My question is to the Associate Minister of Housing. Recently, a report from the Union Bank of Switzerland stated that Toronto and the GTA have one of the riskiest housing markets in the world. According to the study, the report says that home prices have increased by 17% in Toronto and the GTA compared to a year ago. The study also highlights low levels of housing under construction and that local housing prices are rising rapidly due to high demand of speculation.

The price of housing is becoming more and more unaffordable for people who want to move into Richmond Hill. Speaker, can the minister please share what our government is doing to help build more homes and provide housing opportunities for my constituents in Richmond Hill?

My constituents in Richmond Hill are concerned about their economic future and the ability to own a home. They are worried about rising interest rates and the lack of houses being built. They are concerned about what kind of housing options will be available for them, and if they will be able to live in the communities they grew up in.

We are at a critical juncture to address this problem for future generations. That is why we need our government to take urgent action today and ensure that houses are being built. Speaker, once again to the associate minister: What is the government doing to help build homes and build the homes faster?

In fact, Mr. Speaker—

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker, I’ve said on a number of occasions that we actually have been assisting the commission, right from the onset. Of course it’s important to assist, as the federal government act requires that there be a commission of inquiry following the federal government’s decision to enact the federal Emergencies Act. Of course, we’re going to assist. That’s why we’ve provided cabinet-level documents. We’re assisting by ensuring that the commissioner of the OPP and other policing officials, who were there on the ground helping the Ottawa Police Service and who have important information, are testifying in front of the commission—because it was, after all, a policing matter, so one would expect that police officials would be there, colleagues. That is why the Deputy Solicitor General and officials from the Ministry of Transportation are also on the ground.

So we have been assisting the commission, and we will continue to do so as required.

Now the commission has asked for our assistance, and that is why we are proactively providing cabinet documents. That is why the commissioner of the OPP is testifying. That is why other policing officials who were on the ground making decisions are also providing assistance to the commission as it does its investigation into the Prime Minister’s decision to use the federal Emergencies Act. We will continue to assist the commission, because that is what we should do.

At the same time, of course, we did similar proactive things here in this House with respect to our state of emergency. It is too bad that the opposition at the time never thought it was important to participate in those debates in this House. In fact, when we had the discussions and debates over what was happening there, they chose to sit on their hands and end debate.

It’s really unreal what I’m hearing there, Mr. Speaker. The member from Ottawa knows it’s a federal inquiry—he lives there—into the federal government’s use of the federal Emergencies Act, not the provincial emergency act. This is about the federal government.

As much as the member wants to play politics and pretend that it’s a provincial situation, as much as the member wants me to direct the police—he knows I don’t direct the police. I don’t direct municipal police. I don’t direct provincial police, and I do not direct the RCMP.

Top officials from the OPP that were running the operation in conjunction with the municipal police and the RCMP, in my opinion, did an incredible job. But again, to the member from Ottawa, he knows it’s a federal issue. He knows it’s a federal inquiry, and that’s up to the federal government. It’s not up to the provincial government; it’s up to the federal government.

Interjections.

Interjections.

Therein lies the problem, exactly the same problem that happened last February: “It’s someone else’s problem. It’s not my problem. I’m not going to worry about it.”

The problem is, when it comes to public safety and people’s security, it’s all of our problem. Speaker, the Premier was not there for the residents of the city of Ottawa.

The Premier may win in court next week, but he’s losing every single day in the court of public opinion. I can remember three Premiers in this province who, when they were called to testify before a committee or through court were there: Premier McGuinty, Premier Harris and Premier Wynne. What makes this Premier any different? They did this because it was the right thing to do. They didn’t shirk their responsibility. They knew that that came with the office.

Speaker, through you, I will ask again, will the Premier simply drop his court action, apologize to the city of Ottawa and do the right thing: take his responsibility and testify before the inquiry in Ottawa?

Just to outline the order of business for next week, in accordance with standing order number 59:

On Monday afternoon, we will be debating a bill that will be introduced later this afternoon.

On Tuesday, we will continue debate on the bill that will be introduced later this afternoon. On Tuesday afternoon, we will be debating opposition day motion number 1, followed by the private member’s motion standing in the name of the member for Ajax.

