed to encourage basement apartments and granny flats. That was addressed in the housing supply action plan. They voted no.

Will the members opposite stop saying no just for the sake of saying no and finally join us in delivering the critically needed solutions they themselves have called for?

Questions?

Thank you to my colleague the member for Niagara Falls for pointing out the complete absence of consultation with municipalities and AMO, the organization that represents municipalities.

There’s no question that what this government is doing is downloading the cost of trying to meet that 1.5-million target onto municipalities. Any time that you are increasing density by allowing the construction of granny flats and other units—which is a good thing; that is a good thing, but it means that there is going to be more pressure on municipal services. The removal or the limits on development charges that are proposed in this legislation will mean that there will be even less of a tax base to provide that infrastructure.

Look, there is absolutely no question that we need the federal government, the provincial government and municipal governments at the table to address this crisis, given the proportion of the crisis that we’re facing. But the history of this government has been that whenever federal housing dollars are provided to Ontario, what does Ontario do? They reduce their share of the housing budget.

Speaker, as I had concluded with, when we see this government cutting the housing program by $100 million, we’re not going to be advocating for the province to continue to pull back its budget.

There is nothing in this bill to ensure that even those 50,000 units that are estimated to be constructed—that even those units will be affordable. And we have seen in Toronto, which has already gone with laneway houses and granny suites and secondary units—but those are typically not set at rental rates that low-income people can afford.

We need to do much more to ensure that the housing that is available in Ontario is actually housing that people can afford and is located where people want to live.

Response.

I thank the member opposite for her remarks and interest in this important legislation today. You mentioned briefly the federal government in this, and I just want to expand on that a little. On this side of the House, we continue to advocate for Ontario’s fair share of federal funding. Of all the Canadian households in the core housing need, 44% are in Ontario—the highest percentage in the country. However, our allocation of federal funding under the National Housing Strategy is 38%, below that allocation and underfunded by about $480 million over a 10-year term.

I’m asking members opposite if you’ll join us in calling for the federal government to expand Ontario’s share of housing under the NHS, and support us all.

Thank you, Speaker. Well done. Thank you to the member for London West for your comments on this bill. You’ve certainly given us a lot of important reflections.

Over the past few months, I’ve been speaking with a lot of people in Ontario living on social assistance. The rates for a single individual are $733 a month. Even after the government’s historic increase to ODSP, people are only getting $1,228 a month. That’s not enough to afford rent in Ontario right now. And now we have a bill that’s redefining affordability based on market rent, rather than what incomes people actually have. I’m wondering if you can expand on the challenge that this represents for people living on social assistance in Ontario.

It is a pleasure to rise in the House this afternoon and join the debate on Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022, and to speak to the importance and the urgency of moving forward to pass our government’s proposed legislation so that we can swiftly move to implement Ontario’s Plan to Build.

Speaker, this bill confirms this government’s commitment that was made to all Ontarians, a commitment to build 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years, and in the process help millions of Ontarians—new first-time buyers, those Ontarians wishing to upsize or downsize or rent—to achieve the dream of affordable home ownership.

Within this historic assembly, I offer a story from Ontario’s history in the post-World War II era. It is a story that can guide us as we address the current housing crisis. As Sir Winston Churchill once remarked, “A society that forgets its past has no future.” We can learn from history, even from historic anecdotes, when we seek to exercise our good judgment on the future.

On September 12, 1956, Frank and Susan Camisso achieved their dream of home ownership when they purchased a small suburban bungalow in the Sheppard and Victoria Park Avenue area of Toronto for just $16,500. While the priority for the Camissos in purchasing their property was focused on moving up to a new home from where they were, in a rental accommodation, and to accommodate their dream of being near schools and parks for their daughters, Irene and Alice, the greater significance of this purchase was that the Camisso family had purchased the millionth home built in Canada since the Second World War. Members of the provincial government at that time, then-Metro chairman Fred Gardiner, Scarborough reeve Gus Harris and many other dignitaries gathered to congratulate the young family at Lot 121 Beacham Crescent in the new Wishing Well Acres subdivision.

