Good morning, everyone, and colleagues in the House. I will begin this morning by saying thank you to my colleague Minister Clark for your tireless leadership and dedication to an important issue that matters to so many Ontario families, seniors and those who are vulnerable.

Everyone in Ontario should be able to find a home that is right for them, but that is simply not the current reality. Too many people are struggling with the rising cost of living and with finding housing that meets their families’ needs. Ontario needs more housing, and Ontario needs it now.

Tout le monde en Ontario devrait pouvoir trouver un logement qui lui convient. Mais la réalité actuelle est tout autre. Trop de gens ont du mal à jongler avec le coût de la vie qui augmente et avec la recherche d’un logement qui répond aux besoins de leur famille. Il faut plus de logements en Ontario, et il les faut maintenant.

Attainable housing has undoubtedly become one of the most important topics of the day, which is exactly why this government, and Minister Clark and the Premier in particular, have led the charge in stepping up to the plate to address and tackle this issue head-on.

It is not the only subject, however, that has continued to dominate headlines. Geo-political crises and supply chain issues continue to strain society, especially as far as people’s pocketbooks are concerned. This is not lost on our government. It is also why today it is my sincere honour to address the measures this government has taken in our mission to help keep costs down in this province, particularly as it relates to the housing file, and I’m pleased to be here today to speak to the government’s recently introduced More Homes Built Faster Act.

It is very clear to this government that families, seniors and people from every corner of this province are looking to cut back on their household expenses. Our government believes this is an opportunity to help support people through a very challenging time. As I mentioned earlier, over the last four years the government has introduced many new policies to build more housing against the backdrop of a system that is not working as well as it could.

In 2019, we created the province’s first-ever housing supply action plan to cut through the red tape and get more homes built faster. Last spring, we introduced our More Homes for Everyone plan, and we have committed to introducing a housing supply action plan every year to meet our commitment to build 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years, and our government is taking bold action to get those 1.5 million homes built over the next 10 years.

While I can say the government’s new policies are working, we know more work needs to be done to reach our goal of building 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years to address this province’s housing crisis, starting with reducing red tape and delays that are holding back the construction of housing. We must reform these processes at the provincial and municipal levels to ensure everyone can find a home that meets their needs and their budgets.

D’abord, réduire les formalités administratives et lever les obstacles qui retardent la construction de logements et créent d’importantes difficultés pour les jeunes et les familles, les nouveaux arrivants, et les aînés qui envisagent de prendre un logement plus petit—nous devons réformer ces processus aux paliers provincial et municipal pour que chacun puisse trouver un logement adapté à ses besoins et à son budget.

Our government is building a durable foundation for action that will increase housing supply and attainability over the long term, even though we know that the effects of this plan will not be felt overnight. The proposals contained in this legislation, if passed, would ensure cities, towns and rural communities grow with a mix of ownership and rental housing types that meet the needs of all, from single-family homes to townhomes and mid-rise apartments. We remain committed to releasing a new action plan every year over four years to help build more homes and make life more affordable for Ontario families.

Before I go any further, let me just share some of the actions we have taken to date on this file. I want to spend a moment echoing what Mr. Clark said earlier this year at the Association of Municipalities of Ontario conference. Ontario cannot tackle this housing crisis on its own. Municipal councils play a crucial role in increasing the housing supply. The province cannot do it alone, so our government has been working closely with municipalities to identify opportunities and solutions to help us collectively and effectively address the housing crisis. What we have heard from them was very clear: Municipalities need the tools and flexibility to get shovels in the ground faster.

Les conseils municipaux contribuent grandement à enrichir l’offre de logements. La province ne saurait le faire seule. Notre gouvernement travaille donc en étroite collaboration avec les municipalités pour trouver des occasions et des solutions susceptibles de nous aider à contrer collectivement et adéquatement la crise du logement. Le message des municipalités est clair : elles ont besoin des outils et de la souplesse nécessaires pour pouvoir mettre leurs projets en chantier plus rapidement.

