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 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.

Thank you for that question. Yes, my first planning application when I became city councillor in 2010 was a proposal for a six-storey condominium on Queen Street, where a famous burger joint you may know—you may have eaten at Lick’s hamburger joint, a landmark place. It was proposed there. There were many people opposed to that building which I strongly stood up for. We need gentle density, we need homes for people and we need our residents, especially seniors who were over-housed in their big beach homes, to be able to change their living accommodation and age in place in the community they volunteered in and raised their kids in. So I have much experience with NIMBYs and YIMBYs.

But with laneway suites in particular, we brought everyone into the—we did very creative, outward-thinking community engagement all across the city. We did walks and talks and town halls and all kinds of things—

But we also need to deal with vacant properties, which is an issue. I don’t know; it doesn’t seem this government is proactively working on that. We have many empty homes in Toronto that we need to—

Questions?

Pursuant to standing order 50(c), I am now required to interrupt the proceedings and announce that there have been six and a half hours of debate on the motion for second reading of this bill. This debate will therefore be deemed adjourned unless the government House leader directs the debate to continue.

I want to thank my colleague for her very thoughtful comments on this huge bill. Evidently, she took the time to go through it and come up even already with some ideas for some amendments. She cleverly said that it’s a question of building up instead of building out; it’s not whether we build but how we do it.

She talked extensively about conservation authorities and green standards. She already thought about some amendments, and I know she doesn’t have the details of it, but I’d like to give her the opportunity to maybe talk a little bit more about the kind of amendments she would like to see the committee consider, when it goes to the committee, hopefully.

I want to thank the member from Beaches–East York for her comments today.

One of the most shocking things that I found online recently was the population growth in different ridings in Toronto between 2016 and 2021. All of the growth is concentrated in Etobicoke–Lakeshore, in my riding of Spadina–Fort York and downtown along the Yonge corridor all the way up to the north end. But what really surprised me is that most ridings in Toronto had declining population between 2016 and 2021. This bill is proposing some measures towards inclusionary zoning, which is something that the NDP has been asking for for some time, but how do we address declining population in the ridings inside Toronto?

I want to thank the member for her comments and her speech. She has a lot of municipal experience, and she did talk about garden suites. Oftentimes, depending on your municipality, there are different names for garden suites, and oftentimes people talk about the fact or they raise the element of tiny homes. But as a result, there are a lot of people who want to be the yes-bys, and then you have the NIMBYs. The yes-bys want to build these garden suites, or these tiny homes, on their property, but then they’re surrounded by these NIMBYs who do not want them to build this. This is going to obviously increase our affordable living supply.

I just wanted to ask, given her experience at the city of Toronto level, how she was able to get the yes-bys to agree to the garden suites, as opposed to the NIMBYs who disagree with them.

Something I heard about resoundingly during the election, and even before the election, from many constituents around Barrie and Innisfil is that we’re a growing population, and they were really impressed with the vision of this government. This came up time and time again in the last election—and the vision of just always focusing on affordability, as a government, but also on the very important topic of home ownership.

What we’re debating today really builds on our bold vision for the province, and that’s what is required in leadership—and a government that is stable and has someone like Premier Ford at the helm, with the bold vision he has, and that is, when we talk about affordable housing and we talk about building more supply and we talk about the next generation and filling all different demographics that need housing, there have to be policies and actions that match it. We’ve done that since day one. We committed to the people of Ontario that every single year our government is going to introduce an affordable building bill. Why? Because times are going to change and the information and the demographics are changing. Most recently, we got new census data, which means our policies have to be updated with the real-time data that we have in front of us, and if they’re not then most likely we’re not addressing everyone who needs the support and the help.

In 2019, we introduced More Homes, More Choice, and we embarked on a bold vision to bring more housing online to this province. We worked with all levels of government, worked with our municipal partners, and as a result, we’ve already seen the fruits of our labour. Because of that single bill for housing that we started when we hit the ground running in 2019, the province saw supply increase—over 100,000 housing starts in 2021 alone, the highest since 1987, a very formidable year for myself. I think that 1987 was a good year; I wouldn’t be here without that year, the year I was born. To put it into perspective, in 1987 a dozen eggs cost a dollar, and eggs today cost $3.59. That’s an increase of almost 359%. In 1987, milk cost 75 cents per litre. Milk today is $3.29, which is an increase of 339%. So when we talk about the need to build more homes and the fact that now, because of this government’s first bill on housing, we’ve seen the most amount of housing starts since 1987—we’re doing something about it. And that is before inflation took its record high and has hit all of our communities and people we represent and we hear from a lot in terms of what the cost of living is doing to all of our communities. Thankfully, this government had a vision back in 2019, and we got ahead of it in the sense of, “Let’s hit the ground running to tackle the issue of affordability and building homes,” which we did—and that’s just home ownership, a dream that many people have, that many immigrants who come to this country have.

