We’ll support you, yes. We’ve got your back. Thank you.

What I would also like to see, if we’re talking about increasing density, is to move forward with allowing increased density along transit corridors, those apartment buildings along transit corridors that would provide more affordable options for people, especially if we mandate that a percentage of those units are more family-friendly in size, because we’re not going to solve the housing crisis by building 500-square-foot units or 4,000-square-foot mansions on sprawl. We need a mix, and what’s missing are those family-friendly-sized apartments, those 1,200-to-1,600-square-foot apartments, those starter homes. I would like to see that.

And then the other change that is in the bill is the decision by this government to consult on changing the building code to allow three-to-six-storey homes to have only one stairwell instead of two. I think consultation on this is a good idea. The reason why I think this is a good idea is because, if we are going to move ahead with moving to just one stairwell, we need to make sure these homes are safe, and that means doing proper consultation with fire marshals and fire departments, looking at the evidence to ensure that if there is a fire in these buildings, people can get out quickly.

The reason why I say that is because we have had residents in our riding who have died in fires. We had one on Shaw Street, and an individual on the top floor did not get out in time. It was awful. And then we had William Cachia, who lived in a rooming house in the Danforth area. There was a fire in the early morning in a rooming house. He didn’t get out on time and he died.

It is often lower-income people living in poorly maintained homes who are the people who died in fires—it is. And, tragically, these buildings, both of them, did not have working fire alarms—they didn’t. But I also think that we need to build in redundancy when we’re ensuring that people are safe, because there are always going to be some places that don’t have working fire alarms because the building isn’t properly maintained. So I like the idea of this government doing consultation on this to make sure we get it right.

I want to spend a few minutes talking about the provincial policy statement. The provincial policy statement is not directly included in this bill, but it’s complementary. There’s a reason why you introduced it on the same day. Unfortunately, unlike some of the grab bag of some good things in this bill, I’m very worried about what’s in the provincial policy statement.

For those that are listening: The provincial policy statement is a short document that provides guidance to how planning happens in Ontario. It provides direction to municipalities. It provides a summary of where we build and how we build. It’s a short document and it’s a very important document. When I read this document, the take-home message I get is that the provincial policy statement is green-lighting more single-family homes on farmland—very expensive sprawl. I have some concerns with that because that kind of development is very expensive and we know that this government’s own Housing Affordability Task Force told this government that we can build the homes that we need, we can meet our 1.5-million home target, by building in areas that are already zoned for development. We know that.

So when I read the provincial policy statement, what I see is that it wipes out settlement area boundaries and municipal comprehensive review processes that prevent unnecessary low-density sprawl on farmland. So now what can happen is the developer—let’s say they bought land just outside the municipal boundary, and they bought it cheap because it was farmland and it was just zoned for farmland, okay? They got it for a steal. Well, now, what they can do is they can go to the municipality and say, “I want you to rezone this land to allow for development.”

Now, typically, the process of expanding settlement boundaries could only happen after careful review. Municipalities needed to explain that it was necessary, and it could only happen every five years or so. It was a very careful, well-thought-out process. Now it can happen at any time. If a developer wants their land rezoned, they just have to go to the council and get it approved. That is quite a problem.

I was just on a briefing call and Environmental Defence’s Phil Pothen was on this call, and he said, “This is a breeding ground for corruption. I’m very worried about this—I’m very worried about it.” So that’s one thing I have concerns about.

The other thing is about the appeal process. How this government wants to change it is—let’s say a developer says, “All right, I want you to rezone my land,” and if the municipality says yes, then no one can appeal it. But if the municipality says no, then the developer can appeal. If the municipality approves sprawl, you can’t appeal, and if the municipality denies the sprawl, then the developer can appeal. You’re basically saying, “We want sprawl and we’re going to change the rules around the land tribunal so that it can only say yes to sprawl, it can’t say no.” I have some concerns about that.

