Good morning. Let us pray.

Prayers.

Mr. Clark moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 23, An Act to amend various statutes, to revoke various regulations and to enact the Supporting Growth and Housing in York and Durham Regions Act, 2022 / Projet de loi 23, Loi modifiant diverses lois, abrogeant divers règlements et édictant la Loi de 2022 visant à soutenir la croissance et la construction de logements dans les régions de York et de Durham.

Absolutely, I would. Speaker, it’s a real privilege and a pleasure to rise for the second reading of our government’s proposed More Homes Built Faster Act.

I want to indicate that I’ll be sharing the government’s leadoff time with the Associate Minister of Housing and also the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The three of us will be sharing the debate. The associate minister and the parliamentary assistant will be touching on some very specific details of our plan.

But at the onset, I want to extend the government’s congratulations not just to all the candidates who were successful on Monday for the municipal election but to all candidates who were putting their names forward. I think members of this House appreciate the fact that in Ontario’s 444 municipalities we’ve got some outstanding men and women who were elected on October 24 but also who put their names forward. I think we all in this House agree that the municipal level of government is so very important to be able to work collaboratively with our government. This bill is exactly to go along with that. Congratulations to all those who were successful, but I congratulate everyone who put their name on a ballot on Monday.

Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act: Ontario is a prosperous and a growing province, the best place in the world to call home. However, too many Ontarians are struggling to find a home that’s right for them. This is true, Speaker, for young people eager to start a family in the community of their choosing, for newcomers ready to put down roots and start a family right here in Ontario and for seniors looking to downsize but wanting to stay close to their family and their community. This isn’t just a big-city crisis. The housing supply shortage affects all Ontarians: rural, urban, suburban, north and south, young and old.

The problem is clear: There simply aren’t enough homes being built. The solution is equally clear: We need to build more homes and we need to build them faster. That’s why our government has set a very clear goal. During the election, we were honest, we were open and we were transparent with the people of Ontario. We said our goal over the next 10 years was to build 1.5 million homes. Over the last four years, the government has introduced dozens of new policies to get housing built faster. We’ve come a long way in our four years of government, but we know that more needs to be done. That’s why we worked with our partner ministries across government to take action. Our proposals in Bill 23, if passed, would lay a strong foundation on which we can build the 1.5 million homes Ontarians desperately need.

Ontario is expected to grow by more than two million people over the next 10 years. Over two thirds of this growth is expected to take place in the greater Golden Horseshoe. The need for both near- and long-term solutions to address the housing shortage is why we’re here this morning.

Speaker, before I talk about our proposed legislation, I’d like to take a few moments to reflect on the success of our previous housing supply action plans. Because we are building on what we’ve done over the past few years, we want to send a clear message to Ontarians that we want to continue to do so. This past spring, we looked the people of Ontario in the eye during the election and we said that a re-elected government under the leadership of Premier Ford would have a new housing supply action plan each year over the next four years. And we will continue to develop policies to make it easier to get shovels in the ground faster.

In 2019, our first plan, More Homes, More Choice, took some very important steps in that very first housing supply action plan. We wanted to speed up planning timelines. We wanted to make development costs more predictable, to make it easier to build laneway homes and basement suites and to harmonize provincial and national building codes. Our changes were effective. Last year we had over 100,000 new housing starts in Ontario. That is the highest amount of housing starts since 1987 and it’s well above the average over the past 30 years, which was 67,500 starts.

We knew that we had to do more. We had to put a plan in place that was going to get us closer to that 1.5 million homes. So earlier this year we released our second housing supply action plan, More Homes for Everyone. We went even further to speed up approvals and took steps to gradually refund fees if decisions weren’t made within legislated time frames. We created new tools, like the community infrastructure and housing accelerator, which is designed to give municipalities the opportunity to work in partnership with the province in order to unlock the priority housing, among other things, along with key community infrastructure.

As we build our second plan, we’ve relied on feedback from public and stakeholder consultations as well as the Housing Affordability Task Force. This task force was made up of industry leaders and experts who recommended impactful measures to increase the supply of market housing. The task force report now serves as our long-term housing road map for the future. It informs the work that we do with our municipal and industry partners as we develop policies and create tools that help build more multi-unit housing, more multi-generational housing and gentle density.

And with our commitment to continue to strengthen housing policies, we recently named the chair and the vice-chair of the new Housing Supply Action Plan Implementation Team. The team will support improvements to our annual housing supply action plans. And we will keep up that momentum, especially in these turbulent economic times. That’s why in our new housing supply action plan we are proposing even more steps to get housing built faster across our province. If passed, our proposed changes would help reduce unnecessary burdens and red tape that are delaying construction and driving up the cost of a home even higher. They would also allow for more homes to be built near transit—something that everyone has told us throughout our extensive consultations. We need to encourage municipalities to update their zoning and to help enable more gentle density in residential areas. These changes would also support and protect homebuyers. It would use surplus provincial properties to build more attainable homes.

Speaker, before I begin giving some details on our proposed changes, I’d like to say a few words with my colleagues across the aisle in mind. Many of the members opposite have been very clear that they are concerned about Ontario’s housing supply and that they expect our government to act. I take these members at their word, and I would urge them to recognize that what we are planning and proposing in this action is exactly what they’ve been asking for. The More Homes Built Faster Act contains practical measures that will have a real and a positive impact, making it easier for Ontarians to find the right home for their needs and their budget. I hope that the members opposite will give this proposal the careful consideration it deserves, and I hope that the members opposite will support our sincere efforts to tackle Ontario’s housing crisis.

