Good morning. Let us pray.

Prières.

Mr. Calandra moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 185, An Act to amend various Acts / Projet de loi 185, Loi modifiant diverses lois.

It is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill 185.

At the outset, let me remind you that I’ll be sharing the time with the Associate Minister of Housing, the member for Perth–Wellington, and the member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore.

It’s a pleasure to rise today as both Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and Minister of Red Tape Reduction in the province of Ontario.

Speaker, as you know, we introduced a very comprehensive bill yesterday that not only continues our government’s actions to make life more affordable for the people of the province of Ontario and make interacting with government easier for businesses and the people of Ontario, but also helps to unleash housing opportunity across the province of Ontario.

This is another in a series of bills, not only on housing but, equally importantly, on red tape reduction. You know that the government has really been focused on reducing red tape given the fact that, when we came to government back in 2018, we inherited a province that was the most overly regulated province in the country. We have often talked about the challenges that we have faced in encouraging business to set up shop in the province of Ontario, given how over-regulated we are.

One of the hallmarks of red tape reduction is that when you are reducing red tape, it is always meant to make life easier, yes, but you always want to retain items that make our province safer. And we have continued to do that.

As you look through the bill, Speaker, you’ll find a number of housekeeping initiatives that make a very important difference for the institutions that have sought our assistance—there’s right-sizing of a number of boards.

Many of the items that the Ministry of Red Tape Reduction have identified have been gladly taken up by our partner ministries in the lead-up to the bill. It really underlines the extraordinary work that is done by the team at the Ministry of Red Tape Reduction and public service, who challenge ministries on a daily basis to ensure that we can make our province easier to do business in and easier for people to work with.

It is important to note that, with this bill—I think it’s over one million hours in savings of time for those who interact with government, over $1.2 billion in savings at the same time. So this is, again, another step on the way of improving how people interact with our businesses and with our government, and will ensure that we continue to make Ontario the best place to live, work and invest.

There are a couple of items in there, of course, for the Ministry of Agriculture, like the Line Fences Act, but also with respect to building infrastructure and moving along quicker with respect to relocation of energy or gas pipes under the ground—obviously, under the ground.

There are a number of really important red tape items there, and I want to just thank the team at the Ministry of Red Tape Reduction for their hard work.

At the same time, there are a lot of targeted initiatives with respect to building housing across the province of Ontario. One of the things that we continuously heard is how important it was to target initiatives that we have done. We have done a lot of things, since coming into office, with respect to making it easier to build all types of homes.

We had a number of housing supply action plans which were geared to removing many of the obstacles that were put in the way by the previous Liberal government. As you know, Speaker, the hallmark of that previous government’s time in office was not only red tape, higher costs, but we had some of the lowest housing starts under that government. Purpose-built rentals certainly didn’t exist. Rental construction didn’t exist, frankly.

We certainly weren’t building long-term-care homes in the province of Ontario. In fact, the previous Liberal government don’t even consider long-term-care homes as homes. They’d rather consider them as institutions, and that’s not something that we do. I’m pleased that our colleagues in the official opposition agree with us that a long-term-care home is a home.

So there are a number of initiatives that we have done leading up to this, but the focus on this one really was—and one of the reasons why we’re introducing it, through the co-operation and the support of our colleagues at the Ministry of Red Tape Reduction, is because we have heard from our municipal partners that all of the things we have done till now have helped us have some of the highest new home starts in the province’s history, the highest purpose-built housing starts in the province’s reported history, but more targeted measures needed to be taken, given the fact that the high inflation, high interest rate policies of the federal government are certainly having a very negative impact on our ability to get new homes built and to get new home construction under way, and also to give first-time homebuyers the opportunity to buy into the market. So that is what we have brought forward.

Within this bill, you will see initiatives with respect to student housing. We are exempting universities from the Planning Act—as-of-right for student dormitories and student housing. We know, of course, how important it is to build more housing for our students, especially in light of the fact that the federal government has made unilateral cuts to post-secondary education, without consultation with provinces. So we are moving quickly to address that.

We have the University of Toronto, which has been trying for 10 years to build a student dorm, without success. This bill, if supported by the House, will unleash that opportunity for them and get shovels in the ground much faster.

The bill also improves on the efforts that we’re doing with respect to infrastructure. As you know, in the lead-up to the bill, we announced one of the largest infrastructure programs in the history of the province: over $1.8 billion to build sewer and water capacity in all parts of the province; roads and bridges. At the same time, we have one of the largest capital construction projects with respect to schools, the continuing building out of long-term care and hospitals in different parts of the province, and the road construction that we’re doing in different parts of the province. What we’re doing is building communities. This bill helps unleash that.

We heard from our municipal partners also, in particular, of the need to give them the ability to—given the challenges that we have on infrastructure, given the massive infrastructure deficit that we have inherited from the previous Liberal government, that they needed better tools to allow them to use their water and infrastructure. Often, homes that had been approved sat idle, and water and sewer allocation was captured by an approved development where a shovel was not put in the ground. So we are giving all municipalities legislated approval to reallocate that sewer and water to projects that are good to go, that are ready to go. We heard that from our municipal partners across the board. We’re doing that so that we can get shovels in the ground. It’s estimated that there are close to 60,000 to 70,000 units that have been held up because of this, so this will unleash that opportunity.

We are making changes to the Ontario Land Tribunal—in particular, we are removing the right of third-party appeals to the tribunals. Similarly, we heard from home builders and we heard from our municipal partners that delays at the Ontario Land Tribunal were holding back thousands of homes—in between 70,000 to 80,000 units which could come online almost immediately. So we are making that change.

At the same time, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Red Tape Reduction will be chairing something that I’m quite excited about: an expert panel—and she may speak about it more in her remarks—that will look at harmonization of planning processes across our fastest-growing regions. We’ve heard this time and time and time again, whether it’s from plumbers, electricians, architects, engineers: that setbacks in one community are one thing—a setback in Stouffville, a planning process in Stouffville is one thing; five metres across the street in Markham, it is a completely different process, and in Richmond Hill, it’s different, and so on and so forth. So we are convening an expert panel which will include municipal partners but will include stakeholders, from engineers, from architects and those who have to interact with our municipal partners on a daily basis, to harmonize those regulations so that we can also get shovels in the ground faster.