We had the Minister of Finance talk about his proud Hungarian roots. All his family lived under one roof, and they had the proud dream of home ownership, which is no different from any family’s—including myself. We came as refugees from the former Soviet Union, and we were renters. When you come to Canada, depending on your immigration status, you don’t have much besides your name. You have no equity. You don’t have a line of credit. You’ve got nothing. So you’re really just trying to save up for the next thing you’re trying to do, whether it’s funding education for your kids or for putting a roof over your head or for the proud achievement of home ownership. I was lucky. Our family all lived together, and we went from being renters on Penetang Street in Barrie to becoming homeowners on Wallwins Way in Barrie. That was a new subdivision. We joined many first-time homeowners who proudly walked into a new-build home and were able to unlock the door to the dream of home ownership.

On the other side, in terms of home ownership and building homes, is rentals. When we came to Barrie, Ontario, with my family and my grandparents in the early 1990s, rent was a little more affordable. But now, in terms of the community I represent, the city of Barrie and Innisfil—in Barrie, we’re the sixth-largest rental housing market in all of Canada. This is the reason that we need more rental supply, and this is why we need more housing supply.

Again, going back to this government’s vision that we had from the very beginning, in 2018, with More Homes, More Choice: We saw the fruits of our labour, with more than 13,000 rental starts. They came to be in 2021, the highest since 1991—again, a formidable year because my family came in the early 1990s. This was all made possible because of the vision this government had very early on.

Now, today, we’re building on that vision. We understand that we need to build more homes and we need to keep up with the population and the new census data. In fact, just this last week, we had census data come out that said that in 2021, our landed immigrants alone was a 23% increase. By 2041, that’s going to be a 30% increase.

To put it into perspective, in 2021, when I said there was a 23% increase in landed immigrants—that’s the largest since Confederation. So what did we do back in the Confederation and post-World War periods? Well, we built a lot of homes. Many people said that here. And that post-Industrial Revolution resulted in a lot of different zoning policies. In fact, prior to the Industrial Revolution, we had very few zoning policies because we didn’t have the Industrial Revolution. As a result of that, we now have things like residential zoning and industrial zoning, because we learned from London, England and the United Kingdom that no one wants to live beside factories. There were a lot of issues with smokestacks etc. As a result, we had the development of zoning policy.

And here we are today. We could be in a very different spot today. For example, if we look at the history of zoning in Germany in the 19th and 20th centuries, they were more progressive, I would say, with their zoning policies. For example, instead of having a different array of different zoning areas, they really just had residential, mixed use and industrial, and one special sub-class, and that was it. And they allowed for, if you wanted mixed use, if you had a home and you wanted to put a business in it, no problem. As long as you followed the building codes, you could build it. But we have strayed far away from that. They had things like small-scale residential and exclusivity residential housing, which allowed you to build duplexes and allowed you to have small shops and small industry amongst houses. It allowed you to have hotels in civic buildings. And in exclusivity residential zoning in Germany, you were able to have density of all kinds.

What did that result in? It’s something that I hear the opposition talk about very often. It resulted in very inclusive communities, walkable communities where you could go to the corner store, where you could have everything. It was a very simplistic type of zoning.

But then we over-complicated it, over years and years, time and time again, and the result of over-complicating zoning and land-use planning and planning policies—it not only resulted in time; it resulted in costs. To put it into perspective in terms of costs, something that I hear about quite often from builders is, if you look at just a simple home that might be $428,000 or whatnot, you’re adding an extreme amount of cost to that home because of the needed permits, the needed zoning, and all the hoops you have to jump through.

That’s why we’re here today, and that’s what I wanted to start getting into. We need to build more homes. We need to make the process much easier for everyone involved. We have to address the missing middle. And, most excitingly, we need to build by transit stations so people can have amenities around them and they can have walkability or be near transit.

In the community I represent, for example, Innisfil, over 80% of our residents commute to get to work—80%. So when we’re talking about building near transit, it’s going to help a lot of people who can’t get that job locally. Of course, that’s another part of the solution that our government is working on when it comes to employment lands. Again, that’s the vision of this government.