This milestone of one million homes built in the 10 years following World War II should guide us as we debate this plan to build 1.5 million new homes by 2032.

Now, while the population in 1956 for Canada was just 16 million, and 5.4 million in the province of Ontario, the post-war housing boom in Ontario was leading all of Canada because the Progressive Conservative Premier of Ontario at that time, Premier Leslie Frost, and his government made attainable housing a priority for all Ontarians at that time.

When we fast-forward in history to the early 2000s, where under the previous Liberal government housing supply in Ontario fell to crisis levels due to higher construction costs, developmental charges, burdensome regulation and red tape and, of course, reduced transfers to municipalities, government policy made a difference for the worse as a result of those policies.

The former Liberal government, propped up for one of its terms by the NDP, forgot a fundamental economic principle: When you reduce the supply of a good or commodity, you drive up the cost and the demand for that good or commodity. That is what we saw with housing in Ontario under the Liberals, aided and abetted by the NDP. Does that sound familiar? It probably does because, sadly, we are seeing history repeat itself at the federal level in terms of the NDP propping up a Liberal government, who themselves speak about affordable housing for all Canadians but fail to act.

We received an overwhelming mandate from the people of Ontario to act, and our government is taking bold action to get shovels and the ground and solve Ontario’s housing supply in the immediate and the long term. This government is committed to exploring measures that can be taken to increase supply and to make housing more attainable for Ontarians. Immigration to our province is on the rise, and people are choosing to work and live in Ontario, because our economic plan is producing an environment conducive to long-term economic growth and stability.

With that in mind, Speaker, new and existing Ontarians need houses to live in, and they need certainty. Over the past four years, this government has introduced several new initiatives under our first two housing supply action plans: More Homes, More Choice in 2019 and More Homes for Everyone in 2022. These have helped to substantially increase housing starts in recent years, but we know we need to do more to meet the 1.5-million-home target over the next 10 years by 2032. As well, this government is working on creating a new attainable home ownership program to drive development of attainable housing on surplus provincial government land, so whatever their budget, Ontarians can find a place to call their own.

Speaker, in Durham region alone, where my riding of Durham is located, we have had many residents coming from elsewhere in the GTA and southern Ontario and settling in north Oshawa, Courtice and Bowmanville. Thousands of new homes are presently being built in these new neighbourhoods, and these are the kinds of communities that people are looking to our government to lead on. In Durham region alone, there has been a 119% year-over-year increase in new housing starts, and that number is only going to rise should this House agree to the passage of this bill.

But words are not enough, Speaker; action must be taken. I had the opportunity to host a housing affordability round table recently in my riding, where I was joined by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the honourable member for Whitby. It was a very informative experience for all of us. We got a chance to listen and meet with Durham’s youth. We heard their concerns, their frustration, their anxiety associated with moving forward with their first housing purchase. Governments who have taken little to no action in comparison to what we have done so far were referenced by our young attendees. That round table definitely helped shape aspects of this bill.

I want to highlight one of our Durham youths who attended the round table. Kirsten Martinolich is a 23-year-old nurse, who, like thousands of her colleagues, answered the call to duty during the pandemic. She expressed her concerns and her frustration because she wants to be able to move out of her parents’ home. She tells us that even with a well- and fair-paying job as a nurse, she is unable to make that move at this time. We want to act for young Kirsten.

Speaking of nurses, I would be remiss, Speaker, if I didn’t mention the recent passing of my mother-in-law, Maureen Harrington Azzopardi. She herself was a 1957 graduate of the St. Michael’s Hospital School of Nursing here in Toronto.

