Thank you, Speaker. And I would remind my friend that the government speakers, whom I listened to intently, provided context going back to 2018. As I mentioned, what we’re establishing is how much time this government has wasted. Rather than addressing the housing crisis, they’ve had to waste time on scandals, and now we have a bill in front of us that doesn’t really build any homes. So we have wasted time and now we’re discussing a bill that doesn’t really contain anything in it that will address the housing crisis. I think it’s very germane. We’re almost there; we’re up to August of this long scandal, but I’ll get there.

On August 25, the Premier, in his first comments since the minister’s chief of staff’s resignation, said he was “confident” nothing criminal took place on the greenbelt, but that RCMP investigation is ongoing.

Now, First Nations, which has been brought up by the government speakers yesterday: On August 28, I think it’s worth pointing out that First Nations chiefs across the province called on the Premier to return land to the greenbelt. As we speak this morning, our leader and a number of our critics are in the media studio talking about urban boundary expansion and the disrespect that’s been shown to First Nations communities with respect to that. The chiefs brought that up on August 28 with respect to the greenbelt scandal and said very clearly that the greenbelt moves the government made were violating the Williams Treaties that were settled with the province and the federal government in 2018.

So here we are today. We just went through September. On September 4, the minister formally resigned his cabinet post. The Premier appointed the government House leader as the new Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to manage a full-blown crisis, not to build housing—and that’s important; that’s what we’re talking about this morning. It was to manage a crisis. We know what’s happened since, with the resignation of three ministers, multiple staff resigning and a potential RCMP investigation.

Recently, Speaker, in a Globe and Mail article entitled “Ontario Government Had Targeted More Greenbelt Sites Without Public’s Notice”—

Thank you, Speaker. It only took a few minutes to read the bill because there’s not a lot in it. I listened intently to the government speakers yesterday, who wandered all over the political map for a couple of hours. I’ll leave it to the Speaker to determine whether I’m on topic when I discuss issues of why the government is not addressing housing in this bill.

I’ll be talking about the things that the government should be addressing, and one of those things, obviously, was brought up just last week, when the official opposition leader tabled the greenbelt restoration act. It would be great in this bill if the government took the opportunity to do what they promised to do and repealed the greenbelt legislation. The bill that we proposed, which the government could have put in this bill, repealed the Conservatives’ 2022—

Let me talk about someone who’s looking for affordable housing in my riding. I trust that will be acceptable to the Speaker, and maybe make him a little more comfortable for a few minutes and not quite as agitated. I’m going to talk about Tim Gibson, someone from my riding who’s having a really hard time finding affordable housing. The Premier recently stated of the government’s housing policy, “It’s not a little bit better; it’s not 10% better; it’s a thousand times better on all fronts. It’s a thousand times better” since the government took office. That’s the Premier’s words. So while the government continues to stumble from one bad idea to another, people across Ontario still do not have access to affordable housing.

Tim Gibson from my riding in Niagara Centre—60 years old. He lives in Niagara Regional Housing, and he’s lived there for 15 years. He’s on ODSP. He gets $700 a month because of the rent-geared-to-income housing. He went to the Hope Centre food bank recently. I’ve met with food banks in my riding recently; they’re having a real hard time all across Ontario. People from Feed Ontario were here last session telling all members of the Legislature—and I hope many of them took advantage of the opportunity to visit them for their reception—what a difficult time they’re having as this government’s policies fail and people have to choose between rent and food.

He went to the Hope Centre food bank, and all they had left was two cans of spaghetti sauce. So he got a $50 gift card from St. Vincent de Paul society. He was telling me this the other day. He left the grocery store with five items, including a bag of potatoes, a package of hamburger, a package of chicken, a dozen eggs and a tub of margarine. That’s all $50 got him. He wants to speak to the Premier directly to raise his concerns. He knows he’s lucky to have rent geared to income—that’s what he told me—but the housing complex he lives in is tired, and repairs are slow to come, if at all. He worries the place will be shut down for bylaw infractions. Where would all those people go? Even though he’s housed, he worries about being homeless.

