I would like to thank the members from Spadina–Fort York, Parkdale–High Park, Ottawa West–Nepean, Thunder Bay–Superior North, Perth–Wellington as well as Guelph for their comments on this motion here today.

The NDP is the party of housing. We built the most significant amount of affordable housing, supportive housing and co-op housing of any government and have never been beaten at that.

Here on the official opposition side, we believe in listening to the experts. We believe in helping non-profits and co-ops and non-profit housing providers to do what they’re good at. This government would much rather prioritize a for-profit market. As I said, there’s nothing wrong with the for-profit market, despite the misunderstanding across the way, but we have to look at all different aspects of the housing spectrum.

I also want to turn to the greatest generation, the people who fought in World War II. They, because of the housing that was provided for them by the Bill Davis government, gave rise to the baby boom generation, which had incredible economic benefits the likes of which we have never seen before. I am shuddering to think that the member from Perth–Wellington would call Bill Davis, who created a tremendous amount of housing, a raging socialist.

I also want to thank the member from Spadina–Fort York for mentioning the $5 billion this government is content to hand over in development charges, but I want this government to think about this as an opportunity. They have an opportunity to listen to the non-profit and co-op housing providers. They have an opportunity to listen to Ontarians across the spectrum of housing need, and they have an opportunity to act. It’s disappointing that only on this side of the House, we have heard co-op housing. On that side, there has been a curious and conspicuous absence of listening to the people of Ontario. I hope they will vote in support of this incredible motion today.

I want to thank the member, our NDP member, for bringing forward this motion to create and fund a public housing agency called Homes Ontario to finance and build 250,000 affordable and non-market homes on public land over 10 years.

It’s really important to recognize that in many municipalities in my region of northwestern Ontario—I warrant this applies in eastern Ontario as well—it is not profitable to build housing. It’s extremely expensive to build housing because of the distances. You might be able to build in Thunder Bay, but you cannot build in the communities along the north shore, nor can you afford to build in the communities on Highway 11, because the cost of transporting the materials, of bringing in the workers, is so high it’s prohibitive, and they’re not getting housing. That’s merely a thing of ignorance, I think, that’s not there, that’s not recognized, that it’s not going to happen without support.

Now, we’re supposed to have a Building Faster Fund, and a portion of that fund was supposed to be allocated to single- and lower-tier municipalities that have not been assigned a housing target, including small rural and northern communities, in order to address their unique needs following municipal consultations. Unfortunately, we’re still waiting. Where is that fund? How much is it going to be? What’s the criteria? What are the deadlines? Municipalities are desperately waiting for that.

But in the meantime, Ontario has announced the Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund. And guess what? No increases: It was reduced in 2020. It’s at the same amount now. But interestingly, eight years ago, the Conservative government was complaining about how unfair it was that this fund had been cut. So not only did they not increase it, they cut it, and then it’s at the same amount, and it’s simply not enough for municipalities to do anything. They just cannot do the work that they want to do. I have municipalities coming to me saying they want to build housing for seniors, supportive housing. There is no money for that. If they could, they could move seniors into those supportive places. There would be more housing available in the communities. They know jobs are coming to those communities; there’s nowhere to put them. There’s nowhere to put health care professionals. We’ve been hearing this for a very long time.

I just want to refer to something that apparently puts the fear of God into members on the other side of the floor, and that is to talk about co-operatives. Some 45 years—

Interjection.

Some 45 years ago in Thunder Bay, a need was recognized for affordable housing. Decent affordable housing was in short supply. As they noted, this was the case in 2002. Guess what? It’s still the case in 2023. This has been incredibly successful. It is still beautiful. This is 45 years ago. There’s a five-year waiting list to get into this co-op. We have a second co-op in the neighbourhood. People love living there. They have real communities. It’s a successful model. Frankly I’m surprised that people on the other side of the House have no concept of how successful those models can be.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Further debate?

Thank you very much, Speaker, and just so you know, you’re in for a double bill tonight, so this should be fun.

First of all, I want to thank everybody for being here: the table, the Chair, my colleague on the other side whom I have a great deal of respect for even though we don’t always agree.