We have the capacity in our province to allow for more gentle density in areas where it makes sense. Our proposed changes will permit up to three units—that’s up to three units in the main building, or up to two in the main building plus one unit in a smaller building—on most pieces of urban land without needing a bylaw amendment to permit these added units. The example I’ll use is, a property owner could have a main residence with a basement and attic apartment or an apartment in the main residence plus a garden home.

By increasing supply, this change would clearly benefit Ontarians across the province who are looking for an apartment or a home to rent. But it would also benefit existing homeowners, who could use the additional space to help pay off their mortgage or to provide a home for their extended family. The new units would be exempt from development charges and parkland dedication fees, and municipalities couldn’t set minimum unit sizes or require more than one parking space per unit.

To continue to make it easier to build more density, we’re consulting on proposed building code changes—changes such as removing requirements for standpipe systems with four-storey stacked townhomes and matching national building code requirements for four- to six-storey wood buildings. These changes would reduce costs, all while continuing to protect the public.

We know that steps like these need to be taken to keep up with growth. But we simply can’t keep up if the approvals process is holding back housing in communities across the province.

And the costs for delays can be staggering. A study just last month by the Building Industry and Land Development Association reports that costs can increase substantially each month a permit is stuck in the approval process. They found that the development application timelines in the GTA have gotten 40% longer over the past two years, and each month of delay in a typical high-density project amounts to $2,600 to $3,300 in additional construction costs per unit. In fact, Speaker, the Ontario Association of Architects also looked into the cost delays, and they concluded the total cost of site plan review—just those site plan review application delays—could increase it between the range of $300 million and $900 million every year in Ontario.

These costs are staggering, and these are shocking numbers, especially when you take into consideration that currently the time to obtain development approvals on a four-storey apartment building and a 40-storey condominium is virtually the same time. It’s unbelievable. Again, Speaker—I want to repeat that—the time frames for a four-storey apartment building and a 40-storey condominium are virtually the same time frames for approval.

That’s why we’re proposing to remove site plan control requirements from most projects that are under 10 units. This would reduce the stacks of approvals sitting on desks at city halls and speed things up for all housing proposals, all while reducing construction costs. We’ll continue to ensure we protect public safety through building permits and both building and fire code requirements. For larger projects, we’re going to be proposing to speed up approvals by focusing site plan reviews on health and safety issues, issues like safe access to and from a building, rather than architectural or decorative landscape details.

Of course, sometimes we’ll see certain residential developments stall no matter how much we’re able to adjust the approvals process and no matter how much these projects are needed in their communities.

Speaker, we can’t examine the details of how to build housing without looking at the bigger picture. How land is used in Ontario is guided by a number of different provincial policies and plans, some of which are outdated or obsolete. We’re seeking feedback on how to revoke some of them as well as merging A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and the provincial policy statement into a single province-wide planning policy. This would create a much more streamlined land use planning framework and help municipalities approve housing faster.

Working with our municipal partners is key to ensuring the amount of housing available is keeping up with the population growth projections. Municipalities already have growth forecasts that help them plan for what their communities will need, up to the year 2051, through their official plans. But those forecasts assume that there is enough housing to meet the communities’ needs today. That’s simply not the case. So we’re asking 29 of Ontario’s largest municipalities to pledge to help fill that gap over the next 10 years. Again, these pledges are in addition to existing longer-term municipal growth plans and would help kick-start development by outlining a more realistic strategy.

As municipalities pledge to build more housing, we need to ensure that it’s the housing that people can afford. Much attention has been paid to the lack of attainable housing in our province. Ontarians with well-paying jobs, some even with two-income families, are struggling to find a place to live. Our government knows that we need to tackle this problem, Speaker, but we also need more affordable housing. We need it especially around transit and in other high-density areas. That’s why we’re proposing to create ways for missing-middle and low-income Ontarians to enter the housing market. This includes building on surplus government properties and building new transit, and I’m very, very pleased to be working with the Minister of Infrastructure on this plan. We have a number of sites—I go into municipalities all across Ontario; mayors every week tell me about surplus properties that we believe could be used for more attainable housing. So I look forward to that. We’ll also be consulting on how to make inclusionary zoning rules more consistent and using a standardized approach to determining an affordable price or affordable rent.

Speaker, we know the demand for rental housing is also skyrocketing in parts of the province, just as we know that many Ontarians have no choice but to rent since they are shut out of the housing market by high prices and by inadequate supply. That’s why we’ll be consulting on ways to enable rent-to-own arrangements, such as an alternative home financing model, so that we can help more renters realize their dream of home ownership.

When it comes to that dream of buying a first house, our government is determined to stand up for ordinary, hard-working Ontarians. We’ve all heard stories in this House of people putting down a down payment on preconstruction on a condo or a new home but never get to move in because the project was unfairly cancelled or the purchase agreement was terminated years later.

As part of the proposed changes to the New Home Construction Licensing Act, our government is further strengthening consumer protection for new homebuyers. I want to thank the Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery, the Honourable Kaleed Rasheed, for his leadership on this file and the strong message that he has sent about our government’s commitment to stand up for Ontarians.

Our plan would double the maximum administrative penalty to a maximum of $50,000 for unethical builders and vendors of new homes that unfairly cancel projects or purchase agreements. There would be no limit to additional monetary benefit penalties either. It would also enable the Home Construction Regulatory Authority to use the money from these penalties to make payments directly back to those affected consumers. It would also have the authority to impose financial penalties for transgressions that occurred on or after April 14, 2022, when our previous bill, More Homes for Everyone, received royal assent. Unethical developers that engage in these business practices now face the risk of permanently losing their builder’s licence, which is a very, very strict penalty that we can all agree is well deserved and recognized in the province.