On Wednesday afternoon, we will continue debate on a bill that will be introduced later today. Currently, we have the bill from the member for Kitchener Centre, but I think we will be delaying that and working with the opposition. Currently it’s on the order paper, but we will be working together on that one.

Then, on Thursday morning and afternoon, we will be debating the bill again that is being introduced later today and the private member’s motion standing in the name of the great member for Barrie–Innisfil.

The bill amends the Planning Act with respect to land that is zoned for prescribed agriculture uses. The bill provides that the land cannot be rezoned and the uses permitted on the land cannot be changed unless an agricultural impact assessment has been carried out. The restriction applies to a municipality passing a zoning bylaw and to the minister making a minister’s zoning order.

I beg leave to present a report from the Standing Committee on Justice Policy, on the estimates selected by the standing committee for consideration.

I have the opportunity to introduce today my sister, who has given me love more than a sister, Navdeep Gill; Prabsarup Gill, her husband; Pawanjit “Monty” Malhi; their friend Varinder Malhi; and Kirandeep Brar. Thank you for coming to Queen’s Park.

Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to introduce two important sets of legislative amendments relating to post-secondary education. First, I am pleased to introduce legislative amendments that would require publicly assisted colleges and universities and private career colleges to have specific processes in place that address, and increase transparency of, faculty and staff sexual misconduct on post-secondary campuses. The strengthened policies would allow institutions to deem the sexual abuse of a student as just cause for dismissal; prevent the use of non-disclosure agreements to address cases where an employee leaves an institution to be employed at another institution and their prior wrongdoing remains a secret; and require institutions to have sexual misconduct policies in place that provide rules for behaviour between faculty, staff and students, as well as disciplinary measures for faculty and staff who break these rules.

Additionally, I am delighted to announce that our government is introducing legislative amendments so Ryerson University can legally change its name to Toronto Metropolitan University. The proposed change in name supports our government’s efforts to ensure Ontario has a post-secondary system that embraces diversity, inclusivity and promotes success for all learners—including Indigenous learners—so they can find rewarding careers.

These legislative amendments will help Toronto Metropolitan University begin a new chapter in its history that better reflects the current values and aspirations of the institution.

Mr. Vanthof moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 27, An Act to amend the Planning Act to protect agricultural land / Projet de loi 27, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire afin de protéger les terres agricoles.

I appreciate the question from the member opposite.

We do agree that we need more workers, which is why under the plan signed with the federal government—a better deal, with $3 billion more on the table, because our government had the political wisdom to stand up to the Trudeau government to get the best deal for the students and parents we represent. And if we followed the advice of the New Democrats and Liberals specifically, we would have let a third of operators in the member’s riding be precluded from participation, denying moms and dads in this province the right to affordable child care, after it rose by 400% under the former Liberal government.

We know, as Conservatives, we can do better. We can make life affordable. We can hire more workers and increase their wages, as we are doing every year over the course of this agreement—a minimum standard, $1 increase every year—to make it more competitive to retain these workers and finally increase the access and the affordability for the people we represent.

My question is to the Premier. Ontario has a child care workforce crisis. In the last month, child care centres in Sault Ste. Marie, Sarnia and on Manitoulin Island have closed because they couldn’t find enough qualified child care staff. Ontario doesn’t even have enough workers to operate the spaces we have now, let alone the 71,000 new spaces this government has promised.

Speaker, child care workers have been clear that they need higher wages, a salary scale and decent work standards to stabilize the workforce.

Will the government consult with child care workers and do what’s needed to solve this crisis?

Responses?

It’s an honour to stand to address the Legislature today on Dress Purple Day.

The minister did say one thing that was correct: Yes, all children and youth should matter in Ontario. But what we do know is, certain children and youth do not matter as much as they should in Ontario, namely, Black youth and Indigenous youth and youth of colour, who we know are disproportionately represented in systems of care, currently, in Ontario.

I want to start first by reminding the public who may be watching that this is the Conservative government that cut a billion dollars in resources from the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services just a few years ago. And we learned again today, through the Financial Accountability Office’s Economic and Budget Outlook, that we are seeing $44 billion in contingency from this government that’s directly impacting the very sectors that can help us ensure that children and youth are safe and healthy and have well-being in their communities, such as a $23-billion shortfall in health, a $6-billion shortfall in education, a $4-billion shortfall in the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services—

Interjection.

