Good morning. Let us pray.

Prayers.

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 15, 2024, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

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

It really is my pleasure to rise today to speak in strong support of our proposed Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024.

Small businesses are the lifeblood of Ontario’s economy. From family-run shops on main streets across the province to dynamic start-ups pioneering new technologies and business models, our small companies represent the very spirit of entrepreneurship that drives economic growth and job creation.

Ontario is home to almost 500,000 small businesses, accounting for over 97% of all businesses in this province. They employ well over two million hard-working people and contribute billions annually to our economic output. When small businesses succeed, our communities and our province succeeds. That is why with the Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024, that is before us today, our government is taking direct aim at the bureaucratic barriers, regulatory burdens and institutional inertia that too often holddxw small businesses back from reaching their full potential.

I want to be clear: This proposed legislation is not just about building more homes, although that is certainly our key priority. It’s about dismantling the regulatory obstacles that make it harder for small businesses across multiple sectors to compete, to innovate, to grow and create opportunities for workers.

Small residential construction companies, skilled trades contractors, and local builders and renovators will be some of the biggest beneficiaries of the measures in this act to streamline approvals and cut through the bureaucratic red tape that has constrained housing development for far too long.

Think about it: How many electricians, plumbers, drywallers, framers, roofers and other skilled tradespeople have been forced to turn down work or delay projects because of the painfully slow pace of approvals for new home construction? By removing these impediments and getting more housing projects unblocked, we’re creating more opportunities for these small businesses to thrive. The same dynamic holds true for the manufacturers of basic building components and materials like windows, doors, cabinets, roof trusses and prefab components. When residential construction has been artificially suppressed, it limits demand for their offerings and makes it harder for them to invest, grow and hire more workers.

With this legislation, we are supporting innovative construction technologies and new business models that have been stifled by inflexibility, regulations and approval processes designed for a different era. Factory-built modular housing is a prime example. By enabling standardized designs and embracing modern methods like mass-timber construction, we can clear the way for small modular manufacturers to scale up production.

For small developers, builders and contractors focused on affordable housing, laneway homes, basement apartments and other forms of missing-middle housing, this act removes the unnecessary burden of minimum parking requirements that have made too many smart-density projects financially unfeasible. No longer will they face exorbitant costs just to provide parking spots that go unused in areas well served by transit. This small change brings even more customers to small businesses in these areas.

This legislation will also create new opportunities for small landlords and property managers by streamlining approvals for student housing projects near universities and colleges. With more affordable housing options clustered around campuses, a prime market opens up for small businesses in this space.

And let’s not forget the countless small retailers, restaurants, trades and professional service firms that have struggled to attract and retain talent because their employees can’t find reasonable, affordable places to live within a decent commuting radius.

A lack of housing supply isn’t just a social issue; it undermines businesses of all sizes in their ability to compete for workers. From residential construction and manufacturing to property management and local services, this act directly tackles the bureaucratic challenges that have constrained growth and opportunity in these sectors dominated by small business owners.

It goes further, because small businesses across Ontario have been loud and clear in their opposition to excessive red tape, duplicative regulations, unexpected fees and endless approval delays that make it harder for them to invest, grow and create jobs. We’ve heard from them. And we’re acting with this legislation.

We are eliminating nuisance fees that serve to only nickel and dime small entrepreneurs, like the ridiculous $6,300 daily fee for filming at the provincial Archives of Ontario. That’s the kind of arbitrary charge that makes it harder for new artists, filmmakers and creative professionals to chase their dreams and start small businesses.

We’re introducing service standards that will finally force the bureaucracy to be transparent about the timeliness of approving permits and licences that businesses so desperately need. No longer will small companies be left in limbo, waiting indefinitely for the government to get around to green-lighting their ability to get on with their business.

As a former small business owner myself, I know first-hand that regulatory predictability matters.

We’re cutting the red tape around relocating utilities and other infrastructure to get municipal construction projects under way faster, because every delay puts more financial strain on small contractors who have already priced their work.

We’re modernizing the approvals regime to provide more flexibility and options to innovative small businesses working in Ontario’s producer-responsibility recycling system.

