Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you—il a parlé un petit peu français. C’était très bien, très bien travaillé. Merci.

Thank you for your wonderful presentation. The member from Essex is a wonderful colleague and also a great representative not only for the Essex riding but also across Ontario. Thank you for passionately talking this bill.

Madam Speaker, the housing crisis is growing beyond the boundary, and I’m very pleased to see our government continue to take the housing supply crisis very seriously. I know there are too many families in my riding of Markham—not only the Markham–Thornhill riding but across Markham—finding a house, especially finding houses for the younger generation—their dreams are really going beyond out of reach. Can the member elaborate why the government is moving on the Ontario housing supply crisis so quickly, introducing yet another piece of legislation—so very, very important? Could he elaborate on that, please?

J’aimerais demander au membre : le projet de loi a des dispositions qui exemptent les unités d’habitation abordables des frais de redevances d’aménagement. Vraiment, c’est tout ce que ça fait pour les loyers. Combien de personnes sur les 1,5 million d’habitations dont on a besoin vont être aidées par ce projet de loi?

Well, I’ll tell you, if you’re an elderly person and you’re looking for hope, you need no longer look any further than Belle River, Ontario. What happened in Belle River, Ontario, was that the Ministry of Long-Term Care issued a licence to allow the operator to build a brand new, state-of-the-art facility for retired elderly people in Belle River, Ontario. It’s a state-of-the-art facility—160 units—that’s going to replace the old facility, which was only 80 units and very outdated. It’s a brand new facility—state-of-the-art, 160 units—which, I might add, was opposed by the NDP. Luckily, the Ministry of Long-Term-Care, notwithstanding the objections of the NDP—

Interjections.

Thank you.

Further questions?

The member from London North Centre.

It’s my great honour to rise today to add the voices of the wonderful people of London North Centre on what is possibly one of the most important topics of our time, which is housing.

Today, we are discussing and debating Bill 134, An Act to amend the Development Charges Act, 1997 and the St. Thomas-Central Elgin Boundary Adjustment Act, 2023. This bill is very light on details. Just to take a look at the two schedules that comprise this bill, they talk about the definitions of affordable or attainable homes, and they also talk about the adjustments to the St. Thomas-Central Elgin boundary adjustment—an adjustment, I might add, was one that the NDP was proud to support. We helped expedite that adjustment to make sure that we were able to land the historic investment of the Volkswagen plant in St. Thomas.

Housing is something that every single constituent of mine discusses with me at every event I go to. I speak with seniors who are looking to downsize, who are concerned because they simply can’t maintain that bigger home. There are also people in the mid-ranges who have adult children who can’t move out or may never realize the dream of home ownership.

It’s really shocking when we see the policy changes that have been enacted by this government and governments previous which have resulted in this unaffordability crisis. You see, housing is foundational. Housing is fundamental. Housing is health care, when you look at it in a more broad sense. Unfortunately, because of policy changes over the last 30 years, we’ve seen that housing has become more of a commodity rather than what it is, which is a human good, a necessity.

If you take a look at both Liberal and Conservative housing policies, they centre around developers. They have this focus on this trickle-down economic situation, where they expect that if they create a policy environment to enable the creation of housing, somehow that will result in affordability. But 30 years after those policies have been enacted, we see that they are utterly wrong.

This bill is an opportunity, and I would say that, though the NDP, the official opposition, will be supporting this bill, it unfortunately misses the moment. I have to wonder, with a bill that is comprised of two very brief schedules, if this legislation actually serves the purpose of the magician trying to distract the people of Ontario. What is happening in both hands? You see, we have the greenbelt grift. We have this handout to land speculators. We’ve seen so much corruption and scandal embroiling this government that this legislation seems to be something where they’re trying to put out a good news story and distract from what is actually going on.

