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?

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?

Thank you to the member for Mississauga–Erin Mills for your speech here today. One of the things that I would say on this side of the House that we’re concerned about is good planning that happens in a transparent way and good planning that puts people at the centre of planning and the outcomes, not developers. One of the things we learned from the greenbelt gravy train, if you will, is that when you put developers at the centre of it, you have to roll back these changes, you’ve lost trust, you’ve lost the progress that we will need when it comes to building houses.

Can you tell me why people of the province of Ontario should trust that this government, when they’re removing planning from regional governments and when they’re allowing developers to appeal directly to the OLT—how is this not going to continue to be a developer-driven planning process in Ontario?

What we had expected to see would be a bill that shows a sense of urgency in the crisis that we’re facing. Well, we are disappointed, and so is the Ontario Real Estate Association. They literally say, “Finally, we are disappointed that two key recommendations by the province’s own Housing Affordability Task Force ... have not been included in” this bill. “We need to build more homes on existing properties and allow upzoning along major corridors if we are going to address the housing affordability and supply ... in our province.”

Finally, they said, “Eliminating exclusionary zoning and allowing four units, as of right, province-wide is an essential key to unlock affordable home ownership.”

Can you comment on the disappointment of the Ontario Real Estate Association with this bill?

Questions?

Next question?

Further debate?

Thank you to my colleague for his remarks this afternoon on Bill 185. Speaker, I know the member opposite knows very well, since being here since 2018, we inherited a government that had unbearable regulatory costs. Businesses were literally fleeing the province under the former Liberal government. We brought forward many red tape bills, and we continue to bring forward red tape bills to decrease the costs on our small businesses and on our home builders, in particular, in this legislation.

Can the member please elaborate on why it’s important we continue to remove barriers for our municipal partners and our home builders across Ontario?

I just want to say, do people know that rent in Toronto is $3,300 for a one-bedroom? In Niagara, it’s over $2,000; 23,600 households in Niagara for core housing needs—what that means is 30% of their income goes towards rent. It would take somebody to work 81 hours at minimum wage to afford a two-bedroom home in Niagara. No rent controls are not working.

So, my question, which I think is fair, reasonable and certainly balanced: Do you believe that we need rent controls on new builds from 2019 forward so people can afford to rent homes in Toronto?

Thanks to my colleague on the opposite side for the good question. I think the main goal here is to accelerate the building. We are in a crisis. We need to build more homes, and having the process of going to local government and then regional government, then OLT—this is three cycles to get something judged on or something decided on. We have trust in OLT to be able to look into a bigger picture and make sure that the projects which are in need and have justification to go are a go.

This is why in this three-year program, $1.2 billion is designed to encourage municipalities to address this housing crisis and build the infrastructure. We even incentivize them if they reach at least 80% and if they exceed their target—

Actually, we have to say that there’s no one-size-fits-all. When we talk about the housing crisis, we are talking about homes, townhomes, condo buildings, affordable homes. It’s many, many aspects of housing. It’s not one type of housing, and each one of them has its own characteristics. As we can see, allowing garden homes, allowing multiple units in one lot is adding. Allowing more density around transportation infrastructure is solving issues. Allowing open heights close to the stations, around the stations of the public transit infrastructure is adding more density. And, of course, affordable homes—we’ve seen that we removed the developer fees for rental and for attainable homes to encourage developers to build affordable homes to meet those—

It’s always a pleasure to rise in the House. I’m going to talk about schedule 10 to start off, and I’m glad my colleague from Niagara West is here because I’m going to talk about Niagara Parks.

I met with Mayor Diodati yesterday at Falls Manor, a great restaurant on Lundy’s Lane. It’s been there forever. It serves great breakfast, lunch and dinner, so I want to shout-out to Falls Manor. But I met with Mayor Diodati on an issue that I was a little surprised about. I found out that April Jeffs, who is the chair of Niagara Parks, has been replaced. Her term is not up, I believe, until January. She was appointed by the Conservative government, and those that know me—I’ve been to government agencies; I’ve been on the committee, I’ve been off the committee, depending on what mood the government is in, and I don’t normally stand up and talk about it, but I want to say that this was an appointment that was done right. April Jeffs has done an incredible job in Niagara Parks. They made more money last year than at any time in their history—David Adames, who is also the chair there that works there; he’s the boss there.

