I didn’t even know how much time I had left. I knew it wasn’t much, and that could be said in a lot of ways when it comes to me, but for the purpose of today, it’s about this bill.

To build or not to build? If Shakespeare was here, would he ask that question: To build or not to build? Well, this is one party that wants to build and will build. We’ll stand straight and into the wind for all of those that want to attack them for their decision to do what is right, and that is to build here in Ontario and, by extension, just do that: build Ontario.

When we were elected in 2018, that was the catchword: “We’re going to rebuild Ontario.” What have we done? While the Liberals, aided and abetted by the NDP, saw 300,000 and some good-paying manufacturing jobs leave the province, we brought ’em back. We brought ’em back by establishing an environment with which business could look at this province and say, “This is a great place to invest.” We’re now leading the world in investments in the auto sector because they see Ontario is a great place to invest.

But do you know what happens when you bring back people to work? Do you know what they ask you? “I love Ontario; I love what you’re doing, but I need a place to stay. I need a place to stay; my family needs a place to stay; my relatives are going to need a place to stay, and we want to continue to expand. So what are you going to do to help us?” Well, we’re not going to do what the NDP would do, which is to stand against every single bill we put forward and try to prevent housing from being built. Yet, on one hand they’ll say this: “Oh, we want to see 1.5 million homes built by 2031. Oh, yes we do. But no, you can’t do that. You can’t do that. You can’t put them here; can’t put them there.” By the time you get done with the can’ts, it’s a won’t. So many can’ts turn into a won’t. That’s the mantra of the NDP.

Yet, they’ll try to stand there and defend—“Oh, we want to do this for these people and this stakeholder and that stakeholder,” and then they wait to see if any of the cheques are coming in at their riding associations because they had something nice to say about this or that group while they were debating this in the House, all the while knowing full well that nothing was going to get built if it was under their watch.

Yesterday, the member for Thunder Bay–Superior North stood in her place and said, “supply and demand is a myth.” And I briefly touched on that yesterday; “supply and demand is a myth”. It’s about the most basic rule in economics. There have been lots of rules in economics that have been debunked over the years or proven to be weak in their theory, but supply and demand is as basic as it comes.

I was listening to the news last night and there was a real estate person on there with the reporter. The reporter was talking about real estate here in the GTA, and he said, “Well, prices have actually inched back up.” After the pandemic, prices dropped again. They had gone up through the pandemic, and then they had levelled, and then they dropped. But prices are back up, and he asked the realtor, “Why is that?” He said, “Well, it’s simple. There are fewer houses on the market, so the prices have gone up.” Now, isn’t that amazing? Fewer houses on the market, so the prices have gone up—boy, that’s hard to understand over there, isn’t it? Try to get your heads around that: fewer houses on the market, so the prices have gone up.

Well, then it stands to reason, Speaker, that if there were more houses on the market, the prices would come down. We all have to understand the considerations of inflation and everything else, but on a level playing field, the prices will come down. But every single thing we have done from the time we got here—and I’ve got to take my hat off to Premier Ford and his Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Honourable Steve Clark. He has shouldered this and kept his shoulder to the wheel right through this whole issue. Every time we come up, we’re doing more for tenants than has ever been done in this province before—ever been done. Bill 97 is another bill that protects tenants; another bill that brings in more protections for tenants than there were before.

And I heard the critic—I think it’s the member for University–Rosedale—

But anyway, she’s talking then about—so we’re bringing in a rule now so that if you’re a tenant and your building does not have air conditioning, the landlord must allow you to put an air conditioner into that building, into your room—a window air conditioner of some form into that apartment or whatever the case may be. So the landlord is going to be doing that. But the member, you know what she said? “Well, you can’t make them pay for the electricity that it takes to run the air conditioner.”

Boy, this is a great world, Speaker, I’ll tell you. I want that job. I want that place where everything I get, I never have to pay for. But you know what? In this world, it’s called fairness. You have a choice: you want something, you have to accept some of the responsibility for what it takes to get there. But no, because they have to stand there in their places.

