I rise again to speak to Bill 23. I want to summarize my take on the bill, and then we’re going to go into what I heard in committee, and then, in the final section, we are going to go into the amendments that we introduced, that the independents introduced, that the Liberals introduced and that the government introduced, and then I’m going to conclude.

So, in short, the government’s bill, Bill 23, claims that it’s all about fixing the housing affordability crisis. That is categorically false. There is no evidence that Bill 23 will lower home prices. There is no evidence that Bill 23 will lower rent prices. What we do know for sure is that Bill 23 will harm democracy. It will pave over the farmland. It will impact the greenbelt. It will impact public services and the quality of services that we have in our municipalities, and it will make life more expensive for renters in cities. I’m very concerned about it.

This government likes to say that they’re solving the housing affordability crisis. When I look at this government’s track record over the last four and a half years, the government’s record at helping people find a home that meets their needs, that they can afford, is abysmal. I give it an F. During the government’s reign, the cost of buying or renting a home has reached record heights. The Conservatives have betrayed the Canadian dream that a good home can be found if you work hard. In fact, the Conservatives have betrayed the basic human right that if you work very hard, you will find a home that you can afford to rent, and if you did, the government has now made it easier for a developer to kick you out and convert your rental into a luxury condo. That’s what Bill 23 will allow to happen.

In committee, we heard from such a broad spectrum of society, such a broad spectrum of Ontario. We heard from municipalities. We heard from regional municipalities. We heard from renters and housing advocates. We heard from environmentalists and conservation authorities. We heard from citizens who were very concerned about their democratic rights being threatened. And the overall message we heard was, “Stop. Let’s look at the unintended consequences of this bill. Let’s analyze the consequences of this bill, and let’s stop.” There are better ways to address our housing shortage than what this bill has planned.

I’m going to move into what I heard in committee, and I do want to start off by saying thank you to all the people that sent in written submissions; there were hundreds of you. Thank you to the people that signed up to speak. There were over a hundred people that signed up to speak. Not all of them got the chance to do so. We did call for additional days of hearings, so we could make sure this sweeping land use planning bill had the proper consultation that it deserves, and this government turned those motions to extend hearings down.

I do want to summarize some of the submissions that I heard in committee. The first one that I would like to share is from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. They were very concerned by Bill 23. They used the word “radical.” I’ve never heard the Association of Municipalities of Ontario use the word “radical,” but they did in their submission, because they’re so concerned about this bill. They said, “The province has offered no evidence that the radical elements of the bill will improve housing affordability. It is more likely that the bill will enhance the profitability of the development industry at the expense of taxpayers and the natural environment.”

They went on and itemized the financial impact of Bill 23 on municipalities across Ontario, and the analysis is scary. Their preliminary analysis indicates that Bill 23, if enacted, would reduce the municipal resources available to service new development by more than $5.1 billion over the next nine years. That is a huge amount of money, and that’s a huge amount of money at a time when we need to improve and expand upon our infrastructure so that we can have the services we need for current Ontarians and new Ontarians. We’re heading in the wrong direction.

They also talked about this bill’s impact on parks, and the reason why I bring up parkland dedication is that what Bill 23 is doing is it reduces the amount of space that a development needs to allocate to parks, or the funding that will be allocated to parks, by approximately half. As an individual who lives in a riding that is very dense—we have one of the densest ridings across Canada, along with Toronto Centre, Etobicoke–Lakeshore and Spadina–Fort York—the idea of having MPPs that do not represent Toronto decide how much park space is going to be allocated in Toronto is really quite shocking, especially at a time when more and more people are living in apartments, the size of apartments is shrinking and park space is that lifeline to get that break, to walk your dog, to play with your kids, to just relax. That’s being cut by this bill. It’s a shame, and they were very angry that they were not given the chance to speak to committee.

Another submission: This is one of the first submissions and one of the most interesting submissions that we received. This is from Carolyn Whitzman. She has worked with the CMHC before. She’s an expert adviser to the Housing Assessment Resource Tools project. Like me, there were some things in Bill 23 that she likes. She was fairly balanced in her approach. She, like us, agrees that we need to build 1.5 million new homes to meet the needs of current and future Ontarians, but she recommends that we not just focus on homes as a target but have sub-targets so we can meet the actual needs of Ontarians who intend to live in the homes they buy or rent, raise children in these homes, have pets and retire, as opposed to seeing them as a place for profit. She is very focused on ensuring we build homes for Ontarians to live in.

