It’s my honour to rise today in support of our opposition day motion. You know, for the government, they often are talking about the current housing crisis in which we are living, which we are experiencing. The first and most obvious answer would be what, Speaker? If there aren’t enough homes, what do we do? We build them. Instead of leaving this up to other people and all these different roundabout ways, the most simple answer is to get shovels in the ground and to build.

I was honoured to table this legislation late last year, and I’m proud that, despite the Conservatives not wanting to get their hands dirty and not wanting to get shovels in the ground and voted it down, we are undaunted. The official opposition will raise the voices of people across this province. The affordability crisis must be addressed in a meaningful way. What is foundational, what is fundamental, what is most often the largest expense in our lives? It’s housing.

While this government blunders ahead and tiptoes clumsily backwards, the Ontario NDP is focused on solutions, and part of that is a commitment to affordable housing. We need a wartime effort to address this housing crisis. We need all hands on deck. We need to capitalize on the strengths and abilities of our community partners such as experts in the field like co-ops, municipal partners and social housing providers.

I recently had the opportunity to congratulate Homes Unlimited London in my riding on 50 years of incorporation. Carmen Sprovieri and Cathy Park were there. It was an amazing event. It was a beautiful and poignant evening. But here is a not-for-profit organization that is phenomenal. They have industry partners. They’re doers. They have industry leaders. They know how to navigate systems. They can easily leverage their own expertise as well as that of others just to get the job done. I sat with Bob and Margo Hahn and Gord and Maria Hardcastle and we had a phenomenal conversation. But it was amazing to see that those are the kinds of organizations that this government could depend upon that could help create that affordable housing.

Recently, in my riding, Richard Sifton of Sifton Properties, with the Anglican Diocese of Huron, are now taking Homes Unlimited into downtown London. There’s going to be at 195 Dufferin Ave., which is going to be 94 residential units—80 one-bedroom and 14 two-bedroom units. It’s going to cost $20 million, and Sifton is donating the building and is going to oversee the reconstruction. It’s a beautiful plan.

But this is exactly what the government could do. Not-for-profits can split a nickel five ways from centre. Co-ops have been in the business of creating and maintaining that housing stock that is vitally necessary to address the affordability crisis that is happening across our province. Yet, this government would talk about recommendations from Scotiabank as being communist. They would talk about how the government creating housing would ruin the free market.

Here on this side, the official opposition speaks to folks who are in the creation of private, for-profit housing. They do not want the responsibility of creating all the affordable housing that Ontario needs. That is not their mandate, Speaker. They are in the business of providing shareholder return. They want to make sure there is a return on investment for all of their people and, quite frankly, there isn’t a great return on investment in the creation of truly affordable housing and long-term affordable housing.

So this government in their reliance—their ideological, their fixed mindset, where they can’t seem to get it through their ears that we need to have the government incent and assist co-ops, municipal partners and non-profits to create that housing. Instead, they have this myopic vision that for-profit is the only way to go. They’re really letting Ontarians down.

We see other disastrous initiatives from this government including the removal of rent control on buildings first occupied after November 2018. During an affordability crisis, what does this government do for affordability? They poured gasoline on the fire. They’ve created a system of exploitation which has destroyed many lives.

I talk to seniors all the time who have been in buildings for decades. They have paid for the apartment building in which they live, and they are afraid, to this day, each and every single day, that that building is going to be sold to a new owner who will want to get them out so they can jack the rent up to whatever the market can withstand. It’s a legacy of the Liberal government, who shot holes in the boat of affordability in terms of renters, bringing in vacancy decontrol.

This government could follow and could implement NDP legislation to protect renters. They could pass this opposition day motion today to create more affordable housing, to stabilize the system, making sure people have a safe place to call home. Yet, I wonder if they will choose to, or if they will continue to act as partisan puppets for their for-profit friends. Time will tell, and we will see today.

Housing is foundational, housing is fundamental, housing is a human right and housing is health care. I hope this government will understand the importance of housing. They say a lot of words. Let’s see some action today.

My question is to the Premier. Employment service providers help job seekers find meaningful long-term careers, helping people break the cycle of poverty and homelessness.

Employment services funding has been stagnant for well over a decade. Why?

The numbers speak for themselves. When people have help finding good, stable jobs, it represents savings for the province and happy, productive lives. Yet ESPs are now being forced to take over Ontario Works responsibilities on top of their core mandate to help people find work.

Why do Conservatives always expect hard-working people on the front line to do more with less?

Thank you to the members who just spoke. My question is to my friend from Elgin–Middlesex–London.

I was interested in your comments about the Humane Society of London and Middlesex and also in particular your comments about these puppy mills. I did want to ask, do you think it would be adequate—would it not make more sense to ensure that all dog breeders are licensed in the province of Ontario, thus being able to make sure that there are standards in place for each and every one of them?