We need to act for Kirsten and other young people. Bobby MacDonald of Port Perry, a newlywed, tells us of the nightmare of development charges associated with the development and building of a new home that he’s trying to bring about with his new bride. Will Hume, a third-year law student, wonders if he will be able to move from his brother’s apartment when he graduates from law school in 2023.

These are the concerns of young people in different situations. They have expressed it to us, and clearly the status quo, which some support, is no longer an acceptable option. We must take decisive action. Transformative change is never easy, but our government stands ready to make the necessary decisions that will improve Ontario’s housing sector and benefit all Ontarians in the short and long term.

Ontario is expected to grow by over two million people over the next 10 years, with 70% of those new residents settling in the greater Golden Horseshoe region. With previous governments not taking action on building homes, we not only have to play catch-up, but we also have to keep up with the expected population growth.

Within this bill, our government is proposing processes to encourage gentle intensification. This is going to be accomplished, we propose, by giving property owners the right to build additional units without lengthy planning approvals and without the unnecessary and excessive development charges.

Now, I want to expand on that last point, Speaker, as this issue is consistently raised in my riding among so many: the overregulation and red tape associated with housing. Let’s start with the development charges and fees. We know there is a growing consensus that rising fees and lengthy delays all over the province are driving up the cost of housing. In many cases, these fees have increased by as much as 36% over the past two years, and then the charges or the costs associated with these fees are obviously passed down to homebuyers and even renters, making it impossible for homebuyers or renters to plan and budget or to keep up.

This bill further proposes to eliminate unnecessary approvals and rules such as waiving site plan control for smaller developments, limiting third-party appeals and removing numerous unnecessary hurdles in the planning process. Our proposed plan also builds on the recently enacted Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act, which empowers the mayors of Toronto and Ottawa to move quickly on shared provincial priorities, with construction of more housing at the top of the list.

We know the construction of more housing is critical if all Ontarians are to have a chance at attainable home ownership, and we trust that our municipal partners will work collaboratively with us to accomplish this goal. We want to help cities, towns and rural communities grow with a mix of home ownership and rental housing units. These must meet the needs of all Ontarians. It is not a one-size-fits-all option. We need to build more homes near transit hubs, update infrastructure and unlock innovative approaches to getting shovels in the ground faster.

There is a strong consensus that increasing fees are driving up the cost of housing without considering the impact fee increases have on tenants and future homeowners. We cannot stand idly by. Without action, housing prices will rise and affordability will worsen. These proposals, if passed, would reduce the cost of residential development by freezing and reducing future municipal development-related charges. Specific reductions in these charges for certain types of development, such as non-profit developments, and for particular types of units, such as affordable, attainable and rental housing, would increase the much-needed supply of these units in the province. The proposals would also improve cost certainty for home builders and provide greater transparency on the use of municipal development-related charges to the public.

At this time, when many Ontarians are struggling with the rising cost of living, we believe it is reasonable to consider how we can lower costs and make life more affordable for tenants and homeowners. Speaker, I know the opposition would like to make this a partisan issue, but I can assure you this is not. Every member of this House has thousands of constituents communicating to them their frustration with not being able to achieve the dream of home ownership or even rental because of factors beyond their control. With so many Ontarians struggling with the rising cost of living, our government believes this bill takes reasonable and necessary steps to lower the cost of home ownership and make life more affordable for all.

I urge all members of this House to say yes to cutting red tape, yes to cutting bureaucracy and needless delays by voting to pass the bill so that we can get shovels in the ground and get houses built so that more Ontarians can have a place to call home.

As I said, this is not a one-size-fits-all option. The bill proposes a plan for building homes attainable for all because there will be more choice and variety associated with the homes that can and will be built if this bill becomes law.

Ontarians made a decision on June 2, when they voted to re-elect our government. We were clear that a re-elected PC government, under the leadership of Premier Doug Ford, would introduce a housing supply plan every year for the next four years. We also made the bold commitment to build 1.5 million homes over the next decade. These changes being considered in this House with this bill will create, if passed, a solid foundation to address Ontario’s housing supply crisis over the long term, and it will be supplemented by continued action into the future.