That is why the province has also passed the Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act in September in respect of our cities in the most urgent need of new housing, namely Toronto and Ottawa, where more than one third of Ontario’s growth across the next decades is expected to take place. Thanks to that legislation, if proclaimed, mayors in these two great cities would get the ability to drive policy changes, select municipal department heads and bring forward budgets. These changes are intended to be in effect on November 15, 2022, in Toronto and Ottawa, the start of the new municipal council term.

Efficient local decision-making will help to expedite the development timelines, which is why we have enabled municipalities to take the opportunity to bypass red tape and get housing built faster.

Our work with municipalities does not stop there. We’re also encouraging gentle intensification by giving some property owners the right to build up to three units on most urban residential lots without lengthy planning approvals and development charges. And we are creating a new attainable housing program to drive development of housing. Sites across all regions of Ontario will be considered, including those in the north, central, east and southwest regions.

We are building more homes near transit, unlocking an innovative approach to design and construction, and getting shovels in the ground faster. We are continuing to introduce consumer protection measures for homebuyers and using provincial lands to build more attainable homes so, whatever their budget, Ontarians can find a place to call their own.

We’re also introducing changes to renew and update our heritage policies to reduce red tape, strengthen the criteria for heritage designation and provide clearer, fairer and more transparent guidelines. This is good policy work that will drive meaningful change.

I will now turn my attention to renters, as there are measures we are considering at this time that could help those who rent—for example, units sitting empty in incidences where they have been purchased as an investment, but not rented out. Too many units are sitting empty while would-be homebuyers and renters sit on the sidelines, priced out of the market. To encourage these property owners to rent or sell their unoccupied units this winter, Ontario will release a policy framework setting out the key elements of local vacant-home taxes. We’re also going to look at how the property tax assessment system can better support affordable rental housing.

Mr. Speaker, we are also calling on the federal government to come to the table and work with us on potential HST incentives, including rebates, exemptions and deferrals to support new ownership and rental housing development, because all levels of government need to work together to get more homes built and address the housing crisis.

These actions are all part of our government’s broader approach to support everyone—everyone in Ontario—living in a home that meets their needs and meets their budget. Let me be clear: As part of this commitment to tackle Ontario’s housing crisis, we need to prioritize Ontario families and Ontario homebuyers. That is why our government got to work immediately. On March 30, 2022, we increased the non-resident speculation tax to 20% from 15%, and expanded the tax to apply province-wide, beyond the greater Golden Horseshoe. These changes further deterred non-resident investors from speculating on Ontario’s housing market. This measure helps make home ownership more attainable for Ontario residents, and that is exactly why we are now increasing Ontario’s non-resident speculation tax rate from 20% to 25%, to prioritize Ontario families and Ontario homebuyers. This increase will mean it is the most comprehensive non-resident speculation tax rate in the country.

Following this, Ontario will also consult on potential measures to address concerns related to land speculation. For example, the province will explore ways to discourage construction slowdowns that may be artificially driving up prices of new homes for Ontario families through land speculation.

Speaker, Ontarians sent our government a strong message when they re-elected us earlier this year: They expect us to deliver on our pledge to get more housing built. Over the last four years, our government has introduced dozens of new policies under our first two new 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 hit our target of 1.5 million new homes over the next 10 years.

We are introducing this plan now to accelerate the progress begun with our previous housing supply action plans. It is a clear indication that our government understands the urgency of the housing supply shortage and is moving fast to tackle it. For various reasons, too many people continue to struggle with the rising cost of living and with finding housing that meets their family’s needs.

Ontario needs more housing; Ontario needs it now. Ontario’s housing supply crisis is a problem that has been decades in the making and will not be resolved overnight. That is why we have committed to introduce a housing supply action plan each year over the next four years. It will take both short-term and long-term strategies and a commitment from all levels of government, the private sector and not-for-profits to drive change.

