While we’re on the subject of red tape, do you think that the fact that the Premier doubled his office budget in just five years and increased the staff from 20 to 48 on the sunshine list—that that just doesn’t add more red tape? I’d ask the member: If he wants to stop the gravy train, it’s starting from the Premier’s office.

Interjection: Choo-choo.

I’m thankful for the clarification.

What I would say to the minister is, the people of Ottawa that I know well who are housing experts that work for the city, research experts that work for a university—they’re ready and willing to work with you. I’m sure you know that already. But we have to get things moving quickly, and the best evidence that I’ve seen—again, that I tried to offer in the 20 minutes I’m contributing to debate this afternoon—is the more money you can get directly to the person, the more efforts can be made to save the affordable renting stock we have, the more success we can have in this moment right now. Because none of us wants to see the suffering that we’re seeing in our cities, I’m sure—no one.

Questions?

I appreciate the speech from the member opposite.

I just want to correct a couple of things—or just update, I guess. It was actually the Bob Rae government in 1992 that brought in an exemption for newly built purpose-built rentals. He did that because, after five years of Liberal government, the stock had reduced by so much the NDP government at the time thought that that was the only way—correctly—to get new stock online.

I want to give some of the numbers on the National Housing Strategy just by way of an update: Ontario has actually built 11,000 of the 19,000 units that it had pledged to build over 10 years. We were given a pledge of 26,000 renovations; we have actually done 123,000.

But to do the kind of things that he’s talked about with respect to British Columbia would mean that we would have to fire service managers and remove those services from our municipal partners, and I sincerely ask the member opposite if he thinks that we should move in that direction in order to do the kinds of things that he’s talking about and follow British Columbia’s lead.

I want to refocus. You touched on this, but the appeals process: We went through this terrible period when the urban boundary expansion and the greenbelt grab showed no evidence that it was following any rational process and preferential treatment was shown to have been applied. Now, we have an appeals process for any developer that wants to build low-density sprawl on farmland or so forth, that if a municipality says no, they can appeal it—but if they say, yes, no one else can appeal this decision.

I just want to say that this is really concerning, particularly given what’s happening in Wilmot—or that we don’t know what’s happening in Wilmot. There’s a perfect example of a process that is undefined, that is not happening in a rational, predictable way, that could result in us seeing the loss of 770 acres of farmland in Wilmot.

The member has talked a lot about building deeply affordable units, building not-for-profit housing, and I think this bill seeks to help that happen. We’re looking at ways that we can streamline the planning process, looking at ways that we can help those builds go faster.

With the remaining time, I’d like to know whether or not the member is going to support this bill and whether or not he’s going to approve of the government’s position as to how we can actually help people he has referred to in his speech earlier today actually find a place to live.

It’s always an honour to rise in the House and speak—today, on Bill 185, the government’s most recent housing bill.

Speaker, I just want to highlight something that I don’t think we need to highlight—but to remind everyone, we are in an unprecedented housing crisis. For the first time, a whole generation of young people are wondering if they’ll be able to own a home or if life is actually going to be more affordable and better for them than it was for their parents. We know that this crisis has been a long time in the making. As a matter of fact, in 2018, when I first ran for election, one of the issues I made a top priority was addressing what we thought then was a pretty bad housing crisis, which has actually only gotten worse over the last six years.

It’s unheard of, at least in my community, that the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Guelph is now over $2,000. It would take a minimum wage of $25.96, in Ontario, for a minimum-wage worker to be able to afford average rent. There is no city right now in the province of Ontario where a minimum-wage worker can afford the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment. As a matter of fact, in Toronto, even two full-time minimum-wage workers cannot afford a one-bedroom apartment that doesn’t cost more than 30% of their income. It takes 22 years now for the average young person to save up enough money to be able to afford the down payment on an average starter home.

Some 16,000 people tonight on any given night in Ontario will be sleeping rough. More people are on the social housing wait-list than the number of social housing spaces that are available. And part of the reason that’s the case is that 93% of the deeply affordable homes built in this province were built prior to 1995, when the provincial government, following the federal government, decided to stop investing in deeply affordable homes in the province. So it is a crisis, an unprecedented crisis. It’s like a forest fire raging out of control. And when I read this bill, it feels like the government is bringing a garden hose to put out the fire.

