Nothing to see here. You could make a decision that benefits four million Ontarians, or you could make a decision that benefits Enbridge, especially when your chief of staff is talking to you every single day and used to work Enbridge and now works for you—very interesting; no conflict of interest whatsoever there.

The minister’s decision will shift those upfront costs onto existing gas consumers, forcing them to pay over $1 billion in additional costs over four years, costs that the Ontario Energy Board believes they should not have to pay.

So it’s very interesting. There must be some people in the Ontario government, the Conservative government, right now who don’t like this bill. Some of you must not like this bill. You must be getting some calls from some of your constituents who are like, “You want me to pay even more for energy than I’m currently paying?” I bet you’re getting calls. And when they find out and their energy bills go up, you’re going to be getting more calls; I know it.

There are other ways in which Bill 165 would allow the Ontario government to force gas consumers to pay costs that the Ontario Energy Board would otherwise disallow. Currently, no one may construct a new gas pipeline in Ontario unless the Ontario Energy Board determines this expenditure is in the public interest and grants leave to construct. That makes sense. You just don’t want Enbridge deciding where to build gas without there being an independent regulator deciding that it’s in the public interest. That makes a lot of sense.

This rule seeks to ensure that expenditures are properly scrutinized so gas customers are not forced to pay for costly and uneconomical projects. By allowing politicians to decide whether or not a gas pipeline is in the public interest, instead of an independent regulator, there is a risk of politicizing the energy planning process and forcing consumers to pay for costly, lobbyist-driven projects they do not benefit from.

The former Liberal government did this with electricity system planning, and hydro bills skyrocketed. With Bill 165, it looks like it’s heading down the same trajectory as what we have seen with the previous government. We are very concerned that this would allow the government to do the same thing with the natural gas system.

The provision allowing the minister to bypass the hearing for a gas pipeline or overturn a refusal where the OEB deemed a project not in the public interest may be related to Enbridge’s Panhandle Regional Expansion Project in southwestern Ontario. The government might be claiming that Bill 165 is necessary for these economic priorities to proceed, but we don’t think that this is the case.

Another thing that this bill does is it establishes the concept of a generic hearing on matters affecting multiple stakeholders. The minister, with the LG in C’s approval—that’s the government—may direct the Ontario Energy Board to hold a generic hearing, including on matters that are the subject of an ongoing Ontario Energy Board proceeding.

This bill would also allow the government to prescribe additional persons who shall or may be represented during certain Ontario Energy Board proceedings—not just consumers, generators, distributors, or transmitters etc. For example, developers and the IESO have reportedly asked to participate in Enbridge’s ongoing rate application.

In essence, overall, I have a lot of concerns with this bill. I have concerns with this bill because it is not going to be keeping energy costs down; it’s going to be driving energy costs up. And this government should take note, because the previous Liberal government—one of the main reasons why they lost their election in 2018 was because of energy prices and energy decisions and people no longer having faith that decisions around electricity and energy were being made in the best interests of Ontarians.

You would hope that this government would not want to head down the same path, and I fear that Bill 165 is doing that. Because how we read it is, it looks like this bill benefits Enbridge, and it doesn’t benefit the four million consumers who are going to see their energy bills go up and they’re not going to get any direct benefit.

And what also concerns me is that the decision to further invest in gas infrastructure at a time when countries, provinces and states all around the world are moving to a different energy mix means that we could be locking ourselves into stranded assets that are no longer useful within a very short period of time.

We already have ways to generate energy and heat and cool people’s homes that don’t require gas. Heat pumps are a very cost-effective source of heating and cooling that many countries across Europe and provinces across Canada are adopting. We have alternatives that we should be investing in that are better for the environment, are better for consumers and are better for Ontario. I would much prefer to be debating a bill about that than a bill that is going to lock us into fossil fuels in and is going to lock us into assets which, if we’re heading in right direction, are not going to be needed. They’re just not going to be needed.

Thank you so much for your time.

Just before Christmas, the Ontario Energy Board issued an important decision affecting the gas bills of nearly four million Ontarians. The Ontario Energy Board ordered natural gas distributor Enbridge Gas to bear the costs of expanding its gas infrastructure, rather than imposing the costs on you and me. This is at a time when Ontario is moving away from fossil fuels. Any plan to expand natural gas infrastructure carries enormous risks, not just to the environment but also to our bills. So the OEB, the Ontario Energy Board, did the right thing and decided that Enbridge’s proposal was not in the interests of consumers.