But when it comes to building more near transit, the whole point there is not only to bring affordability to people and have that high density, but to allow people like the folks who live in Innisfil—instead of spending money on a vehicle, they’re already living above transit. That reduces their cost of living, especially when gas prices are going up. Of course, our government was elected on reducing gas prices, which helped a lot of people, but some people don’t have the luxury of buying a vehicle. So when you’re building transit-oriented communities, that not only helps them because now they’re able to find an affordable home, but you’ve got to reduce the red tape burden. If someone is living near a transit-oriented community, why do they need a lot of parking spots below that building? You’re only adding to the cost of that unit, which is going to actually trickle down to the individual who needs the affordable housing.

This bill does call on building more around transit. And it’s not just our government that’s saying that it’s going to be beneficial. If you have a look at the research—I was reading a paper by Ontario 360. It’s a policy think tank from the Munk school. It was a paper where they were talking about research by David Gordon at Queen’s University, who showed that two thirds of Canadians live in car-oriented suburbs, where the automobile is the primary mode of transportation.

The reason I mention this, Speaker, is because we have to build for all Canadians. We have to build communities where they’re going to need car transportation and those who need transit communities. That’s going to create a nice diversity in your community because you have the ability for people to use transit, which reduces the gridlock on our highways, and then those who need the highway to get to work, it allows for a smoother ride because now you’re diversifying in terms of where the population is going. And what does that add, Speaker? It adds to a better quality of life for people, increases the time they can spend with their family—something that no one can buy, Speaker, and that is time.

Certainly we respect all Ontarians, and our government will do everything we can to give them that great thing that is time, to lessen their commute, whether it’s our transformational transportation policies—and again, what we’re doing here today, which is building more homes and building them near transit routes so that people can get to their homes, get to work, and they’re surrounded by a community hub where they can get their local products very easily.

In Innisfil—I’m very excited—we have a transit-oriented development project called the Orbit, which is going to be doing just that. Of course, our newly elected mayor, Mayor Dollin—congratulations on your re-election. This is something that she is very excited about and has talked about quite a lot in many different media outlets, but she talks about how this project is not only just going to involve a lot of walkability, a centre where you can have child care, amenities, commercial spaces for people to start up their businesses, but again it has an added benefit of protecting farmland throughout Innisfil because we’re able to put our density into one part of the town of Innisfil. So it’s a win-win solution there.

I wanted to acknowledge again the vision of Innisfil and of course the new council that’s going to be executing this vision, but I wanted to quote the mayor of Innisfil on this particular transit-oriented development project. She said, “The idea behind the Orbit is to have a cutting-edge, future-ready city within our rural and small town atmosphere so we’ll be bringing benefits of” rural “living within our current community.” Innisfil Mayor Dollin said this on CTV’s Your Morning Show when she was interviewed on the project.

Again, this is a bold vision, but it wouldn’t be possible without this government’s leadership of these bold visions of creating different types of housing, the right mix, fixing the middle-middle and the vision of having transit-oriented communities. That’s one part of this bill. We talk about supply, but it’s not just supply, Speaker. It’s where you’re putting the supply, and I want to emphasize that: why the transit-oriented communities are important.

Going back to the need for growth, we talk about the bold vision of this government in this bill, which is to build 1.5 million homes. Why is that, though? It’s population growth, Speaker. Nearly 80% of the population growth for 2031 is going to be concentrated in 29 large municipalities, and that’s going to require all of them to grow. In the city of Barrie alone, the city I represent, their 2031 housing target would be approximately 23,000, and that is to meet the needs to have more attainable housing.

Of course, when we talk about supporting the needed tools that are in this legislation to expedite more growth and to grow to 1.5 million homes, I would say that this isn’t to replace our municipal plans, but it’s to make sure that we have the right action to work together and to accelerate our plans head-on, to work with municipalities to solve the overall housing issue. In addition to building the homes, having it in the right location by transit, we have to think about fees and taxes. I was mentioning earlier how fees, taxes and processes end up costing more to the price of a home.

Now, I was chatting with Sandy Tuckey, who is the executive director of the Simcoe County Home Builders’ Association. She summarized it quite well, and I wanted to mention some of her comments. On October 25, 2022—not that long ago—the Simcoe County Home Builders’ Association and the Ontario Home Builders’ Association supported the introduction of this bill. Why? Because, on average, Speaker, 25% of the cost of new homes is composed of government fees, taxes and charges. And who ends up paying these taxes, fees and charges? It’s the person who wants that dream of home ownership. This can add as much as $250,000 to the price of a typical single-family home. Again, if you’re in the market to buy a home and you’re thinking you’re going to get one price for your home, and then all of a sudden all these fees are put on top of it, it makes it unattainable. It’s like going to the grocery store: You’re going to the checkout and you know you’re going to get PST or HST, depending on the products you’re buying or the services you’re obtaining. But can you imagine if you received your bill—“Congratulations, you’ve been approved for a mortgage,” thankfully—and now there are all these hidden costs you have to pay? All these fees, all these extra surcharges, all these extra taxes.

