Let me state, just at the beginning, that I will be sharing my time with the Associate Minister of Housing, the member for Perth–Wellington and the member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore.

Of course, it is always a distinct honour to be able to rise in the chamber and speak on various issues. This one in particular is a very important one.

Since 2018, of course, the government has been focused on rebuilding the province of Ontario. There can be no doubt that when we were successful in winning government, back in 2018, Ontario was faced with a number of challenges and obstacles, whether it was infrastructure on transit and transportation, whether it was our education system, the finances of the province, a manufacturing sector that was significantly hollowed out, a lack of confidence on investors’ part to make critical investments in Ontario. We were losing employment. Our energy costs were rising. There were a lot of challenges that we faced. Of course, all of these challenges also helped lead to a housing crisis across the province of Ontario, a crisis that has been expedited by certain policies enacted largely with the federal government. But, predominately, we’ve been working since 2018 to begin to remove obstacles so that we could get more shovels in the ground, understanding how important it is that all Ontarians have the same dream that many of us have already been able to have ourselves—that is, to be able to buy your first home, rent your first apartment.

This bill here, in particular, is a bill that really looks at where we are today in the province of Ontario. Now, of course, over the last three years preceding this bill, we had seen housing starts at some of the highest levels in over three decades across the province of Ontario. In fact, purpose-built rental construction was at the highest level that we have ever had in the province of Ontario. That is all really good news, but there can be no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that when interest rates increased at the speed at which they did, it precipitated a new and a more targeted approach to helping get homes built faster. And what did we hear when that started to happen? Of course, high inflation was gripping the country—high inflation, which was a hallmark of some of the policies of the federal government, which led to the fastest increase in interest rates in Canada’s history in the shortest amount of time; at the same time, policies of the previous government which restricted availability of land for construction, which made it harder to get shovels in the ground, all led us to a very challenging situation.

So when interest rates spiked the way they did, we knew that we had to regroup and we knew that we had to listen to what the home builders were telling us, what our municipal partners were telling us. And what we heard over and over and over again was that infrastructure and the cost of infrastructure were becoming a massive challenge in terms of getting shovels in the ground for new homes across the province of Ontario.

So we spoke with our municipal partners, we spoke with our home builders and said, “What can we do?” By and large we heard from them that the measures that we had previously taken had led us to some of these really incredible housing starts in the previous three years, but they wanted us to take a more targeted approach—an approach that would allow us to get infrastructure in the ground, that would unleash not hundreds of homes, not thousands of homes but millions of homes across the province, and that is exactly what we did in this bill.

As we said, it is a very targeted approach. It’s an approach to remove red tape; it’s an approach to get infrastructure built; it’s an approach that supports the needs within the province of Ontario. So when you look at this bill, Mr. Speaker, we have heard consistently—I know members from all sides have been hearing about the need to use the existing infrastructure to get more homes built. That is why one of the most important parts of this bill is what we call the use-it-or-lose-it provisions in the bill. Now what that does, of course, is just as it is: You must use the infrastructure that you have been given or it will be reallocated to another builder who is ready to put a shovel in the ground. We have heard from our municipal partners time and time and time again that they needed a provision like this in order to get shovels in the ground faster and in order to maximize existing infrastructure, especially at a time when interest rates were pricing home builders out of the market and were making it more difficult for our municipal partners to use the funding that is needed to get shovels in the ground.

So the use-it-or-lose-it provision is something we worked on with our friends in the municipal sector, with AMO, but at the same time we worked with the home builders to let them know this was an important provision, that a lot of the other measures we were going to be putting forward in the bill would help to spur on more home building, but this was very important to us. I know that members on all sides were very supportive of this measure, and I think it will make a significant difference in reallocating.

Look, in ridings such as mine we have allocations of sewer and water that have held up development for over 10 to—in one case—over 15 years. It stops another developer who is ready to go from building homes. This bill will help us reallocate that, and I think that is a very important step.

We also heard that we needed to take action with respect to the Ontario Land Tribunal and how we can make it better, more responsive to the needs of our community, how we would make it fairer for not only our municipal partners, for home builders, but for the communities and partners within the communities. So the bill has taken a step in the right direction by limiting third-party appeals, while at the same time amendments were brought in that allow us to preserve the rights of landowners to appeal amendments that may be made that disadvantage them, Mr. Speaker. This is something that we heard from individual landowners, and we made that move in committee to address that challenge.

The move of limiting third-party appeals, in and of itself, will unleash some 67,000 applications that are stalled before the board right now, and that will make a huge difference in helping us get shovels in the ground faster.

Let’s be clear. That is the goal of this bill: removing red tape using a targeted approach—an approach that underlines the fact that we are in a housing crisis, a crisis that is spurred on in part by the fact that interest rates have climbed to such an extent in such a short period of time that it is pricing individuals, it is pricing home builders and pricing communities out of the housing market. The bill addresses the tribunal. It addresses use-it-or-lose-it provisions. I think they are two very, very important steps.

The other part of the bill that I think is extraordinarily important—and I know colleagues on both sides of the House, if I’m not mistaken, are in agreement on—is the provision that allows us to expedite the construction of student housing on our university campuses across the province of Ontario. This is a provision that our colleges have had for many, many years. This will help us expedite that construction as well.

We have had instances at U of T, right here in the city of Toronto, waiting over 10 years for approvals to construct a student residence. This policy will expedite that construction at the same time because as we know, when we build student housing on campus, it also opens up additional housing within communities. It makes apartments that were otherwise taken up by students available to members in the community, so I think that is also a very, very important—again, very targeted—approach to getting housing built faster.