It really surprised me that she was taken off. What I didn’t understand, quite frankly, is that she was doing a good job, but what she was doing is, everybody in Niagara respected her. It didn’t matter whether you were a Liberal, an NDP, a Conservative, a Green, she treated everybody the same. And there’s a lot of investments that come into the parks, in particular down by the falls. It didn’t make a lot of sense.

So I wanted to say to April: I am shocked that they made this announcement. I wanted to let her know that the Conservatives didn’t call me and say, “Is she doing a good job or a bad job? Should we get somebody else?” But I think, from myself and in particular my staff—because April worked really closely with our staff; she actually worked for Tony Baldinelli for a while, who’s a PC. Tony’s staff and April and my staff worked very closely together, so I just want to say to April today: Thank you very much for a job well done and I’m really, really sorry that they decided to put a new chairperson there, which I’m sure will be announced sometime this week. I just wanted to get that out and say thanks, April. I really do appreciate when you treat people with respect and dignity.

The other one I wanted to talk about is the Fort Erie Lions Club before I get into my comments on the housing. But it’s part of it. The Fort Erie Lions have built affordable housing for seniors. They had one that I think went up in 1991 and they want to build another one because there’s a crisis in affordable housing for seniors. We know that because for seniors, a one-bedroom apartment in Fort Erie is 10 years; in Niagara-on-the-Lake, it’s 12; and seven or eight for Niagara Falls. We currently have 10,000 families on wait-lists for affordable housing, and it’s grown by 50% over the last six years. So I just want to tell a little story about Fort Erie and I’m going to read the notes so I get it right. I want to thank the Lions there that have been doing an incredible job in Fort Erie for the last number of years.

But here’s what they’ve done: They work with all the partners; they have the full support of the Niagara region. A CMHC funding grant of $83,000? Waived. Niagara region development charges? Waived—$694,000. Land development charges of $555,000? Waived. Town parkland fees of $124,000? Waived. Branscombe Family Foundation: a $200,000 donation. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities’s Green Municipal Fund grant: $90,000 waived. And the reason why I read those out is it just shows how much support they have for seniors’ development. And we said today, affordable housing is needed. It’s particularly needed for seniors in our community. That includes Niagara—and I’m including Fort Erie in Niagara; Fort Erie is part of my riding.

In Fort Erie, the local Lions Club has been working tirelessly to get an affordable housing unit built. I was lucky to meet with them last week to discuss this in my office. The goal was to build 62 units at the same location they currently have one: a nine-storey, affordable independent living apartment complex for seniors in Fort Erie. I actually think we should probably do this right across the province. For seven years, they poured their hearts into the work, striving to make life better. They’re a not-for-profit, independent living seniors’ residence in Fort Erie, but unfortunately, their dreams have been met with roadblocks, their aspirations dashed by the cruel hand of fate.

Recently, an opportunity arose through the Canada-Ontario Community Housing Initiative residential allocation program, promising a beacon of hope with a $5-million grant. Yet once again, they found themselves on the sidelines, overlooked and neglected. Even the Rapid Housing Initiative slipped through their fingers due to a mere technicality.

It’s disheartening, to say the least, to witness their project, nurtured by the unwavering support of the Niagara region and the town of Fort Erie, being disregarded time and time again. Their voices, though loud in our community, seem to fade into insignificance when it comes to securing funding in the face of the affordable housing crisis for seniors—quite frankly, in all the Niagara region, not just for seniors. I think it’s a shame.

This group has raised a tremendous amount of money and has been supported locally by the municipalities. These are projects that the government needs to be supporting. When people in our community come together to tackle a big problem we face like affordable housing, we as a government should be making it simpler for them, not harder. Their budget right now is a complex mix of grants, incentives, waivers, deferrals, subsidies and loans. We need to support projects like this and make it easier for direct grant funding to flow to get the project off the ground. If we start building true affordable housing again, we can begin to tackle the crisis.

What’s interesting about this project—and I know my colleagues would be interested in it; I would think everybody on all sides of the House would be—is that it’s shovel-ready. Think about that: shovel-ready, at a time that we’ve got an affordability crisis. They could start putting the shovels in the ground tomorrow if they get support.

I’ve asked the Minister of Housing to meet with this group. I think it’s the week of May 14 that we have Niagara week coming here. A lot of people are coming to ask the minister for some help on projects, so I’ve asked the minister to please meet with this group. They do incredible work. We all know our not-for-profits, our Lions and our Legions and the work that they do. It’s volunteer week, by the way, so we should send a shout-out to all the volunteers who give up their time.

