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.

Yes, it was like Groundhog Day, so I’m not super happy.

I write back to—

The point I wanted to make is that the housing crisis is not only in southern Ontario; it exists in northern Ontario when 1,900 workers sleep in bunkers because they cannot purchase lots that are owned by the government of Ontario. The government of Ontario has known for three years that we need those properties to be up for sale and then they answer to me in writing that it will take another two years to put an $80,000 house up for sale.

The government has some work to do. They can blame a whole lot of people for the housing crisis; they can only blame themselves for the housing crisis in Gogama. It rests on their shoulders and nobody else.

Point of order, Madam Speaker.

Interjections.

Thank you to the member from Nickel Belt for her comments. I was struggling to understand how you were connecting this. Honestly, we’ve heard earlier today from the member for Niagara Centre on your side that rents rose dramatically, particularly since 2011—those were his words—and that we’re now in a housing crisis, of course. I believe that it was your party that held the balance of power in 2011 and thereafter.

What I would like to ask the member opposite is what you guys did during that time you held the balance of power to address the housing crisis and why you won’t get on board with the 16 pieces of legislation that this government has brought forward to move housing supply forward in Ontario.

Questions?

Further debate?

This bill redefines affordability based on income, instead of the market, for the purpose of the development charge exemption, which is an incremental improvement over the status quo. But as it’s currently defined, developers might receive an exemption for building affordable homes that are not affordable for most people and that might have been built anyway without these exemptions. My question to you is, do you think that this bill goes far enough with this redefinition of affordability?

As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility for everybody who lives in Ontario. Whether you live in northeastern Ontario, like I do, or whether you live in and around the GTHA, we have a responsibility for all. The solutions to the housing crisis will be very different depending on where you live.

What I was trying to do today is to show them we do have a housing crisis in northeastern Ontario in and around Gogama, in part because of the new working opportunity at the mine, that the government could solve today. Put those houses up for sale. By Friday, they will be sold and, by Saturday, people will have moved in. It’s as simple as that. When there are easy solutions, don’t let them go by.

To bring forward real rent control would go a long way. This is something that the NDP government pushed when we were there: real rent control for Ontario. The units that were built when the NDP government were in power are still under rent control and they are still affordable—even to the people of Toronto—but there are fewer and fewer of them. So is this enough? No, absolutely not.

Donc, dans le projet de loi auquel tu fais référence, parce que l’on diminue encore plus les responsabilités des compagnies minières de nettoyer le désastre qu’ils laissent derrière eux après avoir fait leur travail, les gens de Nickel Belt ne pouvaient pas appuyer ce projet de loi-là.

On a en ce moment de l’arsenic d’une vieille mine d’or qui va dans le lac Long. Le lac Long, c’est un super beau lac dans Sudbury qui est en train de se faire polluer parce qu’une vieille mine met de l’arsenic dans le lac.

Il y avait de bonnes choses dans le projet de loi, mais la partie où on diminuait les responsabilités pour le nettoyage quand les travaux miniers sont finis faisait que, dans Nickel Belt, on ne pouvait pas appuyer ça.

But at the same time, they are very reasonable. Take the time to talk to them. They are human beings like you and I. They understand that we’re in 2023. They see what needs to be done and what could be done differently. Take a little bit of time. Listen to them. I guarantee you’ll learn something.

Mais Iamgold a un plan très précis qui a été partagé avec les communautés pour leur démontrer comment ils étaient pour nettoyer tout ça avant de partir. Et ils ont mis l’argent dans un compte que les gens peuvent vérifier pour que les millions de dollars soient là pour faire le nettoyage si jamais Iamgold s’en va au milieu de la nuit.

Votre projet de loi ne demandait pas que l’argent soit là. Les gens veulent que l’argent soit là pour faire le nettoyage. La journée qu’on met la première—

J’étais heureux d’entendre la députée de Nickel Belt parler positivement au sujet de l’agrandissement d’une mine—Côté Gold. J’aimerais poser la question à la députée. Est-ce qu’elle regrette sa décision de voter contre le projet de loi 71, Loi visant l’aménagement de davantage de mines?

À mon avis, il me semble que la députée, qui a dit que des gens doivent déménager pour s’installer juste à côté d’une mine—ça m’indique que la députée n’a pas vraiment peur qu’il y ait des possibilités ou des conséquences négatives. Est-ce que la députée est d’accord avec cette analyse, oui ou non?

I feel like just saying, “What she said.” I do want to ask the member from Nickel Belt—she quite rightly outlined the solutions that are right there in front of the government: easy, low-hanging fruit.

