I thank the government member for her speech. It’s always a pleasure to work with her in this chamber.

Yesterday, I met with a constituent who was a PSW, and she was very concerned. She had just retired as a PSW, and she said that she is very, very afraid of her future as a renter, as a tenant.

All of the initiatives that the government tables here always have to do with the purchase of individual homes, but they’re not willing to take action in terms of rental. Now, I know what the response is going to be, that they’ve had many rental housing starts, but it’s a chicken-or-an-egg thing, because with rents at $2,500 to $3,000, yes, there’s an interest in building more units, but that’s actually the problem. Why are this government’s initiatives when it comes to housing not willing to visit rent control? Because people like this PSW just don’t have a future to wait for when it comes to their housing.

I would like to thank the member from Nepean for her presentation.

One thing that we have noticed when we take a look at Bill 185 is that there seems to be a lack of mention of Ontario’s heritage assets. Architectural Conservancy Ontario has noted within all their meetings with government members, as well as opposition members, that 36,000 properties are currently at risk and that Ontario is the only province without a grant program to encourage the conservation of buildings of significant heritage value. They have called for the government to increase the existing Ontario heritage property tax relief program. It is useful, but it has limited impact on developers.

I wanted to know if the member from Nepean had any comments about heritage properties and what the government should be doing in order to make sure that we are preserving those wonderful properties that we have in the province of Ontario.

But I did want to specifically note with the member that there are 36,000 properties that are at risk because of this government’s actions, and that all of these 36,000 properties will currently lose the meagre protections they have on January 1, 2025, unless this government acts.

Does the member have any advice as to how they will be advocating to make sure that these properties will be protected in the province of Ontario?

Are you calling him a senior?

Further questions?

Thank you to the member for Nepean. I really enjoyed her dialogue today and her perspective is interesting, unique and she’s experienced. She has lived it.

Our government is delivering on a commitment to cut red tape, to really do it, but businesses in my riding, like Bradt’s Butcher Block in Leamington and Abraham Orthodontics in Chatham-Kent–Leamington, are under extreme pressure from a competitive global market, just like businesses in Nepean. And the outlook, economically, is fragile around the world.

So can the member please explain what’s being done to help our businesses remain competitive?

Thank you to the member from Whitby. He has been a long-time friend and colleague. I have to say, I’m always so impressed when I’m with him because he does take this chamber very seriously, but he knows all of the issues that are hard that we need to discuss. One of the things I think he could agree with, because Whitby is very similar to Barrhaven, where it is fast-growing, very attractive to young families—it is in the city but not quite downtown so it provides us with a great degree of flexibility, and we get to have it both ways.

I’m excited about the Building Faster Fund, the BFF. We were recently the host in Ottawa to the Premier where Ottawa received $37 million. We were excited about that. Because here’s the thing: Growth needs also to pay for growth because when I build that house, it means I need to build a road, a school and a health care system as well, and that’s the reality of what the BFF does.

And I can say that when I was heritage minister, we had unprecedented investments into that ministry and into the sector in order to do just that. So there are programs in place that do allow it. I know that Minister Ford, who now has the heritage file, has been working diligently across the province in order to support that. But I would be happy—I know the debate doesn’t allow us to have a back-and-forth exchange, but I wouldn’t mind sitting down with you over a cup of coffee—actually I drink tea—and we could engage on some of your ideas.

I don’t actually support more taxes. I think that we’re already taxed to the limit. We just have to figure out how we could better allocate supports that we already have.

But let me speak directly to your constituents who I believe—if the breadbasket of Canada is in Saskatchewan and different parts of the Prairies, certainly the greenhouses are part of your area and they do great work. A lot of food production is happening there. We have to look at, for them, environmental supports. We have to look at business supports. We have to look at what is happening internationally because they are highly dealt with with trade. We also don’t want to have your tomatoes be overlooked on the grocery bench because Mexico is taking the market. So we have to make sure that energy prices are low, that we have red tape reduction and that we’re looking at the environment—and I see our environment minister here, and she will be right on that, I’m sure.

When you look at that, you think that’s actually bigger than the GDP of Manitoba. It’s bigger than mining, forestry and natural resources all put together, and it creates tens of thousands of jobs right across each one of our communities. So it’s really important that we look at, also, the economic aspect as well as the cultural aspect of our heritage properties.