I want to back up. We’re going to talk about the question about whether the legal fees and the criminal investigation of those legal fees, those fees for lawyers—whether we should pay for the lawyers of politicians, MPPs, ministers and the staff who are caught up in this criminal investigation that’s going to happen over the greenbelt.

But we have to back up a bit and see where we start. How did we get here? We had, of course, the Premier change direction very precipitously on the greenbelt after promising for years and years that he wasn’t going to touch it, under the guise of “We’ve got to do this. It’s an emergency, and I have no choice.”

We have an Auditor General’s report that says, well, in actual fact, what happened here, there’s all these pieces that we’re missing—we can talk about process—but at the end of the day, the actual uplift in value in that land, that land that was owned by a few well-connected insiders, people who were, by the Premier’s own admission, his friendraisers—fundraisers and friends—and friendraisers, too. We all know who they are because they own land in other parts of the province that we’ll talk about later on. She really identified what the problem was here, and that there was an $8.3-billion backroom deal. We all know that.

The government then reversed course on it after the Integrity Commissioner’s report. The Integrity Commissioner’s report was very detailed, and it’s important in this debate because it will help us understand why we’re talking about legal fees and fees for lawyers in this criminal investigation. The Integrity Commissioner said two things. He said that this whole investigation, what he saw was, it was marred by brown envelopes and deception—those are his words. So what was evident from the Integrity Commissioner’s report was that the Minister of Housing at the time, who I’m going to talk a bit more about later in the second half, was reprimanded and he stepped down, which was the right thing to do.

It was evident from the Integrity Commissioner’s report that a lot of people were lawyering up. Everybody had a lawyer, and probably with good reason. Those lawyers cost money.

I think it’s fair to say that in this instance where we have the kind of things that we saw go on, the questions that the Integrity Commissioner raised, the concerns that he raised and the evidence that he brought forward and the fact that we have the RCMP—the Mounties—conducting a criminal investigation into these dealings and that we had four senior members in the Premier’s office, who are no longer connected, or no longer connected to the government, who were caught up in this. We have the former principal secretary, former executive assistants, the director of housing; we have Ryan Amato who was appointed as Minister Clark’s chief of staff by the Premier’s office. So all roads lead to the Premier’s office when you look at this.

So my question was just simply—this isn’t civil litigation. This isn’t what we’re all protected from when we’re ministers and we’re working and we make a decision that affects people and they want to contest that decision. They can come and they can sue us—civil litigation; understandable. But we shouldn’t be paying for the lawyers of those that are implicated in a criminal investigation, and that’s what we have here. I think it’s unfair to Ontario taxpayers. I think it’s a cost that should be borne most appropriately by the Ontario PC Party. I think it’s evident that there is some connection that’s there. I think it would be the right thing to do. I think it would be the right thing to do for Ontario taxpayers.

I look forward to the response of my colleague, the government House leader.

Really, in fairness, should taxpayers be on the hook to pay for lawyers in a criminal investigation?

Now, we had a reversal on the urban boundaries. It’s not the greenbelt; that’s not the thing we’re talking about, but urban boundaries. A very precipitous reversal, hastily set up, which raises the question, why are we doing that? Is it because of the RCMP’s criminal investigation? Are there concerns with that?

We know in Ottawa, the Watters Road property sticks out like a sore thumb. The city didn’t request it. It’s prime agricultural land. It’s got a geological formation. It’s hard to service. It shouldn’t even be there. It was included, and the people who owned the land, their land tripled in value—tripled in value in one day. And they’ve got a history of donations of $50,000 to the party. That’s what I was talking about earlier.

We have Hamilton, where a farmer gets three offers for his land the day before the boundary expansion is announced. That sounds a bit like somebody’s got some insider information there. The connections between what we saw on the greenbelt and what happened with the urban boundaries, well, we kind of see the same thing happening there.

So why are we paying for the lawyers to cover people’s tracks? Why would we pay their legal fees? Why would the government of Ontario, why would the people of Ontario, why would taxpayers do that? That’s not right. The Ontario PC Party should pay for it. It looks like they were a beneficiary.

The other thing I want to mention is the former Minister of Housing, who I think did the right thing when he was reprimanded here in this assembly or—I’ll correct my record— reprimanded by the Integrity Commissioner. I know the member quite well. I sat with him for a long time. I have a lot of respect for him. I have a lot of respect that he did the right thing, and the objection that I have today is that with this urban boundary expansion and with all things around this RCMP investigation, the Minister of Housing is—they’re doubling down on it. He already threw himself under the bus. Now the Premier is backing up over him.