I’ve got to believe that every night, they must have an un-pretzelling meeting—the de-pretzelization. You know how you have a debrief? Well, they have a de-pretzellizing, because they’ve twisted themselves in so many knots during the debate because they’re contradicting themselves. They’re for this but they can’t do this.

I sit here when I’m listening to this debate and I’m saying, “God, I hope they play that back before they go to bed tonight and listen to what they actually said—listen to what they actually said and then say to themselves, ‘Which part of me was saying that and which part of me was saying that? Because we’re not the same. We’re just not the same.’” Sesame Street would probably have a good cartoon to work with that: Who’s the same and who’s not? They’re not even the same when they’re the same one. The same isn’t the same because they talk two different stories when they’re up in the same debate.

It’s because they will not support whatever this government does. But I’m going to tell the folks over there—I know they don’t listen to me anyway, or they’ve never done anything I’ve asked them to do—but I do want them to actually understand this, because unfortunately you will never get to experience it: Governing is tough, but governing is real and it takes tough people to govern. It takes those people who will stand up against whatever kind of criticism is being levelled at them, because they are committed to what? They are committed to doing the right thing, even if it means that they’re going to be criticized and cajoled on social media by all of those people who spend half of their lives punching into a computer or an iPhone or something in their messaging, as opposed to actually getting out and talking to the real people in the real world on the streets who are wondering if they’ll ever have a chance to own a home or if their children will ever have a chance to own a home or if their grandchildren will ever have a chance to own a home.

You know who they’re standing with? They are standing with the Doug Ford government, which is going to make sure that the future for them is a bright one, in spite of the darkness that descends every time the NDP speaks on this issue.

No, Spadina–Fort York.

Good morning. Let us pray.

Prières / Prayers.

Pursuant to standing order 7(e), I wish to inform the House that tonight’s evening meeting is cancelled.

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 31, 2023, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 97, An Act to amend various statutes with respect to housing and development / Projet de loi 97, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne le logement et l’aménagement.

What?

I want to thank the member for her question. It’s a little out of the realm of this particular piece of legislation, but in fairness I know we had this conversation when I was actually in the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry as well. I would suggest that you continue to have those conversations. I don’t think there’s a feeling that opposes that kind of thing, because we want to see more growth, more development.

It’s interesting for me when the member speaks—and I do have to say, you had a chance to support our Mining Act, which is going to bring more prosperity to the north and bring more opportunities for those people to own properties and live in the north while they work in the north. We want to see the north prosper and grow. Stand with us on some of these things and continue to have those conversations with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, and if you and I want to have a chat after, I’m more than happy to do that.

I don’t think there could be a government—I know there’s not a government, and I know there’s not a Premier or a minister that has done more to make people feel more welcome to come to Ontario. Look at the bills we’ve passed. Look at the bill that is before the Legislature today. You will not find a more proactive government that recognizes the reality out there, that is doing more so that those people can have a home right here in Ontario, the best place to live, work and raise a family.

But I do want to say to the member, this is what governing is all about. That’s why it’s so tough, because you also have to be willing to say, “Was there some confusion or some misunderstanding on something that we talked about?” It’s not directly in the bill, but what is now out there and absolutely clear is that we’re going to continue with that consultation process until August 4—I believe the date is August 4—which is going to give everybody another opportunity to voice their views on what seems to be spreading out there.

As the Premier said, the agricultural community, one thing they also have said, there’s been no government ever that has been better suited and has done more for the agriculture industry in the history of Ontario than this government right here. I know I can give you some comfort in saying: watch, listen and learn; August 4, you’re going to be clapping.

