I want to thank my colleague from University–Rosedale for her comments. I have the pleasure of working with her on the municipal affairs and housing file.

This government has broken its word to municipalities, their promise to make them whole, with the cuts to development fees. And leaving aside the issue of whether or not those fees should be paid, what are the effects of this government breaking its word? What kind of money would they have to pay to make municipalities whole, and what are some of the effects that municipalities are going to suffer because of that decision to break their word?

I’d like to thank the member from University–Rosedale for her comments and for pointing out the $1-billion cut that AMO pointed out that this government has enacted through Bill 23, one that—they also promised that they would make municipalities whole and then failed to do so within the budget.

Right now, housing starts are stagnant—and I believe the member from University–Rosedale has called on the need for a public builder.

I want to ask the member, what kind of protections for renters would be responsive to the current moment that Ontarians face right now? What should have been done within this budget?

Thank you to the member for that question.

We are already seeing the impact of this. We did a look at the projected property tax increases for municipalities all across the GTHA, and they’re seeing an increase of upwards of 7%, 8% in property tax increases at the same time as we’re seeing service cuts and infrastructure cuts.

AMO estimates that, overall, municipalities will lose about $5 billion in infrastructure revenue over the next nine years because of Bill 23, and it’s already impacting housing development and housing starts. Waterloo has a development that they have had to delay because they don’t have the funding to provide the necessary infrastructure to hook that subdivision up to the broader community. So it’s affecting your own goals.

The biggest expense that people have today is housing. When I look at the cost of housing in Ontario, when I look at the cost of rent, the legacy of this government is, it has made it extremely difficult for people to get by. Over the last five years, housing prices have gone up, the price of a mortgage has gone up, the cost of rent has gone up, and that is exactly what is making it difficult for people to find a home, live a good life, pay the bills, raise their children. That legacy is on you.

The government’s response to addressing the housing crisis has been abysmal.

In order to address the housing affordability and housing supply crisis that we have, we certainly need to build 1.5 million new homes in areas zoned for development.

We need to end exclusionary zoning—so going further than the government went in Bill 23.

We need to stabilize rent prices, because 30% of Ontarians’ rent—and they’re paying more on average now, in some cities, than people are paying in a mortgage. They can’t save up enough money for a down payment because rent is so expensive.

We need to clamp down on investor-led speculation—so we build homes for people who intend to live in them.

And we need to establish a public builder to construct affordable housing on public land at cost.

We have long called for a public builder to construct affordable housing on public land at cost. When you look at—

Interjection.

Interjection.

That is a very different approach than what this government is doing, where they’re selling off land in secret contracts to for-profit builders to build luxury condos. That is not the—

I’d like to commend my colleague the member for London North Centre on his remarks. We come from a community where there are currently at least 2,000 homeless people who are on the by-name list. There are many other people who are precariously housed. We have 6,000 applications for social housing, representing 11,000 parents and children in our community.

London has identified a need for a minimum of 600 net new supportive housing units. We know from a recent supportive housing complex, Embassy Commons, which has only 72 units, that the cost is significant. That was $22 million for one 72-unit building.

Will this budget enable London or any other municipality to meet the need for supportive housing?

It’s great to hear the member from London North Centre.

Speaking of construction—I think there’s definitely a consensus in the House that we have a shortage of housing, and we want to take action. We’ve got a bold action plan in order to get homes and rental units built, and we’ve got proposals with the federal government.

One part of this budget bill is supporting training centres, to the tune of over $200 million to organizations and unions such as LIUNA and the operating engineers, which are in my riding of Oakville. They’re the crane operators. We’ve got to thank them, because they do all the great work to build high-rises across this province. They need money to build their training facilities. I looked at their website. I’ve talked to them. These unions are ecstatic with the budget. You may not agree with all that’s in the budget—I understand that—but can you support this component?

I’d like to thank the member from Newmarket–Aurora for her question. She is absolutely right that we are living in uncertain economic times. What I am certain of is that this government has plenty of money, but it chooses to spend it in ways that do not address the crisis.