I want to also take some time to thank one particular group of folks who are instrumental to the safety and well-being of children and youth in our province, and that is education workers.

Speaker, I want to make it clear: Paying $39,000 a year to education workers doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of the way in which they support the social, academic and of course, most importantly, the mental health of our children. Whether they’re driving them to school on the school buses, whether they’re working with them in classrooms, with our kids who have disabilities, we have to pay—and respect—education workers what they deserve. Currently, this government’s decision to pay education workers at a rate that’s lower than inflation, when many of them are going to food banks, when many of them don’t know where their ability to pay for rent comes from, does not create a social climate where education workers can thrive. And I can assure you that if education workers aren’t thriving, they cannot support our children and youth thriving either. So that is something I want us to really think about in this space today.

I want to give a special shout-out to one of our local organizations in St. Paul’s, For Youth Initiative. FYI is their acronym. They’re in our Oakwood Village community, and they really do a lot to support Black, Indigenous, racialized students and youth who live in the Oakwood Village area and otherwise. It’s all about employability. It’s all about ensuring that students have a sense of pride and that they receive culturally relevant services in our community.

I want to encourage the government to continue to invest in community-based services, because at the end of the day, we have a government that will spend billions of dollars to build a highway to mansions that folks cannot afford in Ontario, yet the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services stands there and proudly talks about investments of $800,000 to address anti-Black racism or $800,000 to address 2SLGBTQI+ communities. You can’t buy one house in St. Paul’s for that price. So that’s really difficult to hear, when we know that there are billions of dollars being cut by this government or withheld by this government from education, from community social services, from the things that actually matter.

Of course, I will run out of time before I get to mention many of the pieces of legislation that, for instance, our member from Hamilton Mountain has put forth. And the member from Kitchener Centre, myself and the member from Thunder Bay–Superior North are consistently putting forth pieces of legislation that we hope this government will look at and create laws based on—but actually are about protecting children and youth in this province of Ontario.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Ontario’s social assistance rates are well below Canada’s official Market Basket Measure poverty line and far from adequate to cover the rising costs of food and rent: $733 for individuals on OW and soon” 1,227 whopping dollars “for ODSP;

“Whereas an open letter to the Premier and two cabinet ministers, signed by over 230 organizations, recommends that social assistance rates be doubled for both Ontario Works (OW) and the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP);

“Whereas the recent small budget increase of 5% for ODSP still leaves these citizens well below the poverty line, both they and those receiving the frozen OW rates are struggling to live in this time of alarming inflation;

“Whereas the government of Canada recognized in its CERB program that a basic income of $2,000 per month was the standard support required by individuals who lost their employment during the pandemic;

“We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly to double social assistance rates for OW and ODSP.”

I could sign this a million times, Speaker, and I will until it happens. And I’m tabling it with Malini.

This petition is entitled, “For an Official Statement of Apology on Behalf of the Government of Ontario to the McIntyre Powder Project Miners.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas over 25,000 Ontario mine workers were subjected by their employers to mandatory, non-consensual inhalation of finely ground aluminum dust known as ‘McIntyre Powder’ between 1943 and 1979, as a scientifically unproven industrial medical treatment for the lung disease silicosis; and

“Whereas the government of Ontario supported and sanctioned the McIntyre Powder aluminum prophylaxis program despite the availability of safe and proven alternatives to effective silicosis prevention measures such as improved dust control and ventilation, and also despite expert evidence from the international scientific and medical community as early as 1946 that recommended against the use of McIntyre Powder treatments; and

“Whereas the miners who were forced to inhale McIntyre Powder experienced distress, immediate and long-term health effects from their experiences and exposures associated with aluminum inhalation treatments, as documented through their participation in the McIntyre Powder Project;

“We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to provide an official statement of apology to the McIntyre Powder Project miners.”