This is a lengthy bill. It affects many other currently existing laws. I urge those who are inclined at this moment to oppose passage of the bill to read it very, very carefully. If they do read it, Speaker, they will know, for example, that the now 16-year-old City of Toronto Act, passed in 2006, would be amended, if this bill is passed, to establish the authority for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to make regulations imposing limits and conditions on the power of the city of Toronto to prohibit and regulate the demolition and conversion of residential rental properties.

If the members opposite who oppose or are inclined to oppose this bill read it carefully, they will no doubt become aware that the proposed legislation will amend the now 25-year-old Development Charges Act, and in doing so there will be exemptions for additional residential units. There will be exemptions for affordable and attainable housing. There will also be, if passed, amendments to the Municipal Act, 2001, now over 20 years old. These proposed changes would allow the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing—a minister responsible to this House—to make regulations imposing limits and conditions on the powers of any municipality to prohibit and regulate the demolition and conversion of residential rental properties. That measure extends the amendments of the City of Toronto Act to every municipality in the province, if passed. And that minister’s ability to do so is consistent with the fact that he sits in this House among us and is responsible to this House, and that is consistent with responsible government.

The members opposite will no doubt know, if they read this bill—and I encourage them to do it—that the New Home Construction Licensing Act, passed by the previous Liberal government, would be amended by this bill. It would give the minister a new power to make a regulation requiring the regulatory authority to establish, maintain and comply with a policy to govern payments to persons who have been adversely affected by contraventions from the funds the regulatory authority collects as fines and administrative penalties. We happen to believe that’s fair. I encourage members opposite inclined to vote against this bill to support that change.

You will find that the Ontario Heritage Act would be impacted by this act in this manner: There would be a new subsection that would provide for a process for the identification of properties in the heritage standards and guidelines. The existing provisions permit a ministry or prescribed public body to determine whether a property has cultural heritage value or interest. The process instead would permit the minister to review and confirm or revise the determination or any part of it—and, in the process, be accountable to this elected House.

They will find, Speaker, if they read the act, that even the recently enacted Ontario Land Tribunal Act would be impacted. Two important changes proposed to that act would be expanded powers under section 19 to provide that the OLT could dismiss a proceeding without a hearing if the tribunal is of the opinion that the party who brought the proceeding has contributed to undue delay of the proceeding. This is the kind of roadblock that cannot be tolerated. And importantly, following the example of cost consequences in the court system, the tribunal would, if this bill is passed, be able to make an order for costs that an unsuccessful party pay to a successful party—a very important deterrent to avoid a vexatious approach to matters before the tribunal, just as cost consequences in the courts provide for an incentive against vexatious or non-meritorious litigation.

You will find that the 10-year-old Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act of 2012 would also be amended with proposed changes set out in the act that regulations and ministers’ orders prevail in the event of a conflict with the memorandum of understanding or the corporation’s bylaws and resolutions, again moving the ability to deal with such an issue to a minister accountable to this House.

The Planning Act obviously would be amended as well, and I encourage the members to read the detailed amendments, which would include changes removing planning responsibilities in upper-tier municipalities in Simcoe, Halton, Peel, York, Durham, Niagara and Waterloo.

The proposed changes, finally, would limit conservation authority appeals of land use planning decisions and ensure that conservation authorities are acting in accordance with the mandate given to them many decades ago so they fulfill the purpose they were created for. Those are my submissions on this bill, Madam Speaker.

Point of order.

Thank you, Speaker. Through you to the member opposite: As the member for Durham who delivered the 20-minute address just now, we are listening, and when we listen to you, we hear that we share a concern in common, on a non-partisan basis: We need more housing supply. I heard the member opposite say that yesterday. We agree with you, and we are taking bold action. Now, you may not agree with every aspect of how we’re taking action, but I’d ask that you consider it carefully. It’s not impossible for this House to have non-partisan solutions to an identified non-partisan crisis. I urge the members opposite to support this bill as a practical and fair and reasonable and balanced approach to the amendment of several pieces of legislation. It will make a difference. And remember that—

Time for questions.

