I’m very pleased to be standing here today to debate Bill 185 at third reading.

I’d like to just give a little bit of a summary of how I’m going to use my hour today. I’m going to talk a little bit about what came up in committee. I’m going to go through the amendments that were introduced and discuss why we introduced them. I’m going to go through sections of the bill to identify some of the positive things in this bill, because there are some things in this bill that are positive. I’m going to read out some of the very strong submissions that we received from so many stakeholders across Ontario. And then I’m going to conclude with some of the solutions that we have been calling for that are not in this bill.

Whenever I look at a government bill, I look at it from a certain lens. I ask myself, is this bill and are these measures going to make housing more affordable for people to rent and own in Ontario? That’s the first way I look at this bill. The second way I look at it is, I ask myself, is this bill going to ensure that we have the good-quality public services we need in towns and cities across Ontario, so we can have a good quality of life? The third way I look at this bill is, I ask myself, is this bill going to build the wide mix and range of housing we need to address our housing supply and our housing affordability shortages, and is it being done in a sustainable and responsible way? Are we needlessly building on farmland and green space, or are we building in parts of Ontario where we can increase density, so that we can balance the many needs that we have and the many issues that we have in Ontario?

This is a popular bill. We got a lot of submissions. We had a lot of people who wanted to speak in committee. Unfortunately, we had to turn some people away. I think it is always unfortunate when not everyone who wants to speak to a bill is given the opportunity to do that—because especially when it comes to housing, these bills affect everyone in Ontario. If it takes us an extra day or two or a week to hear what people and organizations have to say, I think we should give them the time to do it.

Thank you to the many stakeholders who spoke and gave written submissions. I want to name a few: AMO, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario; BILD; Bonnefield; the Canadian Environmental Law Association; Canadians for Properly Built Homes; the city of Mississauga; the city of Toronto; CUPE Ontario; the Escarpment Corridor Alliance; the Federation of Citizens’ Associations of Ottawa; the Federation of Rental-housing Providers of Ontario; the Georgian Bay Association; Gravel Watch Ontario; the Greater Ottawa Home Builders’ Association; the Greenbelt Foundation; the Green Space Alliance; No Demovictions, which is a new group that is being started up in Ontario; the Ontario Association of Architects; the Ontario Federation of Agriculture; the Ontario Long Term Care Home Association; the Reform Gravel Mining Coalition; and many more.

People care about what is in this bill—many people did. I was very impressed by the intelligence and the thought and the care that were given to us in committee, as well as the written submissions that were given to us. I read many of them, and they were very thoughtful. So thank you for that. Much of the feedback that stakeholders gave us informed the amendments that we introduced in committee in order to fix this bill.

Like I said, there are some things in this bill that we like. It is clear that the government heard from municipalities that were pretty angry that their ability to raise revenue to pay for infrastructure was curtailed with Bill 23 and Bill 109—and that there were some improvements in this bill.

But then there are a whole lot of things that we would have liked to have seen in this bill that weren’t there, and then there are a whole bunch of things in this bill that I wish weren’t there at all.

I’m going to start off by going through some of the amendments. Our goal was to improve this bill. We had a few. We can’t help ourselves. We start off by saying we’ll just do a few, and then as time goes on we realize we have 20 or 30. So be patient with me.

The first amendment that we introduced was to the City of Toronto Act. It was a bill that would enshrine the right for municipalities to protect and compensate tenants and preserve the stock of available residential units in cases where a purpose-built rental is demolished and replaced with—almost always—a condo. You would think that this is a one-off issue, but unfortunately, it is concerningly becoming very common. We expect that the number of purpose-built rentals that are demolished will increase as we move to increased density in towns and cities. The reason why this is a problem is because when you’re looking at purpose-built rentals in our city, it’s the kind of housing stock that we need to preserve. We need to preserve it, and the reason is that we know we have a shortage of purpose-built rentals and almost overwhelmingly the number of affordable purpose-built rentals that exist in our city are in these big purpose-built rental buildings. These are rent-controlled buildings where the rent—if it’s a long-term tenant, they might be paying anything from $1,100 to $1,600, which is much more affordable than what you get in a new purpose-built rental that isn’t protected by rent control.

Unfortunately, with Bill 23, the Ontario government gave themselves the power—they must have listened to some people and not others—to step in and eliminate or reduce the power that municipalities have to protect tenants. People were terrified that that was going to happen.

The reason why we introduced this amendment is to say, “Municipalities need to have the power to protect the affordable rental housing stock we’ve got so that we can build and not gentrify at the same time, so that we can build and also help the tenants who already live in towns and cities in Ontario, including Toronto”—because we can do both.