I’m happy to take his concerns directly to the minister. I know that the Minister of Heritage is diligent in his work. He knows that he has to work with his organization, the Ontario Heritage Trust, who would be a great advocate for the member opposite if there is anything in his particular community that he wants to support, but I think that would be a start, and I thank him for his question.

It’s a privilege, always, to be able to stand in the House. Today, I think this is definitely a topic that is very concerning to my constituents, to the city of Hamilton, to so many folks. When I’m out in the community, all the time, this is the number one issue that I’m hearing from people: the lack of housing and the concern over young people not being able to afford a house, the concern over affordable housing on its own, supportive housing—I hear that often. I hear from families who are concerned greatly, and rightfully so, because they have no idea where their young adult children are going to be able to live out their years and be able to start that family and bring grandchildren into the family because of the affordability measure. And this, unfortunately, is not in this bill. If the government would have taken the time to actually listen to community, I think they could have done a better job in ensuring that affordable measures were built into this legislation and ensure that people have a place to live.

As I’m sure you have seen, Speaker, there are tents everywhere throughout our city. They’re in our downtown. They’re at our city hall. They’re on our waterfronts. They’re through our escarpments. They’re in our parks. Everywhere you turn, there are people panhandling on corners, there are people sleeping in bus shelters. Really, anywhere where they can find space to hopefully stay out of the wind, they’re there, and that’s not okay. That is not the Ontario or the Hamilton that I grew up in. I have never seen anything like that, as I’m sure many of us have not, but now it’s a common occurrence. It’s unfortunate when our young children are seeing this and they think that it’s the norm because this is what they’re growing up with. It’s not the norm. This didn’t have to be this way. I think that the government could have done better to ensure that the legislation that’s put forward—once again, on another housing bill—would have done better to ensure that we did have the ability to build that housing.

Last night I had the privilege of visiting Halam Park co-op housing in my riding. I believe, as you were a city councillor, it was in your area. That is a wonderful example of housing that was built in wartime, for soldiers and their families. The 1970s, I believe, was when it was built, and then 20 years after that, it became a co-op house facility.

The people who come together to ensure that the gardens are done, that there are people active constantly, there are events, there are supports, that all of the wonderful amenities that come with living in co-op housing—Halam Park is a shining example of that. Last night, I had the opportunity to thank the volunteers who really do make Halam Park a wonderful place to live. There were children right to one woman, Shirley, who has lived there for 48 years. Her husband, Hugh, who is now deceased, was part of the enactment of bringing this into a co-op facility.

There is great pride in that community, and that is something that we could mimic. It’s an example of how we can do better. I don’t think there is a better example of good community housing than co-ops, and we never see that in the legislation that’s brought forward.

One of the things that I’m still waiting to see is the definition of affordable housing. Affordable for who? Where does that come from? That is something that is always missed here, but yet they’ve made sure that they took out some other wording that is old school. They could have updated that as well.

This bill will not help you find a home. It will not help protect you from illegal evictions. It will not bring rent control back into the picture.

An offside conversation, talking about rent control: We have members on the government side who say, “Well, the market has gone up, and my mortgage has gone up. The rent doesn’t reflect that.” Well, that’s a different story than just taking all rules away from rent controls. When we see apartments that were built after 2018 have zero rules when it comes to rent control and people who have their rent increase by $3,000 a month—who can afford to do that? I couldn’t afford to do that. Nobody in this place—mainly—would be able to afford a $3,000-a-month increase. This is the problem that we’re seeing when we have bad legislation put forward.

I have to say that it’s good to see some of the reversals that are in this bill because, once again, we have seen this government who has pushed forward legislation that municipalities and other folks were screaming, “No, no, no. This is bad. This is bad”—like Bill 23 and development charges for the cities, Bill 109 and application fees. I think there were a few more other reversals that are in this bill to reverse legislation that was previously put forward by this government that people had been speaking out about. If there’s anything that we should be doing as leaders in our community, it’s consultation. With consultation, they would have heard this feedback of how this would have hurt the city. So I’m happy to see those reversals in here and making sure that municipalities do have the funds to build infrastructure and that municipalities are not on the hook for developers when they don’t keep up their timelines because that’s not something that is in the control of a municipality and yet the government thought it was a good idea at the time to enact that.

I want to quote the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. They’re happy to see that walking back of Bill 23 because that undermined it, “They do not, however, replace the need for a comprehensive conversation to update the provincial-municipal fiscal framework to support sustainability, affordability and economic prosperity.” They have a lot to say to ensure that we are building for the future, and I think this bill misses it.