She breaks it down about how this government needs to have sub-targets that focus on homes based on income and homes based on square footage, so we’re not just building those 600-square-foot condos, we’re not just building those 3,000-square-foot multi-million-dollar McMansions on farmland, but we’re really thinking about the kind of homes that students need, that low-income people need, that people who want to downsize need, that families need. In her analysis she estimates that, based on need, we are short about 748,000 homes right now, and overwhelmingly, the people who need homes are people who are poor, people who are working poor, people who are homeless, people who are moderate income and people who are middle income.

When I look at Bill 23, I see a lot of talk about addressing the housing supply crisis. I see nothing about actually drilling into the details to build homes that meet the need based on income and size and who is actually going to live in them. I encourage you to look at Caroline Whitzman’s analysis because it is excellent.

This is another submission we received. This from the Toronto Atmospheric Fund. The minute that Bill 23 came out they immediately sounded the alarm and said, “Oh, my goodness. Bill 23, by eliminating site plan control on buildings 10 units or less, guts green building standards because it means municipalities have very little control over green building standards.”

Green building standards are really important. That is the future for us. That is where our building stock should go. It enables us to build well-made, energy-efficient homes where our energy bills are cheaper, where we can control stormwater runoff, where we can encourage the growth of our tree canopy. It’s our future. But in order for these sustainable design standards, these green building standards, to be encouraged—this is the building industry asking for this. We shouldn’t gut the green building standards.

These are the municipalities that already have sustainable design standards. There’s Toronto, Ottawa, Brampton, Ajax, Whitby, Pickering and Markham. They are very concerned. They are very concerned.

Then there was a submission from the Ontario Alliance to End Homelessness. I found this to be a very good submission because it talks about something that this government never talks about—I never hear them talk about homelessness—when we are talking about Bill 23. A lot of this submission is very rational and factual, but what really struck me was their closing paragraph, where, taking away the statistics, I could see the desperation and the urgency of the person who wrote this.

I’m going to read it to you: “I’ll close by sharing that our member agencies include homeless shelters and outreach organizations that support people living in encampments.” The housing sector does not cater to these people. “It is dire out there. Shelters are appealing to the public for donations of tents to give out when their beds are full. They are seeing people who never dreamed they would one day lose their housing; people who have worked their whole life, recently evicted, terrified, being handed a tent and given advice on where to pitch it to avoid police and bylaw officers. The number of newly homeless people is alarming, and our shelter system is already completely overwhelmed as the inflow into homelessness greatly outnumbers our ability to move people from shelter into affordable housing. We must collectively work diligently to create affordable housing options for all, including people living in our lowest-income households. Thank you.”

I was really struck by that paragraph because that is the reality of not just what’s happening in Ottawa but is happening in many cities all across Ontario. I don’t see that being addressed in Bill 23.

This was a statement from the Ontario Public Health Association. They also didn’t get the chance to speak, and their submission was quite comprehensive. They also talked about the impact of Bill 23 on green building standards and sustainable design for our building stock, which is up there with transportation and building that’s contributing to our greenhouse gas emissions.

They also talked about the impact of this government’s decision to gut the ability of conservation authorities to protect us in extreme weather events. They said:

“As noted in the Independent Review of the 2019 Flood Events in Ontario report commissioned by the government of Ontario, the first core component of emergency management is prevention, which includes ‘... actions taken to prevent flood-related emergencies or disasters from occurring, and includes land use planning and regulatory restrictions to keep development out of the floodplains and other hazardous areas.’”

That is exactly what conservation authorities and upper-tier municipalities do, and this government, in Bill 23, has decided to severely curtail their ability to do our job to protect us. It’s very concerning.

Next up, I have the FONTRA, the Federation of North Toronto Residents’ Associations. They also didn’t have the chance to speak—one of many that were not able to—and they were very concerned about it. They talked about the impact of climate change. They mentioned, and it’s good to mention this, that at the very same time Bill 23 is being debated, the UN Climate Change Conference is happening right now where the UN is sending out dire warnings, saying if we don’t turn the U-boat, we are in for a very difficult future. Green building standards are our future; protecting our natural environment in our greenbelt and our farmland, that is our future. And this bill threatens all of that.

Next, I have ABC Residents Association, which is an association that represents the Yorkville area, an area of huge development. For them, parks really matter because many of the buildings in their area are 20 to 40 storeys high. Most people live in condos. For them, parks are critically important, and the parks there are small, but they’re important. They’re very concerned about the elimination of park space and green space in our natural environment. They’re very concerned about it. They’re also concerned about the restrictions in development fees, which I’ll get to with other submissions.

