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.

Question?

We now continue with further debate.

I thank the member opposite for her remarks. In particular, I thank you for identifying the elements of the bill that you support, because I think, as was stated earlier, on a significant level, we all agree on the nature of the problem: We need more housing. At some level, we all agree that this is a substantial step forward from where we’ve been. I guess I want to first acknowledge that because certainly, on our side of the House, we agree with that problem too, and we think this bill is a very important and substantial step forward.

The real impact of this bill is simple economics. If we increase supply, we’ll drive down the cost of housing—all types of housing. An example is the fast-tracking of the missing middle development, allowing two- and three-bedroom units, townhouses, laneway housing. As people move into these homes, they free up other homes and supply increases across Ontario. So will the NDP support our plan and vote to build more homes faster, increasing supply and driving down costs for everybody—all homes—across Ontario?

Questions?

Thanks to the member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound for the question. I’m not sure we do fundamentally agree on the problem because the problem is not just a lack of housing; it’s a lack of housing for people across the income spectrum.

If we are not taking into account the needs of people living on social assistance, if we are not taking into account the needs of seniors living on fixed incomes, if we are not taking into account the needs of people living on minimum wage who are being squeezed by the cost-of-living crisis, then we could be building homes that normal Ontarians still can’t afford.

We need to be building homes that are not-for-profit, that aren’t just putting money into the pockets of developers. We need to be building more supportive housing. We need to be building more community and supportive housing. We need to be building more co-operative housing. We need to be building more affordable housing of all kinds, and I hope the government would take the opportunity to integrate that into this bill.

We’ve already seen over the past 20 years that when the development of housing is left solely up to developers, we’re just not going to see developments of the kind of low-income, affordable, not-for-profit and community housing that we need in this province. That’s why it’s so important that the government step in and take an active role in helping to develop that kind of housing.

That’s why I think the NDP’s proposal for a public agency was such a crucial part of our platform to ensure that we are actually investing in the development of that kind of housing. That could ensure that the lowest—

I want to thank my colleague and member for Ottawa West–Nepean for her remarks and for reminding us of the reality ,that the most vulnerable people in this province are living with on a daily basis, those struggling to get by on social assistance, especially ODSP.

Now, the member will know that one of the commitments that the NDP had brought forward during that recent election campaign was to create a new public agency called “Housing Ontario” that would lead investment in order to get to that 1.5-million-unit target that we need to reach.

I wonder if the member could comment on why it’s so important to have a public agency involved in dealing with this housing crisis.

Thanks to the member for Spadina–Fort York for that great question.

It is absolutely true that this is a problem that is multi-faceted. In addition to the issues you listed, I would also add that it’s an income problem, and that the failure to address social assistance rates and the level of minimum wage means that a significant number of people in Ontario can’t afford housing. This is why we need a multi-faceted response. That’s why I was so proud to run on the NDP’s housing plan, which actually did address the need to build housing across the spectrum, to make it more affordable for people to buy homes, to make it more affordable for people to rent homes—investing in co-ops, not-for-profit and community and supportive housing, but also addressing the income supply of the problem, cracking down on speculation so that people weren’t getting filthy rich—

What I can say is that the outcomes of the government’s efforts speak for themselves. Average rent rose 14% over the past year in Ottawa. The vacancy rate for affordable housing is zero. We’ve got a wait-list of people waiting for community housing that is eight years long. We have 500 families with kids living in hotel rooms for multiple years. I think those efforts speak for themselves.

I absolutely see red flags. As someone who is keeping an eye on other tribunals, I would say that this is part of a pattern of concerning red flags with how the Conservative government approaches tribunals. So this is a part of the bill that definitely deserves very close scrutiny.

Question?

Further debate?

Thank you for the comments this afternoon. At the bottom end of this—and this is what you’ve talked about—the government is not addressing actual affordability with this. They’ve redefined the problem. They continuously talk about how this is a supply problem, but it’s not just a supply problem; it’s a speculation problem, it’s a lack of supportive housing for people with mental illness and disabilities, and it’s a lack of affordable housing for people on minimum wage or OW or ODSP.

How would the NDP respond to this? How would the NDP actually provide homes so that everybody has a home they can afford?