The interesting one was OREA, which is led by Tim Hudak, who is the former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. They say they’re happy to see that there’s some recent progress on a couple of solutions, but “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” this “bill. 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 our province.”

The affordability task force, which was put into place by this government, is not seen in any of this. The fourplexes that the Premier refuses to implement, probably because Bonnie Crombie said something about it so that just made it all wrong, but this has been something that everybody has been calling for. This isn’t a four-storey building. Fourplexes are not four storeys in the middle of residential. It’s a bigger house, quite frankly, with units inside that house that could quite easily be transitioned into communities and, unfortunately, this Premier doesn’t see that being necessary, but would provide so many people with the opportunity of an affordable place to live, within a community, within walking distance to the schools and the local shopping marts and places where families need to be in that community.

Whether there’s good things in here or not, I think the bill misses the point on so many factors.

It’s now time for questions and answers.

I just wanted to rush up before all of my colleagues who were standing up. I wonder if the member would just comment on the use-it-or-lose-it provisions that are in the bill. I suspect that we’re probably going to be on the same page on that, but I wonder if she could comment on the impact that might have on ensuring that—the point of the bill is to ensure that we utilize the resources within the existing urban boundaries to their maximum. I wonder if she might have any comments on that or any suggestions on how we might improve that provision for our municipal partners.

Thank you to the member from Toronto–St. Paul’s for that really important question, because if you look at the bill as it’s written, you would not see people who are underhoused or people who are struggling for that affordability piece or supportive housing. You don’t see them reflected in any of the bills.

What we have seen reflected is developers and builders. We’re now starting to see some municipalities and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario being reflected, but that’s from blowback, not really consultation, right? That’s blowback of, “You did this wrong and you need to change it because it’s hurting municipalities.” It’s raising property taxes in municipalities, and that goes against all of the no tax increases that this government seems to claim.

Thank you to the member for that presentation. The member stressed the importance of consultation, and as we leaf through the legislation, I’m wondering if the member can express if they feel that folks who are unhoused were consulted, if they thought that folks who are in fear of experiencing demovictions were consulted? Were those fine tenants in our communities who are being abused by abusive above-guideline rent increases—which I tried to ban, by the way, and the government said no. Are those folks being consulted?

I guess I’m wondering who you think has been consulted by this government on their housing bills, whether Bill 23, Bill 185—heritage categories or criteria are up for grabs. Who is being consulted by this government?

Thanks, because I didn’t have the opportunity to raise the use-it-or-lose-it. That was a bill brought forward by an NDP member from Niagara Centre, who knew and had seen and had consulted with municipalities, seeing that developers were not—they were buying up the space, they were talking about the plans, but they weren’t getting the permits and they weren’t moving it forward. What that did was it left empty lands vacant and municipalities not having the ability to push them forward.

So it’s important that this legislation is here. Like I said, there are good things in this legislation. I just think that it is not near enough to fit the need of what our communities, what our municipalities and what the people who we serve are asking for.

But to ensure that is built into the design—it doesn’t have to be prominent. They can build over it, but the beams are there, the strength is there to ensure that accessibility can be managed in a very quick time for all households. So it’s good to see that some of that’s being enabled in this bill.

It’s good to see bills that are brought from the opposition, because they are done with consultation. They aren’t things that we make up. They’re done by talking to our communities and seeing the need of what needs to be there. We’re happy to see it included in the legislation.

Fourplexes are built right inside communities where there’s other housing, where children who go to school together can play together. These are the types of things that our communities want, that our neighbourhoods are desperate for, so that your mom and dad who live here know that their adult children and their grandchildren can live up the street in these great fourplexes that just truly make a difference for our community.

But we do need to ensure that there is some parking, as was mentioned earlier. So many folks have PSWs coming to their house, they have DSWs, or they just have no choice but to have a vehicle. So I think there needs to be a better mix, and I think that this is possibly a solution going forward that doesn’t force those buildings to have as much parking and take up as much space that could instead be utilized for more housing.

I’m a big fan of the advocacy organization Strong Towns. I admit they don’t always fall in line with this government, but we did on parking minimums—or, rather, getting rid of parking minimums. I know that that’s something that a lot of the urban planners in Hamilton have been very in favour of. I’m wondering if the member will comment on the impact that this bill has on parking minimums and what she thinks the impact will be on the ongoing urban revitalization and business development in Hamilton.

