I rise to speak to third reading of Bill 157, a bill with 19 schedules. There are some good schedules, like schedule 18, that enhances victims’ rights. But I have an obligation to express some serious concerns with this bill, starting with schedule 1, which changes the regulatory framework for architectural technologists. Since 1969, the AATO has been the statutory regulator for architectural technologists in Ontario. This was reaffirmed by the courts in 2022. Yet the government has made a change to this regulatory framework without any consultation with architectural technologists, who have raised serious concerns around this particular change.

Secondly, I want to raise concerns about schedule 4 and, in particular, concerns raised by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario about the provisions in schedule 4 that weaken the transparency and account-ability of the public consultation process for making changes to critical regulations governing the Community Safety and Policing Act.

I think it’s important to put into the record a quote from the privacy commissioner:

“Transparency around the regulation-making process under CSPA is even more compelling given:

“—the increasing adoption and deployment of emerging information technologies in policing (such as artificial intelligence and facial recognition) that put Ontarians’ access and privacy risk at heightened risk, and

“—the heightened public interest in enhanced transparency and accountability when it comes to both the governance of police powers and the mitigation of systemic discrimination associated with policing.”

Nothing that was changed in this bill at committee addresses these serious concerns by the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and it would be nice to know from government why they haven’t addressed these concerns.

Speaker, I want to close by saying that if the government was serious about enhancing access to justice, they would start by repealing Bill 245, which politicized the political process for choosing judges, especially through the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee changes, which the Premier has now quadrupled down on, saying he wants to appoint like-minded judges. The politicization and the Americanization of our judicial system is dangerous, it’s wrong, and the government needs to backtrack on these changes now.

We have heard over and over from legal experts saying that the process that was used to appoint justices was working fine until the Premier came along and brought in American-style politicalization to that process, which I believe is dangerous for people’s access to justice in this province.

Rightfully so, the Information and Privacy Commissioner has raised serious concerns around this, especially as it relates to marginalized communities across the province.

I appreciate the question from the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore. If the member will recall my debate remarks, I opened by saying that some schedules in this bill, particularly schedule 18, which is what this question refers to, are good parts of this bill. Absolutely, we should make it easier for victims of crime to sue an offender for emotional distress.

I also think we should make it easier for the public to comment on changes to police regulations, which is why I’m raising concerns in schedule 4 of this bill along with the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

I want to thank the 600 Guelphites who walked in the Coldest Night of the Year on February 24, to raise funds for Hope House. Together we raised $193,592.

I was proud to walk on Team Orpha, led by Orpha Thrasher, who is 102 years young. Orpha is the mom of my constituency staff member, Shelley, and wife of the late Ivan Thrasher, MPP for Windsor–Sandwich from 1964 to 1967.

Hope House alleviates poverty by building community. Hope House feeds 2,400 people, supplies fully-stocked backpacks to 2,300 school children and provides services to meet the basic needs of over 1,500 people. Organizations like Hope House are trying to help people find a safe, affordable place to live.

I’m proud to say that my community in Guelph has mobilized to build a 32-unit permanent supportive housing project. I want to thank the government for contributing $3 million in capital funding for the project. Now, I urge the government to fund the health care supports needed to open up the permanent supportive housing project so we can ensure that we can move people from the streets and tents into a home.

Boy, I can’t resist the opportunity to debate the “get it done wrong” act. And let me tell you why it’s getting it done wrong, Speaker: This act is going to make the affordability crisis worse and it’s going to make the climate crisis worse.

Let’s start with the way this bill is imposing expensive sprawl onto communities in this province. Speaker, it takes two and a half times more money to service sprawl and to build the infrastructure for sprawl than it does to actually get it done building homes that people can afford in the communities they know and love. So this government, first of all, imposed sprawl on municipalities. Then they said, “No, we’re going to backtrack on that and not impose sprawl on municipalities.” Now they’re going to backtrack on the backtrack to impose sprawl on municipalities once again through enforced boundary expansions in this act.

Now, it would be so much cheaper for people, for municipalities, for government, for all of us if the government would just simply legalize housing, say yes to fourplexes and four-storey as of right across the province, so we can build homes that people can afford in the communities they love. If they would legalize building missing middle housing, six to 11 storeys, along major transit and transportation corridors, we could actually build homes that people can afford, and municipalities could actually afford to build the servicing for those homes. But instead, the government has been focusing their time, money and attention on sprawl that is there to benefit speculators and not people. So we’re going to be looking at property tax increases all across the province. We’re seeing municipalities everywhere in Ontario having to jack up property taxes to primarily line the pockets of speculators who are going to be the primary beneficiaries of the sprawl agenda.

So why is that going to make the climate crisis worse? Well, it’s going to pave over our farms, forests and wetlands—the very lands that feed us, the lands that protect us from the escalating costs of climate-fuelled extreme weather events.

So then, the government, in this “get it done wrong” act, basically did something I didn’t think the government could do: They’re actually going to even make the Environmental Assessment Act worse. Why are they going to make the Environmental Assessment Act worse? So they can speed up the construction of Highway 413, the $10-billion boondoggle that will save people 60 seconds when we have a highway just a few kilometres south of there that’s underutilized, underused, that we could actually divert truck traffic onto, again saving taxpayers money.

Interjection.

So the government had an opportunity to avoid all these costs, all this destruction, and actually say, “We’ll get rid of tolls on the one highway there are actually tolls on,” instead of talking about some mythical highway somewhere in the future.