At the same time as we were doing that, we introduced the provincial planning statement, which, in itself, is a very, very important document. It helps guide our efforts at building homes faster. It helps unleash housing along major transit areas. It helps revitalize those types of areas that, in many of our communities where you have old plazas—for instance, on major corridors—it allows us to rehabilitate those, to put higher density on those plazas while still preserving the commercial or retail that is available on the main floor.

We’ve all had them. There are many in Toronto. You can look at Brimley and Eglinton in Toronto, what’s called the Knob Hill Plaza. It is a block and a half of stores on the bottom, two apartments on the top. It may be a couple of kilometres away from the Kennedy GO train station. That is a prime type of example of what the provincial planning statement allows us to rehabilitate quicker, and I think that is also going to be utilized by municipalities across the province and by home builders who want to do more in those communities.

The other part that I think is really important—and, again, I thank all members because I’m under the impression that all members on all sides are supportive of the measure to eliminate parking minimums along major transit station areas. This will help significantly reduce the cost of housing in those areas, and I think it is also another measure that will help expedite construction of homes in a time when interest rates are where they are at.

The other part of this, of course, are a number of red tape measures which were brought forward, again, just as that, to eliminate red tape, whether it’s the Line Fences Act; whether it’s some of the changes we’re making to update the boards of some of our universities at their requests; whether it is the siting of pipelines so that we can have shovels in the ground faster. That is also a major part of this red tape bill.

But it’s not just in isolation. When we say that we’re bringing a bill forward to unleash construction, when we said that it’s targeted, that it’s about removing red tape, there is more to it than that. Also, simultaneously, we brought in, of course, the Building Faster Fund, which is helping to incentivize those communities which can get shovels in the ground faster. It’s helping support them in their efforts to do so. At the same time, we have brought forward in the budget a multi-billion-dollar infrastructure plan that will help to get not only sewer and water in the ground but help support the roads and bridges in those communities that will be building homes.

At the same time, the Minister of Education has brought forward the largest investment in schools in the province’s history, upgrading some of those older schools that needed to be upgraded at the same time, all in areas where we are building more homes, because it’s about building communities and the infrastructure that is required to support those communities. At the same time, of course, we have updated the MZO, ministerial zoning order process across the province of Ontario. We’ve unified it. We’ve made it more accountable and more open. As you know, Speaker, the new process, of course, is that any MZO request must be posted on the ERO for a minimum of 30 days so that everybody can make their comments—so people can see the who, what, where and why of a particular proposal.

So I know others will speak more thoroughly on some of the issues in it, but overall, this bill really reflected an important need. We were able to move quickly to bring forward a bill that was focused specifically on reducing red tape, a bill that was targeted to the circumstances that we find ourselves in today—targeted because we heard from municipalities, we heard from home builders that high interest rates were pricing them out of the market. They couldn’t get shovels in the ground for a home builder. People who wanted to buy their first home could not afford to buy their first home because of high interest rates, and our municipal partners were having trouble with infrastructure, because the high interest rates and the speed at which that happened were making it more challenging for them to get that job done as well. So this bill is reflective of that, Speaker. It is nimble and quick and targeted. It will not be the last step in our goal of meeting that challenge of building 1.5 million homes. It’s an important step, it is a targeted step, and it is, as I said, reflective of the times that we find ourselves in today.

With that, I will yield my time to the Associate Minister of Housing.

Next, we’ll have the Associate Minister of Housing.

It’s a great honour to be here this morning and speak to this great bill, Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act. As the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Minister of Red Tape Reduction has already stated, there’s a strong need to cut more red tape for both people and businesses across this province and the minister has explained how the proposed initiative in Bill 185 would precisely meet this need. I’m going to take a targeted approach this morning to my remarks with respect to how we can get more homes built faster. As the Associate Minister of Housing, I naturally want to focus on initiatives in this bill that, if passed, would support building more homes in communities across our great province and build them faster.

Since day one, housing has been one of the top priorities of this government. We inherited a housing supply crisis—I emphasize the word “supply” here. We’ve taken action to get more homes built faster. I’m mentioning this to provide context to the bill we are discussing today. As such, this requires giving a brief overview of the successful work our government has accomplished to date on creating an environment that encourages home building throughout Ontario.

Speaker, I’ll start with what we’ve done to support our municipal partners, a key relationship in getting more homes built faster. Our government’s partnership with Ontario’s municipal governments is a crucial part of how we are getting more homes built faster. In this year’s budget, we are investing in helping municipalities across Ontario get shovels in the ground on new housing projects—I personally call the 2024 financial budget for Ontario an infrastructure budget, and I think I’ll explain why in the coming minutes. We did this through a historic investment of more than $1.8 billion of investment in infrastructure. This was to help our municipalities pay for this infrastructure, such as water and waste water lines and new roads—investments that enable more homes to be built in communities across Ontario. We refer to this as housing-enabling infrastructure.

Speaker, I want to go through in more detail about the $1.8 billion announced in the budget. That $1.8 billion includes the $1-billion Municipal Housing Infrastructure Program for roads and water infrastructure, and the $825 million, the Housing-Enabling Water Systems Fund, which is an application-based program for municipal water infrastructure projects that will enable new housing.