A case in point: the 413—you want to plan for the future? The 413, and they railed against the 413: “Don’t do it. It’s crazy. It’s the worst thing you could ever do.” I asked the members of the NDP from Brampton to tell us how that worked—oh, I’m sorry, there are no MPP members from Brampton because the people of Brampton said, “You people are losing it. We need the 413 if we’re going to prosper, and we’re going to have a better future for our families and our children.” The 413 is important. There are going to be cars on the road. Maybe they won’t be powered by gasoline, but there’s going to be—

I always love listening to the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. He is, I think, the best entertainer here and he often has valid points. We all want to build houses, just like in Shakespeare’s day, but it’s important where we build them, and something he said gives me concern because he said that we spend our time listening to people, and they have to make the tough decisions. One of the decisions they have in this bill is three severances per agricultural lot. The Premier seems to have backed down on it, but it’s still in the bill, and the member is now saying that perhaps the tough decisions are still going to be made despite what people in agriculture—because everyone in agriculture united against that provision in the bill. Could you please confirm that that is still the stand of the government

This is a very good start to a Thursday morning with the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. I know that he knows the north, I know that he cares about the north and I also know that he knows that there are lots of lots that people want to buy that have gone back to MNR. In unorganized areas, which is most of the north, a piece of land—if you don’t pay your taxes directly to the province, the piece of land goes back to the province. People want to buy them, especially around a new mine. Iamgold has set up a gold mine. They are hiring hundreds of new people who would like to be able to purchase homes that are already there that have gone back to the crown, pieces of land that are already serviced with water, sewage, electricity, WiFi, everything, that have gone back to the crown. What is the member willing to do this morning to help put those on the market?

I want to ask my friend, what happens when you don’t have the vision, when you don’t plan for the future, when you don’t plan for subways, you don’t plan for infrastructure and you don’t make the plans for housing for another generation? What happens when we don’t do it? I think your remarks—and I’d like to hear your thoughts—speak to a vision, that when we have a vision, we have absolutely everything. But I want to ask you, what happens when we don’t have the vision to move forward to plan for another generation?

I want to ask the member—he’s talking to so many people in his area. I remember visiting Algonquin Park one summer and you can’t run into someone who doesn’t know MPP Yakabuski. I wanted to ask him, what is he hearing first-hand from many families who may want their sons or daughters to stay in the area, but unfortunately they may be leaving for more affordable housing in other provinces?

We’re going to move to questions.

It’s always an honour for me to rise and add the voices of the great people of London North Centre, especially on a topic that I know my community is passionate about and one that I am passionate about as well, which is housing. I believe strongly that the government needs to take a leading role. They need to lead from the front. The government needs to make sure that they are fulfilling their historic responsibility for providing an adequate supply of affordable housing in the province.

You see, housing is a human right. But housing is even so many more things. Housing is also health care. Housing is a social determinant of health. Housing is foundational for every single person in this province in order to enjoy their life.

We also need to see a government that is concerned with the creation, the building of non-market homes instead of a private, market-based approach that focuses on tax cuts, deregulation, sprawl across our treasured greenbelt. Their solutions are ones that simply make it harder for people to pay the bills and to put food on the table. There are also no guarantees of enough new affordable homes within this province’s flawed plan.

I would also like to take a look at some proactive measures that the NDP has brought forward to this government, ones that are sitting on the table right now that this government could pass to protect tenants immediately, ones that would be supported by the official opposition, ones that we could get through this House in record time. Those include Bill 25, the Rent Stabilization Act, one that I was proud to co-sponsor to make sure that we are plugging the hole of vacancy decontrol that was brought forward during the last Liberal government.

You see, this Conservative government has continued a system of exploitation on tenants. They’ve made a system of unaffordability even worse by removing rent control from buildings first occupied after November 2018. It’s a system where people are paying more and more and more every year with no signs of relief, and that is on this government. They have chosen to allow unethical corporate landlords to exploit people for something that is a basic human right, which is housing.

We also have introduced other measures, such as Bill 48, to plug that vacancy decontrol hole, to have rent control for all tenants. There’s also Bill 58, which is currently on the table, the Protecting Renters from Illegal Evictions Act. These are proactive steps, Speaker, that would effectively safeguard and protect tenants. But yet we see a government that isn’t concerned about proactive measures; instead, they have looked towards reactive measures through Bill 97.