Thank you to the member from Mississauga–Malton for the question. I’ve outlined in my presentation the things that this bill does well, but I think there are a great many things this bill is missing. There are so many opportunities within this bill to make improvements. I believe that there needs to be broader stakeholder engagement. I’ve mentioned a number of different voices which you need to be listening to, to make sure that you’re actually adequately standing up for animals, for their protection here in the province.

As well, I’m hoping that the government members will have listened to my appeal for funding for the Humane Society London and Middlesex and their new location at 1414 Dundas Street. It’s a brilliant plan. I’ve invited the minister there. I’ve spoken and sent letters to the finance minister as well. I hope that you will engage with them and make sure that they get the funding that they have requested, which was $1.5 million.

So the government should know that they have a problem, that there is not enough enforcement, that they’re not looking after animals in a really solid, thorough way. But part of this, I strongly believe, as well, is knowing where those puppy mills are and making sure that they are licensed, making sure that there are inspections, making sure that we’re going in proactively to make sure that bad things aren’t happening. Really, the government should have learned its lesson with long-term care, where they cancelled inspections and were only going in and doing spot inspections prior to the pandemic, and we see what happened to our treasured seniors.

Thank you to my colleague from University–Rosedale for the question.

What animal advocates have indicated within this bill—they believe that baseline fines are not enough. The $10,000 for an infraction, the $25,000 for the loss of a dog’s life: While they are a start, we need to make sure that there’s a licensing regime in place; that all places that are going to foster and breed dogs are overseen by the province so that we can make sure that the care standards that are within Bill 159 are actually being enforced in all those places.

We need to shine a light into those places where these dogs are coming from and making sure they’re doing the right thing. We need these standards of care to be enforceable, and part of that is making sure we know exactly where this activity is happening.

I do believe it’s important that regulations are in place to make sure that we know exactly when these animals are being sold, who they’re being sold to. But first and foremost, we need to make sure that we have regulations in place ensuring that the people who are breeding these dogs are doing so in an ethical way, a responsible way and a transparent way by disclosing their location. We should not be in a situation where we don’t know where this business activity is happening, because it’s happening in cramped places. It’s happening in basements. It’s happening in barns. It’s happening under the cover of night. And we won’t be able to address this problem unless we know where this activity is happening.

You know what to do, government.

But this bill is toothless in other ways. It is toothless in making sure there’s a licensing regime and that there is enforcement. So it’s a step in the right direction, but it’s not a very big step.

I’d like to thank the member from Kiiwetinoong for an excellent lead-off to the opposition debate on Bill 159.

As I begin my remarks, I think of the Humane Society of London and Middlesex, who are engaged in a wonderful campaign. It’s called New Home, New Hope. They’ve been at their current location at 624 Clarke Road for 120 years, and they’re currently moving to 1414 Dundas Street. Unfortunately, it’s just outside of my riding, but it’s very close to the border. But within this brilliant plan, they’re going to have outdoor spaces, play areas. Right now, the cages that are in their current space don’t meet industry standards. It’s an old building; there’s old plumbing, there’s an old HVAC system. The capacity is 175 to 200, and the new location will have about 400.

What’s also really brilliant and revolutionary about this plan is that it really looks after the skills pipeline. It is in partnership with post-secondary institutions such as Fanshawe, so allowing training of vet techs, experiential learning, local leadership capacity.

I wanted to start off with this because the Humane Society of London and Middlesex has asked this province for $1.5 million, and it’s fallen upon deaf ears with this government, despite all of the spending that we saw in budget 2024. As it turns out, the city of London has contributed twice the amount that was asked of the province. They’ve contributed $3 million. The federal government has stepped up, but unfortunately, the province is really a laggard when it comes to funding these amazing initiatives.

What’s brilliant about it is that it will also include pet training classes, adoptions and an education centre where children will be able to take school visits. As I said, it will really look after that skills pipeline of people entering veterinary medicine. They will have seasonal camps, but also there will be a companion animal hospital that will support shelter animals as well as provide affordable vet services. It will be building the spaces that people need, whether it’s saying goodbye to a pet, which will be accessible from a certain door as opposed to the people who are entering to adopt a new family member, which will be from a separate door—because can you imagine those two people crossing paths? It doesn’t make much sense, Speaker. But unfortunately, this government has not yet chosen to acknowledge that funding request, and it really is such a pity because I believe it’s a very worthy cause, a very worthy organization. I hope this government will reconsider that.

As we look at Bill 159, there are some good measures that do come forward within Bill 159, including making certain practices illegal, such as breeding a female dog more than three times in a two-year period or breeding more than two litters from a female dog’s consecutive heat cycles; breeding a female dog that is less than a year old or failing to keep a dog with a contagious disease away from other dogs or animals; failure to keep a dog’s environment sanitary and free from the accumulation of waste; and also separating a puppy from its mother before the age of eight weeks. These measures do make a great deal of sense, Speaker. We see a few guidelines here having a minimum penalty of $10,000. However, if any infractions result in the death of a dog, it could be a fine of up to $25,000.

