It’s a pleasure to rise in this chamber to discuss Bill 200 with everyone.

Let’s start by facing the facts: The Premier is in damage control. After the disastrous reception of Bill 185, the Premier realizes he needs to give a little something for everyone. Instead of passing landmark housing policy, he’s trying to pump out a little goodie bag to keep stakeholders quiet over the summer.

Who is really driving housing policy? Is it the Premier, who’s got the minister on a leash, or is it the other way around? I guess we’ll never know. Or we could wait for another minister to write a book about their time trying to keep a struggling ministry afloat, which is a book that I would preorder.

This bill gets too much credit—because let’s talk about flip-flops. And I’m not talking about the kind of flip-flops the Premier might have been wearing at last night’s backyard barbecue. I’m talking about the kind of flip-flops they’re trying to camouflage in this bill. Schedule 2, the Ontario Heritage Act—that’s a flip-flop. Schedule 5, the Planning Act—again, that is a flip-flop.

When this government flip-flops, you never know whether it’s going to land in the clear, and on this occasion, they’re doing the right thing. But how much uncertainty, how much spooking of the housing sector had to take place in order for them to get here? The answer is: too much.

By forcing municipalities to determine whether their listed heritage sites would be designated according to an unrealistic timeline, they have forced them to reroute valuable administrative resources that municipalities needed to get homes built, that they couldn’t use to get homes built. But this government isn’t concerned about that. After all, Bill 185 entirely abandons the “1.5 million homes by 2031” housing target.

At least this bill realizes the error of the government’s ways and flip-flops to give municipalities more time to give notice of intention to designate homes as heritage sites. It’s good that this government can realize when it’s wrong, but I think the people of Ontario would appreciate if they weren’t wrong every day, because these flip-flops are costly, not just for the taxpayer, but to everyone waiting for a place to call home.

Madam Speaker, I wish that was the end of it; I genuinely do. But when you make your way down to schedule 5 of this bill, you realize there is yet another flip-flop staring you in the face—and again, not the Premier’s flip-flops from last night. I’m talking about the legal protection this government legislated for itself with regard to ministerial zoning orders. Do you remember that—when the government covered its own hide for reversing on all those MZOs? Yes, so that was with changes to the Planning Act. All those developers that the government dragged down into the mess of their own making—well, the government railroaded them too. They were left out to dry without any recourse for legal action. That didn’t sit well with Ontario’s development industry, even those that weren’t involved with the Premier’s greenbelt-giveaway fiasco.

The government wants to hand out MZOs to build transit-oriented communities. Well, no one trusts the government anymore on those MZOs. They don’t believe those MZOs mean anything. And if those developers have those MZOs cancelled, they wouldn’t have any insurance that they could then avail themselves of legal action. Never in the history of Ontario has there been a government that has created so much uncertainty in Ontario’s housing sector.

Let me be clear: I am in support of transit-oriented communities. We need to increase density, and we need to do it in major transit areas. I want to make that clear to the minister and his entire office, because it seems they have their wires crossed on this issue. But I want to make sure that the whole House and all the people of Ontario realize—

Interjections.

I want to make sure that the whole House and all the people of Ontario realize the absurdity that is this government having to walk back legislation to reassure home builders that they will still be able to sue them if they flip-flop on their MZOs. That’s where we are, folks. That’s how low this government has taken us.

We will support this legislation, but it’s embarrassing that we have to. I can understand why this government is rushing this bill through in one day, because it is frankly so embarrassing that so much of this bill even had to be written. It makes sense why they don’t want to take it to committee, because the stakeholders would flame them there. Well, perhaps that would happen more behind the scenes, as it already has. Regardless, it would be pretty awkward.

The housing sector has had enough of this government jerking it around. When it comes to health care, I have come to the conclusion that this government’s neglect is intentional and deliberate. But I do believe that the government’s mismanagement of the housing file boils down to another one of Ford’s finest signature blends: NIMBYism and incompetence.

But it turns out that a broken clock can be right twice a day, and that is the case for this government in some sections of the bill. This bill does get some things right, against all odds and in spite of this government’s signature blend of incompetence. For example, it offers a 10-day cooling-off period, after the purchase of new freehold homes, to cancel their contract without reason or penalty. This is to ensure that new homeowners can make sure their purchase was the right choice for themselves, and so they’re fully equipped with all of the information that they need. Surprisingly, this government is actually taking the advice of the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board and the Ontario Real Estate Association, although it is still flouting many of the Housing Affordability Task Force’s major recommendations.

Do you know what, Madam Speaker? A chance for homebuyers to make sure their purchase was the right choice? Some time for them to make sure they’ve got all the information correct?