What is deeply concerning, Speaker, is that only this government could turn a Human Rights Tribunal ruling into a rent hike. What they have allowed is landlords to increase rent on people for having the right of air conditioning. How is that right? At a time of unprecedented unaffordability, they want to let unethical landlords reach deep into people’s pockets and take their hard-earned money. That’s on this government. They want to reach into people’s pockets by this decision. People who have had air conditioning units in the past will now have to pay for them; that’s on this government. That is a choice.

We have proposed so many solutions to problems of unaffordability and the problems facing tenants, but this government has said no every single time. We’ve brought forward opposition day motions. We’ve dedicated entire days to debating this within the Legislature, and this government shuts their ears and doesn’t want to listen to the voices of people who are struggling. They don’t want to listen to the voices of tenants.

They have this ironically titled legislation which does little to help homebuyers and protect tenants. It does so little. They are talking about increasing fines, but we know that fines are not levied in many cases at the Landlord and Tenant Board. The Ombudsman has even called the Landlord and Tenant Board “moribund.” My goodness.

This government has defended rent increases as high as 57%. In London, in my community, they were hit by the biggest average rent increase in all of Canada last year, 33%. And now, this year, it’s 27%. People cannot afford that. They have continued the Liberal loophole of vacancy decontrol, keeping that incentive for unethical corporate landlords to kick good people out, who have been there for many years, so that they can jack up the rent because the market will allow it.

I’ve travelled to 1270 and 1280 Webster Street, where I heard from seniors, people who were in their golden years who just want to enjoy some time in their home. And yet, this building has been sold, Speaker, and because this government does not stand up for tenants and did not plug vacancy decontrol and that loophole, these people have been served with eviction notices. Those are eviction notices that have not gone through the Landlord and Tenant Board; they’re deliberately misleading and threatening. These people are concerned about where they’re going to go. They’re concerned about possibly living in their car. It’s unconscionable, Speaker, that this government has the opportunity to stand up for tenants and chooses not to.

And if that weren’t bad enough, these people—and I’m very thankful for the leadership of the MPP for London–Fanshawe, who has canvassed these buildings; she has told people about their rights, making sure they’re informed, letting them know that these notices are ones that are not correct and an eviction order can only be ordered by the Landlord and Tenant Board. But now, Speaker, this landlord has tried to deliver a charge for parking spaces. They want to charge these residents $200 per month for a parking space—absolutely unbelievable. This government wants to open up people’s pockets so that unethical landlords can jam their hand in as far as they can.

Now, this government briefing on this bill and their ironic title—they say it’s going to make life easier for renters, help homebuyers, streamline policies to build more homes, but there’s no guarantee that their plan is actually going to create the affordable homes that people need. What is concerning is that they can raise fines all they want, but unethical landlords are not afraid of these fines, because it has failed to deter this illegal behaviour. The example at 1270 and 1280 Webster Street is an example of that. NDP legislation would protect them; Conservative legislation does not.

Many tenants are simply unaware of their rights. If this government truly wanted to stand up for tenants and wanted to protect them, they would make sure that the vacancy decontrol hole was plugged. I have heard from so many tenants who have repeatedly reported serious maintenance issues with their units—pests, lack of heat, basic services. At 1270 Webster Street and 1280 Webster Street, residents were telling me just a week ago that they’re responsible for cleaning their own lobby, their hallways and their laundry room because the landlord doesn’t do it. But they care for their place, they love their home, they love their neighbours and they look after one another.

I’d like to also add the voice of the Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario, who says, Bill 97 “does not go far enough to protect renters and fix the dysfunction at the Landlord and Tenant Board.” This is just “a band-aid solution.” This bill is only as good as—it’s simply not good enough. It’s just a band-aid solution.