I want to thank the MPP for York Centre for starting with a quotation from Winston Churchill. I have one of my own, and that is, “The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. Ignorance may deride it. But in the end, there it is.”

The truth is that your government was in opposition for 15 years, including under the leadership of MPP Fedeli, who is currently a minister. So pointing fingers and blaming is not going to get this problem solved.

I would also like to say that I don’t need your encouragement to tell me how to do my job as an MPP. I certainly have read this bill, and what I would like to say—

My question, absolutely, is, one of the big holes in this is that you have not in any way identified how this relief from development charges for developers is going to impact local taxpayers—

I very much enjoyed the member for Durham’s remarks. I think we would all agree that the dream of home ownership in this country is one of the great Canadian values that we all share. That being said, I hear in my riding—I know many of you do, and again, in a non-partisan way—that that dream of home ownership has become virtually impossible for young Canadians, young people of this province, to realize.

That being said, Speaker, I would ask the member again: Could you emphasize the points and clarify where you think the opportunity lies for this bill to help enact the dream of home ownership in Canada?

This bill proposes to cut development charges for companies that provide what’s called affordable housing, which means 80% of the regular cost. Instead of giving money to developers in the hope that they will provide affordable housing, why doesn’t this government just build affordable housing?

To my colleague from Durham: In your riding that you’re representing, four years ago the price of a two-bedroom home was $1,299. Today, it is $2,400. It’s gone up a thousand dollars. So that means anybody on ODSP or OW cannot afford to live in your riding. With the 5% that you increased, they’ll still not be able to live in Durham. I just wanted to get that out so you understand what young people are facing in your riding.

But here’s the one that I don’t understand from your government, because it is important to make sure that everybody who lives in the province of Ontario should have a place to live. We shouldn’t have homelessness in one of the richest provinces in the country. There was little to no consultation with the mayors in the province of Ontario and in my riding of Niagara Falls as well. So my question to you: Why?

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill today. Right now in Ontario, we’re living in a housing crisis that’s only getting worse. Average rent in Ottawa increased 14% this year compared to last. We have people across Ottawa West–Nepean who are paying half their income on often poor-quality, insecure and unsafe housing. People on ODSP and OW, if they’re lucky, can manage to pay rent on only $733 or $1,228 a month.

We have a desperate need to see more non-profit housing built in order to accommodate the vast waiting list. There’s currently an eight-year wait-list for access to social housing in Ottawa. We have 500 families who are currently living in hotels, many of them with kids, many of them for multiple years. I know I’m not the only parent in the House right now, Speaker, and, like many parents, I’ve spent nights in hotels with kids, and I’m sure you can appreciate how difficult it is for kids to sleep in that environment. These are families that are in these conditions, day in and day out, for years. It’s not exactly setting these children up for success.

I’ve also spoken to many people over the past year who are homeowners but are unsure if their kids ever will be. They still have their kids living at home, unsure when they’ll ever be able to move out. I’ve spoken with parents and grandparents who are disappointed that their kids had to move far away from home just in order to be able to afford housing and that they don’t get to see their kids or grandkids very often.

When we’re talking about legislation, it’s always important to remember that we’re not just discussing numbers on a page or theoretical ideas about policy; we’re talking about real people, real families who are being impacted by this crisis, real families that have to choose between eating and heating because of exploitative landlords and absurd housing costs. So as I begin, I want to share some of these stories to remind us of the human side of the issue and the impact on real people.