Frankly, I think this government should legislate a 10-day cooling-off period for itself when it passes legislation, just so that we can all make sure.

This bill also bans consumer notices of security interest. There are far too many examples of people who have been caught unaware of NOSIs registered on their property and who have subsequently been subjected to exorbitant fees that feel extortionary. Something has to be done about that. While retroactively banning consumer NOSI registrations will be a good thing for homebuyers and we support that, this government must ensure that it puts the protections in place so that this change only affects bad-faith actors, not good-faith actors. Some of the people who have been impacted most are people who are elderly, who are new to our province, or who don’t speak English. Banning consumer notices of security interest is indeed an important step to introducing more fairness and equality to people who own homes. Ultimately, we need to do what is best for the 350,000 homeowners who will be protected by this policy, but this government needs to do it responsibly.

On to legal protections: It is understandable, especially for this government, that they would want to put legal protections in place for themselves regarding NOSIs. But in the same breath, they are also legislating legal protections for any action taken by Teranet. What’s up about that? Does it have anything to do with NOSIs? Is this about cancelling a contract and changing vendors? This bill offers no transparency, and this process, frankly, offers no time to even figure it out.

Does the Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery have any of these answers? Does the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing? Does anyone? Does the Premier know—or is this coming from somewhere else entirely? Those of us on this side of the House would like to know.

While we’re on the topic of transparency, let’s talk about builders’ cancellation disclosures. This bill would require the public disclosure of builders’ histories of cancellation disclosures, providing consumers with greater confidence and peace of mind. This is a good thing for homebuyers. It keeps everyone honest, and we support it.

But I find it odd that we are talking about homeowner protection and we are living in a time when the government can’t even ensure that a home is physically protected from crime, break-ins and armed robberies. This bill has some worthwhile elements to it, but it’s disgraceful that this government hasn’t included anything to do with helping Ontarians protect their homes and their families from crime. In my community, break-ins have been on the rise ever since this government took office, and far too little has been done to make them feel safe in their homes. For this government’s next bill, I do hope that they will take this into consideration.

Just one last thing, on MZOs: With all the talk about MZOs, how about this government actually using them to build homes instead of as political favours? If you want any proof that this government treats MZOs as political tools, look no further than 175 Cummer in the Minister of Long-Term Care’s riding. That inaction is forcing the city of Toronto to pay millions in storage for modular homes.

We’ll pass this bill, but will the government get its act together?

I want to end by concluding with just how regrettable this accelerated and expedited process is for denying a fulsome review of everything in this Legislature. I will say now what I said before, which is that this bill is an embarrassment and didn’t need to happen—an embarrassment so great that a bill that is being touted as a housing bill wasn’t even put out under the housing minister’s name; it was put out under the Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery.

In conclusion, I thank all members of the House for participating in this debate and for putting this bill forward. I regret that it has been done in such an expedited manner, but I look forward to the ensuing stages of reviewing this later this afternoon.

Questions? Questions?

Further debate?

Please lower the voices, the conversations. We cannot hear the speaker.

I apologize. You can continue.

Back to the member for Don Valley East.

I respectfully ask that the bill be referred to Committee of the Whole House.

I have no amendments to the bill, but I do have comments to schedule 4 as a whole.

Committee of the Whole House.

House in Committee of the Whole.

Consideration of the following bill:

Bill 200, An Act to amend various Acts with respect to homebuyers and homeowners, properties of cultural heritage value or interest and certain planning matters / Projet de loi 200, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne les acquéreurs de logements et les propriétaires de logements, les biens ayant une valeur ou un caractère sur le plan du patrimoine culturel et d’autres questions liées à l’aménagement du territoire.

Questions? Questions?

Further debate? Further debate?

Mr. McCarthy has moved second reading of Bill 200, An Act to amend various Acts with respect to homebuyers and homeowners, properties of cultural heritage value or interest and certain planning matters.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

Orders of the day? I recognize the government House leader.

We are now considering Bill 200, An Act to amend various Acts with respect to homebuyers and homeowners, properties of cultural heritage value or interest and certain planning matters. Are there any comments, questions or amendments? And if so, to which sections of the bill?

Are there any other comments, questions or amendments to other sections of the bill?

I just wanted to make comments to everyone in the House today. I want to congratulate the minister on this bill before us. I want to thank the government for listening to the official opposition. The parts of the bill pertaining to the freehold home extension with regard to the cooling-off period is, in fact, an amendment that we introduced to the CPA, and we thank you for listening to us and for it appearing in the bill.

We also thank the government and the minister because the banning of NOSIs for the future, as well as the past, in fact, is the substance of Bill 169, tabled by members of the official opposition. Again, the government and the minister have heard us, and this is part of the substance of this bill with regard to consumer protection.