It falls short because it fails to mandate a maximum temperature in the summer, similar to the mandated minimum temperature in the winter. This is something that our housing critic, the MPP for University–Rosedale, has called for. Last summer, I was canvassing on this very issue before it came before the Human Rights Tribunal. I canvassed an east London apartment complex where people who are busy, who are seniors, single parents, people working multiple jobs, were saddled with the choice: They were told that they could not install air conditioning units, which they had done for years. They were told that that was not allowed, that they would have to purchase an air conditioning unit from the landlord and they could have a payment plan to then pay it off. People were told that this was a must, this was the law, and many people made that choice. I shudder to think about the price that the landlord charged for these air conditioning units. It’s unconscionable.

Now, this government in their wisdom has seen fit to let people who have had air conditioners, people who even have the sleeves that are in their units because the builder understood that there would be a necessity to have air conditioning units—those people now have to pay. They’ve never had to pay before, but this government wants them to pay. This government wants to reach into their pockets and take their money.

This government also has really done a disservice to local councils by their removal of development charges—$5 billion, as has been estimated by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

They’ve also opened up large swaths of the greenbelt, auctioning it off to the highest donor and their insider friends, the people who actually pull the government strings in the backrooms. That is not something that is going to create the affordable housing that Ontario needs.

What is also really quite shocking is the systems that this government has in place that are supposed to protect homebuyers. For many years, when this government was in opposition, they railed against Tarion. They said how it was a system that was unacceptable. The Premier himself said that it was a monopoly, which it is, and they said that they would repair it. But now, since they’ve gone over to the government side, suddenly the song they’re singing has changed. Instead of overhauling and reforming Tarion, they’ve actually created yet another bureaucratic nightmare.

What is disturbing about this is that the information—when homebuyers have concerns with a builder, they report that, and it should be information that is posted on the Ontario Builder Directory. Unfortunately, that information is not being posted, so consumers are not being protected. Consumers don’t know when a builder who they may be seeking to invest in—it’s the biggest investment of their entire life. They don’t have accurate information provided on the Ontario Builder Directory. It’s deeply, deeply concerning.

It’s something as well that people are forced to pay for. Homebuyers are obliged to pay provincially mandated warranty fees, and it’s factored into the price for new home buyers. They’re stuck paying for it. For a long time, the entire composition of the Tarion board has been suspect. It has been one that has been controlled by the Ontario Home Builders’ Association. There are no consumer advocates on it. There is just a deep, huge concern. The official opposition has brought forward legislation again to help protect people who are making the largest investment of their life, with our consumer watchdog. But this government chooses not to stand up for homebuyers at all.

I think as well of so many people who have had absolutely horrendous stories. I think of Earl Shuman, who lost his life after making the biggest investment of his life and battling with Tarion for years and years and years.

I think of Daniel Browne-Emery, who, again, had mould in his basement the size of pizzas. Finally, after battling for years and years and years, he succumbed to cancer. He took a paltry amount of money as a buyout so that he could at least give something to his family, so that he could leave some sort of legacy.

I think as well of Gayle and Gary Dudeck, who have reached out to every single member in this House. I know you’ve received the letter—every single MPP did. They are from Oshawa. They described how their daughter and partner were fighting with a home builder who was engaged in some really disturbing behaviour. They said there was a weasel clause in the contract that stated that all of the lots had to be serviced by January 13 and if not the builder could cancel. The lots weren’t serviced by January 13—no surprise there; that was probably their intention the entire time—they were serviced on the 28th, 15 days later. That allowed them to renegotiate the contract with the purchaser. They added $200,000 to the purchase price.

Now, through HCRA, this government claims that renegotiations are illegal, but there’s been no enforcement. HCRA took 15 months reviewing the Dudecks’ complaint and they emphasized in their code of ethics that price renegotiations are unacceptable. They still did nothing. In their summary, they said that the builder could have communicated better, but there were no penalties and no negative repercussions for the builder. How is this government, through HCRA, standing up for homebuyers? They are not.