Addressing the rising cost of living and helping keep costs down are pillars of our government’s plan in so many measures that have already been announced and are already under way in Ontario. We stand here proud and ready to continue to support the people of this province, especially in this ongoing period of challenge and uncertainty. Everyone in Ontario should be able to find a home that is right for them. Families in Ontario should not have to choose between food and filling up their gas tank. That is our bottom line, and it will always be our bottom line.

In spite of the challenges we have collectively weathered, and will continue to weather, my belief in Ontario remains firm: I’m proud of the people of this province and proud of the workers of this province and of their resilience. This period of ongoing economic turbulence and uncertainty is real. That is why it’s my firm belief that governments must remain flexible and responsive, with a fiscal plan solid enough to respond to any challenge, and that is exactly what this government is doing. Until then, I will say this: I firmly believe our collective strength will continue to carry us forward through any challenge. We, as Ontarians, are standing strong together, and together with sheer resolve and a government that has your back, we will get it done.

Thank you to the Minister of Finance for his comments. One of the changes that is proposed in this bill that has raised alarms with many people in this province are the changes to conservation authorities. People rightly point out that what has been of greatest concern around this government’s approach to conservation authorities is the development of warehouses on wetlands. The question that critics have raised is whether this bill is actually about building housing, or is it about allowing more warehouses on protected wetlands. Can the minister tell us exactly how limiting the ability of conservation authorities to protect sensitive wetland areas is going to help spur new housing in the province?

Interjection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Minister, for your presentation. Mr. Speaker, I’m very pleased to see our government is continuing to take the housing supply crisis seriously.

This morning as I was driving on the DVP, a small builder called me asking how our new bill can build more housing faster. He has been struggling with a development application for five years to build five houses, going through the bureaucratic jargon and all kinds of red tape there is at the municipality.

I’ll ask the member: Can the member please let us know why our government is not only building more houses but also building more houses faster? That is very critical to alleviate the housing supply crisis urgently and introducing yet another plan. Please could you elaborate why we have to build more houses faster?

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you to the member for his comments. I was just curious to see what his opinion is of setting the target for affordable housing at 80% of the average cost of housing. What does that look like in Guelph and the region that he serves? Do you think that this will help in my neck of the woods?

It’s 10 to 12 years before you can move into an affordable housing place. Does he see anything in the bill that will help the hundreds and thousands of families that are waiting for affordable housing?

I rise today on behalf of the people in London West to participate in the debate on Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate because it comes on the heels of a municipal election. I know many of us engaged with voters in the municipal election and we heard very, very clearly from people in our communities that housing is a number one priority—along with health care, of course, but housing is a huge issue for people in our communities.

Homelessness is a huge issue for people in our communities. Certainly in the city of London the homelessness crisis has reached a point that we haven’t seen before. The riding of London West is located in a suburban area of the city. It’s one of the most affluent areas of the city and we are seeing encampments in parks in London West, in Jesse Davidson Park, that we haven’t seen before. We have not seen a homelessness crisis of this kind of proportion that has spread out from the downtown core and has reached areas of the city like in my riding of London West.

This is a big concern for people. It is an affront to people’s morality to see neighbours, to see human beings who have no place to live, who are forced to live in encampments because there are no other options.

Right now in this province we have a housing crisis that is caused by a number of factors. People can’t afford to buy new homes and therefore they are staying in rental accommodation much longer than they were before. We have a shortage of purpose-built rentals. We have a shortage of rental housing options for people to live in, and people are being priced out of the rental market.

One of the decisions that this government made after they were elected in 2018 was to remove rent control on buildings that were built after November 2018. That has caused huge pressures in communities that finally were able to get some rental housing built after November 2018. The tenants who have moved into those units are hit unexpectedly with annual rent increases that are financially impossible for them to enable them to stay in their rental units.

It’s a domino effect, Speaker, when we don’t have the supply for people to buy who want to buy, when we don’t have the supply for people to be able to afford to rent, and when we don’t have protections for tenants who are living in our rental accommodation.

