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 move that, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should establish and fund a new public agency called Homes Ontario to finance and build 250,000 new affordable and non-market homes on public land over 10 years, to be operated and/or constructed by public, non-profit or co-op housing providers.

If we look towards the history, government was once an integral part of building the vital housing that we need. Following World War II, a crown corporation known as Wartime Housing Ltd. successfully built and managed thousands of units for returning veterans. It was the right thing to do, Speaker. Canada built 1.5 million of these homes for heroes between 1943 and 1960 on government land for moderate-income households. This is equivalent to six million homes today.

Between 1973 and 1994, Canada built or acquired around 16,000 units, 16,000 non-profit or co-operative homes, every year—Speaker, 16,000 every single year. Since the mid-1990s, though, federal and provincial governments’ housing policies have moved away from this and towards the private, for-profit market to deliver the new housing that people need.

This government and governments prior have created a housing crisis. Both private developers and non-profit providers have noted that without access to free land, creating new rental housing is increasingly difficult due to high development costs, and creating that truly affordable housing is next to impossible. Thus, the private sector hasn’t built the types of housing that people truly require. They haven’t built enough affordable housing, supportive housing or purpose-built rental housing to meet Ontario’s housing needs. This is the government’s responsibility.

In terms of the motion itself, establishing a new public agency, Homes Ontario, to finance and build 250,000 new affordable and non-market homes would ensure an adequate supply of rental homes meeting the needs of low- to moderate-income families, and it would be at all stages of life, from couples to young families to seniors. These homes would be operated by public, non-profit or co-op housing providers and permanently protected from the speculation and financialization of the private market.

Nobody needs to say it again, but we are in a housing crisis, Speaker, and we’re not going to get out unless we have big ideas. On this side of the House, we’re proposing a massive expansion of new homes for Ontario by undoing decades of bad policy and getting the government back in the business of building housing.

The backroom deals and rampant land speculation this government has been partaking in are setting Ontario back. Housing starts are going down. We are going in the wrong direction. So here with the Ontario NDP, we are calling for a new approach with Homes Ontario, where public land and resources are unlocked for the creation of new homes that people can actually afford.

Everyone in Ontario has a right to safe and affordable housing, to live in the community they want to live in. If we look towards the foundational and fundamental principles of housing itself, we know that without housing, little else matters. Housing is even more than shelter. When we help low-income households access the housing they need, we’re doing more than putting a roof over people’s heads. We’re building a foundation for broader social and economic success for so many families.

The Canadian Paediatric Society has warned that living in housing need can negatively affect all aspects of child and youth physical, mental, developmental and social health. By depriving children of a quiet place to study, to read and to do homework, crowded living conditions compromise their educational success. When insecure housing leads to those frequent moves, children’s readiness for school and the continuity of their education and academic performance are hurt, with long-term consequences for future employment and earnings. Teachers are saying to students, “Read. Do your homework. Concentrate.” How can that happen when there is that instability for housing? It’s impossible, Speaker.

A CMHC-funded study, a survey of Habitat for Humanity families, found that participants reported across-the-board improvements for their children’s well-being and school performance since obtaining their homes. Good housing doesn’t take the place of other ingredients for success, but it demonstrably does provide the stability from which to leverage for better outcomes. Its absence makes it that much harder for vulnerable Canadians to get ahead.

I ask my colleagues on the government side of the House to picture the people of Ontario. When I’m out in my community, I meet young families who want to grow but don’t have the space. I meet brilliant young people who are living out of their parents’ basements with no path out of it. I talk to young people who are looking to pursue their post-secondary education or graduate studies, but their future is impacted by the place that they can afford, not the program of study they want to go into or the educational institution that they want to pursue. I think of all the seniors who are in places that don’t suit their needs, that, quite frankly, might be dangerous, but are trapped.

Speaker, we need to ask ourselves, why does this kind of housing matter? Housing doesn’t just keep us safe and warm; it gives us a sense of mental, physical and financial stability that cannot be understated. Stable housing changes everything. When people have stable housing, they can raise a family. They can retire. They can have something to leave behind. Secure housing impacts families for generations. A good place to call home is a source of dignity with benefits that radiate out to a family, a community and an incredible place like Ontario in a great country like ours.

If we look towards the economic development benefits, housing also matters at a microeconomic level: to individual families and households. But this government seems to fail to understand that it also matters at the macroeconomic level: to our broader economic and financial stability. When people are in suitable housing and are not spending tremendous amounts on that housing, that money is spent within their communities. It has tremendous community benefits.

Too often, we see the reliance on the for-profit market. We see these real estate investment trusts. Where does that money go, Speaker? Largely, it leaves Ontario. It leaves Canada.

A strong housing sector supports an incredibly robust economy. It creates jobs in the construction and renovation sector, and generates spinoff benefits in related industries. The construction industry alone contributed 7.7% to Ontario’s GDP in 2021. Public development supports the generation of good, reliable jobs for the people of Ontario. Developing just one affordable housing unit generates two new jobs. These residential construction jobs are overwhelmingly local and support the economies we want to build. Housing security and housing markets play an important role in supporting social and economic stability, but this depends on ensuring housing affordability and ensuring stable, secure housing—both rental and ownership.

