I’m very pleased to rise on this NDP motion today calling on the government to support deeply affordable and not-for-profit housing in Ontario because people in Ontario are desperate. We have a very serious housing crisis, and I am really seeing it in my riding of Ottawa West–Nepean. Unfortunately, the budget and the government’s recent housing bill contain nothing to address affordable housing, even though that’s what my constituents most desperately need.

According to rentals.ca, the average rent in Ottawa for a one-bedroom apartment is $2,038 in March. That’s a year-over-year increase of 9.1%. Just to put this in context, if you are a minimum wage worker working 40 hours a week in Ontario, your rent is taking up 75% of your income, and you have only that other 25% to spend on groceries—which are also increasing—and every other expense that you have. If you are on ODSP, that rent is 155% of your income. If you are on Ontario Works, it is 278% of your income.

So when I door-knock in apartment buildings in Ottawa West–Nepean, the number one thing people are telling me is that they cannot afford to pay their rent and buy groceries and pay all of their other bills. In fact, I spoke to someone recently who said rent takes up all of his income, and he is depending on this legacy his parents left him, which he’s spending now every single month just to be able to buy food and stay out of the food bank.

My constituents can’t afford what they have, but they also can’t afford to move because the rents are going up so quickly. Just to give you an example, I had some constituents who came to me because of a situation in a CLV apartment in Britannia where another tenant was harassing people, so there was quick turnover in this unit. In the space of six months with three tenants, the rent went from $1,400 a month to $1,900 a month to $2,600 a month. That is a $1,200 a month increase in the space of six months.

The problem is that when we are allowing landlords to jack up the rents like this, it creates an incentive for landlords to get tenants out. I’ve had a constituent, Judy, who has had two illegal evictions, being told that the landlord was going to move in so she had to move out. This happened in 2019, when she was paying $1,500 a month. The landlord turned around and rented the unit for $500 a month more, rather than moving in. This year, it happened again: She was paying $1,750 a month in rent, and the landlord turned around and rented it out for $450 a month more. So Judy has two Landlord and Tenant Board applications to protest these unfair evictions, which aren’t progressing at all because the Landlord and Tenant Board is broken, and she is now paying $1,915 a month, which is a 27% increase in her rent, all because of the illegal actions of these landlords.

We’re also seeing landlords use above-guideline rent increases to put pressure on tenants to move out. In fact, ACORN just obtained data for the last five years through a freedom-of-information request which was reported on by the CBC, which shows that 20 companies in Ontario were responsible for over half of the AGI requests in Ontario in just the first eight months of 2022. They actually have all the data going back to 2017 on AGI applications to the Landlord and Tenant Board, and they show that in Ottawa West–Nepean, in that time period, there were 128 AGI applications, which accounted for 3% of all the AGI applications during that time period, even though my riding does not have 3% of all the residences in Ontario.

We’re seeing the same names appear on that list over and over again. It is the large corporate landlords like Minto and Homestead and Accora. At eight properties in my riding, the landlord applied for an AGI every single year during that time period that they could, and I’m hearing from constituents that these AGIs are being approved even when they’re being submitted for minor repairs—like, they put some paint in the hallway, and now an AGI is approved. Meanwhile, at other buildings, major repairs aren’t getting done even though the AGI is being approved by the landlord.

I’ve heard from Rosa in Ottawa West–Nepean, whose rent went up 5.5% this year. She told me, “I simply can’t afford this. Things were tight before but now I feel stricken with fear of what will happen. I work very hard every day and I feel stuck in a bad situation.” She concluded, “To be blunt, I’m desperate.”

These corporate landlords are not using AGIs in order to pay for these renovations and repairs. They are using them to maximize profits and to push tenants out. That is an important reason why we need to enable and empower not-for-profit and community home building and not-for-profit landlords within our rental market in Ontario, so that the actual goal is to deliver affordable housing to people and not to maximize dividends for shareholders.

We have great community housing and not-for-profit home builders in Ottawa, like Ottawa Community Housing, Nepean community housing and the Ottawa Community Land Trust. They are ready and willing to do the work—they are doing good work already—but they need support from this government in order to provide that kind of housing for even more people.