It is a shame that the government chose to not move forward with this amendment, and I urge this government to seriously consider this issue. It is a big issue. Thousands of tenants are affected by this.

The second amendment that we introduced was to make changes to the Development Charges Act. The government has rolled back some of the worst elements of Bill 23 and Bill 109. They’ve turned around and said, “Municipalities do need the power to require developers to pay their fair share for new infrastructure that is needed when people move into an area.”

We asked the government to listen to what AMO was saying and many advocates were saying and to require developers, when they’re building new units, to also pay for the necessary affordable housing and shelter that is needed in towns and cities, as well. It’s called housing services. The reason this is so important is that, with Bill 23, municipalities were banned from collecting development fees to be used for affordable housing and homelessness at a time when we have, I would say, the worst homelessness crisis that we’ve had in Ontario for decades.

The city of Toronto outlined this in their submission, and AMO also recommended that this right be reinstated. They did some calculations for us, and they calculated that municipalities are on track to be out of pocket $2 billion—$2 billion of money that should be going to maintain affordable housing and for shelters, both temporary and permanent. That affects 47,000 units. So why on earth would the government want to make it even harder for municipalities to address the homelessness problem and the affordable housing problem we have in municipalities? I don’t know. We introduced this amendment to restore the right that municipalities have to collect that fee, and the government voted that down, which I think is a problem.

We also introduced these amendments to a section of the act that dealt with the decision to reverse one of the most politically motivated and most unusual bills I’ve seen in a while, which is to, without any notice or consultation at all, get rid of the Peel regional government, which is really quite draconian. In this bill, they’ve made a decision to reverse that, so they’re going with the Peel dissolution act—dissolutioning the Hazel McCallion Act, 2023, schedule 7. Overall, the decision to repeal the Hazel McCallion Act makes a lot of sense. No one asked for the region of Peel to be eliminated, and it was projected to have a significant impact on the quality of services that the residents of Caledon and Peel and Mississauga would be provided with. We had a lot of concerns about that, and we are pleased to see a reversal—a partial reversal. We did introduce some amendments to shine some light and bring some transparency to that process, and the reason why is because the transition committee that is responsible for looking at how the services were going to be divvied up in these three regions gave Peel region a bill of $4 million. This is work that the Ontario government directed them to do, and then this transition committee turned around and said, “Actually, it’s not the Ontario government that is going to pay this bill. It’s going to be Peel region and Peel taxpayers who are going to pay this bill.” Obviously, that’s just downright crazy. So, in our amendment, we said that what we want to see is some transparency. We want to see this government provide an assessment of the financial impact of its recommendations and to make the financial impact public so people knew how much this transition and this reversal of this transition and then this partial movement forward is actually going to cost. The government rejected that, which I think is unfortunate.

The second amendment we introduced is to say that the province is asking for this work to be done—this transition. They’re appointing the board. They’re controlling the process. That means the provincial government should actually pay for the costs of this transition board, and not the taxpayers of Peel. We introduced that amendment, as well, and the government voted that down.

This was an interesting one. The government, in a last-minute flurry, made some additional changes to the lands tribunal. The lands tribunal, the Ontario Municipal Board, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal—it’s a beast that has known many different names, but now it’s called the lands tribunal. The lands tribunal is one of the most powerful tribunals Ontario has ever seen, and it has been changed and altered and manipulated more times than I can remember. Every time there is a bill, there are some changes to the lands tribunal.

I thought the changes that were in Bill 185 that affect the lands tribunal were particularly concerning. In the bill, the government said, “From now on, we’re no longer going to allow third-party appeals to the lands tribunal,” which means that if a citizens’ group has some concerns about a quarry or a dump and the decision has been made by the municipality, that individual is no longer able to go to the lands tribunal to say, “We need a sober second thought. We need an adjudicator to look at this decision carefully.” It is an issue that I think has become very politicized.

Many organizations wrote to us about the need to continue to allow third-party appeals at the lands tribunal, including the Canadian Environmental Law Association. The reason why they recommended that third-party appeals be allowed is because they’ve represented many citizens who have been concerned about the environmental impact of developments, quarries, dumps in the area. They’ve taken it to the land tribunal to say, “We also need to factor in how this is going to affect water quality, soil health, planning.” So they were very clear. They wanted to make sure that third-party appeals were retained. They also brought an interesting point forward in their submission. They said this is also important because it’s about access to justice: “Land use planning decisions often disproportionately impact low-income, underserved and under-resourced communities, and have direct adverse impacts on the environment and the health and safety of the public.” So in order to ensure that we are making equitable planning decisions, there is a benefit in allowing third-party appeals.