But our investments do not stop there, Speaker. Recently, we have been presenting financial funding to municipalities across the province that have made significant progress towards their housing targets. These funding awards were part of the $1.2-billion Building Faster Fund, as the minister just explained, which provides incentives to get shovels in the ground for new housing. Speaker, our three-year Building Faster Fund rewards the municipalities that meet 80% or more of the provincially assigned housing target year over year. These awards went to municipalities across Ontario, from Thunder Bay to St. Catharines. They went to large cities like Toronto and Ottawa. They also went to smaller communities like Sarnia and Chatham-Kent, and I had the pleasure of participating in handing out those cheques.

We know that building housing-enabling infrastructure is something all communities, both large and small, urban and rural, require to grow housing needs. That’s why the Building Faster Fund reserves $120 million for our small, rural and northern communities to access this funding, and access it they will. This is designed to meet their unique needs in these important communities in Ontario, and we’ve just completed the announcements of the Building Faster Fund distribution in the 2023 calendar year.

And the numbers for last year, Speaker, are terrific. In 2023, Ontario reached 99% of its target of 110,000 new homes, which includes housing starts, new long-term-care beds and additional residential units built on existing properties, including laneway homes and basement suites.

In my personal travels, I can say, Speaker, in talking to our municipal partners, this is very important funding. Let me give you a quick example. In part of my riding of Elgin–Middlesex–London, the community of Dutton Dunwich, in 2019, were going to expand their waste water treatment facility at a cost of about $3.3 million. They didn’t do it. They didn’t do it because they felt, at the time, that they couldn’t afford it. So they waited. A new council just got the funding—was given the final bid on what it would cost them to raise this infrastructure now: $13.5 million. So infrastructure is crucial for these communities. The prices have gone up, as we know, so we need to continue to help these folks get shovels in the ground faster, to get infrastructure in the ground so we can get these homes built.

The number would actually be 104% last year, Speaker, but the former mayor of Mississauga and current leader of the provincial Liberals failed to get the job done and had one of the worst housing records in Ontario. Bonnie Crombie claimed that she would meet her housing target of 8,800 homes. Did Bonnie Crombie come close to that housing target? Absolutely not. She missed the target by over 5,000 homes, failing to get even halfway to her promise. Mississauga’s housing target requires them to build 120,000 homes over 10 years. If the next mayor is to succeed in this task—and it is an important task—I would encourage them to abandon this plan of anti-housing policies which saw fewer than 25,000 housing starts in Mississauga over the last 10 years. I’ll say it again: less than 25,000 housing starts in 10 years in one of the largest cities in Ontario—not a good record at all.

Ontario broke ground on almost 19,000 rental starts in 2023. That’s the highest number of rental starts on record. It breaks the old record, which was set in 2022, by 27%. Under this government, in less than six years, Ontario has already had more housing starts on rental units than it did in 15 years under the previous Liberal government. We saw nearly 10,000 new and upgraded long-term-care beds and on top of that, the province saw nearly 10,000 additional residential units, ARUs, created in 2023. While these are not counted as housing starts, these property conversions allow for the creation of new housing on existing lots. That includes changing single-family homes into multi-unit residences or converting commercial office space into residential use, an important tactic and strategy to get more homes built faster.

What these results show, Speaker, is that our government’s housing initiatives are working. And with our new and ongoing supports to municipalities for housing-enabling infrastructure, Ontario will continue to see more homes built. Historic investments in infrastructure and legislative and regulatory reforms are giving municipalities the tools they need to give more Ontario families a place they can call home.

Our government is also helping homebuyers. We’ve worked to prevent speculators from driving up home prices by expanding the non-resident speculation tax province-wide and increasing it to 25%. And we’ve worked to better protect buyers of new homes by setting new standards for builders and increasing the fines for unethical behaviour.

We’re also supporting the building of more homes in other ways, which the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing will be discussing a little bit later.

Our government is also working to support people who rent their homes. We’ve set a 2.5% limit on rent increases in 2023-24 for rent-controlled residential units, and we are setting the groundwork for building more rental housing. Again, our plans are working. Rental housing starts hit the highest level on record in 2023. By lowering development charges and removing the provincial portion of the HST on new purpose-built rental construction, we’ve seen Ontario build new residential units at an unprecedented rate.

I want to make sure this point hits home: Our government’s work paved the way for the most rental housing starts in one year ever recorded in Ontario. Ontario has made more rental housing starts under this government than it did under the previous government. In five and a half years of this government, we’ve surpassed what the Liberals took 15 years to accomplish. The evidence is in: Our government’s actions are working when it comes to building more market housing right across Ontario.

Our government is proud of the foundation we’ve laid to help partners build more homes faster. This proposed legislation, if passed, will further that trend.

First, let’s look at student housing, an important part of the housing continuum. When someone’s daughter or son leaves home to attend an institute of higher learning, they still need a place to live. However, due to the limited amount of student housing, they are often competing with families for housing. That’s why our proposed legislation would remove publicly assisted universities from the Planning Act, including when building student housing. It would reduce timelines and increase the number of housing units allowed to be built in a student housing development. This proposed change would make sure that these universities get the same treatment already given to publicly assisted colleges. It could save years in approvals for student housing. It would avoid planning and application fees. And it would remove barriers to higher-density student residences.

What’s more—although not part of this bill—we would also require all colleges and universities in Ontario to publish student housing policies. We want to make sure that students have access to and are aware of the student housing options that are available to them that are safe, affordable and within a realistic commute to their campus.

