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.

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?

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.

The member’s timing is impeccable, because I am now getting to the most salient part of this story. You see, it was about the Man with the Yellow Hat who was Curious George’s caretaker. You never learned his name because the stories never told you his name, but you did know he wore yellow, and yellow, of course—I didn’t understand it then, but I understand it now—is the symbolic colour of hope. It’s the colour of hope. That’s why, when I see the man with the yellow tie, it reminds me of hope, because he brings hope. He brings hope to the province of Ontario, which is what this bill does, Bill 134. And now you see, in the fullness of time, we’ve come full circle back to the import of the story.

Let me tell you a few examples about how the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade, together with the Premier, has brought hope to the province of Ontario—hope which is symbolized by the colour yellow. Here are some examples: Magna investing $471 million to manufacture EV batteries in Brampton; Honda investing $1.4 billion to manufacture hybrids in Alliston; Ford investing $1.8 billion to manufacture EV models in Oakville; General Motors investing $2 billion to manufacture commercial EVs in Oshawa; Stellantis investing $3.6 billion to modernize its Windsor and Brampton plants; Stellantis, again, and LG investing $5 billion to build an EV battery plant in Windsor; and Volkswagen investing $7 billion to build a new EV battery plant in St. Thomas, Ontario—which, of course, is the subject of this specific bill.

So you see, if you had been patient, we would have brought ourselves right back to the bill again. What a remarkable record of achievement and hope—over $25 billion in automotive investment in the province of Ontario in just three years. Thank you, man with the yellow tie. Thank you.

Now, here’s what Lana Payne, the national president of Unifor, has to say about all of these remarkable multi-billion-dollar investments. Unifor, of course, is Canada’s largest private sector union. It has over 300,000 members. Here is what Lana Payne has to say:

“In less than three years, Canada’s auto industry has gone from an apparent ... ‘has been’ to ‘has it all.’ ...

“Let’s be ... clear that what’s happening in the auto sector isn’t happening by accident....

“The fact is this industrial renaissance is happening because governments” of today “are investing in making it happen.”

Thank you again, man with the yellow tie.

The Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade is making it happen in all of those communities that I just mentioned, right across the southern half of Ontario, and in particular in my region, southwestern Ontario. I can tell you that people in Essex county are hugely excited about these investments.

C’est pourquoi nous avons eu la Loi de 2023 sur la modification des limites territoriales entre St. Thomas et Central Elgin. Par ailleurs, le titre de la loi est modifié et la loi s’intitule désormais la Loi de 2023 sur le soutien au secteur manufacturier de St. Thomas.

La nouvelle loi est modifiée pour permettre à la cité de St. Thomas d’accorder une aide à une personne morale précisée pendant une période de temps précisée. La nouvelle loi fixe le montant total de certains types d’aide qui peuvent être accordés et permet au ministre de prendre des règlements, notamment des règlements qui imposent des restrictions, des limites et des conditions au pouvoir que la loi confère à la cité de St. Thomas.

Si le projet de loi est adopté, la cité de St. Thomas peut accorder de l’aide directement ou indirectement à une personne morale.

Le montant total d’aide, telle qu’elle est définie par la loi, qui est accordée en vertu de la loi ne doit pas dépasser le montant total que devrait normalement payer la société avant l’octroi de l’aide, au titre de ce qui suit :

—premièrement, les impôts prélevés aux fins municipales par la cité en vertu de la Loi de 2001 sur les municipalités sur des biens réels pendant la période d’aide; et

—deuxièmement, les droits et les redevances fixés par la cité de St. Thomas en vertu de la loi pendant la période d’aide.

Aux fins de la loi en question, le mot « aide » s’entend de :

—une subvention, autre que la vente ou la location à bail à un prix inférieur à la juste valeur marchande, ou encore la concession de bien-fonds; ou

—une exonération totale ou partielle d’impôts, de redevances ou de droits imposés pendant la période d’aide.

L’aide accordée en vertu de la loi peut s’appliquer à tout secteur de la cité de St. Thomas.

Le ministère des Affaires municipales et du Logement peut, par règlement, imposer des restrictions, des limites et des conditions au pouvoir que la loi confère à la cité, y compris prévoir que l’aide ou certains types d’aide ne peuvent s’appliquer qu’à des secteurs précisés.