There are 10,000 people on the centralized wait-list for affordable housing in Ottawa, and I spoke to one constituent who has been on that wait-list for 12 years. She has given up hope that she is ever going to get an affordable home in Ottawa.

This motion calls on the government of Ontario to get back into the business of building affordable housing by swiftly and substantially increasing the supply of affordable and non-market homes. The NDP has put forward a proposal which calls on the government to provide the funding for these not-for-profit and community landlords to build this housing and make it affordable. If we don’t invest in the not-for-profit part of our market, we are never going to be able to provide affordable housing at this spectrum of the market where people need deeply affordable housing—in fact, we’re never going to see affordable housing at all because, in the last six years, the government has only had 1,184 affordable homes built. That’s just not going to cut it when we’ve got 10,000 people on the wait-list for affordable housing in Ottawa alone.

So I’m deeply disappointed to hear that the government members are speaking about not supporting this motion, that they don’t seem to understand the scale and the depth of the crisis in Ontario, that they don’t understand what is needed to address it and make sure that people actually have an affordable place to live and get to feed their families as well. And so I hope that the government members will reconsider and support this motion this afternoon.

Alavida Lifestyles is charging seniors in my riding of Ottawa West–Nepean thousands of dollars in rent and fee increases to retain their housing. A resident at Park Place retirement home has been served a $27,000 increase for this year. Another resident at the Ravines is being charged $24,000 more. Seniors on fixed incomes can’t pay these kinds of increases, so they are facing the prospect of losing their homes. And yet, the government’s response to these seniors so far has been a shrug.

What is the government’s plan to protect these seniors against price gouging and eviction?

Seniors in these retirement homes are feeling scared and isolated by Alavida’s high-pressure tactics. Some of them are even having trouble eating and sleeping.

And yet, the Minister of Housing told me in a letter that there are no limits on how much a retirement home can charge or how often they can increase the price. In other words, these seniors are being extorted on this government’s watch, and it’s all perfectly legal. So my question to the government is, why is it still legal?

Seniors in my riding of Ottawa West–Nepean are being gouged by Alavida Lifestyles, and this government is letting Alavida get away with it. Residents at Park Place and the Ravines are being told that they need to pay thousands of dollars more per month in order to retain their housing. In one case, an elderly woman has been served notice of an increase of $27,000 more per year. Another resident has received notice of a $24,000 increase. Speaker, I doubt that there are many of us who are working who could afford to pay that kind of increase in our housing costs, and these are seniors on fixed incomes.

These residents feel like they are being forced out of their homes, forced to abandon their friends and their community. Some of them are also feeling so scared and isolated by the high-pressure tactics that Alavida has been engaging in that they are having trouble eating and sleeping.

I reached out to the Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority, who said that it’s not their problem. I reached out to the minister of seniors and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to ask them to shut down this predatory behaviour. They literally responded with talking points, saying that retirement homes can charge whatever fees they want.

This is completely unacceptable. Seniors deserve a dignified retirement, not to have their home held hostage to increase the profits of a private developer.

Shame on this government for siding with a developer rather than with the seniors. It’s time that they actually stand up for seniors and come up with a plan to stop this kind of price gouging.

I’m pleased to rise on behalf of the residents of Ottawa West–Nepean to speak in favour of this excellent motion tabled by the member for London North Centre calling for the government to create and fund a public housing agency called Homes Ontario to finance and build 250,000 new affordable and non-market homes on public land over 10 years.

We are in a housing crisis, one that the government’s actions have only been making worse. While they’ve been focused on enriching wealthy land speculators, housing starts were down 18% in the first half of this year in Ottawa. In fact, we saw the lowest number of freehold housing starts in 25 years this year.