Interjection.

Applause.

I’ll go on with a bit of my speech that I have, and I’ll see what I can do with this.

When I speak to my staff each week and discuss the issues we’re facing in our constituency office, I can guarantee you the one thing that comes up in all our offices—I don’t care what party you belong to—is housing. We have a crisis in housing. The one thing we’ve agreed upon, quite frankly, in this House—my colleagues have said it; I’ve said it I don’t know how many times—is that we have a crisis in housing. We agree that we need 1.5 million homes to be built. We also agree that we probably need two million. We also agree—sort of agree; we agree now. We didn’t a year ago. We agree that we can build these houses without touching the greenbelt—although I’m a little concerned that some of the stuff in here may get us into the greenbelt situation again.

Each week like clockwork, my staff will tell me the heartbreaking stories of folks in our community who are struggling to find affordable housing or struggling to stay housed. My colleague from Ottawa talked about somebody coming into his office and needing a pair of shoes. That is not a story that’s uncommon to us on this side of the House. I’m sure even the Conservatives will have some come into their office and talk about the fact that they can’t pay their rent, they can’t buy groceries. Quite frankly, they’re going to food banks—all those things. I think that’s happening everywhere. But the most important thing is housing. You need a place to live.

Unfortunately, in Niagara, we have some incredible social service organizations and staff at Niagara region who work hard each day to help folks, but sometimes that incredible work just isn’t enough. We simply do not have enough affordable housing. The issue of affordable housing has reached a crisis point in Niagara, and inaction of our government has only worsened it.

Let us confront the sobering truth head-on: The wait times for a one-bedroom apartment in Niagara Falls—think about that, colleagues—is 21 years. You heard that right: 21 years. In Fort Erie—which I just mentioned, about a seniors’ home—25% of the people who live in Fort Erie are seniors. I don’t know if you knew that, but seniors are 25%; 12 years for a bachelor apartment. In St. Catharines, just down the road—my colleague is not here today, obviously; I think she’s in her riding—there’s a 20-year wait-list for a one-bedroom apartment.

These aren’t just statistics; they are the harsh reality of a system that has failed the very people it was meant to serve. I think we can all agree with that. It’s a betrayal of our duty to ensure that every individual, regardless of their economic status, has access to safe and affordable housing.

As if this weren’t depressing enough—this one drives me nuts, and it really only happened over the last six years. I know a lot of my colleagues across the row—the Conservatives are talking, maybe not paying attention. But you should pay attention to this: Everywhere you go—and it’s in your communities too; not just Niagara. It’s in Toronto—encampments. We didn’t even know what they were six years ago. Did we have homeless in Niagara? Yes, we would see them in different places. But an actual encampment, living in tents—we never saw that. And look what you see today. It’s in every one of our communities. Put your hand up if you don’t have an encampment. You can’t do that. Even in Niagara West, they’ve got encampments.

Up north.

It’s a betrayal of our duty.

Encampments, families living in tents, individuals struggling to survive in makeshift shelters—these scenes are unacceptable in one of the richest provinces in the country and in a country that’s one of the richest countries in the world. How does this happen?

Is it right for a corporation and the Weston family to make billions of dollars on raising grocery prices when we have people who don’t have housing, who can’t afford groceries, who can’t afford to pay their rent?

Something is wrong with our system, and I’m not just blaming the Conservatives for it. This has gone on far too long. As elected MPPs, we have an obligation to speak out against it. These scenes are unacceptable.

We just heard this morning from the member for Windsor West that the member for Barrie–Innisfil has been referring people without housing to a for-profit encampment—trying to make money on an encampment. Those are the solutions of the government.

They are the harsh reality of our present-day Niagara—a reality that should stir our principles and compel us to act with urgency. I know my colleague said that all day today—there doesn’t seem to be any urgency in this bill.

Where is the action from our government? Where are the concrete steps to address this crisis and provide relief to those in desperate need? The silence is deafening, and the lack of meaningful intervention is nothing short of disgraceful.

We know that the solutions are not in this legislation. As the leader of the Green Party said this morning, this is like bringing a garden hose to a forest fire.

Madam Speaker, we cannot afford to turn a blind eye to the suffering unfolding in our own backyard. We cannot continue to allow government inaction to stand in the way of justice and compassion. The time for excuses has long passed; now is the time for action. We must demand accountability from our elected officials—and I’m not just saying the Conservative government; I’m saying all levels of government—and hold them to their promises of serving the best interests of all Niagara residents and Ontario. We must advocate for policies that prioritize the creation of affordable housing and ensure that no one is left behind or forced onto the streets.