Now, what I will say is that these are good places to start, but many animal care advocates are asking for a great deal more from this government. They don’t believe that this goes far enough. In fact, this legislation has been called toothless. It has been said that these baseline fines are simply not enough to tackle and address the issue that this legislation in Bill 159 purports to try to solve or to try to combat.

Animal Justice has written, “One of the biggest failures of the PUPS Act is that it does not require dog breeders to be licensed.” So Bill 159 is to prevent these unethical puppy sales, but the government is not making sure that these people will even have to be licensed. So how is this going to be enforced? How will these be overseen? How will this be regulated if there is no licensing?

“Without a licensing regime,” the quote goes on, “there is no way to keep track of who is breeding dogs and where they are operating, which makes animal cruelty law enforcement nearly impossible. Without the ability to cancel a licence, authorities have little ability to shut down a problematic breeder.”

But what’s also important for us to recognize within this debate of the Preventing Unethical Puppy Sales Act is that these activities and these puppy mills, it’s not as though this is happening in broad daylight. This is not something that people are doing obviously. These puppy mills are being kept behind closed doors. They’re in places like barns; they’re in places like basements. They’re away from the public view, otherwise people would report them. It’s very rare for puppy mills to be caught and charged under current law as it stands, and I don’t know that Bill 159 will actually solve that.

Animal Justice goes on to state that these puppy mills, despite these fines, will continue to force dogs to produce litter after litter of puppies in deplorable conditions. They won’t have access to regular exercise, socialization and veterinary care. It doesn’t solve the problem that it sets out to do.

I’d also like to quote from Humane Initiative co-founder and president, Donna Power, who said this legislation is “pretty weak.” Donna goes on to state, “They’re selling it to the public like it’s the second coming, but they acknowledge to us, they know it’s not where it should be by any means.” That the legislation could bring about an end to the puppy mills is “simply not true,” she said.

Now, Camille Labchuk, who is the Animal Justice executive director, stated, “This bill will do little to nothing to stop the abuse of puppy mills in Ontario....

“Stating otherwise could provide a ‘false sense of security’ for people perusing online marketplaces for new four-legged family members....”

So, Speaker, here are experts in the field who want to be involved in the consultation on this bill, and they’re saying it doesn’t go far enough. Will Bill 159 provide licensing for people who would breed dogs? It doesn’t seem so. Labchuk and Power are both making that call. They’re asking for this to be included in Bill 159. Include a licensing regime with enforceable care standards.

Puppies are big business in Ontario, and they’re big business for breeds which are often popularized through either social media or contemporary media. I remember back when I was in high school; I think there was a re-release of 101 Dalmatians. Well, suddenly and immediately, every little person wanted to have a Dalmatian. However, not everyone knew about what that breed’s requirements were, what its character was like or what was necessary to make sure it was a happy, healthy animal. Dalmatians require a great deal of exercise. They’re very energetic animals. People had viewed that movie and thought that they were cute and they were spotted—which, yes, both of those things are true—however, they also do require a great deal of physical exercise, and when that is not provided, we see behaviours within that breed which are often deeply problematic, which is no fault of the animal itself, it’s a fault of the lack of knowledge of the owner and the purchaser.

Now, I will also point out that both Labchuk and Power talk about an inquiry that was made to the province about data on investigations. The province has simply ignored that request for investigations of this activity, and I find that curious. Should the province identify that this is a problem they want to solve, they should be able to also provide the backup to that.

Now, from my area, the London area, Laurie Ristmae, who is the founder of ARF Ontario and is also the executive director of the East London Animal Hospital, has stated—repeating what I’ve just said—“The breeds that are showcased in movies and on TV and that become popular, become very overbred and have physical issues and physical deformities that are just wrong, that can’t be fixed” because the market unfortunately responds to the demand. Breeders will see that breeds such as Dalmatians become very popular, and they want to be the ones who are able to sell them—able to make that profit. Unfortunately, they may choose to do so in a way that is cruel, that is unfair, that is unethical to those beautiful little animals.

The government has said that it’s going to bring on more provincial animal welfare services inspectors to enforce these rules, but I will also point out that in the CBC’s coverage, CBC News found PAWS inspections were leading to significantly fewer orders and provincial and criminal charges when compared with animal abuse and neglect calls, which had been dealt with by the OSPCA, the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. So that’s interesting, that the government is changing its tune and is now saying, “Yes, we’re going to hire more inspectors” because it has been discovered that there have not been enough inspections and there has not been enough enforcement. And yet, we see through Bill 159—is there going to be more enforcement? I’m not certain, if there’s not a licensing regime in place.

Labchuk is also quoted in this article. Camille Labchuk has stated, “How can inspectors ever go in and inspect a puppy mill to see if they’re complying with the laws if we have no idea where they are?”

The city of London has been very proactive on this issue. Back in 2018, they enacted an updated business and licensing bylaw. It banned pet shops from actually using animals that were obtained from some unethical places. They banned pet stores “from selling cats and dogs that weren’t obtained from a municipal animal shelter, a registered humane society or shelter, or a prescribed rescue group.” That way they made sure that the animals that were in those places being adopted, with all those young people with their fingers and noses pressed to the glass wanting to get that little furry animal home—that those were the ones that were being rehomed, that were ones from shelters. And that makes a good deal of sense, Speaker, because it pulls the rug out from those unethical players within the market.