The government’s reliance on private developers and market incentives is just not getting the job done, Speaker, and it’s the people of Ontario who are paying the price. Rent is up 11% again this year. A one-bedroom apartment is now going for $2,055 in Ottawa. I hear daily from constituents who cannot find an affordable place to live, and so, so many stories of tenants whose landlords are squeezing them with above-guideline rent increases or trying to force them out so that they can jack up the rent on the next tenant. In one of the most egregious cases, Speaker, an apartment with high turnover because the landlord is refusing to address safety concerns saw rent go from $1,400 a month to $1,900 a month to $2,600 a month, all in the space of six months, earlier this year. This is not sustainable. The people of Ontario cannot afford this.

That’s not even to speak about the many people who have been priced out of our housing market entirely. Ottawa has 535 permanent shelter beds, Speaker, and yet that’s not nearly enough to meet the need. We have people living in hotels and temporary shelters, in some cases for years. We have people sleeping rough in our streets and our parks.

A big crisis requires a big idea to fix, Speaker. It’s time that we start marshalling all the resources that we have at hand to get the government back into the business of building homes and supporting deeply affordable housing, to use public land for homes, not for profit. If access to a home in Ontario depends entirely on someone making a profit, then many people will simply never get a home that meets their needs. So to the government: Please stop focusing on the profits of a few wealthy developers who are friends with your Premier and get to work making sure that everyone in Ontario has an affordable place to call home.

Thanks to the member for Spadina–Fort York for that great question.

It is absolutely true that this is a problem that is multi-faceted. In addition to the issues you listed, I would also add that it’s an income problem, and that the failure to address social assistance rates and the level of minimum wage means that a significant number of people in Ontario can’t afford housing. This is why we need a multi-faceted response. That’s why I was so proud to run on the NDP’s housing plan, which actually did address the need to build housing across the spectrum, to make it more affordable for people to buy homes, to make it more affordable for people to rent homes—investing in co-ops, not-for-profit and community and supportive housing, but also addressing the income supply of the problem, cracking down on speculation so that people weren’t getting filthy rich—

What I can say is that the outcomes of the government’s efforts speak for themselves. Average rent rose 14% over the past year in Ottawa. The vacancy rate for affordable housing is zero. We’ve got a wait-list of people waiting for community housing that is eight years long. We have 500 families with kids living in hotel rooms for multiple years. I think those efforts speak for themselves.

I absolutely see red flags. As someone who is keeping an eye on other tribunals, I would say that this is part of a pattern of concerning red flags with how the Conservative government approaches tribunals. So this is a part of the bill that definitely deserves very close scrutiny.

Thanks to the member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound for the question. I’m not sure we do fundamentally agree on the problem because the problem is not just a lack of housing; it’s a lack of housing for people across the income spectrum.

If we are not taking into account the needs of people living on social assistance, if we are not taking into account the needs of seniors living on fixed incomes, if we are not taking into account the needs of people living on minimum wage who are being squeezed by the cost-of-living crisis, then we could be building homes that normal Ontarians still can’t afford.

We need to be building homes that are not-for-profit, that aren’t just putting money into the pockets of developers. We need to be building more supportive housing. We need to be building more community and supportive housing. We need to be building more co-operative housing. We need to be building more affordable housing of all kinds, and I hope the government would take the opportunity to integrate that into this bill.

We’ve already seen over the past 20 years that when the development of housing is left solely up to developers, we’re just not going to see developments of the kind of low-income, affordable, not-for-profit and community housing that we need in this province. That’s why it’s so important that the government step in and take an active role in helping to develop that kind of housing.

That’s why I think the NDP’s proposal for a public agency was such a crucial part of our platform to ensure that we are actually investing in the development of that kind of housing. That could ensure that the lowest—

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill today. Right now in Ontario, we’re living in a housing crisis that’s only getting worse. Average rent in Ottawa increased 14% this year compared to last. We have people across Ottawa West–Nepean who are paying half their income on often poor-quality, insecure and unsafe housing. People on ODSP and OW, if they’re lucky, can manage to pay rent on only $733 or $1,228 a month.