I agree with this petition, affix my name, and will present it to page Gabi to bring it down to the Clerks’ table.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Ontario’s social assistance rates are well below Canada’s official Market Basket Measure poverty line and woefully inadequate to cover the basic costs of food and rent;

“Whereas individuals on the Ontario Works program receive just $733 per month and individuals on the Ontario Disability Support Program receive just $1,169 per month, only 41% and 65% of the poverty line;

“Whereas the Ontario government has not increased social assistance rates since 2018, and Canada’s inflation rate in January 2022 was 5.1%, the highest rate in 30 years;

“Whereas the government of Canada recognized through the CERB program that a ‘basic income’ of $2,000 per month was the standard support required by individuals who lost their employment during the pandemic;

“We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly to increase social assistance rates to a base of $2,000 per month for those on Ontario Works, and to increase other programs accordingly.”

I support this petition, affix my name to it and present it to page Sahana to bring it down the Clerks’ table.

This petition is on behalf of my community in St. Paul’s. It’s called “Protect Ontario Tenants: Pass the Rent Stabilization Act Now.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas average rent has increased by over 50% in the past 10 years;

“Whereas average monthly rent in Ontario is now over $2,000;

“Whereas nearly half of Ontarians pay unaffordable rental housing costs because they spend more than a third of their income on rent;

“Whereas the rent affordability crisis risks all other tenant rights to a safe and stable home as tenants are fearful of unlawful evictions of affordable and/or rent-controlled units if they were to exercise them;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to implement the Rent Stabilization Act to establish:

“—rent control that operates during and between tenancies so a new tenant pays the same rent as a former tenant, with allowable annual rent increases calculated by the government of Ontario and based on annual inflation;

“—a public rent registry so tenants can find out what a former tenant paid in rent;

“—access to legal aid for tenants that want to contest an illegal rent hike; and” lastly

“—stronger enforcement and tougher penalties for landlords who do not properly maintain a renter’s home.”

I absolutely support this petition, shout out our community on Vaughan Road, and I will hand it to Rachel for tabling at the front.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas most people in Ontario who receive social assistance are being forced to survive on as little as $650 a month;

“Whereas affordable, subsidized rent-geared-to-income housing is inaccessible to most people, with wait-lists of many years;

“Whereas clients need to eat, as well as pay their rent, and since clients would still have to dip into their basic needs allowance to cover rent because even doubling the shelter allowances still won’t cover all of the rent at today’s prices;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to call on the Premier of Ontario to double the Ontario Disability Support Program and Ontario Works rates” now.

I absolutely support and will hand these petitions over to Karma for the Clerks.

“Petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas data shows there are an estimated 131,000 vacant homes in Toronto as of 2021, representing an increase of 32% in the past five years;

“Whereas one in four homes across Ontario are purchased for the sake of investment as the cost of housing for working Ontarians is further and further out of reach;

“Whereas average rent prices in Toronto have increased by 20% over the last year, with 60% of renters reporting they have to cut back on food to afford rent;

“Whereas the housing crisis is as much about increasing affordable supply as it is limiting demand from housing profiteers and speculators;

“Whereas failing to make housing affordable risks Ontario’s economic recovery as working Ontarians will be driven out of the province or made unhoused, to rely on far more expensive budget items such as shelters, hospitals and prisons;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to fix the housing affordability crisis in Ontario through proven-effective policies including, but not limited to, implementing speculation taxes, rent and vacancy control, improving demoviction and renoviction protections, addressing the ‘missing middle’ of housing supply and increasing social, supportive, and transitional housing investments.”

Again, thank you very much to my community and communities across Toronto, actually, that signed this petition, and I’m handing it over to Mitchell for the Clerks.

“Petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the nursing shortage across Ontario has pushed our public health care system to collapse;

“Whereas the vacancy rate for registered nurse positions in Ontario is 12.63%, nearly double the vacancy rate of 2017;

“Whereas Bill 124 has capped the wages of public sector workers, including nurses, to a 1% increase per year, which once adjusted to the current inflation rate of ... 8% in 2022, represents a pay cut of 7%;

"Whereas any increase in hospital beds across the province is inconsequential without the staff to provide the care;

“Whereas public health care is a human right that must be available to all Ontarians when they need it;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately repeal the wage-suppressing Bill 124 as part of the solution to recruit and retain nurses and front-line health care workers in the sector.”

Again, thank you for the job of all of our front-line health care workers. I couldn’t support this more.

Thank you, Molly.

