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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was thrilled to hear the member’s comments that he thinks that 1.5 million homes is not enough, and I’m glad to hear he wants to build more. Certainly we’re not prohibiting people from building more, but we know that this is the minimum that we have to achieve in order to bring the cost of housing down.

I wanted to ask him in terms of—everyone is going to have different needs. I was talking to the finance minister earlier; we got census data that came out this past week saying that our landed immigrant population in 2021 is 23%, and that’s going to go up to 34% by 2041. We have an aging senior population, and they’re looking to downsize as well.

So we have a lot of this missing middle that we’re trying to address in this bill: laneway suites—we talked about it—the gentle density. Why are we prohibiting people? If me and my husband want to build an addition to our home so that our family can live with us and take care of our kids, why not? Many families have grown up this way, and it allows affordability for everyone. Right now, it’s prohibitive. There’s extra fees. There’s red tape. It takes years for seniors to move in their family members. So why are you preventing those seniors from living a great lifestyle with the rest of their family?

One thing I haven’t heard him address is our young people, our young population, many of whom are living with their parents or in a secondary suite, thanks to the previous bill we introduced. These individuals who are young, who are trying to get into the housing market, they’re relying on more supply to help them get into the housing market. I want to ask the member opposite if he is going to prohibit them from such a dream, or—

Everyone is struggling in the province, and for some, the housing crisis is inevitable.

In my riding, agencies for low-income housing have three-and-a-half-year wait-lists. We have low-income rentals that are abandoned and deemed unfit because agencies have no funds for repairs. Our private rental companies/landlords have hundred of names on their wait-lists.

We have refugees and immigrants who want to start life here in our small communities, but we have no place for them to live. Inflation is so high that people cannot afford their rent and are looking for subsidized housing. They are left choosing between food or rent.

Our population is aging and our seniors have nowhere to go, as LTC homes are full and booked solid for years to come.

Businesses cannot attract new workers as they have no accommodations to offer them.

Long-term-care homes and hospitals cannot attract or retain doctors and nurses as they have no accommodations for them.

People with special needs who are seeking group homes are either waiting years for a spot or are being sent hundreds of kilometres away for a place to live, leaving them completely alone and apart from their families. The list goes on and on, and it’s only the beginning.

Premier, the need to remedy this issue is now. Investment needs to happen now so that people and families of Mushkegowuk–James Bay won’t end up on the streets.

My question is to the Associate Minister of Housing. Recently, a report from the Union Bank of Switzerland stated that Toronto and the GTA have one of the riskiest housing markets in the world. According to the study, the report says that home prices have increased by 17% in Toronto and the GTA compared to a year ago. The study also highlights low levels of housing under construction and that local housing prices are rising rapidly due to high demand of speculation.

The price of housing is becoming more and more unaffordable for people who want to move into Richmond Hill. Speaker, can the minister please share what our government is doing to help build more homes and provide housing opportunities for my constituents in Richmond Hill?

My constituents in Richmond Hill are concerned about their economic future and the ability to own a home. They are worried about rising interest rates and the lack of houses being built. They are concerned about what kind of housing options will be available for them, and if they will be able to live in the communities they grew up in.

We are at a critical juncture to address this problem for future generations. That is why we need our government to take urgent action today and ensure that houses are being built. Speaker, once again to the associate minister: What is the government doing to help build homes and build the homes faster?

I want to thank my hard-working colleague from Richmond Hill for that wonderful question and certainly for her tireless work in our community.

We know housing prices have skyrocketed. We have seen report after report saying the same thing, which is why we have committed to introducing a housing action plan every year to address the crisis that we are currently in.

Our most recent bill, More Homes Built Faster Act, which was introduced just earlier this week expanded on our agreement to work with municipalities by introducing as-of-right policies. These new measures allow up to three units to be added on a residential property without needing a bylaw amendment or having to pay development charges. This means basement apartments, main residence, the garden house can be converted into a home without any barriers. It will immediately increase supply and provide some relief for local residents like those in Richmond Hill.

Speaker, this is just one of the many ways our government under the leadership of Premier Ford is getting it done for Ontarians to build 1.5 million homes in the next 10 years.

Speaker, we will be building more homes and building them faster by reducing unnecessary costs and expenses that are passed down directly to the consumer.

We’re making it easier and more predictable for builders to determine project costs and timelines so more homes can be built on budget and on time. We’re also setting local municipal housing targets in 29 of the largest municipalities to encourage home construction and development.

For example, right here in the city of Toronto, we’re asking the city to build 285,000 more homes in 10 years, and in my riding—which I am proudly sharing with my colleague from Richmond Hill—we’re asking the same, for the city to build more than 27,000 new homes in that same time period.