Then, of course, we have the lack of supports for people who are struggling with mental health and addictions. We don’t have protections in place for the most vulnerable people, who are living in inadequate group homes because there are no other options and they need some kind of living arrangement that enables them just to have a roof over their heads. And literally that is all they’re getting—a roof. We saw a recent report in the Toronto Star, an undercover investigation that looked at those appalling, just unconscionable living conditions that many people—the most vulnerable people in this province—are forced to accept because they have no other options. They’re living in these unregulated, substandard group homes—

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Thank you, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the member opposite for that question. I thank her for acknowledging that we have a prudent plan for the people of Ontario.

But when I listen I think to myself: Did the members opposite across the floor make the historic and unprecedented investments in health care when they had the opportunity? Did they make the investments in long-term care and highways and public transit? Did they do that, Mr. Speaker? Did they make the investments to provide housing to the families and to the people that come to this great province that want a home and a roof over their head? Did they do that when they had the opportunity? No, Mr. Speaker.

The answer is very clear. This government has a plan to build Ontario to make the investments in infrastructure and support labour to get the job done.

As I was saying this morning, I really appreciate this opportunity to join the debate on Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act. As every MPP in this chamber is hearing from their constituents, we are in a dire housing crisis in this province.

I just want to set the stage a little bit in terms of what’s going on in my community in London. London recently achieved a number of firsts, and they are not firsts that we are proud of. Rentals.ca just reported earlier this week that London experienced the biggest average rent increase in Canada, a 33% increase in average rents over the last year. Tenants in London are being hit hard by having to deal with a 33% rent increase, and the reality is that many may be financially evicted from their units because they can no longer afford the rent.

That’s especially the case for tenants who are living in buildings that were built after November 2018, because one of the earliest things this government did on the housing file was to remove rent control off of new builds, or post-November-2018 construction. That is causing huge pressures in our housing market, when tenants are facing that kind of rent increase and struggling to try to afford that in the face of all of the other affordability questions or pressures that Ontarians are experiencing.

Two other firsts: The latest census data that was released earlier this fall showed that London is the fastest-growing city in Canada. There was a 10% increase in population over the last decade, and that, of course, exacerbates the pressure that we are experiencing in our housing stock. And London is a destination that embraces newcomers, that has really put a focus on welcoming newcomers to locate in our city, and so that is another issue that is putting pressure on the housing stock, combined with our post-secondary institutions and the need to ensure that there is housing available for all of the students who come to study in our city.

The third first that we recently became aware of—again, from Statistics Canada—is that London’s homeownership rate is dead last among major Ontario cities. So actually, that is not a first; that’s the opposite of a first. We have the fewest percentage of homeowners in our city compared to other cities in Ontario. The Ontario average is 68.4%. In London, we’re four points below that: Only 62.6% of our population own homes.

As we all know—I have young adults in their twenties; many of us are in that same demographic. It is particularly challenging, disheartening and frustrating for these young adults to ever imagine a future where they will be able to afford a home. We hear that a lot about Toronto, but it’s the same reality in communities like London. That was corroborated in the data that show that in London, only 50% of young adults aged 30 to 34 in London own a home. That’s down from 56.3% in the previous census, and there was a four percentage point decline for young adults aged 35 to 39. So the housing crisis is real. The housing crisis is affecting both tenants and people who want to own a home, particularly young people who are looking to get into the housing market, and we collectively have a responsibility to do something to address this crisis.

The bill that is before us today attempts to do that, and that is important. We need to see more homes built faster, as in the title of the bill. But we also need a whole swath of other strong measures and bold actions to be taken.

The intensification provisions that are in this bill, the changes to the Planning Act, will take some baby steps to increasing that stock that we know we need to achieve. The government’s task force before the election had shown that Ontario will need 1.5 million new homes built over the next decade. It was sad to hear that the government’s own background papers estimate that the intensification provisions in this legislation will add about 50,000 new units over the next decade. That is far, far short of the 1.5 million homes that are necessary to meet the needs of our growing population. In terms of supply, we need purpose-built rentals. We need non-market options. We need co-op housing. We need supportive housing. We need so much more than what this bill is going to deliver.