The government has a responsibility. We know that we’re in a crisis. What we require is a wartime effort. This government has an opportunity here today to vote for a motion where they would get back into the business of creating truly affordable housing for the people of Ontario—not sitting in the back seat, not waiting for somebody else to do the heavy lifting, but doing it themselves.

To a government that has been mired in terrible scandals, whether it was the greenbelt grab or the expansion of cities’ urban boundaries—this is an opportunity for you. This is an opportunity for you to vote for something that will create a lasting legacy for the people of Ontario.

Think back to that post-World War II era, when all of those homes were built—this government could do the same; this government should do the same. There are benefits to this in a huge way.

So to all those young families who are hoping to grow; to all the young adults who are living in their parents’ basements; to all of the parents of those young adults who want to see their child succeed; to all of the young professionals who are choosing where to pursue their dream, where to pursue employment; to the young people who are pursuing post-secondary education and choosing their institution based on the financial aspects; but also to all the seniors who are downsizing, and the empty nesters: We here on the Ontario NDP side of this House—we hear you. We see you. We understand that this government has a role. We understand that this government has a responsibility. We know that this government can get back into the business of building housing.

I think, as well, to what happened in the mid-1990s, when many of these programs were cut. I look back to 1995, when the Ontario government implemented a number of disastrous housing policies. They decreased the availability of affordable rental housing. They cut legal protections for tenants. They cut social assistance rates, including shelter allowances, by 21.6%. And if that wasn’t bad enough, 17,000 units of co-op and non-profit housing that were under development were also scrapped.

To this government: You have an opportunity to create. You have an opportunity to build. You have an opportunity to listen to the voices of all of the people across Ontario who are saying that the private market is not doing enough.

Also, on this side of the House—I don’t want to criticize the private market. They have an incredible role. They do great work, but they have also said that they can’t do it alone. It is an expectation and it is a burden that this government is simply shifting their responsibility for. You can’t expect that a for-profit industry is going to create the types of housing that people need. That is the government’s responsibility. That is the government’s lookout.

Listen to the people of Ontario. Listen to what people need. Listen to people across the housing spectrum. Get back into the business of housing, and make sure that people can build a safe life, have a safe future, and pass that future prosperity on for generations to come. You can do it with Homes Ontario, and you can do it today.

Please vote for my motion.

My question is to the Premier. Speaker, 30 years ago, the Harris government got us out of the business of building housing. If governments had continued to build at that rate, we would have built 1.2 million homes since then. Instead, Ontario needs to build 1.5 million homes to meet the current need.

Why doesn’t this government think it has a responsibility for building truly affordable homes?

This government has routinely given laundry lists of projects that did not work. Now is the time to think big. Private developers have said they can’t solve this crisis alone. The Canadian Housing Statistics Program recently revealed that housing supply slowed last year—slowed under this government.

Why won’t this government join us and get Ontarians back to work in good jobs, building the truly affordable housing that Ontarians need?

Later this afternoon, I’m pleased this House will debate my motion calling on the province to establish a new public agency to finance and build at least 250,000 new affordable and non-market rental homes at cost on public land. There will be plenty of time to debate the merits of that motion, but this morning, I would like to share with my colleagues why this kind of housing matters.

I ask you all to think for a moment about the many benefits that good housing brings us as individuals, as families and as communities, not just in terms of keeping us dry and warm, but also in providing a safe, stable place to raise our families, and a sense of mental, physical and financial stability that cannot be understated.

The impact goes beyond just housing. Stable housing changes everything. When people have stable housing, they can raise a family, they can retire, they can have something to leave behind. Secure housing impacts families for generations. A good place to call home is a source of dignity with benefits that radiate to a family, a community, to an incredible province like Ontario in a great country like ours.

I hope you will vote yes to bring dignity, security and affordable good housing to the families of Ontario.

I’d like to thank the member from Mushkegowuk–James Bay for his excellent presentation. I think every time this government turns their eye to a different part of health care, the province of Ontario shudders—workers and the people receiving the care—while people who make a profit off of health care in Ontario are very excited about it.

Before the pandemic, this government cut inspections to long-term care. During the pandemic, they passed legislation to protect the worst of the worst long-term-care operators, and they even passed legislation to protect themselves from legal liability—not something that generally happens when people are honest and upright.

They claim to respect seniors, and they claim to respect health care workers. My question to the member: Is this bill truly about care when there’s no way to prevent companies from overcharging and there are no consequences for providers who fail to meet service agreements?