I also have some concerns around the provincial policy statement’s decision to get rid of minimum density requirements. It’s crazy. I can’t believe it. It’s 2024, and we’re getting rid of minimum density requirements. So now there is no requirement to meet density in any area; it’s advisory—we recommend it—but it’s not required. I think it’s bananas. I can’t believe that’s there. My hope is that those members in the Conservative Party who know that this is a really crazy idea will speak to their colleagues and we’ll get that changed in a future bill. I’m hopeful.

Member for Waterloo, are you hopeful?

Wrong person. I shouldn’t have asked you.

Interjection.

I want to talk a little bit about what some stakeholders said, with the remaining time that I have.

I talked a little bit about what AMO said. They’re cautiously happy about the development fee charge changes, but they are concerned that they don’t go far enough. They’re concerned about the MZO framework; so are we—although it is better than what it was before.

The Ontario Real Estate Association also sent in a statement. They’re happy about eliminating parking minimums; they’re pleased that it will be easier to build more garden, laneway and basement suites; they’re good with permitting mass-timber structures up to 18 storeys; they support standardized designs to reduce delays and costs for modular homes—so are we. Some of this stuff is good. But what they’re concerned about is this government’s real reluctance to say yes to upzoning along major transit corridors and this government’s outright refusal to allow four units as-of-right province-wide.

I honestly think you folks are the last ones left who can’t bring yourselves to say yes to fourplexes. It’s so interesting. I wonder when you’re going to cave. I’m guessing six months. That’s my prediction. Six months, and then you’re going to cave, but we’ll see—I’m hoping it’s less.

Environmental Defence have a lot of concerns around the provincial planning statement. They wrote: “Together, the new law and the proposed provincial planning statement would effectively wipe out the protective” municipal boundaries that protect farmland and the greenbelt, wetlands and wildlife. They’ve got a lot of concerns about that. They’re also concerned that Bill 185 would remove any expert Ontario Land Tribunal oversight over multi-billion dollar decisions by municipal council around approving sprawl. They wrote: “It’s hard to think of a more enticing target for corruption than unchecked municipal decisions to approve sprawl.” Strong words. “By rubber-stamping an application to needlessly extend a settlement boundary and bulldoze farmland or wildlife habitat, a small-town councillor could confer hundreds of millions in windfall wealth upon a real estate speculator who bought up farmland at a low price.” It’s concerning, because once we pave over farmland, we’re not getting it back. If we’re talking about making sure that Ontario’s economy thrives, we should be doing everything we can to preserve, protect and expand our farming sector. It is a huge growth generator, and it needs land.

This came from Bill 23, but it’s still relevant today—this is from Carolyn Whitzman, an expert adviser with the Housing Assessment Resource Tools project. The reason I like Carolyn’s work is because when she’s talking about the housing supply crisis and the housing affordability crisis, she talks not just about how many homes we’re building, but who we’re building for. She breaks it down, and she concludes that for upper-middle-income people—they usually can find a home. That’s not where the shortage is. But when you’re looking at people who are in the 50% to 80% of household income, they’re short—we need to build about 160,000 homes for them; they’re more affordable homes. If you’re looking at people who earn 20% to 50% of the average household income, we need to build about 483,000 homes that are affordable for this demographic. And then, for people who earn up to 20% of the average household income—these are people on Ontario disability, Ontario Works—we need to build 85,000 homes to meet their needs. And I really don’t see in this bill a serious effort to look at who we’re building homes for and who is missing out, because people who are middle-income, working class, on social assistance, they are not finding homes that can work for them, that they can afford, and they’re also having difficulty keeping the home they’ve got, because they’re being renovicted or demovicted, pushed out, moving to Alberta.

I want to conclude by talking about what we see as solutions to our housing affordability and our housing supply crisis. I want to be clear: I want a home. I want everybody in Ontario to have a home that they can afford to rent or buy. That’s what I want, and in a province as rich as ours, we can do it. It’s not an issue of money; it’s a lack of political will.

I don’t want encampments, because I want people who live in encampments to be offered a permanent home, offered a supportive home so that they can rebuild their lives, live good lives. I think we can do that too.