Under these proposed changes, unethical builders could now be on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars per infraction and, for repeat offenders, we’re also proposing to double the maximum penalty, where individuals could face charges of $100,000 and corporations $500,000. Individuals who are found guilty will also face a sentence of up to two years in prison, and to support these proposed legislative amendments we’re going to consult on regulations relating to administrative monetary penalties as well. We’re sending a very clear message to developers and home builders: They must stick to the deals that they make with Ontarians. Our new proposals will make sure that they do.

As I touched upon earlier, I can’t implement all these proposed measures alone. Increasing housing supply across the province needs everyone on the same side. We need all levels of government working alongside industry partners, not-for-profits. We’re counting on the support of the sector. We want to work together in lockstep to build up near transit, to unlock innovative approaches to design and construction, and to get shovels in the ground faster for all types of housing. I want to, again, reiterate: I’m talking about all types of housing—not just detached homes, but semi-detached, triplexes, fourplexes, family-sized condos and purpose-built rentals. We need housing of every time, of every shape, of every size and of every price range.

Increased housing supply across Ontario does need that all-of-government approach and it needs all the industries to work together. We say we need support of all partners, and I want to emphasize that also includes the federal government. We know too well that CMHC’s own data shows that Ontario has been shortchanged about $480 million under the National Housing Strategy. We’re counting on Ottawa to come to the table and fix this unjustifiable shortfall. We’re counting on all members of this House to finally support our efforts to ensure that Ontarians get their fair share from them.

We’re also looking to our federal counterparts to help with our availability of labour, something that is talked about a lot when we indicate that we want to build 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years. We need all levels of government to work together to make sure we can do everything we can—everybody does their fair share—to provide more attainable housing in our province. Our municipal partners that oversee site plan approvals along with building permits, and the housing construction industry—we really need all the boots on the ground—remain the driving force in getting housing projects through the finish line.

I’ll say it again, Speaker: To make important changes like this, we can’t do it alone. The province can’t do it alone. The proposed changes we are speaking about today would require an all-hands-on-deck approach, because that’s what we all need to deal with the housing crisis. It’s a long-term strategy. It requires a long-term commitment from all the partners.

But, Speaker, our government is building a very strong foundation for action that will increase housing supply in Ontario. While we know not every aspect of this plan will be felt overnight, the proposed changes will make housing more attainable over the long term.

Before I turn it over to the associate minister, I just again want to express to all members of the House that this bill is a comprehensive bill. Everything in this bill is set to increase housing supply and get it done faster. Many of the measures members of the opposition have talked about extensively, and we are hopeful and optimistic that all members of this House will support this bill. We need everyone moving in the same direction. We need a lot of support. So I’m asking, and I’m hopeful, and I’ll be listening with intent to every word that you’re saying.

With that, Speaker, I want to include the associate minister and the parliamentary assistant, so I’ll conclude my remarks and turn it over to Minister Parsa.

Good morning, Speaker, and thank you very much. I also want to thank the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for sharing his time with both myself and our parliamentary assistant, Mr. Holland.

I’m very proud to rise for second reading of our government’s proposed More Homes Built Faster Act. I’m proud to speak to a piece of legislation designed to unlock the dream of home ownership for more Ontario families, more than ever before; a piece of legislation that will make it easier to get shovels in the ground and homes built faster.

Speaker, Ontario is facing a housing supply crisis. This isn’t news to anyone. You have heard us speak about it on countless occasions here in this chamber: about how, because of years of inaction on the part of the previous government, Ontario severely lacks the housing supply to meet our growing population; about how, right now, too many Ontarians are chasing too few homes; and how without bold and transformative action and change, we’ll be letting down an entire next generation.

The task ahead of us is to ensure that owning a home is in reach for everyone. That’s our mission, and failure is simply not an option. The message is clear: Our Premier, our government will not rest until we get the homes built to help every single Ontarian achieve the dream they have for themselves, their families and their communities.

More Homes Built Faster is perhaps the boldest change Ontario has seen in the housing sector, and it was developed by carefully listening to our partners. In the weeks leading up to the proposed legislation, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, PA Holland and I travelled across the province to meet with various partners in a series of round table discussions. We spoke with our partners about solutions to the challenges our province is facing in getting homes built. These round tables gave us the chance to hear great ideas from both the public, municipal leaders and housing experts in places like Kitchener-Waterloo, Mississauga, Thunder Bay, Burlington, London, Guelph, York, North Bay and Durham as well.

I heard from young families unable to enter the housing market, seniors on fixed incomes who worry about making their mortgage payments, the builder unable to build due to lengthy delays. I heard from millennials who did everything—who went to school, built their career, contributed to their community—and yet, despite doing everything that was asked, have given up entirely on the dream of ever owning a home. Speaker, that must change, and with More Homes Built Faster, we’re taking real action to ensure that it does.

It’s no secret that municipalities are playing catch-up when it comes to creating enough housing to meet the needs of our province’s growing population, and the solution is clear: More densification is needed where populations are growing quickly. Nearly 80% of the population growth through 2031 is concentrated in Ontario’s large municipalities, 25 of which are in the greater Golden Horseshoe region. We’re asking 29 of the largest and fastest-growing municipalities for their partnership in creating more attainable housing, and Madam Speaker, we’re holding them accountable to do so.

The fact is clear: We need to work together to reach our goal of building 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years. As a result, from now until at least 2032, we’ll give clear housing targets to municipalities, and we will ask them to pledge to fill the gap over the next 10 years in line with our target and based on the needs of their communities and their capacity to grow. These pledges are in addition to existing long-term municipal land use plans that are already in place.

The idea behind the pledge is to have the municipalities demonstrate the strategies that they may use to prioritize and accelerate housing in their communities. We would ask municipalities to submit their pledges to the province by March 1, 2023.