Today I have a petition entitled “Health Care: Not for Sale.” It reads:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Ontarians should get health care based on need—not the size of your wallet;

“Whereas Premier Ford and Health Minister Jones say they’re planning to privatize parts of health care;

“Whereas privatization will bleed nurses, doctors and PSWs out of our public hospitals, making the health care crisis worse;

“Whereas privatization always ends with patients getting a bill;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately stop all plans to privatize Ontario’s health care system, and fix the crisis in health care by:

“—repealing Bill 124 and recruiting, retaining, and respecting doctors, nurses and PSWs with better working conditions;

“—licensing tens of thousands of internationally educated nurses and other health care professionals already in Ontario, who wait years and pay thousands to have their credentials certified;

“—10 employer-paid sick days;

“—making education and training free or low-cost for nurses, doctors, and other health care professionals;

“—incentivizing doctors and nurses to choose to live and work in northern Ontario;

“—funding hospitals to have enough nurses on every shift, on every ward.”

I fully support this petition. I will affix my signature and give it to page Ananya to take to the Clerks.

It gives me great honour to present the following petition entitled “Health Care: Not for Sale.” It reads:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Ontarians should get health care based on need—not the size of your wallet;

“Whereas Premier ... Ford and Health Minister ... Jones say they’re planning to privatize parts of health care;

“Whereas privatization will bleed nurses, doctors and PSWs out of our public hospitals, making the health care crisis worse;

“Whereas privatization always ends with patients getting a bill;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately stop all plans to privatize Ontario’s health care system, and fix the crisis in health care by:

“—repealing Bill 124 and recruiting, retaining, and respecting doctors, nurses and PSWs with better working conditions;

“—licensing tens of thousands of internationally educated nurses and other health care professionals already in Ontario, who wait years and pay thousands to have their credentials certified;

“—10 employer-paid sick days;

“—making education and training free or low-cost for nurses, doctors, and other health care professionals;

“—incentivizing doctors and nurses to choose to live and work in northern Ontario;

“—funding hospitals to have enough nurses on every shift, on every ward.”

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

I’d like to thank the member from Oshawa for that excellent question, and she’s absolutely right. There are folks who are renting who simply are at a loss. They’re working paycheque to paycheque. They’re unable to afford that most basic necessity of housing because we’ve had governments that have allowed the market to get out of control. We’ve allowed governments to have these corporate landlords basically set the rules. We see things like renovictions, where a landlord will claim that they’re going to come in, they’re going to change over a unit. There are laws in place that allow renters to have the right of first refusal, but too often they do not get in. The Landlord and Tenant Board, which is moribund—it is absolutely not working—often works in the interests of landlords, but still, it’s not working for anyone.

We also see landlords who will try to pretend they’re moving in their family. We need further protections so everyone, whether it’s landlord or tenant, achieves justice and has a safe place to call home.

Interjections.

I apologize. I have a bad habit of calling a spade, “a spade,” but I do withdraw.

I want to thank everyone for their kind attention. I want to thank the government for not interrupting me during my speech too much.

I’m kind of surprised by the member from Essex’s comments, because I don’t think that he has paid attention to his federal leader. Here on the NDP side of the House, we very much believe in workers. We believe in unions. We believe in collective agreements.

But what’s funny is that the federal Conservative leader, Pierre Poilievre, is really attacking this. He says, “How much of Canadians’ money is he giving to this foreign corporation? How many jobs? How much is the cost per job?” Pierre Poilievre has gone after that.

I wonder why the provincial Conservatives have a different tune than the federal Conservatives. It’s very confusing.

The member is absolutely right. We see municipalities that are going to be cash-strapped as a result of this government doing this sort of anti-Robin Hood thing, taking money from people who can’t afford it and giving it to wealthy folks in the form of removal of development charges.

This government really should be treating municipalities as partners, especially for the provision of affordable housing and supportive housing. We’ve seen that the province has neglected their historic responsibility, which was to create and build and maintain that housing. Instead, they’ve kicked it down to the municipal partners, not provided the funding and not provided the care or really abided by their responsibility.

Really, all the member needs to do is look into their slush fund, their contingency fund, where they have hoarded $22 billion. There’s plenty of money for the provision of public services there. Or maybe they should look at the $8.3 billion—2016 numbers—that they have tried to gift to their insider friends. There’s plenty of money. It comes down to political will. On this side of the House, we will look after the people who need it the most.

This government is sitting on $22 billion. It’s giving money to wealthy people by allowing them to be exempted from development charges. They’re sitting on this additional money. And who’s going to pick up the tab? Municipalities in rural Ontario are going to pick up the tab.

Earlier, from the official opposition, we heard from our wonderful critic for municipal affairs and housing, who talked about all of the smaller municipalities that were going to be hit by these disastrous increases to tax. I believe it was the city of Pickering—they had to raise taxes by 2.44%; the region of Durham, 2.87%. Let me see—Pickering taxpayers have to pay 5.31%, and it goes on and on.

So much of this government’s actions have actually really hurt rural Ontario. They’ve neglected rural Ontario. They’ve taken rural Ontario for granted. They thought they could pave over farmland; they thought they could gift it to wealthy developers and wealthy speculators, allow them to flip it for a profit. It is a slap in the face to the people who feed Ontario.

