The ayes are 88; the nays are 10.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. If you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6.

I move that the question now be put.

I was listening to the member opposite mentioning initiatives in transit located in his community. Also, student housing is in his community.

I know the Council of Ontario Universities said the following in response to Bill 185: “Exempting universities from provisions in the Planning Act and removing zoning barriers will help expediate the development and construction of much-needed campus housing projects, as well as help ensure student success.”

Speaker, I know this is what we often heard from our universities across the province, asking us to support these important measures. Can the member opposite tell us if they will answer their call and vote for this important piece of legislation?

Madam Speaker, as a representative of a riding that incorporates a lot of the forestry industry in my area, I am really pleased to see that with this bill, we’ve joined British Columbia and Quebec on a consultation and a commitment to adapt the building code, that it would allow for up to 18-storey mass timber buildings. I’m hopeful that the member opposite will actually stand and indicate his support for this initiative, for that industry and for improved apartment buildings.

Further questions?

Is it the pleasure of the House that this motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour of the motion, please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion that the question be now put please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Interjection: On division.

Mr. Calandra has moved second reading of Bill 185, An Act to amend various Acts. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour of the motion, please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote being required, it will be deferred until the next instance of deferred votes.

Second reading vote deferred.

Report continues in volume B.

To the member who spoke so eloquently about why housing is necessary in his community and about the experience of that retired PSW: Can you explain what types of infrastructure you’d also like to see the government committed to in terms of making life better for Ontarians, for your residents? Obviously we need affordable housing. Can you speak to the benefit of other things like community centres, like libraries, like transit that works?

We know right now that Metrolinx has been dragging their little feet a little bit long in terms of the Eglinton LRT construction. We know that the community in Mount Dennis that’s relatively near to your community as well is also feeling left out of the consultation process with Metrolinx with this government.

What would you like to see in terms of infrastructure, and what is the benefit of infrastructure to housing in your community?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ve got to say, Mr. Speaker, you look great. You’re a really good-looking Speaker.

My question for our friend opposite: Like me, he represents a community that has seen rapid growth and, frankly, a large amount of newcomers, new Canadians, because he’s right by the airport. Brampton is the same; we’re right by the airport. We’ve doubled in size in the last 20 years. Our infrastructure hasn’t kept pace, and our housing hasn’t kept pace.

One of the things that’s important about this bill is our commitment around getting to that 1.5 million new homes by 2031. But in order to support those homes, we also need infrastructure. We got a great win with the federal government, our wonderful Minister of Transportation, where the federal government has finally backed off the federal impact assessment for the 413. It seems like even they have seen the light on this issue. I’m wondering if the member opposite has seen the light and is ready to support the 413 as well.

Questions? The member from Brampton North.

Thank you very much for that question. Absolutely. I spent a lot of my speech talking about the needs of renters, and many that are nowhere near being able to purchase a home and are struggling even with rent.

The government has the power to build housing themselves. They can look past the philosophy—again, some members have referred to it as “communism”—to say to themselves that it is possible to build affordable housing themselves. It is within their powers to do so because all of their legislation thus far is to try to incent certain things to be built. But they have the ability to pick up the shovels themselves and do it. I’m hoping they will, because so many across this province are counting on them to do that.

By the way, I know I talked about the governments of the past, but it was the downloading that we’re still seeing to this very day in the late 1990s that has helped put these municipal governments in a very tough bind.

I appreciate the question. There needs to be so much more investment, and governments need to do whatever they can to help our great municipalities do and deliver the services that their residents are counting on every day.

With regard to mass timber construction, I’m proud to say that the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority headquarters is located in my constituency, and it is one such building—maybe not 18 storeys—that has relied on that technology in terms of construction. And it is something good to see in your bill.

As I said, there are some elements of the legislation that are good and some elements that are worth supporting.

On the topic of universities, considering that students in Ontario pay the highest per capita tuition across all of the country, I hope that this government will bring the investments to universities, to put us at a level where other provinces and other jurisdictions will be looking at us enviously to say, “Wow, look at the amount of support and investments that are coming from the province of Ontario for its universities.” So if this is something that this government cares about, I hope it will really take us down that way so those students will be able to congratulate them and feel that support they’re getting from the government.

Thank you to the member from Humber River–Black Creek and his debate and always his thoughtful comments when it comes to various debates on this legislative floor. I know that he spends a lot of time in his community and that I’m sure people are also asking him for affordable housing, which unfortunately we’re not seeing in this legislation.

I think the government has missed an opportunity to actually support our communities. Maybe he could share some of the stories that he’s heard from people in his community when it comes to affordable housing.

I definitely agree with this principle. But the thing is, there was a time when the government was working hand in hand with the mayor of Mississauga at the time, and now, the times they are a-changin’, right? They have changed their tune on it.