As I also look at this legislation, it reminds me of other legislation that this House has seen, in particular the opening up of training and trialling areas in the province. I think about how it was a past Conservative Premier, Mike Harris, who made new licences for training and trialling areas illegal.

Also, I think of the testimony of Rick Maw and Wayne Lintack, who were former conservation officers who talked about training and trialling areas and how that was cruel towards wildlife, in particular coyotes. You see, training and trialling areas are where dogs are trained how to track and hunt coyotes, but these areas are pens. They are massive areas that there is no escape from. These coyotes are often tracked down, they are cornered, and they are ripped apart by these dogs who are learning how to hunt. In fact, those officers spoke about how they uncovered a coyote trade ring where these coyotes were caught illegally, stuffed into a small room in a barn and sold off to other hunters to be used in training and trial areas. Animal Justice and Coyote Watch Canada have said, “These operations subject captive animals to horrific physical and psychological distress, and also create an unsafe environment for the dogs who are trained to chase these animals being used as live bait.”

Ontario is an outlier when it comes to these sorts of what some would call very barbaric and anachronistic practices because no other province allows these training and trialling areas to use live animals as bait—except for Manitoba, which, in that case, uses live game birds. In fact, fox and coyote penning is banned in most US states. So it seems antithetical that this government is saying that they’re standing up for animals with Bill 159, the Preventing Unethical Puppy Sales Act, and then in the other case are allowing training and trialling areas where coyotes will be ripped apart and savaged, basically tortured, which—in a more balanced way—also does put those dogs who are being trained to hunt at risk themselves, because of course those coyotes are going to defend themselves in their last moments.

Really, Speaker, as we look at this legislation with Bill 159, it does do some things which are positive steps. I don’t think that the legislation goes far enough. I think that we need to listen to experts within the field who are stating that baseline fines are simply not enough. This legislation, on its own, is toothless. This legislation requires a licensing regime and enforceable standards of care. I think, if we are going to tackle the problem that is puppy mills, we need to make sure that we are able to not only know where they are, find where they are, but make sure they stop operating. These places operate under the cover of shadow. We need to make sure that everybody is licensed in order to breed dogs, so that we can make sure they’re doing it in a way that is ethical, in a way that is responsible and in a way that cares for animals properly—such as this bill purports to do. But as it stands right now, it doesn’t quite make the mark.

It gives me pleasure to present the following petition on behalf of Paul King in my riding of London North Centre. It is also a petition that has been put together by Architectural Conservancy Ontario.

Now, given the changes to the standing orders, we are not able to read the entirety of the petition text, so I will do my best summarize the key elements within this petition.

It talks about the changes that this government made to the Ontario Heritage Act—all of the changes that were made in 2022—and it talks about the heritage properties that are currently listed which are at risk. There are 36,000 heritage properties at risk, and the meagre protections for them will end January 1, 2025, unless this government acts.

What this petition does is it calls upon this government to correct that mistake that they have made—to backpedal upon yet another mistake that they have made—and amend the Ontario Heritage Act to give municipalities an additional five years, giving them until January 1, 2030, before heritage property listings expire.

I completely support this petition, will affix my signature and deliver it with page Armaan to the Clerks.

Within this petition, it talks about the difficulties that two-spirit, transgender, non-binary, gender-diverse and intersex communities face when it comes to accessing the vital health care upon which we all rely.

It’s important for us to recognize that, unless we make sure that the government understands that this is a necessity, people within medical circles are not going to be taught in a way that respects people’s identities. So what this calls upon the government to do is to create an advisory committee to make sure that we address those gaps within the education system of medicine, and make sure that there’s greater access and coverage for gender-affirming care in Ontario.

I fully support this petition, will affix my signature and deliver it with page Shiara to the Clerks.

It gives me great pleasure to welcome the family of today’s page captain Jerome Bow Pearce: Jerome’s mother, Jennifer Bow; brothers Vincent Bow Pearce and Dominic Bow Pearce; as well as family friend Jennifer DeSilva. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Thank you to my colleague from Hamilton Mountain for an excellent presentation. I think we see that within Bill 185, it undoes a lot of the mistakes this government has made, backpedalling on a lot of self-created issues, some own goals that they’ve made on themselves.

However, within this legislation, we don’t see a really concerted attempt to take on the affordability crisis that we are seeing within our communities right now. I would like to know from the member, what would you like to see mentioned in this bill in particular as it pertains to housing and affordability?

I would like to thank the member from Nepean for her presentation.

One thing that we have noticed when we take a look at Bill 185 is that there seems to be a lack of mention of Ontario’s heritage assets. Architectural Conservancy Ontario has noted within all their meetings with government members, as well as opposition members, that 36,000 properties are currently at risk and that Ontario is the only province without a grant program to encourage the conservation of buildings of significant heritage value. They have called for the government to increase the existing Ontario heritage property tax relief program. It is useful, but it has limited impact on developers.