Another very important benefit is that building more student housing frees up more housing for individuals and families in their communities.

To further help get more housing built quickly, our government is proposing to create a regulation-making authority that would exempt standardized housing designs from certain planning provisions. This is key for speed. Standardized designs are housing design options would be readily available to Ontarians and home builders for different types of housing projects and would range from single-family homes to low-rise and mid-rise apartment buildings.

We envision exempting standardized designs from sections of the Planning Act and the City of Toronto Act such as those dealing with zoning. If passed, we would make regulations that would speed up approvals for standardized designs that would get more homes built faster without compromising safety. That’s because these designs would have already gone through the relevant approval processes.

Going one step further, we see Ontario potentially partnering with other jurisdictions—and potentially with the federal government—to create a catalogue of standardized housing designs. We would then leverage these standardized designs to build housing faster by using modular or factory-built construction. Making it easier to use factory-built homes will create more housing options and potentially provide more opportunities for manufacturers of these factory-made homes. They could allow companies to become more efficient and pass the savings down to homeowners and/or renters.

There would be multiple benefits from standardized and factory-built designs across all jurisdictions. We would have greater speed in construction and economies of scale from a wider market.

These innovative initiatives I just outlined could be complemented and bolstered by Ontario’s new building code, which our government recently released. Not only that, but we also plan to soon amend the new building code to enable the use of encapsulated mass timber in buildings up to 18 storeys in height—a great addition. The use of mass timber provides a great opportunity to build more homes, and it could be a great boost to our northern communities, supporting good-paying jobs in forestry, and growing our economic base. Encapsulated mass timber construction offers an environmental solution for quieter, less disruptive and faster construction. It’s another option to get more homes built faster. I want to emphasize this: Even though buildings use wood, they have the same fire and structural protection as other building methods. It will be a tool for the future.

Speaker, the updated building code also reduces red tape and increases harmonization with the national construction codes. In fact, the next edition reduces red tape in Ontario by harmonizing with the national construction codes on over 1,730 technical provisions. Doing so allows for greater consistency, reduces interprovincial trade barriers and helps streamline manufacturing.

Speaker, these are the types of changes, both small and large, that our government is proposing to help tackle the housing supply crisis and to ensure more homes are available to the people of Ontario. Increased housing supply of all types will improve housing affordability for Ontario families, and it will support homegrown industries—this is key—supporting our homegrown industries and businesses that provide quality jobs. In fact, I was just up in the Minister of Agriculture’s riding of Huron–Bruce a couple of weeks ago and saw three wonderful examples of how this will help our economic base in southwestern Ontario.

Our government is committed to making it simpler to build new homes. We want to end needless delays. That’s why Bill 185 is focused on cutting red tape, to get shovels in the ground now so we can get more homes built and built faster.

The housing market is experiencing some headwinds, as we all know. Interest rates are punitive. They need to change. But we have created an environment—an even better environment—to support community home builders and municipalities through the benefits of this great Bill 185. Getting the job done is priority number one.

Speaker, I want to thank you and turn it over to the parliamentary assistant to municipal affairs and housing.

Thank you to my colleague from Markham–Thornhill for this very important question. One of those ways—as we mentioned, I believe, in all of our remarks today—was student housing. We’re exempting that from the Planning Act for our universities.

I think of the University of Guelph, who have lots of students. It’s a great university in Guelph there, but they need student housing. But as the minister mentioned, those students now are in the community, taking rentals out of that stock from the local community. If we build student housing, they can then move into student housing and there is more rental stock for many workers—and because of the investments we’re attracting through our auto manufacturing, I know there are many in Guelph.

Look, I know the member has raised this often, and it is something that the opposition raise consistently when it comes to housing policy. Frankly, Madam Speaker, half the province, our most populated communities, already have as-of-right four, and it has not generated a significant amount of housing. That is why, in this bill, we have removed obstacles so that the as-of-right three can actually provide us the housing that we want.

We don’t stand in the way of any community that wants to provide as-of-right four. In fact, we encourage them to do so. There is no law in the province of Ontario that forbids a community from mandating as-of-right four. The city of Toronto has done that. I think they had somewhat less than 80 applications for that. So there are obstacles that have to be removed out of the way. That’s why this bill takes a direct line of sight on as-of-right three, making sure that it works, and we’ll move forward with that.

My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. In committee, we heard time and time again from stakeholders—from the Ontario Home Builders’ Association to environmental groups to farming associations—saying that we need a whole mix of homes in Ontario, and those homes should include the opportunity to build fourplexes as of right in towns and cities across Ontario.

Can this government move forward with permitting fourplexes as of right in towns and cities across Ontario?

My question is about what I heard in committee when it came to the issue of building low-density housing on farmland and green space. We had organizations from the National Farmers Union to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture say very, very clearly that they’re very concerned about this bill and how it will make it easier for municipalities to say yes to sprawl, with no real justification, and also make it easier for developers to contest a municipal decision to say no to sprawl, even though we know that there is more than enough land available to meet our housing targets.

Why continue down the path of unsustainable sprawl when we know we have better options?

Thank you to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the associate minister and the PA for the wonderful presentation.

I would say this bill, Bill 185, Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024, is revolutionizing the zoning and rezoning process in Ontario. Thank you to the minister’s leadership and his team. I was a former municipal councillor. I could see the process. The minister always talks about two things: Why are the housing prices so high and people couldn’t afford it? Number one is infrastructure; number two is the process.

