Thanks, because I didn’t have the opportunity to raise the use-it-or-lose-it. That was a bill brought forward by an NDP member from Niagara Centre, who knew and had seen and had consulted with municipalities, seeing that developers were not—they were buying up the space, they were talking about the plans, but they weren’t getting the permits and they weren’t moving it forward. What that did was it left empty lands vacant and municipalities not having the ability to push them forward.

So it’s important that this legislation is here. Like I said, there are good things in this legislation. I just think that it is not near enough to fit the need of what our communities, what our municipalities and what the people who we serve are asking for.

But to ensure that is built into the design—it doesn’t have to be prominent. They can build over it, but the beams are there, the strength is there to ensure that accessibility can be managed in a very quick time for all households. So it’s good to see that some of that’s being enabled in this bill.

It’s good to see bills that are brought from the opposition, because they are done with consultation. They aren’t things that we make up. They’re done by talking to our communities and seeing the need of what needs to be there. We’re happy to see it included in the legislation.

Fourplexes are built right inside communities where there’s other housing, where children who go to school together can play together. These are the types of things that our communities want, that our neighbourhoods are desperate for, so that your mom and dad who live here know that their adult children and their grandchildren can live up the street in these great fourplexes that just truly make a difference for our community.

But we do need to ensure that there is some parking, as was mentioned earlier. So many folks have PSWs coming to their house, they have DSWs, or they just have no choice but to have a vehicle. So I think there needs to be a better mix, and I think that this is possibly a solution going forward that doesn’t force those buildings to have as much parking and take up as much space that could instead be utilized for more housing.

I just wanted to rush up before all of my colleagues who were standing up. I wonder if the member would just comment on the use-it-or-lose-it provisions that are in the bill. I suspect that we’re probably going to be on the same page on that, but I wonder if she could comment on the impact that might have on ensuring that—the point of the bill is to ensure that we utilize the resources within the existing urban boundaries to their maximum. I wonder if she might have any comments on that or any suggestions on how we might improve that provision for our municipal partners.

Thank you to the member from Toronto–St. Paul’s for that really important question, because if you look at the bill as it’s written, you would not see people who are underhoused or people who are struggling for that affordability piece or supportive housing. You don’t see them reflected in any of the bills.

What we have seen reflected is developers and builders. We’re now starting to see some municipalities and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario being reflected, but that’s from blowback, not really consultation, right? That’s blowback of, “You did this wrong and you need to change it because it’s hurting municipalities.” It’s raising property taxes in municipalities, and that goes against all of the no tax increases that this government seems to claim.

Thank you to the member for that presentation. The member stressed the importance of consultation, and as we leaf through the legislation, I’m wondering if the member can express if they feel that folks who are unhoused were consulted, if they thought that folks who are in fear of experiencing demovictions were consulted? Were those fine tenants in our communities who are being abused by abusive above-guideline rent increases—which I tried to ban, by the way, and the government said no. Are those folks being consulted?

I guess I’m wondering who you think has been consulted by this government on their housing bills, whether Bill 23, Bill 185—heritage categories or criteria are up for grabs. Who is being consulted by this government?

It’s now time for questions and answers.

It’s a privilege, always, to be able to stand in the House. Today, I think this is definitely a topic that is very concerning to my constituents, to the city of Hamilton, to so many folks. When I’m out in the community, all the time, this is the number one issue that I’m hearing from people: the lack of housing and the concern over young people not being able to afford a house, the concern over affordable housing on its own, supportive housing—I hear that often. I hear from families who are concerned greatly, and rightfully so, because they have no idea where their young adult children are going to be able to live out their years and be able to start that family and bring grandchildren into the family because of the affordability measure. And this, unfortunately, is not in this bill. If the government would have taken the time to actually listen to community, I think they could have done a better job in ensuring that affordable measures were built into this legislation and ensure that people have a place to live.