We have a desperate need to see more non-profit housing built in order to accommodate the vast waiting list. There’s currently an eight-year wait-list for access to social housing in Ottawa. We have 500 families who are currently living in hotels, many of them with kids, many of them for multiple years. I know I’m not the only parent in the House right now, Speaker, and, like many parents, I’ve spent nights in hotels with kids, and I’m sure you can appreciate how difficult it is for kids to sleep in that environment. These are families that are in these conditions, day in and day out, for years. It’s not exactly setting these children up for success.

I’ve also spoken to many people over the past year who are homeowners but are unsure if their kids ever will be. They still have their kids living at home, unsure when they’ll ever be able to move out. I’ve spoken with parents and grandparents who are disappointed that their kids had to move far away from home just in order to be able to afford housing and that they don’t get to see their kids or grandkids very often.

When we’re talking about legislation, it’s always important to remember that we’re not just discussing numbers on a page or theoretical ideas about policy; we’re talking about real people, real families who are being impacted by this crisis, real families that have to choose between eating and heating because of exploitative landlords and absurd housing costs. So as I begin, I want to share some of these stories to remind us of the human side of the issue and the impact on real people.

A constituent in my riding, who wishes to remain anonymous for his own safety, was recently informed that the building he has lived in for over two decades has been sold. The new owners of 2929 Carling Avenue are planning a complete renovation of the building, and are taking action to evict their current tenants. Many of the tenants of this building, including my constituent, are living on social assistance and cannot afford to enter a new rental agreement because of the high cost of rent in Ottawa.

Renovictions like this are forcing out people with disabilities, people on Ontario Works and ODSP, single moms and their children, just so that landlords can increase their profits by doubling the rent. This constituent is now struggling with the stress of losing his home during a housing affordability crisis, and is pleading for this government to fight for tenants’ rights and end these renovictions so that the people of this province can have a roof over their heads.

Another constituent in my riding of Ottawa West–Nepean, Laura, has been struggling to find affordable housing in Ottawa. Laura has described what she and her family have been through in Ottawa’s housing market as one of the most painful, defeating and humiliating experiences of her life. Her husband has found a well-paying job in Ottawa and makes around $90,000 per year. They have both worked extremely hard to climb their way out of poverty. They have positive rental references, positive personal references, positive private financial references, and even have parents co-signing behind them, but to the absolute dread of every landlord in the market right now, they have poor credit scores.

Laura and her husband have been pushed by property managers to up their bid for a better chance to get a house, but have been told that without good credit, they will not be accepted. This has put her family in a vulnerable position. All they have been able to find is a short-term room rental for her husband. Laura and her 10-month-old have been forced to move back in with her parents, four hours outside of Ottawa, because they have been continuously denied access to affordable housing. This has left their new family split apart for over four months now, and they have been seeking housing for literally the entirety of their daughter’s life.

Housing is a human right, and renters need protection, but what is this government doing to protect tenants? Rental prices in Ottawa are increasing to alarming amounts between tenants, and many are being forced further from their workplaces just to find anything remotely affordable. It’s also allowing landlords to ask for more and more unreasonable demands from tenants.

Another woman, Tracy, reached out to me on Twitter. She is on ODSP and was searching for housing. She found an available unit, but the landlord told her she would not be able to apply for the housing, because the landlord wanted an income of at least $40,000 a year. People living on ODSP make only $14,000 a year, Speaker. They are never going to be able to afford housing unless we actually increase the rates and take steps to ensure that housing is truly affordable.

Many of the people living on social assistance who I have spoken to over the past months have highlighted this issue. They aren’t receiving enough income to pay for rent, and then they face discrimination in the housing market, with landlords refusing to return their calls as soon as they learn they are on social assistance. It’s not right, Speaker. We’ve got people living in tents, in boxes, on our streets because they just can’t find an affordable place to live. Until we take that crisis seriously, we’re going to see more people in that situation. What does that say about our society, and what does that say about this government if they’re prepared to allow that to happen?

Which leads us to Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act. There are elements of this bill that are potentially positive steps forward. We are living in a housing crisis, and expanding the housing supply is necessary. We undoubtedly need to build more compact, mixed-use communities across the province. It’s also good to see that there will be policy changes regarding infill housing. Allowing for secondary and tertiary suites within existing homes is a welcome change, and something I note the NDP has long called for. I’m glad the government has listened to the opposition on this.