It’s no wonder, Speaker, that they will interrupt all the members on the official opposition side when we dare talk about the greenbelt in relation to this legislation, because they don’t want anyone to know. They don’t want anyone to pay attention. They certainly don’t want anyone to investigate, otherwise they would obviously have co-operated more fully with the Integrity Commissioner. We would have ministers that actually told the legitimate and honest truth, and we would see a government that actually would pass the official opposition’s motion to strike a special committee—

Interjection: Select.

The NDP, the official opposition, has always been and will always be the party of housing. Back during the 1990s, the NDP government built the most significant amount of affordable housing, supportive housing, co-op housing of any government of its kind, and much of that still exists to this day, despite the reckless and destructive cuts of the government that came after them with the Mike Harris government. They cancelled so many projects, so many co-op housing projects, in the tens of thousands. But this government, unfortunately, isn’t really looking after people; they’re looking after developers.

It’s also unfortunate because I think this results in the weakening of peoples’ faith in our elected representatives, because this government has tried to cloak their greenbelt grift with the shield of housing. They’ve tried to hide behind this defence, pretending as though this unbridled corruption crisis was something other than what it was, which was about rewarding insiders. It was about making sure that a few people were turned from millionaires into billionaires, but instead, this government would pretend that it was about housing.

I wanted to first look at an analysis of this government’s cousin, their federal leader, Pierre Poilievre, and his discussion of housing, because I think we see resonance with this government and their principles. This was posted; it says how Poilievre blames city regulations and red tape that are causing the housing crisis. He said that these inflate the cost of housing, and his entire plan is to force or encourage cities to remove them. We see much resonance with that and this government stepping all over municipal partners, overriding their authority, really insulting them, pretending as though they’re sitting on all of this unspent money when it’s this government that has a $22-billion slush fund that they’re sitting on. However, they would like to point the finger at somebody else—again, changing the channel and trying to distract.

This analysis goes on to say that the red tape is “a way of speaking to the needs of ‘ordinary’ Canadians, while advancing the interest of the party’s corporate backers. The existing capitalist provision of housing in Canada need not be changed in any way. We just need to cut government waste.”

So it’s interesting when you take a look at this government and their discussion of housing because we always see such focus on red tape. It’s like they’re trying to change the target. They’re trying to change the channel. They don’t want people paying attention to what they’re actually doing; they would rather point the finger at somebody else.

If we look at the historical provision or the responsibility for housing, back in 1995, the Conservatives cut the provincial housing program and the Liberals cut the National Housing Strategy. As a result, we have a crisis that has been created by government cuts, by government neglect, by governments not doing and not abiding by their historic responsibilities.

You see, back in the 1990s, governments began to rely on the for-profit model and our for-profit market to deliver housing and, unfortunately, that has been something that has not provided what Ontarians need. We also see that pension funds, REITs and so many more have realized that they can commodify or reap enormous profits off housing, and this government has done nothing to stop them. We’ve seen some tinkering around the edges. We’ve seen increases on the non-resident speculation tax, but there are giant loopholes you could drive a truck through with those.

It’s also really interesting, when you take a look at recent history, because this government has had a flurry of bills, they’ve had a ministerial shuffle, they have really tried to distract from what is actually going on here, which has been a corruption crisis, despite them masking it with housing. We have to ask the question: Which is more important: people or profit? Clearly, there’s a division down the middle of this chamber, because on this side of the chamber, we believe that people are more important than profit. Yet, with this government, we see them rewarding millionaire friends, turning them into billionaires. We see corporate tax cuts. We see all of these incentives that are given to people who don’t need our assistance.

I have to think about a really interesting quotation I read just recently. This individual said that, really, if you are a person of faith, if you believe in some sort of “Almighty,” that our responsibility here is to look after the little people and make sure they’re being protected from the big people. But we see a reverse of that with this government—entirely, entirely opposite.

As we look at this legislation in question, there are some interesting points to it. There is the definition of affordability based on income instead of the market. It’s an incremental improvement; it’s not perfect. It’s somewhat better than the status quo, but there’s still so much more this government could do to actually create that housing. This government talks a lot about creating housing, but they are actually taking a back seat. They are really not taking responsibility; they’re leaving that up to other people. They really don’t want to be in the driver’s seat. I don’t know—maybe they don’t want to be responsible, maybe they’re afraid, maybe they’re just afraid to get their hands dirty. I’m not sure what it is, but they’re not building the housing.