I wanted to know if the member from Nepean had any comments about heritage properties and what the government should be doing in order to make sure that we are preserving those wonderful properties that we have in the province of Ontario.

But I did want to specifically note with the member that there are 36,000 properties that are at risk because of this government’s actions, and that all of these 36,000 properties will currently lose the meagre protections they have on January 1, 2025, unless this government acts.

Does the member have any advice as to how they will be advocating to make sure that these properties will be protected in the province of Ontario?

I’d like to thank my friend from Mississauga–Lakeshore for the presentation. I have a question that was given to me by Architectural Conservancy Ontario. In particular, they’ve noted that, because of this government’s legislation, 36,000 heritage properties will be at risk. They’ll actually lose their status and protection on January 1, 2025. I wanted to know if the member has any thoughts about the protection of heritage-designated properties and what this government is going to do to help protect their status.

I’d like to thank the member from Beaches–East York for her presentation. I think it’s important in this discussion, whenever we’re discussing landlords, that we differentiate between those small landlords, those families who look after their tenants in a kind way. They’re responsive, they treat them like a member of the family and they are fair, as opposed to those corporate, faceless landlords who really try to gouge people.

I believe it was the former Liberal government that brought in vacancy decontrol, which really incentivized these corporate landlords to kick good, long-term tenants out because they knew they could jack up the rent to whatever the market could withstand, and that this Conservative government has really continued that system of exploitation.

To the member from Beaches–East York: Do you have any thoughts about vacancy control?

Recently, I had the opportunity to tour Ark Aid Street Mission’s Cronyn-Warner site. I’d like to dedicate these petitions on behalf of Rob, who told us his story about finally having a place to be safe and to be warm. The petition is entitled “London’s Urgent Homelessness Crisis.”

In this petition, Speaker, it talks about how the shelters are running over 100% capacity on a daily basis, that there are almost 2,000 people on the homelessness registry and that there are over 300 Londoners experiencing chronic homelessness. What this petition calls for is this government to actually invest in affordable housing, supportive housing, those vital wraparound supports we hear a lot of talk about but less action upon from this government in particular to make sure that people have the supports that they require so that they can be safe, they can rebuild their lives and they can contribute to our community in the ways that they know that they can.

I fully support this petition, will affix my signature and deliver it with page Shiara to the Clerks.

This petition is entitled “Improve Ontario’s Child and Youth Mental Health Services.” What it calls for is this government to actually make significant investments to make sure that children and youth are able to access mental health care in a timely manner. We need to make sure that we’re addressing the root causes of these things, not dealing with everything that comes afterwards.

This government has the opportunity to make sure that kids have the supports they need when and where they need them, not making people wait endlessly on a wait-list while problems compile and while situations get out of control. Let’s think about those six kids that were reported at committee, which are actually now nine kids put into care who didn’t actually need care but because they weren’t able to get mental health supports.

I’m going to sign this petition on their behalf and deliver it with page Brayden to the Clerks.

It gives me great pleasure to welcome individuals from First Work, Ontario’s workforce development and youth employment network. They will be hosting a networking reception from 5 until 7 p.m. in rooms 228 and 230. I hope all members can join us.

I’d like to thank the member from Thunder Bay–Superior North for her excellent comments. I was particularly taken by her comments on supportive housing.

I’d like to quote Sister Joan Atkinson of the Sisters of St. Joseph, in the Office for Systemic Justice, who wrote to me and said that for the supportive housing model to work—if it is not fully funded, “it will collapse and homelessness with all the other problems that accompany this will escalate....

“We believe there is inadequate funding for these critical human resources that are required to both prevent homelessness and transition people out of the chaos of homelessness, encampments and emergency shelters.”

To the member: I’d like to know, should the government have addressed the critical plight of homelessness and the lack of funding for supportive housing within Bill 185?

Again, thank you to the member from Essex. I’m glad that they’re bringing forward the concerns from their area. I think that’s incredibly important. I think it’s also important that we note that, within Bill 185, it does not address the concerns of northern Ontarians in a very effective way. In fact, Greater Sudbury ward 10 councillor and planning committee chair Fern Cormier said that they haven’t seen anything in the proposed legislation that will dramatically affect the city. And in North Bay, Mayor Peter Chirico says that “a lot of that legislation is directed at the GTA and high-growth areas.... We don’t have a lot of development that’s just sitting. When they have the opportunity, developers in northern Ontario go forward with it....”

So I don’t believe that this government has actually adequately consulted on this legislation. There is so much more that needs to be in there and actually address the situation.

I’d like to thank the member from Markham–Thornhill for his question. I am pleased to see that within Bill 185 the government has recognized the mistakes that it has made. It realized that with Bill 23 they were stepping on municipalities, that they were insulting municipalities, that they weren’t working as true partners with municipalities. They were instead transferring money over to people who don’t need more money. They were transferring money over to wealthy developers by allowing them to not pay development charges, and, really, who is going to pay for that? Who is going to pay for all of that missing money? That will be shifted onto the tax base. That will be shifted onto everyone paying taxes within Ontario, and that is the reverse of Robin Hood. It should make absolutely no sense to them.