If people saw the amount of extra fees, taxes and processes that are attached to their home, they would likely walk away from it. This is exactly what Sandy Tuckey was talking about when she talked about the importance of bringing this bill forward.

Paul Markle, the executive director of the Barrie chamber, is also very supportive of this bill, because it also addresses the folks who live in Barrie. He said, “With the soaring prices of rent and housing in Barrie, living and working in Barrie has become unattainable for many. This has a ripple effect on local businesses as they are unable to attract talent when potential employees cannot afford to pay rent where they are working. I have heard a lot about the struggles that local organizations and individuals have had with building in Barrie, and I’m sure in many places in the province. I am fully supportive of the More Homes Built Faster Act and I’m looking forward to seeing more houses built in this community.”

It’s not just Paul Markle who recognizes the impact this bill is going to have on local businesses being able to attract that talent. It’s also James Cheetham, the VP of operations for Linear Transfer Automation, as we’re trying to, of course, again, embrace the manufacturing might that is Ontario, and we have much of that in Barrie. He recognizes this, and I want to quote what he was saying to me: “One of our struggles is hiring young talent as our current housing market is difficult, if not impossible, for young people starting their careers. If we could increase the available housing in our area, this would help alleviate the high housing costs we are currently facing.”

So employers in our region recognize that the solution is things like this bill and previous housing bills that we have introduced in the past.

Even Ashley Polischuik, who I recently met with at a round table at the Barrie and District Association of Realtors—and this lady, I tell you, sits on every single board imaginable to bring more housing supply to Barrie. She is the chair of the Barrie not-for-profit housing group, a member of the Barrie and District Association of Realtors, a secretary for Habitat for Humanity, and a former member of the Barrie Affordable Housing Task Force. This lady is involved in everything, and I want to thank her for her constant feedback.

What she says about this bill is that “changes related to the housing supply crisis coming from Queen’s Park are positive and welcomed. Allowing laneway and garden suites, secondary and basement apartments on single-family lots, with a reduced parking requirement per unit, will assist in increasing the housing supply in the most economically efficient way possible. Homeowners can now add to the supply of housing, while increasing their own earnings through rental incomes to fight ever-increasing mortgage rates.

“The reduction in development charges for purpose-built rental projects, with a further reduction for family-sized, three-bedroom suites, will bring more builders to the table as developments will become more financially feasible, reducing soft costs in markets where the cost to build is continuously increasing.

“These changes, combined with the limit on third-party appeals at the tribunal, reductions in public meeting requirements at a municipal level and reducing the involvement on the conservation authorities in the planning process should help cut through the red tape barriers many builders, developers and municipalities are facing when aiming to get shovels in the ground and projects over the finish line.”

Speaker, this lady sits on every potential board imaginable to help with attainable housing in Barrie, and that is a quote from her. She sees the writing on the wall and sees this bold vision that our government is achieving. Whether you’re a new Canadian, whether you’re a student graduating from post-secondary education, whether you’re a senior looking to downsize, we want them to afford the next level of housing. We want them to be able to not only enter the rental market, but be a homeowner. That requires streamlining processes to reduce fees and taxes on people, coming up with interesting financial models like rent-to-own, and coming up with innovative housing like land leases. We’re doing it all in this bill.

It is now time for questions.

I’d like to ask the member from Barrie–Innisfil: Do you not see a strong public role in the delivery of new affordable houses in this legislation, or to address the need for affordable homes, something that would include new public investment in a new public home builder? Because the builders that we have now are not interested in building where there are no profits to be made. So do you not see an opportunity for the public sector to come in and say, “We need to build affordable homes, we need to build geared-to-income homes, we need to build homes for those who cannot afford homes”?

Questions?

I’m going to tell you a quick story about a place called Houston. Has anybody ever heard of it? The Houston Astros? Houston? Well, they did the same thing that your government is thinking of doing: building on our wetlands. And do you know what happened in Houston? They destroyed all the wetlands and they built on the wetlands, and then they had the worst flood in their history because the water had nowhere to go. Where did the water go? Help me out, Conservatives. You guys are pretty smart. Where do you think it went? It went up, and they had floods.

So my question is, why are you trying to weaken the conservation authorities and build on our wetlands with the number of floods we’ve had in Windsor, Fort Erie, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ottawa? What are we doing?