I’m proud, as we are all proud, to stand together united on this bill.

Thank you, Chair. This is a landmark piece of legislation, the first of its kind in Canada. If passed, it would protect consumers from fraud and bad actors. By banning, or proposing to ban, the registration of consumer notices of security of interest on land titles, we are putting an end to the exploitation that has targeted our elderly and the most vulnerable residents of our communities.

Moreover, we’re giving Ontarians the crucial information and the time they need to confidently make one of the biggest financial decisions of their lives. This would occur through our enhanced protections for new homebuyers, putting those new freehold homebuyers on the same plane as new condo purchasers.

The proposed legislation would further strengthen consumer protections for homeowners and buyers by establishing a 10-day cooling-off period for purchases or purchasers of new freehold homes. The Condominium Authority Tribunal’s jurisdiction to cover a broader range of disputes would be put into place. There would be a more accessible and efficient resolution of disputes and the burden taken away from the courts.

This proposed legislation has widespread support from advocacy groups for seniors, consumer advocates, law enforcement, legal professionals and businesses of all sizes.

Are there any other members who wish to be recognized?

I will now bundle consecutive sections that have no amendments and to which there are no comments or questions.

The bill is comprised of three sections and five schedules. I suggest that we postpone the first three sections of the bill in order to dispose of the schedules first. This allows the committee to consider the contents of the schedules before dealing with the sections relating to the commencement and short title of the bill. We would return to the three sections after completing the consideration of the schedules.

Is there unanimous consent to postpone consideration of these three sections of the bill and deal with the schedules first? Agreed.

Schedule 1, sections 1 to 5: Carry? Schedule 1, sections 1 to 5, carried.

Schedule 1, sections 6 to 8: Shall they carry? Sections 6 to 8, carried.

Shall schedule 1 carry, as a whole? Carried.

Shall sections 1 to 3 of schedule 2 carry? Carried.

Shall schedule 2, as a whole, carry? Carried.

Shall sections 1 and 2 of schedule 3 carry? Sections 1 and 2 of schedule 3 are carried.

Shall schedule 3, as a whole, carry? Schedule 3, carried.

Shall sections 1 to 12 of schedule 4 carry? Sections 1 to 12 of schedule 4, carried.

I recognize the Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery.

Shall schedule 4, as a whole, carry? Carried.

Shall schedule 5, sections 1 and 2, carry? Schedule 5, sections 1 and 2, are carried.

Shall schedule 5, as a whole, carry? Carried.

We will return to sections 1 through 3. Shall sections 1 through 3 carry? Carried.

Shall the preamble of the bill carry? Carried.

Shall the title of the bill carry? Carried.

Shall Bill 200 carry? Carried.

Shall I report the bill to the House? Carried.

Orders of the day? I recognize the government House leader.

The Committee of the Whole House begs to report one bill without amendment and asks for leave to sit again.

Committee of the Whole report adopted.

Orders of the day?

Mr. McCarthy moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 200, An Act to amend various Acts with respect to homebuyers and homeowners, properties of cultural heritage value or interest and certain planning matters / Projet de loi 200, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne les acquéreurs de logements et les propriétaires de logements, les biens ayant une valeur ou un caractère sur le plan du patrimoine culturel et d’autres questions liées à l’aménagement du territoire.

It’s an honour for me to rise here today to add some remarks on Bill 200. To my mind, this marks some of the best collaboration I have had the opportunity to witness within this chamber in my six years as a legislator.

We’ve all seen the horrific stories of seniors, people living with disabilities and new Canadians who have been targeted by these insidious HVAC scams. It’s been absolutely unconscionable to see that these companies will end up using ridiculously long contracts that actually are longer than the lifespan of the unit, and that the contracts will also have these appliances accrue interest year over year. What appliance gets more expensive the more you use it? It makes no sense. The fact that they will take a bite out of the value of a homeowner’s home is absolutely unacceptable.

The reason we are here is because the dithering Liberal government did not respond to this crisis properly. They banned door-to-door sales, but yet there was no enforcement to that. It was like they took care of a side issue. They looked at the method of this scam, but not actually the beating heart of this scam itself. The beating heart of this scam is the NOSI or the lien.

Despite the fact that door-to-door sales are banned, these companies have found other ways in, they have pivoted. They will contact people through email, they will set up phone calls, they will tell people that they have won prizes, thereby gaining entry.

I want to thank all of the investigative reporters, whether it’s W5 or CBC Marketplace, who have had hidden-camera investigations, which have really shone a light on what this scam actually is.

It’s been really unfortunate that Liberal inaction has allowed these companies to continue to get away with this for so many years. So here we are today, dealing with this issue in a collaborative, proactive way.