A constituent in my riding, who wishes to remain anonymous for his own safety, was recently informed that the building he has lived in for over two decades has been sold. The new owners of 2929 Carling Avenue are planning a complete renovation of the building, and are taking action to evict their current tenants. Many of the tenants of this building, including my constituent, are living on social assistance and cannot afford to enter a new rental agreement because of the high cost of rent in Ottawa.

Renovictions like this are forcing out people with disabilities, people on Ontario Works and ODSP, single moms and their children, just so that landlords can increase their profits by doubling the rent. This constituent is now struggling with the stress of losing his home during a housing affordability crisis, and is pleading for this government to fight for tenants’ rights and end these renovictions so that the people of this province can have a roof over their heads.

Another constituent in my riding of Ottawa West–Nepean, Laura, has been struggling to find affordable housing in Ottawa. Laura has described what she and her family have been through in Ottawa’s housing market as one of the most painful, defeating and humiliating experiences of her life. Her husband has found a well-paying job in Ottawa and makes around $90,000 per year. They have both worked extremely hard to climb their way out of poverty. They have positive rental references, positive personal references, positive private financial references, and even have parents co-signing behind them, but to the absolute dread of every landlord in the market right now, they have poor credit scores.

Laura and her husband have been pushed by property managers to up their bid for a better chance to get a house, but have been told that without good credit, they will not be accepted. This has put her family in a vulnerable position. All they have been able to find is a short-term room rental for her husband. Laura and her 10-month-old have been forced to move back in with her parents, four hours outside of Ottawa, because they have been continuously denied access to affordable housing. This has left their new family split apart for over four months now, and they have been seeking housing for literally the entirety of their daughter’s life.

Housing is a human right, and renters need protection, but what is this government doing to protect tenants? Rental prices in Ottawa are increasing to alarming amounts between tenants, and many are being forced further from their workplaces just to find anything remotely affordable. It’s also allowing landlords to ask for more and more unreasonable demands from tenants.

Another woman, Tracy, reached out to me on Twitter. She is on ODSP and was searching for housing. She found an available unit, but the landlord told her she would not be able to apply for the housing, because the landlord wanted an income of at least $40,000 a year. People living on ODSP make only $14,000 a year, Speaker. They are never going to be able to afford housing unless we actually increase the rates and take steps to ensure that housing is truly affordable.

Many of the people living on social assistance who I have spoken to over the past months have highlighted this issue. They aren’t receiving enough income to pay for rent, and then they face discrimination in the housing market, with landlords refusing to return their calls as soon as they learn they are on social assistance. It’s not right, Speaker. We’ve got people living in tents, in boxes, on our streets because they just can’t find an affordable place to live. Until we take that crisis seriously, we’re going to see more people in that situation. What does that say about our society, and what does that say about this government if they’re prepared to allow that to happen?

Which leads us to Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act. There are elements of this bill that are potentially positive steps forward. We are living in a housing crisis, and expanding the housing supply is necessary. We undoubtedly need to build more compact, mixed-use communities across the province. It’s also good to see that there will be policy changes regarding infill housing. Allowing for secondary and tertiary suites within existing homes is a welcome change, and something I note the NDP has long called for. I’m glad the government has listened to the opposition on this.

Let’s go through some of the elements of the bill, starting with changes to the Development Charges Act. The bill will exempt development charges for the development of affordable housing. However, it defines an affordable residential unit as being a rental unit where the rent is no greater than 80% of average market rent, or a non-rental unit where the home was sold at no more than 80% of the average purchase price. The problem with this definition is that the average market rent for a studio apartment, so the bottom of the housing market in Ottawa, is $1,700 currently. That means the definition of an affordable rental unit in Ottawa for an affordable studio would be $1,360. That’s still not affordable for my constituents. It’s not affordable housing for seniors on a low fixed income. It’s not affordable for young families struggling under the weight of the cost-of-living crisis, desperate to try to get on the housing ladder but with no help in sight. It’s not affordable for all of the people I’ve spoken to on ODSP and OW whose payments wouldn’t even cover rent at $1,360. So let’s be absolutely clear: This is not affordable housing.