As I’m sure you have seen, Speaker, there are tents everywhere throughout our city. They’re in our downtown. They’re at our city hall. They’re on our waterfronts. They’re through our escarpments. They’re in our parks. Everywhere you turn, there are people panhandling on corners, there are people sleeping in bus shelters. Really, anywhere where they can find space to hopefully stay out of the wind, they’re there, and that’s not okay. That is not the Ontario or the Hamilton that I grew up in. I have never seen anything like that, as I’m sure many of us have not, but now it’s a common occurrence. It’s unfortunate when our young children are seeing this and they think that it’s the norm because this is what they’re growing up with. It’s not the norm. This didn’t have to be this way. I think that the government could have done better to ensure that the legislation that’s put forward—once again, on another housing bill—would have done better to ensure that we did have the ability to build that housing.

Last night I had the privilege of visiting Halam Park co-op housing in my riding. I believe, as you were a city councillor, it was in your area. That is a wonderful example of housing that was built in wartime, for soldiers and their families. The 1970s, I believe, was when it was built, and then 20 years after that, it became a co-op house facility.

The people who come together to ensure that the gardens are done, that there are people active constantly, there are events, there are supports, that all of the wonderful amenities that come with living in co-op housing—Halam Park is a shining example of that. Last night, I had the opportunity to thank the volunteers who really do make Halam Park a wonderful place to live. There were children right to one woman, Shirley, who has lived there for 48 years. Her husband, Hugh, who is now deceased, was part of the enactment of bringing this into a co-op facility.

There is great pride in that community, and that is something that we could mimic. It’s an example of how we can do better. I don’t think there is a better example of good community housing than co-ops, and we never see that in the legislation that’s brought forward.

One of the things that I’m still waiting to see is the definition of affordable housing. Affordable for who? Where does that come from? That is something that is always missed here, but yet they’ve made sure that they took out some other wording that is old school. They could have updated that as well.

This bill will not help you find a home. It will not help protect you from illegal evictions. It will not bring rent control back into the picture.

An offside conversation, talking about rent control: We have members on the government side who say, “Well, the market has gone up, and my mortgage has gone up. The rent doesn’t reflect that.” Well, that’s a different story than just taking all rules away from rent controls. When we see apartments that were built after 2018 have zero rules when it comes to rent control and people who have their rent increase by $3,000 a month—who can afford to do that? I couldn’t afford to do that. Nobody in this place—mainly—would be able to afford a $3,000-a-month increase. This is the problem that we’re seeing when we have bad legislation put forward.

I have to say that it’s good to see some of the reversals that are in this bill because, once again, we have seen this government who has pushed forward legislation that municipalities and other folks were screaming, “No, no, no. This is bad. This is bad”—like Bill 23 and development charges for the cities, Bill 109 and application fees. I think there were a few more other reversals that are in this bill to reverse legislation that was previously put forward by this government that people had been speaking out about. If there’s anything that we should be doing as leaders in our community, it’s consultation. With consultation, they would have heard this feedback of how this would have hurt the city. So I’m happy to see those reversals in here and making sure that municipalities do have the funds to build infrastructure and that municipalities are not on the hook for developers when they don’t keep up their timelines because that’s not something that is in the control of a municipality and yet the government thought it was a good idea at the time to enact that.

I want to quote the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. They’re happy to see that walking back of Bill 23 because that undermined it, “They do not, however, replace the need for a comprehensive conversation to update the provincial-municipal fiscal framework to support sustainability, affordability and economic prosperity.” They have a lot to say to ensure that we are building for the future, and I think this bill misses it.

The interesting one was OREA, which is led by Tim Hudak, who is the former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. They say they’re happy to see that there’s some recent progress on a couple of solutions, but “we are disappointed that two key recommendations by the province’s own Housing Affordability Task Force (HATF)—strongly supported by Ontario realtors—have not been included in” this “bill. We need to build more homes on existing properties and allow upzoning along major transit corridors if we are going to address the housing affordability and supply crisis in our province.”