In the municipality of North Huron, there are about 5,000 residents. They were talking about an additional municipal tax increase of 20.65%. There’s this government making the people of rural communities pay for their grift. In Kincardine, they’re looking at an 11.15% tax increase; Stratford, a 7.5% tax increase; Huron county—

I do get passionate about these things. It makes me very upset when people who can’t afford to have money taken from them have it taken from them, and when the government could do more to make sure that they’re making their lives easier.

Let me continue. In Bruce county, we’re talking about a 7.9% increase—I could go on and on. The city of Peterborough has a $7-million-to-$12-million gap over five years—I believe there’s also an additional $9 million because of the removal of development charges. Northumberland county—boy, oh, boy, it is shocking how many places in rural Ontario have been let down by this government while they tried to reward wealthy speculators.

What this government could do in terms of actually addressing the affordability of housing—they don’t have to give away these incentives to rich developers. Instead, what they could do is, they could actually incentivize the creation of municipal properties, non-profit properties. Why are they not making sure that these incentives that they’re providing are for those people who don’t have that profit motive, who are going to make sure they deliver the most amount of value to the people who need it the most?

If projects are exempted from development charges because they’re building affordable housing—but when you combine that with the fact that there’s no rent control for buildings that were first occupied after November 2018, how does this government make sure that things are even going to remain affordable? There are really no protections.

We have NDP legislation on the table right now that could be passed if this government truly cared about renters, if this government truly cared about affordability. Some of those include legislation that I have been proud to co-sponsor—the Rent Stabilization Act. There are also other wonderful pieces of legislation that the government could pass—there is Bill 48, Rent Control for All Tenants Act; as I said, Bill 25, the Rent Stabilization Act.

In my city of London, we’ve seen horrible situations where seniors who’ve lived for decades in rental units—they built a home there, they’ve raised families there. They’re in their retirement now. They’re enjoying their life, but unfortunately that building gets sold to a new person.

See, the Liberals in, I believe, 1997, opened up an adjustment to the Residential Tenancies Act that allowed vacancy decontrol. It allowed unethical landlords to kick good people out so that they could jack up the rent to whatever the market could withstand. It’s a gigantic loophole where people are losing their housing—people who have raised our families, built our communities.

I speak with folks all the time and they say to me, “What am I supposed to do? Am I supposed to live in my car?” Those seniors have effectively paid for the buildings in which they reside. They deserve our respect. They deserve our protections. This government is seeing fit to remove protections to allow even more unethical people into the playing field. I could go on. I’ve barely even touched all of the issues that happened within the greenbelt.

Everything that’s happened within this sphere, within housing, that we’ve seen over the past number of years have done next to nothing to solve the unaffordability crisis. There are many options which have been presented, which we are happy to work with you on, but I can tell you when the government is only looking at the top tier of the people who have the most money expecting that money to trickle down expecting that affordability to trickle down—that simply isn’t going to happen. We have to prepare for years and decades down the line. We have to make sure that our policy is sound, that our policy is thoughtful that unintended consequences aren’t going to get in the way.

I also want to ask: Will this definition that they’ve provided of affordable housing be extended to areas other than exempting development charges, such as social assistance recipients or RGI funding calculations? I too also wonder is this going to be a loophole for this government’s developer buddies. We see that they’re focused on speculators. They’re just focused on their insiders. Is that allowing them to make their billions back after the greenbelt scam was discovered? It’s a question that is on the top of mind of all the folks I speak with in my riding.

People saw what this government did, despite all the distraction, despite trying to shield themselves, pretending it was about housing. Everybody knows this was never about housing. This was about the shifting of public money into a few peoples’ hands. This was about corruption at the highest levels—

It’s my great honour to rise today to add the voices of the wonderful people of London North Centre on what is possibly one of the most important topics of our time, which is housing.

Today, we are discussing and debating Bill 134, An Act to amend the Development Charges Act, 1997 and the St. Thomas-Central Elgin Boundary Adjustment Act, 2023. This bill is very light on details. Just to take a look at the two schedules that comprise this bill, they talk about the definitions of affordable or attainable homes, and they also talk about the adjustments to the St. Thomas-Central Elgin boundary adjustment—an adjustment, I might add, was one that the NDP was proud to support. We helped expedite that adjustment to make sure that we were able to land the historic investment of the Volkswagen plant in St. Thomas.

Housing is something that every single constituent of mine discusses with me at every event I go to. I speak with seniors who are looking to downsize, who are concerned because they simply can’t maintain that bigger home. There are also people in the mid-ranges who have adult children who can’t move out or may never realize the dream of home ownership.

It’s really shocking when we see the policy changes that have been enacted by this government and governments previous which have resulted in this unaffordability crisis. You see, housing is foundational. Housing is fundamental. Housing is health care, when you look at it in a more broad sense. Unfortunately, because of policy changes over the last 30 years, we’ve seen that housing has become more of a commodity rather than what it is, which is a human good, a necessity.