The bill also will ensure that as of June 1, we will update the bulletin so that our definition on affordable housing, which, again, was unanimously supported by this House—and I thank colleagues on all sides for that. It’s a definition that takes into consideration the unique aspects of communities across the province. As of June 1, that will be fully proclaimed. It also indicates that on July 1, three lower-tier municipalities, Halton, York and Peel, will be completely dissolved. Their planning will be dissolved to the lower tiers. And we anticipate having the entire province devolve to lower-tier planning by the end of this year—again, very, very targeted measures to get things built faster.

We also heard from a lot of stakeholders that the outdated planning or parking regulations and rules surrounding minimum parking around our major transit station areas is something that had to be revised. The costs of these outdated and old regulations, which in many cases date back to the 1970s, could be upwards of $100,000 per unit. We are eliminating those parking minimums around those major transit station areas, not only in Toronto, where we’re making $30 billion worth of investments in transit and transportation, but in much of the GTHA, where you’re having expansions on the GO train network as well as subways—but not just in the GTHA. In communities across the province, they are investing in transit, in bigger transit options, and they have asked us to do this. I think it makes perfect sense. It will help unleash lots of housing and more affordable housing at the same time.

This bill targets our initiatives at things that can help get shovels in the ground faster. I know my colleagues—both my parliamentary assistant at red tape reduction and the Associate Minister of Housing, as well as my parliamentary assistant for municipal affairs and housing—will expand further on some of those initiatives. As I said, going forward, we intend to utilize as effectively as possible the work that the Ministry of Red Tape Reduction has done across government to help us unleash and unblock some of the challenges that we are facing in housing. They have done tremendous work on a number of other files, and we know now that they can help us on this file, as well.

I also want to touch quickly on some of the modifications of the Development Charges Act. Our partners, both municipally and in the building sector, have said you have to focus on infrastructure—sewer and water, sewer and water, sewer and water. It is the difference between building hundreds of homes and millions of homes, frankly, across the province of Ontario. It’s something that we have been asking the federal government to focus on since I was appointed to this ministry. I’m pleased that the federal government has also finally recognized the need to build infrastructure capacity. But the development charges changes that we made reflect the changes in our economic environment over the last number of years with respect to high inflation and the rapidly increasing costs. So it’s focused on sewer and water and getting that infrastructure in the ground. We still do, however, tie a freeze in development charges—an 18-month freeze in those charges. It used to be a 24-month freeze; it is now an 18-month freeze. The reason we have done that is, again, to encourage our home builders to get shovels in the ground as soon as possible.

It is a large, large bill with many different facets, but it is a very targeted approach. It is an approach that is framed on the things that we’ve heard from our municipal partners.

At the same time—I’ll just close with this before we move on to other speakers—yesterday, we also released a provincial planning statement which has to be looked at in co-operation with the bill that we’ve put forward here. It is a document which highlights the importance and makes it easier to build along our major transit corridors, and in co-operation with these two documents and some of the changes that we’re making, will help us meet our goal of building 1.5 million homes, if not more.

So I’m very excited by this, and I hope that all members will join us in supporting this bill when it comes back for third reading.

It’s an honour to speak to the initiatives in our government’s proposed Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act.

I want to thank the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Minister of Red Tape Reduction for his remarks this morning, and also for his tireless work to create an environment in Ontario where the dream of home ownership will not just be a dream but, ultimately, a reality for all.

I’d also like to thank the parliamentary assistants, the member from Perth–Wellington and the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore, who will be speaking to the bill shortly. It’s great to see them here.

As the Associate Minister of Housing, I naturally want to focus on the initiatives in this bill that relate to housing, and I want to break my time into two components: reviewing the performance of our government to date on the housing front, including both the challenges and opportunities we face in this province; and secondly, how Bill 185, the Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, creates more pathways, better pathways, for more homes to be built faster in Ontario.

I think we all know the population of this province has more than doubled in the last 40 years. In my opinion, we don’t have a housing supply crisis; we have a supply crisis—period—and we need to keep up with the population growth by getting more homes built. We have a lot of opportunities to do that.

Innovation is key, and we’ll talk about that today, but we need solutions-based results. We’re going to break it down in this bill. That’s why I think this bill, again, offers some pathways to better performance and better results to get homes built faster in Ontario, and we’ll talk about those today, but I think before we do, we have to put the bill in context of what has happened already with our government on the housing front up to this point.

Let me begin with what we’ve accomplished. I’ll keep reiterating that provinces, municipal governments and federal governments don’t build houses; community home builders do. Our job is to create the environment for those people to succeed. The challenges we face require an all-of-government approach to work together so that we can create the conditions that enable community builders to get the job done.

Over the last month, I’ve had the honour of presenting funds from the Building Faster Fund to municipalities that met or exceeded their targets, whether it was in Chatham-Kent, Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury, Caledon, Brantford—lots of unique communities throughout the province, not just large cities. We’ve had an interesting experience. I’ve learned a lot, and I’ll conclude on that point at the end of my remarks.

As I’ve travelled the province over the last six months, I’ve learned a lot about this file. I want to talk specifically about the ROMA conference in January—the Rural Ontario Municipal Association. I’m going to use one word, and it’s going to be “infrastructure.” People have heard me say this as I’ve travelled the province: Wherever I went, the word “infrastructure” was key in everybody’s presentations. Through the speed-dating events we had at ROMA and AMO with municipalities, I think the word “infrastructure” was first and foremost in everything I listened to, every delegation I was part of.

Whether it’s in my own riding of Elgin–Middlesex–London, whether it’s in the Ottawa Valley, northern Ontario, the GTHA, or all parts of southwestern Ontario, infrastructure is key.