I want people who move to a big city, go to school, start a career—I want them to find a home that they can afford to rent, have enough money at the end of the month to go out for dinner and save. I think that makes a lot of sense.

When many of you were younger, that opportunity was available to you, but it’s not available to young people today. I want an Ontario where, if people save, they can afford to buy a home; maybe it’s a condo, maybe it’s a starter home. Right now, that dream is just completely destroyed for so many people.

And I really don’t buy this argument that people love to rent. When you poll people and you ask them, “If you could afford to buy a home,” most people say, “Hell yes, I would love to buy a home,” and I think that’s important. Home ownership matters.

Our party, what we support is building 1.5 million homes. We agree with the government on this target. We do need to build 1.5 million homes, and we need to make sure that the homes that we build will actually address the housing affordability crisis and the housing supply shortage. That means building homes on public land. That means buying up purpose-built rentals and converting them to non-market housing. It means making it easier to build homes in areas that are already zoned for development. It means saying yes to four-plexes.

We shouldn’t dismiss—we need as many measures as we can approve. There’s no one measure that’s going to solve the housing crisis, so we do need to approve fourplexes, we do need to allow increased density along transit corridors, we do need to make it quicker and easier to build multi-family homes. We know this, it’s important, and it will require not just changing zoning rules; it’s also going to require investment. It shocks me that this government is choosing not to invest in affordable housing. We need it; it’s important.

It is essential, if we want to make housing affordable in Ontario, that we focus on renters too. The 1.7 million people who rent—I’m sure some of them are contacting your office. They have it so hard. Unless you’re earning two six figures in your household and you’re renting, you have it hard. It’s hard to find a place, it’s hard to keep a place, most people living in constant fear of eviction. Many people in my riding have these constant above-guideline rent increases. I think we can do better for renters. It is time for vacancy control in Ontario. It existed before, it stabilized rent; it’s time for that again.

It’s also time to bring in strong renter protections so that if people do have an issue with their landlord, they have a number to call, they have a bylaw officer that can investigate, they have a Landlord and Tenant Board that can hear their case promptly, and by that, I mean 30 days, not two years—30 days. It makes sense. Tribunals are so efficient compared to the court system. I think we can do the right thing on that.

Then, it is also essential to address the supportive housing crisis and the homelessness crisis we have in Ontario. We can do it. I know we can. I urge this government to move forward on expanding the homeless protection funding that you have. I urge this government to reinstate municipalities’ power to use development charges for affordable housing and shelters. I urge this government to come and present an affordable housing plan to the federal government that includes more than just building 1,187 homes so that we can get that federal government money. People’s lives depend upon it.

We have encampments in our riding. It is so hard for those people who live in those encampments. It is so hard. They don’t want to be there. People don’t want to live in an encampment, but when they’re offered the option of moving to a hotel for three weeks in Scarborough, having to get rid of all their belongings and then knowing that they’re going to lose that hotel in a short period of time, that’s not an option. We need to provide real options to people so that we can end homelessness. Other countries have done it; so can we.

I look forward to committee. I look forward to the amendments that I hope will be introduced. I look forward to hearing from stakeholders that will come in and give their opinions. I will be introducing amendments; I always do. I thoroughly enjoy it. I hope they’re taken seriously and listened to. And, yes, I want to see this bill improved.

Not as hopeful.

You probably heard me speaking last week or so about the gravy train that’s in the Premier’s office right now because he’s more than doubled his budget. But that’s not where the gravy train started. It started with the greenbelt—the greenbelt gravy train, where speculators, insiders and friends were going to benefit. Now, that greenbelt gravy train got derailed, but there were still the MZOs. Well, the MZO gravy train got derailed, too. So did the urban boundaries.

Do you think, if the government hadn’t wasted their time trying to enrich friends and insiders, that they would be further ahead?

Questions?