Let’s go through some of the elements of the bill, starting with changes to the Development Charges Act. The bill will exempt development charges for the development of affordable housing. However, it defines an affordable residential unit as being a rental unit where the rent is no greater than 80% of average market rent, or a non-rental unit where the home was sold at no more than 80% of the average purchase price. The problem with this definition is that the average market rent for a studio apartment, so the bottom of the housing market in Ottawa, is $1,700 currently. That means the definition of an affordable rental unit in Ottawa for an affordable studio would be $1,360. That’s still not affordable for my constituents. It’s not affordable housing for seniors on a low fixed income. It’s not affordable for young families struggling under the weight of the cost-of-living crisis, desperate to try to get on the housing ladder but with no help in sight. It’s not affordable for all of the people I’ve spoken to on ODSP and OW whose payments wouldn’t even cover rent at $1,360. So let’s be absolutely clear: This is not affordable housing.

I would like to welcome, though, the section in the bill that supports non-profit housing developments, including co-ops that are mandated under inclusionary zoning bylaws, and exempts them from development charges. Co-ops are such a great form of affordable housing that provides residents with a real say over how their homes are managed and shared. I wish there was more in this bill regarding non-profit housing, as it’s not just lack of supply that is causing housing costs to soar but the lack of non-profit housing to drive down prices from wealthy development speculators.

Additionally, while the bill will exempt development charges for at least 25 years, 25 years is not long enough for many people who will still be living in poverty 25 years from now or on a fixed income, because you simply don’t get over a disability or being a senior in the space of 25 years.

At the end of the day, we also need to be honest that no amount of building new homes for profit is going to get people on social assistance into safe housing when they are only getting $733 a month.

We also support the need to build homes that are more affordable and to address the missing middle in our housing market—duplexes, triplexes and townhomes in particular.

We support densification and utilizing existing neighbourhoods to address the housing crisis, but we also need to maintain and protect existing affordable rental and community housing supply.

While it is clear that the bill makes strides to address the housing crisis by increasing the supply of for-profit homes, it is also clear that there are provisions in this bill that will have negative implications for renters in particular.

As the critic for poverty and homelessness, I want to spend some time outlining the issues that I see with this bill in relation to its impact on renters and people experiencing poverty.

We need to be building market and non-market affordable homes. It’s important that we are ensuring that the homes we are constructing can be afforded by Ontarians of all income levels. It does not make sense to construct millions of homes that are out of the price range of those who are most in need of housing while not constructing any that people at the low end of the spectrum can afford.

It also makes no sense to change regulations and overrule local decision-making in a way that has negative impacts on renters and people experiencing poverty.

Schedule 1 and schedule 4 contain provisions that will impose limits and conditions on rental replacement bylaws. This will reduce protections for renters and undermine local decision-making by municipalities. Rental replacement bylaws are important for when existing apartment buildings are demolished or converted into condominiums. These bylaws ensure that the new building contains sufficient rental units to replace the ones being demolished and that the renters who were living in the units that were replaced are given the opportunity to move back into the newly created or refurbished building at the same rental rate as they had previously. This is an important protection for renters, and particularly for renters who have been living in the same unit for decades—units that are affordable. It means that seniors, people living with disabilities, and families are not unjustly forced into an extremely competitive rental market simply because their building has undergone a demolition or repurposing. Without rental replacement bylaws, we risk driving more renters into the market, driving up demand for existing units and therefore also driving up prices. This is a recipe for trouble and could very well lead to a net loss of affordable units in Ontario. Ever-increasing rental prices could be stopped by enacting rent control to ensure that tenants pay the same rent that previous tenants paid. Our election platform called for this, and it is a call that is supported by many of the tenant advocates I spoke with.