And when I look at the 2024 budget that has been presented and is still being debated, I would say, in my humble opinion, this is an infrastructure budget. This government has listened, learned and has now acted to make sure that we create the environment to get infrastructure in the ground that’s housing-enabling infrastructure, again, to get more homes built faster.

We made historic investments that include the $1-billion Municipal Housing Infrastructure Program that was presented in the budget. We introduced the Housing-Enabling Water Systems Fund, which was quadrupled to $825 million. This is in addition to the $1.2 billion in the Building Faster Fund. So over $3 billion has been targeted towards building housing-enabling infrastructure.

Speaker, creating the conditions for gentle density in Ontario is key, and building up and building in is important. You are now permitted, in this province, to build up to three residential units as-of-right on most residential lots without needing a bylaw amended in your municipality.

I want to make this point clearly: Every municipality in Ontario is unique; with 444, plus the north, there are a lot of different needs, and they’re all unique. That is why each of them can determine their own paths and make their own individual choices about density in their communities. The province is a partner with our municipalities, not an overseer, as some might suggest or try to dictate.

The results speak for themselves. I would note that, in the last three years, there have been more housing starts than there have been since the 1980s. Over the last 10 years of our former government, the Liberals averaged just under 68,000 starts per year. Since our government was elected in 2018, we’ve averaged 87,000 starts. That’s an increase of almost 20,000 starts per year. But we know that more is yet to be done, and that is why we’ve introduced Bill 185, the Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act.

Our government has also set the groundwork for building more rental housing. This is key. We have lowered development charges, and we worked with our federal counterparts on removing the HST on new purpose-built rental construction, and we’ve seen success—again, up 19,000 starts last year over 2022, or a 27% increase. I am very impressed with those results. In fact, after just over five and a half years in office, Ontario has more purpose-built rental starts under our government than it did in the 15 years the Liberals were in office.

So, again, we’re on a clear path to success, but I’ll keep reiterating, more is yet to be done. These facts clearly show that our government’s actions are working when it comes to building more homes and market housing across the province. And Ontarians recognize we have more to do.

Again, we’ve talked about listening, learning and acting. We had a housing supply forum back in November 2023, and we had all the stakeholders there, everyone who was involved in the housing continuum. I want to thank them. Their input into this bill has been very important, especially those on the HSAPIT committee—the Housing Supply Action Plan Implementation Team; it’s a unique acronym—led by Mayor Drew Dilkens from Windsor. They have a wealth of knowledge, great experience. We appreciate their input, and we see the results of that input in this bill today.

Now I would like to talk about how this proposed bill is going to focus our efforts in getting more houses built faster.

Student housing: I want to hit on not all initiatives, but some of the key initiatives I think are important. First, let’s consider some of the proposals for student housing.

I’ll tell a quick story. I have a neighbour down the road whose son was going to the University of Guelph. I went to the University of Guelph, and I remember it was easy for me to get into a residence my first year. Housing was—you just didn’t even think that it was an issue. This poor guy had trouble finding anywhere to live in Guelph—anywhere. Residences were full. Basement apartments were not available. Finally, after about two or three months, he found a spot to hang his hat and lay his head every night. It’s wrong.

That is why in this act we’re proposing, we will remove barriers faced by universities when building student housing, that will accelerate approval times for those institutions. The change would enable universities to build faster and better and meet the needs of their student population. This would also ensure that students have access to and are aware of student housing options that are safe, affordable and within an easy commute to campus. Importantly, it’s also better for local communities because it frees up housing, creating more supply, which, again, at the end, is the bane of the housing crisis in this province.

Speaker, the building code—I know it’s not exciting, but when you think about building codes, I’ve learned a lot, and I would like to highlight some of our measures that would build homes faster, and at a lower cost.

The building code is being updated. We’ve also recently completed building consultations on advanced wood construction, like mass timber or encapsulated mass timber, which I think is an important part of our housing supply issue. Although the code is not part of the proposed legislation, its focus on increasing housing supply, innovation and supporting public safety are completely aligned with the goals of this bill.

The building code allows buildings using encapsulated mass timber construction to be up to 12 storeys tall, now moving to 18 storeys—which I think, again, supports going in and going up. The use of mass timber would provide the home building sector with a great opportunity to build innovative new housing. It’s a great opportunity to lower our carbon footprint, and it will be a great boost to our northern economy in this province.

We also have Ontario’s Forest Sector Strategy, which offers significant opportunity to shift housing construction off-site and into factories—like modular homes. This would support even more efficient and rapid construction processes, using renewable forestry resources grown and harvested right here in Ontario, by Ontario workers and for Ontario families. Our province is blessed with abundant natural, renewable resources and a highly skilled forestry sector, so let’s put these magnificent assets to work.

Improving consultation and providing municipalities with greater certainty to get homes built faster is key, and this is a part of the bill I really, really like. When home builders start a project, they may be obligated to provide financial assurance to put infrastructure in the ground to support the homes they will be building—infrastructure such as sidewalks. This financial assurance is commonly provided through a letter of credit or cash. We will be consulting on a potential regulation that would enable landowners to specify the instruments municipalities may use to secure obligations that are municipal conditions of land use planning approvals. I know it’s a lot of words. You can think about it. It may not be exciting, but this is key. This will include pay-on-demand surety bonds.

Speaker, wider acceptance of surety bonds by municipalities could help free up money, free up cash, free up capital for home builders so they can pursue additional home building. It would also make some projects, which currently can’t obtain financing, more viable. So, again, it’s another tool in our tool box to allow us to get more homes built faster, more shovels in the ground in a better way.

These targeted changes will have a far-reaching impact on increasing our housing supply.

As you see, Speaker, our government has been working hard to help get shovels in the ground faster and lower the costs of building new homes, and the red tape reduction part of this bill is going to be key. I know the parliamentary assistant to red tape reduction will be speaking about that shortly and will do so very eloquently. A lot has been done. A lot needs to be done.

Let me just finish with a story or two that I think complements what we’re trying to accomplish on this side of the House with respect to getting more homes built faster.