I know that there have been many criticisms that were levelled against the Liberal leader at the time, mostly by others and certainly by this government now, and I know that more could have been done in Mississauga in terms of housing starts—that, definitely, I agree with.

Thank you to my colleague for his remarks this afternoon.

My question, Speaker, is: When the Ontario Liberal leader, Bonnie Crombie, was the mayor of Mississauga, she had one of the worst housing records in Ontario. Last year, under her leadership, in the middle of a housing crisis, Mississauga actually rejected about 90% of the proposed homes. That’s over 17,000 homes that won’t be built for the people in her community, in a city that only reached 39% of its annual housing targets, Speaker. When it comes to building housing, Bonnie Crombie has failed to get the job done. Does the member opposite agree with us that Bonnie Crombie has failed the people of Mississauga?

Questions?

It’s always an honour to speak on behalf of the residents of Humber River–Black Creek, and I’m going to begin again with a question I asked one of the government members. I’m going to relay a very short story about a PSW who had just retired, who I spoke with the other day. I came to recognize her in her retirement. She had spent 25 years helping individuals, going to their homes, washing them, cleaning them, keeping them company, doing important things.

You would imagine that at the end of her years and years of work on behalf of all of us, on behalf of our parents, our grandparents, that there would be some level of comfort, but that wasn’t the case. She’s a tenant, and she said that she was very, very afraid for her future. Rents continue to escalate year after year and are becoming unaffordable. She had lived some years in that apartment, but her entire future was something that she questioned. Her kids, her grandkids: What is that future going to look like?

All of the conversations that we have here in this House when it comes to housing by this government generally focus on solutions for those wanting to own homes, and a certain type of home, valued over all others. But what is constantly missing is the future of tenants. Today, rent is absolutely unaffordable, and not just in Toronto, where rents are well into the $2,000s. That’s a similar situation across towns and cities across the entire province itself.

Now, we spend a lot of time, especially in afternoon debate and sometimes during question period, talking about governments of the past. They like to talk about the governments of the early 1990s; we talk about the government of the late 1990s. A minister raised something that was done during a government of the early 1990s, which was a trade-off. Now, it wasn’t positioned that way.

The government of the early 1990s brought in rent control, but part of the trade-off was, any new rent, any new buildings, any new rental that was built past a certain point would not be subject to that very same control. That was the trade-off. Because if the argument was that people will no longer want to invest with that provision brought in, well then that would have been the solution. But guess what? It didn’t change anything, because even with that provision, even with rent control existing and allowing landlords to charge essentially what they wanted in new construction, we didn’t see a proliferation of new rental multi-residential properties being built. We didn’t see any of that. The next government certainly didn’t address that. The Liberal government following didn’t. And this government hasn’t.

But now, we exist in time where rents have never been so high. And so what is the solution to that, that is said? “Well, we’re just going to bring in supply.” But it’s interesting because they are only relying on the market to deliver that supply. Now, they will say, “We are seeing more new rental homes being built now than we did under the last government, per capita.” But here’s the reality—it’s kind of the chicken or the egg thing, because we are seeing new rental being potentially considered and, in some cases, built, but that’s because rents, in many cases, are north of $3,000 or even higher. So it is the unaffordable rents in the first place that are spurring construction of new rental if that’s even happening. The point is, you’ll see new rental units, but it’s still unaffordable.

Now, how on earth are our constituents, government members’ constituents, able to afford that at all? And I know that each and every one of us here are doing our best for our communities, whether it’s government or our side, trying our best to serve the people that have given us the trust to support them in our own elections. But I know that I have to have these hard conversations, like I mentioned with the PSW. Why not consider rent control in housing bills? Why not? Why not consider something like that in multi-residential properties? You say that these new homes are being built, you’re saying that these new buildings are being constructed, but people are not even going to be able to afford it.

Now you say, “Let’s continue to add to that supply.” What kind of solution is that? That’s not a solution for the PSW that I met the other day. That is a solution that might be a generation away, a decade away, but for the market to now even out by the new construction that is being built, that’s going to take a long, long, long, long time to be able to deal with that.

Another thing that I used to hear a lot under the past session of government was talking about cranes in the sky. Before this Conservative government took office, we saw, in the city of Toronto, year after year, that in many cases Toronto led, before the Conservative government, in terms of cranes in sky, most units being built, most investment—all of these things. Why I raise it? And, of course, I expect this of many governments. They always want to take credit for things that they say are positive and say, “Well, you know, it was us.” They would go so far as claiming the weather if they could in some cases.

But in other instances they never want to take the responsibility for bad decisions, or things that are not happening. You’re never going to hear them get up and say, “We are now seeing tent cities, the highest number of per capita individuals facing homelessness that we’ve ever seen.” They’re never going to wear the responsibility for the rents being through the roof, but they’ll say, “But they’re building more rental buildings under our watch.” It almost feels like a cynical conversation that’s here. I know that it can go so far as to offend the people that are watching here, not seeing their lives being improved by decisions that are being made by this government.