We’re also looking to our federal counterparts for their fair share of funding to help bring these housing pledges to fruition by helping municipalities to access funds available for housing-related infrastructure. This includes building proper water and sewage systems, roads, and transit for areas with increased density.

Speaker, increasing density doesn’t always mean building large towers that stretch to the sky. We’re also focusing on more gentle density in residential neighbourhoods. Proposed changes to the Planning Act would fast-track building up to three units on most lots already zoned as residential. This would apply to communities across the province.

So what does this mean? A family who owns a detached home could create a basement apartment and a garden suite without having to undergo time-consuming and costly planning approvals. This could be for a parent-in-law or a millennial trying to get a head start to save for their down payment. Most units could be added without major changes to the exterior of existing homes and therefore not require rezoning. Units could be added quickly, as the projects would be modest in scale, and in some cases, the only added municipal fees would be the cost of a building permit.

If passed, we could see units being built and occupied within 12 months. We estimate that allowing more as-of-right housing changes would create up to 50,000 new units over the next 10 years. While that might seem like a drop in the bucket, make no mistake, Madam Speaker, every little bit helps, especially when it is adding affordable units as we move to address the province’s housing crisis.

I should note that any changes to a home’s structure beyond what the municipality currently permits would still require planning approvals, and new units would need to meet Ontario’s building code requirements as well.

Our proposed changes would also ensure municipalities do not impose development charges, parkland dedication fees, or cash-in-lieu requirements for the creation of these types of new units.

Speaker, while gentle density works in some cases, there are other times when bringing more housing, jobs, retail and public amenities within close distance to transit is beneficial to a community. The province’s Transit-Oriented Communities Program will help build more housing to address soaring housing prices and provide more options to all Ontarians. This program is part of the province’s plan to build new, complete and mixed-use communities near and around public transit. We’re proposing to unlock new municipal funding tools so that municipalities can collect the fees and charges needed to participate in the transit-oriented community projects.

With more housing being built closer to transit, more people can get to and from their jobs, schools and back home much faster and be with their families. Speaker, living close to work saves money. It allows spending time, as I said, with more families, neighbours and loved ones, and it makes life easier for everyone.

Speaker, we are proud to be working with municipalities to deliver these transit-oriented community projects. It stands to reason that creating housing near transit stations delivers a myriad of benefits. We are increasing ridership, reducing traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions, and stimulating economic growth.

These projects create much-needed local services and convenience, and increase job opportunities to improve residents’ quality of life. It means housing closer to where we work, play and shop. It means less time in traffic, less time commuting and more time with our loved ones. But to get there, we need to remove barriers to building more homes.

One way to do that is through updating tools like inclusionary zoning. Inclusionary zoning requires home builders to include affordable housing options in new developments. That means there would be both market-rate and affordable units in a single development, such as condominiums for example.

There’s been a lot of attention to the need for attainable housing and how people with good jobs and even two incomes in their families can’t find a place to live. But we also need more affordable housing, especially around transit corridors and in other high-density areas. So we’re consulting on how to make inclusionary zoning rules more consistent and predictable in areas where this tool can be used. We’re also proposing a maximum 25-year affordability period, as well as a 5% cap on the number of affordable units, along with a standardized approach to determining affordable prices and rents.

Speaker, we’ve been clear that we want to put attainable home ownership and rental within reach for more Ontario families, and we want to give them the opportunity to live closer to where they work so that they can spend more time with one another.

Many of the proposed changes that we have been speaking to today would reduce financial burdens and streamline processes for the building sector, all while putting housing within reach for more Ontarians. In short, they would help to incentivize our partners in the construction industry to invest in building more homes.

We need these types of changes because we know there are times when deciding how and when to get shovels in the ground on new homes can be delayed and even stalled. That’s because in some areas with upper- and lower-tier municipalities, both levels of government have responsibilities for development planning and approvals.

That’s why we’re also proposing changes to the Planning Act that, if passed, would further reduce red tape and help to make it easier for municipalities to make planning decisions. This would limit the amount of input that upper-tier municipalities like Peel region have when lower-tier municipalities like Caledon are making decisions around how their housing supply is planned. This would also give the public more influence over decisions and help clarify responsibilities.

Speaker, another way we’re proposing to streamline development approval timelines would be to eliminate unnecessary steps in the approvals process. Currently, municipalities must hold a public meeting for every draft plan of subdivision. Making this meeting optional would get shovels in the ground faster while the public could continue to provide input at the official plan and zoning bylaw stages.

We’re also proposing to streamline the land lease approval process to encourage more development and increase the number of land lease community homes. Land leases are where the house is owned and the land that it sits on is rented. This arrangement can be a more attainable housing option for many people, particularly in rural parts of the province.

With this new plan, we would also explore ways to enable an alternative home financing model, namely rent-to-own arrangements, as alluded to by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing earlier. To do this, we would launch broad consultations and seek input and advice from experts, industry, renters and landlords.

We’re also working on a new attainable housing program that would combine a variety of tools to create homes that Ontarians can afford to buy. We would take parcels of surplus provincial properties in different communities in Ontario and put them back to create more housing options that meet the people’s needs and budgets. And if needed, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing could consider making minister’s zoning orders on these parcels of provincial land to speed up construction even more.

We could also use ownership models such as land lease or rent-to-own and reduce development charges to cut costs. This would help create a series of mixed-income communities that would help a variety of Ontarians, with a variety of budgets.

Speaker, our government is committed to helping Ontarians across the housing spectrum, which is why our new plan complements the community housing regulatory framework that we established earlier this year when we released our previous housing supply action plan, More Homes for Everyone.