Next, I have Friends of the Golden Horseshoe. This was another loose organization that was also not given the chance to speak in committee. They are very concerned, and what they said is—I’ll read it out:

“In fact, none of the following elements proposed in Bill 23 would do anything to increase housing supply in Ontario:

“—elimination of upper-tier planning

“—elimination of conservation authority participation in watershed planning

“—forced reductions in development charges

“—cutting developer parkland requirements in half

“—taking lands out of the greenbelt....”

The reason why I bring these up as examples of measures in this bill that have nothing to do with addressing housing supply is that your government’s own Housing Affordability Task Force essentially said the same thing. Conservation authorities are not the issue. The greenbelt is not the issue. Access to land is not the issue when it comes to addressing our housing affordability crisis and our housing supply crisis, and the Friends of the Golden Horseshoe area agree with that.

Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario: Douglas Kwan, one of the leaders at ACTO, came and spoke in committee. I was also struck by what he had to say. He raised an issue which is very important in my riding, which is the government’s decision in schedule 1 and schedule 4 to eliminate the rental replacement bylaw. Now, I heard a lot of talk from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing that they’re just consulting. I don’t believe that for one second, because you just gutted Ottawa’s rental replacement bylaw. And it looks like you’re going to be gutting the city of Toronto’s rental replacement bylaw, Mississauga’s rental replacement bylaw, and you’re going to stop Hamilton and Ottawa and all municipalities across Ontario to protect renters as well.

Douglas Kwan talked about what is happening in the rental market right now. He talked about how we are currently losing affordable rental units at a much higher rate than we are creating them. He goes on to explain that between 2016 and 2021, units renting for under $1,000 have decreased by 36%. These are those affordable units—they’re usually not very well maintained, but these are more affordable units, almost always in buildings and purpose-built rentals. Yet, at the same time, in this five-year period, there has been an increase in luxury rentals renting for over $3,000, and that segment of the market has increased by 87%.

What we are seeing in our rental market today is a transfer of wealth from those who don’t have a lot to investors who already have a hell of a lot. It’s contributing significantly to income and wealth inequality, and it’s happening right here in our housing sector and the rental market. What I fear when we are talking about this rental replacement bylaw and eviscerating it is that that’s just going to speed up that process of making rent more unaffordable for more Ontarians, because it makes it very easy for a developer to look at a building, a purpose-built rental, in an area that’s already being zoned for height, and say, “I’m going to demolish that building and I’m going to convert it to luxury rentals or I’m going to convert it to a luxury condo.” Because that’s exactly what’s happening in my riding already. The only difference is that renters are given protection and they get their right of return guaranteed, so they can move into that larger building once construction is complete. Some units are affordable, and then there are additional units which are sold off to ensure that the developer can make their profit. That’s all going to change now. Developers just get to make their profit, renters get to lose their homes, and affordable rental units and rental affordability in general is going to decline. It’s very concerning.

Conservation Ontario: This organization represents conservation authorities all across Ontario. In their submission—they’re one of the people that came and spoke, I believe in either Markham or Brampton. They spoke about how the proposed changes in Bill 23 really will make it very difficult for conservation authorities to do their job. They are concerned that this bill places new responsibilities on municipalities for natural hazards and natural resources that may lead to inefficiencies, uncertainties and delays in the development review process—they’re being polite. It weakens the ability of conservation authorities to protect people and property from natural hazards, and it reduces critical natural infrastructure, like wetlands and green spaces, that reduce flooding and protect waters in our lakes and rivers. Next time your basement floods, blame a Conservative. If Bill 23 passes, next time your basement floods because of an extreme weather event, blame a Conservative.

This was an interesting one: the city of Toronto. The city of Toronto is understandably very concerned about Bill 23, and they had some very alarming statistics in their report. This was one of the first reports that I saw, but I have found over the last few weeks that other municipalities have come out with similar reports where they’ve documented the impact of Bill 23 on their finances and their ability to provide infrastructure and their ability to provide services. I’m going to read out a few things that the city of Toronto identified:

It will reduce municipal revenues needed to fund growth-related infrastructure. Development fees partially pay, just partially pay, for the costs of providing infrastructure—the capital costs. They do not provide the operating costs; they provide the capital costs. When that is gone, that infrastructure is going to have to be paid for by someone else, which means there will either be tax hikes or service cuts.

They quote, “Without an offsetting funding source, the proposal would impact the city’s ability to provide servicing such as new roads, transit, water services, community centres, libraries and parkland to support new population and create complete communities.”