The FAO has shown that this government, in the last quarter, failed to spend $6 billion—money that did not go out the door; money they could have spent on any number of services to make life better, especially for seniors, for young people, for people living with disabilities.

This government would pat itself on the back for the measly 5% increase they’ve given on the ODSP program, but that’s nowhere near enough to address the rising cost of living. We on this side of the House have firmly advocated for doubling ODSP as well as OW.

This government could also protect seniors by making sure that there are increased rent controls and by not allowing REITs to gobble up rental properties to redevelop them into luxury units. But this government again has blinked when it comes to the rights of seniors.

The last Liberal government sat on their hands for 15 years while social assistance rates dwindled, while they didn’t keep up with the cost of living. There were the dramatic and drastic Mike Harris cuts back in the 1990s, but the Liberals did nothing to make it better for folks.

We know that people are struggling because they’re unhoused, and they’re struggling with their mental health largely because they are unhoused.

In London, we have a whole-of-community response plan to create 600 supportive housing units. That is something that has been community-led. We also need the province to step in.

To the member: $202 million is a drop in the bucket when it comes to the need that is all across Ontario, and this government has missed the mark.

When I think about this government’s response to unions, I also need to cite the most recent court loss by this government when it comes to third-party advertising. Their legislation, which they had mirrored from the Liberals, was unfortunately something that was struck down.

When it comes to the creation of housing, this government isn’t even following its own recommendations from the housing supply action plan. The housing starts across this province are at an all-time low, and the province needs to do its part by enlisting a public builder to create those homes, to spur investment, to make sure that we are creating affordable and supportive homes—not leaving everything up to private industry, but actively engaging with the economy and not sitting on the sidelines.

I would like to thank the member from London North Centre for his in-depth debate on the budget.

In Hamilton, we definitely have a huge homeless problem. We’ve seen, in the last half of last year, 22 people die while homeless; the average age, I believe, was 43, and men highly grouped—a lot of criminal activity, drug abuse, mental health issues.

We’ve definitely seen this budget miss the mark when it comes to our vulnerable population.

Can the member talk a little bit more about what he sees in his community when it comes to homelessness and whether the $202 million will even touch the mark when addressing supportive housing in our communities?

This week, my office received a voice mail where a woman just said, “Butter at the only grocery store I can walk to is $9/pound, just thought you should know,” and then she hung up. She sounded hopeless, and I don’t know how to give her hope. I’d like to be able to say that her cost of living is going to improve, but we saw the government’s budget last week and there’s no hope there.

Food prices, in particular, have been a pain point for Ontarians. Grocery prices are 11% higher than they were a year ago.

Have wages kept up with the cost of living? No.

The government refuses to increase the minimum wage, so low-income workers will continue to struggle more.

And after inflation, social assistance programs are providing less help than they did a year ago.

The government’s own numbers show that Bill 23 has failed, and their policies will result in fewer new homes being built this year than last year. Between that and no real rent control, housing costs won’t get any better.

This government wants Ontarians to think that the higher cost of living is a new normal, but this is not normal.

Our vision for an Ontario with more opportunity and prosperity is possible and provides more hope for everybody, and it’s shameful that this government and their budget don’t share in that vision.

My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Mississauga is Ontario’s third-largest city, but over the last 10 years, the city has only built 2,100 new homes—far below what is needed. That is why it is concerning to see that the city of Mississauga rejected applications for two residential towers that would be built next to the Port Credit GO station and the Hazel McCallion LRT station under construction. Rather than working to get more homes built near transit, it appears that the city of Mississauga is opposing solutions that would make life easier and more affordable for individuals and families.

It is absolutely critical that Mississauga builds more homes to support our growing population, especially in the areas where growth is needed.

Can the minister please explain what actions our government is taking to ensure more homes will be built in close proximity to transit networks?

Under the leadership of our Premier and this minister, bold and decisive actions are under way to build more housing, as it is clear that the status quo is not working.

With the population of Peel region projected to grow by almost two million over the next three decades, forward-thinking approaches are necessary to build more housing. Mayor Crombie herself has spoken of the critical need for Mississauga to build up and increase density, especially near transit.