I’ve got to say, I was initially not all that impressed when the government first mentioned the study of NOSIs. I was a little bit worried. I thought it would be imbalanced, unfair and that people wouldn’t receive justice. I’ve been following this for a number of years. It’s something that I’ve cared very passionately about, and I’ve got to say that there’s been so much work done in this space, and as legislators, we cannot ignore what has happened in people’s lives.

After thinking about this for some time, I’ve tried different ways to develop legislation to combat it. There’s been many different approaches, but we have to cut the head off of the snake with this scam. We have to get rid of the beating hart of this scam which is the NOSI or the lien.

I want to thank Dennis Crawford, who has been incredible to work with. He’s done excellent work fighting for and informing people about this scam. And I also want to thank people who came forward and shared their stories with us.

There was Linda Palmieri, a constituent of the MPP from Humber River–Black Creek. We had staff litigation lawyers from the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly, Sarah Tella and Bethanie Pascutto.

This fall, when discussing the consumer protection bill, Bill 168, I was asking this government time and again if retroactivity was going to included within any discussion of NOSIs and we weren’t really given much cause to support any upcoming legislation, because there was really no indication that retroactivity was going to be provided. I was really quite worried that this government wasn’t going to go far enough, so as a result, I tabled my bill, Bill 169, and I want to thank the member for Humber River–Black Creek, our consumer protection critic, I want to thank the member from Waterloo and I want to thank the member from Parkdale–High Park for also being my co-sponsors on this legislation.

I’ve got to say, I did prefer my title, but I decided not to go and change that during Committee of the Whole House. It was the Removing Red Tape for Homeowners (No More Pushy, High-Pressure HVAC Scams) Act, but with that legislation, it did both things: It looked forward and it also looked backward. It included that retroactivity which is central and is key and is something that we must do.

It’s not fair to go and say, “Now is year zero, and we’re going to start looking after people and make sure that they aren’t being scammed.” We need and we have a moral and ethical duty to make sure that people who have been victimized and exploited by this scam are also protected, and so I want to thank the government for including that within Bill 200.

I’ve got to say, on the day when I tabled this legislation along with my co-sponsors, I had the opportunity to ask, in question period—and there aren’t many times where I’m, quite frankly, speechless, but when I asked the Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery about this, and the minister indicated that they would be following Bill 169 and including retroactivity, I was so glad. I’m so glad to see that we, together as legislators, are going to take care of an awful mess that has been left for years—to take care of this predatory, horrible industry which exploits people and takes money out of their pocket.

I want to thank also police services, advocacy organizations—all the people who have been trying to get change within this space for a number of years.

I also want to share some feedback that I have received, and it was written to me:

“Without the opposition pushing this issue forward, the government may not have acted until later, and their action may have been less comprehensive than what has been proposed in the announcement.

“Thank you, Terence, for your leadership on this important public issue!”

I want to also send a message from this Legislature to those predatory scam companies. I want to ask them a question: How on earth is it possible that you can live with yourself when every dollar in your pocket is based on human suffering? I want to ask: How could you look yourself in the mirror and pretend that you’re a decent person? This Legislature today has shown that we are on to your scams. You can try to pivot. You can try and slither away, but we will continue to respond with legislation to make sure that this does not happen to seniors, people living with disabilities and new Canadians. Stop scamming people and put your efforts into a real, decent job.

Thank you very much for the time, Speaker. Again, I commend the Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery. I want to thank all members here for providing me with this opportunity to speak today.

I recognize the minister.

Further debate?

Speaker, this is a momentous day. Great work has been done by all members of this assembly to get us to this point. We consulted in the fall of 2023 across the spectrum: individual families and elderly citizens who have been victimized by this terrible fraud of misuse of NOSIs. The deception and organized criminal activity associated with it was unacceptable.

We heard the stories, as I said, of families and seniors. We consulted with law enforcement, legal professionals, businesses of all types, advocates for consumer groups and advocates for the elderly. We then put forward the proposal and we tabled the bill.

There are times when matters that require our urgent attention must be dealt with swiftly. This is one such time. I congratulate all members of this House for listening to the residents and citizens of their communities across 124 ridings in the province of Ontario. We are working together today swiftly to move this matter to the point where we can debate and ultimately vote on third reading of Bill 200. It is properly called the Homeowner Protection Act, but it’s also about protecting homebuyers. The Homeowner Protection Act, 2024, is the right thing to do and it is urgently needed.

