It’s a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill 134, Affordable Homes and Good Jobs Act, and to provide some comments this morning.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention a lot of us were up late last night, watching the Manitoba election. On a partisan level, obviously—you win some, you lose some—it was great to see, for us, an NDP majority government, but more importantly, and on a less partisan note, to see Wab Kinew elected as the first First Nations Premier in Canada was inspiring. I was with my friend from Kiiwetinoong and some other folks from that community, and to see the look on their faces and to hear the commentary around the country and know that First Nations people—this really lifted their spirits after truth and reconciliation day, which we recognized on Monday, especially young people across the country. It was very inspiring and great to see. Congratulations to Wab Kinew on his victory.

I’d also like to recognize my friend from University–Rosedale, who has done an excellent job. I enjoy working with her on the housing and municipal affairs portfolio. When the government House leader quotes you often, you know you’re doing a good job as a critic. I think she’s doing an excellent job, so I want to recognize her.

Also, AMO and our municipal partners—I think we don’t recognize enough the hard work they do, especially under the difficult circumstances they’ve been subjected to over the last few years. I’ll be touching on that in my remarks regarding Bill 23 and, historically, what’s been happening with municipalities.

Of course, our stakeholders and all the citizens who have come out over the last year, concerned about the things that this government has been doing around the greenbelt and around land deals—thousands and thousands of people across the province have come out to MPPs’ offices and to the greenbelt itself to express their desire to keep that farmland and that protected land. That played a huge part in causing this government to change course, and I want to thank all of them.

I want to, before commenting on the bill specifically, provide some context. We’ve talked about this many times before. This government and the official opposition have very different views of the housing crisis. We’ve talked a lot about how this government focuses on supply only, and supply rather than demand and the demand that is out there, which is for affordable homes, not for large single-detached homes.

We’ve never seen a situation where more folks own multiple properties. Speculation has become possibly the biggest problem in the housing crisis, next to supply, and that’s something that this government, in our opinion, has really ignored. It’s an ideological difference. This government believes that the way to address the housing crisis is just to remove obstacles; remove regulations, what they call red tape; give developers tax breaks; remove due diligence from the planning process, granting undemocratic powers to mayors. These are all things that say, “We’re going to step back and we’re going to let the market fix the housing crisis.” That’s not a solution, and it has never been a solution in Canada.

The government of Canada and the provincial government used to be in housing, and that’s how we ended up with co-op housing, social housing, public housing. As the official opposition, we’ve been very vocal in saying we need to use all of those tools and we need to—as Councillor Gord Perks in Toronto recently said, the federal government and the provincial government need to get back in the housing game if we’re really going to address the housing crisis,

Secondly, I want to raise that we understand this government wants to slow things down due to the disastrous summer of scandal and housing policy failure, and so this bill, clearly, is an attempt to do that—to slow down, to change the channel from the scandals and the failures of their housing policy. The theme that I think I see in all this is wasted time. If you look at how much time has been wasted, especially over the last year, dealing with scandals, dealing with questionable land deals—this is time that could have been spent addressing the housing crisis. Instead, the government is doing damage control and lurching from one scandal to another.

So while we will be supporting this bill—and I’ll explain why—I must begin by saying that this government has been in power for five years, and it has never been more expensive to rent or own a home. Obviously, given the size and urgency of the housing crisis, the meagre measures contained in this bill won’t do much to make life easier for folks who are struggling to find affordable places to live in Ontario. This government’s failed policies and ill-advised schemes like greenbelt land grabs, strong-mayor powers and governance reviews are not delivering the housing people urgently need; in fact, they’re making things worse. The truth is, people no longer trust this government to address the housing crisis.

Specific to this bill—this bill redefines when an affordable or attainable home is eligible for the exemption from development charges under section 4.1 of the Development Charges Act. The new definition of “affordable” is a home whose rent is no greater than the lesser of 30% of the income of the 60th percentile of renter households and the average market rent; the current definition is 80% of average market rent. So that is an improvement. The new definition of “attainable” is a home for purchase whose price is the lesser of the price that would result in annual accommodation costs that are 30% of the income of the 60th percentile of households and 90% of the average purchase price; the current definition is 80% of average purchase price. So that is an improvement. The act also establishes an affordable residential units bulletin in which the minister shall determine the incomes and corresponding rents and purchase prices to which the term “affordable” shall apply.

Schedule 2 talks about allowing the city of St. Thomas to provide assistance for the new Volkswagen EV battery factory in St. Thomas—which was a bill that we also supported.

So defining affordability based on income, as I mentioned, is an improvement over defining strictly based on market prices—80% of a completely unaffordable market price, though, is still unaffordable.

Housing expert Steve Pomeroy told us that the 60th renter percentile is a realistic benchmark.

Redefining affordability based on income instead of the market for the purposes of a development charge exemption is an incremental improvement over the status quo because, as currently defined, developers might receive an exemption for building affordable homes that are not affordable for most people, and that might have been homes that might have been built anyway, without the exemption.