Speaker, we hear hundreds of stories from people in my riding and across Ontario on the brink of homelessness. We have food banks that have told us people who used to donate are now the ones who are receiving food, and yet the Premier has the nerve to say things are a thousand times better than ever before.

Tim Gibson, the man I just referenced, wanted to speak to the Premier, so I gave him the Premier’s number. I know the Premier says he likes to give his phone number out, so I hope he speaks to Tim.

Another example: In an article published just the other day in the St. Catharines Standard, titled “‘Perfect Storm of Obstacles’ Impacts Food Programs,” Jessica Stephenson, who is the Niagara Nutrition Partners program manager in Niagara, said, “It’s unprecedented times at the moment. We’re currently experiencing a perfect storm of obstacles that impact how we run our programs. We’re just trying to meet that increase in student population to make sure that all students have access to a healthy meal at all times....

“Niagara Nutrition Partners receives funding from the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services but the provincial money—it has remained stagnant since 2014 despite inflation and rising population—only covers a portion of the cost, leaving gaps it works to fill through groups such as United Way, helping put ‘buffers in place,’ so” schools can provide meals year-long. Again, Speaker, this Premier thinks that things are a thousand times better on all fronts.

Housing affordability in Niagara: I hope the government House leader doesn’t mind me talking about housing affordability—

In Niagara, we’re seeing people spend upwards of 60% of their take-home income on housing alone. According to Niagara Association of Realtors, the average price of homes sold in August 2023 was $688,754. A modest one-bedroom in Welland, for example, is going for $1,400 a month. A basement one-bedroom apartment in Port Colborne is $1,300. How does someone like Tim, who I mentioned, afford to buy groceries and at the same time pay rent when they’re only getting $700 or $800 a month?

Rents have risen across Ontario over the past 20 years, particularly since 2011. Shortly after this government was elected, they eliminated rent control on new units. There’s no legal limit set on how much landlords can charge in rent for new builds that are occupied for the first time after November of 2018.

We all agree that we need to build more homes, but we keep pointing out that you can’t just look at supply. You have to look at demand. The title of the bill is about housing affordability, but this government refuses to look at the price of homes, at the demand for affordable homes in Ontario. This government seems to keep feeding the demands of speculators while ignoring the demands of Ontarians who just want an affordable place to live.

This government has ignored the advice of its own experts and its own Housing Affordability Task Force by not ending exclusionary zoning. The government is failing to enable missing-middle housing to make it easier for people of all incomes, ages, family sizes and abilities to access affordable housing options in the neighbourhoods and communities they need to live in.

For Niagara Regional Housing, the wait-list for an affordable unit in Thorold, where I live, is eight years. In Welland, you’re waiting from four to eight years; in St. Catharines, eight to 15 years. In Niagara Falls, you could be looking at anywhere from five to 20 years for an affordable housing unit.

We have been calling for a strong public sector role to deliver new affordable and non-market housing that the for-profit sector can’t or won’t deliver. This government has relied almost entirely on the private market to deliver new housing. Their main tools have been deregulation, tax cuts and sacrificing more farmland and natural heritage to urban development. This approach, Speaker, has clearly failed.

Simply putting forward a bill that changes the definition of “affordability,” although it’s an improvement and we appreciate it, will do nothing to build new homes. There are so many more things this government should be doing. Instead, they’ve focused on delivering benefits to well-connected landowners and donors while sacrificing farmland instead of focusing on delivering housing that’s actually affordable and meets the needs of regular Ontarians.

Part of this bill is doing what this government does best, which is shifting cost and responsibility from developers onto municipalities, so we have to talk about municipalities and how they will be affected. 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. While we support 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. When I asked about this, the Premier said, and I remember this very vividly from question period, “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.”