If you take a look at both Liberal and Conservative housing policies, they centre around developers. They have this focus on this trickle-down economic situation, where they expect that if they create a policy environment to enable the creation of housing, somehow that will result in affordability. But 30 years after those policies have been enacted, we see that they are utterly wrong.

This bill is an opportunity, and I would say that, though the NDP, the official opposition, will be supporting this bill, it unfortunately misses the moment. I have to wonder, with a bill that is comprised of two very brief schedules, if this legislation actually serves the purpose of the magician trying to distract the people of Ontario. What is happening in both hands? You see, we have the greenbelt grift. We have this handout to land speculators. We’ve seen so much corruption and scandal embroiling this government that this legislation seems to be something where they’re trying to put out a good news story and distract from what is actually going on.

It’s no wonder, Speaker, that they will interrupt all the members on the official opposition side when we dare talk about the greenbelt in relation to this legislation, because they don’t want anyone to know. They don’t want anyone to pay attention. They certainly don’t want anyone to investigate, otherwise they would obviously have co-operated more fully with the Integrity Commissioner. We would have ministers that actually told the legitimate and honest truth, and we would see a government that actually would pass the official opposition’s motion to strike a special committee—

Interjection: Select.

The NDP, the official opposition, has always been and will always be the party of housing. Back during the 1990s, the NDP government built the most significant amount of affordable housing, supportive housing, co-op housing of any government of its kind, and much of that still exists to this day, despite the reckless and destructive cuts of the government that came after them with the Mike Harris government. They cancelled so many projects, so many co-op housing projects, in the tens of thousands. But this government, unfortunately, isn’t really looking after people; they’re looking after developers.

It’s also unfortunate because I think this results in the weakening of peoples’ faith in our elected representatives, because this government has tried to cloak their greenbelt grift with the shield of housing. They’ve tried to hide behind this defence, pretending as though this unbridled corruption crisis was something other than what it was, which was about rewarding insiders. It was about making sure that a few people were turned from millionaires into billionaires, but instead, this government would pretend that it was about housing.

I wanted to first look at an analysis of this government’s cousin, their federal leader, Pierre Poilievre, and his discussion of housing, because I think we see resonance with this government and their principles. This was posted; it says how Poilievre blames city regulations and red tape that are causing the housing crisis. He said that these inflate the cost of housing, and his entire plan is to force or encourage cities to remove them. We see much resonance with that and this government stepping all over municipal partners, overriding their authority, really insulting them, pretending as though they’re sitting on all of this unspent money when it’s this government that has a $22-billion slush fund that they’re sitting on. However, they would like to point the finger at somebody else—again, changing the channel and trying to distract.

This analysis goes on to say that the red tape is “a way of speaking to the needs of ‘ordinary’ Canadians, while advancing the interest of the party’s corporate backers. The existing capitalist provision of housing in Canada need not be changed in any way. We just need to cut government waste.”

So it’s interesting when you take a look at this government and their discussion of housing because we always see such focus on red tape. It’s like they’re trying to change the target. They’re trying to change the channel. They don’t want people paying attention to what they’re actually doing; they would rather point the finger at somebody else.

If we look at the historical provision or the responsibility for housing, back in 1995, the Conservatives cut the provincial housing program and the Liberals cut the National Housing Strategy. As a result, we have a crisis that has been created by government cuts, by government neglect, by governments not doing and not abiding by their historic responsibilities.

You see, back in the 1990s, governments began to rely on the for-profit model and our for-profit market to deliver housing and, unfortunately, that has been something that has not provided what Ontarians need. We also see that pension funds, REITs and so many more have realized that they can commodify or reap enormous profits off housing, and this government has done nothing to stop them. We’ve seen some tinkering around the edges. We’ve seen increases on the non-resident speculation tax, but there are giant loopholes you could drive a truck through with those.

It’s also really interesting, when you take a look at recent history, because this government has had a flurry of bills, they’ve had a ministerial shuffle, they have really tried to distract from what is actually going on here, which has been a corruption crisis, despite them masking it with housing. We have to ask the question: Which is more important: people or profit? Clearly, there’s a division down the middle of this chamber, because on this side of the chamber, we believe that people are more important than profit. Yet, with this government, we see them rewarding millionaire friends, turning them into billionaires. We see corporate tax cuts. We see all of these incentives that are given to people who don’t need our assistance.

I have to think about a really interesting quotation I read just recently. This individual said that, really, if you are a person of faith, if you believe in some sort of “Almighty,” that our responsibility here is to look after the little people and make sure they’re being protected from the big people. But we see a reverse of that with this government—entirely, entirely opposite.

As we look at this legislation in question, there are some interesting points to it. There is the definition of affordability based on income instead of the market. It’s an incremental improvement; it’s not perfect. It’s somewhat better than the status quo, but there’s still so much more this government could do to actually create that housing. This government talks a lot about creating housing, but they are actually taking a back seat. They are really not taking responsibility; they’re leaving that up to other people. They really don’t want to be in the driver’s seat. I don’t know—maybe they don’t want to be responsible, maybe they’re afraid, maybe they’re just afraid to get their hands dirty. I’m not sure what it is, but they’re not building the housing.