How did the Conservatives respond? Well, the Conservatives responded with this bill, which is called the Keeping Energy Costs Down Act but really should be called the “hike your energy bills act.” That is what it really should be called. That’s the bill that we’re debating today. This bill reverses the OEB’s decision and will continue to permit Enbridge to hike energy bills and make life more expensive for everybody. In essence, this energy bill is bad for new home owners, it is bad for existing gas customers and it is bad for the environment. The only people who benefit from this bill are Enbridge Gas. They are the only people who benefit from this bill.

Right now, your gas bill includes a charge worth hundreds of millions of dollars each year to cover Enbridge’s cost of expanding gas pipelines into new developments. On December 21, the Ontario independent energy regulator decided to put a stop to this subsidy, because it raises energy bills for existing gas customers and new home buyers, while also increasing financial risks for the whole gas system.

Ending this subsidy would save gas customers more than $1 billion over four years in avoided pipeline subsidy costs, which comes to more than $300 per customer. Ending this subsidy would also encourage developers to install heat pumps in new homes, which provide much cheaper heating and cooling, instead of gas. Ending this subsidy, in essence, would be win-win-win: It would lower energy bills for existing customers, it would lower energy bills for new home buyers, it would lower carbon emissions and it would avoid even more costs down the road when homes heated with natural gas inevitably convert to heat pumps.

There is, however, one loser: Enbridge Gas. Enbridge Gas stands to lose millions of dollars in profits. It is lobbying hard against the energy board decision and it has clearly been successful in doing that. Investing in gas pipelines in 2024 for heating is financially foolish, because they will become obsolete and a massive cost to all current and future customers as we move away from gas heating.

The Ontario Energy Board has made the right decision, based on evidence, to lower your energy bills. This government is choosing to take us on a terrible course. It’s making the wrong decision, based on backroom lobbying, in order to raise your energy bills to benefit Enbridge and nobody else.

We have seen this government bend under public pressure and reverse decisions like opening parts of the greenbelt for development. I believe it is time to do that again. I encourage you to contact your local MPP, and urge them to do the right thing for affordability and vote against this bill.

I’m now going to go and explain a little bit more about the bill in detail. In essence, this bill amends the Ontario Energy Board Act to allow the government to prescribe a revenue horizon, i.e., the number of years of presumed revenue used when assessing a natural gas rate application. The prescribed revenue horizon is used for determining (a) the economic feasibility of a proposed capital investment—for example, whether the costs can be reasonably recovered within the revenue horizon; or (b) a contribution in aid of construction.

The government says it will set a revenue horizon of 40 years, extending well past 2050, which is Canada’s target date for achieving net-zero carbon emissions. I don’t know why this government would want to give a subsidy to Enbridge to invest in infrastructure when, based on what the Canadian government is doing, this infrastructure is going to be a stranded asset because we’re moving to different energy sources. It doesn’t make any sense at all.

There are other things that people have raised, that stakeholders have raised about this bill and I’m going to read them now. Let’s start with what the Ontario Energy Board had to say about this. In its recent report, Ontario’s energy transition panel made recommendations that seem inconsistent with Bill 165. It says:

“The Ontario Energy Board should employ all tools within its existing mandate to implement activities consistent with Ontario’s goals for a clean energy economy and the requirements of the energy transition for Ontario....

“The Ontario Energy Board should conduct reviews of cost allocation and recovery policies for natural gas and electricity connections, as well as natural gas infrastructure investment evaluations to protect customers and facilitate development of the clean energy economy.”

That’s the Ontario Energy Board saying that we need to transition to clean energy, and this government is doing the exact opposite of this by asking customers to subsidize Enbridge’s gas expansion activities in infrastructure.

This is what ResCon had to say. This is Richard Lyall. He argues that the Ontario Energy Board decision will drive up home prices. He also failed to acknowledge the stark reality that Ontario is not yet prepared for electrification and must remain dependent on natural gas for some time longer. That’s the home building industry.

Then we have Ian Mondrow, an energy and policy expert at Gowling. He wrote, “Minister Smith would be well advised to consider the wisdom of the energy panel’s recommendation and leave the matter of further consideration of new energy connection cost-recovery policies with the Ontario Energy Board.”