I would like to welcome, though, the section in the bill that supports non-profit housing developments, including co-ops that are mandated under inclusionary zoning bylaws, and exempts them from development charges. Co-ops are such a great form of affordable housing that provides residents with a real say over how their homes are managed and shared. I wish there was more in this bill regarding non-profit housing, as it’s not just lack of supply that is causing housing costs to soar but the lack of non-profit housing to drive down prices from wealthy development speculators.

Additionally, while the bill will exempt development charges for at least 25 years, 25 years is not long enough for many people who will still be living in poverty 25 years from now or on a fixed income, because you simply don’t get over a disability or being a senior in the space of 25 years.

At the end of the day, we also need to be honest that no amount of building new homes for profit is going to get people on social assistance into safe housing when they are only getting $733 a month.

We also support the need to build homes that are more affordable and to address the missing middle in our housing market—duplexes, triplexes and townhomes in particular.

We support densification and utilizing existing neighbourhoods to address the housing crisis, but we also need to maintain and protect existing affordable rental and community housing supply.

While it is clear that the bill makes strides to address the housing crisis by increasing the supply of for-profit homes, it is also clear that there are provisions in this bill that will have negative implications for renters in particular.

As the critic for poverty and homelessness, I want to spend some time outlining the issues that I see with this bill in relation to its impact on renters and people experiencing poverty.

We need to be building market and non-market affordable homes. It’s important that we are ensuring that the homes we are constructing can be afforded by Ontarians of all income levels. It does not make sense to construct millions of homes that are out of the price range of those who are most in need of housing while not constructing any that people at the low end of the spectrum can afford.

It also makes no sense to change regulations and overrule local decision-making in a way that has negative impacts on renters and people experiencing poverty.

Schedule 1 and schedule 4 contain provisions that will impose limits and conditions on rental replacement bylaws. This will reduce protections for renters and undermine local decision-making by municipalities. Rental replacement bylaws are important for when existing apartment buildings are demolished or converted into condominiums. These bylaws ensure that the new building contains sufficient rental units to replace the ones being demolished and that the renters who were living in the units that were replaced are given the opportunity to move back into the newly created or refurbished building at the same rental rate as they had previously. This is an important protection for renters, and particularly for renters who have been living in the same unit for decades—units that are affordable. It means that seniors, people living with disabilities, and families are not unjustly forced into an extremely competitive rental market simply because their building has undergone a demolition or repurposing. Without rental replacement bylaws, we risk driving more renters into the market, driving up demand for existing units and therefore also driving up prices. This is a recipe for trouble and could very well lead to a net loss of affordable units in Ontario. Ever-increasing rental prices could be stopped by enacting rent control to ensure that tenants pay the same rent that previous tenants paid. Our election platform called for this, and it is a call that is supported by many of the tenant advocates I spoke with.

I do not see this sort of protection in this bill. In fact, the current government ended rent control for new buildings in 2018. The end of rent control in conjunction with this new attack on rental replacement bylaws demonstrates that this government is just not interested in protecting renters. It’s part of a pattern of actions taken by this government which have made it harder and harder to rent in Ontario. It is imperative that Ontario’s housing strategy take into consideration the needs of renters. We need to ensure that we are building purpose-built rental units that are family-friendly and are protected by rent control. Without these purpose-built rentals, rent control and rental replacement bylaws, this bill is only going to exacerbate the challenging situation that many renters in Ontario are facing.