Now, we also, on this side of the House, want to look at the housing crisis from every angle. There is not one silver bullet to tackle the housing affordability crisis, so we also need to look at people on all parts of the spectrum of housing. That would include real rent control. It’s shocking to think that, this government, during the throes of a housing affordability crisis, that the Premier and this government in 2018 would remove rent control from all new buildings. They will pat themselves on the back, Speaker. They will tell themselves, “Look at all the new housing starts.” But what they don’t admit is that none of these are affordable, and that they’ve created a system of exploitation whereby people are stuck.

People have finished year-long leases—I’ve talked with so many folks who were not informed that the government did not have their back. They were not informed that the government did not care about their safety. They were not informed that the government didn’t want to provide them with protections, so after that year-long lease, their rent skyrocketed. It’s unconscionable that, in the midst of a housing crisis, this government would take away things away from people.

Now, we take a look at some of the other distractions in terms of housing that this government has created. We have Bill 23, and Bill 23 was a direct attack on municipalities removing development charges, again, rewarding the people who didn’t need further reward—those developers, those speculators, those people who are already wealthy—while removing protections from people who were hardly protected in the first place. I believe the Association of Municipalities of Ontario have estimated that with Bill 23 the impact will be in the neighbourhood of—what is it, $5 billion?

Thumb drives.

It is my honour to present the following petition entitled “Expand Ontario Seniors Dental Plan.” It reads:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas seniors have to access the Ontario seniors dental plan through local public health units;

“Whereas the number of dentists registered with public health units to be covered under the Ontario seniors dental plan is low in northern Ontario;

“Whereas the small number of dentists registered with the Ontario seniors dental plan limits the capacity of public health units to serve their patients...; and

“Whereas the income threshold for seniors to be eligible for the Ontario seniors dental plan is unreasonably low—an annual net income of $22,200 or less for a single senior; a combined annual net income of $37,100 or less for a couple—thus creating a huge barrier for low-income seniors to access dental care;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“—to invest in community health centres, aboriginal health access centres, and public health units to build and expand dental suites and to hire more dentists; and

“—to facilitate the implementation of the federal dental health care plan, which covers all seniors with income lower than $75,000, when it becomes law.”

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

Good morning, Speaker. My question is to the Premier.

Speaker, the details just don’t add up on the former minister’s trip to Vegas with a greenbelt speculator. The member for Mississauga East–Cooksville, Mr. Massoudi and Mr. Truesdell all suspiciously and consistently told the Integrity Commissioner that their trip was in 2019 when it actually occurred months later. The former minister said he only saw the developer in the lobby. Now it’s reported that they got spa services at the same time.

Would the Premier agree, as a generally accepted practice, that members of the Ontario Legislature shall present only honest and true information to the Integrity Commissioner?

Back to the Premier: When we’re elected to this Legislature, we all take an oath; we pledge that we will all perform our duties honestly. Key members of the Premier’s staff and a former cabinet minister all mistakenly misremembered the date of a luxurious trip to Vegas consistently, can’t recall exactly how they paid for the trip and don’t mention the good-luck massage. What’s worse, their story was only corrected when the media reported evidence to the contrary.

How can we trust this Premier to hold members accountable for violating the Members’ Integrity Act when he himself won’t follow the recommendations of officers of the Legislature?

It’s an honour for me to rise today and to be the official opposition voice in support of the member from Scarborough Centre’s important legislation.

Here on the official opposition side of the House, we look forward to working together to help make sure that we are strengthening the trades. The trades are vital to the economic prosperity as well as the future of Ontario.

Right now, we’re facing such a dramatic shortage of tradespeople and that is something that is tremendously concerning. When we take a look at this, it’s not something that has suddenly appeared within Ontario. It’s something that we have been facing for quite some time. In fact, if we look at statistics, Speaker, the average age of an apprentice right now is 28, but further to that, nearly one in three tradespeople are 55 years of age or older. That means a great deal of talent, a great deal of knowledge and a great deal of expertise is soon going to be lost. We need to make sure that we’re getting young people into these trades to not only make up those positions that we are losing, but also to further buttress the system by adding yet more.

There’s a lot of work that we need to do within this chamber through legislation to make sure that we are achieving these goals. We support a skilled trades week, but we also want to make sure that this government is proactively looking towards the measures that would help to create and sustain these jobs and further employment within these sectors—one of which would be further investments in unionized training centres, because, as we know, these are the experts in the field. These are the people who know what to do and nobody trains people better than tradespeople themselves. Can we agree?

Interjection: Yes

But further, we need to take a look at the skills pipeline. We need to look towards our young people. How are we capturing the interest, the attention, and the career paths of young people? That is the question. We can’t expect people to come to this on their own. We have to make sure that we are giving them that as an option for a pathway.