In essence, what he’s saying is why is the government meddling in independent decisions that are made by electricity experts to the benefit of customers and to the benefit of the entire electricity grid?

“Leaving this in the hands of the independent regulator would maintain transparency, consistency, public accountability and a thoughtful and reasoned balancing of interests. That, after all, is the reason for an independent energy regulator”—makes sense.

This is what Adam Fremeth and Brandon Schaufele from the Ivey Energy Policy and Management Centre had to say: “Overriding an independent economic regulator is a big deal”—it’s a big deal. “It is not something to be done lightly. The government’s decision explicitly undermines the Ontario Energy Board and threatens credibility of future energy investment in the province. Moreover, it’s not obvious that this move is in Enbridge’s long-term interests. Once a precedent to effectively overrule the regulator is established, there’s little to stop future governments from using the tactic to different ends, perhaps against natural gas infrastructure.”

This is what Environmental Defence had to say: “This legislation would be bad for new home owners, bad for existing gas customers, and bad for the environment. The only one that benefits is Enbridge gas.”

This is what Richard Carlson, the energy director at Pollution Probe had to say: “The Ontario Energy Board was clear, correctly in my opinion, that the energy transition is under way and there’s uncertainty about the future of natural gas use in the province.”

Also: “As far as I know, the government has never intervened this directly in trying to alter an OEB regulatory decision, and that should be concerning to everyone.”

There’s a lot of people in Ontario who work in the electricity industry who are pretty concerned about what this government is doing. They’re concerned about the meddling in an independent decision. They’re also concerned about this government’s move to side with Enbridge over the costs of gas prices and energy prices in Ontario. It’s pretty concerning.

Now, I’m going to go a little bit into the details of the bill and provide some further analysis. As I mentioned, this bill is in response to a December 21, 2023, decision and order by the Ontario Energy Board with respect to Enbridge Gas’s ongoing 2024-28 rate-setting proceedings. The Ontario Energy Board set some of the principles governing who should pay what during the transition from fossil fuel heating to net-zero sources. Currently, existing gas consumers absorb the capital costs of new natural gas connections based on the premise that these costs will be recovered from the new customer over the subsequent 40 years. Since Canada has mandated a phase-down of natural gas heating to reach carbon net zero by 2050, the Ontario Energy Board determined that it was too risky for existing consumers to front the costs of new gas connections that might become stranded assets. It ordered Enbridge to reduce its revenue horizon from 40 years to zero, meaning that new gas customers or developers making the choice on behalf of a future new home buyer would need to pay for their own gas connection up front if they chose to install gas. It almost gives you less choice instead of more choice.

The Ontario Energy Board noted that reducing the revenue horizon would not only reduce costs and risks for existing gas consumers; it would make the cost of natural gas connections visible to developers and new home buyers who might be better served by choosing an electric heat pump, whose lifetime operational costs are lower than that of a gas furnace. We have been proposing to the Ontario government that they move forward with bringing in the heat pump option for a low cost or no cost to consumers so that we can transition away from fossil fuel use into a cleaner energy system. It is what other provinces are doing, and it is what we should be doing here in Ontario as well.

Either way, the Ontario Energy Board decision ensures that the cost of installing a new gas connection would be paid by those who benefit from that choice and not by other consumers who don’t benefit. That makes a lot of sense to me.

The next day, the Minister of Energy, probably under some heavy lobbying by Enbridge, announced that he would overturn the Ontario Energy Board decision, arguing that it would drive up cost of new homes by an average of $4,400 per gas connection where the developer has chosen natural gas heating.

Let’s also point out the Minister of Energy’s chief of staff is a former lobbyist for Enbridge. It’s useful to point that out. Nothing weird happening there, no backroom deals happening there—

Interjection: Nothing to see here.

Thank you very much for that question.

We have been very clear that we are very much in support of increasing housing supply and meeting our 1.5 million housing target by 2031. But what we are also very clear about is that it is not just about increasing supply; it’s also about addressing affordability. They’re related, but one doesn’t automatically solve the other, which is why we are proposing a comprehensive approach where we build homes for Ontarians first and not investors; we clamp down on investor-led speculation; we make renting safe and affordable so people can save up enough for a down payment to buy a home—I don’t know anyone who can save up a down payment, paying $3,000 a month in rent—and we get serious about building affordable housing.