When members of this House come together and put partisanship aside, we can serve the citizens we all serve together, rightly and fairly and properly, doing our duty as parliamentarians. I believe that we have done that today. With the support of all members of this House, we can move it forward so that immediate relief will be available to the seniors who are affected by this. It is not just a proposal to abolish the registration of notices of security interest in regard to consumer goods and services against people’s homes going forward. It is not just that; it is about retroactively abolishing—making ineffective—the 350,000 some-odd NOSIs that are currently registered on title against homes.

Before we vote, I ask you to consider this: To delay the passage of this legislation would be to enable further fraud, enable further victimization of our elderly and our vulnerable. That would be wrong. That would be a failure of our duty as parliamentarians. I urge you all to continue what you have started. Let us come together, vote together and pass this bill on third reading. Thank you very much.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 7(e), I wish to inform the House that tonight’s evening meeting is cancelled.

And if you seek it, I’m sure you’ll find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6.

I move that, in the opinion of this House, the Ontario building code should be amended to restore the requirements for electric vehicle supply equipment that applied to houses served by a garage, carport or driveway, as per subsection 9.34.4 of division B of O. Reg. 332/12, as it read on January 1, 2018.

As a girl from Oshawa, I support the automotive sector and always want to grow manufacturing. My community was immeasurably shaped by automotive innovation and auto workers. I want to do my part to ensure the road ahead is bright and sure.

We will all be proud to build electric vehicles right here in our province and proud of the good jobs and the auto workers who will build them. But Ontario needs a real EV plan so we can charge them and drive them. We are not EV-ready, and we are falling behind. We need a serious EV strategy to grow development, manufacturing and the charging infrastructure. We need EV-ready homes.

This initiative aims to make it easier and more affordable for drivers to transition to electric vehicles by requiring home builders to include rough-ins for charging infrastructure in newly built homes. As the official opposition critic for infrastructure, transportation and highways, I have the opportunity to talk to folks who are driving the future and building the province. Months ago, I met with the Electricity Distributors Association and our local utility, Oshawa Power. Daniel Arbour, the president and CEO of Oshawa Power, made a reference to Quebec’s buildings code’s at-home-charging rough-in provisions for new homes. I was interested, because it makes sense to start at home when creating a solution that will make a difference to the most Ontarians. New homes should be built with the future in mind.

The building code had been amended in 2017 to include a requirement for EV charger rough-ins, which was to take effect for new builds after 2020, but it never did. In 2018, the newly elected PC government undid this section in the Ontario building code around the same time that they also removed chargers from GO stations and cancelled the rebate for EV buyers. I want this government to reverse course and undo their undo.

We have seen this government rethink positions before and repeal or reverse or reconsider, and I am asking them to listen to industry, environmental and energy folks, and make it easier for more Ontarians to charge their electric vehicles at home. The future is on its way, and it will be here by 2035.

The federal government’s plan for Canada to move away from fully gas-powered cars and toward electric vehicles is that by 2035, 100% of new light-duty vehicles sold would have to be electric vehicles. These gas-powered vehicles account for about half of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector.

In a government news release announcing that this province was investigating options for a new ultra-low overnight electricity rate, this PC government’s former Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks said, “Electric vehicles are a powerful tool in the fight against climate change and a critical way to reduce emissions.”

Further, this Minister of Energy said, “Introduction of a new ultra-low overnight price plan that would benefit shift workers and support EV adoption is our next step as we focus on helping electricity customers save money....”

The former Minister of Transportation said, “This new initiative will help electric vehicle owners save on costs, while also supporting the use of these environmentally friendly vehicles across the province.”

Speaker, I don’t often read PC government news releases, but today I believe we share common ground, and I’m trying to remind them that we want to support mass adoption of the electric vehicles that we are all excited to be building here.

Honda will be investing $15 billion to build four new EV plants in Ontario, and that is a big deal. The deal includes the construction of the Honda’s first electric vehicle assembly plant and a new stand-alone EV battery plant in Alliston. This Premier called the investment “a game-changer for the industry” and a “tremendous win for Ontario.” He said his government is supporting the investment with direct and indirect incentives worth $2.5 billion.

Honda Canada’s president, Jean Marc Leclerc, was recently in Oshawa, and I ran into him at the Canadian Automotive Museum. I appreciated talking with him about Ontario’s EV future, and I just heard him on CBC Radio, where he spoke about mass adoption of EVs and the need to find solutions to eliminate people’s anxieties about owning an electric vehicle. In that interview, Monsieur Leclerc said, “In the end, what we’re seeing right now is a matter of the conditions not being optimal for mass adoption for Canadians. We as an auto industry don’t control all these aspects for success. We can bring vehicles to market, we have to sell them, people have to be comfortable buying them.”