Smart regulation works with businesses, not against them.

Perhaps most significantly, this legislation takes steps to provide municipalities with more tools to compete for major investment projects by offering incentives. Just think about the transformative impacts a single game-changing investment can have for small and rural municipalities—thousands of new construction jobs created to build a new facility in the short term; hundreds or even thousands more permanent roles once it’s operational, from skilled trades to management to support services; and a full ecosystem of small, local suppliers, companies and entrepreneurial spinoffs able to form around that investment over time.

That’s the power of making smart legislative changes to attract major capital and investment to Ontario. And with the right tools in this legislation, cities across our province can roll out the red carpet and hit prime job-creating investments out of the park, creating a ripple effect of opportunities for small businesses.

This is more than just economic growth. Small businesses are always going to be nimbler and more innovative. They embrace new technologies and business models at a blistering pace and drive our innovative economy. It’s something I’ve witnessed first-hand when talking to entrepreneurs right across this province at our universities and our regional innovation centres. They lead the cutting edge of economic development.

Excessive red tape prevents Ontario from unleashing the full creative potential for our entrepreneurs and change-makers pushing into new frontiers. The Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act helps unshackle that ingenuity, because we can’t afford to be complacent. We live in a world where the only constant is accelerating change, disruption and creative destruction of old systems by upstart innovators.

Ontario needs to be fertile ground where innovative ideas take root and where people feel empowered to take risks and challenge the status quo. By cutting unnecessary regulations, this legislation represents a down payment on the entrepreneurial environment we need to cultivate. It signals Ontario’s openness to working with, not against, the ambition and vision of small businesses charting new paths.

So while the housing provisions are crucial in their own right, this act has far broader implications for the competitiveness of our small business sector as job creators, as community builders and as the spark of Ontario’s economic dynamism. We need to nurture that culture because it is the foundation that grows small businesses into the next multinational giants.

Ontario has all the ingredients for a booming entrepreneurial ecosystem: a diverse, well-educated population; world-class universities and colleges; access to capital; and a proud history of innovation. But we can only maintain that ecosystem if we as a government continue our mission of breaking down the regulatory barriers that make it harder for entrepreneurs and small business owners to expend their ambition, creativity and effort on actually growing their operations instead of dealing with bureaucratic hurdles.

This proposed legislation provides one more crucial ingredient: a welcoming regulatory environment that is open for business. The Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024, accelerates that vital work. It recognizes that small businesses are not a cost to be managed but an asset to be unleashed as drivers of broadly shared prosperity for workers and families in every community across Ontario.

I’m thankful that our government, Minister Calandra and Premier Ford have continued leading the charge to untangle the mess of regulations that have been holding back opportunities in Ontario. But it’s not just about cutting red tape.

We’re dramatically reducing the cost of operating a business in Ontario through over $3.7 billion in relief measures to help companies and small businesses withstand economic pressures.

The Ontario Made Manufacturing Investment Tax Credit lowers costs for local makers investing in their operations.

Temporary gas and fuel tax cuts provide relief at the pumps.

WSIB premium rate reductions slash payroll expenses.

We’ve raised the employer health tax exemption to $1 million, delivering a massive tax cut for our job creators.

Business education tax rates have also been lowered to save employers $450 million annually across our province.

And we’ve enhanced small business competitiveness by reducing the corporate tax rate to 3.2% while broadening access to this lower rate.

This multi-pronged approach is how our government continues to reshape Ontario as a competitive, business-friendly jurisdiction driving growth and prosperity. This is in stark contrast to the outdated, bureaucratic processes and burdens that accumulated over decades of poor policies that prioritized bureaucracy over private sector success, spearheaded by the Ontario Liberals and championed by the NDP.

As I begin to wrap up, I just want to share something that I’ve been working on alongside with many of our colleagues. For the past months, I’ve had the pleasure of interviewing many of my caucus colleagues on their past roles as entrepreneurs and small business owners. One recurring theme they shared is the dedication that’s needed to keep going even when the going to gets tough; to take the setbacks in stride and keep moving forward. That conviction has been at the heart of our work as a government to cut back the layers of unnecessary red tape choking off opportunity across the province.