We hear a lot from this government that the lands tribunal is becoming politicized, and people are saying no to developments and they’re taking it to the lands tribunal. That does happen, but the lands tribunal, as it’s currently structured right now—adjudicators already have the authority to throw out frivolous appeals. They already have the authority to throw out appeals that have limited chance of success. So when we’re talking about slowing necessary development down, the lands tribunal already has the powers it needs to have to make sure that process is not abused.

What I found concerning about the government’s amendment in committee is—they must have been lobbied real hard by some folks, because the government said, “We’re going to keep the third-party appeal ban, but we’re going to allow some groups to appeal”—not everyone else, but some groups. Airports—that’s legit. Big industry are allowed to appeal. Big manufacturing facilities are allowed to appeal. And developers are allowed to appeal. I have some concerns with this because it seems like the lands tribunal is being manipulated to suit the government’s own agenda. There are over 14 million people in Ontario today. The vast majority of them are no longer allowed to appeal to the lands tribunal. But some select entities that must have lobbied you really hard in the last few weeks—at the last minute, you introduced an amendment to allow them to appeal. I think that’s very concerning, and I don’t think that’s how the lands tribunal should operate. I don’t think the appeals process should be open to some but not open to everybody else. I’ve got a lot of concerns about that.

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

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

I’m pleased to be rising here today to speak about Bill 185, the government’s latest housing bill, called Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024; I always love your titles.

This bill was also introduced at the same time as the government introduced an updated provincial policy statement for comment. These are pretty significant developments when it comes to the housing file, and I’m going to spend a bunch of my time today talking about what’s in the bill, as well as a little bit about what’s in the provincial policy statement, and then read some of the comments that have come in from stakeholders and also express some of what I like, what I have some concerns about and what I think is really not so great.

To summarize, this government has given us a bill that I would call a grab bag of half measures that reverse some of the really terrible housing mistakes that you’ve made in previous bills; notable is Bill 23. Some of the measures that you’ve introduced will also spur construction of new homes. I can see that. We do have a red flag that some of the homes that will be built will be single-family homes on farmland—sprawl. Sprawl is very expensive, and we have some concerns that this bill will really double down on that very expensive housing type.

Every time this government introduces a new bill, I really like to go through it and see what’s in it, and every time there is a new bill, I always see some flip-flopping. The government has attempted to cut back on development fees, and now we see that a lot of the development fee charges are back again. This bill also has flip-flopping as well.

What does this bill actually mean for people in Ontario who are struggling to find and keep their home? In the near term, it’s not going to help people find a home they can afford. It’s not going lower the rent. It’s not going to address the homelessness crisis. It’s not going to make it cheaper for people to buy their first home. That, I think, is a shame, because that is what housing affordability and the housing crisis is about: It’s about making homes affordable. When I look at this bill, there really isn’t a lot in the bill that’s going to address that critical issue of affordability. This government is cheap, and it’s people that suffer as a result of it.

I want to talk a little bit about the state of the housing crisis today. You just have to open up the newspaper, go to CBC, and every week, there are new, scary statistics and evidence and stories showing how bad it is out there—especially if you are lower-income or middle-income, you are really struggling to find a home to keep.

I’ll give you some examples. When it comes to the homelessness crisis—these are people who just can’t afford to find a home—we know that encampments in the city of Toronto have doubled; they’re at pandemic levels. We know that there are encampments in towns and cities all across Ontario, and that is new. It didn’t exist in the same way six years ago.

We know that the Auditor General, over five years ago now, said to this government, “You need to have a plan to address homelessness, because currently you don’t have one.” And six years later, this government still doesn’t have an effective plan to address homelessness. You would think, in a housing bill, that there would be a chunk of that bill that’s geared to addressing homelessness, but there isn’t. There’s nothing in this bill on that.

Then, I think about renters. There are 1.7 million renters in Ontario today; it used to be 1.4 million, but it’s going up because people can’t afford to buy a home. And when I look at the renter crisis and whether this bill addresses people who rent, I don’t see anything in there.

Your offices and our offices regularly get calls from people who are being illegally evicted, who cannot find a home, who are struggling with an above-guideline rent increase, who are being demovicted because their building is being converted into a condo. These people are worried. They’re scared. They don’t know if they’re going to be able to afford to live in Ontario anymore. What they want to see and what we want to see are strong measures to protect renters. We want to see strong rent control, including vacancy control, so there’s a cap on how much the rent can be raised between tenancies.