The member from University–Rosedale gave a very balanced, I felt, and fair critique of Bill 185. She touched on some of the many changes, the flip-flops, the concerning proposals which will likely create even more confusion and chaos and may even worsen the housing crisis, because this is a government that is lurching from bad policy decision to bad policy decision, removing planning authority from regional levels of government, creating even more chaos at the local municipal level, especially when it comes to infrastructure—because this government just woke up to the fact that you can’t build housing unless you have the infrastructure.

I just wanted to give you an opportunity to sort of drive home the point to this government that clarity of policy and consistency are what’s needed right now in Ontario, that actually puts Ontarians at the centre of that discussion, not developers.

I would remind my honourable friend across the way that, in the last 10 years of the Liberal government, they averaged 68,000 starts per year. We’ve averaged 87,000 starts per year. Our population has doubled. We have a supply crisis; there’s no question about it.

So the part that I’m finding frustrating—I understand your passion; we all are passionate about getting more homes built—is the biggest factor to not getting homes built in this province is infrastructure. We’ve added $3 billion: $1.2 billion to the Building Faster Fund; $800,000 to the Housing-Enabling Water Systems Fund—new infrastructure dollars. What part of the $3 billion we’re going to invest in the province don’t you want us to invest in?

[Inaudible] question. Thank you to the member for Durham. I would like to think about moving forward right now. When I think about moving forward right now, I think about this bill and what we can do to improve this bill, because that’s what we’re debating.

I would like to see in this bill an amendment to allow fourplexes as of right in towns and cities across Ontario. I would like to see in this bill a commitment to allow increased density along transit corridors. I would also like to see a commitment in this bill to allow municipalities to collect development charges for affordable housing and shelters so we can deal proactively with the homelessness crisis and the housing crisis we have in our towns and cities.

When I talk to municipalities, I hear again and again that their planning departments are completely overwhelmed because they have to transition to these new rules and then the rules change and then they have to transition to other rules. It’s a problem; they only have so many staff. It’s a problem. A stable planning environment is key to building the homes that we need to build.

So, I have some concerns that this gravy train greenbelt derailment issue is still here.

It’s also not wise from a sustainability point of view. It impacts our farming economy because they have less land available to them and it creates more unsustainable transportation patterns because people have to drive further to get to their destination, be it work or school. There’s a lot of concerns that we have with it.

The member for University–Rosedale speaks of the fact that she admits that there is a housing supply crisis, a housing affordability crisis, that we need to be on target for building 1.5 million homes. Yet, she sits among members who supported the previous Liberal government in the 40th Parliament.

Steve Del Duca, the current mayor of Vaughan, has admitted that that housing affordability crisis of which the member speaks began under the Liberal government. It began when the member for Waterloo arrived with the mayor for Vaughan. They arrived together in 2012, and in 2012, 2013 and 2014, the NDP and the Liberals were together politically. They had the political will to do something, and they did nothing.

Will the member opposite, the member for University–Rosedale—now having admitted the housing affordability crisis, knowing that this goes back to the NDP supporting the Liberals—support this bill and engage in forward thinking for the good of Ontario?

I do appreciate this opportunity to participate in second reading debate this afternoon of Bill 185, Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act.

As the minister and my colleagues have made very clear, this spring red tape reduction package follows on the tremendous progress made by our government to reduce regulatory burden to better serve the citizens of Ontario.

Over the past four years, this government’s efforts to reduce the burden of red tape has saved Ontario businesses and the broader public sector over $958 million in gross annualized compliance costs and have helped create the conditions for people and businesses to thrive. I believe all members of this House will agree then that this proposed legislation makes great strides and will continue to have a profound, positive impact as we work hand in hand to build Ontario’s bright future tomorrow and to do it together.

Our new proposed legislation aligns strongly with this government’s excellent record of common-sense changes that help hard-working Ontarians.

Speaker, I am proud of the work being done day in and day out across our government and within my ministry, the Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery, to fulfill our mandate to the people of this province.

On December 4 of last year, this House unanimously passed a landmark piece of legislation, the Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act, 2023. The new Consumer Protection Act, once enforced, will make it easier for businesses to comply with consumer protection rules in our increasingly digital-first marketplace.