Let me tell you, Speaker, we’re making meaningful strides, earning recognition like the strong A grade Ontario received in the Canadian Federation of Independent Business’ 2024 red tape report card, and an 8.7 out of 10 score that ranks us as a national leader in smart, effective regulation. That is really something that we should all be proud of as a government.

Having said that, there’s more to do to unleash Ontario’s full potential. That’s why the new Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024, features major reforms to speed up approvals, streamline processes and reduce burdens for our hard-working small businesses.

For residential builders and skilled trades, this legislation will be a game-changer. It mandates firm timelines for municipalities to provide clear, transparent approval decisions on construction projects. No more endless limbo, waiting months or years with no answers from city planners.

It will also harmonize the dizzying patchwork of rules, interpretations and document requirements that vary wildly between municipalities. Now, consistent provincial standards will finally bring uniformity and certainty to the approvals processes. This streamlining extends to smaller residential renovations as well. By clearly defining the scope of projects excluded from needing permits, homeowners and contractors can tackle more minor upgrades without needless paperwork and bureaucracy.

For innovative companies pioneering new technology, products or services, this legislation cuts the arduous approval runaround. We will use a sensible approach that nurtures entrepreneurship, instead of drowning innovation with process.

And for all businesses, there are long-overdue reforms to rein in outrageous fees and charges that nickel and dime at every turn.

We’ve heard the frustrations loud and clear. From restaurants dealing with conflicting health and safety rules, manufacturers struggling with repairs and maintenance approvals, and professional service providers drowning in duplicative licensing processes across different municipalities, this legislation is a direct response to that feedback, overhauling outdated policies and systems to finally make government a streamlined process working for the people instead of obstructing their success and their prosperity.

For these reasons, I encourage all members of this House to support this legislation as part of our tireless efforts to make Ontario the best place possible to start and grow a business.

As I travel this province, as we’re performing and having these great round tables, speaking with small businesses, speaking with unions and speaking with different industry leaders—it’s an opportunity for all members of this House to have a say on how our government can make timelines and processes easier so that they can do what they do best: selling their products, their services to their customers, and continuing to attract more business investment here in Ontario.

Thank you to everyone in the House for giving me this time today.

It is now time for questions.

Thank you for your presentation.

I have a question that has come in from staff at the city of Peel and the city of Toronto. They’re very worried about the COHB payments that go out to people who live in private market housing who get a rent top-up so that they can afford the rent. It’s a very effective way to keep low-income and moderate-income people housed. They’re worried that the spat between Minister Calandra and Minister Fraser, and the refusal of this government to make a deal with the federal government to ensure money flows from the federal government, will put all these families at risk.

Can you tell us if municipalities are going to get their COHB funding when it expires in May?

I do want to thank the member opposite for the question. It’s a good question.

In my previous role as the Associate Minister of Housing and when we worked with many municipalities throughout AMO, the COHB funding was very, very important—even through to the Homelessness Prevention Program, which we actually provided an additional $202 million to, to help support municipalities through their service managers and service providers, to work with those people who needed that top-up. We made that funding very flexible so it allowed them to support more people to get into housing. There was a massive gap. There was a gap between shelter, transitional, supportive housing for individuals, housing for families. It’s an area where we need to do more work.

This bill actually has streamlined the processes, and we’ve worked with providers to get more rental housing built so there’s more supply. When there’s more supply, there’s more affordable housing for everyone.

We heard loud and clear from his chamber and chambers right across this province, BIAs, boards of trade on how we as a government have made it much more easy for them to do business, but they’re also telling us about the challenges that they’ve faced in the past. They’ve come to us, through these red tape reduction packages, to let us know how difficult it has been for them to really just do what they need to do best: streamlining licensing and permits, maybe making singular dates for those renewals of those licences and holding on the fees. Every year, the fees were going up exponentially.

This government has made permits and licence fees stagnant instead of increasing them. That has helped businesses.