Further question?

Under schedule 4, there is a prescribed exemption from zoning rules for site plans to approve processes of prescribed standardized housing designs. That way you can have these standard designs and you can build homes quicker—I’m assuming that’s the intent.

What I wanted to ask the member is, in these standard designs, how important is it that we have accessibility pieces in these standard designs? I say that because we have an aging population, so as we are building these standard designs, let’s incorporate accessibility features in the homes. What do you think about that?

The official opposition has previously indicated that they support the use-it-or-lose-it policy in the province. In fact, the opposition critic for municipal affairs stated at the Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy, “We are bringing up a use-it-or-lose-it policy”—which keeps coming up. It’s been “something that we’ve been pushing for the last couple of years.”

Given the official opposition has been on the record as being in favour of the use-it-or-lose-it policy for a number of years, can the member opposite tell me if their party will support the bill?

Thank you to my colleague from Hamilton Mountain for an excellent presentation. I think we see that within Bill 185, it undoes a lot of the mistakes this government has made, backpedalling on a lot of self-created issues, some own goals that they’ve made on themselves.

However, within this legislation, we don’t see a really concerted attempt to take on the affordability crisis that we are seeing within our communities right now. I would like to know from the member, what would you like to see mentioned in this bill in particular as it pertains to housing and affordability?

It’s always an honour to speak on behalf of the residents of Humber River–Black Creek, and I’m going to begin again with a question I asked one of the government members. I’m going to relay a very short story about a PSW who had just retired, who I spoke with the other day. I came to recognize her in her retirement. She had spent 25 years helping individuals, going to their homes, washing them, cleaning them, keeping them company, doing important things.

You would imagine that at the end of her years and years of work on behalf of all of us, on behalf of our parents, our grandparents, that there would be some level of comfort, but that wasn’t the case. She’s a tenant, and she said that she was very, very afraid for her future. Rents continue to escalate year after year and are becoming unaffordable. She had lived some years in that apartment, but her entire future was something that she questioned. Her kids, her grandkids: What is that future going to look like?

All of the conversations that we have here in this House when it comes to housing by this government generally focus on solutions for those wanting to own homes, and a certain type of home, valued over all others. But what is constantly missing is the future of tenants. Today, rent is absolutely unaffordable, and not just in Toronto, where rents are well into the $2,000s. That’s a similar situation across towns and cities across the entire province itself.

Now, we spend a lot of time, especially in afternoon debate and sometimes during question period, talking about governments of the past. They like to talk about the governments of the early 1990s; we talk about the government of the late 1990s. A minister raised something that was done during a government of the early 1990s, which was a trade-off. Now, it wasn’t positioned that way.

The government of the early 1990s brought in rent control, but part of the trade-off was, any new rent, any new buildings, any new rental that was built past a certain point would not be subject to that very same control. That was the trade-off. Because if the argument was that people will no longer want to invest with that provision brought in, well then that would have been the solution. But guess what? It didn’t change anything, because even with that provision, even with rent control existing and allowing landlords to charge essentially what they wanted in new construction, we didn’t see a proliferation of new rental multi-residential properties being built. We didn’t see any of that. The next government certainly didn’t address that. The Liberal government following didn’t. And this government hasn’t.

But now, we exist in time where rents have never been so high. And so what is the solution to that, that is said? “Well, we’re just going to bring in supply.” But it’s interesting because they are only relying on the market to deliver that supply. Now, they will say, “We are seeing more new rental homes being built now than we did under the last government, per capita.” But here’s the reality—it’s kind of the chicken or the egg thing, because we are seeing new rental being potentially considered and, in some cases, built, but that’s because rents, in many cases, are north of $3,000 or even higher. So it is the unaffordable rents in the first place that are spurring construction of new rental if that’s even happening. The point is, you’ll see new rental units, but it’s still unaffordable.

Now, how on earth are our constituents, government members’ constituents, able to afford that at all? And I know that each and every one of us here are doing our best for our communities, whether it’s government or our side, trying our best to serve the people that have given us the trust to support them in our own elections. But I know that I have to have these hard conversations, like I mentioned with the PSW. Why not consider rent control in housing bills? Why not? Why not consider something like that in multi-residential properties? You say that these new homes are being built, you’re saying that these new buildings are being constructed, but people are not even going to be able to afford it.