I was amazed, as I’ve travelled the province, met at ROMA, met with the mayors, met with those that received cheques from the Building Faster Fund, those that earned the funds based on meeting or exceeding minimal targets of 80% of their housing target—again, communities over 50,000. Every one of them was so appreciative, because that money is going to be invested into water, waste water, roads—whatever infrastructure they need. It’s key. It’s important to get things done.

What I found interesting as well is, in the last month, I’ve had many members come to me and, as I travelled the province, many municipalities talked to me, phoned me and said, “I don’t think the numbers were right. Can you go back and check the records? Can you go back and see? Because I really think we qualified for some funding in the BFF.” And of course, we did our due diligence and took a look at it effectively. We have a standard across the province; CMHC does the adjudication.

The point is—it reminds me of my business days—that when you incent people effectively, properly, with the right tools, they listen and they watch; they’re measured, and they want to be accountable. What I found exciting was that in the whole process of handing out these cheques, people want to earn these funds.

We didn’t hand out our proportion of the $1.2 million—all of it—this year, but it’s important to note that what’s left over, what municipalities didn’t earn, they can apply for to get some of those infrastructure dollars, again, for waste water, water, roads, whatever it may be, to support infrastructure in this province. It is the one constraint we have in Ontario to get more homes built faster—it is the biggest constraint we have, bar none.

I’m excited to go back and talk about the budget, the “infrastructure budget,” as I call it—the $1 billion added for infrastructure, the Housing-Enabling Water Systems Fund, $825 million; and the Building Faster Fund, over the next two-point-odd years as we move forward.

Speaker, everyone deserves a roof over their head. It is crucial for everyone, wherever you are in the housing continuum, whether it’s affordable, whether it’s attainable—and we’ll talk about that in a minute—or market-based housing. One of the things I’ve been tasked with is to look at the whole attainable portion of housing, whether it’s modular housing or factory-built housing, and I’m pretty excited about the opportunities that we have there.

People often say, “Define ‘attainable’”—well, we can do like we did with “affordable,” and we will define it based on community. What “attainable” means in northern Ontario versus, say, Kenora, versus London, versus Hamilton, versus Toronto, versus Brockville, versus Renfrew—it’s different everywhere. But I see it simply as, “attainable” means you do not qualify for affordable housing because you make too much money, but you don’t qualify for a mortgage because either you don’t have enough of a downstroke or down payment to qualify, or you can’t cash-flow the mortgage rates.

We would put a call out to the federal government to continue to advocate for getting these interest rates lower, to take a look at the indexing of interest rates that CMHC has put on—maybe taking a look at reducing that. But ultimately, we need to repurpose some surplus lands we have in this province, surplus lands municipalities have, and look at new and innovative ways to get shovels in the ground faster so everyone can get a roof over their head.

We’re not just talking about first-time homebuyers; that’s important. We’re also talking about seniors who want to downsize. In my own community of Dorchester, I can tell you there are a lot of people who would like to downsize to a smaller home. I think my wife and I would be on that list; we don’t need the house we have. But to find a smaller home at the right value—that inventory doesn’t exist.

Again, if we can create the environment—like this bill supports and concludes—I think we can see those results in the coming weeks, months and years ahead.

Speaker, I will conclude here. Thank you for your time. I yield the floor to my honourable friend from Etobicoke–Lakeshore.

Further debate?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s nice to see you in the chair today.

I’m happy to join in this debate. And it is an honour for me to take on the role of parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Red Tape Reduction.

I want to thank both the minister and the associate minister for their remarks this morning.

Red tape is extremely important to all of us—business owners, corporations, individuals. We want to make sure we create the best environment so people will create jobs here in Ontario and make Ontario the best place around the world to live, raise a family and create a business.

It’s my pleasure to share some of the non-housing items in our spring red tape reduction package and how they’re going to make a real impact on the lives of people across Ontario. But first, I’d like to start off with a quick reminder of why this work is so important.

Speaker, we know that red tape causes frustration, expenses, needless delays and complications for everyone—people, businesses, not-for-profits, municipalities, and the broader public sector. Regulatory burdens are a barrier to the province’s productivity, innovation, economic competitiveness, and development, and the costs of failing to act are high.

That is why, since 2018, it has been our government’s mission to make life better for the people and businesses of Ontario by putting forward burden-reduction initiatives to save them time and money and to improve government services. We know that more common-sense changes are needed, and they’re needed now. That’s why we’re focusing on reducing red tape and creating the conditions to help people and businesses thrive. We’re doing this while maintaining and strengthening the important rules and regulations that keep people safe and healthy and protect the environment, and we’re doing this all while modernizing or getting rid of the rules and regulations that no longer serve their purpose, are unnecessarily costly, or are simply out of date.

Speaker, when we formed government in 2018, we inherited the most heavily regulated province in the country. Businesses were packing up and leaving, and they were taking with them the innovation and talent that this province needs to thrive. We knew that things had to change, and they needed to change right away, and we set out to make this happen.

We have taken over 500 actions to cut red tape for the people and businesses across all ministries. We have reduced the number of regulatory compliance requirements affecting businesses and other regulated entities by approximately 6%. And we’ve passed 11 high-impact pieces of red tape reduction legislation, so far, introducing packages once each spring and once each fall; today, we are debating our 12th.

Our efforts have not gone unnoticed. Along with the measures we’re proposing today, we’re saving people, businesses, and the broader public sector over $1.2 billion and 1.5 million hours every single year. That’s time and money that can go back into families, businesses and communities, where it should be.

We are grateful for the ideas shared by stakeholders, people across this province, and our ministry partners who have worked tirelessly to streamline processes and modernize outdated practices across government. In fact, my colleagues and I wouldn’t be standing here today with this bill in our hands without the assistance of my colleagues and their staff who put red tape reduction at the centre of everything they do.

To everyone who has played a part in making this latest red tape reduction package possible, I want to say thank you.