There’s very little in this bill that looks at creating housing and meeting the housing needs for people who are in a really tough spot. Maybe they are on a fixed income. Maybe they are fleeing an abusive relationship. Maybe they’ve just moved to Canada and they don’t know the laws and they moved into a housing situation that’s really not good. There’s very little in this bill for that.

The Conservatives have done a few things that concern me, around making housing affordable for people who are struggling. The government has decided to cut funding to municipalities and housing, which means there’s less funding available for shelters. The government also decided to cut funding to the rent top-up program. So if someone wants to find a rental home and get a top-up from the government so that they can afford the rent, rebuild their lives, have a home, move into the private market, get that little bit of help—that’s also being cut. It’s those kinds of programs that we need to really help people who are struggling.

Not once in my entire time in office has a resident called me up and said Toronto is in desperate need of an expensive and exclusive spa. Yet this government is moving ahead with signing a secret 95-year deal with an Austrian company to turn Ontario Place into an expensive mega-spa with a massive underground carpark that taxpayers are paying for.

Now, I hear the minister opposite say that no one is going there: “I drive by it frequently, and it’s not enjoyed.” The million people who visit Ontario Place do not see it that way, Minister.

Ontario Place is a park where people can go outside, visit friends, feel the breeze of Lake Ontario, play with kids, walk our dogs, enjoy the sunset for free in a part of the city where most people don’t have a backyard. They live in condos and apartments, and Ontario Place has become their oasis.

I see people being so angry about this issue because it touches this larger core, which is that this government is making sweetheart backroom deals with foreign companies that leave Ontarians worse off, and that is a real issue here. I believe Ontario Place should be a place for everyone to enjoy, a revitalized public park that families, young people, seniors and residents can enjoy.

I want to say thank you to all the residents who are organizing on this issue, including Ontario Place for All. We are on your side.

My question is to the member for Mississauga–Erin Mills. I noticed in the budget that there is an increase in the amount of funding that is going to be earmarked to for-profit health facilities. I am concerned about this because I am seeing what’s happening in Ottawa, and I’m seeing planned cancer blitzes, cancer surgeries for people who are in life-threatening conditions—many of them are—being cancelled because there’s not enough nursing staff available because they’re working for the for-profit clinic that operates on the weekend and can pay nurses more.

What commitments is this government going to make to ensure that Ontarians get the absolutely life-saving surgery that they need and that it is not threatened by the arrival and expansion of for-profit health clinics?

This bill came at record speed through committee. Record speed—just one day of committee hearings. Just 18 people got to speak. The overwhelming sense we got from committee members, as well as the hundreds of written submissions that came in, was that Bill 39 is a very bad bill. Bill 39 threatens the fundamental tenets of representative democracy, which is that municipalities pass laws using a majority vote. Bill 39 brings in minority rule.

Bill 39 opens up the greenbelt and paves the way for thousands of acres of class 1 farmland to be used for development. It’s important to note that the developers who own the land that is being opened up to development happen to be some of the PC Party’s biggest donors. Collusion or coincidence? It’s the Auditor General’s job and the Integrity Commissioner’s job to find out. Ontarians want to know. A lot of Ontarians have already made up their minds. It looks suspicious.

I want to summarize some of my initial reactions when I heard the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing speak yesterday. He talks about how we need to change the status quo. The government needs to be reminded that you are the status quo. You’ve been in power for over four years. When we’re talking about the cost of housing, it’s this government that is now responsible. When we’re talking about the rise in evictions, it’s this government that’s now responsible. When we’re talking about the escalating rise in home prices beyond what anyone but upper-middle-class and high-income earners can afford, it’s this government that’s now responsible. When we’re talking about the rising cost of rent and now how you need to earn over $108,000 a year in Toronto to find a two-bedroom apartment, it’s this government that’s now responsible for that too. You’re the status quo. The housing affordability crisis? It’s on you. The work that you have done to address the housing affordability crisis hasn’t helped.