Now, we also, on this side of the House, want to look at the housing crisis from every angle. There is not one silver bullet to tackle the housing affordability crisis, so we also need to look at people on all parts of the spectrum of housing. That would include real rent control. It’s shocking to think that, this government, during the throes of a housing affordability crisis, that the Premier and this government in 2018 would remove rent control from all new buildings. They will pat themselves on the back, Speaker. They will tell themselves, “Look at all the new housing starts.” But what they don’t admit is that none of these are affordable, and that they’ve created a system of exploitation whereby people are stuck.

People have finished year-long leases—I’ve talked with so many folks who were not informed that the government did not have their back. They were not informed that the government did not care about their safety. They were not informed that the government didn’t want to provide them with protections, so after that year-long lease, their rent skyrocketed. It’s unconscionable that, in the midst of a housing crisis, this government would take away things away from people.

Now, we take a look at some of the other distractions in terms of housing that this government has created. We have Bill 23, and Bill 23 was a direct attack on municipalities removing development charges, again, rewarding the people who didn’t need further reward—those developers, those speculators, those people who are already wealthy—while removing protections from people who were hardly protected in the first place. I believe the Association of Municipalities of Ontario have estimated that with Bill 23 the impact will be in the neighbourhood of—what is it, $5 billion?

Thanks to the member from Essex for a very creative presentation—I mean, I like Stuart McLean from The Vinyl Cafe as much as anybody does.

You were talking at length about the colour of yellow and yellow being a colour of hope—and I was thinking of another colour; it was more in the brown category. But I do want to say, the yellow, the colour of hope, actually—I took a little bit from that presentation.

I see that the Minister of Long-Term Care is here. He’s the new minister. Congratulations. I have hope that the minister is going to call Bill 21, the Till Death Do Us Part bill, at social policy committee so that seniors in the province of Ontario also have hope to be reunified as they age—

This government is sitting on $22 billion. It’s giving money to wealthy people by allowing them to be exempted from development charges. They’re sitting on this additional money. And who’s going to pick up the tab? Municipalities in rural Ontario are going to pick up the tab.

Earlier, from the official opposition, we heard from our wonderful critic for municipal affairs and housing, who talked about all of the smaller municipalities that were going to be hit by these disastrous increases to tax. I believe it was the city of Pickering—they had to raise taxes by 2.44%; the region of Durham, 2.87%. Let me see—Pickering taxpayers have to pay 5.31%, and it goes on and on.

So much of this government’s actions have actually really hurt rural Ontario. They’ve neglected rural Ontario. They’ve taken rural Ontario for granted. They thought they could pave over farmland; they thought they could gift it to wealthy developers and wealthy speculators, allow them to flip it for a profit. It is a slap in the face to the people who feed Ontario.

In the municipality of North Huron, there are about 5,000 residents. They were talking about an additional municipal tax increase of 20.65%. There’s this government making the people of rural communities pay for their grift. In Kincardine, they’re looking at an 11.15% tax increase; Stratford, a 7.5% tax increase; Huron county—

I do get passionate about these things. It makes me very upset when people who can’t afford to have money taken from them have it taken from them, and when the government could do more to make sure that they’re making their lives easier.

Let me continue. In Bruce county, we’re talking about a 7.9% increase—I could go on and on. The city of Peterborough has a $7-million-to-$12-million gap over five years—I believe there’s also an additional $9 million because of the removal of development charges. Northumberland county—boy, oh, boy, it is shocking how many places in rural Ontario have been let down by this government while they tried to reward wealthy speculators.