The affordability task force, which was put into place by this government, is not seen in any of this. The fourplexes that the Premier refuses to implement, probably because Bonnie Crombie said something about it so that just made it all wrong, but this has been something that everybody has been calling for. This isn’t a four-storey building. Fourplexes are not four storeys in the middle of residential. It’s a bigger house, quite frankly, with units inside that house that could quite easily be transitioned into communities and, unfortunately, this Premier doesn’t see that being necessary, but would provide so many people with the opportunity of an affordable place to live, within a community, within walking distance to the schools and the local shopping marts and places where families need to be in that community.

Whether there’s good things in here or not, I think the bill misses the point on so many factors.

Are you calling him a senior?

I want to thank my colleague for her comments. I know she brings a great deal of experience to her role now and has served in many different portfolios.

She made comments about the number of hours that this legislation will help to save our residents and how difficult interfacing with government is. I’m wondering if she can elaborate on that aspect of the legislation and how she sees that will be a benefit for the residents of Ontario.

Thank you to the member for Nepean. I really enjoyed her dialogue today and her perspective is interesting, unique and she’s experienced. She has lived it.

Our government is delivering on a commitment to cut red tape, to really do it, but businesses in my riding, like Bradt’s Butcher Block in Leamington and Abraham Orthodontics in Chatham-Kent–Leamington, are under extreme pressure from a competitive global market, just like businesses in Nepean. And the outlook, economically, is fragile around the world.

So can the member please explain what’s being done to help our businesses remain competitive?

I would like to thank the member from Nepean for her presentation.

One thing that we have noticed when we take a look at Bill 185 is that there seems to be a lack of mention of Ontario’s heritage assets. Architectural Conservancy Ontario has noted within all their meetings with government members, as well as opposition members, that 36,000 properties are currently at risk and that Ontario is the only province without a grant program to encourage the conservation of buildings of significant heritage value. They have called for the government to increase the existing Ontario heritage property tax relief program. It is useful, but it has limited impact on developers.

I wanted to know if the member from Nepean had any comments about heritage properties and what the government should be doing in order to make sure that we are preserving those wonderful properties that we have in the province of Ontario.

But I did want to specifically note with the member that there are 36,000 properties that are at risk because of this government’s actions, and that all of these 36,000 properties will currently lose the meagre protections they have on January 1, 2025, unless this government acts.

Does the member have any advice as to how they will be advocating to make sure that these properties will be protected in the province of Ontario?

Further questions?

Thank you to the member from Whitby. He has been a long-time friend and colleague. I have to say, I’m always so impressed when I’m with him because he does take this chamber very seriously, but he knows all of the issues that are hard that we need to discuss. One of the things I think he could agree with, because Whitby is very similar to Barrhaven, where it is fast-growing, very attractive to young families—it is in the city but not quite downtown so it provides us with a great degree of flexibility, and we get to have it both ways.

I’m excited about the Building Faster Fund, the BFF. We were recently the host in Ottawa to the Premier where Ottawa received $37 million. We were excited about that. Because here’s the thing: Growth needs also to pay for growth because when I build that house, it means I need to build a road, a school and a health care system as well, and that’s the reality of what the BFF does.

And I can say that when I was heritage minister, we had unprecedented investments into that ministry and into the sector in order to do just that. So there are programs in place that do allow it. I know that Minister Ford, who now has the heritage file, has been working diligently across the province in order to support that. But I would be happy—I know the debate doesn’t allow us to have a back-and-forth exchange, but I wouldn’t mind sitting down with you over a cup of coffee—actually I drink tea—and we could engage on some of your ideas.

I don’t actually support more taxes. I think that we’re already taxed to the limit. We just have to figure out how we could better allocate supports that we already have.