Cutting red tape is talking about the process. I’ve seen through my eyes study upon study and consultation after consultation to get zoning processes moving, to build the homes faster. This bill is expediting the process to build more apartments, more affordable housing for students, seniors and low-income families, and this is a wonderful bill.

My question to the minister, then: Could you explain more and share about how we are expecting more housing through this bill and changing the zoning process?

I thank the speaker for her remarks—very comprehensive, and she covered many issues in her remarks today, which is a lot like the housing market itself: It’s complex. There are many elements to it and it’s not straightforward. That’s why we’re bringing forth this bill—in fact, our 13th red tape bill, which is quite extraordinary in and of itself. There’s got to be some record there. Red tape bills are not glamorous—as I said earlier, much like myself.

But I heard her say many times that there are a number of areas in this bill that she would support, and I appreciated that. Reflecting on the complexity of the subject and the measures required, would these positive elements of the bill allow you to support the legislation?

Thank you to the member from University–Rosedale for her thorough debate on housing. One thing that is certainly getting a lot of attention in the media these days is that housing starts are down under this government. They’re actually back to the same level as 2018.

The government talks about the number of housing bills and red tape reduction bills that it has introduced, and it seems to me that that’s just adding to the paper and the collection of documents that say they’re doing something when, in fact, nothing is getting done. Really, we’ve got a man with no plan in charge here. So could you talk a little bit about what you would do if you were in government to get housing starts actually back up?

To the wonderful member from University–Rosedale, thank you for your brilliant one-hour lead. I always enjoy listening to you speak around many issues, but especially housing.

After six years of the government being in power, owning a house and obtaining real estate or obtaining a home has never been more expensive in Ontario. And we know that the challenges that Ontarians are facing are really the cost-of-living crisis, and at the apex of the problem is the cost of housing. Is there anything in this bill that will make getting a house, getting an apartment, buying or renting that much easier, and is there anything in the bill that will protect you from illegal evictions?

I want to continue on the theme that my colleague raised, about contrasting this government’s approach to addressing housing with the approach that is being suggested by the official opposition. In preparation of my remarks today I did have an opportunity to take a look at the proposal from the official opposition and I’ll be quoting directly from it.

It starts with an acknowledgement that says, “There is little to no profit in building homes that are affordable for low-income people.” Then it proposes to ensure that 30% of the 1.5 million homes that they propose to build would be non-market homes. That’s 450,000 non-market homes. I am suggesting that each unit would cost $500,000. In order to build 450,000 non-market homes at $500,000 each, that would be $225 billion—$225 billion. How does the official opposition propose to raise this money? This is how they propose to do it: They propose to start with $15 billion “to finance the construction of new, non-market rental homes, to be operated by public, non-profit and co-op housing providers.” Then they say the capital costs of building the new homes would “be recovered from the rental income, which would be reinvested to finance more homes.”

That is the proposition put forward by the official opposition. They want to start with building homes that do not generate a profit and then take that absence of profit and build more homes with no profit. In other words, they want to build homes that don’t generate money and then have no money to build no more homes. That’s what that means.

You see, in order to build more homes, you need more money. In order to have more money, you have to generate the money, and not-for-profit doesn’t generate money by its very definition. That is the approach of the opposition. In other words, they propose to raise $225 billion in dreamland. Because right off the bat they acknowledge that such housing does not generate income. If you don’t have the generation of income, you cannot build any more houses period, end of analysis. That’s how it works.

I therefore contrast that approach with the approach of this government, which is, of course, to lower barriers to construction and by lowering those barriers, I mean lowering costs, such as lowering the red tape compliance, which stands in the way of practically every single development that is started in the province of Ontario.

One of those compliance measures is one which we spoke about earlier, which is the incessant intervention into the planning process of people who have no stake in the planning process. As I mentioned earlier, and gave an example of the municipality of Sudbury—which is 3,100 square kilometres—a person living literally 50 kilometres from a proposed subdivision could file an appeal blocking that subdivision, even though they have literally nothing to do with it, and that is one of the issues that the legislation proposed in front of us today seeks to resolve.

But one thing is for sure—one thing is absolutely for sure—no one is going to build houses in the province of Ontario by theoretically collecting rent from rental housing that makes no profit. You cannot build new homes on the backs of not-for-profit housing. It cannot work by its very inherent definition. It will not work, and that is why the plan proposed by this government is so much better than the unrealistic plan being proposed by the official opposition.

The member from Niagara West started off by referencing some of the young people that had been in the chamber earlier today. In a recent round table—and some of those voices actually came to the committee—they actually were just begging the government to stabilize the rental sector. This is all that they have at their disposal right now. So my question to you, the member from Niagara West, is what does your government have against renters? And why do you not recognize that stabilizing the housing sector is one of the key pieces to actually ensuring that we address the housing crisis in this province?

It is a pleasure, of course, to bring some of the concerns of the people from Waterloo region to Bill 185. We were in committee for a few days. We did clause-by-clause. It was a painful, painful exercise, I will tell you, because even when the ideas are good, the government is not interested in listening. In fact, the government isn’t even interested in listening to their own Housing Affordability Task Force, which actually had a few good ideas as well.

I do want to thank our critic on Bill 185. She brought forward, with the help of our research team, which always punches above their weight, some really thoughtful amendments to this bill. Because we came into the process quite earnestly in thinking that the government might embrace the idea that what they’ve been doing, which has not been working because our housing starts are down—and so there was room for improvement, right?