But I do want to point out that municipalities should be treated as partners. This government’s words don’t go far enough. Many housing stakeholders are calling upon the province to engage in that dialogue, engage in those meetings.

Instead, they’re transferring wealth over to people who don’t really need more money. They’re privatizing health care, but through Bill 23, they’re giving shovelfuls of money to wealthy developers while forcing regular taxpayers to pay for that infrastructure. It’s disgraceful. It’s unconscionable. It actually strikes at the heart of true fiscal Conservatives. They should be more wise with their money. They should be spending money in homes, not-for-profit housing, where there’s that long-term economic viability.

This legislation itself is not completely awful. I will say with schedule 8, it’s pretty benign in a lot of ways, but it is updating something that is really archaic. I think it modernizes language that’s actually there, things like “forthwith,” that I don’t know that many people—maybe the member from Essex likes saying “forthwith.” It’s not something we hear very often in modern speech in the vernacular.

But I think there are also a lot of opportunities within this legislation that this government has missed. Number one is making sure that renters are protected, that people who currently have homes will remain in those homes.

With the House’s indulgence, it’s my honour to rise today. I would like to take a moment to recognize the Special Olympics Canada Winter Games in Calgary and some of the winners from London.

Winning gold was the London Blazers floor hockey team. They overcame illness and injury. They even played short-handed in the semifinals. I’d like to congratulate Chris Lauzon of London as well as Zack Griffith of St. Thomas.

Head coach Todd DeSilva said, “They played like nobody’s business and the results speak for themselves. I’m so unbelievably proud to coach them and help them achieve their goals.”

I want to give congratulations to London Blazers teammates Dylan Baughman, Jesse Clifford, Kodi Cronk, Jonathan Figg, Christopher Freeman, Mike Hitchcock, Richard Horner, Kevin MacMullin, Sam Samwell, Scott Tenant, Jacob Thomas and James Walker, as well as these Londoners: alpine skier Ben So, who won two gold and one silver; speed skaters Cameron Banerjee, who won one gold and one silver, Sara Albers, who won a gold and two silvers, as well as Jackson Tomlinson; and bowler Kathleen Mills, who came in fourth in singles and fifth in team play. Congratulations to all of the athletes.

Speaker, as we take a look at Bill 185, it’s almost as though this government wants to stack up and rack up as many red tape bills as losing lawsuits. I believe this is their 13th red tape bill.

When we look at the government’s intention—I always begin with the intention of legislation, and according to this government, their stated intention is that they want to build more housing; they want there to be more housing. The very simplest answer to this question, if indeed this is their intent, is to build more housing. And yet, this government chooses not to build. They choose to do everything but actually get into the business of building housing—it is strangely ironic—despite the number of titles that we have to this effect.

What is needed right now in this province is a wartime effort to make sure that people who are currently deprived of housing—people who are unable to start in life, and seniors who are at risk of becoming homeless—are guaranteed safety.

Post-World War II, the government recognized its moral and social responsibility for the veterans returning from World War II, so they provided very reasonably rented homes—those strawberry boxes, those simplified Cape Cod designs—to make sure that we would look after the greatest generation.

What happened as a result is those returning veterans were able to then purchase those homes, and it realized the tremendous economic potential of the baby boomer generation. That is something that could be realized within the province right now, yet this government has chosen to vote against NDP proposals to have the government get back into the business of building housing, which is such a shame.

Now, if the government’s intention was for there to be more housing with Bill 185, they would ensure that there were more types. They would ensure investments in co-ops. They would make sure that there was more RGI. They would make sure that there were as-of-right fourplexes within this legislation. And yet, they have chosen not to. The Canadian Real Estate Association has recommended that there should be more middle housing options that this government should invest in, such as low-rise apartments, duplexes, townhomes, and really include that as-of-right zoning.

This government would, in their NIMBY way, foist responsibility for this onto municipal councils rather than taking a leadership role within the province. Isn’t it ironic, Speaker? They talk about building homes; they choose not to build homes. They talk about leadership, and they lead from the back, expecting somebody else to stand up for them.

Additionally, if we want to look at ensuring that there are enough homes, we need to ensure that the people who are currently housed remain housed. We need to do so in a variety of ways. We need to make sure that there is rent control. Yet this government has, through the changes that they have made back in 2018 for apartments first occupied after November 2018—that rent control be abolished whatsoever.

What this government has created is a system of exploitation. They have driven prices up. Analysts from many different industries have looked at that decision and shaken their heads. We can easily say that the cost of housing, to purchase, has also gone up as a result of this. There are fewer people entering the buying market because they simply cannot save money because they’re having to catch up continually with ever-increasing rent.

