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?

Pembroke.

Through you, Madam Speaker, my question to the member opposite—okay, so first of all, he talked about specifically affordability and that everything has become more expensive to buy a home under this government. As the great member from Renfrew–Nipissing—

My question to the member from New Orleans—

The member from Orléans and I are in a similar position in the province right now because the government has overridden our urban boundaries, local democracies, citizen input. And yet, in the briefing note that was leaked to us—to the Premier, by the way—it goes on to say that there were some protests. People have a right to protest in the province of Ontario if they don’t like what the government of the day is, and there’s been lots of protests here and on the front lawn of Queen’s Park.

But it goes on to say that a number of elected officials attended the rally, so they’re keeping track of MPPs and activists and citizens who are standing up for their rights to actually participate in their democracy.

Do you think that this is a huge distraction for the government away from the housing crisis in the province of Ontario?

I want to ask a question about the fantastic development of automotive jobs and industrial might in southwestern Ontario, and that is partially dealt with in part two of this particular bill, which authorizes the city of St. Thomas to offer certain, let’s say, incentives to encourage the $7-billion investment by Volkswagen in the city of St. Thomas. And I’m lucky to have the associate minister here very close to me who helped land this spectacular deal for southwestern Ontario. Even though it’s not in my riding, I’m excited about it because I know people in my riding are going to benefit from it.

My question to the member who just spoke is, even though this fantastic $7-billion investment in St. Thomas is not in my riding, I’m excited about it because I know my people are going to benefit from it. How does he feel about it?

New Orleans is in Louisiana, which is in the southern United States. Orléans is a suburb of Ottawa—the eastern suburb of Ottawa, where the sun rises on our nation’s capital, just to correct the record.

In terms of affordability, when this government was elected in 2018, the average cost to buy a home in the greater Toronto area was $787,000. In Ottawa, it was $449,000. This isn’t about interest rates. It’s about the price of buying a home, which the Minister of Labour should understand.

The current average in the GTA exceeds a million dollars and, in Ottawa, it’s above $750,000. The price of homes is demonstrably higher five years after this government took power.

So, first of all, the government needs to decide how they’re going to track new housing, which metric they’re going to use, and then they need to be reporting on it, every year, to the public. As far as I can see, that’s not happening.

I will start by thanking my colleague from Orléans for some really valid and good points that he’s made in his debate, and I hope that there will be notes taken.

This government has been making decisions that are threatening our environment, our farmlands, putting at risk the way we’ll be able to feed our family. Now, you’ve mentioned a few times that the government is nowhere near attaining its stated objective of building 1.5 million homes. Can you elaborate and give some indication that the government is nowhere near attaining that objective, even though that’s the guise under which they are presenting this new bill that attains very little in the end?

Question?

Response?

Redesignating land to enrich your friends isn’t a plan to build homes; it’s a scheme.

A plan to build homes would be helping municipalities get through permits faster. A plan to build homes would be addressing the affordability issues that residents of Ontario are facing each and every day. If residents are spending money, paying to access a front-line health clinic—which is happening in Ottawa today—then they don’t have that money to pay rent or to pay the mortgage or to buy groceries. That is at the root of the affordability crisis we’re facing.

The government has had five years. House prices are up. Everything is up. No plan—just schemes.

Ce soir, nous traitons du sujet du projet de loi 134, Loi de 2023 pour des logements abordables et de bons emplois. Ce projet de loi comporte deux parties : la première partie qui parle de la définition du mot « abordable » et, deuxièmement, une partie qui traite du sujet des pouvoirs de la cité de St. Thomas. Mes commentaires ce soir vont porter sur la deuxième partie, la partie qui traite de la question de l’augmentation des pouvoirs de la cité de St. Thomas.

Il me sera utile de donner à cette Assemblée une petite description de ma région—c’est le comté d’Essex—et après ça, je donnerai également un bref aperçu du bilan désastreux du gouvernement précédent libéral en matière de fabrication automobile en Ontario. Puis, après ça, je soulignerai le bilan fantastique du gouvernement actuel en matière de fabrication en Ontario, et aussi le bilan incroyable de ce gouvernement en matière de création d’emplois.

Et maintenant, je commence avec une description de ma région, qui est le comté d’Essex, qui compte de nombreuses industries formidables.

Nous avons, par exemple, d’énormes producteurs de céréales. Je parle particulièrement de la famille Wismer.

Nous avons, bien sûr, une industrie productive des légumes de serre. Nos légumes de serre que nous cultivons dans le comté d’Essex sont vendus partout en Amérique du Nord et sont commercialisés dans le monde entier et peuvent être trouvés dans bien de supermarchés américains.

Nous avons même une industrie du vin et des spiritueux. Ma circonscription ne compte pas moins de 20 vignobles différents. Nous avons une distillerie et au moins quatre sociétés de bières artisanales différentes.

Et nous avons des élevages. Nous avons des élevages de poulet, de dinde, et nous avons même un élevage d’alpagas.