Our latest package, which includes the proposed Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024, also includes proposals for initiatives that improve all aspects of life and business, such as:

—providing Ontarians with better access to health care, by making it faster and easier for internationally educated health professionals to start working in Ontario;

—automatically validating vehicle permits for owners in good standing, to save them time and money;

—reducing delays and costs for utility relocation projects to build roads and transit faster;

—attracting municipal investment by streamlining incentives to enable future investments by large-scale investors and create jobs; and

—setting service standards for permits and licence services delivered to businesses, while creating a single window for businesses and entrepreneurs to track the status of their applications.

Madam Speaker, when I talk about reducing red tape, know that our government acknowledges the importance of having robust rules and regulations in place. They help protect public health, safety and the environment. They keep our children safe when they’re at school. They protect workers so they can come home to their families each and every day. And they ensure our environmental protections remain among the best and the strongest in the world.

Our goal with the burden reduction initiatives we’re putting forward today is to ensure that we no longer rely on rules and regulations that are burdensome, inefficient or outdated, and that the ones we do rely on are current and enforced properly, predictably and consistently.

That’s why every time the Ministry of Red Tape Reduction considers a new idea for a red tape reduction package, we draw on the seven guiding principles that consistently direct our efforts to reduce red tape, as enshrined in the Modernizing Ontario for People and Businesses Act.

The first principle is aligning standards, when possible, because it reduces the time and cost required to adhere to certain regulations. A good example of this is the proposed amendments to the Line Fences Act from the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, which would align it with the Municipal Act, 2001, and the City of Toronto Act, 2006. The Line Fences Act—and as we’re government, we always have to have an acronym; it’s called the LFA—is one of the oldest pieces of Ontario legislation and has legislative and operational parameters that are outdated and that could be modernized. Aligning this act with the Municipal Act and enabling the digitization of certain processes will save municipalities that use the LFA time and money.

The second principle is that small businesses should have less onerous compliance requirements when compared to larger businesses. The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks will be consulting with stakeholders on updates to Ontario’s producer responsibility framework, which makes producers responsible for collecting and recycling their products and packaging at end of life. The ministry is considering changes to the regulations to reduce red tape for producers and allow them and their service providers to comply with regulatory requirements more easily. These changes would reduce burden, increase flexibility, and provide better ways to oversee the market.

The third principle is that any entity subject to regulations should be provided accessible digital service whenever possible. In 2024, we shouldn’t be asking people or businesses to fax things or fill out long paper forms—and I just ran into that when I was trying to change the name of my home with the city of Toronto. You had to mail it or you had to fax it, and I couldn’t find a fax machine. Some updated rules really do save some time. The Ministry of the Solicitor General’s proposal to amend the Coroners Act to enable efficient, effective and representative jury selection is a perfect example of this streamlining. The changes would require the Ministry of the Attorney General to provide additional information—including phone numbers, email addresses and language preference—from the jury roll to help reduce the time and effort by the coroner when selecting prospective jurors. This change would not only improve communications with prospective jurors, but it would also ensure that the Office of the Chief Coroner is able to conduct inquests efficiently and effectively.

The fourth principle is that regulated entities—like businesses, services, and broader public sector organizations—that demonstrate excellence and compliance should be recognized. For example, the Ministry of Transportation’s proposal for automated vehicle permit validation is a great example of this. In the spring 2022 red tape reduction package, the government eliminated licence plate renewal fees for passenger vehicles, light-duty trucks, motorcycles and mopeds, saving vehicle owners $120 per vehicle per year in southern Ontario and $60 a year in northern Ontario. This is money in people’s pockets. Building off this initiative, we are proposing changes to the Highway Traffic Act that would allow for a transition to automated renewal of licence plates for drivers in good standing. This saves people time.

The fifth principle is that unnecessary reporting should be reduced and steps should be taken to avoid requiring regulated entities to provide the same information to government repeatedly. Nothing—and I’m sure we all hear this—is more frustrating than filling out the same form over and over again and having to repeat the same story multiple times to multiple ministries at different levels of government. We need to do better, and we are. Consider the Ministry of Energy’s proposed amendments to the Ontario Energy Board Act. For construction projects that require the relocation or reconstruction of a hydrocarbon pipeline, we’re proposing that if the pipeline is the same size or smaller and does not require new land, then the government would provide an exemption from leave to construct. This means that the number of projects required to undergo a leave-to-construct proceeding at the Ontario Energy Board will be reduced, saving people time and money.

The sixth principle is that instruments should focus on the user by using clear communication, setting reasonable response times, and establishing a single point of contact. That just makes common sense. This is straightforward. People and businesses should be able to understand the requirements imposed on them by government. That’s why the Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery is proposing a regulation to develop service standards for permits and licence services delivered to businesses. And we’re creating a single-window approach for businesses and entrepreneurs to access information about required permits, as well as track the status of their applications. Again, this just makes sense.

The seventh principle is that a regulatory instrument should specify the desired result that regulated entities must meet, rather than the specific methods used to attain the result. Good outcomes are what we are concerned about, and we recognize that there are many ways to get the same outcome. A great example of this is through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing’s proposal to amend the Municipal Act, 2001, and the City of Toronto Act, 2006, that would allow the province to more quickly enable municipal incentives so that our communities can attract new investments and create new jobs.

Speaker, these are just a few examples of the initiatives in the proposed Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024, and in our broader spring 2024 red tape reduction package.

As I’ve said before, we are incredibly grateful for the ideas that we have received from stakeholders and people across the province, and from our ministry partners. Their efforts are helping to streamline processes and modernize outdated practices across multiple areas of government. We encourage people and businesses to continue to reach out, to share their comments and their best ideas to reduce red tape through Ontario’s dedicated red tape reduction portal on ontario.ca.

I look forward to working with this ministry as we continue to do the great work.

I’m now going to pass it off to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Housing to conclude our remarks today.

Further debate? I recognize the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Red Tape Reduction and the member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore.

I recognize the member for Perth–Wellington.

It’s wonderful to rise this morning to talk about our most recent red tape bill and ensuring that we get more homes built across Ontario. I hear often in my riding that we need to do more to help the people of Ontario have a home that meets their needs and their budget, and I want to present some of the details about these various themes in our proposed bill, Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, as well as some targeted housing measures in that piece of legislation.