Furthermore, earlier this year on February 22, the Building Infrastructure Safely Act, 2024, was passed by this House, also unanimously. This prohibits underground infrastructure owners and operators from charging fees for locates. Now, providing locates free of charge is consistent, of course, with a long-standing practice that exists across Canada and the United States, and increases public safety while minimizing damage to critical infrastructure from the construction process.

These are just a couple of examples of how the Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery continues to update legislation and regulations and takes concrete action to enable the citizens and the residents of Ontario to thrive while our businesses prosper.

Reducing red tape is a key part of building a stronger economy, and under the leadership of the Premier, we are continuing to bring forward additional packages that are saving businesses costs and time and reducing burden.

I would like to provide an overview of the initiatives that the Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery is proposing in this package. Our government is putting Ontarians first by making it easier and more convenient for businesses to find the information they need to operate across Ontario.

For decades, Ontario businesses have been frustrated by red tape and drawn-out processes. They called for better access to the information they need when they need it. Consistent and predictable timelines are needed to plan projects and to ensure success. We have heard from Ontario business owners who face difficulties in finding information online about permit and licence services as well as the timelines for obtaining these items.

That is why, two years ago, our government, in the 42nd Parliament, introduced, and this House passed, the At Your Service Act, 2022. That was part of that year’s spring red tape reduction package.

The act established a single website to access authoritative information and services that businesses need to become both functional and successful. Through the Ontario.ca/business website, our government is making it easier to both start and to grow a business.

This resource was the first step toward creating a single window for businesses, reducing the administrative burdens for business owners and for not-for-profits. By taking the confusion out of completing necessary paperwork and permits, we have enabled entrepreneurs to better focus on growing our economy and serving our communities. We are working together with businesses to continuously improve the website so that Ontario businesses can focus on what matters, and that is starting, running and growing their operations, creating well-paying jobs and spurring our communities forward to success.

Our vision is to provide a best-in-class online experience. This is for businesses and for entrepreneurs. This is the goal rather than what we have had in the past: fragmented experiences that businesses cannot cope with and should not have to cope with. Businesses should be able to easily navigate multiple websites across ministries. While this is a work in progress, we are continuously taking important steps to make it a reality.

The At Your Service Act, 2022, set the stage to provide businesses with realistic public-facing service standards for various approvals, permits and licences, with services added on a regular basis. It confirms once again that this government is constantly focused on business growth in Ontario. Business growth in Ontario and the conditions that create it are what lead to more jobs, better-paying jobs, prosperity for all and revenue to fund core public services such as health care, education and social services and the ability to make investments in the future to build Ontario.

That is why the Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery is proposing a regulation under the At Your Service Act, 2022, to require ministries to develop service standards for permits and licence services delivered to businesses and to report on those standards publicly, thus improving transparency and accountability.

Having a clear understanding of the length of time it takes to obtain permits and licences would help Ontario businesses understand how long they can expect to wait for a decision about a permit or licence they need to get to work and to plan accordingly. This government is committed to reducing administrative burdens for those seeking permits, for those seeking licences and for any information that is sought with respect to any other type of government approval. This government seeks to improve the overall user experience so, again, businesses are able to get down to work, to be successful and to make plans accordingly in a rapid fashion.

Updating service standards for permits and licences would help businesses plan and be more efficient so that they can spend more time on their priorities and spend less time navigating through red tape. Fundamentally, then, business initiatives should never be hampered by government backlog or government uncertainty.

Speaker, Ontario is open for business under this government. We need to support and ease burdens that stifle those building Ontario’s future. For far too long, ambitious projects have been stalled by delay after delay while entrepreneurs attempt to secure permits with little to no clarity on timelines. This is unacceptable. There must be transparency and clear public communications regarding service standards for permits and licences delivered to businesses. Accountability built on clear outcome-based performance measures is essential to the government playing its role to foster competitiveness and growth throughout Ontario.