But let me speak directly to your constituents who I believe—if the breadbasket of Canada is in Saskatchewan and different parts of the Prairies, certainly the greenhouses are part of your area and they do great work. A lot of food production is happening there. We have to look at, for them, environmental supports. We have to look at business supports. We have to look at what is happening internationally because they are highly dealt with with trade. We also don’t want to have your tomatoes be overlooked on the grocery bench because Mexico is taking the market. So we have to make sure that energy prices are low, that we have red tape reduction and that we’re looking at the environment—and I see our environment minister here, and she will be right on that, I’m sure.

When you look at that, you think that’s actually bigger than the GDP of Manitoba. It’s bigger than mining, forestry and natural resources all put together, and it creates tens of thousands of jobs right across each one of our communities. So it’s really important that we look at, also, the economic aspect as well as the cultural aspect of our heritage properties.

I’m happy to take his concerns directly to the minister. I know that the Minister of Heritage is diligent in his work. He knows that he has to work with his organization, the Ontario Heritage Trust, who would be a great advocate for the member opposite if there is anything in his particular community that he wants to support, but I think that would be a start, and I thank him for his question.

What an excellent presentation from the member from Nepean. I thank her for her public service.

I’d like the member, though—Speaker, through you—to tell us more about the Building Faster Fund and what the government is doing to encourage municipalities like her riding and surrounding ridings to address the housing supply crisis.

Your constituent who was a PSW—I applaud them for doing the work. I know during the pandemic it was quite difficult. I have a cousin who is a PSW, and my gosh, they just stood up there every single day and did the work that they were required to do. I find it very disheartening that at a time where she has a bit more flexibility in not working in such dangerous conditions, that she feels that—she’s not unsafe, but that she is insecure because she doesn’t have a place that she can afford.

I’ve got to admit here, and I think we all do, that the prices, whether it’s home ownership or rental, have skyrocketed. But the answer to that is not more red tape, and with respect, I think we’ll have a philosophical disagreement here. The answer to that is more supply, and that’s what this legislation is attempting to do. It’s not going to be done overnight, but we do need to increase the supply of housing and renter facilities across the entire province, apartment buildings across the province, in order to meet that demand. That’s the only way it’s going to come down.

I thank the government member for her speech. It’s always a pleasure to work with her in this chamber.

Yesterday, I met with a constituent who was a PSW, and she was very concerned. She had just retired as a PSW, and she said that she is very, very afraid of her future as a renter, as a tenant.

All of the initiatives that the government tables here always have to do with the purchase of individual homes, but they’re not willing to take action in terms of rental. Now, I know what the response is going to be, that they’ve had many rental housing starts, but it’s a chicken-or-an-egg thing, because with rents at $2,500 to $3,000, yes, there’s an interest in building more units, but that’s actually the problem. Why are this government’s initiatives when it comes to housing not willing to visit rent control? Because people like this PSW just don’t have a future to wait for when it comes to their housing.

It is now time for questions.

Thank you very much. It’s great to actually be here. Before I kick off my speech, I just started thinking to myself, we all stand here on behalf of our constituents and we all do, I believe, a very good job. Regardless of what side of the ideology or the side of this assembly, everyone is here, I believe, for the right reason. But I got thinking to myself—and it would be interesting, if you all got to thinking to yourselves as well—when you deal with government, is it easy or is it difficult? The Minister of Labour just had a little laugh—because it isn’t easy. It’s never easy trying to figure it out. Regardless of if it’s a corporation, if it’s our kid’s high school or if it is with any level of government, it’s never easy. That’s why we’re here. We’re here to make it better and to streamline it.

My colleague who is the former crown attorney in Kitchener will often remind us that some of the things we think are super easy, an immediate crackdown on this—and she will say, “Well, you know, from the court’s perspective, I don’t know if this will work.”