Once again, if your library is no longer open on a Friday, blame a Conservative. If there’s a pothole on a main road that is not getting fixed week after week, blame a Conservative. If transit service in your area has been cut because they need to deal with this development fee shortfall, blame a Conservative, because all these roads will lead back to Bill 23. It is that radical and that drastic. And I’m sure you’re hearing it from your municipalities as well. It can’t just be the city of Toronto that’s concerned and is complaining.

What the city of Toronto also was concerned about is the impact of Bill 23 on the city of Toronto’s innovative new inclusionary zoning laws. Now, the city of Toronto passed an inclusionary zoning law recently after years of consultation and talking to experts, doing studies, communicating with developers, working out if it’s worthwhile, if it will impact development, what it could look like, how many affordable homes are required. It was a long, negotiated, careful process with extensive public consultation.

They came up with a proposal that was meant to go into force just a few months ago. And our inclusionary zoning law required developers that were building buildings of 100 units or more to have a percentage of homes in that building that were affordable for 99 years, so affordable for a long period of time. It’s considered—it’s a definition of permanent. They also created a definition of affordability that is based on income, which means a home is affordable based on the income of the individual who moves in, essentially. It’s for the area.

What that means, for all practical purposes, is that a one-bedroom unit—an affordable-to-own one-bedroom unit—would be about $190,000, which would mean a household earning $58,000 per year could afford it. That’s the “own” piece; there’s also a “rental” piece. And it would be permanently. Well, this government has decided to upend the definition of affordability and say, “Whoa, whoa, whoa, we’re no longer going to base affordability on what the individual who is going to live there can pay; we’re going to base affordability on the market,” which is utterly unaffordable right now. It’s one of the most unaffordable markets in the world.

So the city of Toronto crunched the numbers and said, “Okay, what is the government’s new definition of affordability?” They explain it here: It’s only for 25 years, not 99, so we’re just kicking the can down to the next generation, and the definition of affordability for that one-bedroom unit—it’s different levels depending on the size of the unit and if it’s own or rent—is $444,000 now for that one-bedroom condo, requiring a household annual income of at least $130,000.

Now, the reason why I go into those details is to point out that Bill 23 is going to be giving a development fee exemption for homes to be built that are not affordable for even middle-income Ontarians. They are not affordable for middle-income Ontarians. And at the same time, you’re drastically weakening Toronto’s inclusionary zoning law that already required a much better definition of affordability and a much higher quota for how many homes in a big building needed to be affordable. You’re just saying, “No, no, no. We are going to give development fee cuts to developers and we are going to build unaffordable homes.” That’s the essence of it and it’s a shame. It’s a shame.

The city of Toronto also expressed concern that the province can override decisions on official plan matters now, based on Bill 23, cutting the amount of parkland space available, threatening the city’s ability to protect natural heritage—very concerning; all very concerning.

CELA, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, expressed similar concerns to what conservation authorities raised. They’re very concerned about the impact of this bill on farmland, on our natural environment. Their overall concern is that this is doubling down on very expensive and unsustainable suburban sprawl, and it’s ignoring the kind of solutions that we really need, that we absolutely need, to address our housing crisis. It was very concerning.

Next, I have the Canadian Centre for Housing Rights, an excellent group that does a lot of work helping tenants across Canada now; it’s extremely important. They submitted and they also spoke in committee. They expressed great concern about the province’s decision to gut the rental replacement bylaw, and they also pointed out the level of income and wealth that renters have compared to homeowners, which is also important to point out. Renters, as a whole, earn about half as much as homeowners do, so we are talking about people who are acutely affected by the inflationary crisis we have right now and the affordability crisis we have right now. Bill 23 is going to make their housing costs even worse. It’s very concerning.

We had Hemson Consulting come in and do a deep dive into the impact of the development fee cuts. Thank you very much for that.

We had the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority come in and talk about the impact of the bill. They had similar things to say about the bill—similar to what Conservation Ontario had to say—and they proposed amendments, which I will go into shortly, to take out the worst parts of schedule 2. Stay tuned: The government rejected those amendments, but I’ll get to them in a minute.

Then we had some recent articles and submissions that reminded the MPPs in committee about the reason why we established conservation authorities in the first place. I would like to read this to you: The conservation authorities, which you’re gutting, “were actually created under a Progressive Conservative government, led by Premier George Drew, in 1946. At the time, habitat degradation by settlers was starting to take a toll. Much of it was due to deforestation....

“Then came Hurricane Hazel in 1954, which washed away homes that had been built on flood plains and killed 81 Ontarians.” As a result, “the province expanded conservation authorities’ power, tasking them with monitoring waterways for potential floods....