As part of this single-window approach, we are also working on our evolving permit tracker which will allow businesses to track the status of their applications, starting with select high-volume services for the Ministry of Transportation. Those permits are related to highway corridor management permitting, including sign, entrance, encroachment and building and land use permits that are required on Ontario highways across the province. We will provide easy-to-use information online about the status of permits, applications and filings.

Speaker, this government has listened to the feedback that Ontario businesses have provided, and we are providing tools and transparency so that businesses understand how long they can expect to wait for a decision about a permit or a licence that is needed. The setting of business standards, together with the permit tracker, are crucial steps in our ongoing efforts to establish a one-window-for-business approach. That one-window-for-business approach must be the way forward to working with government in order to reduce administrative burdens and end uncertainty and unnecessary delays. This is the way forward to achieving our priorities for the future and to empower digital government through best practices.

We will continue to work tirelessly to provide an integrated digital experience that will make it easier for businesses to access the information and the services they need to get up and running, create new jobs, grow their businesses and grow the economy as a whole, while supporting essential government services with the revenue that all of that generates. That’s what we mean when we say that a Progressive Conservative government, led by this Premier, creates the conditions for success all around, both in the private and the public sector.

And I would like to highlight another way this government, under the leadership of the Premier, is improving services with standardized and streamlining processes: modernizing the administration of transfer payments to improve service delivery. The Transfer Payment Ontario system, or TPON, is the single digital enterprise-wide platform for administering transfer payments by the Ontario public service. Payment systems currently used run across 26 ministries, and these administer annual program funding of over $12 billion.

This helps to ensure a common approach to transfer payment programming, and it simplifies program administration by streamlining access to funding and by reducing the administrative burden for recipients. The Transfer Payment Ontario system eliminates duplication and eliminates unnecessary reporting requirements for transfer payment recipients, but it also improves user experience and makes it easier for people and organizations to interact with government.

Now, another change regarding streamlining our government’s cash flow is our proposal for a regulation that would allow us to accept modern forms of payment from debtors who may owe money to the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund, MVACF. My colleagues may know that the MVACF is the payer of last resort in the context of uninsured motorist claims in the province of Ontario. If one is involved in a car accident where no private automobile insurance is available to respond to the claim, that person may be eligible for compensation from MVACF, or the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund. When MVACF pays a claim on behalf of an uninsured driver or vehicle owner, the fund obtains a judgment against that uninsured party.

After all, under the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act, it is required by law to have insurance; all motorists must do so. Of course, it’s an offence when there is no insurance in place. But the reality is, those who are injured by or harmed by such a motorist—uninsured and in breach of the law—their remedy would not be available, in terms of compensation, if there was no other backup funding; hence the payer of last resort, MVACF. So the party against whom a judgment has been obtained, because that party is uninsured, becomes a judgment debtor to the province. The judgment debtor is then required to pay MVACF back for the value of the judgment, which, at a maximum, could be as much as $200,000 plus legal costs. The current regulation requires that the payment can only be made by cash, bank drafts or money orders. We are proposing, by a proposed regulation, to expand this to include digital forms of payment. This is the sort of common-sense modernization effort that my ministry continues to move across the finish line.

I would like to take a moment to speak about an announcement in January of this year that relates to our mission of finding ways to make processes much easier for all Ontarians.

The tragic legacy of Indian residential schools continues to be a tremendous source of pain and suffering within Indigenous communities. We can never forget that more than 150,000 Indigenous children were removed from their families and their communities and sent to Indian residential schools between 1870 and 1996.

This government has been working tirelessly with Indigenous partners to support meaningful reconciliation and a broader understanding of the legacy of residential schools. To date, our government has committed millions to support the identification, investigation, protection, and commemoration of burials at former residential schools across our province. This commitment was taken even further with an additional $25-million allocation announced in the 2023 budget. The funding will provide resources for community coordinators, researchers and technical experts to engage with survivors, mental health supports, archival analysis, and deployment of ground-scanning technologies.