There are some good things in the bill but woefully insufficient to address the scale of the crisis that we’re facing. After six years of putting well-connected, wealthy insiders ahead of actually building homes that ordinary people can afford, it feels like the government is almost admitting defeat on this file, begging municipalities to bail them out, especially when the Premier joined the NIMBY crowd and said no to housing multiplexes—six- to 11-storey buildings along major transit corridors—said no along with others in our communities who are fighting housing.

So I want to just quote some of the advocates in Ontario who have been leading the charge to say, “Yes in my backyard,” because we need a “yes in my backyard” campaign in this province. When I was helping community groups say no to opening the greenbelt for development and when I was talking to groups who had signs on their front yards that said, “Premier, keep your promise. Don’t open the greenbelt for development,” I also told those groups that, “Also on your yard, you need to have a sign that says, ‘Yes to building a fourplex in my neighbourhood’ so we can actually build the homes we need.”

Here’s what More Neighbours, a long-time YIMBY housing group, said about this bill:

“After six years in power, the Ontario Progressive Conservatives are still unwilling to implement the changes needed to end the housing crisis.” The bill “has a few good ideas but largely passes the responsibility for making meaningful change on to others, adding delay and uncertainty, despite the province having full power to act now.... Cutting red tape should mean ... implementing provincial zoning standards.”

Let’s talk about another organization that has been advocating for bringing back the dream of home ownership for young families in Ontario, the Ontario Real Estate Association:

“We are disappointed that two key recommendations by the province’s own Housing Affordability Task Force (HATF)—strongly supported by Ontario realtors—have not been included in today’s bill,” referring to Bill 185. “We need to build more homes on existing properties and allow upzoning along major transit corridors if we are going to address the housing affordability and supply crisis in this province.”

Speaker, I agree with those commentators; there are some good things in this bill, and I’ll credit the minister for bringing those good things forward. But small changes, things that we could celebrate, are hard to celebrate when you look at the scale of the crisis we’re facing.

And I want to give you one example: Something I’ve long advocated for is using timber buildings and increasing the use of those up to 18 storeys. To me, that’s an example of a good measure in this bill, but as Environmental Defence says, “However, such an amendment to the Ontario building code will have very limited impact unless the Premier reverses his decision to leave in place the municipal zoning bans that make it illegal to actually build these types of homes on the overwhelming majority of ... lots.”

So, Speaker, I’ll support things in this bill like standardizing the design to reduce delays and costs of modular homes and panelized homes. I’ll support things I’ve been advocating for, like eliminating parking minimums in transit areas. But as John Michael McGrath, a journalist and housing expert, will say, “None of those items from the government’s plan is bad. They’re just not sufficient. In the face of a housing crisis that is, every year, driving thousands of Ontario residents to more affordable communities in other provinces, the Ford government is fiddling with the dials of housing policy, seemingly unsure of what it’s doing or even what it’s trying to do.”

“There’s nothing in the bill introduced Wednesday that’s going to fundamentally alter the trajectory of the housing shortage in Ontario.”

Speaker, I think what is so frustrating is that after six years in power, instead of actually bringing themselves to build homes that ordinary people can afford, the government still seems to be focused on, “How can we break all the rules and roll out the red carpet so wealthy, well-connected land speculators can cash in billions while ordinary people are still trying to find an affordable place to call home?”

I would have thought, after the $8.3-billion greenbelt scandal, that the government would have learned the lesson, but instead one of the concerns I have about this bill, especially when you combine it with the changes that have been made to the PPS, is that this bill will actually make the housing crisis and the climate crisis both worse because it’s incentivizing expensive sprawl, effectively wiping out the protective settlement area boundaries and municipal comprehensive review processes that prevent low-density sprawl. Allowing land speculators—at any time they could demand that our farmlands, wetlands and wildlife habitat be earmarked for sprawl development by the law allowing them to appeal boundary changes. These problems can be exacerbated by the act’s shifting of planning authority away from regional governments and downloading them onto smaller-tier municipal governments.

Speaker, the reason I’m so concerned about sprawl—and it’s obvious, as the leader of the Ontario Green Party, that I would be concerned about the climate implications, both in terms of increasing climate pollution but also making it harder for us to prevent things like flooding. It should be obvious that I’m concerned about paving over our farmlands and our wetlands and our forests, but I’m also concerned about the cost of sprawl. It costs 2.5 times more dollars for a municipality to build the infrastructure to service low-density development than it does to service gentle-density, missing-middle and mid-rise housing.