He went on to say, “We’re trying to address environmental concerns, climate change. Governments are taking certain actions to accelerate these developments and those investments in a very short period of time. With that needs to come all the other components of that ecosystem to come together and assure that ultimate objective gets realized.”

Charging infrastructure, specifically at-home infrastructure, is part of that EV ecosystem. People won’t buy them if they can’t charge them, and there is more that we can do. The provincial government has made significant investments to bring EV manufacturing to Ontario, but without a reliable consumer market, we’ve already seen Ford Motor Co. delay their EV production by two years. Unifor members have been left in the lurch. Stakeholders in the automotive industry have shared their concerns that the government is not doing enough to encourage EV adoption.

I appreciate being a part of this important work, and I want to thank industry and community partners for their input into my bill. I have been glad to get frank and clear advice from many who see the value in planning ahead to support the future of EVs. Here is part of a letter from the Electricity Distributors Association:

“Dear Ms. French,

“The Electricity Distributors Association ... welcomes your recent tabling of Bill 199, the EV-Ready Homes Act ... 2024. As you know, the EDA represents Ontario’s local hydro utilities, the part of our electricity system closest to customers.

“The EDA is pleased to see that the EV-Ready Homes Act would respond to our mutual goal of an electrified Ontario. Whether it’s the federal government’s net-zero target, the province’s investments in EV manufacturing or changes in customer expectations—mass adoption of EVs is coming, and it is time to get ready. Building new homes with the expected changes in future electricity use in mind—particularly EVs—makes sense, and it will ensure Ontario is ready for its electric future.”

I want to thank the president and chief executive officer, Teresa Sarkesian, for her letter.

Speaker, it was Daniel Arbour, the president and CEO of Oshawa Power, who first sparked my interest in EV-ready homes. I am pleased to share his letter today:

“Dear Ms. French,

“Oshawa Power is pleased to provide this letter of support for Bill 199, EV-Ready Homes Act ... and your motion 109 that would amend the Building Code Act ... to make homes ‘EV ready.’

“With more than 130 years of experience in delivering services and bringing Oshawa forward through innovation and technology, we know and understand the need to provide residents with the services they want and need, and be prepared for emerging technologies, such as the future of electric vehicles.

“The electricity grid is undergoing a period of transformative change due to the growth of electric vehicles, and other emerging technologies, our focus is to modernize the electric grid to ensure stability and this bill will enable homeowners to make a seamless transition to electric mobility. Many customers are reluctant to make the move to electric mobility because their home electrical panels need to be upgraded in addition to installing an EV charger, resulting in additional delays and unplanned costs.

“Oshawa Power also believes the future in Ontario is electric and this amendment to the building code requiring the addition of a 200 amp panel and the roughed in electrical box for EV chargers in the home will make the transition to electric a smooth and seamless experience for Ontario residents.”

That’s from Daniel Arbour, the president and CEO of Oshawa Power.

We have a responsibility to support the market. We can’t only support the auto manufacturers in building the vehicles. We want them to be able to sell them so that they will keep making them here.

I know a thing or two about good auto jobs. I live in a city that built General Motors. Those good union jobs ensured workers could buy homes, vehicles; that they could participate in and invest in our community. We have to be thoughtful in how to support a strong future for auto workers across our communities.

Some basic EV economics: We are going to have the supply side covered, but we are not being smart about the demand side. People are EV-curious and are wanting their next vehicle to be electrified, but they don’t yet see the infrastructure so they can charge them. They want to be able to charge them at home.

Building new homes is a priority for everyone, and we are building new homes, so let’s build them right and EV-ready. Supporting EV-ready homes today will ensure every new home we build is ready for the future. To date, the Premier has said no to this, but let’s talk this through.

We need to weigh the minimal cost to plan ahead, amortized over decades, against the hefty cost to retrofit, paid all at once. The costs of upgrading a home to allow convenient charging are significant, with estimates as high as $3,000 to $5,000. This is a deterrent for anyone looking to get off of fossil fuels and into an electric vehicle. It is far more cost-effective for home builders to include the rough-in for chargers at construction.

We also all agree that great automotive jobs are important to keep in the province, and that investment in manufacturing and the future of electric vehicles is part of our economic and electrified future as a province.

Speaker, I am ever the optimist. Originally, this government removed chargers from GO stations and removed this forward-thinking section of the Ontario building code. However, we have seen this PC government investing in charging infrastructure, and clearly, they recognize there’s a need. I’m hopeful that their recognition of the problem of access to charging will motivate them to adopt this initiative today and ensure all new homes are built EV-ready.

We will be building cars and making batteries and hopefully strengthening the energy grid to support our electric future, but we want to make sure people can charge their vehicles. The future is electric, and we have an opportunity to do something useful today. I urge this House to pass this today so that we can have EV-ready homes tomorrow.