Once again, as they’re doing in this bill, they’re shifting responsibility and costs from the province to municipalities. Again, we have another bill that fails to fulfill the government’s promise to make municipalities whole after the financial ruin they caused with Bill 23. There’s nothing to make up for the municipal deficits which will result in service cuts and higher property taxes. AMO has calculated that cities are seeing a $5-billion revenue shortfall from Bill 23. Changing the definition of affordability is not going to address that problem.

The city of Pickering is raising taxes by 2.44% due to Bill 23. Coupled with the region of Durham’s increase of 2.87%, Pickering taxpayers will be paying an additional 5.3% on their bill. The major challenge was the lack of development charges coming into the city as a result of Bill 23, which was the More Homes Built Faster Act.

In Niagara, “the legislation reduces or freezes development charges, the fees municipalities collect from developers and rely on for growth-related services such as roads and infrastructure.

“If the provincial government doesn’t offer some form of compensation,” regional chair Jim “Bradley has said the region would annually have to raise property taxes 11% to cover an estimated $122 million in lost revenue.”

A report by the city of St. Catharines stated, “The proposed reduced fees will shift the financial burden onto existing taxpayers instead of growth paying for growth. This will put significant stress on the city’s budget and planning to accommodate for the lost revenue required for the city’s capital projects.... Further financial risk will be taken by the city due to the downloading of responsibilities, additional studies, programs, staffing and the increased need for long-term debt.”

Although I’m not sure I’ll have a chance to address it today, Speaker, municipalities, on top of this financial stress, are facing the anxiety presented by this government’s tinkering with governance. It’s interesting that one of the first things the government House leader did in taking over the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing was to put the brakes on that, but it would be nice for municipalities if they didn’t have to deal with further confusion and had some idea of how the government plans to deal with those regional governance reviews.

“In Brampton, city council received a staff report in November estimating revenue losses equalling as much as an 80% property tax increase.” And all of these increases, Speaker, are under the guise of helping to create housing in Ontario.

In Guelph, “staff are also recommending eliminating the annual $500,000 transfer to the city’s affordable housing reserve fund to help offset the impacts ... from Bill 23....” So there’s an example directly impacting a city’s affordable housing reserve fund.

In Waterloo, they’ve said that the draft budget contains a proposed tax increase of 5.35% that would add about $75 to the average property tax bill. However, over the next five years, the city stands to lose between $23 million and $31 million in development charges—fees paid by developers to municipalities to offset the cost of new facilities and services.

Waterloo also said, “Between the impacts of record inflation in 2022 and the implementation of Bill 23, local municipalities are projecting significant tax increases.

“Regional government is looking at a hike of ... 9.8%, adding $147 to the average property tax bill.”

“The township of North Dumfries is projecting a 4.8% property tax hike for 2023” as a result of this government’s housing policy on regional governments “in large part due to the expected impacts” from the More Homes Built Faster Act.

Huron-Perth: “Without additional funding from the province to offset this loss of revenue, municipalities will have little option but to put these costs back on the taxpayer. Adding more costs to existing property owners will increase their costs and could negatively impact current homeowners, who may already be struggling with rising interest rates, to keep their current housing affordable.”

In Markham, they’ve said, “City staff members presented a report on the various impacts of the proposed Bill 23 legislative changes. The most alarming revelation was that the changes in Bill 23 could cost the city $136 million in annual revenue, requiring an increase of 50% to 80% on property taxes to maintain existing service levels, equalling an estimated $600 to $1,000 per year to the average homeowner.”

Now, this bill would have been a perfect opportunity, Speaker, for the government to keep their promise to make municipalities whole.

Brampton city council has joined other municipalities in voicing serious concerns over the economic impacts of the provincial government’s Bill 23. The bill is equivalent to an 80% property tax increase over the next 10 years. To put it simply, that bill, Bill 23, shifted a significant financial cost from developers onto already struggling municipalities and that cost would be handed down, obviously, to folks who are struggling to find a home to own or rent.

Now, we’ve talked a little about things that could have been in this bill, and one of the things I’ve heard, actually, from the new minister, the government House leader, when he took over the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing after the scandals through the summer, was that they may be taking up an NDP idea, which is a “use it or lose it” clause for developers.