The minister talked about the fact that a lack of infrastructure is what is now causing certain areas to not see development happening. Well, here is a section of an email I just received the other day—in fact, yesterday. And so here is with regard to infrastructure under this government, who says they want to put shovels in the ground and try to incent, every way, shape or form, more development of housing. Ashley, who reached out to me, said:

“You can imagine my disappointment, frustration and anger when the province announced that they would be reducing the frequency of trains stopping at Weston and Bloor from 15 minutes to every 30 minutes. This seems illogical to me as the Weston area is experiencing intensification as prioritized by the Ford government. To bring people into a neighbourhood and then reduce their access to public transit goes against every good planning and urbanism principle.

“On top of that, we know the current construction that is making it harder to access downtown will continue for at least three years. How are people supposed to get to work, see their families and support other Toronto businesses if we cannot access them?

“When I took the UP Express this past weekend to meet some friends downtown, the train was packed. I had to stand, which never bothers me, as I know the ride is short and it’s a small price to pay for this convenience. This issue will only get worse with the reduced service.”

So here it is: In some cases, the government says they’re going to build. They’re going to put infrastructure in some places. Other places are completely ignored. Some will argue it’s partisan or political. I won’t get into that. You just have to look at the Eglinton LRT and look at some sections that were buried versus others and ask who represents those ridings—but I won’t go any further down on that.

Here’s the reality: We are not seeing a lot of those investments—and this comes from a constituent themselves. They want to talk about rental housing. They’re not willing to build affordable housing. So here’s a thing they have absolute and direct control over, but they refuse to do it.

We all heard a member claim that it was communism—communism—to build affordable housing in the province. And, of course, I assume that this member would probably think of some of their Conservative forebearers as communist, because there have been past Conservative governments that—yes, as crazy as it sounds—built affordable housing. They also brought in conservation authorities and actually trusted their judgement. They brought in public hydro. We heard about the late Roy McMurtry and what he delivered here, and I ask myself how far has this Conservative government fallen, as compared to the principles of its past?

But the last thing I want to talk about in this short time—and this is something that I don’t think a Conservative government is very well-suited for to challenge: There is a competition on housing. What is this government willing to do about the further financialization of the housing market? We are seeing large investors, people worth lots and lots and lots and lots of money, that will continue to buy up homes, single-family homes, entire swaths of it. We’re seeing that in the States and we’re going to continue to see that.

We hear about that couple all the time—used to describe why they’re doing what they’re doing—living in the basement of their parents’ home, waiting for that first opportunity of home ownership. And it’s not just supply. Because of the existing supply, they are going to have to compete with those big, powerful financial interests that are going to continue to buy up not just the current housing but whatever housing you put out there and at no matter what cost. If there is no solution that is brought to deal with that, or even a willingness or a stomach to face that down, then what is the future going to look like?

I hope that this government will look at that and I hope, as this government brings legislation to this chamber in a majority government, that they will think about tenants. But telling them that supply may come maybe a decade or far into the future is not going to help that PSW who spent 25 years of her life taking care of people’s health and is now living in a situation where she doesn’t know what her future looks like.

I’m a big fan of the advocacy organization Strong Towns. I admit they don’t always fall in line with this government, but we did on parking minimums—or, rather, getting rid of parking minimums. I know that that’s something that a lot of the urban planners in Hamilton have been very in favour of. I’m wondering if the member will comment on the impact that this bill has on parking minimums and what she thinks the impact will be on the ongoing urban revitalization and business development in Hamilton.

Thank you to my colleague from Hamilton Mountain for an excellent presentation. I think we see that within Bill 185, it undoes a lot of the mistakes this government has made, backpedalling on a lot of self-created issues, some own goals that they’ve made on themselves.

However, within this legislation, we don’t see a really concerted attempt to take on the affordability crisis that we are seeing within our communities right now. I would like to know from the member, what would you like to see mentioned in this bill in particular as it pertains to housing and affordability?

The official opposition has previously indicated that they support the use-it-or-lose-it policy in the province. In fact, the opposition critic for municipal affairs stated at the Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy, “We are bringing up a use-it-or-lose-it policy”—which keeps coming up. It’s been “something that we’ve been pushing for the last couple of years.”

Given the official opposition has been on the record as being in favour of the use-it-or-lose-it policy for a number of years, can the member opposite tell me if their party will support the bill?

Under schedule 4, there is a prescribed exemption from zoning rules for site plans to approve processes of prescribed standardized housing designs. That way you can have these standard designs and you can build homes quicker—I’m assuming that’s the intent.

What I wanted to ask the member is, in these standard designs, how important is it that we have accessibility pieces in these standard designs? I say that because we have an aging population, so as we are building these standard designs, let’s incorporate accessibility features in the homes. What do you think about that?

Further question?