So what I like about this piece of legislation, and especially when we talk about red tape reduction—for years, I always thought it was the most boring thing to debate, but it is one of the most important things for us to debate because we’re able to litigate here on the floor of the assembly what we see is working, not just as members but as citizens and as people who interface with our own government that we work within from day to day. I think that’s really important, and it’s great that we’re bringing forward yet another piece of legislation with respect to red tape reduction in order to make sure life is easier for the people of Ontario, including us and our families and our children. I often will think about that.

Now, why I like this piece of legislation is because I come from a high-growth community, and in order for us to continue to build—and yes, we’re talking about homes. In order for us to build homes and to keep up with the infrastructure requirements, we need to make it easier for municipalities to interface with the province, we need to make it easier for ministries to interface with one another, and we need to make it more simple for those companies who are doing the work that we’re asking them to do to keep up with the housing demand to get that done.

Of course, we’re a community of great agrarian roots. We have been a community that had been led by the farming industry and agriculture until we, over the past 20 years, have become more of an urban area inside the city of Ottawa. What does that mean? It means we need new schools. It means we need new roads, bridges and transportation. It means we even needed an interchange on Barnsdale at the 416, which I was excited was in the budget.

But it also means we need new hospitals. It means we’re bringing in new Canadians, people from different parts of Canada. Of course, with that, we need to interface with our local elected officials but, more importantly in some instances, the bureaucracies behind them.

So this red tape reduction bill is aimed at Ontario’s growth. It’s aimed at the growth happening in Ottawa. It’s aimed at the growth happening in my own community of Barrhaven. The goal is to protect important regulatory reforms that have been made over time for workers, for the environment and for the local communities that they impact. It’s designed to make life easier and more affordable, whether it is for the consumer or the producer.

We know that this piece of legislation, if passed, is going to save Ontarians 1.5 million hours of work, either on their home computer or at the office. It’s going to save us $1.5 billion. That’s why it’s important for us to litigate this, but it’s also important for us to discuss it with Ontarians so they know the changes that are coming that will serve the interests of them and their families.

It will become an important environmental investment for growth and job creation in the province of Ontario. As I said, it will create lots of safety measures that support both the economy and the hours people are putting into it. It’s about simplifying forms and creating processes that make sense to people. It’s eliminating unnecessary delays, and it’s going to make it, as I said, easier for us to work with governments.

We’re taking action on priority projects. There are so many things each and every day our ministers are out doing, our Premier is out doing. We’re calling it “getting it done.” In order for us to get it done, we have to make it easier to do it. That’s really exciting for me to see the projects that we’re working on are going to see reductions and eliminating delays and extra costs associated with dealing with government.

I think we can all agree that if we want to see highway projects like the 413 or the 174 or any other highway project in between get built, we want to make sure that the taxpayer is paying as little as possible in the grand scheme of things but also to make sure it gets built quickly in order to get them onto those said highways. I think it’s critical that in order for us to meet our competitive demands in this province and to attract investment, we continue to boost the needs and to be flexible while at the same time improving oversight and streamlining regulation.

Let’s be clear, sometimes when we’re dealing with a red tape reduction bill, we’re actually making oversight stronger. That might be a surprise to certain people but having been a minister myself, sometimes it is actually removing a layer that is hindering and not necessarily reporting up to the people it needs.

I see the Minister of Mines saying the same thing because he knows it’s very critical in order for him to be hands on, in order to get (a) the investment into mining extraction and at the same time making sure that he is working with the Minister of Indigenous Affairs and other community leaders to get those mines built in a proper way. I think that that is absolutely critical for us.

One other thing that I thought was interesting with this piece of legislation is something that I started working on, if you can believe it, in 1999, when I worked for John Baird. It was foreign-trained individuals coming into Canada as doctors and nurses, ready to actually support the health care system in the province of Ontario, yet, because government being government and working with the college of physicians being as it is, it was almost impossible to get these well-trained physicians and nurses into our system. This piece of legislation is going to make it easier to conduct that process and to register them quicker. That means more nurses and doctors in our health care system across the province of Ontario.