Speaker, where else is it going to make the climate and affordability crisis worse? Well, if the government was serious about actually having a plan to address the climate crisis and set Ontario up for success in the emerging climate economy, they could actually take over the federal carbon pricing mechanism and up the rebate, and the Premier could write cheques to people as part of their rebate. But instead, the government wants to take our rebate away from us and disincentivize economic activity to lead to decarbonization, where $1.8 trillion was invested last year globally. We could be attracting that investment in Ontario, reducing climate pollution, creating jobs and putting more money in people’s pockets by raising rebate cheques.

I want to conclude with this whole licence plate scheme. I was the only MPP in the House—I’ll proudly say this—who got up and made it clear that I voted against this whole licence plate scheme. It passed on a voice vote. I got up and said, “Hey, I’m the one person opposed to it.” Do you know why I’m opposed to it, Speaker? It cost us $2 billion in the first year, $1.5 billion each and every year. So when people talk about not having money for health care, not having money for education, not having money for housing affordability, there’s where we could find money. The government is taking it away from us.

The government has a role to play in making life better and more affordable for people to ensure that people have access to the care and services they need. We can do that if we say things like, “Yes, I’ll pay $120 for my licence sticker, because I know it’s going to raise $1.5 billion to make my community a better, more caring place.”

I’m going to say something as an electric vehicle driver: One of the things I oftentimes hear from Conservatives is, “How are we going to pay for roads when all you folks start driving EVs and we no longer collect the gas tax from you because we’re in EVs?” Well, one of the ways that we can collect money to actually support the maintenance, safety, upkeep of our roads is to actually have a licence sticker fee that even electric vehicle drivers would pay for, that I would be happy to pay for, because we know that fuel taxes are going to go down as people switch to electric vehicles. We know that, so I just want to be honest with people about how we can pay for things in this province—

I appreciate the member from Ottawa South’s question. I think they’re concerned because they have such a poor legal record. They tend to lose most of their legal cases, so I’m thinking they’re probably worried they’re going to lose the case.

But here’s the reality: We can pay for tolls for truckers for 30 years—for 30 years—on the 407, and it won’t even come in at half the cost of building Highway 413. Let’s solve gridlock tomorrow by putting those truckers on the 407, saving us money.

The reason I’ve been asking, over and over again, questions about the housing crisis, putting forward proposals to legalize housing so we can build homes that ordinary people can afford in the communities they love is because we’re facing an unprecedented housing crisis. And let’s be clear: That crisis is the primary driver of the affordability crisis people are facing.

There is no city in Ontario where a minimum wage worker can afford a one-bedroom apartment. As a matter of fact, a minimum wage worker would have to earn $25.96 to afford average rent for a one-bedroom apartment. In Toronto, even two full-time minimum wage workers cannot afford a one-bedroom apartment without spending more than 30% of their income.

On top of that, the dream of home ownership, especially for a whole generation of young people, is falling further and further away. Housing prices have tripled over the last 10 years. Incomes haven’t even begun to keep pace. You now have to work 22 years of full-time work for a typical young person to save a 20% down payment on an average-priced home. Those living in the GTA have an even tougher time, having to save for 27 years to be able to have a down payment. It will take the average Torontonian making a median income of over $90,000 to save over 25 years to be able to afford a home.

That’s why, three years ago, the Ontario Greens put forward a housing plan that some called a master class plan in delivering the solutions. One of Canada’s top housing experts said the Ontario Greens have the best housing plan of any political party in the country. Why? Because we’re legalizing fourplexes and four-storeys, six-to-11-storey buildings on major transit corridors. We’re getting speculation out of the market, because homes are for people, not speculators. We’re making proposals to build deeply affordable, non-profit, co-op, social and permanent supportive housing to address chronic homelessness. And we’re putting forward proposals to protect renters.

A little over two years ago, the government’s own hand-picked Housing Affordability Task Force put forward 55 recommendations. Two of those key recommendations that came from the task force are directly related to the bill I put forward, Bill 156, Homes You Can Afford in the Communities You Love Act, legalizing gentle density and missing-middle homes so we can build homes that people can afford in the communities they love without paving over our forests, our farms and our wetlands.

What has been the government’s response to their own Housing Affordability Task Force? It hasn’t been to build more homes. It hasn’t been to implement recommendations to legalize housing. It has been to impose sprawl and open the greenbelt for development so a handful of wealthy, well-connected speculators can cash in billions while the people of Ontario still struggle to have an affordable place to call home.

That’s why I asked once again, yesterday, in this House if the Premier will get it done for people—not speculators—by supporting my bill to end exclusionary zoning and legalize housing so we can build homes that people can afford in the communities they love. One analysis shows that if only 18%—imagine this—of single-family homes within core urban boundaries became fourplexes, that would build two million homes. The government’s goal—the goal we all agreed on—is 1.5 million homes. We could do it just with fourplexes—I’m not suggesting we will deal with just fourplexes, but we could do it. That would not only be more affordable for people, but also for property taxpayers and municipal governments, because that’s where the infrastructure already is. We don’t have to build more sewer lines, waterlines, transit and roads, because they’re already there.

That’s why, when the government continually refuses to answer the question—yes or no; will they legalize housing so we can build homes people can afford, close to where they work, in the communities they love? I’m hoping they’ll answer it tonight.