Typically, as well, when people enter into these issues with an unethical home builder, they are subject to having to sign non-disclosure agreements. It silences people. They’re stuck in a situation where their only option, after making the biggest investment of their lives and having their rights taken away and being subject to these massive increases—they then have to sign an NDA.

Whenever the minister for MGCS is questioned on this, there’s always a repeated, canned response. There’s been no positive action for purchasers. This government has known about this for many years. They’ve known about it for 15 years while they were in opposition. They promised to do something and they chose not to. It’s heartbreaking that people are stuck with this.

Many folks have reached out from the Ottawa area who had concerns with Greatwise Developments, which engaged in that very same sort of renegotiation of price. They said, “Well, the market has changed. The cost of materials is up.” That does not change the contract that they legally committed to.

I’d like this government, if indeed they want to stand up for homebuyers and protect tenants, to consider the proactive measures that they need to do. Increasing fines after someone’s rights have been taken away is not enough. That is not getting ahead of the problem. In fact, they ought to know, with the Ombudsman’s report and the backlog of cases at the Landlord and Tenant Board and all of the voices of people across Ontario who have struggled with that system, that Bill 97 is nowhere near enough.

In this bill, as well, they could end exclusionary zoning, a measure that their own Housing Affordability Task Force Report has called for. Their own budget shows that they are not on track to meet the 1.5 million homes they are pretending they’re going to reach.

Instead, this government really needs to focus on adequate housing as a human right. They need to make sure young people have an affordable, safe place to call home. They need to make sure that there’s a rights-based approach to housing, that there’s a variety of public policy tools to make sure that these housing units are being created.

There needs to be investment from this province. There needs to be a focus on non-market housing. Too often, we see a government that is overly reliant on the private market. They believe they can simply make a policy change and that the private market will magically create affordable housing. That is not the case. There is no way that a private, profit-motivated organization is going to create the affordable housing that Ontario needs. Their motive is profit. They have to deliver value to their shareholders between 10% and 15% of investment. Their motive is not going to be creating the affordable housing that Ontarians need.

You see, the NDP has always been and will always be the party of housing. Despite all of the flaws of the Rae government in the 1990s, that government created the greatest amount of social and affordable housing of any government before it. Much of that housing still exists to this day, Speaker, despite the attempts of the Liberal government to redevelop some of that housing into luxury condos.

We see also this government allowing huge holes through Bill 23, allowing these real estate investment trusts to snap up rental buildings to redevelop them into luxury housing. That is backwards. The Non-Resident Speculation Tax has loopholes big enough to drive a truck through.

If this government wants to truly focus on affordable housing, they need to build and provide that affordable housing. Don’t expect someone else to do the heavy lifting for you. The official opposition is here to work with you. Use us, and we will build it together.

I just want to remind that member that he was in official opposition for 15 years and was doing the same type of speeches on this side of the road, going after the government. I just want to remind him. I know because he doesn’t hear as well as he used to.

I agree we need to build 1.5 million homes. What I don’t agree with is that we should be building them on the greenbelt, neither does any young person that I know agree that you should build on the greenbelt. So if you’re caring about young people, you’re caring about our grandkids, don’t build on the greenbelt. It’s their future.

I also don’t agree that we should be—when you talk about farmland—ripping up 319 acres of prime farmland every single day in the province of Ontario. How are we going to feed ourselves?

We have a crisis in health care—I’m going to have a question today on it—where they’re shutting down Fort Erie emergency care.

We have a crisis in affordable housing—

Question.

We’re going to move to further debate.

I will say to the member, he’s right; I did speak on the opposition side, but they were not the same speeches, let me tell you that. They were very good, but they were not the same speeches. But I will say this: We have two different views. They want to do what they want to do to prevent building from taking place. If it isn’t the greenbelt, it will be something else.

But what it comes right down to, Speaker, is that they are standing in the way of actual progress and building for the future. If they aren’t going to build on the greenbelt, then they will find someplace else we’re not going to build.