Our government needs to act now to help incentivize more infill development and come up with solutions to address this serious issue.

Can the minister please elaborate on how our government plans to increase housing opportunities in Ontario?

I want to thank the member for Mississauga–Lakeshore for being a champion for housing in his riding.

Our province is facing a historic housing supply crisis. We need more homes of all kinds, including homes for young Ontarians, newcomers and seniors, that are near transit.

That’s why last November I approved the new official plan for the region of Peel, which removes the discretion of lower-tier municipalities to set maximum heights within major transit station areas. The intent of the plan is to ensure that transit-supportive outcomes are achieved and that adequate housing supply is brought forward faster. For the residents of the member’s riding, this will mean great things. It will mean that if they work in Mississauga or Toronto, they will have a fast, car-free commute, something that our government believes ought to be encouraged.

Let me be clear: Provisions that would set maximum height limits in major transit station areas are contrary to the approved Peel region official plan.

We want to continue to put forward pro-housing policies that will help municipalities grow, with a mix of ownership, with a mix of rental housing times, to meet the needs of all Ontarians—from single-family homes to townhomes and mid-rise apartments.

We remain committed to working with all of our municipal partners and the federal government towards our common goal of building 1.5 million homes by 2031.

I’m pleased to have the opportunity to question the member from the government on the budget bill and to talk about housing, as it affects all of our communities. Hamilton has said that they need approximately $60 million to be able to address the homeless issue in our city. We just had a report that said in the last six months of last year, 22 men died who were homeless—average age of 43. Some 53% of the homeless population in Hamilton are women. We’re watching overdoses, we’re watching violence. The government put in a measly $202 million to help 444 municipalities. CMHA asked for 8% of a budget increase; the government gave them a 5% increase.

How do you think that this budget is actually going to help the people in our communities?

It’s my pleasure to rise today to participate in this debate on the 2023 Ontario budget. I have to say, Speaker, I was really struck by the editorial in the Toronto Star that described this as “An Ontario Budget Without Vision.” The Toronto Star editorial writers said, “If this budget were a Christmas present, it would be a three-pack of white socks. Not entirely useless. But an exercise in going through the motions.”

Speaker, the leader of the official opposition has very clearly described this budget as a document that fails to meet the moment. It fails to acknowledge the reality of the hardships that people in Ontario are facing. For me, as the representative for London West, it certainly fails to address the homelessness crisis that we are seeing in our community, the lack of access to affordable housing, the crisis in access to health care services.

I want to focus my remarks on housing and homelessness.

A couple of weeks ago, we had a proud moment in our city. Indwell, a non-profit supportive housing provider, opened up a new 72-unit supportive housing building in London. That came at a cost of just over $21 million for 72 units of supportive housing. Of that $21 million, the province contributed the absolute bare minimum that was necessary for Indwell to be able to access federal dollars.

It’s encouraging, finally, after years of avoiding any involvement in providing supportive housing, to see this budget make an allocation for supportive housing. But $202 million across the province is going to do nothing to address the breadth of the need that communities are experiencing. The 72 supportive housing units in London came at a cost of $21 million. This government is allocating $202 million for supportive housing for 444 municipalities across Ontario.

In London, we have seen a dramatic increase in the number of people who are homeless on our streets. We currently have more than 2,000 people who we know are experiencing homelessness on a daily basis. That doesn’t take into account the number of people who are precariously housed, who are couch-surfing, who are not counted in the by-name list. We have more than 6,000 applications for social housing in our community. That represents 11,000 parents and their children who are trying to get access to housing they can afford.

Our community came together and acknowledged the health and homelessness crisis as a major priority—as the number one priority—for the city of London to move forward on in a collaborative. So 60 social service providers and 200 individuals came together with funding from a very generous anonymous donor family who provided a gift of $25 million to jump-start an innovative, never-seen-before plan to develop a whole-of-community response to deal with health and homelessness in the city of London.