And let’s just face it: Every single person in this province, most businesses also, single sole proprietors, may own their vehicle. We have now cut having to renew the licence plate sticker. That $120 a year for each individual across this province has made a massive impact, and that’s something that our government is very proud of.

When it first came to my attention about two and a half weeks ago, I came back, I immediately spoke to—I had a few of the individual family members reach out to our office, who we immediately got back to and started up casework, because we need their permission to talk on their behalf, and you know that; I also spoke to Chartwell and heard from both sides what was happening.

Chartwell has sold that building. It blindsided all of us. Nobody wants to see anybody evicted, let alone our seniors. I heard from them that they’ve sold the building to another company, and they’ve issued notices for the seniors to move. They’re assisting with these seniors. I just spoke to them again yesterday.

I actually met with seniors on Friday, with some of the families, and so we had a conversation. I’ve got all the details that they’ve received.

I’ve got the details from Chartwell—

I’d like to talk a little bit about the record of the previous Liberal government, the biggest bloated bureaucracy we’ve ever seen. They would use their unemployment numbers by increasing their bureaucracy as opposed to helping businesses come to Ontario. They drove away over 300,000 jobs from Ontario. This government—Premier Ford and all of us collectively here—worked and took massive steps to encourage investment. We reduced red tape through a number of packages to help bring that investment. And it’s working—more than 700,000 people wake up to a job today than they did when they left in 2018. That is something that our government is extremely proud of.

Yes, when I visited her riding a couple of years ago and met with that company, it was actually very heartwarming to see their creativity. This was something they built from scratch—such beautiful Ontario-made products, something that we should encourage more of across this province.

And to really welcome, congratulate and support the success of our small businesses is critical to a government—to create that environment, to help them not just start a business but to grow. I think that’s where we see one of the areas where our government—where we can create that environment to help more businesses grow.

Through this package, by eliminating processes, by making fees more affordable, by making sure that everybody has the ability to say, “I want to grow. How do I do that?”—having their backs to do that is so critical and something, again, that our government is very proud of.

Thank you for the question.

There are things in this bill that I think are useful. There is some elimination of red tape. There are also some extremely difficult problems that have been left behind and a loophole that has also been introduced through the provincial policy statement that’s very worrying.

We have actually seen some rolling back of some bad legislation that the government forced through with great fanfare a year ago: Bill 23. At that time, AMO was not provided an opportunity to present to the Legislature’s standing committee on heritage and culture during the review of Bill 23. It was pretty shocking that AMO was not allowed to speak to a bill, and they were very, very concerned. Their submission outlined key areas of concern and recommended that a number of provisions should be removed, including those that shifted the costs of growth to property taxpayers, those that undermined good planning practices and community livability, and those that increased risks to human and environmental health. We haven’t seen any improvements to looking after human and environmental health, but we are seeing some of these issues addressed, and we see that the money is coming back—development money is coming back to municipalities. So that’s very good thing. It’s a rollback of a bill that was passed with tremendous enthusiasm and fanfare. Fortunately, that has been basically rolled back.

What’s also interesting to me is that municipalities are now being consulted in terms of having fourplexes by right, so instead of bringing in fourplexes by right, we’re leaving it up to municipalities. That’s respectful of the municipalities. It’s just interesting how there can be such a flip-flop between all these arguments about how irresponsible municipalities are and they spend too much money—I believe it was the Premier who expounded tremendously on municipalities not being trustworthy with money. But today, we like municipalities, and that’s probably appropriate.

Backtracking on the dissolution of Peel—that’s interesting, too, since we spent a lot of time on that.

There are some good things. Making changes to the building code to allow 18-storey mass timber buildings—I’m very supportive of this development. Developers no longer required to build parking in developments near transit—we’re good with that; a use-it-or-lose-it law that gives municipalities more power to motivate a developer to build a development one they’ve been given the approvals, and so on. Providing standardized, pre-approved home designs—this could be very helpful, and we like the proposal because it will help Ontario build more homes more quickly.