We want to see an effective Rental Housing Enforcement Unit. If a renter has an issue, like their washroom is not working, or they have mould that’s exacerbating their allergies or their asthma, and their landlord isn’t doing anything about it, they should have a number to call; they should be able to speak to a bylaw officer. There should be enough staff in that unit to respond, and the bylaw officer should have the enforcement tools and the capacity to take action, which means they should call up the landlord or the property manager and say, “This is the standard. Your renter is concerned. There’s evidence to show that you’re not doing your part as a landlord. If you don’t fix it, there will be consequences to that.” That’s what renters want. They want a level playing field. They want their home to be properly maintained. There’s nothing in this bill that’s going to help those renters—and this isn’t a one-off thing. When I canvass, I’ll go into building after building after building and I’ll speak to renter after renter who will say to me, “This place isn’t properly maintained.” It’s standard operating procedure, and that needs to change. We need to lift the floor to ensure renters can live in good homes.

And then the final piece, where I really see the housing crisis getting out of control—homelessness, renters—is for the first-time homebuyers who want to get their first home. If you are a first-time homebuyer in Ontario today, you are in a very tough situation because it has never been more expensive to buy a home and to pay off the mortgage of that home, with rising interest rates or high interest rates and the high cost of a home.

The National Bank of Canada’s recent statistics tell us that we are in the worst housing crisis for first-time homebuyers that we have seen in 41 years. That’s this government’s legacy. You’ve priced people out of the dream of home ownership. You’ve had six years to fix it. And under the six years this government has been in power, it has gone from bad to worse. That’s why people are saying, “I’m taking my skills and my talents with me, and I’m moving to Alberta.” Not good.

So the state of housing in Ontario today is really not great on all levels.

There’s so much that’s not in this bill that should be in there. There is no commitment to affordability. There is no fourplexes as of right. There is no commitment to increase density near transit stations or along transit corridors. There is no commitment to inclusionary zoning to require developments to do their fair share and build some affordable homes in big new developments. It makes sense. A lot of cities have done it. New York has done it—lots of cities. But we can’t. Why not? I don’t know.

There’s no rent control or vacancy control to stabilize rents and keep renters housed. There’s no improvement to the Landlord and Tenant Board, even though there are over 53,000 people waiting for a hearing at the Landlord and Tenant Board to get their disputes resolved in a fast, fair and efficient way—not happening here in Ontario.

There are no measures in this bill to stop illegal eviction, to curb AGI abuse and to stop bad-actor landlords who fail to properly maintain their homes. You would expect to see that in a housing bill, but it’s not there.

There is no plan in the bill to curb speculation to help first-time homebuyers buy their first home, even though we see CMHC data telling us very clearly that investors are buying three, four, eight, twelve homes and they’re pricing out first-time homebuyers.

There is no plan to increase investment to end or seriously address homelessness. There is no serious plan to build affordable homes or supportive housing. There’s none of it.

This government has chosen to put all their eggs into the basket of building more homes, especially homes on farmland, and I’ve got a lot of concerns about that. Nor does this government take any serious effort to address the question of who are we building homes for and how much are they going to cost—a lot missing.

When I look at what this government is doing, I often look at what the BC NDP government is doing and I like to do a compare and contrast. This government likes to say, “Well, we’re going to just build our way out of the housing crisis. We’re going to build so many homes, you won’t believe it. We’re going to build 1.5 million homes and it’s going to make everything affordable.” But, even going by your own benchmark of building more homes and ignoring everything else, you’re falling short. In Ontario, housing starts are going down month over month. You can see the CMHC data. It is very clear: Housing starts are going down.

The Conservatives like to say, “Well, it’s all the federal government’s fault. It’s all the Bank of Canada’s fault. It’s everybody’s fault but ours.” The reality is that other provinces have found a way to build in this tougher housing environment, and it is the BC NDP government where housing starts are going up. They went up 11%. What are they doing right and what is the Conservative government doing wrong, and why aren’t some of the things the BC NDP government are doing right in this bill? I don’t get it.

I’m going to give a little bit of a summary of what the BC NDP government is doing, and hopefully, for the MPPs opposite, you’ll introduce these as amendments in committee.

The government in BC is legalizing more affordable housing options, including semis, townhomes, multiplex apartments in all neighbourhoods, and they’re increasing density along transit corridors. That makes a lot of sense to me. I would like to see an amendment in committee that would allow that.

The BC NDP government is allowing taller apartments and condos near transit stations. That also makes a lot of sense. It’s smart, sustainable urban planning. This government has had two years—two years—to approve increased density near transit stations in Toronto. You’ve had over 104 requests from the city of Toronto to do that and you can’t bring yourself to do it. I don’t get it. It makes a lot if sense.