“Today, the province has 36 conservation authorities, and all but five are in heavily-developed” areas in “southern Ontario.” Their job is to protect us from extreme weather events like Hurricane Hazel, and you’re limiting their ability to do that—a Progressive Conservative government.

Now I’m going to talk about committee. There were a lot of amendments introduced in committee during clause-by-clause. We went through this on Monday night. There were amendments that were introduced by our side and by the independent MPP for Beaches–East York, as well as the government side, because I think they’re very quickly realizing that there are a lot of flaws with Bill 23 and a lot of unintended consequences. I’m going to go through those amendments now.

We introduced an amendment to improve the rental replacement bylaw so we can protect renters—lower-income, moderate-income people in our city, who run our city—not just from demolition and conversion, but also in situations where they’re renovicted. We are in a situation today where there’s been a sharp rise in illegal evictions. It’s very concerning. People living in a home get a notice saying they have to move out—because of a renoviction. Maybe they contest it at the Landlord and Tenant Board, if they want to wait two years, or they give up and they move out because they assume they’re going to lose.

The problem is that maybe they walk by, down that street, a year later, and they realize that the landlord had no intention of renovating that property; they just wanted to move that rent-controlled tenant out and move another tenant in. That’s happening with increasing frequency, not just in Toronto. The housing crisis has spread, as we all know. It’s happening in cities all over Ontario.

So we proposed a bylaw, a motion change, saying that tenants whose building is being demolished or converted or undergoing renovation deserve to have compensation, and they deserve to have their right to return to that unit at about the same rent enforced by municipalities. It would give them protection and make our city affordable. The government turned down that motion, but we will continue to fight for that change, because it’s essential to keep our city affordable.

We also introduced amendments to maintain the green building standards in Toronto and other municipalities. The reason why we felt it was important to introduce amendments to protect the green building standards is because green building standards ensure that we get well-maintained and energy-efficient homes. It means our energy bills are lower. It means that we can protect our birds and our species. We can reduce waste. We can reduce stormwater run-off. We can reduce the heat island effect. It’s very important. It is our future. Government rejected the independents’ motions and our motions.

And then, interestingly, they proposed their own. This took me a minute, because I’m like, “Oh my gosh. Is the government actually going to care about green building standards?” We read this. We sent it out to stakeholders. They had lawyers look at it, and they came back and they concluded that, no, the government’s motions to allow municipalities to regulate green building standards do not go far enough to allow municipalities to do it. We have raised this issue with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

What these motions do is they will allow municipalities to manage green roofs—oversee green roofs—and it will allow municipalities to oversee landscaping. We are not sure yet whether it will allow municipalities to oversee bird-friendly design; we’re hearing mixed reports on that. But what we know for certain is that green building standards in municipalities cannot proceed in their current form if Bill 23 passes as it is.

I am hopeful that the government will delay proclaiming some of these motions so that municipalities can continue to oversee green building standards, and I’m looking forward to the government, hopefully, introducing a provincial green building standard in the future. I’m very much looking forward to that. Hopeful, I’m going to be hopeful.

We also introduced an amendment to bring in use-it-or-lose-it building policies. This came from municipalities who approached us and said, “Whoa, whoa, whoa, we’re getting a little sick and tired of being seen as sole culprit for why we’re not moving housing supply quickly, so we would like to have the province introduce a build-it-or-lose-it policy,” which means that if a developer is given a permit to build and they’re given the green light to build, yet they sit on it instead of moving forward on it, through no fault but their own, then over a period of time, if they don’t build, they should lose it. The reason why is because we want building permits, once they’re given out, for homes to be built, and that’s the purpose of the use-it-or-lose-it policy. The government rejected that. You should rethink that.

Then we also introduced amendments just to delay the proclamation of the rental replacement bylaw, because it is so bad. It is so bad. They didn’t like that one either, which is a real pity.

Then we got to schedule 2, which is the conservation authorities piece. Oh my God, schedule 2 is so bad. So we introduced some measures to try to move from horrible to just bad. We introduced two key measures. One, we wanted conservation authorities to retain the right to work with municipalities to engage in land use planning and protect the natural environment, because right now, with Bill 23, conservation authorities are banned from taking a contract with a municipality to do this planning work for them. They’re banned; they’re explicitly banned from doing it, even though municipalities, we’re hearing time and time again, don’t have the expertise to do this work and conservation authorities do, and municipalities for many decades now have relied on conservation authorities to do this work. So we said, “Okay. Let’s at least give municipalities the option to contract with conservation authorities if they want.” You rejected that—very concerning.