So here we are. I think this is the 12th or 13th red tape bill that the government has brought forward, ironically, in some cases, creating more red tape in the entire process. And it’s becoming really frustrating because the government is clearly spinning their wheels on housing. They’ve created some chaos, particularly with Bill 23, which preceded these bills, which really destabilized the relationship that this government has with municipalities and, of course, broke trust with the people of this province with the $8.3-billion greenbelt scandal which the RCMP is currently still investigating—the criminal investigation into this government.

So it was with that mindset that we went into this process and quite honestly said, “Well, maybe they’re at a point right now that they’re ready to work collaboratively.”

The housing crisis is a serious issue. Everybody understands that housing is an economic stabilizer for people. It’s hard to go to school, it’s hard to raise a family, it’s hard to get a job without housing. Housing is pretty much it, right?

We also learned at pre-budget committee that housing is also health care. This is why the university hospital just down the way is actually entering a new capital campaign to attach housing to their hospital because, otherwise, people just continue to cycle through the emergency room at great cost—way greater cost than providing a roof and warmth, or cooling in the summer. So, really, innovation down University Avenue—I commend that hospital and those doctors for leading the way. I would like to see the same leadership from the government, quite honestly.

And people are starting to take notice. I’ll just tell you before I get into the substance of the bill that I had my Leading Women, Building Communities awards on the constituency week. I did give this award to the Mount Zion church for their Black history advocacy—just really strong women. It was so refreshing to be in a room filled with good people who really care about their community and are looking for solutions to help and to fill the gap.

A lady came up to me, and she said, “Catherine, I want to give you a Band-Aid.” I was like, “Oh, well, that’s nice. Why are you giving me a Band-Aid?” She goes, “I think you should put it on your forehead.” Quite honestly, I didn’t know where this was going to go, because these conversations, as we all know, can go in very different direction. She says, “No, I think you should put this Band-Aid on your forehead because you must be in so much pain from banging your head against the wall.”

This is what it felt like at committee, quite honestly, because the committee members on finance, they don’t really have the ability to move away from the government’s agenda, which is unfortunate because the government’s agenda is not working on housing. Even some of the very, very good ideas that have come from home builders in Ontario, for instance—who are not against building fourplexes, right? Fourplexes are actually embedded in the government’s own Housing Affordability Task Force. They are part of the solution. Are they the everything? Of course not, Madam Speaker, not at all. But for the government to draw the line in the sand—triplexes are okay; fourplexes, not so much—is ridiculous.

It is also ridiculous to hear the Premier of Ontario stand in his place and talk about eight-storey fourplexes. It is absolutely ridiculous. Or that fourplexes compromise the integrity of the neighbourhood—you know what the Premier is actually defining? It is the very definition of NIMBYism.

After all of those days and months and it feels like years of the whole greenbelt thing, where they were calling us NIMBYists for actually advocating for greater transparency and intensification in the very neighbourhoods that are already established—because the infrastructure is there; the schools are there; the hospitals are there; the community is there. We were advocating for that intensification because it makes sense and because, unlike the very strange sentiments from the member from Niagara West that we aren’t really losing 319 acres a day of farmland in Ontario—I have never heard this story before, I have to say. It was a head-shaker, wasn’t it? But the member from Niagara West basically said, essentially, that climate change is making the north warmer, so now we can have more farmland up there. So he’s no longer a climate change denier; he’s a climate change promoter.

Oh, the north. I don’t know if you’ve spent some time up there. Hydroponics? Absolutely. There’s some innovation happening on farming. It’s beautiful; it’s great to see. But this is a common theme that a lot of Conservatives espouse, that there’s this land exchange: “We’ll pave over those wetlands over there, but we’ll create another one over here.” It is a ridiculous concept.

I have to say, the member from Niagara West, that is astounding. I think it’s worth noting because it’s the first time that this new narrative around climate change has actually been introduced in the House. It’s something to be watched because I think that if we’ve learned anything after six painful years of this government—they can spin anything, and then they can use your tax dollars at home to actually promote their agenda.

The Auditor General has already confirmed 75% of those “It’s All Happening Here” would be deemed partisan advertising under the original rules that the Liberals agreed to bring in and then changed for their own political interest.

Who can forget that one commercial? Do you remember the commercial when the Liberals were really on the ropes? I want to say 2015 and 2016, whatever. It’s this lady who’s jumping over this valley to get to her pension. We paid for those commercials, and of course, there was a fictional pension plan, quite honestly—the concept. I remember knocking on a door—and this is why it’s so important. This is why truthful advertising, particularly from a government to the citizens we are elected to serve—that trust can be broken very quickly. When I knocked on the door, this elderly lady who had never worked says, “No, I want my pension.” Yes, she believed the commercial is what I’m saying to you. To add insult to injury, her tax dollars went to pay for that commercial.

We got to some of that through the public accounts committee. Public accounts wasn’t as frustrating, I think, as SCOFEA was because the government could not provide really any rationale for what they were doing, especially when they brought in this new, suddenly urgent amendment on Bill 185 to allow airports, large manufacturers and cities now to have exclusive—they’re going to be able to go to the land tribunal’s planning committee, but citizens and people who care about the environment are not. Now, you’re not even hiding it anymore, that the environment is not your priority, right? When you’re intentionally excluding these voices about their own community—this is a fundamental undemocratic move that the government is making, to exclude the voices of Ontarians in their own communities.