The BC NDP government is also bringing in what I really like to see, which is that they’re investing money into building and buying housing. What that looks like is, they’ve established a fund, $500 million, and they’re giving it to non-profits, land trusts and developers to buy and build non-market housing. It makes a whole lot of sense. It’s much quicker, it’s cheaper, and it makes a whole lot of sense. It keeps people housed. I would like to see this government move ahead on an initiative like that.

They’ve set up a renter protection fund and they’re also looking at taking very practical measures to address speculation. I’m not exactly surprised that this government doesn’t like to touch investor-led speculation, given who your donors are, but I think it’s pretty important that you do so because it is a very effective way to stabilize housing prices, help first-time home buyers and renters.

The BC NDP government, for instance, has brought in measures to restrict Airbnbs in investment properties. We can convert Airbnbs to long-term rentals and increase long-term rental stock so our health care workers and our construction workers, our supermarket workers can afford to find a home and keep a home that’s a rental. They can save up and buy their own home. It makes a lot of sense.

They’ve brought in a vacant home tax. If you are an investor who doesn’t pay your fair share of taxes in BC, or you leave your home vacant for more than six months of the year, then you’re required to put a chunk of money—give it to the government so they can build affordable housing. You can either rent out that property, sell it or contribute your fair share to affordable housing. It’s a vacant home and speculation tax. It’s incredibly popular. It has raised over $80 million for affordable housing and it has motivated people who have a vacant home to rent it out or sell it. It’s win-win-win.

This government—I hear them every year say they’re going to look into bringing forward a vacant home tax. Fall economic statement, latest budget—they always say it, but the details never arrive. The legislation never arrives. The regulation is never posted. You talk about it, but you don’t act on it. I think it’s really important that we act on it.

The BC NDP government is also bringing in real estate transparency, beneficial ownership. No longer can an individual set up a numbered corporation or a real estate investment trust and buy properties anonymously, often for the purposes of tax evasion or fraud. It’s a huge issue in BC. We know it’s a huge issue in Ontario. We know it’s driving up housing prices. OREA supports it; stakeholders support it; we support it. The federal government is looking into it. It’s very practical.

I would like this government to move forward on a practical measure like that. It’s the kind of measure that I would like to see in a housing bill. It’s not there yet. Maybe it will be in the next one. Maybe I’ll be pleasantly surprised, and it will be introduced in committee.

So that’s what the BC NDP government is doing right.

There are some things in this bill that aren’t bad. Then, there are some things in this bill that really are terrible. Then, there are a whole lot of things that should be in this bill that aren’t. I’m going to spend a bit of time going into the bill itself. I’m going to go step-by-step, for those who are listening.

The first measure that I’m going to look at is a schedule where the province can compel the city of Toronto to provide assistance directly or indirectly to a specified manufacturing business or other industrial or commercial enterprise. Currently, municipalities are banned from offering special discounts and incentives to one industry over another. It’s to stop a Hunger Games mentality where municipalities compete with each other. So this would give the city of Toronto the power to do that, and it will enable the province to compel the city of Toronto to do that, too. I’m curious to know if the city of Toronto asked for this power, or if they’re wanting it. I’m curious to know what specific industry will be getting that special incentive, tax break etc. I have those questions.

The second piece of the schedule that is a little concerning is this government is going to ban third-party appeals to the land tribunal, which will mean that residents will not be able to go to the land tribunal to contest a development, be it a condo or a quarry. The government brought this change in with Bill 23, where they banned third-party appeals. But then, there was all this backlash and concern, so they backtracked a bit. Now, it seems that you want to reintroduce it again.

When we are thinking about the land tribunal, it’s very clear the land tribunal does need to be reformed. There are some frivolous applications to the land tribunal that are stopping very worthy projects, such as a hospital expansion or an affordable housing development. What comes to mind is the affordable housing development in the member for Willowdale’s riding. It’s 59 modular homes that will be built near a transit station to house people who need supportive housing. That project—city of Toronto was fair, and they put supportive or affordable housing projects in every riding in the city of Toronto. But Willowdale just couldn’t bring themselves to say yes, the member for Willowdale couldn’t bring themselves to say yes, and two years later, that affordable housing project is stalled. Those modular homes are sitting in a warehouse somewhere—we think it’s Parry Sound—wrapped in shrink wrap. The city is spending upwards of $50,000 a month in rent for these modular homes to sit empty when they should be in Willowdale, housing people.

When I think about people who hold up useful, needed developments, I always think of the member for Willowdale and his decision to hold up affordable housing in his own riding.