Folks will remember that this government, in its efforts to blame municipalities for everything that goes wrong in the housing market, put very strict rules on municipalities about the time that it takes to move approvals through municipal planning departments—not a bad thing to require municipalities to do things in a reasonable period of time, but they failed to do the same thing with developers.

So, it was great to hear the minister, when he was attempting to change channels after the scandal, take up a good NDP idea which is to bring in a “use it or lose it” clause for developers. There’s a housing development in Port Colborne, in my riding, that was approved in the 1980s and has yet to break ground. AMO and the big city mayors have all pointed out that there are 1.25 million homes in the approval pipeline that are not being built. The government could have taken advantage of this opportunity, after already speaking about it in the media, to make that part of this bill, but they chose not to. I hope that they move forward and do that in the very near future.

During question period I asked the previous Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing if this government would “stop blaming municipalities, do what is fair and implement a sunset clause of approvals so that developers and builders must build housing in a reasonable period of time after they’ve been approved.” We have yet to hear a commitment from the government, as I’ve mentioned. I hope we hear that soon.

The NDP has put forward amendments in committee to Bill 23. They were rejected unfortunately by this government, and I hope they’re changing their tune now. Our amendment stated, “Section 41 ... (15.4) Subject to and in accordance with the regulations, a municipality may, by bylaw, impose penalties on the owner of the land for failure to substantially commence development within a timely manner after the plans and drawings have been approved under this section.”

Planners, Mr. Speaker, say that if the province could incentivize developers to build what it is already approved, they would be 85% of the way to their goal. Now, we can argue about whether that’s exaggerated—I’m sure the government would say it is—but let’s say it was only 50%. Let’s say by implementing something like this, we could get 50% to our goal, why would the government not move forward to this if it wasn’t because they are afraid of the pushback from their developer friends?

In a CBC article, the chair of the Regional Planning Commissioners of Ontario, Thom Hunt, said, “If the province could incentivize developers to build what is already approved by municipalities, they’d be 85% of the way toward their goal, well ahead of their target. I think the report starts to tell the story that the housing supply challenge isn’t really a land supply or development approval problem.... The bigger problem is, probably, how do you compel a developer to build? How do you increase the rate of construction?”

Unfortunately, we have here another housing bill that fails to include a sunset clause to incentivize developers. Despite the government not taking action, some municipalities are already moving ahead with this plan, because they know that it would work.

In April 2022, Aurora mayor Tom Mrakas stated, “Aurora town council unanimously approved a motion ... to add a sunset clause to all future site-specific zoning bylaw amendments. What this means is that if a development applicant does not satisfy the time frame requirements and obtain a building permit, the development approvals will be revoked and the zoning of the property will return to its original state.”

The statement goes on to say, “With this planning mechanism in place, Aurora can be better positioned to foster appropriate development that will meet the needs of current and future residents when they need it.”

Here’s a simple yet effective mechanism this government could implement today. They could have put it in this bill. Instead, since coming to power they’ve wasted everyone’s time with things like strong-mayor powers, regional reviews and flip-flops on selling the greenbelt. It’s great to hear the new Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing speaking to the media and indicating he may move forward with an NDP idea, and I hope, certainly, that we see that happen. Unfortunately, it didn’t happen in this bill.

Things that we would have loved to see in this bill, Speaker:

—implementing real rent control—we’ve talked about that;

—building truly affordable housing, including non-profit, public, co-op and supportive housing;

—cracking down on greedy land speculation;

—establishing inclusionary zoning to build homes within existing neighbourhoods near transit and other key infrastructure; and

—getting the federal and provincial governments back in the business of building homes that people can actually afford.

When the government says that the official opposition, the NDP, are always saying no, that they don’t have solutions, that’s not true. We’ve proposed solutions continually and we have some solutions that could be implemented right away. It would have been really easy to include some of this stuff—especially the sunset clause that I referred to—in this bill, but the government is not trying to solve the housing crisis; they’re trying to handle a scandal.