Mr. Speaker, we are taking the necessary, bold steps that are needed to get more homes built faster. Our most recent bill adds to the foundation that is required to build 1.5 million homes. We are laser-focused on making sure Ontarians have a house to go to every single night—one that is loving and safe for them—and we will not waver from that commitment.

I listened intently to the member opposite. I think it’s quite good that we all agree that we’re in a housing crisis. I think that’s one thing we can all agree on. Maybe we disagree on how we solve the problem.

We know Ontario is growing at a phenomenal pace. Under the previous Liberal government, we had 300,000 manufacturing jobs leave the province. We’re now getting manufacturing jobs back in the province. We are short 400,000 workers in this province right now.

We know over the next decade the population of Ontario is going to expand by at least two million, a lot of those people in the GTA, so we’re going to need homes for those people. We’re going to need homes, whether they’re immigrants, newcomers, young people that want to get in the housing market.

I think Bill 23 is making a major effort to enhance housing affordability in this province. So my question to the member is, would you agree with the member from Toronto–St. Paul’s, who said, “More houses is not necessarily the answer”—that’s in Hansard, here in the House. Do you agree with that quote?

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.

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.

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—

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?

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—

Madam Speaker, it’s no secret that in Ontario we have a housing crisis. I’m pleased to see that this government continues to take the housing supply crisis seriously. That is why the government’s third housing supply action plan builds upon the success of the first two: More Homes, More Choice and the More Homes for Everyone Act.

My residents often say, “Oh, you’re already living in a house,” and I do remind them, “Yes, I do have a house for me, but I have two children. They’re growing up, and they will leave the house.” Along with that, I remember when I came to Canada for the first time, as a first-time buyer. And there are about 401,000 people who came to this country last year.

What I want to talk about right now to the member from Barrie–Innisfil, who is doing an incredible job, is that we know that adding more supply is the key to bringing costs down. This will help first-time buyers as well as seniors looking to downsize. So my question is—

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”?

I guess I’d preposition this with how my riding of Brampton North used to be a place people would move to find more affordable homes than they could find in Toronto, and in recent history Innisfil was actually a place where people from Brampton moved to find more affordable homes. But now, even homes in Innisfil are unaffordable and out of reach for many Ontarians. So I guess I would ask the member: What steps do you think we need to take, and what parts of this bill do you think will help make homeownership more attainable for those in Innisfil and those in Brampton?

I’ll tell you what’s in this bill. This bill is fixing the fact that we have a deplorable record in all of the G7. The average price for a home in Ontario is now approximately $1 million. And in Toronto—it’s the city with the largest amount of, again, housing increases. In fact, a recent Scotiabank economist survey came out with the fact that the fewest homes built per capita in all the G7 are those in Canada—and within that, the provinces that are at the worst of the pile are Ontario and Alberta. So when we talk about getting more homes online—this is what’s in the bill to help that happen.

We’re not ignoring things like natural heritage. In fact, we’re considering programs to offset development pressures on wetlands, that would require a net-positive impact on wetlands to help preserve them for decades to come.

I think it’s really important to talk about the things that are in this bill—and we’re really recognizing all the different mixes of housing we’re going to need.

Something I didn’t get to talk about, in our bill, is the fact—to embrace innovation; not only land leases, which I have in my community, but modular construction. Through the Social Services Relief Fund, we were able to actually announce more affordable units on Tiffin Street in Barrie, which is a modular build. There’s so much red tape in modular building, which makes it prohibitive to have availability of more attainable housing. So this is something that we have in our bill to, again, address some of the red tape when it comes to modular builds.

The town of Innisfil is leading this project. In fact, they’re having a consultation on the Orbit project tonight, as well. This builds on the consultations they’ve been having with the entire community, including the Indigenous community.

Speaker, when it comes to supporting more rentals and protecting renters, we put in Bill 184. What did the opposition do? They said no to the bill. We asked for more housing supply and we introduced more housing bills. What did this opposition do? They said no. We’re trying to build more transit-oriented development to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. What did this opposition do? They said no.

Speaker, this government will get affordable housing built today.

That’s why when we talk about the missing middle, for some people it might make more sense for them to build garden suites, because they have housing. It might make more sense for them to have secondary units. In fact, in Barrie, Ontario, alone, when we introduced the secondary suites policy in one of our previous housing supply bills, it actually led to more rental units brought online.

A colleague of mine who I know, Andrew Valler, who is going to be starting in the skilled trades come January to study electric engineering, was looking to move out of living with his parents, and now, as a result of the secondary suites policy, he is going to be able to live in his own apartment.

I was able to announce supportive housing like Lucy’s Place in Barrie, where we converted a motel to be able to bring people off the streets, to be able to have a roof over their head, have the dignity of their first home and be able to transition them into their next housing. And then, we were able to use the innovation of modular homebuilding to actually add to the second part of that phase of that project, to add more increased affordable housing.

Report continues in volume B.