The member from Nickel Belt has been a long-standing advocate for the rights of Indigenous communities, dignity for those communities, collaboration and consultation. When you found out that this government is actively removing and really neglecting their duty for due diligence to consult on housing, particularly in Waterloo region and across the province, and in particular, the Six Nations of the Grand River and Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, who were intentionally not consulted on the carve-out of the lands in Waterloo region and Barrie and Ottawa—the list goes on.

Is this going to help the housing crisis? This government is so distracted by their own diversion into the housing development market that they’re forgetting their core principle that housing is needed in the province of Ontario.

Point of order, Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 25(b)(i), I ask, through you, Speaker, that the member from Orléans return to the subject matter of the bill. The member’s remarks are not germane to the item currently being debated in this House.

Point of order?

It’s a pleasure to be here with you all this evening to debate Bill 134, the so-called Affordable Homes and Good Jobs Act. Let’s be clear, Madam Speaker: Homes in Ontario have skyrocketed out of control, and this government is not doing a particularly good job at addressing it. The skyrocketing costs of housing and runaway cost of living are amongst the most pressing issues facing Ontarians. But while families are struggling with higher grocery bills, higher energy bills and the rising cost of living, this government is focused on insider deals to help enrich their friends.

The Ford government has been in power for half a decade. In that time, we’ve seen the average price of a home in Ontario skyrocket out of control. When this government was elected in 2018, the cost to buy a home in the GTA was $787,000. In Ottawa, the cost was right around $449,000. Today, an average home in the GTA is well over $1 million, and the average in Ottawa exceeds $750,000.

The dream of home ownership, once a bedrock, a foundation of living a good life in the best province in this country, is now becoming a nightmare. Not only is the cost of buying a home skyrocketing; as a result of this government’s policy to eliminate rent control, the cost of renting a newly built condo or apartment is also moving further and further out of reach for so many Ontarians.

Madam Speaker, there used to be a pact in Ontario—a sacred trust, if you will—between the government and the people: Ontarians would work hard, they would do an apprenticeship or start a business, maybe they would go to university, but they would work to do the things that they love to get a good job and to earn a good living. That hard work and that good job would afford them the opportunity to start building their life, maybe getting married and starting a family. Ontarians would pay their taxes on that hard-earned living because the government would be there to provide them some very important services.

Their hard work and their good job would lead them to being able to buy a home and have kids in a nice neighbourhood that had good schools and nice parks. There might even be a school bus to pick them up, bring their kids to school and bring them home every night. They would have a doctor to help them raise their kids and keep them healthy, and if there was an emergency, an ambulance would be there quickly to take them or their loved ones to a good hospital.

But, Madam Speaker, under this government’s watch, that pact, that sacred bond, is being broken. Ontarians are working just as hard as ever, even harder, but too many of them—too many of our neighbours, friends and family—are having trouble making ends meet. For too many, they can’t even contemplate buying a home and starting a family because they’re focused on getting to their next paycheque.

For those who do struggle and claw and are able to find a home and start a family, they are no longer receiving those same bedrock services from their government. Millions of Ontarians don’t have a family doctor at all, and more don’t have one in the community in which they live. Their kids are going to schools with too many children in the class, where their teacher’s attention is divided too many different ways, and they’re having trouble keeping up. They’re living in communities where it’s hit or miss if an ambulance will be available to pick them up in an emergency, and some Ontarians are waiting hours and hours for help. As we’ve seen in almost every part of the province, hospital emergency rooms are closing at night or on the weekend, leaving people without basic emergency medical service.

Now, Madam Speaker, nobody has ever liked paying taxes, but we know that it is a key element and important part of the sacred bond between the people and their government. Ontarians are still paying their taxes, but the government is no longer providing the same basic core services in exchange for those hard-earned taxes Ontarians are paying.

It’s good to see that the government is focusing some legislation on trying to make homes more affordable by changing the definition of affordability, but it’s too little, too late. They could have acted much sooner. They could have acted sooner on the recommendations of their own Housing Affordability Task Force, which urged them to double the pace of new home construction and increase density in single-family neighbourhoods.

We’ve seen that, despite the promise to build 1.5 million new homes and despite pledges from municipalities to get on board with the government in doing so, I don’t think any of them—maybe one or two—are even on pace to come close to meeting those targets. Building permits are down. Construction starts are down. They’re not going to come anywhere close to building 1.5 million new homes, and a minor change to the definition of “affordability” isn’t going to kick-start things the way that they need to in Ottawa and in the GTA and other parts of the province.