And while we’re proposing ways to make it easier to build a mix of home ownership and rental housing, we also recognize that the community housing sector faces its own set of unique challenges. That’s why we invested nearly $4.4 billion over the past three years through the Community Housing Renewal Strategy, homelessness programs, and response to the COVID-19 pandemic, to grow and enhance community and supportive housing as well as to address homelessness for vulnerable Ontarians.

When people have the housing they need, they have better health, better education experiences and certainly better employment outcomes as well.

And when housing is affordable—as well as in areas near transit, schools, workplaces and amenities—individuals have the opportunity to manage their lives and build a foundation for their families.

There are many ways we can help low-income households, including those who require some form of assistance through the community housing system.

The rising cost of living has a significant impact on low-income households who might have to choose between putting food on the table and paying rent.

For example, between 1991 and 2016, the number of Ontario households needing assistance increased from 12% of total households to approximately 15%.

Finding affordable housing can be especially challenging for those who are working at minimum wage jobs, struggling to find employment or on social assistance. To help ease the burden, we are continuing our work with the community housing sector, including municipal partners and housing providers, to preserve the existing stock of community housing and to modernize the system for those who depend on it. Put simply, we’re working to help vulnerable Ontarians get back on their feet.

Another goal in addressing our housing crisis and improving affordability is to ensure older purpose-built rentals are replaced quickly. If a mid-sized rental apartment—six units or more—is demolished, municipalities may limit what’s built on that site. For example, they may specify the size and number of the replacement units in the new building. And while the goal of a municipality’s bylaw may be to preserve affordable rents and protect tenants, it may be preventing renewal and, as such, limiting the supply of rental units and leading to deteriorating housing stock.

With our plan, we would launch consultations to hear solutions on how to promote the building of more, desperately needed, rental units while continuing to protect the people who rent them.

Speaker, Ontario is in need of bold action to get more shovels in the ground, faster, on all types of housing.

The proposed initiatives I talked about today are designed to create a broader mix of housing and fill in the housing gaps we need in communities right across our province, because we need to help more Ontarians find a home that meets their needs.

This spring we made a promise to the millennial dreaming of owning a home, the family that’s looking to plant their roots, the senior looking to retire in dignity, and the newcomer in search of a more prosperous future that we would not let them down. We promised them that if they’re willing to work hard, if they’re willing to do their part and earn their keep, we would unlock the dream of home ownership; we would say yes to getting more homes built.

We live in the greatest province in the best country in the world, but it cannot be at its best until everyone has a place to come home to. And with the More Homes Built Faster Act, we’re taking bold action to ensure that goal becomes a reality.

I will now hand it over to my colleague the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, who will share more details on this proposed legislation.

Over to the associate minister.

Over to the parliamentary assistant of housing.

I would like to thank both the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Associate Minister of Housing for sharing their time with me today. It’s my pleasure to rise for the second reading of our government’s proposed More Homes Built Faster Act. I will echo the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing in saying that Ontario is the best place to call home, yet finding the right home is still challenging. That is why we are dedicated to getting 1.5 million homes built over the next 10 years. I’m honoured to be able to speak to the details of how we plan to reach that goal.

Our new housing supply action plan is a strong foundation, which we’re building on in partnership with eight other ministries, along with municipalities and industry experts. Our goal is to introduce almost 50 new changes to legislation and regulations that will speed up housing creation in Ontario. We know that if we reduce delays and get the cost of building homes down, we can lower the price of a home for the average buyer, because delays in building housing drive up costs.

Delays are contributing to the housing supply shortage even as we try diligently to make up the time we lost when the pandemic first hit. Throughout the province, we need to significantly increase the speed of new home building in order to meet demand and lower costs for Ontarians. Study after study has found that development approvals and appropriate zoning are often delayed or hindered because of opposition from some members of local municipalities. Some projects are even abandoned altogether. Even if the project finally gets the go-ahead, a lot of damage has already been done. Our new plan addresses the barriers that cause housing delays. These barriers include land access in urban areas due to complex land use policies, on top of lengthy planning approvals for new housing. Coupled with high development charges, these issues are the driving causes of rising costs in creating delays in building supply.

Just last month, the Building Industry and Land Development Association, or BILD, found municipal approval times in the greater Toronto area are among the worst of major municipalities in the country. Think about this: Our current requirements for approvals can add, on average, from 27% to 51% more time on a new build, based on a 2020 study. When it comes to costs, BILD also found development charge rates for a two-bedroom apartment unit exceeded $70,000 in five of our province’s most populous municipalities. This drives up costs for builders, for renters and for homeowners alike, and it’s why we are proposing to look at ways we can update and streamline how and when these types of charges are required in order to help build more housing faster.

There are three main charges levied on new residential developments by municipalities. They are development charges, which fund infrastructure like water and roads; parkland dedication fees, which can be either money or land, and are used to create parks; and community benefit charges, which help build libraries and community centres. Our proposed changes, if passed, would revise the way these charges are implemented to help spur much-needed development. Affordable housing units as well as inclusionary zoning units would not be required to pay development charges, parkland dedication fees and community benefit charges. Where a charge is not levied on a per-unit basis, the maximum charge would be lowered to reflect both the affordable and inclusionary zoning units. Likewise, select attainable housing projects would see some relief from these three charges. Non-profit housing developments would also be relieved from paying development charges and parkland dedication fees. With our proposed changes, development charges for rental construction would be discounted for home builders, with deeper discounts for family-sized units.

We’re also working to reduce the administrative burden on municipalities by extending the deadline for reviewing development charge bylaws from every five years to every 10 years. If and when new development charge bylaws are passed, the charges would be phased in over five years, making increases more manageable for home builders.