What this government could do in terms of actually addressing the affordability of housing—they don’t have to give away these incentives to rich developers. Instead, what they could do is, they could actually incentivize the creation of municipal properties, non-profit properties. Why are they not making sure that these incentives that they’re providing are for those people who don’t have that profit motive, who are going to make sure they deliver the most amount of value to the people who need it the most?

If projects are exempted from development charges because they’re building affordable housing—but when you combine that with the fact that there’s no rent control for buildings that were first occupied after November 2018, how does this government make sure that things are even going to remain affordable? There are really no protections.

We have NDP legislation on the table right now that could be passed if this government truly cared about renters, if this government truly cared about affordability. Some of those include legislation that I have been proud to co-sponsor—the Rent Stabilization Act. There are also other wonderful pieces of legislation that the government could pass—there is Bill 48, Rent Control for All Tenants Act; as I said, Bill 25, the Rent Stabilization Act.

In my city of London, we’ve seen horrible situations where seniors who’ve lived for decades in rental units—they built a home there, they’ve raised families there. They’re in their retirement now. They’re enjoying their life, but unfortunately that building gets sold to a new person.

See, the Liberals in, I believe, 1997, opened up an adjustment to the Residential Tenancies Act that allowed vacancy decontrol. It allowed unethical landlords to kick good people out so that they could jack up the rent to whatever the market could withstand. It’s a gigantic loophole where people are losing their housing—people who have raised our families, built our communities.

I speak with folks all the time and they say to me, “What am I supposed to do? Am I supposed to live in my car?” Those seniors have effectively paid for the buildings in which they reside. They deserve our respect. They deserve our protections. This government is seeing fit to remove protections to allow even more unethical people into the playing field. I could go on. I’ve barely even touched all of the issues that happened within the greenbelt.

Everything that’s happened within this sphere, within housing, that we’ve seen over the past number of years have done next to nothing to solve the unaffordability crisis. There are many options which have been presented, which we are happy to work with you on, but I can tell you when the government is only looking at the top tier of the people who have the most money expecting that money to trickle down expecting that affordability to trickle down—that simply isn’t going to happen. We have to prepare for years and decades down the line. We have to make sure that our policy is sound, that our policy is thoughtful that unintended consequences aren’t going to get in the way.

I also want to ask: Will this definition that they’ve provided of affordable housing be extended to areas other than exempting development charges, such as social assistance recipients or RGI funding calculations? I too also wonder is this going to be a loophole for this government’s developer buddies. We see that they’re focused on speculators. They’re just focused on their insiders. Is that allowing them to make their billions back after the greenbelt scam was discovered? It’s a question that is on the top of mind of all the folks I speak with in my riding.

People saw what this government did, despite all the distraction, despite trying to shield themselves, pretending it was about housing. Everybody knows this was never about housing. This was about the shifting of public money into a few peoples’ hands. This was about corruption at the highest levels—

Yes.

Point of order.

Point of order.

So I’m going to ask again the same question: What new taxes or what taxes would you raise to be able to pay for this? Because every time, an NDP government—and I’ll say, it’s only been once, actually, in the history of Ontario—has bankrupted this province, and a Conservative government has had to come and clean up the mess.

I am also glad to be able to ask a question of the member for London North Centre. I appreciated his thoughtful comments, especially because it’s so connected to community, which we miss a lot in this space opposite this government.

One of the comments that the member mentioned was about how, in the midst of a housing crisis, this is a government that would allow folks to lose their homes. He spoke about rent control, the need for rent control and about some NDP private members’ bills that are in the hopper now about rent stabilization, rent control. I’d like for him to delve a little bit more into that because I want the people who are watching at home to know that there is a better way and different way, and that this government is not open to those things, because there are already solutions on the table and yet we don’t see it in this piece of legislation.

I want to congratulate my colleague the member for London North Centre on his remarks. The member and I were both very proud to be part of the city of London when AMO was hosted there in the summer, and one of the things we heard repeatedly from municipal representatives was the financial hit that they were facing because of Bill 23 and the loss of development charges. In the city of London, it’s going to cost $97 million.