I see the member from Ottawa South is here in the House right now. In Ottawa, there was a study that was done for low-density development. Above and beyond property taxes, it cost the city an extra $465 per person. By contrast, in gentle- to mid-density areas of the city, after taxes, the city actually made additional revenue of $606 per person because of the lower cost of servicing those homes—a $1,000 difference per person.

So, if we’re going to talk about sustainable ways, both financially and environmentally sustainable ways, we can rapidly and quickly increase housing supply in the province, we need to legalize across the province as-of-right multiplexes in residential neighbourhoods and six- to 11-storey buildings along major transit and transportation corridors, which I don’t think has gotten enough conversation in this House. I spoke with one developer who specializes in mid-rise development who said, “Just your bill, Mike, to legalize six- to 11-storey buildings along major transit corridors would cut our approval times in half, allowing us to quickly and cheaply increase supply of housing in this province.”

Speaker, there are many solutions—there are many solutions we need—but it’s going to take a government that actually has the courage to stand up and put forward the bold solutions that will significantly move the needle on housing supply in this province.

Next question.

I thank the speaker for his remarks on this bill. He covered a lot of topics, but there are two words that I heard and I want to draw out some thoughts, if I can. One is “infrastructure,” the second is “intensification.” These words are related. I noted the speaker’s comments about, in the city of Ottawa, the need for water and waste water infrastructure to get housing built. While not in this bill, in the budget bill, there is $1.8 billion to support that effort, a really fundamental, massive injection of capital available to municipalities, small and large, to get that infrastructure built.

I guess my question is, doesn’t the member see the measures in this bill consistent with that broad effort to get housing built in the municipal boundaries to intensify housing?

I’ve already spoken today about the gravy train in the Premier’s office and doubling his budget and more than doubling the people on the sunshine list. But that’s not the only gravy train that’s happening in Ontario. There’s a greenbelt gravy train that got derailed, luckily, thanks to the efforts of so many people.

Do you think if the Premier focused less on the gravy trains that are there for not just his office but for those insiders and friends and those land speculators, there could be a focus on building affordable homes and we’d actually get to the targets that we’ve set?

Thank you to my colleague for his presentation. In this bill we hear about more wood—to allow more building with wood, which is great, in this bill.

But you did mention a lot about non-market housing and building affordable housing and co-ops and supportive housing, and in my riding, of course, there’s a lot of those missing. We have homes that could be revamped, and we have people that would like to move from their home to have a transitional home after, because now they say, “Well, we can’t afford a big home anymore,” or, “We want something more affordable.”

Do you think this bill addresses that, and will that fix some of the problems we deal with in most communities up north and in the south, I guess, and in your riding also?

This proposed bill contains an ambitious series of changes for the better—and the member from Guelph touched on some of them: our government’s proposal to streamline something as simple yet as brilliant as accessible parking permits, the application process. I worked, as a university student a few years ago, actually processing and delivering these accessible parking permits. I thought, how frustrating to have someone with a disability of some sort, a walking impairment, come in with crutches, canes or walkers, like my father uses right now, to get something as simple as—we called them “disabled” parking permits; now “accessible”—parking permits. This proposed bill actually addresses this simple, beautiful, common-sense redesign: have a 30% reduction in form rework to actually issue permits for people from your community in Guelph and mine. So would the member from Guelph not support initiatives like this?

The member from Guelph made a statement just a moment ago, a couple of questions back. He said that fourplexes were illegal. I owned a fourplex at one point, before getting elected. I have not seen any legislation anywhere in Ontario that says it’s illegal to create fourplexes.

So could the member from Guelph please point to the legislation that says fourplexes are illegal in this province?

Questions?

Next question?

Further debate?

I thank the member for his remarks. I wanted to focus a little bit on transit and its relationship to housing and housing intensification, as the member noted, and come back to the broad commitment this government has to transit: $70 billion over 10 years, biggest in the history of the province—massive. Certainly, I would think that that does two things that the leader of the Green Party, the member, may be interested in. Number one, it helps the environment—it gets people out of cars, which is good—but secondly, the intensification that’s going on in terms of housing around that transit, the transit-oriented communities initiative that has been going on for quite some time.