AMO released a response to Bill 134, the Affordable Homes and Good Jobs Act. They put out a press release: “At its meeting on September 29, the AMO board considered the recent request made by” the minister “to mayors across Ontario regarding their views on the recommendations of the Housing Affordability Task Force.”

Remember, Speaker, this was the task force that said, “You don’t need to build on the greenbelt. We have enough land within urban boundaries. We don’t need to force urban boundaries to expand. We don’t need MZOs. We have the land we need.”

AMO says, “The minister has requested that all heads of council respond to the request by October 16 or risk financial penalties for their municipality. AMO had previously requested that the ministry extend the deadline to allow mayors to consult with councils; however, the request was not granted.”

So here’s AMO saying, “Look, our members have received your request. We want some time so the mayors can talk to their councils,” and the minister said, “No, no, I’m not going to give you that time.” They can waste all the time they want, but they’re not going to give municipalities time for mayors to even speak to their councils.

“AMO states that at a sector level, municipalities conditionally support all task force recommendations with a few exceptions, provided that the government puts in place”—and here is what AMO wants. It’s not pie in the sky, nothing unreasonable. Here’s what they want:

“—a fair and sustainable funding framework to support infrastructure and growth, that is not unduly subsidized by existing property taxpayers”—we talked about that already;

“—a comprehensive, sequenced implementation plan that gives both developers and municipalities certainty regarding costs and rules to support effective long-term decision-making”—doesn’t sound unreasonable to me;

“—an accountability framework that accurately recognizes the roles and responsibilities of different housing partners and does not hold municipalities accountable for the actions of developers or provincial ministries. Mechanisms must be included to ensure that public investments are tied to outcomes in the public interest;

“—a core focus on non-market housing”—that’s something we’ve talked about for a long time—“which was not within the mandate of the housing affordability task force. A robust non-market housing sector is a critical part of a well-functioning overall housing system and needs to be prioritized by governments”—they’re saying government needs to get back in the game;

“—a public policy review by the Ontario Public Service verifying that each recommendation is feasible, likely to result in increased housing supply and/or affordability and is in the public interest.”

It’s amazing that we don’t have that already.

So the letter identifies top recommendations from the task force for prioritization, as well as three recommendations that AMO objects to on principle.

“AMO has previously stated that the government has chosen its own path in addressing the housing crisis”—that’s AMO, representing 144 municipalities across Ontario. The government haven’t listened to us. They’ve chosen their own path “in addressing the housing crisis in Ontario, despite the advice of municipalities, and will be accountable for its outcomes. AMO has also stated that municipalities will do everything within their power to help the province to achieve its housing targets and outcomes. The AMO board believes that the response outlined in the letter is reflective of this approach.”

So they’re saying, “The government hasn’t listened to us. They’ve gone their own way. But we still want to work with you.” There’s time to change direction. Municipalities want to work with the government, but they can’t blame municipalities for every problem that exists with the affordable housing crisis. They have to work with municipalities, and they have to listen when municipalities come to them.

Bill 63, which the NDP supported, is being renamed Supporting Manufacturing in St. Thomas Act. I want to emphasize, in closing, some of the things I said when originally speaking to Bill 63. As you all know, the opposition supported this bill, and we have to give credit not only to municipal, provincial and federal governments, but, as we pointed out, to unions as well, who went through very difficult times with thousands of their members losing jobs. They went to the bargaining table. So I think we have to give some credit where credit is due to unions like Unifor and the Steelworkers and others who have gone to the bargaining table and worked with the government. This was obviously something that was led by the federal government and with the industry to try to create the conditions to bring some of these jobs back. And this is one area where we all came together in this House and supported that EV battery factory, which will bring back some of the many manufacturing jobs that have been lost in the past.