I have a petition entitled “Petition to Raise ODSP and OW Shelter and Basic Needs Allowances Now.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas most people in Ontario who receive social assistance are being forced to survive on as little as $650 a month;

“Whereas affordable, subsidized rent-geared-to-income housing is inaccessible to most people, with wait-lists of many years;

“Whereas clients need to eat, as well as pay their rent, and since clients would still have to dip into their basic needs allowance to cover rent because even doubling the shelter allowances still won’t cover all of the rent at today’s prices;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to call on the Premier of Ontario to double the Ontario Disability Support Program and Ontario Works rates.”

I’d like to thank the member from Toronto–St. Paul’s and all of those who have signed this petition. I’m going to affix my name to it and give it to Amy to take to the table.

Petitions? Petitions?

Orders of the day?

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 27, 2022, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 23, An Act to amend various statutes, to revoke various regulations and to enact the Supporting Growth and Housing in York and Durham Regions Act, 2022 / Projet de loi 23, Loi modifiant diverses lois, abrogeant divers règlements et édictant la Loi de 2022 visant à soutenir la croissance et la construction de logements dans les régions de York et de Durham.

As I was saying this morning, I really appreciate this opportunity to join the debate on Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act. As every MPP in this chamber is hearing from their constituents, we are in a dire housing crisis in this province.

I just want to set the stage a little bit in terms of what’s going on in my community in London. London recently achieved a number of firsts, and they are not firsts that we are proud of. Rentals.ca just reported earlier this week that London experienced the biggest average rent increase in Canada, a 33% increase in average rents over the last year. Tenants in London are being hit hard by having to deal with a 33% rent increase, and the reality is that many may be financially evicted from their units because they can no longer afford the rent.

That’s especially the case for tenants who are living in buildings that were built after November 2018, because one of the earliest things this government did on the housing file was to remove rent control off of new builds, or post-November-2018 construction. That is causing huge pressures in our housing market, when tenants are facing that kind of rent increase and struggling to try to afford that in the face of all of the other affordability questions or pressures that Ontarians are experiencing.

Two other firsts: The latest census data that was released earlier this fall showed that London is the fastest-growing city in Canada. There was a 10% increase in population over the last decade, and that, of course, exacerbates the pressure that we are experiencing in our housing stock. And London is a destination that embraces newcomers, that has really put a focus on welcoming newcomers to locate in our city, and so that is another issue that is putting pressure on the housing stock, combined with our post-secondary institutions and the need to ensure that there is housing available for all of the students who come to study in our city.

The third first that we recently became aware of—again, from Statistics Canada—is that London’s homeownership rate is dead last among major Ontario cities. So actually, that is not a first; that’s the opposite of a first. We have the fewest percentage of homeowners in our city compared to other cities in Ontario. The Ontario average is 68.4%. In London, we’re four points below that: Only 62.6% of our population own homes.

As we all know—I have young adults in their twenties; many of us are in that same demographic. It is particularly challenging, disheartening and frustrating for these young adults to ever imagine a future where they will be able to afford a home. We hear that a lot about Toronto, but it’s the same reality in communities like London. That was corroborated in the data that show that in London, only 50% of young adults aged 30 to 34 in London own a home. That’s down from 56.3% in the previous census, and there was a four percentage point decline for young adults aged 35 to 39. So the housing crisis is real. The housing crisis is affecting both tenants and people who want to own a home, particularly young people who are looking to get into the housing market, and we collectively have a responsibility to do something to address this crisis.

The bill that is before us today attempts to do that, and that is important. We need to see more homes built faster, as in the title of the bill. But we also need a whole swath of other strong measures and bold actions to be taken.

The intensification provisions that are in this bill, the changes to the Planning Act, will take some baby steps to increasing that stock that we know we need to achieve. The government’s task force before the election had shown that Ontario will need 1.5 million new homes built over the next decade. It was sad to hear that the government’s own background papers estimate that the intensification provisions in this legislation will add about 50,000 new units over the next decade. That is far, far short of the 1.5 million homes that are necessary to meet the needs of our growing population. In terms of supply, we need purpose-built rentals. We need non-market options. We need co-op housing. We need supportive housing. We need so much more than what this bill is going to deliver.

And when we have a population that is so reliant on rental housing, we need to strengthen protections for tenants. What does this bill do? We see in schedules 1 and 4 that this bill weakens protections for tenants. It allows the minister to impose limits and conditions on rental replacement bylaws that require that any affordable units that are demolished or converted during redevelopment are replaced. This bill eliminates those rental replacement provisions that are in place through municipal bylaws in Toronto and Mississauga, but it also prohibits any municipality from having those kinds of provisions.