I hear a lot of talk about how the government says that the NDP is opposed to building 1.5 million homes. That is simply not true. We put it in our election platform. We’ve been very clear about it. We need 1.5 million homes to meet the needs of current Ontarians and future Ontarians, but more importantly, we need to make sure the homes that we are building are for Ontarians to live in, to raise their children in, to have pets, to retire in. That’s what these homes need to be for. This government is very interested in building homes without thinking about the size of them or who owns them. What we’re seeing in downtown Toronto—and now, all across southern Ontario, actually—is this increase in the number of people who own six homes, eight homes, 100 homes. That’s a concern. This government is not addressing that, nor is this government looking seriously at what kind of homes we’re building. Are they family-sized homes? No. They’re 600-square-foot condos, and they’re McMansions. When you go to the Statistics Canada data, that is what Ontario is building right now.

We proposed targets in Bill 23, saying you need to look at what kind of homes you’re building and give municipalities these targets. No, you weren’t interested in that—no, no, no.

We are “yes” to ending exclusionary zoning. We are “yes” to fast-tracking construction workers. High school students, people coming from elsewhere—we’re “yes” to fast-tracking construction workers. We’re “yes” to increasing density near transit. We’re “yes” to establishing a public builder to ensure we build housing on public land that is affordable for people. We are “yes” to rent control so people can afford their rent each month. We’re “yes” to curbing speculation.

When I think about what else the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing said, honestly, I had a lot of questions. He talked a lot about these provincial facilitators that are going to go to Durham, Halton, Peel, Waterloo, York and Niagara to once again meddle with jurisdiction—the upper-tier municipalities, the lower-tier municipalities—and also to bring strong-mayor powers into those regions as well. That’s what he indicated. Did he consult with these municipalities and with these mayors? Has he communicated with them about what they want? I doubt it, because when I look at what AMO, which represents 444 municipalities across Ontario, they tell us very clearly—they’ve done a survey on strong-mayor powers, and they have found that 77% of mayors and 95% of municipal councillors are opposed to strong-mayor powers. The AMO board is unanimously opposed to Bill 39 and the provisions of minority rule.

Yet the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is talking on and on about how he is—he’s not just going to acknowledge that he’s doing something which is harming democracy; he’s looking at doubling down and bringing it to additional regions. It’s very concerning to hear. You didn’t talk about that before the June election, did you? It’s very concerning to hear.

I wasn’t the only one who was concerned. There are many people who spoke in committee. I want to bring up some of the things that they raised.

Victor Doyle has spoken publicly about this. He is the former senior provincial planner who helped design the greenbelt. He’s devastated at what this government is doing, and his quote: I feel “deceived as a planner and as a citizen,” given that Premier Ford and the housing minister both previously promised to leave the greenbelt alone. That’s the senior provincial planner who helped design the greenbelt.

Then there’s the CCLA. They’re very concerned about this government’s decision to bring in minority rule. They say that no person, no elected representative, no member of a legislative body who supports democracy should support a bill that tries to take apart the democratic fabric of a duly elected representative body. That’s from CCLA—my goodness. This is not a radical group, you guys. That’s what they’re telling you to do, and you’re like, “No, full steam ahead. We’ve got to expand it.” It’s very, very concerning.

It’s not only CCLA that is opposed. It’s former mayors, it’s thousands of citizens, it’s the Anglican Diocese of Toronto, it’s CELA, it’s AMO, it’s Ecology Ottawa, it’s Friends of Kensington Market, it’s Friends of the Golden Horseshoe, it’s the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association, it’s the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, it’s the Toronto and York Regional Labour Council—thousands of people who have contacted you. They’re very concerned about this bill.

I want to bring up what the Ontario Federation of Agriculture said. They note—and many people have noted this to you—that the Housing Affordability Task Force, your own blue-ribbon, hand-picked task force, very developer-heavy, was very clear that you do not need to open up the greenbelt and you do not need to open up new land in order to meet the housing supply crisis. They’re very clear. OFA says this in their submission as well. They go into detail about the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Act specifically because that’s in schedule 2 and that’s the largest chunk of the greenbelt land that’s being opened up for development. They talk about the quality of the land there. They say, “Land within the DRAP consists mostly of class 1 soils—Ontario’s most productive, yet finite, agricultural land.” That’s what you’re doing. It’s very concerning.

I urge you to vote against this bill. I urge you to keep your election promises and keep the greenbelt intact. I urge you to respect the power you have and keep majority rule and ensure that municipalities have majority rule. I also urge you to take a serious look at how you’re looking at addressing the housing affordability crisis. It is not just about increasing the supply that the developers want to build for maximum profit. It’s about affordability, and it’s about ensuring that the homes we build are for Ontarians to live in. Thank you.