Mais l’industrie de base de ma région reste l’industrie manufacturière, et notamment la fabrication des automobiles. Nous avions ce que nous appelions « the Big Three ». Il s’agissait de GM, Ford et Chrysler, et moi j’emploie toujours les mots « the Big Three », même si beaucoup de choses ont changé. GM ne fabrique plus dans ma région, Chrysler a changé son nom à FCA et puis l’a changé de nouveau à Stellantis. Ford reste toujours Ford—peut-être que ce sera toujours Ford. Mais une chose qui n’a pas changé dans ma région est la suivante : l’économie du comté d’Essex compte fortement sur l’industrie automobile.

Sous le gouvernement libéral précédent, nous avons perdu des milliers et des milliers d’emplois. Bon nombre de ces emplois se trouvaient dans notre industrie de fabrication et dans le secteur manufacturier. Des analystes estiment que nous avons perdu environ 20°000 emplois dans le secteur et dans la région du comté d’Essex. Nous avons perdu, par estimation, 300°000 emplois dans tout l’Ontario pendant le gouvernement libéral.

Le bilan du gouvernement libéral précédent en matière de création d’emplois était mauvais, et en effet il n’avait pas de stratégie de création d’emplois. On pourrait dire, quand même, qu’il y avait une stratégie de destruction d’emplois. Mais tout cela a changé sous le gouvernement du présent premier ministre.

La création des emplois sous notre gouvernement a explosé. Depuis que nous avons formé le gouvernement en 2018, le gouvernement du premier ministre actuel a créé plus de 700°000 emplois partout en Ontario. Ce sont des emplois, en majorité, à temps plein et bien rémunérés. Beaucoup de ces emplois se trouvent dans le secteur de la fabrication.

Sous le gouvernement libéral, la fabrication des automobiles était presque morte en Ontario. Les analystes de l’industrie prévoyaient que l’Ontario ne recevrait aucun pourcentage de nouveaux investissements dans le secteur automobile. Mais, tout cela a changé sous notre mandat. Notre premier ministre a mis au travail son ministre du Développement économique, de la Création d’emplois et du Commerce. J’appelle cet homme « l’homme à la cravate jaune ».

I just talked about the man I called “the man with the yellow tie.” He is our Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade, and at this point, I would like to tell a very important story. As with all my stories, they are directly related to the topic of debate, but of course you have to be patient because the full importance of the story might not reveal itself until the very end of my statements.

So, of course, all of my stories start in Anderdon township; that’s where I grew up. I went to Anderdon Public School. Anderdon Public School has the most wonderful library in Essex county. When you go into the library, there’s a balcony that wraps around the second level, because it’s a two-level library, and all the books are around the balcony level.

When I was in school, we used to go to the library approximately once a week, and we would line up in two lines. The boys would line up in one line and the girls would line up in another line, and we would proceed to the library, and we would walk in parallel lines. We were not allowed to run; we were instructed to walk. Let me tell you, we were very tempted to run because we wanted to get to the library. We wanted to get to the library before anybody else got there because we wanted to make sure we got the books we wanted and nobody else took the books we wanted.

So we were terribly tempted to run and, sometimes, we gave into that temptation and we would run to the library. If you got caught running, the librarian would scold you. We had a wonderful librarian; her name was Mrs. Klein-Lebbink, and she was a marvellous librarian. If she caught you running, she would scold you in a high-pitched voice, just like a librarian should. She had a pair of glasses which she hung around her neck on a chain, just like the quintessential librarian.

Mrs. Klein-Lebbink’s office was located on the lower level of the library, and you could take the stairs down to the lower level and there was an open area where Mrs. Klein-Lebbink would read us stories. She read us wonderful stories—wonderful stories.

For example, she read us the story The Cat in the Hat about a marvellous cat with a big, tall hat who had wonderful machines that would do marvellous things. And she read us another incredible story, Mrs. Klein-Lebbink did. She read us a story called Horton Hears a Who! and it was about an elephant who discovered an entire civilization on a tiny speck. And then, the elephant undertook to protect that civilization by placing it on a flower. That story told us a very important lesson, and the lesson was this: A person is a person, no matter how small.

And Mrs. Klein-Lebbink, she read us a story about Curious George, a little monkey. Curious George was a monkey who always got into trouble. Now, I had a little bit of difficulty understanding the story of Curious George because I wanted a pet too. I wanted to have a dog or a cat. I couldn’t understand how this particular gentleman, the man with the big yellow hat, had a pet monkey—my mother said we couldn’t have a cat or a dog because we’d have to clean up after it. I couldn’t understand how a man could have a monkey as a pet—

Thank you to the member from Orléans for his comment.

We had 15 years of Liberal government, and for the last several years—from 2011 on, when the member from Niagara Centre said prices really started to skyrocket—we had the NDP supporting that Liberal government, and we watched as housing prices skyrocketed. And this did not happen in a short period of time. This happened over decades before that, building up to eventually skyrocketing from 2011 on. It is this government that is now taking steps to address it with 16 pieces of legislation for housing supply action plans. The previous Liberal government did nothing—stood by while prices went up, did nothing to address the housing supply crisis—and even now are raising issues to try to stop the kind of moves we’re trying to make to make sure we have more housing.

Will the member from Orléans get with the program, join us and support these housing initiatives?

Further questions?

Point of order.