So, to put it mildly, it was a tough sort of week in SCOFEA, because we care deeply about our communities. Environmental change and climate change is real, and it is having an impact on how we should be planning more sustainable communities and housing within those communities, full stop.

There was some good news, though, last week—just to mix it up a little bit here—Donald Trump was found guilty on 34 charges. It was a beautiful, beautiful moment, quite honestly. It kind of restored hope a little bit more in the justice system—not in Ontario’s justice system, of course, because we have some long-standing issues in that regard, but that was a good moment.

Now, our critic talked about some of the amendments that were brought forward. One was to the City of Toronto Act to protect and compensate tenants who are being renovicted or demovicted. Is this government concerned about those people? Not at all. They totally shut that conversation down, not interested in displaced seniors from their precarious housing. The fact that the government introduced this amendment near the end there—which was very concerning, actually, because we have seen how this government establishes legislation: It’s who has access, who’s got the money, who goes to the fundraiser, who goes to the party. This is a direct ask of these communities.

Now, I understand that the government has looked at airports a little bit differently, because they did award an MZO to a skyscraper close to an airport, which we can all agree is not a good idea, right?

It is infuriating, I will say to the member from Waterloo, that this government hides their shortcomings with the carbon tax. It’s not just us that’s saying it; OREA said this at SCOFEA. OREA said: “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 ... corridors....” And they asked for the elimination of “exclusionary zoning and allowing four units, as-of-right.”

We know that BC is killing it when it comes to the housing starts. They’ve got 52% as many starts as this House. In fact, Ontario’s housing starts are tumbling. So my question to you is, rather than being arrogant and hiding behind the carbon tax, this government should roll up their sleeves and see what BC is doing to have a real bill that addresses the real challenges in the housing crisis in Ontario.

Interjection: Can you remind them of their carbon tax?

The current mayor of Vaughan and the former leader of the Ontario Liberal Party, Steven Del Duca, admitted this year that the housing crisis started or began when he was around the provincial cabinet table. Under the previous Ontario Liberal government, this province witnessed 15 years of inaction on housing, which was also supported by the NDP.

Can the member please tell us why her party didn’t feel the need to act on housing sooner to prevent the affordability crisis we are witnessing today?

I recognize the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

In committee, we spoke to housing stakeholders across this province. They all agreed that the carbon tax is increasing the cost of housing.

On April 1, the carbon tax went up 23%. Those costs are getting out of control. The people of Ontario cannot afford this awful tax, and that continues to spike, year over year.

Speaker, can the member opposite tell us if he or his colleagues in this House have spoken to members of their federal party friends to stop supporting this costly tax on housing?

I think housing is something we all want to accomplish in the province of Ontario. One of the things, though, that I’d like to see in this bill is housing for all, for everyone, from people who are hard-working and for people who are on fixed incomes. And it’s missing in this bill.

I can tell you, in London, it’s a 10-year wait-list for community housing. Some people call it social housing. London has the highest number of households on waiting list per 100,000 people. And 16,472 more households were on the social housing waiting list in London, that versus 2023—compared to 2022. That’s an extremely high number.

In this bill, is there anything about the government contributing to social housing so all Ontarians can have a place to live?

Madam Speaker, it’s my honour to rise in the Legislature today to express my unequivocal support for Bill 185, the Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024, and I am pleased to share my time with the member from Chatham-Kent–Leamington. This landmark legislation represents a bold step forward in addressing Ontario’s housing crisis, fostering growth in our rural communities and supporting our vital agricultural sector. Today, I will outline the key reasons why I believe Bill 185 is a crucial piece of legislation that will benefit all Ontarians with a specific focus on building homes, supporting rural communities, leveraging minister’s zoning orders, the Building Faster Fund, the provincial Infrastructure Fund and addressing the unique issues faced by rural Ontario, agriculture and farming.

Ontario is facing an unprecedented housing crisis. The demand for affordable housing has skyrocketed, and the supply has not kept pace. Bill 185 addresses this issue head on by cutting red tape and streamlining the approval process for building new homes. By reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens, this bill will enable faster construction of homes, thereby increasing the housing supply and making housing more affordable for all Ontarians. The bill’s provisions to streamline approvals for a variety of housing types—including student housing and modular homes—will ensure that we can meet the diverse needs of our population. It’s not just about quantity, Madam Speaker; it’s about building the right homes in the right places, efficiently and effectively.

Our rural communities are the backbone of Ontario. They are home to our farmers, our natural resources and a rich cultural heritage that defines who we are as a province. However, these communities often face unique challenges, including limited access to infrastructure and essential services. That includes the rural areas in my riding of Carleton. Bill 185 recognizes and addresses these challenges by providing targeted support to rural areas. One of the most significant aspects of this bill is its focus on rural infrastructure. By investing in critical infrastructure like water and waste water systems, roads and broadband Internet, we are laying the foundation for sustainable growth in our rural communities—communities like Ashton, North Gower, Metcalfe and more. This infrastructure is not just about supporting new housing developments; it’s about enhancing the quality of life for current residents and making these areas more attractive to new families and businesses.

Minister’s zoning orders have been a valuable tool in cutting through bureaucratic red tape and accelerating the development process. Bill 185 strengthens the framework for MZOs, ensuring that they are used transparently and effectively to benefit our communities. The new framework for MZOs will establish clear expectations for proponents and municipalities when requesting a zoning order. This will strengthen partnerships with local governments and provide opportunities for public consultation before a zoning order is made. By making the MZO process more open and transparent, we can ensure that this tool is used to support projects that truly benefit our communities, such as hospitals, schools, long-term-care facilities and, of course, housing.