Doesn’t the member think that those initiatives are worthwhile and can be supported with this bill?

I appreciate the member opposite’s question, and I appreciate our shared commitment to building more transit in the province. I would note, it would be nice if the government would help municipal transit operational funding as well and reinstate the 50% operational funding so we can have reliable, affordable transit.

But what I’ll say is, in addition to having transit-oriented development and allowing more density around transit nodes, which I support, I would challenge the government to ensure that a certain percentage of those are deeply affordable homes. Because we absolutely need to increase supply, but we also need to increase the supply of homes that people can actually afford. Housing Now Toronto was actually at Queen’s Park today for their lobby day, asking us to ask the government to do exactly that as the Ontario Line is built.

Two, I’m also concerned because you have a number of regions—and I think Waterloo region is a great example of this—where regional planning has shown how they can meet their housing targets without sprawling onto farmland, for example, which is so critically important to the region’s economy—

We are in an unprecedented housing crisis. And to the credit of some members opposite, they have talked about the need to push back against “not in my backyard” in this province if we are going to address the housing supply crisis. It feels like, with this bill and recent comments from the Premier, the government is backtracking on that commitment. And right now, I believe we would need an all-hands-on-deck, full-on mobilization to say “yes in my backyard,” legalizing fourplexes, legalizing—

Because let’s face it: Farming contributes $50 billion to Ontario’s economy. We need to protect the asset base, which is the farmland that generates all that wealth, while we support the farmers who farm that land.

The bill says it’s cutting red tape to build more housing. Then let’s cut red tape to build more housing by making fourplexes legal in the province. While we’re at it, let’s go beyond fourplexes. Let’s make it legal to build six- to 11-storey buildings along major transit lines as well—two key recommendations in the government’s own Housing Affordability Task Force. I don’t know why the government—

I wanted to just focus my question on the removal of the regions in the role of the planning authority. I know that we’re very concerned, as are you, that these changes will allow expensive low-density sprawl on farmland and green lands. Also what’s at risk, though, would be some of the region’s responsibilities for things, particularly in Waterloo region, like source water protection plans. These are important things that the region has done. And the concern that smaller municipalities don’t have the planning expertise that is needed, and that they are more vulnerable to developer pressures—the developers, they can arrive with the plan and smaller municipal councils will not be in a position, necessarily, to challenge or to be able to provide alternatives.

So can you just talk about what is at stake when we’re removing regional government from the planning process?

It is my honour and privilege to stand to speak about Bill 185, the Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act.

Before I start, I want to say to all Ontarians, happy Holi, Lent and Easter, Ramadan and Eid, and Vaisakhi. I hope everyone had a good time with family and friends. And soon we are going to be looking forward to other holidays such as Orthodox Easter and Passover. Only in Canada is it possible to celebrate so many different cultural and religious occasions. This is the great multiculturalism that our nation has to offer.

Madam Speaker, it’s not a surprise that Ontario is the number one destination for new immigrants—for its economic and job opportunities and its diverse cultures, which helps new immigrants to settle.

It’s no secret that Ontario is in the midst of a housing supply crisis. Young families, newcomers, and many Ontarians are struggling to find a home within their budget that meets their needs. We have been raising this concern and sounding the alarm since 2018. When demand exceeds supply, prices go up. That’s the cause of the present crisis. By the time we came to office six years ago, this had become a main concern that we committed to solving.

Canada’s population continues to increase. And many of these new people are coming here to Ontario to enjoy all this province has to offer. These people will need jobs, health care and housing. And while the population of our province has continued to grow at an exponential rate, Ontario’s housing supply has not kept up. Because of neglect and failure to act from previous governments, Ontario is facing a critical housing shortage.

To make matters worse, there continue to be obstacles to getting homes built. The average period between a developer acquiring land and starting to sell units is approximately 11 years—and this is not what I’m saying; this is what the president of the mayors’ association said at the hearing of one of the four housing bills this government introduced in the past few years. This 11-year period is unacceptable. Red tape and uncertainty are getting in the way of progress.

Let’s make no mistake about it: The demand for housing is high. The number of willing developers is high. The conditions are right for growth. Ontarians are ready to put shovels in the ground. We cannot let anything stop that. The governments’ job now is to get it done and get out of the way.