It makes a lot of sense to bring in land tribunal reform so that projects that are of the public good and have affordable housing requirements are not needlessly held up in the land tribunal. But to say that nobody can bring an application to the land tribunal I think is bit much. Municipalities and residents deserve to have a say over what happens in their community. It makes sense for the provincial government to work with municipalities to ensure that they can meet their housing targets and to develop official plans that enable them to do so and that the land tribunal becomes a tribunal not of first resort but of last resort because projects are being approved and built, following an official plan that says yes to density. I believe that would be a better way.

This bill is looking at making changes to the building code to allow 18-storey mass-timber buildings. We are hearing from stakeholders that this is a good thing. We agree. It makes sense to build using timber. We know that it is structurally sound, and it is good to see that this change is in this bill.

What we would also like to see in this bill, given that we’re talking about the building code, is a commitment to mandate electric-vehicle charging stations in new developments so that we can do the sustainable thing and transition, be a leader in moving to an electric-vehicle-led province, where we not just build electric vehicles in Ontario but we make it easy for people to buy a vehicle and use a vehicle and get from A to B in an electric vehicle. But that’s only going to happen if it’s easy for people to charge the electric vehicle, because if you can’t charge it, you can’t drive it and you’re not going to buy it. I’ve had residents approach me and say, “I would love to buy an electric vehicle, but I have nowhere to charge it, because I don’t have my own driveway.” It’s stopping them from making that choice, which we know more people should be encouraged to make. So it would be good to see that change in the building code.

We’ve also heard from stakeholders, given that we’re opening up the building code, that the building code needs to be enforced, which means that when new construction is happening there are competent and qualified building inspectors that go to that site to ensure that the builder is doing everything they need to do to meet code—because what we don’t want is an individual moving into a home, spending a million dollars buying that home and then finding out that that home is defective, that there’s mould after 18 months, that they have flooding, that the heating and cooling system doesn’t work very well even though the building is new. We are getting these calls from residents who have moved into new condos, spent upwards of a million dollars on that new condo, and they’re finding that the building is defective. It makes a lot of sense that we make sure that the building code is enforced.

We’re also hearing from stakeholders about the building code and the need to lift the building code floor so we are building energy-efficient, resilient and well-made homes. We know the building code is being reviewed right now. There are conversations that are happening to align the building code provincially with the building code federally, and what we hear again and again and again is that the provincial government wants to keep the building code at the bare minimum when we know we need to lift the floor so when people buy a home they’re getting a well-maintained home, and that means improving the building code. We would like to see these changes in the bill.

The next change I’d like to discuss is the move by this government to no longer require parking in a development near transit. That is a move that we think makes sense. Stakeholders, environmental groups, planning authorities have said that it is time to do that.

There are a few caveats that I want to point out, however. The first caveat is that, if we are looking at building big buildings with less parking, then it’s essential that we make sure that the public transit that services that building is very good.

The second thing is that—we just did a briefing on this, this morning, and we had some residents say, “Well, what about accessibility? What do we do if I need a caregiver who is going to come in, they drive and then they care for me and then they leave?” Maybe it’s a personal support worker or it’s someone who has accessibility challenges who needs their car to get around. That’s a good point, and it gave me pause, and I think it’s upon us as a Legislature to think of useful ways to ensure that we can reduce parking minimums and eliminate parking minimums but also take steps to ensure that accessibility requirements are kept. So I would be curious and interested to know what measures and ideas you have, and I’m going to think of my own as well, because I’m sure it’s a challenge that other municipalities and provinces have addressed and solved.

The government is bringing in a use-it-or-lose-it law that gives municipalities more power to motivate a developer to build a development, once they’ve been given the approvals to do so. I would like to personally thank the member for Niagara Centre, who is sitting right here next to me. Let’s give him a round of applause. The reason why is because the member for Niagara Centre has been advocating for quite some time now for municipalities to have the power to bring in a use-it-or-lose-it policy. We are pleased to see a use-it-or-lose-it policy in this bill.

Essentially what this is: If a developer applies to build but then they don’t build, then they could lose the right to build. The reason why this is so important is because we have a housing crisis. We need to build more homes and we are not in a situation where we can allocate planning staff to approve permits, going through all that process, and then having developers sit on that land—maybe because they want to make more profit later on; maybe because they want to sell it, because once it’s rezoned, it’s worth more money, and for them, it’s really about a flipping opportunity and not a building opportunity. That’s not what we want. We want construction to take place. So this is a good move.

The government is giving municipalities the power to move forward on a use-it-or-lose-it policy by giving them a few new powers. One, they can reallocate sewage or water capacity from one development to another if this developer is not building in at timely manner, and they’re also giving municipalities the power to set expiry dates for site plan and subdivision approval. So if a site plan is approved and, in two years’ time, the developer hasn’t built it, then the site plan approval could be withdrawn. This all makes sense to us. If we hear something different from municipalities, we’ll let you know, but that actually makes sense to us.