This government continues to blame previous governments for the housing supply crunch while doing nothing for nearly half a decade. In that half a decade, as I’ve already mentioned, the price of a new home in Ontario has skyrocketed. In some parts of the province, it’s more than doubled. And through their actions, this government has proven that they’re not on the side of Ontarians, because instead of focusing on the issues that matter most to families, instead of addressing affordability in a real way, instead of helping municipalities build complete communities with good parks and hospitals and schools that meet the expectations of Ontarians for the price they’re paying and the taxes they’re paying, this government is focused on helping a very few small number of insiders enrich themselves.

You know what isn’t affordable, Madam Speaker—what’s not affordable to most Ontarians, what’s not affordable, I would suggest, to anyone in this room: $8.3 billion is not affordable. But that’s what just a handful of insiders and friends of this government was set to benefit from as part of their attempt to build over the greenbelt. And every day it becomes clearer that all roads in this greenbelt scandal lead back to the Premier’s office. It’s cost them dearly. Not only has it cost them time, not only has it cost Ontario families time in addressing the real affordability crisis, it’s diverting the government’s attention from addressing those real issues that Ontarians—

Interjection.

So let’s talk about how we can build affordable homes in a city like Ottawa. Ottawa is, of course, Ontario’s second-largest city, and the government has set a very ambitious target for new home construction in that city. One way to build new homes is to ensure that key government documents like official plans are approved on time, so that home builders know where the land will be to build homes and they can then build those homes or sell those homes or rent those apartments and units to people that need them.

That’s why it was so curious that this government, which is fixated—rightfully so—on the housing affordability issue, took nearly two years to approve the official plan in the city of Ottawa. And what have we learned happened during those two years? While the city of Ottawa and the elected officials in Ottawa approved the addition of over 1,000 hectares of new land to the Ottawa boundary to ensure that there was land available to build new affordable homes for residents, that report and the approval of that report sat on the minister’s desk for nearly two years. During that time, a key parcel of land in the city of Ottawa was sold for market value for farmland or thereabouts. Over the course of the two years, the people that bought that land contributed—what we’ve found so far—over $30,000 to the government’s political party and their riding associations, and then magically, after nearly two years, the minister of the day decided to bring that land into the urban boundary. That’s a very interesting way to spur new home construction and the affordability of new homes, but I’m not sure that it passes the smell test that most Ontarians would put to the issue.

Another important aspect of affordability is, of course, support for infrastructure from the government. We’ve seen that, when it comes to those kinds of questions, this government has a preoccupation with ignoring the city of Ottawa. In the year since the city’s new mayor has been elected and their new council has been elected, there has been very little action in the city of Ottawa, very little investment by this government. I understand that the mayor may have been invited to a barbecue at the Premier’s house and the Premier has said some nice things about him in the chamber and at the news conference, but not much else has happened.

In the what, like two months since Olivia Chow was elected in Toronto, the Premier has bent over backwards to create a new task force that’s going to solve all the economic issues and problems in the city of Toronto. It would be nice if, when the government is discussing affordability and good jobs, every once in a while—maybe every five years or so since this government has been elected—they might spend a little time and attention talking about the second-largest city in the province. Because you know what? There are over a million people that live in Ottawa. I know they don’t have a lot of members from Ottawa anymore after having just lost a by-election that was held by Conservatives for 100 years, but the residents of Ottawa shouldn’t be punished for the government’s inability to hold a key riding in the west end of the city.

Now, Madam Speaker, as we’re continuing to talk about affordability—because, of course, that’s what the bill is about, the affordability of housing—I think it’s important to note that life in Ottawa and life across the province is becoming more and more unaffordable. As I just discussed, there’s a deal going on to try to fix affordability in Toronto, but the city of Ottawa has been ignored. The city of Ottawa is actually projecting tens and tens and tens and tens of millions of dollars in deficits for their public transit agency, as just one example, without any consideration being offered or suggested by this government.

So while it’s very nice for the mayor of Ottawa to be invited to a barbecue at the Premier’s house and have some nice things said about him at a news conference, it would be nice if this government actually showed up to Ottawa and started doing some things to help the city and the people of Ottawa out.

Madam Speaker, my time is running out, so I’d just like to conclude the way in which I began. While we are debating the Affordable Homes and Good Jobs Act, let’s not be fooled and let’s not have Ontarians be fooled: Housing in Ontario isn’t affordable. It has become less affordable under the watch of this government, and they are not doing a good job at addressing it.

Pembroke.