And when we have a population that is so reliant on rental housing, we need to strengthen protections for tenants. What does this bill do? We see in schedules 1 and 4 that this bill weakens protections for tenants. It allows the minister to impose limits and conditions on rental replacement bylaws that require that any affordable units that are demolished or converted during redevelopment are replaced. This bill eliminates those rental replacement provisions that are in place through municipal bylaws in Toronto and Mississauga, but it also prohibits any municipality from having those kinds of provisions.

Former Toronto city planner Jennifer Keesmaat said this is going to this is going to make it open season on low-income tenants who are living in purpose-built rentals that, like many of the purpose-built rentals in our province, are deteriorating in condition and are demolished. Those units will be gone. Municipalities will no longer be able to require that tenants can move back into a new building that is constructed at the same rent. Once again, it is going to displace thousands of vulnerable tenants across this province and increase the pressure on other communities that perhaps have lower average rents versus Toronto and Mississauga, where those bylaws are in place.

We need to ensure that there is a strong public role in new housing investments to make sure that those new builds that are constructed actually are affordable. This legislation defines affordable as 80% of market rent, but when market rent is over $2,000, 80% of that is far from affordable for many, many, many people in this province. We need to increase the supply of deeply affordable housing as well as those supportive homes that are so, so lacking in supply in our province.

We also need to take stronger regulatory measures, like a speculation tax, a vacancy tax. We heard earlier this week that the government is increasing the non-resident speculation tax, but there is so much more that can be done on the regulatory side to really spur the construction of those 1.5 million homes we need.

This bill is a step forward in some senses. As the government has estimated, it will increase our supply by 50,000 units over 10 years, and the difference between the 50,000 units that will be spurred by this bill and the $1.5-million target that we know we have to meet—the difference, this government has decided, will be made up by municipalities. So the legislation requires municipalities to have a housing pledge with a specific target that they are supposed to meet in terms of new home construction. But as the Globe and Mail has pointed out and as various commentators have pointed out, a housing pledge without any kind of penalty for municipalities that don’t meet that pledge is not going to produce those units that are necessary.

Before I reach the end of my time, I want to raise some very significant concerns about other measures that are proposed in this bill, in schedule 2 and schedule 9. Those relate to the Conservation Authorities Act and, in schedule 9, the Planning Act. Specifically, I’m referring to the changes that the government is proposing to the role of conservation authorities in planning matters. The changes that are set out in these two schedules of the bill limit or, as some would say, gut the oversight role of conservation authorities in the planning process.

In schedule 2, the role of conservation authorities in reviewing and commenting on planning and development matters within their jurisdiction will be strictly limited to matters falling under their core mandate, so that would be flooding, erosion or drought. The bill would prohibit conservation authorities from reviewing or commenting on specific proposals under a prescribed act. Conservation authorities will no longer be allowed to prohibit certain activities relating to the use or modification of water courses, wetlands, erosion and other matters. This is of grave concern to many people in this province, not just environmentalists, but of course environmentalists have sounded the alarm. We are in a climate crisis. We just saw the impact of Hurricane Fiona. These are not just 100-year severe weather events; these are 500-year severe weather events that we are experiencing on this planet. There was just a recent report showing that we’re going to be nowhere close to meeting that UN target of reducing global warming in the amount of time that we have to unless we take stronger measures. Undermining the role of conservation authorities, limiting the role of conservation authorities is exactly counter to what we should be doing.

Interestingly, the federal parliamentary budget office had recognized the work that Ontario’s conservation authorities had been doing to keep losses associated with flooding in Ontario lower than losses seen in other Canadian provinces. The last thing we want to do is to limit and undermine the role of conservation authorities in sound and sustainable development planning.

I just want to close by saying that this government has given us no confidence that it is committed to housing. We just saw in this year’s estimate a $100-million cut to the provincial government’s housing program. They have to do a lot better than what’s in this bill.

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

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

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

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.

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

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