The member for Essex has a point of order.

I’d like to introduce representatives of TT4ever, a Ping-Pong group helping people with Alzheimer’s. They are Lucas Zhang, Jabril Zarita and Isaac Luo. Welcome to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 4, 2023, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 134, An Act to amend the Development Charges Act, 1997 and the St. Thomas-Central Elgin Boundary Adjustment Act, 2023 / Projet de loi 134, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur les redevances d’aménagement et la Loi de 2023 sur la modification des limites territoriales entre St. Thomas et Central Elgin.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Save Ontario Place.

“Whereas Ontario Place has been a cherished public space for over 50 years, providing joy, recreation and cultural experiences for Ontarians and tourists alike and holds cultural and historical significance as a landmark that symbolizes Ontario’s commitment to innovation, sustainability and public engagement;

“Whereas redevelopment that includes a private, profit-driven venture by an Austrian spa company, prioritizes commercial interests over the needs and desires of the people of Ontario and it is estimated that the cost to prepare the grounds for redevelopment and build a 2,000-car underground garage will cost approximately $650 million;...

“Whereas meaningful public consultations with diverse stakeholders have not been adequately conducted and the Ontario NDP has sent a letter of support for a public request to begin an investigation into a value-for-money and compliance audit with respect to proposed redevelopment of Ontario Place;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to halt any further development plans for Ontario Place, engage in meaningful and transparent public consultations to gather input and ideas for the future of Ontario Place, develop a comprehensive and sustainable plan for the revitalization of Ontario Place that prioritizes environmental sustainability, accessibility and inclusivity, and ensure that any future development of Ontario Place is carried out in a transparent and accountable manner, with proper oversight, public input and adherence to democratic processes.”

I fully support this petition, will affix my signature and pass it to page Sophia Rose.

Well done.

Thank you very much.

Home ownership is so important. It is really something that—I live in the first home that my father built—well, with my wife too. That was built in 1960. I was three years old when we moved into that house. It was a different time then. My father never borrowed money. He put it away and saved and saved. There were 10 children at that time and two parents living in, I’m going to say, maybe 800 square feet on the top of our old store, on the second storey: 10 children and two parents living in there, getting by, because he wasn’t going to be borrowing money. You know that’s really not feasible anymore today.

We bought our first home in 1983. It was a bungalow, nothing too fancy, a nice lot. In the city, the lot would probably be worth a couple of million dollars. We bought that home for $47,500 in 1983. The last four vehicles I’ve bought, none of them could have been close to being bought for $47,500. In fact, one time when I bought a little better truck, and my wife mentioned, “For the price of that truck, you might be living in it.” But it was a lot more than $47,500, but, of course, I had to finance the truck.

This is the world we’re living in today. How are we going to—I read something in the newspaper the other day, that we need—how many homes was it that we needed to build? We needed a stock of 22 million homes in Canada before we would see an appreciable reduction in the cost of homes. And I know, and I heard from one of the members over there one time when they were speaking—again, I was already in my chair, so I didn’t have far to fall. They said that the theory of supply and demand is a myth. Speaker, it is the most basic rule of economics, absolutely the most basic rule of economics. That is why those experts—and I know my friends on the other side often like to quote experts, but they quote the experts they like. An old saying—and I’m going to be guilty of it myself—but there’s an old saying: Do you know what an expert is? That’s anybody with a briefcase more than 25 miles from home. So those are who they quote as experts sometimes, because it suits their narrative, right? Somebody rolls into town with a briefcase: “He must be an expert.”

A quantity of experts are saying clearly that if we don’t increase the supply of homes, we cannot bring down the price of homes, and it really is basic common sense, Speaker. So, what does our government do? As I said, 16 bills, each and every one of them since we got elected in 2018 is designed to do just that: to increase the supply of homes. Because without increasing the supply, if there are 20 people looking for a house and there’s one house—I mean, you’ve seen it; everybody has seen it here. It’s crazy in a place like Toronto, but it’s even happened up where I come from, in little old Barry’s Bay, as the House leader mentioned yesterday. Even in little old Barry’s Bay, if there are more people who want a home than there are homes available, the price of the homes go up. It’s basic math, basic economics.