Then we introduced some motions saying that, look, conservation authorities should not just have the right to look at a few pieces of land use planning—flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches—but they should also look at pollution and conservation of land, because if you get that holistic approach, then you can actually do your planning job well.

It gets a little complicated, but this is what conservation authorities were asking for. We wrote it up in a motion. You folks looked at it and said, “No, thank you. Suburban sprawl, that’s what we want to do. Flooded basements, that’s the Conservative way. No, we’re not doing that.”

So now we introduced some more motions to bring in a real, strong definition of affordable housing. If we are looking at giving development fee reductions, then we need to make sure that those development fee reductions are for houses that are truly affordable. And this is what many municipalities already do. The Open Door program at the city of Toronto already offers significant development fee reductions for homes that are affordable.

We introduced some amendments calling for affordable housing to be based on income, not just the market; an income-based definition, where the rent does not exceed 30% of gross annual household income, or where the mortgage, if you’re doing a rent-to-own program, doesn’t exceed 30% of gross household income. That’s what we called for. We also called for the affordable housing definition to move from just being for 25 years to being permanent. The government rejected these, even though the provincial policy statement already has these affordable housing definitions. So all we’re really asking you to do is just use the definitions that are already on the Ontario government’s books—nope; didn’t like that, not at all, which is a real pity.

Then we moved into development fees—huge issues with development fees. We introduced this motion calling on the Ontario government and saying, “Look, if you’re going to cut development fees and put municipalities into a financial hole, then come up with a provincial program to fund the loss so that the municipalities can repair roads and make sure that we have transit service; make sure our schools aren’t overcrowded; make sure we have parks nearby; make sure that we can deal with stormwater runoff, because our infrastructure system and our sewage system can handle it.” Nope, nope, nope; they didn’t like that one either. It’s very interesting. No wonder you’re getting tons and tons of emails and calls from councillors right now saying, “What are you doing?” It’s very concerning. That was another one.

Then we introduced a motion saying, “Please, please, please delay proclamation. Give us some time to think about this bill; it’s very concerning.” They didn’t like that, either.

Okay, I’m going to be a little positive for a minute. I’m going to talk about schedule 5. I kind of like schedule 5. Schedule 5 amends the HCRA, which is the Home Construction Regulatory Authority, and this is a regulatory authority that oversees builders and developers who are building new homes. If you’re a first-time homebuyer or a homebuyer and you’re buying that home, maybe in preconstruction—it’s a new home—and you move in and everything is great, you’re not even going to ever want to call the HCRA because you’re going to be nice and happy living in your nice, good home. But if you’ve got some defects—maybe you’ve got mould or flooding or you’ve found out that you’ve actually got a second-hand furnace when you thought you were buying a new one—then it’s the HCRA that you call to seek recourse and to make sure these shoddy builders are held to account.

It is good that the government has decided to increase fines for developers and builders that don’t do the right thing. Good; I’m happy about that. But I also think that we can go further, and the reason why I think we can go further is because consumer advocates are telling us to go further. So we introduced some amendments calling on the government to go further.

We asked for the HCRA, the regulatory authority, to have some citizens on the board so the regulatory authority is not just a developer/builder-run board overseeing builders—you can see the conflict of interest there—but also it has some citizens’ groups there who can look out for consumers. The government didn’t like that. I’m hoping you’re going to put that in another bill, because this is really good stuff.

We called for a ban on people who have a clear conflict of interest sitting on the HCRA board so this regulatory authority can do its job. They didn’t like that one, either. That’s a pity. I think that’s really good.

Then we called for the HCRA to be overseen by the Ombudsman—standard practice for a good regulatory authority. We’ve got this place that people can complain to, the Ombudsman, if the regulatory authority is not doing its job. Nope, you didn’t like that. I actually think this one is really good. It doesn’t cost you money. It means first-time homebuyers—it’s more likely they’re going to get a well-built home; good.

And then we introduced an amendment, and I really like this one too, which is to have, essentially, a builder directory on the HCRA’s website. So if an individual is going out there, looking for a home, they can go to the HRCA website and look to see that builder’s record. If they’re a builder that has a checkered history, they can maybe think twice about buying a home in pre-construction from that builder, and instead, they can buy a home from a builder that has a very good track record. That’s a carrot-oriented approach which would ensure that we’re more likely to get a well-built home. You didn’t like this one either, but I actually think it’s really good, and I do hope that you bring that in future government bills—because apparently you’re going to bring out one a year.