But the reality is this: We’re actually expanding the greenbelt. Speaker, the greenbelt will be bigger after we’re done than it was when we got here, and there won’t be 17 separate reductions on the greenbelt—

We’re going to move to questions.

The member from London North Centre spoke about 1270 and 1280 Webster Street, which is really another example of how legislation right now is failing tenants when it comes to renovictions and other ways landlords get creative on how to evict tenants.

An example I have is Lori and Ron. I’ve spoken about them before. They lived in a two-bedroom apartment for 11 years. They were told by the landlord they were going to have renovations for seven to eight months. They’ve been trying to get hold of the landlord. They can’t contact the landlord. They’re renting a hotel room in the meantime, hoping to get back in.

In this piece of legislation, again, with the renovictions, it’s left up to the tenant to do all the investigating and creating a case. Why has the government allowed this piece of legislation to be a loophole, where tenants can’t get justice if they’re the ones acting as the investigators?

I thank the member for his comments. I also heard the broad agreement to build more homes. I’ve heard that from several speakers across the aisle, which is great news, and we agree. That’s why we’re committed to building 1.5 million homes.

This is a tough task. If this was easy, it would have been done in the past and we wouldn’t have this problem. But housing, if you look at policy directives that need to happen, is up there among the toughest, in my opinion, because it requires many governments working together, industry, all sorts of different factors, and that’s why we haven’t had this problem. But we need to do it. The young generation needs it. That’s why this bill, as well as many others, will increase the housing supply. I ask the member, are he and his party willing to support this bill to get that job done?

I want to thank the member for London North Centre for his comments today. He always brings the experience of his residents to the Legislature here and it’s wonderful to hear those experiences. Hopefully the government side will actually listen and take some lessons from you so that they can improve their legislation.

When we’re talking about affordable housing, this government passed Bill 23, which downloads the cost of development charges onto municipal taxpayers to the tune of $5 billion, and this is being paid for—this Bill 23 is nicknamed the “building fewer homes slower” act—by municipal taxpayers through what is being deemed as the “Ford tax.” But will this $5-billion tax handout to for-profit developers actually build affordable housing for Ontarians?

I’d like to thank the member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound for the question. I think there has been some misunderstanding on the government side about what we’re suggesting as the official opposition. We do not believe that a private, market-based approach will succeed in creating the truly affordable housing that Ontarians need.

We believe Ontario needs to actually invest. They need to have a public builder who will deliver those non-market homes, so that people have a safe place to call home. Crossing your fingers and hoping for the best and expecting that a private, for-profit industry will do the work the government needs to do is not a plan. Hope is not a plan. There are no legislative guarantees in any of the housing bills that this government has had to really control the number of affordable units or the rate of affordability that will be delivered.

Their plan is not going to succeed. Their budget already shows that they’re not going to succeed with their 1.5 million homes.

This government could pass NDP legislation to protect tenants. It’s on the table right now. We could pass it today. But instead this government chooses to have ironically titled bills that will not protect tenants, that will not do enough.

But the member is absolutely right: The onus, the burden is placed upon tenants, who have to be their own private investigator, and that is wrong. We need to protect tenants before there is an issue rather than having these reactive solutions that simply won’t work.

There is always room for the private market. What the NDP is suggesting is that we have a public builder who is responsible for the funding, delivery, acquisition and protection of truly affordable housing. That’s something that people need. That will also make sure that people have a place to call home because, as I said, housing is health care. This government has responsibility to provide it. Housing is a human right. Housing is a social determinant of health, and this government needs to take proactive steps to make sure that it’s actually being created, not crossing their fingers and hoping for the best, like so many ironically titled pieces of legislation do.

Developers should be responsible for paying for the services that are required for all of these new homes, whether it’s electricity, sewers—all of the utilities that are necessary. But there’s no guarantee in Bill 23 that any affordable housing will actually be created. That is the biggest gap. It’s unbelievable that this government even uses the word “affordable.”