And you’ve seen these—what do you call them? Bidding wars—bidding wars on houses in Toronto and elsewhere, where the price just goes crazy. So, how does that help? It doesn’t. But why does it happen? Because there aren’t enough homes for sale. There are more people wanting the homes, and we’re living in a situation, Speaker—and I know that even at the federal level, they’re beginning to talk about how they might address it. When you have hundreds of thousands of people coming to Canada and the majority of them coming to Ontario and the majority of those coming to the greater Toronto-Hamilton area, that puts more pressure on the reality that if we don’t have enough homes to serve the current population, how are we going to serve the increased population?

So I am very excited about what the minister has done here in Bill 134. I know we’re addressing the changing of the St. Thomas boundaries legislation. I think that was Bill 63, if I’m not mistaken. That was a bill that the opposition actually supported. And as I say—and I know you can’t question the motives of anybody here, but I think we all know where some of that pressure came when the time came to support that bill.

But let’s get back to Bill 134, which I’ve been, of course, speaking on all along. So, Speaker, this bill, which is going to define and put more clarity on what affordable housing is, or what qualifies or can be defined as affordable housing, is going to be tremendously helpful in areas like mine. I’m not sure how many of you people have ever been to my riding—probably not very many—but we have some significant pockets of good jobs. Canadian Nuclear Laboratories exists in my riding. That’s a very high-tech nuclear facility. There are a number of people who have very, very good incomes, but we also have a portion of the population that simply does not. This new definition that the minister has brought forward is going to be hugely helpful in allowing those municipalities to be able to approve building permits and developments that will not be subject to development charges.

I can tell you, development charges, when you’re a young person—we weren’t as young as a lot of people, but when we bought our first home, there was no such thing as development charges in the communities then.

I did say to one person who was talking about development charges—

Point of order.

I do want to say, 20 years of service is commendable, and, actually, every time this member has talked about his father, it has been very emotional.

I’ve been here, serving with you, for 11 years.

To the housing issue: Your government has moved forward in a very unconventional way, I would have to say. I’m looking at the leaked document that your members received from the Premier’s office, and it goes on to say, with regard to Waterloo region, “some concerns about the lands proposed to be added including third-party requests”—if the Liberals had tried this, this member, I know for a fact, would be saying, “Who are those third parties? Who is requesting that the urban boundary be expanded? Why are they asking for that? Where is the motivation?” It goes on to say that 2,380 hectares is likely to be met with opposition by Indigenous communities. The ministerial modifications to expand the region’s settlement boundary were not shared with Indigenous communities.

The member knows full well we have a duty to consult. What do you say to this leaked document in—

No development charges for your first house.

Point of order: I recognize the House leader.

Unfortunately, we do.

It is my pleasure to say a few words about Bill 134, Affordable Homes and Good Jobs Act. The bill is not very substantive. If you are so interested, it is three pages and you have it done. Really, in two pages, you have it done.

It has two schedules. The first schedule of the bill talks about redefining “affordable.” The government had passed a law, a bill, and now they’re passing a new bill to change the changes that they had done. “Learn from your mistake,” is what I have to say to that.

What the first part of the bill will do is that it will exempt affordable and attainable residential units from development charges. What has changed, really, is the actual definition of “affordable.” Right now, with the bill, the definition of affordable would be a home whose rent is no greater than either 30% of income of the 60th percentile of renter households, or an average market rent, that is currently at 80% of average market rent, which would go to 90% of average purchase price. So a very small step, but kind of in the right direction, because when they had changed it initially, they had put it at 30% of income of the 80th percentile. Well, I will tell you, Speaker, that bringing it down to the 60th percentile will mean that the percentage itself will go down, which is something good.

We want to have more rental units, but we want them to be affordable to people, so if developers bring rental units at a price that’s equivalent to 30% of income of the 60th percentile, they will get a discount on the service fees that they have, the development charges that they would have had to do. It’s a tiny, weenie little step, but I have no problem supporting a step in the right direction. Let’s make it clear: The road to the end goal where we have affordable housing for everyone is a long ways away, but the bill makes a tiny step, and we appreciate that. That’s in the first schedule of the bill.