I’m going to keep going on. Then we introduced some amendments calling on upper-tier municipalities to regain their right to plan. The reason why this is so important is because upper-tier municipalities see a much larger area. They’ve got all of these smaller municipalities in their area, and they make sure that there is regional coordination when there’s planning. That means we’re more likely to get sensible, well-planned infrastructure, because they can see the big picture, and we’re more likely to get less sprawl. But instead, this government was like, “No, no, no. We’re going to download responsibility for planning to all these little municipalities.” When we do that, the problem is we’re more likely to get expensive, poorly planned and environmentally destructive sprawl. I’m very concerned about that. You rejected that motion.

Then we introduced a motion taking some of the insight that Carolyn Whitzman had around housing targets. We said, “Okay, so we’ve got this 1.5-million-housing-starts goal. Let’s make sure those homes are for Ontarians who want to raise children in them, retire in them—people who intend to live in them. Let’s also add some sub-targets that really focus on building the kinds of homes that are affordable for different levels of income and building homes of different square footage size, so we’re not just building big and we’re not just building too tiny, but we’re building the missing middle, the 1,400-square-foots, the kinds of homes that were the starter homes in the 1950s and the 1960s that we don’t build anymore.” They’re actually cheaper to build, and they’re what we actually need for students, for people who want to downsize, for families, for affordable homes. Those are the real gaps in our housing sector right now. So we thought, “Let’s put some evidence-based decision-making into those housing targets.” You didn’t like that one either.

We introduced the motion to expand inclusionary zoning, meaning developers do their part and play their fair share in addressing the housing affordability crisis. Right now, inclusionary zoning is only allowed in protected major transit station areas. The city of Toronto wanted it across the municipality. This government came in and said, “No, no, no. We’re just going to shrink it right next to transit stations, because we’re getting a lot of calls.” The city would much prefer to have the authority to expand it so we’d get more affordable homes in big developments. So we introduced an amendment to do exactly that. The government rejected it. That’s a pity.

We introduced amendments to increase parkland dedication to what they currently are. The government rejected that. It’s a real pity.

And then we also identified and expressed great concern that this government is exempting major infrastructure projects from the environmental assessment process. That’s a bit scary. The government is exempting the York region sewage waste plan that you have in this bill from the environmental assessment process—very worrying—and this government is also exempting the Lake Simcoe phosphorus project from the environmental assessment process as well. Why not do one? Don’t you want to know so you can plan? It makes sense; it’s there for a reason.

I’m running out of time, sadly. I want to talk a little bit about the amendments the government introduced. They could also see that there were some flaws with Bill 23. I know you’re getting a lot of calls and emails right now—and you’ve just extended the consultation process so you must be feeling some heat. These are the amendments that this government introduced. This one is really crappy. This one makes it so that the development fee cuts that you are imposing are retroactive. So developments that are already in the works can now go back and say, “We actually want that development fee exemption and the development fee cut as well”—very concerning.

When I think about the development fee cuts, one thing that bothers me the most about the development fee cuts is that the biggest cut, $1,000 a unit, is the funding that goes to help municipalities provide affordable housing and supportive housing. That’s where the bulk of the development fee cut is coming from—the city’s Open Door program; the city’s Housing Now program to build affordable housing on public land; funding that goes to shelters. That’s the funding being cut from Bill 23. There’s nothing about this that will make housing affordable for people who are low-income or moderate-income. I’m very concerned about that. The government got the motion passed to make the development fee cuts retroactive for developers that have already been given the green light to build.

This government loves to talk about how they want to clear red tape. Well, this is like the red-tapiest government motion I have ever seen. What this motion does is, it eliminates the two-year timeout that exists when an official plan is approved. Let’s say Ottawa, for example, creates an official plan on how they’re going to build. Then, there’s a two-year timeout, so that bylaw, that official plan can’t be appealed for two years. It gives staff time to study the rules, enact the rules, know what they do and implement them. Now, you’ve made it so that once an official plan, a secondary plan or a bylaw goes through, immediately someone can appeal them—immediately. So that’s going to create a massive backlog of appeals—crazy, crazy, crazy.

Then, the other thing you did is you changed the land tribunal process a little bit. In the original definition or understanding of Bill 23, you eliminated the ability for individuals, citizens to appeal to the land tribunal. It was only municipalities and developers that could appeal to the land tribunal and have a say over planning that everyday citizens, people who had some concerns about a gravel pit, people who were concerned about water pollution—they were banned from appealing to the land tribunal. Now you’ve changed it a bit. You’re allowing a third-party appeal—MPP for Willowdale, I wonder if you had something to do with that—

Today, I rise to speak to Bill 23. It is a bill to increase housing supply, among many other things, across Ontario. It is a really big bill. I have it right here. It’s large. It’s over 130 pages. We received it yesterday at about 3 p.m., and we’ve been working hard and doing outreach with stakeholders to better understand what this bill means, what the legislative changes mean, what the proposed regulatory changes mean for a whole host of things in Ontario, from our housing sector, how it is going to affect renters, its effect on the building code, its effect on conservation authorities, on development charges, on municipalities, on consumer protections for new homeowners and new condo owners.