This government is looking at putting more guardrails on the ministerial zoning orders—controversial ministerial zoning orders. These have been controversial for some time because the province essentially gave themselves the power to exempt a development from local planning and provincial rules, and also to impose their own rules on a development. We know that it created a two-tier planning approval process, where, if you were maybe giving money to the PC Party, were friends with a minister, then you can use the MZO process and get your development approved very quickly. That meant that everyone else, all the other developers, had to go to the back of the line and use the more traditional, mainstream planning process.

So it was really a two-tier system, and a lot of developers were very upset by that process, as well as residents who said, “What about us? We want to have a say,” and municipalities who said, “We want to have a say in how things get planned in our neighbourhoods and our cities.” So it was very controversial.

Once again, you’re looking at rewriting it. This rewrite means that an applicant—so the developer—has to explain why it’s necessary, maybe get local municipal appeal for the project, and the government has said that we will post it on the Environmental Registry if it’s non-urgent. So if it’s an urgent MZO, you don’t have to post it on the Environmental Registry, but if it’s a non-urgent MZO, you do. That’s our assessment of it right now. We’re a little concerned about what this means, but we do appreciate that there are some additional guardrails compared to what it was before.

The government is looking at changing development fees again. You remember Bill 23. Bill 23 was an absolute disaster when it came to development charges. The government made the decision to radically change how development fees were collected. Municipalities were no longer able to be collect development fees for affordable housing, and that remains true, as well as for parkland charges, and that the development fees had to be phased in. It was a lot of changes.

A lot of municipalities came to us, including AMO, and said, “Because of this, we are going to be losing $1 billion a year in infrastructure revenue, because you’re hampering our ability to collect developer fees from developers to just partially pay for infrastructure”—it just partially covers the cost of infrastructure. And this government, at the time, chose to ignore those calls.

Time went on, and what we found is that a lot of municipalities had to dramatically raise property taxes to cover the cost of the infrastructure: 5%, 8%, 10%—that’s on you. I want to call that a Ford tax. What we also found is that municipalities no longer had the money that they needed to pay for the infrastructure to allow development to happen. And in some regions, municipalities were saying, “We actually can’t even approve that development because we don’t have the money to pay for the infrastructure to connect those new homes to the sewage and the roads and the water that they need.” It actually hampered housing construction. It also threw planning departments into chaos.

I am pleasantly pleased to see that with Bill 185, there is some rollback on that. There is an acknowledgement from this government that municipalities matter, that their development fees matter and that funding for infrastructure matters. So that’s a partial step in the right direction. I don’t know why we had to waste two years or more for the government to realize what everybody else knows, but we did. Meanwhile, the housing crisis continues.

This is what concerns me. I’ve read through what some of our stakeholders are saying, and I’m going to spend a little time reading what AMO has said, because they did take a deep dive into the development charges piece. AMO said, “AMO will continue to highlight the need to reinstate both housing services and the cost of land as eligible DC costs.” So you’ve partially returned some powers, but municipalities are still out some money. And they give an estimate. They say, “Together, these changes are costing municipalities around $4 billion over a 10-year period and will have a material impact on municipalities’ ability to invest in community housing.”

So what AMO is telling you there is that even though there have been some modest rollbacks of the development charges framework, municipalities are still not able to collect developer fees for affordable housing. They’re still not able to do it. In the middle of a housing crisis, they still cannot collect development fees for affordable housing and shelter. I think that is a shame and I think that does need to be changed because every municipality I talk to is telling me they have a homelessness crisis. They have a wait-list for people who want to get into community housing or supportive housing. They can’t meet the need. So that is a problem.

There have also been some changes around how development fees are collected and whatnot. Municipalities are no longer required to refund application fees if they don’t get a development approved within a strict time frame—good. The government brought this change in with Bill 109. We kept hearing from planning departments that it actually slowed the process down, because municipalities will say, “We don’t have the capacity to get this approved within the 90-day time frame that you want it approved by, that we’re required to get it approved by, so we’re going to make you do all this pre-work in advance, before you can even submit an application.” They couldn’t get it done within the time frame.

We also see here in this bill that the government is looking at banning municipalities from telling developers to do work before they’ve officially submitted a development application. That’s one way of trying to solve the problem. The challenge with that is, we’re already hearing from cities that are telling us, “That’s a concern because we are not able to get an application approved where there is even just some kind of public consultation”—we’re talking about one meeting—“with the time frames that we have.”