The second schedule of the bill is very specific. We all know that Volkswagen has had this billion-dollar deal to start to do EV batteries—electric vehicle batteries—in St. Thomas. What the second part of the bill does is that it allows, basically, St. Thomas to expand into Central Elgin—a boundary adjustment act so that, basically, they can allow Volkswagen to set up the plant to build the electric vehicle batteries.

Again, I think that the people in St. Thomas and part of Central Elgin certainly are looking forward to the jobs and the opportunities that this multi-billion dollar electric battery plant will bring to their area and that, basically, the second part of the bill is to allow them to have enough land within St. Thomas to set up this plant. That is what the bill will do.

It was interesting to listen to the member prior to me talk about how the world that we are living in has changed. If you look to the second part of the bill where Ontario will have plants to produce electric vehicle batteries, we all know that in order for those plants to be there, in order for batteries to see the light of day, they will need minerals. I happen to be from the riding of Nickel Belt, where all of the mines in Sudbury are located. I have many, many, many, many, many mines in my riding, providing pretty much all of the minerals that are needed for those battery plants to see the light of day, to have the minerals to do that work.

That brings me to a specific mine that I would like to talk about, and it is Côté Gold. It’s a mine that is fairly new—actually, the Premier and a series of his ministers came to my riding to celebrate the grand opening of Côté Lake mine. They did that in September 2020. The mine is located across the street. So it’s called Highway 144. Highway 144 is a highway that goes from Sudbury to Highway 101. Highway 101 is the highway that brings you to Timmins—so a highway that goes from Sudbury to almost Timmins, and you do a quick right, 30 kilometres, Highway 101, you’re there. The new mine is on that highway. On one side of the highway, you have the brand new mine. On the other side of the highway, you have the community of Gogama.

I was really pleased when the big contingents of the minister and the Premier were there—the Prime Minister was there also—to celebrate the grand opening of Côté mine in my riding. Côté mine is not in full production yet, but I can tell you that 1,900 people work at the mine site right now. If you go on Google, you can see the workers, you can see the mine taking shape and all of this. And they all have to live in bunkers. Why is that? Well, it’s because there are many homes and lots in Gogama that people could buy, but the government owns them all.

And so, back on January 6, 2021, after the Premier had come to my riding, I wrote to him. I will read the letter into the record—it takes two minutes, but you will see, Speaker, that it’s directly related to the bill. So on January 6, I wrote to the Honourable Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario:

“Premier...,

“I am writing to you about the economic potentials of Côté gold mine for my constituents and for the community of Gogama. Gogama is a beautiful, small, isolated northern community in my riding of Nickel Belt. It was once home to 1,200 residents.

“I want to thank you for attending the groundbreaking ceremony of Côté gold mine on September 11, 2020. As you know, the mining company Iamgold”—that’s the name of the company—“is opening a new gold mine across the street from the community of Gogama. This mine is an opportunity for Gogama businesses and people to flourish. Unfortunately, there are currently very few opportunities for potential businesses, mine workers and their families to purchase properties in Gogama.

“The community is home to many abandoned homes and lots. These homes are on paved roads, with street lights, hydro, telephone, Internet, water and sewage. For example MNR used to have many houses in Gogama. They have not used them for over a decade” because they closed the MNR office in Gogama. “They are being managed by CBRE” which keeps the lights on, pays for the heating, shovels the driveways, cuts the grass, maintains them all, and this has been for decades that we have paid that company to maintain those houses. “Many people are interested in purchasing these homes. Other lots have been cautioned by the Ministry of Finance, but they cannot be sold or acquired as crown land by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. And since Gogama is an unorganized area, they also cannot be acquired and resold by a municipality.” They are not a municipality; they are a local services board.

“In September, at the groundbreaking ceremony for the Côté gold mine, you spoke about the potential of the gold mine to bring economic prosperity to change lives in Gogama. Unfortunately, without land for businesses to set up shop and houses for people to live in, Gogama will be missing out. Workers will commute directly to the mine and leave once their work is done. Many people want to live in Gogama, send their kids to the local school, be part of the community. Some fully-serviced lots as well as lots on crown land could be purchased by people who want to move and set up shop in Gogama in order to work for or do business with Côté gold mine. If you are serious about this mine having a positive local impact, then the government needs to create avenues for people to purchase these properties in Gogama.