But there’s still much more the government should be doing to spur the construction of new non-market homes, especially homes that are affordable for low-income households. We’ve talked about this many times in the past. While the NDP supports incentives like development charge exemptions to encourage the construction of purpose-built rental housing, especially affordable homes, the province should be covering these costs, not cash-strapped municipalities that are already struggling after over 25 years of provincial downloads and cuts.

The Ford government shows no indication it intends to keep its promise to make municipalities whole for Bill 23 revenue losses—I’ll talk about that further—and when the NDP asked about this, the Premier said, “The municipalities love spending money.... We don’t have an income problem at the city halls across the province; we have a spending problem. That’s the issue.” That’s the kind of disdain that the Premier and this government have shown toward municipalities—in our opinion, a real disrespect for municipalities across Ontario.

This government is letting developers off the hook from paying their fair share for services that people need, including parks, transit and affordable housing. We believe this government needs to tackle the housing crisis from every angle. That includes real rent control, clamping down on speculation and getting the province back into the business of building homes people can actually afford.

This government has been in power for over half a decade, and we still do not have a clear, coherent housing policy. Over the summer, this government was lurching from one scandal to another, with no clarity of direction or motives. This creates uncertainty for our municipal partners; they’ve been very vocal about that.

Meanwhile, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., just the other week, lowered projections on how many homes will be constructed in Ontario. Canada is short 3.5 million housing units for 2030, and Ontario has the biggest supply gap. This government is not even delivering on the supply side, never mind the affordability issue, which is getting worse and worse.

As I mentioned, it’s tragic, especially over the summer, how much time has been wasted on government scandals, rather than addressing the housing crisis. For over a year, this government has been wasting time enriching their friends instead of focusing on housing. Tearing up the greenbelt was more important to them. This was sold as their big idea to address the housing affordability crisis, and we heard the government leader speak many times about providing affordable homes for immigrants on greenbelt land, which is one of the most ridiculous claims I’ve heard this government or any government ever make.

No one ever believed that this was about affordable homes for immigrants built on the greenbelt, and I take particular exception to some of that language, as someone who, before being elected to this place, ran a settlement agency for almost a decade, serving newcomer families and refugee families. I’ll tell you, none of my clients ever approached me and said, “You know, I’d really like a piece of virgin farmland with no services so I can build a mansion now that I’m here in Canada.” Most of the immigrants I’ve met—and if you look at the stats, most of them who come to Canada—are learning English. They’re finding jobs. They’re often working two or three jobs while they’re going to school. They’re struggling to pay rent. That’s the reality for immigrants, and I really think using them to support an unsupportable housing policy is in bad taste.

It never should have taken a series of scandals from this government for the Premier to attempt to undo the damage he has done. While people are struggling with an affordability crisis, this Premier has wasted people’s time, and after reading both the Integrity Commissioner’s and the Auditor General’s reports, it’s clear tearing up the greenbelt was never about building homes.

CityNews recently had an excellent article that highlighted just how much time this government has wasted with this greenbelt scandal, detailing an incredible timeline. It’s amazing to think that it was almost a year ago, November 4, 2022, when the municipal affairs and housing minister announced via news release that Ontario would remove 7,400 acres in 15 different areas of the greenbelt while adding 9,400 acres elsewhere to build 50,000 homes. It contradicted a pledge directly that he made in 2021 not to open the greenbelt “to any kind of development.”

On November 11, CBC reported that the landowners who stood to benefit from the greenbelt land removals included prominent developers and that one purchase happened as recently as September. Later in November, the minister said that he did not tip off developers ahead of announcing changes to the greenbelt, and the Premier said the same a day later.

Yet, on January 6, Ontario Provincial Police said they were working to determine whether they should investigate the matter. On January 18, Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner and Auditor General both announced that they would conduct separate probes. The Integrity Commissioner launched an investigation into the minister on a complaint from the NDP leader, who asked the commissioner to investigate whether the minister broke the ethics rules around making a public policy decision to further someone’s private interests. And now—this is prior to February—the government is fully embroiled in a scandal and not working to provide housing for the people of Ontario.

Later in February, our leader asked the Integrity Commissioner to issue an opinion on the Premier’s actions surrounding his daughter’s stag-and-doe event ahead of her wedding. The Premier acknowledged that some developers who were friends attended the $150-a-ticket event and media reports say lobbyists and government relations firms were—

I listened intently to the member on his speech, and I didn’t hear very much about Bill 134 until the last couple of minutes when, out of the blue, they announced that they’re going to support the bill, as they did Bill 63.

If you remember when Bill 63 was going through the Legislature here, what tipped the scales in favour of the NDP supporting was the calls they received from union leadership that said, “You’re toast if you don’t support this bill redefining the boundaries around St. Thomas,” because it was integral and of paramount importance to be able to establish an EV battery manufacturing facility in the St. Thomas region. So again, they were taking their marching orders from their stakeholders—not necessarily the people of Ontario—who will support this bill without question.

Bill 134 is so important to people in my riding who do have lower-than-average incomes and pay more as a percentage of their income to pay for housing. Thank you for supporting it. It’s about time you got behind this government’s entire—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Premier...,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A year later, I check—nothing gone.

Two years later, I checked again.

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

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

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

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

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

“Thank you for your consideration....”

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

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