That’s why this government, under the leadership of our amazing Premier, is acting to cut red tape and get homes built faster. The government has promised 1.5 million homes by 2031, and certainly, we are already on our way.

The bills that this Legislature has passed over the past few years are allowing for housing construction like this province has never seen before. Progress is being made. And it’s obvious that those bills we did before, like the last four housing bills, already began showing progress. We are seeing a lot of numbers of new homes that we have never seen in the province for the past 10 years.

In the meantime, there is still more work to be done, still more homes to be built, still more red tape to be cut. We will do everything we can to reach our housing targets. We will get it done.

So I am very happy to be speaking today about Bill 185, the Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act. This bill, if passed, will speed up government processes, make expectations clearer and streamline approvals. With less red tape, government will be able to focus clearly on the goal, 1.5 million homes by 2031, including 120,000 homes in Mississauga.

Let’s start by discussing Peel region. Last year, we passed the Hazel McCallion Act, 2023. Speaker, as you might remember, the goal of this bill was to find efficiencies in the municipal structure of Peel region and, if possible, eliminate duplication of tasks. We wanted to give municipalities the tools to grow and meet their goals. Consequently, we began the process of studying the relationship between the municipalities of Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon and, of course, the region of Peel. The transition board has been working hard on this issue, and we have learned a lot. It has become clear that complete dissolution of Peel region is not what the people of Mississauga expect from us. The enormous cost of doing that would have unintended consequences such as tax hikes and disruption of critical services. This is out of the question. Tax hikes would only make the current challenges worse. Therefore, we are going to ensure that all services residents of Peel expect are continued without interruption. We can still find efficiencies and improve regional governance but without the complexity and disruption of a divorce.

Instead of full dissolution, the new mandate of the transition board, under this proposed bill, would be to make the local governments more efficient. The transition board will provide financial oversight and recommendations about the delivery of services such as water, regional roads and waste management. This is a good compromise because it means the people of Mississauga will get all the benefits of the more efficient system of municipal governance without risking tax hikes or service disruption.

As part of this process, the government is moving forward with removing duplication. We know that too many cooks in the kitchen spoil the broth. Likewise, duplication of red tape and government bureaucracy slows things down. For example, when a new development needs approval from both an upper-tier municipality like Peel, for example, and a lower-tier municipality like Mississauga, this delays construction starts, and in some cases, this might even result in projects being entirely cancelled.

This bill would, if passed, ensure that planning responsibilities in Peel, Halton and York are transferred to lower-tier municipalities effective July 1. This would allow municipalities to move efficiently to deliver on shared provincial-municipal priorities like housing—no more duplication, no more overlap. We trust that municipalities would use their powers diligently, responsibly and effectively. Just because there are less steps in the process doesn’t mean that the process is any less important. Municipalities will still need to work hard to get housing approved. We can’t accept excuses of NIMBYism or bureaucratic delays. But by removing duplication, I’m hopeful that wait times can decrease and construction on important projects can begin sooner.

This brings me to a second point about red tape reduction that will be critical in getting developments started. This bill would strengthen approval timelines by closing a loophole that allowed municipalities to use pre-application requirements to extend the deadlines. In the past few years, we have seen abuse of this loophole to lengthen timelines and create additional bureaucratic hurdles. Decisions need to be made in a timely manner. This bill, if passed, would stop this unfair practice and ensure applications are approved on time.

Similarly, once an application has been approved, we don’t want developers to sit on their hands forever, hoarding municipal infrastructure such as allocations of water and waste water management. In many cases, there is a limited capacity for municipal water infrastructure. This bottlenecks what can be approved. So if developers don’t use their allocations, they will lose it. Municipalities can then reallocate infrastructure and approve applications for projects that are ready to build now—no more waiting for projects that never start. If a project is ready to go, let’s get it done. Let’s get it started.

Another change to get more housing built would be to remove parking requirements near major transit station areas. We know that parking spaces take a lot of land, time and cost to build. Municipalities often have their own complex rules, setting minimum parking quantities. Depending on the project, this can cost between $2,000 and $100,000 per parking spot, so when dealing with hundreds of parking spots, that cost adds up very quickly. In some developments, parking alone can be millions and millions of dollars. By removing this requirement, projects could move forward with more reasonable parking allowances, at the developer’s discretion, saving time and money for new construction near transit. Thus, more homes close to transit can get built faster and at a cheaper cost. It would be a win-win for everyone.