This bill is also looking at taking away the right for some regional municipalities to be the leaders in planning responsibility. It looks like Halton, York and Peel regions will be losing their ability to plan, and that Waterloo, Durham, Niagara and Simcoe—their ability to plan will also be restricted in some way in the future, on proclamation. What we worry about here is that downloading the right to plan to local municipalities could create very chaotic and haphazard planning, because it affects a region’s ability to plan well and to plan efficiently. It could create a very piecemeal planning process. So we’ve got some concerns about that. We are talking to municipalities to see how it affects each municipality in particular, because it seems like some municipalities have different perspectives on it.

A Waterloo resident is pretty concerned about how this decision to eliminate planning responsibility from the region and download it to local municipalities could affect the Waterloo area. He says it could affect our water supply, which is a huge concern. He’s worried that if the Conservatives continue down this watch, we could have another Walkerton, which is also very concerning. He’s also very concerned about how this decision to remove planning authority from the region could affect environmental protections and farmland in the area, including greenbelt land. So there are some concerns there that I urge this government to look into.

This bill is also going to be exempting student housing from the Planning Act, which would give universities and colleges more latitude to build more student housing, and it would enable them to build student housing more quickly.

Let’s be very clear: Building student housing is absolutely essential. Some of the worst housing shortages and housing affordability crises we have in Ontario are in towns that have a big student population—we’re talking Ottawa, Kingston, Waterloo, Kitchener, Toronto, London, Hamilton. It is a problem.

In my riding, I have the University of Toronto. We regularly work with students who cannot afford to pay the rent or who are living three, four people to a bedroom—or having people sleep in a lounge room because they can’t afford to have a home to their own or to share a home with one person.

When you look at the price of student housing—honestly, I was flabbergasted. To rent a dorm—so you’re sharing a room—at the University of Toronto can cost you a minimum of $2,300 a month, and it could go up to $3,000 a month. That’s a lot. That’s more than any student I know would want to spend, and it’s more than most parents I know would want to spend.

When we’re thinking about building more student housing, it’s a good thing. But what I would urge this government to do is to also address the issue of affordability. Are we building student housing so that universities can drain even more revenue from people, because they’re not being funded properly by the provincial government? Or are we building student housing that’s affordable for students? I fear that this government is going to be moving down a path where we’re building student housing that’s not affordable for students.

It is also concerning to me that student housing is exempt from the Residential Tenancies Act. If you are a student, you don’t have protection from illegal eviction. You’re not protected by rent control. You’re not protected by price gouging if your university wants to charge you an excessive amount of money for a food plan. There’s not much you can do if you have an issue with maintenance. You can’t go to the Landlord and Tenant Board. It’s difficult for you.

I think it makes a lot of sense to have a conversation, do some consultation to think about we can integrate student into the Residential Tenancies Act so that student housing is tied to enrolment at the university but students also have protections that they deserve to have, especially rent control. I think we can do both, and I urge this government—I’ve raised this issue with the Minister of Colleges and Universities, and I think it’s something that this government should be doing as we’re looking at building more student housing.

This bill is also looking at moving ahead with providing standardized pre-approved home designs. I like the proposal. This makes a lot of sense, and we like this proposal because it will enable us to build more homes more quickly. It will enable us to do modular housing so we build housing off-site in a unionized factory and then move those homes to where they will actually be located. It’s a sensible idea, and I hope that this government would be interested in working with us and stakeholders and unions to ensure we can get good unionized jobs out of this process so we can build the economy here and solve our housing crisis at the same time. Let’s turn this good idea into a great one. I’d like to see that.

This bill is looking at bringing in enhanced regulatory authority to allow a second or third home on a property by removing barriers that can be thrown up by municipalities such as restricting the number of bedrooms that can be in a home or mandating that there need to be three parking spots for each unit. There are a lot of things municipalities can do to really throw up roadblocks. I think this is a good idea too. We like it.

In Bill 23, this government made the decision to allow three homes as of right on a residential lot, and now, in this bill, the government is removing some of the barriers that some municipalities throw up to stop that from happening. We think that’s a good idea. What I wish was in this bill was fourplexes. I know a lot of the Conservative MPPs like fourplexes, and I bet there is this internal conversation that’s happening within your party, when you’re looking at each other and going, “Oh, my God. We’re being called NIMBYs. I can’t believe it. How can they be calling us NIMBYs? They’re the NIMBYs. I don’t get it.” I would really like it, in this bill, if in committee all the Conservative MPPs that I know support this idea had their conversations with the Premier and you introduced an amendment to allow fourplexes as of right.