Questions? Questions? Further debate? Further debate?

Mr. McCarthy has moved third reading of Bill 200, An Act to amend various Acts with respect to homebuyers and homeowners, properties of cultural heritage value or interest and certain planning matters. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion. Congratulations.

Third reading agreed to.

I recognize the member from Oshawa.

No.

Further debate?

It’s an honour to rise to participate in this debate. I want to thank the member for Oshawa, one of the places in Canada that knows a lot—I agree with her—about the automobile industry.

I also want to just note for the record that I am the proud owner of an EV. My partner and I got a 2022 Chevrolet Bolt EUV. We specifically chose that car because it is the one—of which I’m aware at the moment—union-assembled car that one can buy in the market. But we know there is more product coming. There’s more product coming because Ford has product that it wants to introduce into the market, and we see other product coming.

But there is a delay in the market right now, and it has nothing to do, as my friends might attest, with controversies over nuclear energy or environmental programs. It has to do with making sure that we have the charging infrastructure for the next generation of electric vehicles right here in Ontario.

I was at committee where I serve—heritage and culture and infrastructure—and I recall a senior staffer saying to the committee at the time that Ontario Parks was going to be participating in a massive rollout of fast-charging stations, which would be a fantastic idea, because that is land the province is directly responsible for. That is across the province of Ontario—particularly when I’m thinking about the north. But have we had an update on that, friends?

Unfortunately, right now in Canada, the ratio of electric vehicles to charging stations is 20 to one. If you look at the global average, it’s 10 to one. So we have to ask the question: We’ve heard a lot in this House—and I’ll acknowledge that it’s progress—from this government wanting to attract the assembly of electric vehicles in our province, wanting to attract the assembly of batteries for electric vehicles in this province. But we haven’t heard a lot—as the member for Oshawa just said—about what we are going to do to make sure that we can charge the cars once they’re out there in the economy. It’s a critically missing piece, Speaker.

We can fix this missing piece, I want to believe, rather like our debate we had earlier this afternoon on NOSIs and consumer protection. This is another kind of consumer protection. If we make sure that a family or an individual takes the leap to be part of the electric vehicle future, we have to make sure that the infrastructure is there to support those folks.

Because the EV market is growing. We know that it’s going to be 4.6 million by 2030, 12.3 million by 2035. But will you be able to fill up the car? Let’s hope we can vote for the member’s motion and make sure that happens.

I am very grateful to talk about this motion today, and I appreciate the member for putting it forward. I too own a Bolt and am a grateful owner of that Bolt. I spend $12 a month on operating my Bolt through electricity rates—thank you to the energy minister for the low overnight rate, which I charge my car with—and I save 80% a year on maintenance fees.

I know in this House there is great concern about affordability, and I think the more we can do to help people not only afford an EV but also operate one with ease will go a long way to ensure that it’s not just me, with privilege, who can foot that bill at the beginning, but this affordability relief can be appreciated by all Ontarians, which is why we support the member’s bill. We know that it’s so much easier—I know from lived experience—to patch in the electrical capacity when you’re building your home. It saves thousands of dollars. It costs so much more to retrofit a home when you have to do it later on.

Look at the retrofitting we’re trying to do right now when it comes to climate. We look at all our older homes. They’re very leaky. We have to retrofit those homes, and it costs people thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars. We know better, and so we should do better. So I hope that we can do this work of retrofitting the homes from the very beginning. We could save people money on their monthly expenses, and we could save money on their servicing.

We also know that this creates affordability over the lifespan of the car. As a person who graduated from business school, I think we need a revamp on our accounting classes. We need to take operating costs and we need to allow those costs to be used for capital. We know with these cars, yes, they cost more up front, but you will save thousands of dollars over the lifespan of the vehicle, and I have seen this with a lot of the electrification of our fleets. We see this in the city of Kitchener, where we’ve electrified our fleet. When we build new buildings now in the city of Kitchener, we mandate that that charging happens during the development process. So I urge us to do that not just for municipalities and put this on them to figure out on their own.

This is a consistent thing we can do across the province with ease. What I’ve heard from the development sector is that they hate going from city to city to city and trying to figure out everybody else’s way of doing things. The city of Kitchener is moving forward with green development standards. This will be the reality in the city of Kitchener, but we would like it so that developers can find it easy to manoeuvre and build across the province with the same set of standards, so they don’t have to reinvent the rules and understand different rules depending on where they’re building. It adds time. It adds energy. It adds staffing costs. It adds complexity. When we create this norm across the province, we create simplicity for home builders, which saves people money as well. We know these retrofits will have to come if we don’t do that.