That plan alone calls for 600 net new supportive housing units that will be necessary just in London alone, and that is just what’s needed in the next three years. So you can see, Speaker, how the $202 million that’s allocated to meet homelessness needs across the province is nowhere near enough to address the concerns of other municipalities outside London.

Now the city of London’s pre-budget submission had actually called on the province for a significant investment of $15 million in capital funding to support the construction of these net new supportive housing buildings, as well as an additional $4 million in annual operating funding for the supportive housing programming. So that is the mention of London that we would have expected to see in this budget. We saw one reference to London—one reference to a school that’s being built. We need new schools, there’s no doubt about it, but this was an announcement that had already been made by this government, and that’s the only reference to the city of London in the entire budget.

London is looking at a $97-million deficit caused by the measures that this government brought forward in Bill 23 that were supposed to tackle the housing crisis that we see in Ontario. Instead, this budget actually confirms that not only did the measures that the government set out in Bill 23 fail to move Ontario forward to meet that 1.5 million homes goal, but we’re actually falling further behind. The numbers that are reported in this budget show that Ontario is lagging in the pace that it will need to meet if we are going to achieve that 1.5 million home target.

When I talk about Bill 23, there’s the financial impact on municipalities with the revenue hole that it’s going to create in municipal budgets, but there is also, associated with Bill 23, the attack on the greenbelt. This budget would have been an opportunity to actually take some serious measures, some bold and strong measures, to deal with climate change mitigation and resilience. We saw none of that in this budget, and that has people in my community very concerned.

The other thing that is of huge concern to people in London is the money that this government is allocating to expand for-profit private health care facilities. Instead of investing in excellent stand-alone facilities like the Nazem Kadri ambulatory surgical care centre that is run under the oversight of a hospital, this government decided not to invest in those kinds of services and hospitals but instead to funnel yet more money to investor-led private for-profit health care facilities. They’ve increased the budget from $18 million last year to $72 million this year, and that has a lot of people concerned.

We’ve heard not just from the Auditor General but from patients of private health care facilities who talk about the aggressive upselling that they have experienced at these facilities. As much as the government would like to say, “Oh, no, you won’t pay at a private health care facility,” the experience of patients in this province has been very different. They have had to pay. They’ve been told they need surgeries that, when they’ve gotten a second opinion, they find out that that surgery was unnecessary. They’ve been told they have to pay for the ability to stay longer than they would otherwise have been asked to stay. So there are huge concerns about funnelling public dollars into private health care facilities.

But, Speaker, just to get back to what I said initially, this is a budget that falls flat. It really ignores the pressures that Ontario families are facing, the affordability pressures that Ontario families are facing, as daily, we get calls from people who tells us about the huge spike in their Enbridge gas bills. The price of food in grocery stores, the price of Internet services, the price of insurance—everything is increasing, and this budget includes no measures to help people deal with those realities.

In particular, for those who are the most vulnerable, the most disadvantaged, those living on social assistance, this government provided a measly 5% increase when we know what’s needed is a doubling of social assistance rates.

I don’t think the member actually listened intently to my remarks. I gave the example of a 72-unit supportive housing building that had been constructed in London with a significant investment from the city of London, at a cost of $21 million. For one 72-unit supportive housing building—how on earth is the $202 million that’s allocated in this budget to meet the needs for supportive housing across the province going to address the serious crisis that we are seeing in communities across Ontario in homelessness? London deserves a piece of that $202 million, but so do so many other communities in this province.

I am proud to be part of a government under a Premier that is fighting for my generation and the generations to come, and home ownership. The members opposite had an opportunity to address the housing crisis in Bill 23 and they voted against it. They voted against cutting fees on non-profit housing, on affordable housing and making it more affordable. In the GTA, in Mississauga, development charges add $160,000 on the average house.

On this side of the House and in the middle over there, we will continue to fight for home ownership, for renters and for affordability in this province. Yes, people have left, but we’re going to fight to bring them back because I know this government will continue to fight, again, for my generation and the future generations in this province.

Speaker, through you to the member opposite, I thank her for her advocacy on this and the health care file, and I know we’ll continue to work to support our volunteer firefighters and professional firefighters across Ontario.