I can tell you, there’s not a member in here who hasn’t had that complaint, who hasn’t raised that complaint that there are not enough nurses and doctors in the province of Ontario. We agree. We’re working on it. I think we can all agree that we’re working on it, but I think we all can agree that if health care is concerned, we want any abled and trained individual that can do the job in the job. There shouldn’t be barriers to that. I think that’s one of the great things that are happening here.

I know the Minister of Labour is here. He’s very intent on paying attention to this debate, and he knows that in order to support his workers and the companies that want to employ his workers, we need digital transformation in order to support them.

I noticed that we’re going to be changing the systems in order to create a better environment for documents via email. That’s going to save people time, it’s going to save people money and it’s going to put people back to work. That’s what we really want in Ontario, is people who are working, especially in the fields that they desire, especially in health care, but also making sure that we’re saving them money.

I think that one of the other key areas, when I was a minister, that we focused on and we really cared about was trying to create wraparound services, trying to make sure that ministry A, ministry B and ministry C worked together. That does not necessarily happen all the time. Sometimes there is a siloed approach. Well, one of the things that this piece of legislation is doing is working to be more predictable and more transparent with the public as it pertains to the projects that they’re working on. I think that’s long overdue, and I congratulate the ministry here for putting that together.

Just finally, one thing that I care about that we should all care about, because I can’t tell you how many of you over the years have come to me about a festival that needed funding or an arts program that wanted funding or a sports organization that wanted funding—it’s the Transfer Payment Ontario system and that network, and it’s called TPON. We are right now going to be able to consolidate that for better service for not-for-profits and for charities. We all know that charities and not-for-profits are having a more difficult time finding volunteers. They’re having a more difficult time raising money. The government should not be in their way. The government needs to ensure that there is a better process for them, and we’re going to be doing that as a result of this legislation.

I’m very proud to stand here and be part of this debate. I know there are many questions, and people in this chamber will offer many different solutions to the variety of issues that they deal with in their different communities across the province, but I’m delighted that we’re talking about it because the reality is, we’re all here for the same reason, and it’s to make government better for the people that we all represent. We all have different views and values. That’s okay, as long as our number one goal is to make sure we get something across the finish line that is better for the people of this province.

I want to thank the member opposite for her comments. My question to her really is this: Recently, the former Ontario Liberal leader, Steven Del Duca stated, “Frankly, this housing affordability crisis began when I was still sitting at the provincial cabinet table. The first inklings, the first hints that we were going to have this challenge spiralling out of control began in 2016. That was eight years ago, and we were in a low-interest rate environment at that point in time, but the challenge was already beginning, and why? Because we have a fundamental supply problem.”

My question to the member opposite is quite simple. With a Liberal Party in power for 15 years, supported by the NDP, why did they sit on their hands and do nothing until we started this discussion in the last election?

Thank you to the member from London–Fanshawe for her very passionate debate this afternoon. I also have heard from parents who have adult children with developmental disabilities who are living in supportive housing, and we’re now seeing those homes being privatized. The pay, the fees, the way that’s being delivered is changing, and parents are terrified. They have worked their entire lives and advocated their entire lives to be able to get their children in this supportive housing, and are now seeing a government that has failed to provide the necessary funding to ensure that these homes can stay open.

So maybe the member could just expand on her thoughts when it comes to these families who are so desperate and being left completely out of all legislation.

Thank you very much for the debate, my colleague, and the questions from both sides. I just have a question: When we talk about housing, there is one portion of that, affordable housing, which is the government subsidizing to offer the people who don’t have a specific level of income. But when we talk about housing in general—we are in a crisis—we are talking about all kinds of houses. We are talking about middle-class houses. We are talking about condos. We are talking about townhomes. We are talking about all kinds of houses.

When we have houses, there will be more percentage of affordable houses of that amount. So can you tell me why are we getting into—if those people don’t have the income, this is not a housing issue; it’s a social issue. It needs covering from the government, but not in the housing bill.