St. Thomas was one of those areas in Ontario that was devastated when we lost manufacturing jobs, especially in the 1990s. According to Statistics Canada, from the early 2000s to the mid-2010s, the number of employees in manufacturing fell by roughly half a million in Canada, and we’ve seen the long-lasting impact of that first-hand in Niagara. For example, the St. Catharines General Motors plant, at one time, was up to 11,000 or 12,000 manufacturing jobs; now they’re down to a couple of thousand. So it’s great to see the possibility of some of those jobs coming back, and the official opposition was happy to support a bill that helped to make that happen.

To conclude, we will be supporting Bill 134, Affordable Homes and Good Jobs Act. However, this government has been in power for over five years, and we’ve yet to see a comprehensive, transparent housing plan based on facts and evidence. The government continues lurching from one random decision to another, one scandal to another, with no consistency in their direction or their motives. While this government continues to waste everyone’s time, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., as I mentioned, lowered their projections on how many homes will be constructed in Ontario.

People need affordable places to live, but this government’s failed policies are not delivering the housing people urgently need. In fact, they’re making everything worse. People no longer trust this government to fix the housing crisis. Given the size and urgency of the housing crisis, these measures in this bill are meagre measures that won’t do all that much to make life easier for people. Redefining affordable housing by tying it to a person’s income and not the market is an improvement, but this government is still letting developers off the hook from paying their fair share for services that people need, including parks, transit and affordable housing.

As a result of government inaction, more and more folks are struggling to pay their bills and keep a roof over their head, like Tim Gibson, who I mentioned, from my riding. It’s never been more expensive to rent or own a home after five years of Conservative government. We’ve been calling for the government to tackle the housing crisis from every angle to make it easier to buy or rent a place to call home. That includes real rent control. It includes clamping down on speculation and getting the province back into the business of building homes you can actually afford. We will continue to do that work, Speaker.

The Toronto Star this morning reported drops in housing starts, with more drops expected, notwithstanding claims made by the government. This is dire news. It’s bad for all. It’s very bad for tenants of corporate landlords who are being mercilessly squeezed.

A constituent wrote to me the other day about the 5.5% rent increase she and others in her building are facing. As she said, “Our salaries are not increasing. Many of the people in our building are on Old Age Security, CPP or on social support.” They can’t afford an increase like that. She noted that units two years ago in that building rented for $1,300 a month and are now going for $2,000 a month.

It is no wonder that tenants—people, generally—trying to deal with the housing crisis are facing those really difficult decisions about having a roof over their head or buying groceries regularly. It’s no wonder that when I go to food banks in my riding at the invitation of those who are running them that I see large numbers of people.

Speaker, we need action on housing. We need a restoration of rent control with the end of that practice of having unlimited rent increases when a tenant moves out, we need a ban on above-guideline increases and we need substantial direct government investment in housing. People are hurting. We need the action now.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

To respond, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

The next question.

Restart the clock. Supplementary?

Start the clock. Leader of the Opposition.

A number of members down at that end of the chamber will come to order.

The member for Ottawa South could come to order.

I apologize to the Leader of the Opposition.

Speaker, any official plan that has been approved, the municipalities did have the opportunity to comment on that. The only one that has, of course, is Hamilton, and we know why Hamilton is commenting on that, because they disagreed with their own planner’s assessment that they didn’t have enough land available to meet the long-term goals of housing in their community. So they’re fighting us to stop housing from being built in their community—not today, not tomorrow, but in the future, and that is everything that is wrong with the NDP, right? It’s everything that is wrong about them. All they think about is today. They have no concern about the future of the province of Ontario.

That is why, with the Liberals, they helped put red tape in the way. They built up huge debt and deficits. They destroyed the energy sector. They wiped out jobs and economic growth. And it kills them—

Interjection.

First, I want to give my appreciation to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for celebrating the province’s investment in 3100 Meadowbrook—truly a home that its residents can be proud of.

Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Long-Term Care. All seniors in Ontario deserve to be treated with dignity and receive the quality of care they need. The successive investments made by our government into building and redeveloping long-term-care homes has become a reality in many communities across the province, including my own, with 36 new and 60 upgraded beds at Brouillette Manor in Tecumseh. However, at the same time, Ontario seniors are entering long-term-care homes later than ever before and often with more medically complex needs. Our government must continue to do all that we can to minimize the need for these residents to be transferred to acute-care hospitals because the long-term-care homes do not have the equipment, supplies and services they need.