À mon avis, pour la ville de St. Thomas et pour tout le sud de l’Ontario, y compris le comté d’Essex et tout le sud-ouest—comme j’ai dit, notre région dépend de l’industrie manufacturière. Notre région dépend de la fabrication des automobiles pour une bonne économie, pour des emplois à temps plein, pour des emplois bien rémunérés, pour un avenir pour nos enfants, qui est un avenir qui, tout le monde le sait, est un avenir avec beaucoup d’opportunités et d’emplois. C’est un avenir pour que tout le monde aime travailler.

Pour toutes ces raisons, et bien d’autres encore, j’appuie le projet de loi proposé ce soir, et j’encourage les membres de cette Assemblée à voter en sa faveur.

Point of order, the member from Oshawa.

This is one piece, along with all of the other measures that this government is taking in order to build more homes, because the only way you’re going to make it possible for people to get homes is to increase the supply. That’s the way we’re going to do it.

By the way, the member from Brampton who just spoke must have a lot of hope, because Brampton is receiving millions and perhaps even billions of dollars of automotive investment brought here because the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade and the Premier have worked so hard to land these remarkable investments after this this industry, the automobile manufacturing industry, was decimated by the previous Liberal government.

Finally, we have hope brought to this province by the Premier and the Minister of Economic Development, whom I call the “man with the yellow tie”—the colour of hope, bringing hope to places to like Brampton, Essex county, Windsor and Alliston and all places from Oakville and in between. Jobs, hopes, progress: That’s what we want.

The member talked about the importance of having both government and private sector involved in the building of homes. Of course, the member’s own plan, which is delineated in that member’s policy, says that the government, the way she wants to do it or the way that party wants to do it, is going to finance—finance—250,000 homes, which, by my calculation, would cost the government $125 billion. I challenge the member from Oshawa to tell me how many taxes—

He asks how we are going to move forward. Well, we’re going to move forward by building more supply. We’ve got to get more supply, and we’re going to have the Minister of Labour, who’s moving mountains and moving so hard to get more people into the skilled trades, because we’re going to need those skilled trades people to build all the houses we need.

Skilled trades registrations are up approximately 22% to 24% over the last year. That’s a great accomplishment. I can tell you, we’re going to need more and more and more skilled trades people, so an increase of 22% to 24% in one year alone is fantastic. That’s one of the ways we’re going to get to the goals we want to meet, which were outlined by the member from Markham–Thornhill. We need more skilled trades people, and that’s what the Minister of Labour is going to—

I’m pleased to ask the member a question. In today’s Toronto Star, there was an article called, “Canada Is Building Fewer Homes Today than During the 2020 Lockdowns—and ‘The Worst Is Yet to Come.’” One of their comments in here was, “(Developers are) are no longer seeing that these projects will be a good investment for them, especially with the additional high cost of materials and labour.” It goes on to say, “That’s why we need less reliance from the private sector.”

My question to this member who just spoke about the supply and the challenges: When are we going to see from this government a shift away from that super reliance on their super donor developer friends and recognize that the public sector and government leadership have a place in building homes for people that they can afford?

En réponse, beaucoup plus de personnes qu’ont été aidées par le gouvernement précédent libéral—qui ont perdu leurs emplois et qui ont dû déménager à l’extérieur de l’Ontario pour se chercher des emplois.

Pour ça, il faut voter pour ce projet de loi, parce que ce projet de loi est un projet de loi qui donne de l’espoir à tout le monde en Ontario qui veut travailler en Ontario, qui cherche une maison en Ontario : une maison qui peut être abordable, une maison pour sa famille.

Questions?

Further questions?

Thank you to my friend from Essex for the wonderful speech.

Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed that story. He highlighted that yellow is the colour of hope, and I don’t see any yellow on the other side, because people do not have any hope from the opposition. People have hope from the government side, because they know that only this government can address the crisis.

Experts continue to say that this crisis is decades in the making. The NDP and Liberal governments had their chance, but they failed to act. This government will act and bring the province out of this housing crisis.

Can the member please explain to the House how this legislation will address the housing crisis?