Moreover, we must recognize that addressing the affordable housing crisis requires a comprehensive approach that tackles root causes such as income inequality, lack of affordable health care, and inadequate social support systems. It demands bold and innovative solutions that prioritize human dignity above all else. Unfortunately, this isn’t it, in the bill.

However, I think it’s important to recognize an important policy change that many municipal leaders have been calling for in this province—it’s important for all my colleagues to hear on both sides of the House. A use-it-or-lose-it policy has been called on for years from municipal partners—it was even there 10 years ago, when I was a city councillor in Niagara Falls—as they watch the development land sit empty so corporations can flip the land and make a profit.

Non-economical, sensitive land or non-agricultural land that is suited for development shouldn’t be sitting empty when we have a housing crisis. When we give municipalities like Niagara Falls a housing build target but allow developers to sit on land without building, it makes it impossible for those cities to hit those targets.

I want to read something from a local mayor, Mayor Diodati, and his council, by the way. But this isn’t Wayne Gates saying this; this is the mayor of Niagara Falls, and this is what he said:

“It’s the old saying, ‘You can lead the horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.’ Currently, the high interest rates and inflation have put a damper on construction. We’re ready to go. We’re all ramped up. We brought on extra staff, we put in extra processes to make things go smoothly, but at the end of the day it’s up to the developers to get the shovels in the ground.”

And he’s right: It’s up to the developers to get the shovels in the ground.

Developers are sitting on land without building anything during a housing crisis. It’s like having a bunch of food and not sharing it with people who are hungry. It’s not fair. Think about it: We have a serious shortage of homes in Ontario. Rents have gone through the roof. I’ve already said: $3,300 in Toronto, $2,000 in Niagara Falls. It’s around $2,000 St. Catharines. Some people don’t have anywhere to live. But instead of using the land they own to build houses, some developers are sitting on it, waiting for the perfect time to make more money.

This is where a use-it-or-lose-it policy comes in. It’s a simple idea: If developers don’t start building on the land they own within a reasonable amount of time, they lose the right to keep it. It’s like saying if you’re not going to share your food, someone else will get it.

Why is this policy so important? Well, first off, it helps solve the housing crisis. When developers actually build homes on the land they own, it means more houses for people to live in. That’s good news for everyone, especially those struggling to find a place to call home.

Secondly, it’s about fairness. It’s not right for developers to sit on the land while people are struggling. We need to make sure everyone has a fair shot at having a place to live. That means making sure developers do their part. But here’s the thing: The government took a really long time to do something about this problem. They knew it was happening, but they didn’t act fast enough. It’s like they saw the food hoarding but didn’t do anything to stop it.

In the end, it’s a simple idea: If you’re lucky enough to own land, you should use it to help others. If you are not willing to do that, well, you shouldn’t get to keep it. It’s as simple as that, Madam Speaker.

I want to say—I don’t have a lot of time, so I better get to rent control. While promising that the government is finally acting on developers that just sit on the land, there’s so much missing from this legislation to help folks struggling to find affordable housing. Let’s look at something simple that changes the lives of people right away: real rent controls. This government took those rent controls away, largely helping corporate landlords across the province rip off more and more people struggling to make ends meet. We need those rent controls back right away, in particular for after 2019. That’s when they took them off—on the builds. I want to highlight the importance of extending rent controls to all new builds in Ontario, covering all buildings that are currently under production.

This is a big deal, and something we need to take seriously. Rent control is about making sure that people don’t have to worry about their rent going up too much, too fast, and I really want to—hopefully I can get to it. I think in the last 30 seconds, I think we’ll talk about renovictions.

Renovictions happen when a landlord kicks out tenants so they can renovate their homes and then charge higher rents to new tenants. It’s like getting evicted because your landlord wants to give your apartment a fancy makeover. And let me tell you: Renovictions are a big problem, especially as a long-term critic for seniors in places like Niagara who are living on a fixed income. The folks who have spent their whole lives working hard. Now they’re being forced out of their homes because someone wants to make a quick buck. It’s wrong, it’s not fair, and we should do something about it.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

It’s now 6 p.m. The House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 9 a.m.

The House adjourned at 1800.

Even up north.