I do not see this sort of protection in this bill. In fact, the current government ended rent control for new buildings in 2018. The end of rent control in conjunction with this new attack on rental replacement bylaws demonstrates that this government is just not interested in protecting renters. It’s part of a pattern of actions taken by this government which have made it harder and harder to rent in Ontario. It is imperative that Ontario’s housing strategy take into consideration the needs of renters. We need to ensure that we are building purpose-built rental units that are family-friendly and are protected by rent control. Without these purpose-built rentals, rent control and rental replacement bylaws, this bill is only going to exacerbate the challenging situation that many renters in Ontario are facing.

Let’s go back to a section of the bill I touched on earlier, schedule 3. This portion of the bill redefines affordability in a way that does not reflect the lived reality of many Ontarians. According to this schedule, a unit can be classified as affordable if the rent or purchase price is no greater than 80% of market value. This is a problem, because it links the definition of affordability to the market instead of to what Ontarians can actually afford. To put this into perspective, let’s say an individual on ODSP has been evicted from their unit. Currently, the average rental rate in Ottawa for all apartments is $1,800 a month. Under the definition set out in this this bill, a unit would be deemed affordable so long as the rental rate was $1,440, or 80% of the average rental rate. Keep in mind, as the government is well aware, an individual on ODSP receives only $1,228 per month. That means this individual is already $200 behind without even accounting for food costs, Internet, utilities and other expenses. The affordable unit costs more than their entire support payment. That’s just not right.

I would be remiss if I didn’t use this opportunity to say the government needs to double social assistance rates. We need to ensure that everyone can live a life of dignity, responding to their basic needs. The government is not taking seriously the lived reality of people on Ontario Works and ODSP, and this bill demonstrates that. By playing games with the definition of affordability and refusing to take real action to address legislated poverty, it is clear that yet again this government is not concerned about putting people onto the streets. People living on social assistance cannot afford to rent in this province as it is. It would be a huge mistake to redefine affordability in a way that attaches it to market value rather than to what individuals can actually afford.

I also want to speak to the gutting of conservation authorities in this bill, Speaker. In Ottawa West–Nepean, we’ve had two once-in-a-century floods in the past three years. It has been devastating for many residents of Ottawa West–Nepean who have had to evacuate their homes, who have had to take measures to protect their homes, who have had to replace damage done to their homes. There is a reason why we need to have environmental protections, both to limit the damage of climate change so that we don’t continue to have these once-in-a century storms every three years, and also so that we’re not building homes of any kind, whether it’s for low-income people or wealthy residents, on wetlands that are most vulnerable to this kind of flooding when these kinds of storms and measures happen. We need to take conservation, we need to take climate change seriously so that we are actually protecting people’s homes and making sure that they can live safely, regardless of what happens.

Finally, I want to conclude by mentioning the need for consultation. We’ve already heard this afternoon about how limited the consultation has been on this bill. The government did not speak to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario before tabling this bill. They have not spoken to many stakeholders about this bill. We’ve seen from this government a repeated pattern of unwillingness to speak to the people who are most affected by their legislation. We’ve seen an unwillingness on the part of this government to speak to people who most need to be consulted on the impacts of legislation. I am concerned that this will happen again. I’ve already heard from ACORN Ottawa that they have serious concerns about the gutting of tenant protections and the definition of affordability. It is absolutely essential that when legislation affects such a fundamental human right as housing, the government is actually speaking to the people who are affected, is listening to their concerns, is integrating their concerns into the legislation so that at the end of the day, we have a strategy that actually respects the human rights of everyone in our province, and actually takes seriously the need to provide dignified and affordable housing to everyone in Ontario, regardless of their income level.

An extra $50 a month isn’t going to get anyone housing in this market, Speaker.

Denise is not alone. Tracey Thompson, who contracted long COVID in March 2020, has recently applied for medical assistance in dying as well. Tracey, who is not even able to get ODSP because long COVID is not recognized by the program, has been clear that her application is exclusively a financial consideration. She wants to live, but she can’t afford to.

Speaker, we have reached a point in Ontario where people are being forced to choose between a quick death before the money runs out and a long, painful, slow death without financial support. Why is the Premier not taking action to address poverty?