Speaker, can the minister please explain how our government is supporting long-term-care homes to better address the increasing care needs of our seniors?

I have truly seen the impact of the local priorities fund first-hand. The Village of Aspen Lake, which coincidentally was where my grandmother lived, is a long-term-care home in East Riverside. It has received $199,065 from the local priorities fund to help purchase equipment that will make access to care faster and more convenient.

As a government, we must maintain our commitment to ensuring that residents in long-term-care homes get the quality of care and quality of life that they need and deserve, both now and in the future. Mr. Speaker, can the minister please elaborate on how our government is expanding specialized services in long-term-care homes that will support residents with complex needs?

I will elaborate, and I will remind this Legislature that Windsor, Essex and Tecumseh were ignored for so long when it came to our seniors, and it took the leadership of this Premier and this Minister of Housing to fix that situation.

What the member highlights is exactly those investments: local priorities. He mentioned one very specific to his riding—a wide variety of needs. Seniors aren’t at long-term care with the same needs. We need to recognize it. That’s why we’re expanding those specialized services, including our behavioural specialized units, an innovative model designed to support residents with complex care challenges like dementia.

We’re not going to stop there. Last week, we were in Cambridge, Kitchener, Guelph—we’re going to go across this entire province. We’re going to make sure we take care of our seniors with record investments, not just into building homes, but into human health resources.

Speaker, I’ll remind this House: Seniors took care of us. It’s our turn to take care of them.

My question is for the Associate Minister of Housing. For people who are experiencing or are at risk of homelessness, it is essential they have access to the right supports and services. While our government has made significant investments in programs to help the most vulnerable Ontarians, the reality is that our province needs to continue addressing the issues of affordable housing and homelessness. More resources are needed to build upon the work already under way and to bring forward more solutions to address these serious matters. Our government must continue to demonstrate our firm commitment in addressing housing and service needs for the most vulnerable in our communities.

Speaker, can the associate minister please explain what actions our government is taking to increase the availability of affordable housing options and support services for those in our province who need it most?

However, the nature and scope of homelessness is different in every region. There is not a one-size-fits-all solution. That’s why our government must continue to work closely with community partners to make the most impact in reducing and preventing homelessness.

Speaker, can the associate minister please explain how our government is working with municipalities and the non-profit sector in addressing housing needs and support services for individuals and families in our communities?

Thank to the member for Brantford–Brant. Yes, he is indeed right: The rise in homelessness throughout our province is compelling. That is why we have been working with our municipal and non-profit leaders like Indwell to tackle homelessness and supportive housing.

For example, last March, this government invested $6.8 million in capital spending and capital investment to grow 85 units of supportive housing in Hamilton, and in August last year, we invested $270,000 of operational funding for 40 new supportive housing units. The bottom line is this government has invested $700 million in the last year, up $200 million in the Homelessness Prevention Program, up 42%. We’ll always give a hand up to those in need. This government is getting the job done.

Thank you, again, to the member from Brantford–Brant for his question. When it comes to homelessness and supportive housing in Ontario, the need has never been greater. That is why I’ve been meeting with municipalities, mayors, councillors and supportive housing managers throughout this province, and I’ve been encouraged, frankly, by the collaboration all have shown from all levels of government.

For example, Speaker, last week I was in St. Thomas, in my riding of Elgin–Middlesex–London, where we announced $1.2 million of supportive housing for 45 new units at The Station. When we got together, we were very excited. The mayor was there; 200 people showed up, community leaders. Indwell leadership was there. It’s something to behold. It’s a great example. We invite everyone to come to St. Thomas.

Again, Speaker, those in need will always get a hand up from this government. We are committed to housing stability throughout this province. We will get the job done.

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

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

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—

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.

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?