It is a significant bill. It is also a mixed bag. There are some things that I look at and I think, “That could make sense,” and there are other things that I look at and I think, “That’s going to have some pretty serious consequences on municipalities, on environmental protections, on renters.” It does look like Bill 23 will build more homes in existing neighbourhoods, but our assessment is that it will likely make renting more expensive, it will likely encourage urban sprawl, and it will certainly harm municipalities’ ability to provide services like transit and daycare to residents.

What we were wanting to see from this government after the election was a bill that didn’t just focus on building new homes, which is absolutely essential to tackling our housing affordability crisis, but also a comprehensive approach that deals with the housing affordability crisis overall. That means building new homes. It also means building more affordable homes and supportive housing homes. It means clamping down on investor-led speculation. It means bringing in—and this is extremely important—better protections for renters as well.

The reason why it’s very important to have a comprehensive approach as opposed to just focusing on one piece of the problem is that we have a massive housing affordability crisis in Ontario. It is the number one issue in my riding, and it affects all Ontarians in different ways. On a basic level, in our riding in particular, we have a very high homeless population. University–Rosedale, Toronto Centre and Spadina–Fort York have some of the highest densities of people who are experiencing homelessness across Ontario. Many of the services for people who are experiencing homelessness are in our ridings. Many of the shelters are in our ridings. As well, many of the encampments are in our ridings. What I’m hearing from my colleagues is that the number of people who are homeless, living on the streets, living in encampments, has spread from Toronto to areas all across Ontario. It’s extremely concerning.

We have an encampment at College Street right now. It’s a new encampment, and the people who are living in this encampment literally have nowhere else to go. We have communicated with local service agencies, including The Neighbourhood Group, the church, and we have communicated with the city to try and find more permanent supportive housing for people who are living in tents, and there is nowhere for them to go. There are no permanently supportive homes available. And there are very few shelter beds available, and the shelter beds that are occasionally available—shelters are about 98% full—many of these shelters are hard for people to live in. They’re often dangerous. People are concerned that their belongings are going to be stolen. They’re worried about COVID, especially since we’re going into another wave. They have to leave every morning at a certain time. It’s very unstable.

What we also know is that many of the hotels that were established to house people during the COVID period, their contracts are up for renewal, and many of these contracts are not going to be renewed. So we have this perfect storm of rising inflation, a homelessness crisis and these hotel contracts that could be ending, which could lead to even more homelessness challenges. So it’s very concerning.

Then when we move up to the rental market, we see that our rental market is extremely expensive. We saw a dip in rental prices during the COVID crisis, but now what we’re seeing is rental prices going up. In the case of Toronto, we’re seeing rent prices reach record levels—levels that we have never seen before in Toronto, ever. I just went and had a look at the cost of a one-bedroom rental. For an available one-bedroom rental in the city, it will now cost you an average of $2,329 a month, which is a 17.1% year-over-year increase from August 2021. So rents have gone up 17% in the last year. The average amount for a two-bedroom apartment is now $3,266 for an available market apartment. That is staggering. There are estimates that you need to earn over $100,000 a year to afford just to rent in Toronto at this point.

Then when we move to the dream of owning a home, and that is a desire of many newcomers, many younger people—anybody who doesn’t have a home yet would love to own their own home, and that has become increasingly out of reach. There has been a softening in housing prices since the housing peak in February and March 2022, but with the rise in interest rates, we have actually entered, according to RBC, the worst housing affordability crisis when it comes to home prices that Canada has seen in decades because interest rates have made it even harder for people to save up the deposit and then also cover the carrying costs of having a mortgage.

This has happened under this government’s watch. The cost of buying a home, the cost of renting a home and the homelessness crisis, which is escalating, has happened on this government’s watch. It also happened under the Liberal government’s watch, but it has happened under this government’s watch. That is a legacy.

There is a need to certainly address the housing affordability crisis, and there were measures that we wanted to see in this bill to really tackle the housing affordability crisis in a comprehensive way. I want to flesh them out a little bit more before I get to the bill itself.

One, we agree with the Conservative government that building more homes, market homes and non-market homes, is necessary to address the housing affordability crisis.

Interjection.