Speaker, I also mentioned parkland dedication requirements. In our plan, we’re proposing to reduce maximum parkland dedication requirements for higher density developments by 50% and putting a tiered maximum parkland rate of 15% of the land or its value for sites greater than five hectares. For sites that are five hectares or less, the maximum parkland rate would be 10%. This would help reduce costs to build new condos and apartment buildings.

Changes like this would make it easier for builders to predict the cost of fees, which would, of course, encourage the start of construction. We would make changes to freeze parkland rates earlier in the development process, at the time of the site plan or zoning application, instead of at the time the building permit is issued, which is later in the development process. Parkland dedication requirements would not be imposed on existing units and parcels of land.

Together, these changes to charges would help incentivize the development of a mix of rentals, mid-rise buildings, single and semi-detached homes, duplexes and triplexes for everyone.

We are also proposing to amend the Planning Act by adjusting how community benefits charges are applied. I mentioned that we would ensure that affordable housing units would not be subject to community benefits charges. In addition, when someone builds infill development or units on a parcel of land with existing development on it, the community benefits charge would be based on just the new units rather than the entire parcel of land.

Speaker, municipal fees and charges ought to be collected to build infrastructure, not earn interest. We’re proposing to require municipalities to use or allocate at least 60% of their development charge reserves for services like water, waste water and roads each year. Similarly, the same requirement would be put in place for parkland reserves, because we need municipalities to build the infrastructure and parks that our growing communities need now.

As we propose to help reduce costs for new developments, we need to look at the other challenges that builders often face. When people are unable to resolve their differences on community planning issues or have disputes with their municipal council that can’t be settled, the Ontario Land Tribunal provides a forum to resolve these disputes. So we’re moving to ensure the OLT can recruit more adjudicators and staff to resolve disputes faster. We want to speed up decision-making at the OLT and help increase housing supply by proposing changes that would prioritize the cases that create the most housing, establish service standards and clarify the Ontario Land Tribunal’s powers to dismiss appeals due to unreasonable delay or failure to comply with a tribunal order.

We would also place a limit on appeals from individuals and community groups, for instance, that would further hinder the progress of official plan amendments and zoning bylaw amendments. This would help reduce the tribunal’s backlog and speed up approvals.

This requires well-thought-out policies. As the minister talked about, one of our main priorities is looking at how we are planning for growth. A recent study by Re/Max Canada found that our housing inventory is depleted in part thanks to our rapidly growing population. Our housing stock has already fallen behind, and it’s not on track to keep pace with population growth. That means we need to take action now to keep up. We have to ensure that our province has the necessary amount of housing required to meet the needs of Ontarians and all newcomers. One of our top priorities is making sure that we have these supports in place.

That’s why we’re taking another look at the growth plan for the greater Golden Horseshoe and its policies, to make sure that unnecessary red tape around building homes is eliminated. We have to look again and be nimble enough in our approach to make sure that our plan for growth isn’t inadvertently hindering our ability to build more homes.

We’re undertaking a housing-focused review of A Place to Grow and the provincial policy statement, which will result in a new outcome-based, province-wide policy instrument for municipalities in Ontario.

To elaborate on what the minister touched on earlier, these changes would include a review of six main themes.

The first would be residential land supply. We would update policies relating to boundary expansions, rural housing and converting employment areas to areas suitable for housing.

The second would be attainable housing supply. We would develop a strong mix of housing in areas where urban growth is occurring.

The third theme of this review would be growth management. By working to forecast population and employment, and enlarge fast-growing municipalities, we can ensure we have enough housing stock.

The fourth theme of our review of this plan includes protecting environmental and natural resources, looking at agricultural policies and maintaining our province’s natural heritage.

For the fifth theme, we would look at the current supply and capacity of community infrastructure, including how to integrate urban schools into our communities.

Finally, our last theme would be a streamlined planning framework, one that ensures our reviews of these policies are focused on positive impact and are flexible enough to keep up with quickly changing demands, as I described. In all, increasing the supply of attainable housing would put housing in reach for more people across Ontario.

We know that change is challenging, but we must take action, no matter how challenging it is. Our plan would help to create more consistency, which should reduce the disputes that often arise in municipal council meetings over land use planning issues. The proposals would, if passed, ensure that cities, towns and rural communities grow with a mix of ownership and rental housing types that meet the needs of all Ontarians.

It is because of this demand for a variety of housing that we are proposing to remove site plan control requirements for projects with fewer than 10 units. Let me elaborate. Site plan control is a planning tool that a municipality usually uses to evaluate things like walkways, parking areas, landscaping or exterior design on land where development is proposed. Site plan control works in tandem with provincial policy statements, official plans, zoning bylaws, community planning permit systems and building permits. Removing site plan controls for projects with less than 10 units would reduce the number of approvals in the pipeline, speeding things up for these housing proposals, and would ensure that essential building permits, as well as the building code and fire code requirements, will continue to protect public safety.

For larger projects, we are proposing to speed up approvals by streamlining site plan reviews to focus on health and safety issues, such as safe access to and from the site, rather than focus on the unnecessary regulation of architectural or aesthetic landscaping design details.

Our new housing supply action plan has, as I’ve described, thoughtful solutions and innovative ways that will help us to quickly approve new builds, and it will allow us to quickly make changes to the charges and delays incurred by builders and consumers to keep up and get ahead.

Speaker, as you can see, we’re leading innovations that will create more housing in Ontario and will make it easier for our partners in municipalities to keep up with demand. These proposed approaches to breaking down barriers, streamlining processes and cutting costs would, if passed, further our goal of making housing more attainable for all Ontarians. With our proposed changes, we would help renters cross over and become homeowners, and we would increase the number of homes available to all people, because everyone in Ontario should be able to find a home that is right for them.