I thank the member for the question. I’ve heard from many of the food banks and service agencies that are located in my riding of Ottawa West–Nepean that they’ve seen an incredible increase in demand over the past few months. I’ve heard the same from Meals on Wheels and other organizations that are serving seniors. I’ve met with the community health centre, that says they’re seeing a real increase in need for their programs and services. I’ve met with tenants who are living on Ontario Works or ODSP who are terrified that they’re about to be squeezed out of the only housing that they’ve been able to afford. I’ve spoken with people who have their kids living with them at home because they can’t afford to move out. There are incredibly desperate needs across Ottawa West–Nepean for a government and a budget that actually takes the affordability crisis, that actually takes poverty seriously and I know that my constituents would only want me to vote in favour of a budget that actually addressed the challenges that they are facing.

I also had the opportunity to meet with the nurses of Local 83 in Ottawa last week from the Ottawa Hospital, and they explained to me in clear terms there’s only a set number of health care workers and nurses and doctors in Ontario. We can’t magically expand it with a wave of a wand because we’ve created a private system. So now that same number of workers has to spread out over a private system and a public system—a private system which can refuse to take those patients who have the highest care needs, who have the greatest complexities, who actually need doctors and nurses the most. Those private care companies can focus only on those with the easiest problems to address and solve. So now those patients are ahead of the line and the lineup for care at our public hospitals and at our public clinics is even greater. This is a solution that will only make the crisis much, much worse.

The need is absolutely great. Not a single constituent that I spoke to in Ottawa West–Nepean over the course of a year said, “Please privatize our health care system.” What they said was, “Please fix our system. Please support our hard-working health care heroes so we can actually get the health care we need, when we need it.”

I’ve heard from Meals on Wheels and Jewish Family Services, which provides Kosher Meals on Wheels, that there’s an increased demand for these services, but unfortunately the government’s funding for these services has been frozen and isn’t keeping pace with the need. So they’re afraid they’re going to have to raise prices, which means that some of these seniors are going to go hungry rather than actually getting the food services they need.

I think the refusal to address the challenge with dental care for seniors because of the rise in CPP is an example of being penny-wise, pound foolish because we know that these seniors will now go without dental care, but we also know that when dental problems aren’t addressed, they result in other health care problems, including heart problems, which means that some of these seniors are going to end up in our emergency rooms when the problem could have been addressed early on if they could have simply afforded to see a dentist.

I’d like to thank the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services for your remarks. The minister noted that we have a housing crisis in Ottawa, and we certainly do. I’ve heard from many constituents over the course of the last year of the challenges they face in obtaining affordable housing, particularly rental housing.

The people I heard these remarks from the most are people who are receiving Ontario Works and Ontario Disability Support Program payments. A person on ODSP gets only $1,169 per month. The person on Ontario Works gets only $733, when the cost of an average one-bedroom apartment in Ottawa is now $1,100. So someone on ODSP has only $69 left after acquiring housing. A person on OW doesn’t even get an income the level of rent in Ottawa.

We’ve already heard this afternoon that mayors across Ontario are saying they didn’t want this legislation. They didn’t ask for this legislation. They don’t need this legislation. It won’t make a difference for housing.

Doesn’t the minister agree that it would be better to double social assistance rates in order to actually increase the supply of affordable housing rather than legislation nobody is asking for?

I’d like to thank the member from Hamilton Mountain for her comments. Like the member from Hamilton Mountain, I heard a lot on the doorsteps about the need for affordable housing. I heard it from families of all types and sizes, whether they owned their own home or they were renting. Another thing I’ve heard a lot about was tenants who risked being evicted from the housing that they had, because their landlord was trying to push them out, knowing that the landlord could jack up the rent to whatever they wanted for the next tenant.

What I did not hear anything about from any of my constituents—I did not hear it from my Conservative opponent, either—was a demand for any additional powers for the mayor. Even the mayor of Ottawa said he’s not interested in additional powers. So I’m wondering if the member can comment on whether it would have been a better option for the government to in fact introduce real rent control and vacancy control to address the housing crisis, rather than giving mayoral powers nobody is asking for.