My question is to the House leader: If this government was so intent on opening up the greenbelt for further development, why didn’t you tell Ontarians that you were planning on opening up the greenbelt before the election?

My question is back to the Minister of Health.

Elliot’s doctor won’t perform these services without a $20 e-transfer or a yearly subscription fee of $125.

Accessing public health care shouldn’t require e-transfers or credit cards. Those unable to pay could start avoiding their family doctor and wind up in emergency rooms.

What is your plan to ensure Ontarians can get the health care they deserve using only their OHIP card?

I’m proud to rise today to speak to our opposition day motion to ensure that every Ontarian has a safe and affordable home that they can afford, that is their own.

In Ontario today, we have a housing affordability crisis. In Toronto, we have over 10,000 people who are homeless; they’ve got no homes. They’re sleeping on couches. They are living in parks, in encampments. They are trying to access overcrowded shelters that are full most nights, and they have nowhere else to go.

When it comes to the rental market, we are seeing rents that are at record levels. That might be very good for investors, but it is horrible for Ontarians who cannot afford to pay the rent and pay for their bills and pay for food, especially at a time when we have an inflationary crisis that is, in particular, affecting our housing sector and our food sector. It is scary.

We also have a situation where the dream of home ownership has gone up in smoke.

This government has been in power for four years and a bit now. They’ve had four and a half years to address the housing affordability crisis. Have home prices gone up or down? They’ve gone up. Have rental prices gone up or down? They’ve gone up.

There is the classic saying—the Canadian dream—that if you work hard, you will be able to afford a home that you will one day own. In Ontario today, if you work hard, you will be lucky to find an apartment that you can afford to rent. That is how bad it has gotten.

We now have Alberta putting advertisements in the Toronto subway system, encouraging Ontarians to move to a cheaper province and to take their skill set with them. These are teachers, nurses, paramedics, librarians, tradespeople, baggage handlers. They’re leaving. We now have a net exodus of people moving away from Ontario to other provinces, and it is mostly because this province has become too unaffordable. The reason why it has become so unaffordable is because it is too expensive to find a home to rent and it is too expensive to find a home to own. Why would you stay in a city where you can no longer afford or ever afford a down payment? Why would you stay in a city where you now pay more in rent than someone pays in a mortgage if they bought a home 10 or more years ago; today, people who are renting pay more. Why would you stay in a city where you spend 50% of your paycheque paying off an investor’s mortgage and the chance of you having your own mortgage to pay off has gone up in smoke?

That is this government’s legacy and the Liberal government’s legacy. It is not just the federal government’s responsibility. It is the provincial government’s responsibility as well.

What I find so challenging is that this government says, “Yes, we have a housing crisis”—they have a hard time saying the word “affordable,” but they acknowledge that there is a housing crisis, and then they introduce a bill like Bill 23, which outlines their myth of a road map to get us out of this housing affordability crisis. When I look at Bill 23, I am honestly shocked at its impact on renters, on municipal budgets, on affordable housing, on the greenbelt, on the farmland, and I want to go through this with the time that I have.

This government, with Bill 23, is cutting funding to affordable housing. You’re going to make it so that developers do not have to pay their housing services fee of $1,000 per unit, which goes to affordable housing programs and shelters. That’s what Bill 23 does.

This government, with Bill 23, is cutting the definition of affordable housing. So if a developer builds a home that is quasi-affordable, at 80% of market rent or 80% of the sale price, then they get to have their development fees eliminated. But when we look at the definition of affordable, we see that a one-bedroom condo in downtown Toronto for $440,000 is affordable, according to this government. That is not affordable. You need to earn over $130,000 a year for that to be affordable. That is a shame.

This government is doing nothing in Bill 23 to lower rent—nothing. This government is doing nothing to bring in real rent control so renters are protected from eviction and can build their lives because they’re protected from eviction in a community. They’re doing nothing about it. In fact, what they’re doing is making it worse.

With Bill 23, this government is going to make it easier for developers to set their sights on purpose-built rentals and say, “Well, that area is already zoned for height, so we are going to demolish that purpose-built rental and build a luxury condo.” Those renters who used to have the right to return to that building once construction is complete will no longer be able to do that, which means that all these affordable private market rentals that exist in the city of Toronto, in my riding—health care workers live in these buildings; seniors live in these buildings—are gone. And luxury condos that retail for $3,000 a month in rent, if the owner chooses to rent them out, won’t even be protected with rent control.