I mentioned earlier those people connected to the Premier’s office, that all roads lead to the Premier’s office on this one. I think it’s fair. Who are the people who are missing? They’re people who worked in the Premier office and the one who was appointed by the Premier’s office. All roads lead to the Premier’s office. So I don’t know why we should pay for lawyers in this criminal investigation, but even more, I don’t know why the former Minister of Housing is being backed over again. I find it objectionable. I think the Premier should take responsibility. It was his office. It was his direction. The member can’t effectively defend themselves. As a matter of fact, that former Minister of Housing won’t be able to benefit by what the government says it’s going to do to pay for the lawyers in this criminal investigation. He won’t be able to. He’s not attached to the minister; he’s a private member.

So let me figure this out: The person who admitted that he did a wrong thing, that did the right thing in here, who can’t defend himself or it’s going to cost himself money to do that, because they can’t do it here—they’re backing the bus over him again. That’s not right. I don’t care what side of the House that member is on; I don’t. I don’t care whether they sat here, whether they sat here, whether they sat there. I think any of us would objectively say that’s unfair. And when I saw that and I heard that, it upset me a great deal, because I have a lot of respect for that member.

I’ll just leave it at that, Speaker.

The time provided for private members’ public business has expired.

Mr. Kernaghan has moved private member’s notice of motion number 65. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour of the motion, please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote being required, this vote will be deferred until the next instance of deferred votes.

Vote deferred.

Pursuant to standing order 36, the question that this House do now adjourn is deemed to have been made.

The member for Ottawa South.

The member will have, again, up to five minutes to debate the matter. The government can reply for five minutes.

I appreciate the opportunity. I will take the member’s advice under advisement. Thank you.

A response from the government House leader.

Madam Speaker, I have to be honest with you: I have no idea what the member is talking about. In fact, I wish I could actually go submit a document to the table and ask for the opportunity to ask the member what the heck he’s talking about, because in this speech, he’s talking about not paying legal fees and paying legal fees, so he’s asking us to do both things in the same speech.

Having said that, I do like the member opposite. It’s not his fault that he’s in a party that accomplished nothing for 15 years. Madam Speaker, I know that you will agree with me on that. I know that it’s not his fault.

Look, when you come to talking to the former Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, he did a lot of great things for the province of Ontario. He moved the needle on a number of housing supply action plans to help us get homes built across the province of Ontario. I’m sure you will agree with that, Madam Speaker.

The one disappointing thing—and it’s really nice to hear how much the member for Ottawa South appreciates the former Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I think the former minister would have appreciated more had they actually voted in favour of the measures that he brought forward to build more homes across the province of Ontario, but he didn’t, and his party didn’t.

But here’s the reality: We’re going to continue to do that. I’ve talked about this in question period. Do you notice how they’re not bringing questions to the table, adjournment debate questions, about the things that we’re accomplishing? They voted against every single housing supply action plan item. They voted against when we cut taxes. They voted against the transit and transportation. They voted against the transit-oriented community things, but they remain silent on that, Madam Speaker, and I’m sure you are as disappointed as I am of the Liberal record with respect to how they have voted in this place.

You can talk as much as you like about the accomplishments, but this is a member who comes from a government that, when they were building infrastructure, they built bridges literally upside down. You can’t really make this stuff up. They built a train system that doesn’t work. So who in the Liberal Party is paying for the bridge that was built upside down? Was it the Liberal Party of Ontario that was paying for the upside-down bridge? Imagine this: You’re building a bridge across the 401, one of the busiest areas in the province, in Pickering, and they build it upside down. This is insanity. This is the hallmark of the Liberal government.

They also, Madam Speaker—you’ll appreciate this for sure—then said—for anybody watching this at home, they will remember when the Liberals said the economy has to transition away from high-paying, high-tech jobs and we have to become a service economy in the province of Ontario. Now, you’re saying to yourself, what the heck does that mean, to be a service economy in the province of Ontario? But what they didn’t tell people is that in order to fulfill their dream of making Ontario a service economy, they literally crushed every single industry in the province of Ontario, leading to thousands of jobs leaving the province of Ontario.