One of the standout features of Bill 185 is the introduction of the Building Faster Fund. This $1.2-billion program is designed to encourage municipalities to meet their housing targets by providing funding for housing-enabling infrastructure. Municipalities that make significant progress towards their targets will be rewarded with funding to support further development. This fund is particularly important for rural municipalities, which often lack the financial resources to invest in the necessary infrastructure for new housing projects. By providing this targeted funding, we are empowering our rural communities to grow and thrive, ensuring that they can keep pace with the rest of the province.

In addition to the Building Faster Fund, Bill 185 also introduces a historic investment of more than $1.8 billion in the provincial infrastructure fund. This fund is aimed at supporting the construction of essential infrastructure across Ontario, with a particular focus on rural areas. Everyone knows, Madam Speaker, that infrastructure is the backbone of any community, and it is one of the backbones of Ontario. Without it, economic development stalls and quality of life diminishes. By investing in infrastructure, we are not only supporting new housing developments but also ensuring that our existing communities have the services and amenities they need to prosper and thrive.

Rural Ontario, agriculture and farming are integral to our province’s economy and way of life. Bill 185 includes several provisions that address the unique challenges faced by this sector. First, the modernization of the Line Fences Act is a significant step forward. This act provides a dispute resolution process between the owners of adjoining properties, which is particularly useful in rural areas such as my riding of Carleton, where properties are larger and fencing costs are higher. By updating this act, we are reducing the burden on municipalities and property owners, making it easier to resolve disputes and manage properties effectively.

Second, the bill includes measures to support agricultural development by streamlining regulatory processes and reducing unnecessary burdens. This is welcome news to everyone in the agriculture sector in my riding of Carleton, because this will enable our farmers to focus on what they do best, producing high-quality food and other agricultural products, without being bogged down by unnecessary red tape.

Third, the bill’s focus on infrastructure investment will have a direct positive impact on rural Ontario. Improved roads, water systems and broadband Internet are critical for modern farming operations. These investments will make it easier for farmers to transport their goods, access new markets and adopt innovative technologies that can enhance productivity and sustainability.

Bill 185 also recognizes the unique needs of our urban centres and eastern regions. For the city of Ottawa, the bill proposes a special rule regarding the application of section 26.2 of the Development Charges Act. Specifically, if an application referred to in clause 1(a) or (b) is made to the city of Ottawa between May 14, 2024, and the day that is 15 days after the day subsection 3(3) of schedule 6 to the Cutting Red Tape To Build More Homes Act comes into force, the application shall be deemed to have been made 16 days after the day subsection 3(3) comes into force. In plain language, Madam Speaker, this provision ensures that Ottawa can continue its development projects without unnecessary delays, which facilitates a smoother transition and implementation of the new regulations.

While the document does not explicitly mention eastern Ontario by name, the general provisions and investments proposed in Bill 185, such as the Building Faster Fund and the provincial infrastructure fund, will undoubtedly benefit this region. These initiatives aim to support housing-enabling infrastructure and reduce regulatory burdens, facilitating development across the province, including eastern Ontario. By ensuring that regions like eastern Ontario receive the necessary support and investment, we are promoting balanced growth and development throughout the province.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, Bill 185 is a comprehensive and forward-thinking piece of legislation that addresses some of the most pressing challenges facing Ontario today. By cutting red tape and streamlining processes, we are making it easier to build the homes that Ontarians need. By investing in infrastructure and providing targeted support to rural communities, we are laying the groundwork for sustainable growth and development. And by addressing the unique challenges faced by rural Ontario, agriculture and farming, we are ensuring that our vital agricultural sector can continue to thrive.

This bill is not just about building homes. It’s about building communities, it’s about supporting our farmers and it’s about creating a brighter future for all Ontarians. I urge all of you to join me in supporting Bill 185 and taking a significant step towards a stronger, more prosperous Ontario. I look forward to voting in support of this bill and I encourage everyone to do so.

I want to follow up with the member about what you had to say with respect to housing for migrant workers, agriculture workers, because I think this is a really critical issue.

So many of us don’t want to remember the pandemic and all the difficulties it brought upon people in the province, but I remember reckoning with the fact that nine migrant workers died between January 2020 and June 2021. When a study was done—all of the various coroners’ reports, housing experts who were thinking about this—they linked the issues with cramped conditions of housing and the inability of workers to effectively isolate.

I remember a gentleman from Jamaica, I believe it was—he was in his forties—who died on his own while he was isolating, or attempting to isolate.

I’m wondering if you can elaborate—because this is a shared priority we have—on how we can make sure migrant farm workers, who come to this country to feed their families, are safe.

We agree that there is a housing crisis in Ontario. We’d all be crazy if we didn’t see what we see on our streets, with people living in tents, in shelters and under bridges. But it’s not just a housing supply crisis; it’s about affordability, people being able to afford the homes that they have.

What we’re seeing now—70% of Ontarians are renters. And what we’re seeing with this government, because you have no real rent control and no oversight—people are being evicted into homelessness, and 70% of Ontarians are facing that.

This bill has no real rent control. It has no inclusionary zoning proposals. It has no landlord-tenant reform.

We have something like 60,000 cases that are waiting now at the Ontario Land Tribunal forum.

With as much respect as I can muster up—this bill is just weak sauce, compared to the tragedy of housing that we are facing in this province.