Former Toronto city planner Jennifer Keesmaat said this is going to this is going to make it open season on low-income tenants who are living in purpose-built rentals that, like many of the purpose-built rentals in our province, are deteriorating in condition and are demolished. Those units will be gone. Municipalities will no longer be able to require that tenants can move back into a new building that is constructed at the same rent. Once again, it is going to displace thousands of vulnerable tenants across this province and increase the pressure on other communities that perhaps have lower average rents versus Toronto and Mississauga, where those bylaws are in place.

We need to ensure that there is a strong public role in new housing investments to make sure that those new builds that are constructed actually are affordable. This legislation defines affordable as 80% of market rent, but when market rent is over $2,000, 80% of that is far from affordable for many, many, many people in this province. We need to increase the supply of deeply affordable housing as well as those supportive homes that are so, so lacking in supply in our province.

We also need to take stronger regulatory measures, like a speculation tax, a vacancy tax. We heard earlier this week that the government is increasing the non-resident speculation tax, but there is so much more that can be done on the regulatory side to really spur the construction of those 1.5 million homes we need.

This bill is a step forward in some senses. As the government has estimated, it will increase our supply by 50,000 units over 10 years, and the difference between the 50,000 units that will be spurred by this bill and the $1.5-million target that we know we have to meet—the difference, this government has decided, will be made up by municipalities. So the legislation requires municipalities to have a housing pledge with a specific target that they are supposed to meet in terms of new home construction. But as the Globe and Mail has pointed out and as various commentators have pointed out, a housing pledge without any kind of penalty for municipalities that don’t meet that pledge is not going to produce those units that are necessary.

Before I reach the end of my time, I want to raise some very significant concerns about other measures that are proposed in this bill, in schedule 2 and schedule 9. Those relate to the Conservation Authorities Act and, in schedule 9, the Planning Act. Specifically, I’m referring to the changes that the government is proposing to the role of conservation authorities in planning matters. The changes that are set out in these two schedules of the bill limit or, as some would say, gut the oversight role of conservation authorities in the planning process.

In schedule 2, the role of conservation authorities in reviewing and commenting on planning and development matters within their jurisdiction will be strictly limited to matters falling under their core mandate, so that would be flooding, erosion or drought. The bill would prohibit conservation authorities from reviewing or commenting on specific proposals under a prescribed act. Conservation authorities will no longer be allowed to prohibit certain activities relating to the use or modification of water courses, wetlands, erosion and other matters. This is of grave concern to many people in this province, not just environmentalists, but of course environmentalists have sounded the alarm. We are in a climate crisis. We just saw the impact of Hurricane Fiona. These are not just 100-year severe weather events; these are 500-year severe weather events that we are experiencing on this planet. There was just a recent report showing that we’re going to be nowhere close to meeting that UN target of reducing global warming in the amount of time that we have to unless we take stronger measures. Undermining the role of conservation authorities, limiting the role of conservation authorities is exactly counter to what we should be doing.

Interestingly, the federal parliamentary budget office had recognized the work that Ontario’s conservation authorities had been doing to keep losses associated with flooding in Ontario lower than losses seen in other Canadian provinces. The last thing we want to do is to limit and undermine the role of conservation authorities in sound and sustainable development planning.

I just want to close by saying that this government has given us no confidence that it is committed to housing. We just saw in this year’s estimate a $100-million cut to the provincial government’s housing program. They have to do a lot better than what’s in this bill.

This bill is very interesting to me, because it’s going to affect municipalities probably the most, and I know there are some people who have been councillors. Do you know what didn’t happen in this bill? There was little to no consultation with AMO and with the mayors in the province of Ontario who it’s going to affect the most. There was some, a select few, but in my riding there was little to no consultation—little to no consultation. I wanted to get that out.

We would say yes, it was in the betterment of the province of Ontario, but you’ve got to talk to the people who are going to be affected. We just had elections. Why do we have elections if you’re not going to talk to them? It makes no sense to me.

So my question is, through you: What is in this bill that will protect renters from unjust evictions and rent increases?