Thank you to the member opposite for your speech. I would beg to differ on the fact—when you mentioned that the government has not encouraged investments in affordable housing and incentives. We’ve put through delayed development charges, for example, in the past and encouraged rental building, which we haven’t seen in the province for decades. I believe last year had the largest increase in rental developments. We need homes. We need large homes, we need affordable homes and we need rentals. It’s really across the spectrum. Having said that, I would beg to differ with you on that point.

My question to you is on the fact that there are so many delays in a lot of the processes with municipal governments. Those delays cost money in the end. Whether it’s the red tape or a lack of decisions made by municipal councils—we do need to speed that up, because I’ve seen condo buildings that have been vacant land for seven, eight years. Imagine holding that land for seven, eight years. When you actually build it, who are those costs going to be borne by in that situation? And do you support that reduction in red tape so we can build faster?

I want to thank the speaker for bringing her offerings to the floor.

I want to go to schedule 7 for her, the Ontario Land Tribunal Act. I mentioned this yesterday: I see many red flags here, especially when you’re using words like “expand the tribunal’s powers to dismiss a proceeding without a hearing,” “to give the tribunal the power to dismiss a proceeding entirely,” “to give the tribunal the power to order an unsuccessful party to pay a successful party’s costs.” I see that as gutting. I see that as hurting a process. I see that as empowering a tribunal that already has many of the processes that it needs in order to make those decisions.

What do you see when you see language like this?

When I first heard of this bill, I was excited. We all know full well that we are in a housing crisis. I was glad to see that the government wanted to acknowledge this and take action to address it.

Ontarians want safe, healthy, affordable and comfortable places to call home. This includes all types of homes: townhouses, co-operative housing, laneway and garden suites, duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, affordable housing, multi-residential and missing middle—not just single-family detached homes with white picket fences.

We need to be building walkable, sustainable communities where people can work and play where they live. We need to be adding gentle density across our neighbourhoods, building up instead of out. I truly hope this government will address these issues as they work through this bill, and I am happy to work on positive amendments with them.

It’s not about whether we grow or whether we build; it’s about how we grow and how we build. Building homes is a vital part of addressing our housing crisis. We all know that. This development, however, cannot simply be a free-for-all, but rather implemented thoughtfully and sustainably. It must be done with proper consultation for the safety of all Ontarians. Aimless construction will ultimately only cost the government and the people of Ontario more in the long run. It will not be affordable nor safe without careful, logical and forward-thinking planning.

Around the world we are seeing the effects of climate change: the horrible extreme heat in Europe, out-of-control forest fires in British Columbia, devastating flooding in Pakistan, and Hurricane Fiona heartlessly demolishing the east coast. We have already experienced the risks right here in Ontario and, sadly, it is only the beginning. We must have climate adaptation top of mind when we put shovels in the ground.

One of the largest growing risks and expenses of climate change for Ontarians is flooding. The Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation at the University of Waterloo found that in the GTA it costs an average of $40,000 per homeowner to restore flooded basements—$40,000, per homeowner. For most this cost is unthinkable. Unfortunately, these disasters will only become more and more common.

Madam Speaker, you may be wondering what flooding has to do with the More Homes Built Faster Act. This bill is proposing to remove the need for the expertise of the conservation authorities for building development. This legislation will repeal 36 specific regulations that allow conservation authorities to directly oversee the development process. They would also be compelled to identify and give up any land they hold that would be suitable for housing. One of the main reasons these regulations are in place is to protect Ontarians from flooding by preventing building on flood plains.

I want to reiterate a tragic story from Ontario’s past that the member from Guelph spoke about this morning. Hurricane Hazel hit Ontario in 1954, destroying or seriously damaging over 1,000 homes that had been built on flood plains and killing 81 Ontarians. The province quickly expanded the duties of the conservation authorities to prevent a tragedy like this from ever happening again. I cannot sit back and let us put our beautiful province and lovely residents at risk for a disaster like this to occur again without us having learned lessons from the past and having fully prepared ourselves for future events.