That’s your idea of achieving housing affordability in Ontario today. Well, it’s not going to achieve its goal. It’s that simple.

We are calling for a better vision, and I’m going to summarize it now.

Yes, we have a housing supply crisis. We need to build 1.5 million homes to meet demand for current Ontarians who are living in their parents’ basements or are living two families to a purpose-built rental because they can’t afford to branch out on their own. Yes, we need to build homes for future Ontarians as well—no question. But we shouldn’t be building 600-square-foot condos and 3,000-square-foot McMansion monster homes, because they’re not affordable or too small. We need to build homes that meet the needs of Ontarians. We need to build homes for the people who intend to buy them and then live in them, so that they can raise children in them, have pets in them, retire in them, but we’re not doing that. This government is more interested in helping developers and speculators than it is in helping everyday Ontarians find the home that they need. That is a shame.

We are calling for measures to bring forward zoning reform.

We are calling for measures to increase the number of people who are working in the trades, through increased immigration and recruiting people from high schools, so we can ramp up construction.

We are calling for government investment in the housing sector by establishing an entity called “Housing Ontario” to build housing at cost—250,000 homes over 10 years. This isn’t pie in the sky. The city of Toronto is already doing it. They have the Housing Now program where they’re building non-market and for-profit homes on public land at cost in order to provide homes for people. Some of them are affordable. Some of them are rentals. Some of them are condos. They’re doing it. Why aren’t we? We have over 6,000 properties available to access where we can build housing. Why aren’t we doing that? We’re not, but we should be.

We need to augment that—because it’s not just about supply; it’s also about affordability—with real rent control on all units, new and old. We need to bring in vacancy control so there’s a cap on how much the rent can be raised once a tenant leaves, because that will provide protection and stability for renters.

We need to build supportive housing and affordable housing, because there are so many people in Ontario who will never be served by the private market. They need the helping hand of government to provide them with a supportive home and an affordable home so they can rebuild their lives and live good lives.

That’s what we are calling for.

I urge you to support this motion, because this is the true path towards addressing our housing affordability crisis so everyone in Ontario can have a safe and affordable home.

I move that, whereas all Ontarians have the right to adequate housing; and

Whereas to ensure an adequate supply of housing, Ontario must build 1.5 million new market and non-market homes over the next decade; and

Whereas the for-profit private market by itself will not, and cannot, deliver enough homes that are affordable and meet the needs of Ontarians of all incomes, ages, family sizes, abilities and cultures; and

Whereas the housing policies of successive PC and Liberal provincial governments have relied almost entirely on the for-profit private market to deliver new housing; and

Whereas these housing policies have focused on delivering profits for investors, rather than homes for people, and thus have failed to ensure that newly built homes are actually affordable and meet the needs of all Ontarians; and

Whereas these housing policies have failed to end exclusionary zoning, and have blocked access to affordable and adequate housing options in the neighbourhoods where people want to live; and

Whereas these policies have encouraged more speculative and market bubbles, and have driven up the costs of housing beyond the reach of ordinary Ontarians; and

Whereas these failed housing policies have put tenants at increased risk of rent gouging, eviction and displacement, and have threatened the inclusivity and vibrancy of growing neighbourhoods; and

Whereas these failed housing policies will sacrifice more irreplaceable farmland, natural heritage and greenbelt lands to costly and unsustainable urban sprawl, putting Ontario’s food security at risk;

Therefore, the Legislative Assembly calls on the Ontario government to implement a comprehensive housing plan that ensures the right of all Ontarians to adequate housing, including ending exclusionary zoning and enabling access to affordable and adequate housing options in all neighbourhoods; stabilizing housing markets and stopping harmful speculation; establishing a strong public role in the funding, delivery, acquisition and protection of an adequate supply of affordable and non-market homes; protecting tenants from rent gouging and displacement, and ensuring the inclusivity of growing neighbourhoods; and focusing growth efficiently and sustainably within existing urban boundaries, while protecting irreplaceable farmland, wetlands, the greenbelt and other natural heritage from costly and unsustainable urban sprawl.