I also believe in what the member beside me has shared about the future of the EV sector. What I’ve heard is that you build it where we buy it. We know that, yes, we need to operate EVs cheaply and we need to make it easier for people to use them. This encourages people to buy the very EVs that we are manufacturing in Ontario. So when we make it easier for people to buy EVs in the province of Ontario, we are supporting the very jobs that we’re creating at this moment. These things go hand in hand. Any effort to undermine EV market sales by not having it patched into someone’s home, by not having consistent charging infrastructure across the province, by not making it affordable by using rebates and these price incentives—we will see a dip. This is what I heard from Toyota. Toyota Canada came to me last week. They are near my riding. Most of the auto workers live in my riding—because it’s awesome—but Toyota Canada is in Kitchener. They told us that these are the things they want, as an auto manufacturer. I know that they will be coming to Canada, but they want to make sure that the jobs that they create are sustainable. They don’t want to build a workforce and tell people to go home. They need to see the will of this government for the uptick, for the sales of the EVs, so that they also will come here and invest in the Ontario EV market.

It’s a pleasure to join the debate today—almost a historic day, really. I’m really pleased that the member from Oshawa has brought forward this motion to the House. It feels very much like a “help us help you” kind of moment here.

It is important, actually, just to understand how we got here. I do think that it’s worth noting that when the Ford government first came into power back in 2018—then they zapped the compulsory garage plugs from all new houses and condos, effective 2019. This felt at the time like an absurd move, I have to tell you, because most of us would agree that people do want to transition away from your traditional automotive fossil fuel car.

EV has a little shininess to it, but there are some structural issues that stand in the way of consumers purchasing those cars.

I also want to make it very clear that there have been some major investments in this province towards the EV sector—$2.5 billion in taxpayer dollars going to Honda in a recent announcement. However, according to a recent CBC article, “The surge in investment comes as the underlying EV industry remains at a crossroads.” So this motion from the member of Oshawa can actually be a motivator, if you will, and an enabler, if the government is serious about the EV sector. “Growth forecasts have plateaued, charging infrastructure has not kept pace and electric vehicle prices have pushed the cars out of reach of many consumers.”

So this is where we are in the province of Ontario—major investments towards the automotive and the factories, but the missing piece to successfully rolling out and becoming a true global leader in the EV sector is the infrastructure piece.

According to the Pembina Institute, “Currently, Ontario’s EV market share is low and charging infrastructure is insufficient—in Ontario, there is approximately one public charger per 25 EVs on the road. Globally there is about one charger per eight EVs on the road.” We have a lot of work to make up for.

“However, EV sales are sagging, in part due to inadequate charging infrastructure”—and this is just from April 2024—“there are about 2,900 charging stations with 8,000 charging ports in Ontario.” This is insufficient.

This is why there is a lot of market interest in building these chargers into the building code. Build it right the first time. Create the market share. Address some of the stigma and the concerns and fears around range anxiety or access to charging, build that market share and demonstrate to companies like Toyota that Ontario really is serious about the EV market.

Other stakeholders—this is Daniel Breton, the head of the industry association Electric Mobility Canada: “The problem ... is people have limited knowledge and understanding of electric vehicle chargers.

“An Electric Mobility Canada survey found 88% of respondents said they would like their next vehicle to be electric but only 13% claimed to have an in-depth understanding of EVs, including the number of public charging stations, government rebates and battery life, among other aspects.”

“The entire industry agrees we are going to get to a place where we are at zero emissions. The only debate is how long it’s going to take.” This quote is from Flavio Volpe, who is head of Canada’s Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association.

“That timeline depends on several key factors. But price and charging infrastructure are among the most important.”

Everybody gets a second chance to correct a mistake, I think, in this House. We just saw a really important moment in this House where we worked together to try to address the predatory practices around NOSIs.

There are three major, key issues at play with the motion today. We want to make sure that going green shouldn’t be prohibitively expensive. When you install a charger in your home at the time of build, it’s approximately $500; later, after the house is built, it’s about $3,000 to $5,000. This is cost-prohibitive for so many Ontarians.

My son is an electrician. I’m very proud of him. He could work 24/7 in this province. We need more electricians to do this work. We will get more electricians moving into the trades if the building code is changed, if we build in this green infrastructure around the EV sector.

The other thing is that good union jobs are on the line. The provincial government has made these investments, but without a reliable consumer market, we have actually already seen the Ford Motor Co. delay their EV production by two years. So this would be a confidence builder, I would say, for the market, and then finally an easy fix to prepare for an electrified future.

This is the direction we should be moving. As the official opposition, with the leadership of the member from Oshawa—the time is now. Join us. Help us help you make the EV sector truly successful in the province of Ontario.