Thanks, Speaker. It’s great to see you in the chair this morning.

I first want to thank the member for University–Rosedale for her endorsement yesterday. I watched her on CP24, and I was very pleased that she was quoted as saying that it does seem like this bill is good for building new homes. I appreciate your comments on television.

This is a consultation, so I’m not going to predetermine the outcome of the consultation. We want to make sure we hear from renters and builders about the replacement bylaws that some municipalities have. While the goal of the municipalities bylaw may be to make sure that affordable rents are preserved and remain, it may also prevent renewal, so we want to have that conversation with stakeholders. Because if a mid-size rental building that’s six units or more is demolished, municipalities can limit what’s built on the site. For example, they might decide to specify the size or the number of replacement units.

We want to have a conversation around those rental replacement bylaws, and I have said that after debate I would be pleased to hear the member opposite’s comments as we move forward in the consultation. Thank you for the question.

Questions? The member from University–Rosedale.

Thank you very much, and congratulations. It’s good to see you in the chair.

My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, about Bill 23, this new bill. One measure that I’m particularly concerned about is the proposal to do away with protection for tenants who live in purpose-built buildings, who might find that their purpose-built rental will be converted to a condo and they will have no right to return to their unit at the same rent that they’re currently living at. Can you commit to ensuring that renters can return to their original unit once construction is complete?

I’m proud to rise to speak to Bill 23, the government’s new housing bill. This government’s bill is big, very big. It’s sweeping. And it was introduced yesterday at 3 p.m., which means that we are still digesting the changes, going through the schedules, consulting with planners, municipalities, housing experts, renters and the building sector to determine what this bill means, how it will affect our province and how it will affect the housing sector.

A few things come to mind just off the top. One is that this bill gives the province far greater control over development and planning. The minister has much greater authority to change heritage, to give fines to consumers, to change municipal laws that hurt developer profits. That’s our initial take.

The other measure that advocates have raised very quickly with us is the decision to get rid of cities’ right—the rental housing replacement program. The reason why I just want to dwell on this for my first few minutes is because this measure ensures that a renter, if they need to move because a building is being demolished, has the right to return once the new building is complete at approximately the same rent that they were paying before.

The reason why this is important is because, in Ontario today, we have thousands and thousands of purpose-built rentals that were built in the 1960s and 1970s. These are typically buildings that have far more affordable rents than the kind of unit you’re going to get if you move into a new condo downtown; you might be paying closer to $1,100 to $1,600 for a one- to two-bedroom apartment.

In my riding, many of the people who live in these buildings are older. They are rent-controlled. They have lived there for many years, and the beauty of a purpose-built rental is that it provides a tenant with more certainty that they’re going to be able to stay there year in and year out. That’s very different if you move into a rental property that’s part of a single-family home. Maybe it’s being bought by an investor who wants to flip the property within a year to five years. It does mean that if you live in a semi-detached or a single-family home, it’s far more likely that you could be evicted because the landlord wants to move in or sell it or the property has a new homeowner.

Those people who live in purpose-built rentals deserve protections, and they deserve to keep the protections they’ve got. Getting rid of the requirement—that any renter that is evicted is then potentially not allowed to move back into the new development means that every renter who lives in a purpose-built rental, every renter who is living under rent control, every renter who has more affordable rent could be in a situation where they could face eviction because their corporate landlord or a potential investor could see these properties as an opportunity to convert into luxury condos and force these tenants out. That’s where our affordable units are in the city, so I’m very concerned to see that measure in there.

We are already hearing from housing stakeholders who have raised this issue, and the reason why I’m focusing on this to such a great extent is because if we are going to build new homes, which we absolutely need to do, we also need to keep the affordable homes that we have.

I’ll give you an example of an individual, Carolyn Whitzman. She is an expert on housing supply, including meeting new housing supply. One of her biggest concerns is the decision to get rid of section 11, and this is what they say: “This would have a disastrous impact on net affordable housing. Canadians lost 15 homes renting at $750 or less for every one new affordable home created at that price point between 2011 and 2016. Most of this net loss was due to demolition and renovation of residential rental properties.”

What that means is that this rental housing protection bylaw that exists in some municipalities, including the city of Toronto, is the main reason why many of these—

One of the most common things that I hear from concerned constituents—and as early as just this past Monday I had four constituents in my office talking about this specifically: Their children won’t be able to afford a home of their own.

We know that we’re adding more supply, which is the key to bringing down costs. This will help first-time buyers as well as seniors looking to downsize. My question is, besides working to build more homes, what else does this plan do for the first-time homebuyer?

My question is to the minister. Yesterday, there was new data released from rentals.ca showing that London’s average rents increased 33% over the last year. That’s faster than any other city in Canada. We had previously seen data from Statistics Canada showing that London is Ontario’s fastest-growing city. When you combine those population pressures with this rapid increase in rent and not enough supply, renters are really, really struggling.

Speaker, my question is around the elimination of rental replacement requirements in this legislation. We saw planners say that this will make it open season on low-income apartment buildings. What is this minister doing to ensure that tenants in London and across Ontario have access to the affordable rental housing that they need?

Speaker, through you to the member: It was great—you hosted me in Brantford for a great affordable housing sod-turning. I’m looking forward to seeing the finished product. I want to thank you for your advocacy.

The member opposite is right: Municipal councils play a crucial role in ensuring there are measures in place to establish not just more housing opportunities but also the reporting that goes along with it.