I’ll never forget that—you know, I was lucky enough to grow up at a time, Speaker, when we still had a shop class in our elementary school. So in grade 7 and grade 8, we were able to work with our hands. We were able to build things. We were able to learn basic joinery. There were a great number of different machines that I got to work on, with supervision, and it was amazing. It was something that I wish that every student in Ontario still had to this day. It gave you wonderful skills that go on for a lifetime.

Now, there were two problems. When you first entered high school, you had to choose a path almost straight away, so people either went into the arts curriculum—so you either went into visual arts or music—or you went into a trades-based profession. There weren’t that many options, unfortunately, and that is a shame. That exposure was very good; I was very thankful for it. But it also became very limited.

Unfortunately, also in the 1990s, Speaker, it was a Conservative government that ripped all of those shop classes out of elementary schools. It was so incredibly wasteful and so incredibly detrimental to the future of so many students within Ontario. We hear so many times—a consequence of that, as well, was a Liberal government that chased hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs out of this province. We have that timeline and it’s unfortunate, so we need to fix that.

We need further investments in education, making sure students have those opportunities within elementary school as well as secondary school. But also, we need to think about how we can incorporate experiential learning activities for students to give them that opportunity to see what the trades are all about.

There are different engagements. Even from grade 1, within the curriculum there is the community helpers. I was proud, as a former educator, to involve many different folks, whether it was police, sanitation workers—they would bring a garbage truck—there would be an ambulance and tradespeople, and it was fascinating to see these kids just absolutely light up when they get to see what these professions are and what they could possibly do. We also need to make sure that guidance counsellors and educators are familiar with these trades and these paths to make sure that they can actually deliver the information to kids so that they know how to build their skills.

But also, trades are not simply good-paying jobs. Trades are a really viable career for possibly the rest of your life. I remember going to high school with a friend of mine by the name of Jon and I remember he, very early, or towards the end of his high school career, went into plumbing and he was able to take that at H. B. Beal Secondary School. I remember some ignorant friends of his who sort of made fun of him at the time. That guy bought the house first. That guy got to have his own business. That guy, who knows, maybe he’s retired by now. I don’t know, Speaker, but it was an excellent job which he was great at.

But also, we need to make sure we’re attracting more women into the trades. Recently—within the last couple of years—I remember running into a former student of mine by the name of Abby. I ran into her with her mother. They were in Victoria Park when I was visiting Sunfest and Abby came right up to me and said, “Do you remember me?” because I taught her when she was very little—great student, very quiet girl—and she was so thrilled to tell me that she completed cabinetry and woodworking at Fanshawe College. She lit right up, and I’ve got to say, Speaker, I was completely jealous because I would love to have those skills of woodworking and joinery and being able to make with your hands because those are fundamental skills that are absolutely amazing. But just seeing the light in her eyes, I thought, “This is phenomenal.”

During the most recent election, I was canvassing and ran into a former student. Now, I had mostly taught his sister Caroline and I never actually had too many direct teaching experiences with him because I was a teacher-librarian, but Kurtis was a little disengaged, unfortunately. He was a bright kid—a smart kid—but he never really found his passion within elementary school. I always wonder about former students: What are they doing now? Are they okay? Did they find something that sang to their heart? And I ran into him, and he had completed his electrician apprenticeship and he was so proud of himself. He was earning fantastic money; he’d found something that spoke to him, and it just made me so happy to know that he had found something that was a viable career for the rest of his life. So congratulations to Kurtis.

Here on the opposition side, we have many people among our ranks who are tradespeople. Our MPP from Sudbury, our labour critic, is an apprentice. His dad was a millwright, and his father-in-law is an electrician. Our MPP from Mushkegowuk–James Bay is a millwright, and his son is an electrician. My seatmate, the MPP from Waterloo—her son is an electrician as well.

So these are really important things.

Unfortunately, the trades have been given short shift for a number of years, by educational disinvestment, by not providing the correct information to young people about how viable this is as a well-paying career.

I also wanted to make sure that this government has on the record some recommendations that they could also help workers with within the trades.

We want to make sure, as well, that we have things like paid sick days—fixing the WSIB system that leaves so many workers on ODSP, especially those within the skilled trades.

We also have, within the WSIB system, a system that caps the wages of skilled trades workers and can sometimes force them back to work while they are still hurt. This is incredibly dangerous, because unfortunately many of them will self-medicate. They will look to ease and dull the pain any way that they can, because they know they’re being forced to work. We need further addiction support so that people aren’t falling into that trap.

Also, we could see legislation pass to stop the use of scab workers.

These are all measures that the government could employ, as well.

So here on the opposition side, we are very happy to support a skilled trades week. It’s something that I think will help to provide that information to young people. But let’s also see some backup material. Let’s see further investments in education. Let’s see those shop classes returning to elementary school. Let’s see education workers given the correct information about how to engage students on this as a career path, and we will see these numbers—the average age being 28, or so many people aging out of this—change.

I look forward to supporting this government in these aims, because I believe it is something that is incumbent upon all of us. We are providing people with a fantastic future, showing them that they can do wonderful things. They can own their own business and really enjoy a life of security, a life that is fulfilling and rewarding.