But this is the part that’s very, very worrying: the provincial policy statement. This wipes out settlement area boundaries and municipal comprehensive review processes so new development on nearby farmland can be approved at any time. Let’s be clear about that. We’re talking about easy approvals for expanding onto farmland that needs to be preserved as farmland to produce food. Developers can appeal any municipal refusal to the lands tribunal to amend a municipal boundary and approval—

It’s great to be debating this legislation here this morning.

Recently, it has come to light that there are some 48 members of the Premier’s office on the sunshine list, and his gravy train is getting bigger and bigger and bigger as every year goes by.

I’m wondering if the minister can explain to the House how many Ontarians who are not on the Premier’s gravy train sunshine list, making over $100,000 a year, which is more than the average family in Ontario—how many Ontarians who aren’t on the Premier’s gravy train will actually be able to afford to buy a home as a result of this legislation?

I want to thank the minister. She travels across Ontario to hear first-hand what businesses are hearing.

I had the honour of hosting her in my community to meet with a lot of small business owners, and one of the great business owners that she came to visit was Great Bear Products. They were a small, mighty team, family-operated. They have a daughter who is a proud graduate of Georgian College—go, Grizzlies. And they’re expanding. The reason they could expand is thanks to burden reduction and this government that believes in working with business, not against business.

I’m going to ask the minister: What else is she hearing across the province on how we are alleviating these small businesses that are still on the brink of recovery, to really help them expand and really break down those walls and break down those barriers so they can grow their business?

I recognize the member for Whitby.

I recently spoke to 200 seniors who are being evicted from Chartwell Heritage Glen. This retirement home is in your riding. I’m very concerned that these seniors are being renovicted.

Two days ago, we spoke to them, and they said that the member opposite has not met with them yet—two days ago.

So these are my two questions: Have you met with them and can you meet with them? And what is your plan to ensure that they are not renovicted?

I want to thank my colleague for her presentation.

Periodically, I meet with my Whitby Chamber of Commerce, and when I do, they point out that there’s a continuing need to eliminate red tape on the close to 1,000 businesses in Whitby. They want to do that because they want to continue to grow and provide jobs in our local economy in Whitby.

I’d like the minister to take a few moments to talk about how our actions that we’ve taken thus far and this legislation will help us to continue to deliver results for hard-working local businesses.

Thank you, Speaker. Please resume debate.

Thank you very much, Speaker.

Just to recap, the rules work like this: If a municipality allows sprawl, people cannot appeal; if a municipality denies sprawl, a developer can appeal. So who are the rules set up for? They’re set up for the developers. Sprawl means fewer homes being built. There’s no minimum at all built into the policy statement.

Previously, if you were destroying farmland to create housing, you needed to build 80 homes per hectare; then, that 80 was reduced to 50; and under the new plan, there’s no requirement whatsoever. So you can have a home per hectare of land, and nothing anybody says within the municipality can stop it from happening. That is appalling. This is like the greenbelt all over again; not just greenbelt 2.0, which the member from Waterloo has been telling us about, where farmers—I think it’s 650 acres, hectares, of farmland. A lot of farmland is now going up for development. So she has been raising the alarm about that. I think of this as the greenbelt to the power of N—“N” as in “no limits.” If a developer wants to build on farmland, they get to do whatever they want, with no restrictions and no ability for anyone to stop them. What is this? This is a shocking loophole. No, I’m not going to call it a loophole; it’s planned.

Then we have issues with rent control. The rent control system, over the last decade, has helped landlords hike average rent by three times the amount allowed in the guideline. Rents are going up. According to Ricardo Tranjan from the CCPA, you could drive a very large truck through the loopholes in our rent control system. I imagine a large Hummer blasting its way through rent controls.

Rent control guidelines do not apply to units added to the market since 2018. That’s something the Conservatives brought in. Vacant units are exempt from guidelines, so that when tenants move out, landlords can charge new tenants whatever they want.

Above-guideline increases, an application process through which rents can be raised dramatically for renovations, allow landlords to recover more than they spend. We’ve seen very large corporations that are publicly traded—we know their financial state—and they apply for above-guideline increases consistently.