As we continue to advance meaningful reconciliation, the province is also making it easier and more affordable for Indigenous community members to access both services and records. We now have a streamlined process that eliminates the need to request death searches from two offices—that’s the Archives of Ontario and ServiceOntario’s Office of the Registrar General. As part of this process, it is this government that is providing financial relief for impacted Indigenous communities; that is, fees are being permanently waived for death registration searches, death certificates, and certified copies of death registrations. Fees are also being waived for a delayed registration of death for children who attended Indian residential schools.

We are also removing fees to support residential school survivors and their families who are seeking to reclaim traditional names that were changed by this archaic system. This initiative was one of the 94 calls to action put forward by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, and it is fully supported by this government and, indeed, I believe, by every member of this House.

We are also making it easier for Indigenous persons changing their name to a single name to reflect their traditional culture, including on birth and marriage certificates, at no cost.

Ontario was the first jurisdiction in Canada to explicitly allow for a birth to be registered with a single name or for a person to change their name to a single name.

This is our commitment—just one of many demonstrable commitments to meaningful reconciliation.

The Archives of Ontario is the primary source of information about the history of our province, and I’m also proud to say that it is the largest one of its kind in Canada, and I’m proud that York University is building and has built and maintained a pristine facility that plays host to all of those important documents that pertain to the history of our province.

Since 1903, the archives has collected, preserved and made available documents that are available and essential for educational purposes and historic purposes. The staff are second to none in ensuring that records that date back to the 16th century, and that include handwritten letters, books, maps, architectural drawings, photographs, artwork, films and sound recordings, electronic documents and more—this leadership in record-keeping, access and privacy to the public service, provincial agencies and the broader public sector is essential.

There has been a fee for the archive facilities of $6,300 for third-party vendors to film. This inhibited filmmakers. We propose to abolish it, and that is because these organizations may not have the financial means to cover such a substantial fee. We’re eliminating that fee—or we propose to do so. We want encourage filmmakers and organizations who wish to develop content inside of the Archives of Ontario to do so.

These are practical measures that reduce burden, that reduce cost, that reduce red tape and regulation, and this is one of a series of bills that this government has introduced to this House. We encourage all members listening and those who will vote on this at some stage in the near future to support this bill for its practical effect, for its widespread effect and for the fact that it helps to create a better province for all.

Thank you to the member for Kitchener–Conestoga. I’m pleased that I can clarify remarks.

We are calling for the reinstatement of developer fees for affordable housing and shelters. When it came to Bill 23, we voted to remove developer fees that non-profits pay. So, they’re two different things. They’re two different things. We want developer fees to go towards affordable housing.

Quick response.

It’s always a pleasure to hear the member from University–Rosedale get up and speak. She’s always very passionate about her community and I always enjoy the Australian accent.

But on a little bit more of a serious note, with Bill 185, we’ve had a lot of debate here today, and one of the things that I’ve heard from the member is that it seems like—and I’m going to give her an opportunity to clarify—that she’s in favour, Madam Speaker, of development charges being levied against not-for-profit and shelter housing.

I just would like to give her an opportunity to clarify that because I know that the organizations that I’ve spoken with, including ShelterCare and House of Friendship in Waterloo region, are very excited to see that they’re going to be able to build and make sure that people have shelter without having that added expense.

Schedule 7, of course, is the repeal of the Hazel McCallion Act (Peel Dissolution). Now, it’s going to be referred to as “restructuring.” An interesting part that the member did not address is that this schedule 7 broadens the act’s existing immunity provisions to block lawsuits related to any amendment or repeal of the act. Some of these acts include misfeasance, bad faith, breach of trust, or breach of fiduciary obligations. These new provisions apply retroactively.

What we heard from Peel was the complete disaster and chaos that this government imposed on that region at great cost. They lost 500 staff members because people didn’t know if they would have jobs. They didn’t know where the future of Peel would be happening. There was a lot of pomp and pageantry around the Hazel McCallion Act, but at the end of the day, the government had to withdraw. But you’ve still put these provisions in to protect yourselves.