To begin, I’d like to touch on some additional aspects of this bill and supporting initiatives that address our goal of building homes faster at a lower cost.

Our government continually seeks ways to help reduce the cost of building new homes, whether it’s through the most recent legislation the Minister of Energy has brought forward or whether it’s ensuring that we are proposing building code amendments that ensure costs remain low for our builders, ensuring that they continue to build the homes we need.

That’s why we’re proposing to remove requirements to have at least a minimum number of parking spaces for developments in certain areas near most major transit stations.

The proposed changes to the Planning Act would apply to the lands, buildings or structures that are located within certain areas near transit called protected major transit station areas. It would also apply to areas where municipalities choose to accommodate more housing around subway, rail or bus rapid transit stations, which is what we mean when we talk about higher-order density.

Instead of mandating minimum parking requirements, our proposal would let homebuyers and home builders decide for themselves, based on the market needs, the number of parking spaces for new residential development near transit. I think this is a very important proposal, a very good proposal, from a Progressive Conservative government—letting the market decide how many parking spaces would be needed around a major transit area.

Importantly, this proposal, if passed, could remove construction costs of between $2,000 and $100,000 per parking space per project, helping to make more projects viable.

I know we are in very challenging economic circumstances with the high interest rates, and I was discouraged to see the Bank of Canada not choose to cut interest rates yesterday. Our Premier continues to call on the Prime Minister to do more to lower interest rates as soon as possible.

We will continue to take action to ensure that we reduce the costs of building homes and apartments near transit, and this initiative, if passed, would do just that. Under existing requirements in some municipalities, this could save $50 million for a 500-unit development and make it cheaper to build and purchase new homes near transit. It will also make transit more accessible for the people of Ontario.

In keeping with the same theme, we’re also proposing changes to the Planning Act that, if passed, would help eliminate barriers to building additional residential units. We would do this by providing authority for regulations related to ADUs. Our proposed regulation-making authority would support the creation of additional residential units such as garden, laneway or basement suites. The importance of these additional suites cannot be overstated. Even in rural Ontario, which I have the honour of representing in this place, these additional residential units are a way for our seniors to downsize. I know a common term is “over-housed individuals”—who may live in a larger house but have nowhere to downsize within their community. Having these additional residential units gives them that option to remain in the community that they helped build, be close to their children and grandchildren potentially, and to enjoy their golden years. These basement suites, laneway suites and garden suites are just ensuring that we have those options for a variety of housing that our government continues to support being built across Ontario. We will enable future regulations that can eliminate municipal barriers such as maximum lot coverage and limits on the number of bedrooms allowed per lot.

I have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy, and we were travelling recently across Ontario for regional governance review and that study. We heard very often from our municipal partners on a use-it-or-lose-it policy. I’m pleased to see our government bring forward this aspect in this bill before this place right now. It is important to prioritize the infrastructure for ready-to-go housing projects, and that’s what this use-it-or-lose-it policy will do.

We have heard many times from our municipal partners, as I mentioned, that stalled development and unused service capacity can be a barrier to meeting provincial housing targets. For example, seven municipalities have reported that over 70,000 housing units with planning approval have remained inactive for at least two years. For that reason, we’re proposing a use-it-or-lose-it process. This process will help address stalled developments and support efficient allocation of housing-enabling infrastructure, such as water and sewage servicing capacity.

If passed, our proposed changes to the Planning Act, Municipal Act and the City of Toronto Act would enable municipalities to adopt policies setting out how sewage and water servicing capacity can be allocated or reallocated to developments that are ready to proceed. This will result in fewer barriers and fewer delays prior to construction—or put another way, this will get shovels in the ground faster.

I know the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing spoke earlier. We meet often with AMO and ROMA as well as many other municipal associations in Ontario, and they have stressed the feedback to us around addressing stalled development.

Consulting with our municipal partners was very important with this legislation, and so we are enabling municipalities to better use existing revenue tools to pay for the development of housing-enabling infrastructure and other needs. We would do this through our proposal to eliminate the five-year phase-in of development charge rates.

Speaker, let me remind you that development charges are fees that municipalities can apply to a new development or redevelopment to help pay for the capital costs of infrastructure that may support this new growth.

Our proposal to eliminate the five-year phase-in would apply to development charge bylaws passed on or after January 1, 2022. For municipalities that have to amend their development charge bylaws to remove the phase-in, we are proposing that they be able to do so using a streamlined approach.

What’s more, this June 1, Ontario will bring into force exemptions and discounts on municipal development charges for affordable residential units. I think we can all agree in this place that it is important that we do not levy development charges on non-profit—the good work that Habitat for Humanity does. They were here a few weeks ago in Queen’s Park, meeting with a variety of members, and they told us time and time again, “Thank you for removing the development charges on Habitat for Humanity homes.” That is helping them get more homes built for those who need it in our communities, and I know our non-profit sector appreciates that—in ensuring that our affordable residential units do not have those charges levied on them. This would provide incentives to build more affordable housing across the province.

Speaker, obviously, this bill looks at amending the Planning Act, a document that I have the pleasure of reading often. I’m not sure if my colleagues in this place read it as much as myself and the minister and the associate minister. This time, we’re proposing to amend the Planning Act under the theme of improving consultation and providing municipalities and builders with greater certainty to get homes built faster. This proposed change would streamline certain third-party appeals to the Ontario Land Tribunal to help communities get quicker planning approvals for housing projects. This would help reduce building costs and, in some cases, reduce project delays by up to 18 months. That could mean getting shovels in the ground a full year and a half earlier, meaning people and families will move in even sooner to new homes, faster. To put that into perspective, between 2021 and 2023, approximately 67,000 housing units were subject to third-party appeals of official plans and rezoning. This simply cannot continue.

We’re proposing further changes to the Planning Act, and these would allow appeals when a municipality refuses an application or simply does not make a decision within the statutory timeline or a settlement boundary change that would accommodate future growth outside of the greenbelt.