“Premier, will you create a clear and simple process for people to purchase government owned properties in Gogama? People and businesses need a single point of service that they can reach out to for help in acquiring these properties. You often speak about your government’s commitment to cutting red tape. Please don’t let red tape stand in the way of the economic opportunities for this community. Stand by your commitment at the Côté gold mine groundbreaking ceremony, and allow Gogama to benefit from the gold mine across the street!”

So I wrote to the Premier on January 6, 2021.

The next day, just to be sure, I wrote to the Minister of Government and Consumer Services and told her pretty much the same thing that I just told the Premier.

I don’t leave any pages unturned. So on the same day, I wrote to the Minister of Finance and told the Minister of Finance that I had met with MNRF on December 4 and the ministry told me the Ministry of Finance has a list of forfeited properties which is circulated annually to MNRF, and that it is likely the abandoned properties in Gogama are on that list. So I communicated with the Minister of Finance to check: “Where are those properties. Are they on the list?”

I don’t leave any stone unturned. I wrote to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry on the same day and basically told them the same thing: “On December 4, I met with Adam Bloskie from your office to discuss this issue, but unfortunately it has not yet been resolved. Time is running out as people will want to begin moving to Gogama this spring. While I know some of the lots are under the purview of the Ministry of Finance, I hope that your office”—I’m now talking to the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry—“will be able to address and manage the lots abandoned by MNR years ago.”

I also wrote to the Minister of Infrastructure, and to the Minister of Infrastructure, I basically told the same story, about, “The government owns a whole bunch of lots and homes in Gogama. There are thousands of people across the street who live in bunkers who would like to live in the homes, would like to have their spouses and their kids live in the homes across the street. Please let them buy those properties.”

I sent them pictures. There are some very nice houses, with patios, with beautiful trees, houses with garages. I sent them pictures as to where they are located in the community. A nice little bungalow—I know I’m not allowed to show them, but they’re nice houses that everybody would love to have, to move into. One is on the hill that’s—the present government shut down the OPP in Gogama, so the OPP station as well as the homes where the police officers used to live are all empty and could be up for sale. Anyway, I sent them the pictures. I sent them the map. I told them all of that.

I got a response back that due process had to take place and it would take between 12 and 24 months for due process to take place. Okay.

Six months later, I checked again, and then I got a letter from Christopher Keep, caucus and stakeholder relations adviser in the office of the Minister of Northern Development, Mines, Natural Resources and Forestry:

“I wanted to update you on your inquiry into eight properties in Gogama, Ontario that are deemed surplus to government needs.

“Infrastructure Ontario advises that it is moving through the standard disposition process as noted in the realty directive. This process includes circulation to provincial ministries, agencies and other levels of government to determine if there is a continued government need for the property.

“If there is no other government need identified, the properties will be marketed to the public by an external real estate broker for sale on the open market. It is estimated that it will take between 12 to 18 months for the properties to be listed on the open market should there be no other government need identified.

“Should you have additional questions related to the status of these properties, please contact”—and they gave me a contact, Lindsey at Infrastructure Ontario, whom we had already been in contact with.

So, first, it was 12 to 24 months; six months later, it’s 12 to 18 months—things are moving ahead; I’m sort of happy.

A year later, I check—nothing gone.

Two years later, I checked again.

So on June 21, 2023—this time I wrote to the Minister of Infrastructure. We have a new Minister of Infrastructure. It’s basically the same letter:

“I’m writing to you about the issue my constituents are having with purchasing properties in the community of Gogama.”

I reminded her: “Premier Ford attended the groundbreaking ceremony of Côté Gold mine on September 11, 2020, near Gogama. The mine is an opportunity for businesses and people to flourish, but this cannot happen without properties available to be purchased. There are many government-owned abandoned homes and lots on paved roads with hydro, telephone, Internet and water and sewage. Many people are interested in purchasing them as they want to live in Gogama, send their kids to the local school and be part of the community.

“The current process by Infrastructure Ontario does not work up north in Gogama, we need a new process that makes sense. These properties are not of high-monetary value and the due diligence process” has taken over 24 months and people in Gogama are missing out.

“Minister, the government needs to create avenues for people to purchase these abandoned properties in Gogama” and in other areas in northern Ontario. “People and businesses need a single point of service that they can reach out to for help in acquiring these properties.