Now you say, “Let’s continue to add to that supply.” What kind of solution is that? That’s not a solution for the PSW that I met the other day. That is a solution that might be a generation away, a decade away, but for the market to now even out by the new construction that is being built, that’s going to take a long, long, long, long time to be able to deal with that.

Another thing that I used to hear a lot under the past session of government was talking about cranes in the sky. Before this Conservative government took office, we saw, in the city of Toronto, year after year, that in many cases Toronto led, before the Conservative government, in terms of cranes in sky, most units being built, most investment—all of these things. Why I raise it? And, of course, I expect this of many governments. They always want to take credit for things that they say are positive and say, “Well, you know, it was us.” They would go so far as claiming the weather if they could in some cases.

But in other instances they never want to take the responsibility for bad decisions, or things that are not happening. You’re never going to hear them get up and say, “We are now seeing tent cities, the highest number of per capita individuals facing homelessness that we’ve ever seen.” They’re never going to wear the responsibility for the rents being through the roof, but they’ll say, “But they’re building more rental buildings under our watch.” It almost feels like a cynical conversation that’s here. I know that it can go so far as to offend the people that are watching here, not seeing their lives being improved by decisions that are being made by this government.

The minister talked about the fact that a lack of infrastructure is what is now causing certain areas to not see development happening. Well, here is a section of an email I just received the other day—in fact, yesterday. And so here is with regard to infrastructure under this government, who says they want to put shovels in the ground and try to incent, every way, shape or form, more development of housing. Ashley, who reached out to me, said:

“You can imagine my disappointment, frustration and anger when the province announced that they would be reducing the frequency of trains stopping at Weston and Bloor from 15 minutes to every 30 minutes. This seems illogical to me as the Weston area is experiencing intensification as prioritized by the Ford government. To bring people into a neighbourhood and then reduce their access to public transit goes against every good planning and urbanism principle.

“On top of that, we know the current construction that is making it harder to access downtown will continue for at least three years. How are people supposed to get to work, see their families and support other Toronto businesses if we cannot access them?

“When I took the UP Express this past weekend to meet some friends downtown, the train was packed. I had to stand, which never bothers me, as I know the ride is short and it’s a small price to pay for this convenience. This issue will only get worse with the reduced service.”

So here it is: In some cases, the government says they’re going to build. They’re going to put infrastructure in some places. Other places are completely ignored. Some will argue it’s partisan or political. I won’t get into that. You just have to look at the Eglinton LRT and look at some sections that were buried versus others and ask who represents those ridings—but I won’t go any further down on that.

Here’s the reality: We are not seeing a lot of those investments—and this comes from a constituent themselves. They want to talk about rental housing. They’re not willing to build affordable housing. So here’s a thing they have absolute and direct control over, but they refuse to do it.

We all heard a member claim that it was communism—communism—to build affordable housing in the province. And, of course, I assume that this member would probably think of some of their Conservative forebearers as communist, because there have been past Conservative governments that—yes, as crazy as it sounds—built affordable housing. They also brought in conservation authorities and actually trusted their judgement. They brought in public hydro. We heard about the late Roy McMurtry and what he delivered here, and I ask myself how far has this Conservative government fallen, as compared to the principles of its past?

But the last thing I want to talk about in this short time—and this is something that I don’t think a Conservative government is very well-suited for to challenge: There is a competition on housing. What is this government willing to do about the further financialization of the housing market? We are seeing large investors, people worth lots and lots and lots and lots of money, that will continue to buy up homes, single-family homes, entire swaths of it. We’re seeing that in the States and we’re going to continue to see that.

We hear about that couple all the time—used to describe why they’re doing what they’re doing—living in the basement of their parents’ home, waiting for that first opportunity of home ownership. And it’s not just supply. Because of the existing supply, they are going to have to compete with those big, powerful financial interests that are going to continue to buy up not just the current housing but whatever housing you put out there and at no matter what cost. If there is no solution that is brought to deal with that, or even a willingness or a stomach to face that down, then what is the future going to look like?

I hope that this government will look at that and I hope, as this government brings legislation to this chamber in a majority government, that they will think about tenants. But telling them that supply may come maybe a decade or far into the future is not going to help that PSW who spent 25 years of her life taking care of people’s health and is now living in a situation where she doesn’t know what her future looks like.

Questions?