I know that this government prides itself on being fiscally responsible. To that end, they should aim to be proactive in protecting Ontarians from future disasters to save money on hardships. We need to focus on emergency preparedness and climate adaptation and do everything in our power to ensure we are ready when these extreme events come, because we all know they are coming, more rapidly than we ever anticipated.

Let me share a case you may not be aware of: Banfi v. Town of Oakville. In 2020, a nearly $1-billion class action claim was made by Oakville property owners, which alleged that overdevelopment in the town has led to increased flood risk, making their homes more prone to water damage, and less valuable. The claim alleged that rampant urbanization and the loss of thousands of acres of once pristine green space upstream from this area has led to increased storm water runoff and flood risk in the downstream watersheds. That doesn’t sound like affordable housing to me, and we shouldn’t be allowing it to happen again. Building on flood plains affects the value of homes and costs homeowners their money and sometimes their safety.

This bill will gut wetland protection in southern Ontario, making each individual wetland have to qualify as significant on its own. That’s almost impossible for most wetlands. Wetlands protect us from flooding, drought and climate change. They protect wildlife and clean the water we enjoy.

Biodiversity loss is also at an all-time high. Southern Ontario alone has lost more than 70% of its wetland habitats, 98% of its grasslands and 80% of its forests. Over 200 plant and animal species are now classified as at risk of becoming extinct in Ontario. We need to tirelessly work hard to preserve what we do have left, not pave paradise.

On Tuesday, the Insurance Bureau of Canada called on governments and the housing industry to be transparent about climate risk, lest “catastrophic loss to homes and communities will continue to increase in severity and cost, year after year.” Let’s make the suitable amendments to this act and protect the important work of the conservation authorities so we can save Ontarians money, hardship, relocation and, in severe cases, their lives.

Each of us in this House has residents in our ridings who are looking for homes to buy, lease or rent. The people living in my riding of beautiful Beaches–East York consistently share their stress around the housing crisis and also their basement flooding with me. During my time as Toronto city councillor, I championed housing in our riding, approving many affordable housing applications, working with developers on well-designed mid-rise buildings, and spearheading the game-changing laneway suites housing policy—mentioned many times by this government today—with the goal to have garden suites as the second phase. I pride myself in getting things done and having the track record to prove it.

TransformTO, the city’s first-ever climate adaptation and mitigation plan, was an immense amount of work, but I’m proud of obtaining a unanimous vote at Toronto city council for this vital and ambitious strategy to reduce community-wide greenhouse gas emissions in Toronto to net zero by 2040. This ambitious goal relies heavily on the requirements of the Toronto Green Standard being met by new private and city-owned developments. Unfortunately, these requirements will be deemed obsolete if the More Homes Built Faster Act is made law as it currently is written.

Section 41(4), 2(d), was a clause under the Planning Act regarding plans and drawings that could be reviewed to ensure they are aligned with the Toronto Green Standard, and this act will repeal it. The legislation would remove site plan control and abolish all green standards for building in Ontario. Think about that for a moment. The world is in a climate emergency, horrible disasters are devastating communities around the world, and the need to properly prepare and protect ourselves well in advance has never been more clear. So why on earth would we wish to remove our green standards, especially when they allow residents to live more comfortably in their homes and to save money in the long run while living sustainably?

Madam Speaker, I’ll be calling on the government to approve an amendment that would allow municipalities with established green standards to continue their current practices and approvals and to replicate those standards right across Ontario to ensure everyone is safe and protected. We cannot let a decade’s worth of work be squashed. Cutting these standards will not lead to more affordable housing. Quite the opposite, Madam Speaker: The cost of inaction is high. Building environmentally efficient homes ends up being a win-win for all involved.

I am also curious about the development charges. The loss of this revenue for municipalities all across Ontario will be catastrophic. Has the government completed or planned to do a financial impact study on the municipalities for this bill?

Madam Speaker, I am happy to work with the government to get more homes built and ensure this act would lead to more homes being built. But again, it’s not about whether we build or whether we grow; it’s about how we build and how we grow—and affordably done and sustainably done in the right places. In the meantime, I am looking forward to working with communities, organizations, stakeholders and residents on this issue to ensure their voices are heard and valued. As well, I’ll be preparing amendments to ensure our green spaces are protected and we are building with climate adaptation at top of mind.