Having said all of that, we can debate, and hopefully we’ll get more opportunities to debate in the future. I do like the honourable gentleman; I’m sure you do as well, Madam Speaker. He’s one of my favourite Liberals. In fact, he is the most successful Liberal leader we’ve had in this place in probably 10 years. He’s got the party up to seven members; he’s got the party at seven or eight members, so he is the most successful Liberal leader we have had. I don’t know why the Liberals are even looking for another leader, given the success that—and I mean this genuinely. I think the member will agree. I do mean this genuinely. I think that he is a great representative. Now, you will recall, he came into this place when the person who had the seat before him had to leave in scandal. But that’s all right; that doesn’t matter. It was a billion-dollar boondoggle on gas plants, but that’s all right. This is a gentleman who has done a lot of good things for his community, and that’s the only reason why I’m indulging his fantasies that he is saying here tonight, Madam Speaker.

But look, I will say this in closing: He’s going to have a challenge on his hands, because everything that they’re talking about here, they have—their apparent Liberal leading contender for their leadership actually wants to double down and do all of the things that he’s talked about. The leader of the Green Party is just spinning over there because he’s thinking he’s going to be sitting beside somebody in the near future who actually wants to build on the greenbelt, who wants to do all of the things that the member opposite is complaining against. So it’s going to be a real difficult challenge—

I’ll recognize the member from Whitby to—

This House now stands adjourned until 9 a.m. tomorrow, Wednesday, October 25.

The House adjourned at 1817.

Thank you, Speaker, for the opportunity to address the member from Guelph’s concerns on municipal funding. Let’s talk about development charges. Let’s talk about how, before a single shovel hits the ground, the average homebuyer already faces an average of $116,900 in municipal development charges and fees. That $116,900 is more than the cost of a down payment for many homes. Let’s talk about how, over the course of a 20-year mortgage, this could add more than $800 to a new homebuyer’s monthly payment. I want you to keep this in mind as I talk about who is actually affected by the changes our province made to development charges.

As the member should well know, the changes made to development charges are for non-profit and affordable homes. We’ve been clear—and maybe the member from Guelph disagrees—that the last thing our non-profit and affordable home providers need when they’re looking to build homes for vulnerable Ontarians in our communities is excessive fees and bureaucratic roadblocks preventing them from getting shovels in the ground. Municipalities can still get development charges from most market housing.

So I just want to be clear here: That’s what the member is arguing for. He wants out-of-control fees, which in the case of Guelph add $44,000 to the cost of building the average home, imposed on the non-profit and affordable homes his community critically needs.

Well, Speaker, our government disagrees, and thanks to our changes, we’re already hearing about projects this province finally is moving forward. That means shovels getting in the ground on more affordable homes, more non-profit homes, thanks to us cutting these excessive fees. And that means, across the province, more hard-working Ontarians, more young families, more seniors, newcomers and more vulnerable people will have access to a home that they can actually afford in their own community.

Speaker, I’m also glad that the member opposite gave me the opportunity to talk about what this government is doing to support our municipal partners, because we’re counting on them to do their share in helping us meet our mutual goal of building at least 1.5 million homes by 2031, and we’re committed to providing every tool at our disposal to empower municipalities that are shovel-ready and committed to growth.

Guelph specifically has pledged to build 18,000 homes, and maybe the member would be better directed toward advocating that they catch up on their new home starts. To help achieve these goals, the province has also recently introduced the Building Faster Fund, a $1.2-billion, three-year program to support municipalities in achieving housing targets. Each year, up to $400 million will aid eligible municipalities based on their performance towards helping Ontario build at least 1.5 million new homes by 2031. Additionally, 10% of this funding, $400 million per year, is reserved for municipalities that have not received a housing pledge, including small, rural and northern communities, to address their unique needs.

The fund will help municipalities that have made a pledge to meet their housing targets pay for critical housing, enabling infrastructure needed to accommodate growth, such as site servicing and new roads.

Our government will continue to build homes and make the dream of home ownership attainable for more Ontarians. I hope the member opposite can put partnership over partisanship and support real solutions as we continue to get it done as a government.