We know that times change, and along with that, so have the methods for consulting on and communicating land use planning changes. That’s why we’re proposing a regulatory change to enhance public engagement on new planning applications and other Planning Act matters. We would do this by modernizing public notice requirements to enable municipalities to give notice on their website if there is no local newspaper available. Unfortunately, in many rural communities, there are no local papers still present. So this provides an opportunity for our rural municipalities, in particular, to have those public consultations on their website or through a newsletter they may mail out with their property tax statements, for example, giving them that flexibility to be even more accessible to the residents they serve.

Similar regulatory changes are proposed under the Development Charges Act. If our bill is passed, we will work with our municipal partners to develop best practices for modernizing public engagement and consultation. This could include expanding our reach to include multilingual notices. Ontario is a very large province, a very diverse province, which is wonderful, to see the variety of cultures represented in Ontario—but ensuring that our consultation process and our municipal consultation process around development is accessible to all. I look forward to having those consultations with our municipal partners as we move forward.

Our fourth and final theme is related to building more types of homes for more people. Under this theme, our proposal is to get shovels in the ground faster for priority projects. Under the Planning Act, municipalities can make decisions that determine the future of their communities. This includes making decisions on official plans, zoning bylaws, plans of subdivision, and site plan control.

We know a new development may require many municipal planning approvals before construction begins. Unfortunately, some Ontario priority projects have encountered delays when navigating the planning approval process. To solve this, we will consult on a new expedited approval process for community service facilities. We’ll be starting that with, for example, K-to-12 public schools, potentially extending in phases to long-term-care facilities and hospitals.

I know our government has put forward an ambitious infrastructure plan, which was announced in the budget a few short weeks ago—whether it was the over $1.8 million in housing-enabling infrastructure; whether it’s the Building Faster Fund that we announced last year at AMO, $1.2 billion; whether it’s the doubling of our capital budget for our schools, which I know was very well received across Ontario. We have many growing communities. I know this government is committed to ensuring that we build complete communities with schools, child care, hospitals, and ensuring that those planning approvals get done as quickly as possible, ensuring that those processes are seamless. That is what our goal is through these consultations—to ensure these priority projects are moving forward.

Speaker, we’re also moving forward with our consultations around the PPS, or the provincial planning statement, ensuring that we are putting forward a provincial planning statement that will get more homes built faster and sets out the rules for, obviously, land use planning in Ontario.

I know this is a very ambitious piece of legislation—ensuring that we work with our municipal partners who we heavily consulted with and with our home builders and our other community builders across Ontario; ensuring that we build the homes that Ontarians need, whether it’s the home for a grandma and grandpa, or whether it’s a home for a new family or a new Canadian to our shores. It’s ensuring that we have those places for those individuals too—it’s not just a building; it’s a place that they can build a community, they can raise their family, they can enjoy those golden years. That is what our government is focused on—ensuring every Ontarian has the opportunity and the ability to achieve home ownership and an affordable place to rent.

A question for the minister responsible—one of the things that I know he cares about, from previous discussions we’ve had about the need to speed up housing, is what happens sometimes when processes aren’t quite right. The minister intervened when the urban boundary expansion impacting my city of Ottawa led to some very questionable decisions with respect to how developments took place. To his credit, he took action on that front. But it disturbs me this morning, as we debate Bill 185, to read some advocates in the sector worried that this could repeat. There could be the repetition of, according to Environmental Defence, more “greenfield scandals” if we don’t ensure proper protections are in place that make sure that further development isn’t only sprawl development of single homes stretched onto wider terrains.

The government knows that everybody in this House wants housing to be built. We’re here to collaborate with developers, particularly for non-market housing.

I’m worried, and I’m wondering if the minister could respond about whether or not the processes that are now going to be set in place with this speedy development could tumble us into more problems that we’ll only have to correct later.

It’s a very good question. It’s twofold.

We’ve been removing obstacles so that we can get more purpose-built rental housing built in the province of Ontario. We have done some excellent work on that. We have the highest level of purpose-built rentals.

The definition of affordable housing, which is something that we all agreed upon in this House—implementation of that. As of June 1, we’ll remove development charges across all of that sector. That is also good work.

We are also in the process of, hopefully, being able to conclude an agreement with the federal government with respect to the National Housing Strategy. As the member knows, Ontario has done some really, really good work on that. We remain committed to funding Ontario’s portion of the National Housing Strategy, which identifies homes for victims of intimate partner violence. We will continue funding that program.

Ultimately, we’re trying to remove the obstacles that will get more types of homes built across all sectors, because the number one challenge is that not enough homes are being built. High interest rates are a challenge on that as well. This bill is targeted to get more shovels in the ground.

This has been a growing problem across Ontario and, frankly, across Canada. As I mentioned in my speech, the federal government made some unilateral cuts to post-secondary education which facilitated the need to build more homes, student dormitories, very, very quickly in all parts of the country.

We are one of the first provinces to move to as-of-right student dormitories, student housing on our university campuses—I would say long overdue. We have instances where universities have been waiting—in the University of Toronto’s instance—10 years to build a student dorm. That’s too long. Every dorm that we build is another home that is available in the community. Our campuses across Ontario will benefit from this. Frankly, if I’m being honest, I hope that across Canada, all provinces will do the same thing. I suspect we will be leaders nationally on this, as well.

I suspect the member is more specifically talking about the right of appeal to a tribunal with respect to boundary expansion, where a municipal partner is either unwilling to respond or responds in a fashion that the proponent doesn’t agree with. We thought it the best approach to remove it exclusively from the hands of a municipality and from the minister’s office and to put it to an impartial third-party adjudicative body, as was done in the province of Ontario up until 2003. As I said, I believe this is the fairest way of doing it; it’s a more open way of doing it. All the parties will be able to provide evidence on this, and a third-party adjudicator will make that decision, removing it from the exclusive domain of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

It is now time for questions.

I speak to many parents of university students who tell me that their children have made the decision to live at home and commute an hour each way due to the increased cost of renting.