Consumers are being exploited, taken advantage of. The market isn’t functioning properly, because landlords are taking advantage of a scarce resource: rental units. The state has to step in and do something.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is claiming that they’ve undertaken historic measures to support tenants, but we’re actually not seeing that happening. We’re seeing renoviction after renoviction after renoviction. The fines are minimal to landlords. And, frankly, it’s a war zone out there in terms of getting housing.

What we’re actually seeing is that tenants are organizing rent strikes, and that’s a pretty dramatic development. It’s not like people don’t have very busy lives and things to do, but they’re organizing rent strikes because of the abuses of landlords and the fact that if they lose the place where they’re living, they’re not going to get into a place that’s more affordable; it will be less affordable.

We’re also seeing this, of course, with seniors. We talked about this a little bit already this morning. That Chartwell home that has been sold out from under 200 seniors—what we’re dealing with is real estate corporations that exist to make money. It’s not about housing. It’s not about looking after people’s needs. It’s about making a lot of money.

This is where the NDP is different, because we think of housing as something that people need. It needs to be affordable. It needs to be built in a responsible way, looking after people’s needs, not generating profits.

We know also that the people in Mississauga who are losing their homes are seniors. They’re 90 years old. They’ve been there for 25 years—paying $1,600 a month in rent right now. There’s absolutely no way they are going to find equivalent housing anywhere at that rate. And while the corporation is saying, “We’re going to help house you,” and so on, where are they going to house them? In another Chartwell, at $5,000 or $6,000 a month? There’s nothing there to support these people, as much as the corporation wants to say that. Chartwell certainly does not have a reputation as being there for people. The rules were changed. In this case, it’s an apartment complex. In the other cases, they have owned long-term care and it has been enormously profitable. We know that the Premier at the time, Mike Harris—whatever happened legislatively, it became possible to buy up all kinds of long-term-care homes and make them for-profit.

We see the consequences of this. It’s incredibly expensive to live anywhere in a retirement home, and seniors don’t have affordable places to go. The profits keep going up, so somebody is happy; just not people who need to find a space to live.

Now I want to talk a little bit about short-term rentals and what that’s doing to affordable housing.

In Thunder Bay, right now, there are about 221 full-home units available on Airbnb, with about 154 of them being in the cores, where housing is most affordable. So what’s happening is that—we’ve got blocks of apartments where people have been living for many years, and it’s affordable housing. What’s happening is that those owners are gradually kicking everybody out, often without notice. We know that because they come to our office, and then we say, “Actually, it’s not legal to kick them out without notice.” But people don’t always know that. As soon as they can get the tenants out, they’re converting them into Airbnbs or Vrbos—I’ll just call them short-term rentals to be clear. Again, it’s a money-making operation, and with tourism and so on they’re able to make quite a lot of money on these. But now there’s no housing for people, and people are winding up homeless or couch-surfing or whatever it is they have to do to keep a roof over their head.

I’m going to quote the city of Thunder Bay. I’d like to acknowledge Shelby Ch’ng, a member of city council. She has been working with council to create a motion, and that motion will say things such as:

“Short-term rentals reduce the supply of available long-term housing options, as property owners may choose to rent units to tourists instead of local residents....

“Local residents are priced out of their neighbourhoods, as property values and rents increase due to the demand from tourists....

“Short-term renters may not have the same investment in the community as long-term residents, leading to issues such as noise, partying, and other disruptive behaviour, which negatively impacts the quality of life for local residents.”

Talking about this is important, because certain municipalities have created rules to try to address the situation with short-term rentals. Right now, as it stands, short-term rentals do not pay commercial levels of tax; they’re just paying residential tax. That’s basically wrong, and it’s depriving those municipalities of revenues that they should have. They also don’t pay the MAT, which is, when you’re a guest in the city, when you stay at a hotel—that tax also goes to the city. Some municipalities have dealt with this, but what we really need is the province to take a position and lay down those rules so that it’s not so easy for these short-term rentals to boot people out, not pay their share of taxes and basically use up—take away—affordable housing in hundreds of units, leaving people with nowhere to go. We can do that at the provincial level, and I think it’s very important that the government take this on.