I’d like to thank the member from Humber River–Black Creek for his presentation today. Earlier, I discussed the cancellation—or the breaking of the promise that the Conservative government made, not delivering on the $160 million they promised to London to expand GO Transit.

But I wanted to share a quote with the member and gather their thoughts. This is from the Western University newspaper, the Gazette:

“As someone who has lived in the GTA my whole life and loved the GO train commute, I was disappointed when I recently took a trip from London to Toronto on their new route....

“The route has one direct trip from London to Toronto at the crack of dawn—5:14 a.m. to be exact—ending at 9:13 a.m., and one return trip leaving at 4:19 p.m. and reaching London at 8:19 p.m. These timings are not convenient for Western students—or really anyone....

“Limiting the train to weekday service means there are no trips on Saturday or Sunday when students travel most....

“Students want to know if they miss one train, they’re not stuck and that there’s going to be another trip in a couple of hours....”

My question to the member: Do you think this is an example of what should be a successful pilot program? And would you visit London, Ontario, if you knew it was going to be an eight-hour round trip?

I would like to thank the member from Toronto Centre for her presentation today. Earlier in the chamber, I have been talking about the cancellation of GO service to the London area. My constituents have reached out to me and said that it was a plan that was set up to fail from the start. It was an eight-hour round trip from London to Toronto and many have called it a half-baked plan.

My question to the member, though: In terms of what’s missing from this bill, would the member like to see Metrolinx be made more accountable and more transparent to the public, and would the member like to see increased municipal participation on Metrolinx boards?

I’d like to thank the member from Parkdale–High Park for her comments. The member stated that the government doesn’t know how to build and doesn’t know how to deliver on transit and cited the really infamous Eglinton Crosstown fiasco. What we’ve seen from this government is a disturbing ideological reliance on expensive, wasteful P3 contracts and very little respect for public dollars. It’s as though the government wants to take a back seat while others do the driving. They’re continuing this party with public money.

In the bill itself, though, it says that they are doing this to “support the creation of local and regional transit connections.” “Regional transit connections” shows up once. “Rural” doesn’t even show in up this bill. Does the member from Parkdale–High Park think that this plan will support regional models outside of the GTA such as in southwestern Ontario?

I’d like to thank the member from Richmond Hill for her comments. Yesterday, I asked the Minister of Infrastructure about the broken promise that the Conservative government made prior to the 2022 election about the additional $160 million to improve the GO Transit service to London and area at the heart of southwestern Ontario, and I just wanted to reiterate for the member that that broken promise lets down so many rural communities in southwestern Ontario who need a regional transit model, not just the GTA.

I speak with many great farmers in the London area who can’t get workers into the good-paying jobs that are there waiting for them. Some businesses have even resorted to hiring their own bus to get people to work. Areas like Sarnia–Lambton, areas like Perth and many more can’t get the people there and they have to do it on their own because the government has let down rural Ontario.

My question: When will this government stop neglecting rural Ontario and invest in regional transit that meets the needs of southwestern Ontario and meets the needs of Ontario’s wonderful farmers and agri-foods industry?

It’s my honour to present the following petition, entitled “Health Care: Not for Sale.” It reads:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Ontarians should get health care based on need—not the size of your wallet;

“Whereas Premier Doug Ford and Health Minister Sylvia Jones say they’re planning to privatize parts of health care;

“Whereas privatization will bleed nurses, doctors and PSWs out of our public hospitals, making the health care crisis worse;

“Whereas privatization always ends with patients getting a bill;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately stop all plans to privatize Ontario’s health care system, and fix the crisis in health care by:

“—repealing Bill 124 and recruiting, retaining, and respecting doctors, nurses and PSWs with better working conditions;

“—licensing tens of thousands of internationally educated nurses and other health care professionals already in Ontario, who wait years and pay thousands to have their credentials certified;

“—10 employer-paid sick days;

“—making education and training free or low-cost for nurses, doctors, and other health care professionals;

“—incentivizing doctors and nurses to choose to live and work in northern Ontario;

“—funding hospitals to have enough nurses on every shift, on every ward.”

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

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas London shelters are running at over 100% capacity on a daily basis while vacancy rates hover around 1%;

“Whereas there are almost 2,000 people on the city’s homeless registry, and more than 300 Londoners are experiencing chronic homelessness;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act on ... effective solutions to London’s homeless crisis:

“—immediately release $20 million in emergency funds to London’s homelessness prevention system, including shelters, as well as mental health care and harm reduction providers for vita wraparound supports; and

“—work collaboratively with city officials to create and fund affordable and supportive housing for people in crisis and ensure they remain housed with the supports they require.”

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on September 27, 2023, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 131, An Act to enact the GO Transit Station Funding Act, 2023 and to amend the City of Toronto Act, 2006 / Projet de loi 131, Loi édictant la Loi de 2023 sur le financement des stations du réseau GO et modifiant la Loi de 2006 sur la cité de Toronto.