“Thank you for your consideration....”

I had waited two years before I did the follow-up letter to the Minister of Infrastructure, and I get a letter back from the minister—and I gave her all the lists of the properties, who owns them and where they’re located. I gave them pictures and all of this so they know what they’re talking about. I get an answer on August 11 telling me they had to do due process: “Estimated timeline is a minimum of 12 to 24 months due to the complication with resolving title issues.”

So they’ve known since September 2020 that there’s a gold mine across the street from Gogama, that the government owns property and lots in Gogama. I have written to all of those ministers. We have waited the 24 months it was to take Infrastructure Ontario to do their work. I write back to the minister and got the exact same answer, that “The intent is to move forward as expeditiously as possible following our standard process. Estimated timeline is a minimum of 12 to 24 months”—the exact same letter that I got two years ago I got two years later.

Question?

The member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Further debate?

Just to continue on the housing conversation—although, I must digress, it does seem like the member from Kitchener–Conestoga knows who those third parties were in the region of Waterloo who requested the carve-out of the urban boundary. I don’t know who they are, but if you do know, I think it would be in your best interest to let us know who they are. I want to know. I want to know who they donated to. I want to know who they lobbied. I want to know if they’re registered lobbyists. I want to know everything about the carve-out and the urban boundary.

Now the member, though, has a long history of championing transparency and so I realize that this discourse is somewhat complicated for you. But the leaked report from the Premier’s office also says that we were being watched. It’s right in the document. April 2—there was a protest; we’re all listed in the people who attended.

Do you think that’s a good use of government resources to be spying on members of provincial Parliament?

All we’re trying to do, Madam Speaker, is open this process up and shed some light, not let it fester. The member says that we’re trying to slow things down. The only thing that we’re trying to slow down in this place is the corruption that’s happening with this government.

I want to thank the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke for their passionate speech. Madam Speaker, everyone knows now that I came to this country as an international student. I can tell you how difficult it is to buy a home for a new immigrant, and especially for international students. I bought my house 10 years back; imagine when there were low interest rates and a detached house was less than $500,000. We have immigrants come to this country every day, international students, and they always worry how they will be able to afford a home. They want this government to take action because only this government can take action because the previous governments always ignored this. And the member was right: We are in crisis right now and people expect our government to take action. This is why we’re building 1.5 million homes in the next 10 years.

Can the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke explain to the House how this bill will benefit the future generation?

I appreciate the comments and the compliments from the member as well.

But, let’s be clear: It is apparent, maybe even obvious, that we’re going at this subject from two different points of view. Our absolute commitment as government—and you’ve heard the Premier rise in question period over and over and over again, as well as the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and our House leader, and what they have said is, “We are going to build homes.” We’re not going to focus on something that the opposition wants to talk about and dig up and try to slow the process down. This is a crisis and what it needs, needs, needs is all hands on deck—everybody rowing in the same direction—because if we don’t fix this housing crisis, we are going to be in big trouble down the road. Let’s get together.

That’s why we’ve got to move to bring this housing supply up so that it can help to bring down all of those other costs and let those young people get a home within their budget.

I do want to say that when it comes to consultation with Indigenous communities, I have the utmost faith in our Minister of Indigenous Affairs. I don’t think that anybody has done more to forge a working, collaborative relationship with First Nations in our province ever in history than Minister Rickford. And that is something—

It’s always great to hear the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. He is such a fantastic orator, and I would like to congratulate him on his 20 years here in the Ontario Legislature.

I do find it interesting that the member opposite from Waterloo wants to talk about potential third parties. I think some of those third parties actually donated to her campaign. I think if we checked through the listings, we might actually see some names, which might be funny.

But I think my biggest concern is—I think we all know I have five kids. I want them to be able to afford a house. That is something that is incredibly important for me and it’s one of the reasons why I got into politics. The Liberals’ Fair Hydro Plan, I didn’t think was all that fair. It was going to be put on my children and the backs of their kids.

So I would like to hear from the member. I know his kids are—gosh, I think they’re almost about my age, but maybe speak a little bit about how he thinks this is going to really benefit people of the future and the generations to come.

Point of order?

Exactly. It’s like Groundhog Day.

Point of order, the member from Eglinton−Lawrence.