Now, this bill will further decrease the amount of revenues that municipalities will be able to collect based on development charges because we want to spur the building of affordable housing. But what does the member think about cash-strapped municipalities like London, which is already dealing with an almost $100-million revenue hole, having to further absorb the cost of these development charge exemptions?

Madam Speaker, the member who just spoke comes from London North Centre and that riding is a mere 20-to-30 minutes away from the fantastic $7-billion investment that Volkswagen is making in the province of Ontario at St. Thomas. That riding, London North Centre, is going to benefit immensely from the incredible investments being made in this province as a result of the efforts of the Minister of Economic Development and the Premier. Thousands of people in London North Centre are going to have jobs and hopes and a bright future, because they’re going to get great jobs, at a great pay with pensions and benefits at Volkswagen.

I’m really excited for the people in London North Centre, because they are going to benefit immensely. You can tell the excitement I have for London North Centre. I want to know if the member from London North Centre is as excited for his taxpayers as I am.

Point of order.

I apologize. I have a bad habit of calling a spade, “a spade,” but I do withdraw.

I want to thank everyone for their kind attention. I want to thank the government for not interrupting me during my speech too much.

I’m kind of surprised by the member from Essex’s comments, because I don’t think that he has paid attention to his federal leader. Here on the NDP side of the House, we very much believe in workers. We believe in unions. We believe in collective agreements.

But what’s funny is that the federal Conservative leader, Pierre Poilievre, is really attacking this. He says, “How much of Canadians’ money is he giving to this foreign corporation? How many jobs? How much is the cost per job?” Pierre Poilievre has gone after that.

I wonder why the provincial Conservatives have a different tune than the federal Conservatives. It’s very confusing.

The member is absolutely right. We see municipalities that are going to be cash-strapped as a result of this government doing this sort of anti-Robin Hood thing, taking money from people who can’t afford it and giving it to wealthy folks in the form of removal of development charges.

This government really should be treating municipalities as partners, especially for the provision of affordable housing and supportive housing. We’ve seen that the province has neglected their historic responsibility, which was to create and build and maintain that housing. Instead, they’ve kicked it down to the municipal partners, not provided the funding and not provided the care or really abided by their responsibility.

Really, all the member needs to do is look into their slush fund, their contingency fund, where they have hoarded $22 billion. There’s plenty of money for the provision of public services there. Or maybe they should look at the $8.3 billion—2016 numbers—that they have tried to gift to their insider friends. There’s plenty of money. It comes down to political will. On this side of the House, we will look after the people who need it the most.

Further questions?

Interjections.

Where were we? Okay, we’ll move on to further debate. Further debate? Further debate?

Mr. Calandra has moved second reading of Bill 134, An Act to amend the Development Charges Act, 1997 and the St. Thomas-Central Elgin Boundary Adjustment Act, 2023. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

Report continues in volume B.

I’d like to thank the member from Oshawa for that excellent question, and she’s absolutely right. There are folks who are renting who simply are at a loss. They’re working paycheque to paycheque. They’re unable to afford that most basic necessity of housing because we’ve had governments that have allowed the market to get out of control. We’ve allowed governments to have these corporate landlords basically set the rules. We see things like renovictions, where a landlord will claim that they’re going to come in, they’re going to change over a unit. There are laws in place that allow renters to have the right of first refusal, but too often they do not get in. The Landlord and Tenant Board, which is moribund—it is absolutely not working—often works in the interests of landlords, but still, it’s not working for anyone.

We also see landlords who will try to pretend they’re moving in their family. We need further protections so everyone, whether it’s landlord or tenant, achieves justice and has a safe place to call home.

Interjections.

Point of order.

Madam Speaker, the member from London centre was right: I did need to break out the calculator. Actually, I forgot two zeros. It’s actually $125 billion, which I think, colleagues, if I’m not mistaken—the member from Essex, that’s what? About 60-some-odd per cent of the provincial budget?

I’ll ask him the question again. What new taxes would the NDP install to pay for these 500,000 homes?