Even when the Liberals tried this, when you were the official opposition, you acknowledged that your actions have consequences.

Why have you walked back your obligation and your responsibility, as a government, to Peel?

Thank you to the member from Durham and the wonderful Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery for that presentation. We know that regulatory burden is a key deterrent to business investment and economic growth. We also know the members opposite don’t, because, in 2018, when our government was first elected, Ontario had the highest regulatory costs in the nation. Businesses were spending $33,000 annually on red tape alone.

Can the minister please outline the government’s efforts to reduce red tape to help create a more competitive business environment in Ontario?

I’m glad to be able to ask a question of my colleague from Durham. He and I have the privilege of sharing Oshawa—his part and my part.

I have been meeting with stakeholders from the energy and automotive industry, the business community, about a specific building code change. So, here is—we’re debating this and talking about opening the building code to update it.

I would have to ask the member about the government’s stated position on the inclusion of roughed-in wiring for electric-vehicle charging stations in new homes. It had made it into the building code. This government right away ripped it out, and now they’re doubling down and saying that’s not a good idea. And yet, that’s what I’m hearing from community and business partners—that the want is there on behalf of people in the community. So, how does this member feel about saving Ontarians money?

Of course I have great confidence in our community builders, the home builders who build the homes for the families and the individuals and the seniors—not one size fits all. But to the member’s point, our plan in this proposed bill is to reduce the cost of development so that higher costs are not passed on to consumers, and also to reduce delay. We can reduce delay by up to 18 months just by eliminating the Planning Act third-party appeals.

What happens, to the member’s point, unfortunately, is that the third-party leverage associated with these appeals can make demands for modest but unnecessary changes, such as reduced height, footprint and setbacks, in exchange for not filing an appeal. We happen to believe that that kind of blackmail, so to speak, that procedural bureaucracy associated with the appeal process, is unnecessary. Some 67,000 housing units were tied up with that. We want to eliminate that.

It is about getting out of the way. When this government was first formed in the 42nd Parliament in 2018, there were so many obstacles in the way of growth and prosperity.

Again, as we’ve said many times in this House on behalf of this government, it’s not that this government creates jobs, it’s not that this government manages things directly, but it creates the conditions for prosperity. It creates the conditions for job creation and well-paying jobs.

So what we’ve done is, over the past several years, with a series of red tape reduction bills, including this proposal now—but even without this proposal—we have reduced the burden of red tape and saved Ontario businesses and the broader public sector over $958 million in gross annualized compliance costs. This creates the conditions for success and prosperity and for building the Ontario of tomorrow.

But to this specific question about the building code, the 2024 edition: The proposed next edition of Ontario’s building code would become 12% more harmonized with the national construction code. Our government harmonizing the building code will help build more homes by helping to standardize supply chains across the country, especially for modular home building. The new building code will reduce red tape by over 1,730 provisions; that’s good news for the future and for building Ontario.

Speaker, the way it is done is, first of all, by listening—by listening to the people who sent us here; by listening to all the people and especially the small business owners. What they’ve told us time and again is that government is large enough and there are many unintended consequences of big government. That is this reality of red tape, regulation, high fees.

And so, a previous PC government had a red tape commission. We’ve taken the next step: A full ministry is devoted to red tape and regulation reduction. That is a track record of our government in this 43rd Parliament. This is one of a series of red tape reduction and regulation reduction initiatives—it’s one in a series.

The conversations began in 2018. They continued through the last Parliament. They’re continuing in this Parliament. We’re going to keep going with these conversations and get it right and create the conditions for success and for growth.

Our government has taken over 500 actions to save people, businesses, not-for-profit organizations, municipalities, universities and colleges, school boards and hospitals time and money.

If passed, this bill will build on the actions Ontario has taken to cut red tape, to date saving people and businesses over 1.5 million hours and $1.2 billion every year. These are remarkable achievements. Can the member explain the process by which the government is able to achieve these results?

Questions?