We could also change—and fix—the Liberals’ mistake of opening up vacancy decontrol. We could plug that hole. We have NDP legislation on the table right now to make sure that people wouldn’t be subject to that horrible, unwritten rule that kicking good, long-term tenants out will allow that landlord to jack up the rent to whatever the market can withstand. They’ve created a system of exploitation, and they could end that.

Yet, in the Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, this government has made more barriers. They’ve wrapped tenants in red tape, in actual point of fact. And yet, they don’t protect people who are currently housed because we still see demovictions, we see renovictions, we see AGIs. Those really unethical, wealthy, corporate landlords are simply able to apply for an AGI without even proving that they need to. And who bears that cost? The people who bear that cost are the tenants.

If this government really wanted more housing, they would actually ensure that we are building in areas that are suitable for housing—where it’s easiest to make sure that those developments can happen quickly, can happen effectively, with the infrastructure necessary, and make sure people can get in as soon as possible. And yet, this government, instead, is really working against that.

It was our housing critic, the member for University–Rosedale, who has quite accurately pointed out the glaring gap that this government has created in this very strange way that, if a municipality approves sprawl, you can’t appeal, but if the municipality denies sprawl, you can appeal. That seems contrary to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, who have really warned this government that we are losing 319 acres of prime farmland every single day, and yet this government would still include measures such as this, with Bill 185 and the provincial policy statement working in tandem to create yet more sprawl.

This government, as well, would be wise to take a look at instituting a vacancy tax. That would make a great deal of sense. We see in many communities, post-pandemic, that there are office spaces that aren’t used. We see land banking, where people are simply just sitting on available land and available office space that could be redeveloped to address the homelessness crisis that we have within all of our communities, and yet we see nothing.

I wanted to point out a presentation that was made to this government during the pre-budget consultations, and it indicates that downtown commercial vacancy has created a domino effect. Higher vacancy has led to less foot traffic, and it’s created so many more issues with safety, vandalism, unclean environments, decreases in economic activity.

We need to make sure that we are revitalizing our city cores by making sure that there is more and more and more housing within them. If landowners aren’t going to develop their commercial properties that they’re sitting on, then they need an incentive in order to do so.

I also wanted to point out that—and I want to thank the member for Niagara Centre for his advocacy in making sure the use-it-or-lose-it policies would finally be recognized by this government. That is something we do see within Bill 185, and I’m very thankful for that. However, this government simply does not go far enough. We don’t see measures for affordability. We don’t see measures to keep people housed. We don’t see measures to really crack down on short-term rentals such as Airbnb and others.

The question I have for the government is, why are they so afraid of building? Why will they choose and continue to choose not to do so? But further, when we look at Bill 185, some of the questions I have are, why is this government so ideologically against people who rent? Why do they create policies and create situations where people are exploited simply for needing a safe place to call home?

When we look at rent control itself, this government has an ideological opposition to it. It is beyond belief that during the time of an affordability crisis, that the Premier would get rid of rent control altogether, as I’ve mentioned, on buildings first occupied after November 2018. It makes little sense. It’s like pouring gasoline onto an affordability fire.

Ricardo Tranjan of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives said, “You could drive a very large truck through the loopholes in our rent control system.”

Recently, the CCPA has reported that over the last decade, landlords have increased rents by 16.5%, and average rents have actually increased by 54.5%—54.5% over the last 10 years. That is an obnoxious number, an obnoxious number that this government should be taking seriously.

In this scenario, as I’ve said, it’s a system of exploitation. People are being taken advantage of. David Hulchanski, who is a professor of housing and community development at U of T, says, “The market isn’t functioning properly because landlords are taking advantage of a scarce resource—rental units. The state has to step in and do something.”

It’s not a matter of simply creating more units without controls because that has actually, in a very strange way, driven up the cost of everything else because vacancy decontrol still exists. We have not plugged that hole. So it’s allowing everyone within that market to keep squeezing and squeezing and squeezing people until they can’t take it anymore.

When will this government act? When will this government listen to all of the people within your communities who you know are being exploited right now because of this system you’ve created, the system you have neglected, the system that you have ignored? It’s absolutely disgraceful.

What I also find rather strangely ironic, and possibly, darkly ironic by the way in which this government operates, is Bill 185 reverses a number of different things that this government has previously brought into law. It reverses many of the changes that were within Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act, which is a very strange thing when you think about it because, quite ironically, they’re actually building homes slowly. In fact, I believe that in order to meet its own targets, this government, if it wants to build 1.5 million homes by 2031—news flash, it is not going to happen—it needs to build at least 125,000 homes annually. And, in the 2024 budget, there will be about 88,000 housing starts this year. We are not on track and it is not going to happen—certainly not under this government who refuses to get their hands dirty and won’t get shovels in the ground.

The Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada has quite rightly pointed out—that’s another thing that could happen within this legislation: We could see investments in co-ops, making sure that we are including housing of all types—“As the province continues to development policies surrounding the provision of government-owned surplus land,” they encourage the government to take an “affordable-housing-first” approach; “focus on getting the maximum long-term public value out of these lands. Non-profit, affordable housing offered in perpetuity gives the province better value for money over the medium to long term, compared to the one-time cash provided by sale at market value.” That’s something the official opposition NDP fully agree with. We need those investments within our co-ops.