Let’s go back to a section of the bill I touched on earlier, schedule 3. This portion of the bill redefines affordability in a way that does not reflect the lived reality of many Ontarians. According to this schedule, a unit can be classified as affordable if the rent or purchase price is no greater than 80% of market value. This is a problem, because it links the definition of affordability to the market instead of to what Ontarians can actually afford. To put this into perspective, let’s say an individual on ODSP has been evicted from their unit. Currently, the average rental rate in Ottawa for all apartments is $1,800 a month. Under the definition set out in this this bill, a unit would be deemed affordable so long as the rental rate was $1,440, or 80% of the average rental rate. Keep in mind, as the government is well aware, an individual on ODSP receives only $1,228 per month. That means this individual is already $200 behind without even accounting for food costs, Internet, utilities and other expenses. The affordable unit costs more than their entire support payment. That’s just not right.

I would be remiss if I didn’t use this opportunity to say the government needs to double social assistance rates. We need to ensure that everyone can live a life of dignity, responding to their basic needs. The government is not taking seriously the lived reality of people on Ontario Works and ODSP, and this bill demonstrates that. By playing games with the definition of affordability and refusing to take real action to address legislated poverty, it is clear that yet again this government is not concerned about putting people onto the streets. People living on social assistance cannot afford to rent in this province as it is. It would be a huge mistake to redefine affordability in a way that attaches it to market value rather than to what individuals can actually afford.

I also want to speak to the gutting of conservation authorities in this bill, Speaker. In Ottawa West–Nepean, we’ve had two once-in-a-century floods in the past three years. It has been devastating for many residents of Ottawa West–Nepean who have had to evacuate their homes, who have had to take measures to protect their homes, who have had to replace damage done to their homes. There is a reason why we need to have environmental protections, both to limit the damage of climate change so that we don’t continue to have these once-in-a century storms every three years, and also so that we’re not building homes of any kind, whether it’s for low-income people or wealthy residents, on wetlands that are most vulnerable to this kind of flooding when these kinds of storms and measures happen. We need to take conservation, we need to take climate change seriously so that we are actually protecting people’s homes and making sure that they can live safely, regardless of what happens.

Finally, I want to conclude by mentioning the need for consultation. We’ve already heard this afternoon about how limited the consultation has been on this bill. The government did not speak to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario before tabling this bill. They have not spoken to many stakeholders about this bill. We’ve seen from this government a repeated pattern of unwillingness to speak to the people who are most affected by their legislation. We’ve seen an unwillingness on the part of this government to speak to people who most need to be consulted on the impacts of legislation. I am concerned that this will happen again. I’ve already heard from ACORN Ottawa that they have serious concerns about the gutting of tenant protections and the definition of affordability. It is absolutely essential that when legislation affects such a fundamental human right as housing, the government is actually speaking to the people who are affected, is listening to their concerns, is integrating their concerns into the legislation so that at the end of the day, we have a strategy that actually respects the human rights of everyone in our province, and actually takes seriously the need to provide dignified and affordable housing to everyone in Ontario, regardless of their income level.

Thank you to the member for Elgin–Middlesex–London. I have just one word in the name of my riding, but my colleague has three. I think I pronounced it right; I hope I did, Madam Speaker.

My colleague talks of the dream of home ownership. He, like me, listens—his question suggests that he listens very carefully—to his fellow citizens in his community. His question suggests that he will be supporting this bill, and I thank him for that. I completely endorse his endorsement of doing this. He knows, as I do, that this is not just about first-time homebuyers; it’s also about those who want to downsize or go to a home in another community, to upsize, and for renters. That’s the important thing, and I know my honourable colleague recognizes that, as I do.

Interjection.

Thank you, my colleague for Durham, for passionately talking about this policy and this plan. You passionately talked about how first-time homebuyers can attain home ownership and also how the next generation of Canadians can have a claim to have a roof over their heads.

Madam Speaker, one of the most common things I hear from concerned constituents in my riding, especially young people—I have three children—is to have a house in their own city, their own village. They don’t want to leave their town, but because of the housing prices, they can’t afford to live in their town.

I’m asking the member: Besides working to build more homes, what else is planned for first-time homebuyers? You talk about the first-time homebuyers and new Canadians. Please elaborate on this plan to help first-time homebuyers.