Likewise, the government is considering policies that would reduce barriers for building additional residential units such as garden, laneway and basement suites. These types of properties have already been encouraged in previous bills, such as when we legalized three units as-of-right in the More Homes Built Faster Act, but there remain practical considerations that have discouraged these types of housing. For example, some municipalities have restrictions about maximum coverage of a lot, preventing these garden units from being built. Bill 185 would give the government regulation-making authority to change those policies, encouraging more of these homes to be built.

On another note, we will soon see an updated version of the building code. The government has announced that the upcoming building code revisions will allow more consistency with national standards, reducing duplication and red tape, and new projects such as mass timber buildings of 18 storeys will be permitted.

If this bill is passed, regulation-making authority will exist to allow pre-approved standardized housing designs such as the catalogues being prepared by the federal and British Columbia governments. This would allow quick construction and even the use of modular construction.

Madam Speaker, I recently visited an Oakville-based business called Ballance Containers. This is an organization that specializes in modular construction, with simple, quick, and easy-to-build homes. I was impressed to see the versatility, easiness and efficiency of this unconventional technology. Innovative solutions like modular construction is absolutely critical to achieving our goals. I’m glad to see the government supporting it. And I hope we will be able to see even more creative solutions in the future.

Finally, this bill would make it easier for publicly assisted universities to build student housing. This will allow faster and cheaper construction of student residences, with more density around campuses. Students, like everyone else, deserve a home they can afford. By giving universities these additional tools, these institutions will have the authority to take the initiative to build affordable housing options with an easy commute to campus for students.

I also want to briefly mention one more tool that we are giving municipalities so they can continue to grow. This bill is proposing to enable municipalities to provide incentives to specified businesses where necessary to attract investment in Ontario. If the Lieutenant Governor in Council determines that an incentive is desirable in the provincial interest, they would have regulatory authority to permit it. This will allow us to attract even more investments, such as in manufacturing and housing.

We know that good-paying jobs and large investments from businesses are important to keep our economy thriving. Already, the reduction of red tape and the implementation of incentives have allowed tens of billions of dollars to flow to Ontario. Huge investments in manufacturing, such as electric vehicles and batteries, have been made possible because of the work of this government in attracting record-setting levels of investments.

Our thanks go, of course, to the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade for leading the government’s progress on attracting foreign investment.

Therefore, we must continue to attract investments. And if necessary, that means giving municipalities the tools they need to succeed.

With proper oversight, this will be an important tool to help strengthen our economy, attract investments, and continue building our cities.

Finally, let me mention the changes this bill is proposing for streamlining the appeals process for new development projects. In the last two years alone, 67,000 housing units were subject to third-party appeals at the Ontario Land Tribunal because of official plan or zoning issues—this is tens of thousands of homes being delayed. We want to reduce the number of delays caused by unnecessary or frivolous appeals, so this bill would, if passed, focus third-party appeals to key participants such as public bodies and utility providers. This bill would therefore increase certainty for developers, helping them get shovels in the ground at a quick and steady pace. We don’t want anything to delay these projects, nor do we want to cause Ontarians unnecessary agony as they wait for months on end for endless appeals. Our goal is to reduce delays, remove unnecessary costs, create standardized and efficient processes so that projects can get under way.

In conclusion, there are a lot of proposed changes packed into this bill. But they all come back to the same goal: Our government wants to reduce red tape, make it easier to grow our cities and build homes. No single solution or idea is going solve the problem. There is no bulletproof solution. But every single one of these solutions is a step forward. And working together, I’m confident we will be able to meet our goals.

At the end of the day, every family deserves a home that meets their needs at a price they can afford. We will do what we can to make that happen, including by cutting red tape and getting the government out of the way. We will get it done.

That’s why I fully support Bill 185, the Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Thank you to my colleague from Mississauga–Erin Mills for that wonderful presentation.

Madam Speaker, our government delivered on a commitment to cut red tape. Businesses like those in my riding—I have 1,800 small businesses in my riding. This is extreme pressure from the competitive global market, and the economic outlook around the world is fragile. That is why it is important that our government continue to take strong action to remove red tape to support our small businesses through direct cost savings.

Can the member please explain what is being done to help our small businesses remain competitive in the global market?