In my riding of Burlington, we’re fortunate; students are able to attend the world-class colleges and universities in the city of Toronto, Hamilton, Oakville, Guelph, St. Catharines.

Can the member please inform both the students and the parents in my riding what our government is doing to help through this piece of red tape legislation?

Thank you to the minister and his parliamentary assistants for speaking about this bill.

There are lots of conversation about homes recently—and I was reminded yesterday of the motion about intimate partner violence. We had nearly 200 advocates here. One of the things that we heard very clearly from them was that one of the reasons that people can’t escape violence at home is because of the affordability of housing, and rental housing, in particular.

It has been almost six years of the Conservative government being here. During that time, it has never been more expensive to rent in Ontario. I didn’t hear anything about rent in here. I think this is something we need to address, not just for students, not just for everyday people renting—but people fleeing violence deeply, deeply need that deeply affordable rental housing. Could the minister comment on that?

I thank all the speakers for their comments on the red tape reduction bill and the housing-related—it’s very, very exciting legislation, and I like the way the associate minister phrased the budget as the “infrastructure budget.”

My question, because I think this is such an important part of the program: The $1.8 billion that we propose, if the bill is passed, to have implemented—I was in the infrastructure world; I know how important it is to get these important assets financed. The great thing about water and waste water infrastructure is that there are revenue streams attached.

Municipalities have borrowing limits that are very restrictive. So I wonder if we could further hear from the associate minister on the impact this huge new program will have on getting those projects started that otherwise would not be started, and the impact it will have on the housing market.

I recently had the opportunity to tour Ark Aid Street Mission’s Cronyn-Warner site.

I’d like to applaud the city of London and all of the phenomenal service and community partners working on the whole of community health and homelessness strategy tables.

It was rather cold as we walked down Dundas Street from Ark Aid’s main location, punctuated by our entry into the warm Cronyn-Warner location. I want to thank the Diocese of Huron and the board at Warner Place for providing the location at a fraction of the market rate to care for the marginalized people in our community.

Ark Aid has served 900 unique people this year. We heard from Rob, who struggled with accessing health care while homeless. He was proud to tell us about his improvements and his future goals. None of this would have happened without Ark Aid and housing.

Funding for these spaces and others like SafeSpace and many more will end on May 31 this year. Homelessness in London will not end on June 1. If funding doesn’t flow, 100 dedicated and caring staff will be unemployed; 120 resting places will become vacant—vital and necessary, but vacant. I was shocked to learn that the providers will have to warehouse all the mattresses while people sleep rough.

I call on government members to listen to their conscience and fund these beds now. Think of the people who are rebuilding their lives and whose hopes and dreams will be much further away without the basic human necessity of housing.

We have the space. We have caring people ready to help. All that is needed is political will. Housing is foundational, housing is fundamental, housing is a human right, and housing is health care.

On February 27, Calgary welcomed athletes from across the country to the Special Olympics winter games.

I’m honoured to rise today to recognize Ella Robinson, Alex Cappuccitti and Rebecca Osmond, three competitors from my constituency of Ajax. The Special Olympics provides athletes with intellectual disabilities an incredible opportunity to showcase their talents and shine in a world that can often be challenging. Through these games, barriers are dismantled and new heights are reached. The accomplishments of these three champions are a testament to this, as they collectively brought home a total of nine medals. Ella secured first, second and third place in three race categories. Alex impressed with bronze medals in all four of his speed skating competitions. And Rebecca added to the team’s success by placing second in five-pin bowling.

As we watch Ella, Alex, Rebecca and all these athletes experience the joy and camaraderie of victory, we are reminded that this event transcends the boundaries of the playing field. It is an event that forms a community and fosters friendships that last a lifetime.

My heartfelt congratulations to Ella, Alex and Rebecca for representing Ajax with strength, unity and determination.

A special thank you to Donna Edwards, who has been an amazing coach and leader in Special Olympics for many years.

It warms my heart; I never thought that I would be here and hear the NDP wanting me to privatize anything, so I thank the member.

I honestly do not know the specific homes that she’s speaking of—although I suspect it’s probably an infrastructure-owned program.

I do agree with the member opposite on this. I think what she’s getting at is how important it is to build homes in northern Ontario, especially given the economic importance of northern Ontario to the success of southern Ontario. There are very unique challenges in the north, absolutely, no doubt, that require additional supports that aren’t required in southern Ontario. This bill helps unleash some of that, as well.

The more important feature, I think, is really the infrastructure piece, the $1.8 billion in infrastructure which will help unleash a lot of this development that has been stifled, as well, in northern Ontario—even more so than in southern Ontario, in many instances.

In northern Ontario, we are very interested in getting rid of red tape for government-owned homes that need to be put up on the market.

I have given the example of Gogama. Three years ago, I wrote to every single minister to say, “There are 11 homes in Gogama that are owned by the government. There are 1,800 workers across the street who sleep in bunkers, who want to buy those homes. Please put them up for sale.” They told me they had to go through due process. I wrote back two years later and got the exact same letter—they have to go through due process.

When are we going to get rid of the red tape that keeps this government from putting the houses in Gogama, in Foleyet—all over my riding—that they own up for sale? People in northern Ontario want to buy those homes.

Further questions?

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Thank you to my colleague from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound.

I’ll give you a quick example, and I think you could probably relate to it in your riding—similar to mine. Dutton Dunwich is a community of 3,200 people. In 2019, they wanted to put in a new waste water system, upgrade it. It was going to be about $3.5 million. They decided not to do it, to postpone it. Here we are in 2024. They got the bill to do the very same project: $13.3 million. So it overwhelmed them. They had to stop the ability to build—it’s a growing community.

I believe our waste water enabling fund, along with the infrastructure dollars put in the budget, along with the Building Faster Fund, which is available for small communities as well, is going to go a long way to help these communities—I’ve got 10 of them in my riding; I’m not sure about the member’s. It’s these smaller communities that really are at a crossroads when it comes to waste water management, waste water—