We’ve also seen, in Thunder Bay, the direct consequences of the battle between the province and the federal government over funding. On this side of the House, we have been issuing warnings for quite a while that the province was going to lose out on federal funding, and that has happened. The Thunder Bay district social services board looks after all subsidized housing, rent-geared-to-income housing in the city. They are now short $4.2 million. This means that they are not able to do maintenance—there’s all kinds of things. They were supposed to be building new units; they’re not going to be able to do that. I hope this is not the end of that story. I hope very much that there’s going to be a negotiation and people will get the money that they were expecting. It’s also last minute, so the DSSAB has had no way to prepare for this—again, it’s going to be the people with the least ability to find other places to live. We actually know that a lot of the places have been—I don’t want to call it “neglected”; it is neglect, but the money hasn’t been there to do the repairs. The maintenance has not been done for a long time, and a lot of the places are really not great to live in at all at this point. I know that the DSSAB was very focused on making those improvements. I actually know that the province did provide money to improve things at the DSSAB, but now we’ve got another problem and they’re missing an enormous amount of money. It really needs to be addressed.

We had a seniors’ proposal in my riding that I’ve talked about, pretty much since the day I’ve been elected, called Suomi Koti. They have been trying to get funding to build a second residence for seniors. It would house 60 seniors and would open up quite a few houses in our region. It’s all run by volunteers. They’ve raised the money themselves. They own the property; there’s already a building on that property. It has been there for 30 years. I’ve toured the building. It’s in fantastic shape. It has really been a labour of love. Initially, it was designed to house seniors from the Finnish community, but it is open to everyone. It has a wait-list of six years. I think, “Well, six years. Should I put myself on that list?” It’s an affordable, nice place to live. They would like to put a second building up. They haven’t been able to access enough support. The province has provided support for a seniors’ complex in Thunder Bay–Atikokan. I would like to see something happening in Thunder Bay–Superior North. It has now been six years that they’ve been trying to get funding and haven’t been able to push this over the finish line.

I would like to talk about what we would like to see happen. In Thunder Bay, we have two very successful co-op housing projects. They’ve been there for a long time. They have a range of incomes, people living in them—it’s mixed-income. We also have social housing, which really functions, unfortunately, as poverty ghettos. It’s very difficult for people in those situations, especially as things are now, with gangs coming in. We have home invasions happening, we have vulnerable people—actually, I have a niece living in that area—and they’re frightened, often, because of the gang activity and so on. They’re the kinds of places that are under-policed. Many Indigenous people are over-policed when they’re out of that area and on the streets, but they’re under-policed where they actually need support.

I also know that people, when they’ve been able to move out of those social housing areas and into the co-op housing—they still have subsidized rent, but now they’re in a mixed-income neighbourhood and it’s a community, it’s safe, and people feel so much more hopeful about their lives. And they’re not frightened about who is coming into their neighbourhood. At one time, these social housing projects—perhaps they were a model that made sense at that time. They really don’t make sense now. What we need is mixed neighbourhoods.

I would love to see more co-op housing in our city. I’d like to see the NDP’s proposal of a new public agency, Homes Ontario, to actually be there to help support the financing of that kind of housing.

When people say, “Well, where is the money going to come from?”, I ask myself, “Well, where is the money going now?” This government is looking at breaking up the LCBO. That will take $2.5 billion out of the public purse. Why on earth would a government remove $2.5 billion from where it can be used to support housing, affordable housing, to support health care, to support education? It doesn’t make sense.

We are also seeing million of dollars spent on self-serving advertising. When the government was in opposition, the government actually introduced a bill to stop that kind of advertising, but now it’s taking place with this government.

And then we have the issue of health care dollars, where private, for-profit health care agencies are receiving higher rates of pay for the same services, for OHIP services, and the incredible amount of money that is being spent on nursing agencies. That is still an after-effect of Bill 124, which did so much to push senior health care workers out of the profession.