The member is absolutely right: NIMBYism, the “not in my backyard” mentality, is really holding us back. In fact, I think we’ve even gone past that. We’ve gone past NIMBYism. I think we’re now in BANANAism. BANANAism is “build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone.” The rules that we’re proposing for the Ontario Land Tribunal—we’ve all heard complaints as part of the housing supply action plan about how long it takes to go through the OLT. We believe there’s a very big role for the tribunal. We believe that there’s a very big role for an impartial advocacy piece with the OLT. But as well, more pressure needs to be put on local councils to make those right decisions and to be able to justify those decisions. I think the issue around BANANAism needs to be fixed. It needs to be fixed now.

It’s interesting that the first two questions are against the consultation.

The challenge that we’ve got is that we obviously want to increase density, especially around major transit areas. People in your riding want to be able to have a home that’s close to transit so they can get to work and get home fast and easy. We also have a number of people who want to remain in their home, but they need something to help pay their mortgage. That’s why we’ve decided, not just in urban Ontario but across Ontario, to allow three units as of right—either three units in the home or two in the home and then an ancillary building like a laneway home.

There are a lot of things that are in there. As well, the baseline cost to deal with affordable and attainable housing to be able to get those costs brought down—

The member from Brantford–Brant.

The member from London–Fanshawe.

Further debate?

Thank you, Speaker. It’s good to see you in the chair. My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. It’s good to see him. I’m very excited about this. It’s time that we move forward on this.

One of the biggest struggles that we face and that I faced also when I was on county council a few years before coming here was just NIMBYism. There is a consensus that we need to get housing built by all sides of the House here; however, often the attitude is that people don’t want it in their backyards.

I was wondering if I could ask, through you, Madam Speaker, how the More Homes Built Faster Act would reduce NIMBYism and the tendency for local councillors to block or downscale new housing developments. Because obviously politics is always local. It happens on the ground. I was wondering if the minister could help us understand how this will get rid of some of that NIMBYism.

I’m particularly interested in schedule 8, where there are four new subsections. They’re very powerful, actually, these new sections that the government has put in:

“(4.4) The minister may appoint a chair of the board of directors from among the members of the board.” That’s the minister appointing them.

“(8) The administrator shall report to the minister as the minister requires....

“(9) The minister may issue directions to the administrator with regard to any matter within the administrator’s jurisdiction, and the administrator shall carry them out.” Shall carry them out, not “may”—“shall.”

So the “minister’s direction,” and then it says here that—

Thank you. It’s time for members’ statements.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

On October 16, I was pleased to hold my very first annual community family barbecue and corn roast. The rain held off and it was a great success. As a new MPP, I was thrilled to host more than 500 of my constituents outside at the Riverwalk Commons in downtown Newmarket. There was live entertainment by the great George St. Kitts, delicious food, face-painting for the kiddies, a photo booth for fun family pictures and some great giveaways.

I must thank my dear friend Teresa Kruze for managing the entire event. With her master event-planning skills at the helm, the residents of Newmarket–Aurora had a fun time for the entire family. Thank you to all the volunteers, including my husband, Ivan, and my son, Robert, as well as my entire constituency staff, along with another 15 volunteers who gave up four hours of their Sunday afternoon to help make my first constituency event a great success. Thank you.

I also would like to thank the many families that came out. It was great to have so many families there, families who came up to speak to me just to thank me, and also to have a conversation. And I would like to thank all the residents who brought a non-perishable food item to the event. I’m pleased to say that we collected 10 full boxes—

Good morning, Speaker. Good morning, colleagues.

The people of Ottawa and Gatineau are preparing a protest unlike anything you’ve ever seen. We will be using an iconic item you see everywhere in Canadian society, and I’m not talking about hockey sticks. I’m not talking about doughnuts. Speaker, I’m not even talking about duct tape. I’m talking about electrical cords. You heard me right, Speaker: electrical cords. On November 5, the people of Ottawa and Gatineau will gather together with extension cords, electrical cords—the same thing that powers backyard barbecues, Halloween decorations and holiday lights.

Why are we going to be doing that? Because at a time when we need to double Ontario’s electrical capacity, this government has decided to rip up its energy agreement with Quebec. It makes no sense. We could continue to import Quebec power for five cents a kilowatt-hour. It’s affordable and it makes sense, but instead we’re pledging to fire up gas-fired electricity that will cost at least twice as much, balloon our emissions and ruin our attempts to deal with our climate emergency. The only people who win are gas industry executives and lobbyists.

Folks back home are going to show the government, with people power, a different way. We’re going to run extension cords from Quebec to Ontario for a family-friendly event. I invite all members of this House to join me as we celebrate how we bring clean power to Ontario and fight for our kids’ future. Stay tuned for details about the electrical cord protest.

I’d like to take a moment to address the growing challenge of “level zero”—sometimes “code black”—here in Ontario. This is the complete absence of ambulances available to respond to 911 calls.

In 2021, Ottawa paramedics spent more than 49,000 hours in offload delay at area hospitals. This resulted in 750 incidents of level zero. The 90th percentile hospital offload delay was 97 minutes, which far exceeds the 30-minute benchmark. This means that paramedics are waiting for over an hour and a half to transfer their patients to hospital—two paramedics and an ambulance stuck at the hospital because the hospital is too backlogged to take them.

In the first seven months of 2022, the Ottawa Paramedic Service experienced more than 1,125 instances of level zero. In some cases, Ottawa had 11 consecutive level zero hours—11 hours of consecutive level zero, Madam Speaker—and some low-acuity patients waiting seven hours before being transported to hospital.

Level zero isn’t just a problem in Ottawa, of course. It’s happening right across the province. The province and municipalities pay for paramedics to be assisting residents needing urgent medical attention. They do not pay them to wait at the hospital to offload their patients. It’s imperative that the government provides the funding necessary to municipalities, in particular the monies requested by the city of Ottawa, to hire the paramedics needed to end level zero events and better serve our friends and neighbours.