If we look, historically, at what has happened in housing over the last number of years, it was a Conservative government that got out of the business of building housing. Had they continued at the rate that was happening, we would have somewhere near 1.3 million more affordable homes. What’s the stated deficit? It’s 1.5 million.

The Ontario Big City Mayors also wanted to point out, “We also made it clear that development charge exemptions will continue to make a significant impact on municipalities. We have always operated on a ‘growth pays for growth’ model, and by moving away from that, any financial burden shifts to the property tax base. We continue to call upon the province to sit down with municipalities for a municipal fiscal review, which includes how they will address their commitment to keeping us whole.”

Again, we see this government engaged in sleight of hand, in this shell game, where they don’t want people to pay attention to what is actually happening. They’ve gone and removed the ability for municipalities to charge development charges with Bill 23, costing municipalities around a billion dollars per year, according to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and then they have their community water and infrastructure fund changing things around, and, yet, again, we see them backpedalling with Bill 185. It’s like they don’t really have a solid plan. They keep coming forward piecemeal; one step forward, two steps back. This is just another example of a government that really doesn’t understand what it’s doing.

The CEO of the Ontario Real Estate Association, someone who’s well known to this House, Tim Hudak, said, “Finally, we are disappointed that two key recommendations by the province’s own Housing Affordability Task Force (HATF)—strongly supported by Ontario realtors—have not been included in” this “bill. We need to build more homes on existing properties and allow upzoning along major transit corridors if we are going to address the housing affordability and supply crisis in our province.”

Hudak goes on to say, “The province is making significant investments in transit and passenger rail, and building more home along those lines is common sense.” And then states, “Eliminating exclusionary zoning and allowing four units, as-of-right, province-wide is an essential key to unlock affordable home ownership, and several municipalities, including Toronto, London and Barrie, are already leading the way.”

Yet, this government doesn’t even listen to people who are in its universe. They don’t listen to their own task force, they don’t listen to their own people. They’re blundering ahead, probably creating more legislation that they’re going to have to backpedal in the medium-to-not-too-distant future.

If this government was truly serious, and serious not by way of naming of legislation without actual action, but serious in thought, word and deed; if they wanted to have more housing in the province of Ontario, they would, number one, build more housing. They would engage in the war-time effort that is necessary. They would ensure that they’re supporting people who will create more types of housing, including co-ops, not-for-profits in municipalities. They would expand rent-geared-to-income housing. They would have as-of-right fourplexes within our city, and they would make sure that there were entry-level houses being built within our communities. They would listen to experts like the Canadian Real Estate Association and the Ontario Real Estate Association. They would listen to the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada. They would also protect the people who are in housing right now. They would re-establish rent control for buildings first occupied after November 2018. They would pass NDP legislation to make sure that current renters are protected from renoviction, from demoviction, from AGIs and from all the systems of exploitation that they have fostered and created with their haphazard and half-witted approach to renter rights within Ontario. They would also plug the hole of vacancy decontrol opened up by that Liberal government, who did not care about people who are renting within this province.

They understand this issue. They understand it’s a problem. It’s time for them to act.

But they would also crack down on short-term rentals. They would make sure that there is a vacancy tax so that people are incentivized to provide that housing. The government is the largest landowner in the province and has the opportunity to provide that land at cost to non-profit housing providers and co-op housing providers, to provide that stability that people want, the stability that people need, allowing them to start a life, start a family or allowing them to retire in dignity in a place that is safe, not having the axe hanging above them with the fear of their building being sold, their building being demolished or having some unscrupulous landlord who has just decided that no matter how good they are as a person they’ve just lived there too long.

Speaker, it’s unconscionable. It’s something that this government—it is incumbent upon them to act. We are here to support you. We could pass NDP legislation that’s on the table in laser speed, in lightning speed. So let’s get it done. Let’s work harder.

I’d like to thank the member from University–Rosedale for a very balanced presentation about the current housing crisis within our province. It seems this government could benefit from a little bit of balance, whether it’s balancing books or balancing ideas, for heaven’s sakes.

My question to the member, though: The member has pointed out that if a municipality approves sprawl, you can’t appeal, but if the municipality denies sprawl, you can appeal. What are some of the Pandora’s box of issues that that opens up?

It is my honour to present the following petition entitled “Support the Gender Affirming Health Care Act.” Within the petition, it points out that two-spirit, transgender, non-binary, gender-diverse and intersex communities have a great deal of difficulty when it comes to receiving the health care that they need in Ontario. Within Ontario, people should not have to fight for a health care that understands and recognizes their identity.

So this petition is to pass the gender-affirming health care act, something that I believe everyone, if they’re listening to their conscience, should pass, should support, and I hope that this government will finally decide to listen to its conscience once and for all.

I support this and will deliver it with page Armaan to the Clerks.