So there is money. Always, when a government has power, there are choices about how money is going to be spent. We think it needs to be spent to support affordable housing, fully public health care, and fully public, well-supported education.

I apologize to the member for Thunder Bay–Superior North, but pursuant to standing order 50(c), I am now required to interrupt the proceedings and announce that there have been six and a half hours of debate on the motion for second reading of this bill. This debate will therefore be deemed adjourned unless the government House leader directs the debate to continue.

I recognize the associate government House leader.

It is now time for questions.

Speaker, the previous Liberal Party leader and current mayor of Vaughan recently admitted that the housing affordability crisis actually started while he was in office, while the provincial Liberals were in power. As a municipal member for the last 22 years, I certainly witnessed all of that kind of challenge, and that the Liberal government, supported by the NDP at the time, took zero action on the housing crisis.

Can the member opposite speak to—if you’re so impassioned about moving forward and addressing the housing crisis, why didn’t you push the previous government to act sooner?

Recently, at the Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy, we heard from numerous local governments’ representatives from across Ontario that a use-it-or-lose-it policy would help build homes in their communities. We had representatives from all parts of Ontario at the standing committee.

Speaker, through you: Does the member opposite agree with these locally elected officials?

Thank you to my friend from Thunder Bay–Superior North for a very good presentation.

Every region of Ontario is very different when it comes to the housing crisis. They have things in common, but certainly Thunder Bay is a unique part of the province.

I’m wondering, in your riding, what could have been in this bill that you would hope might be in a bill in the future, that would most help the residents and homeowners in Thunder Bay?

What are some of the other issues that we’re seeing in Thunder Bay around people not being able to afford their rent due to the skyrocketing costs, and what is the best solution, moving forward, to deal with that?

I recognize the member for Niagara Centre.

It’s time for further debate.

Thank you to the member for the question.

Yes, I do agree. We know that municipalities were asking for this before, and we know that this proposal has also come from this side of the House. Use-it-or-lose-it is absolutely essential.

Again, there are other things that need to be addressed in the bill that aren’t there to support affordable housing.

Rent control is critical, and limitations on selling out people’s apartments and turning them into short-term rentals, and support for seniors’ housing. Access to affordable financing, which is not there, is really needed. This is why the seniors’ complex has not been able to be built. There is no access to affordable financing.

There are many other problems in our region. For example, you can’t build down the road. There are 11 municipalities in my riding, and in many of them. we can’t get housing built, because it’s too expensive to bring in material and bring in the workers. At this point, in Terrace Bay, if you could convince a contractor to come, it would be a $750,000 home, but nobody in Terrace Bay could afford to have a home at that level, so the homes don’t get built. So we have a problem in the region of actually not enough housing to bring in professional workers.

Given my knowledge of what has been happening over the last six years, I would like to see—there are so many things that this government could have done and can still do differently to help people get affordable housing. That’s where I think our energy needs to be.

Yes, I wish that this bill did support, did recognize the need for supportive housing, to adequately fund it, to adequately fund—obviously, this is a housing bill, so it’s not talking about all of those wraparound services, but we have a tremendous need in our city; we have amongst the highest rates of any part of the province, with addictions.

People are working around the clock in their basically very underpaid jobs trying to support people trying to find transitional homes. They really are having an extremely difficult time doing this because the funding is not adequate. It’s critically important.

As I say, all of these things snowball. If the short-term rentals are taking up affordable housing, then that also snowballs and there are no other places for transitional housing because everything has been kind of knocked down along the way.

We know we need rent controls. We know we need affordable housing. We also know that the people on ODSP and on OW don’t have enough money to keep a roof over their heads, and if, God forbid, they live with someone, then their money is going to be clawed back so that they have even less.

We need to be building affordable housing that is not built for profit, not built for the betterment of investors; it’s built for the betterment of our communities so that people have safe, affordable, quality places to live.

We know that there is so much homelessness, particularly in our area—it’s desperate, really. So I need the provincial government to sort out whatever its issue is with the federal government, whatever it is that’s not being provided, so that the federal government sends that money to the province that can then go to the municipality, to the—