It’s not often that we hear responses such as we did from this government. When I look at this speech, I was thinking about distinction without a difference. We’re here this evening because the government failed to answer the most simple of questions. In short, all I requested was an answer to a term that they have been using for the past 18 and some months. My question was: “What does the government mean when it says ‘attainable housing’?”

All of us in the space really should think back to our formative years in the education system. I swear everyone in this chamber would do well to remember standards of behaviour, decorum and manners, but that’s a different topic for a different time.

When asked to provide an answer, as a young person, if you tried too pull the wool over the teacher’s eyes, they would ask you again to try again and answer the question. I think of all the student groups who come and visit us here and the behaviour of government members blustering and backslapping, all while dodging the most simple accountability and transparency. That’s basically what we have here: A situation whereby the government refused to answer the question. They were given a second opportunity; they still refused to answer.

And here we are with their third chance. But quite frankly, Speaker, I’m not holding my breath. If I do end up hearing one, well, I’ll be quite surprised.

I also want to say, if it the government doesn’t know what it means when it says “attainable housing,” that’s okay, too—no harm, no foul—but be forthright, be upfront about it. Just admit that you don’t know what you’re saying when you say this—and it’s been going on for 18 months. You know, another thing your teacher probably told you in your formative years is that it is far easier to simply tell the truth.

Now, in terms of this question itself, I asked for the definition of “attainable housing” and the responses were bizarre. The responses did not at all address what I was asking. The Minister of Housing, the government House leader, mentioned the 21% increase in homelessness funding that’s coming through to London, and unfortunately indicated something that was contrary to the fact—that it was not something that I had asked for—when in actual point in fact, as I had the opportunity to point out, I had been asking for emergency homeless funding since I was elected.

Cities across Ontario should be evaluated based on rezonings and building permits issued rather than the number of new homes that are under construction or housing starts. Developers get shovels in the ground, not politicians. This government is talking all about—and we’ve seen this happen in Bill 134, the Affordable Homes and Good Jobs Act. They mention “attainable” once in that piece of legislation: “The Development Charges Act, 1997 includes provisions exempting affordable and attainable residential units from development charges.” You would think that when they have that word “attainable” and it’s part of a development charge removal that they would actually understand what “attainable” means. But unfortunately, that’s the only time it appears in it.

For the government’s benefit, I’d like to provide you with the definition of what “attainable” means. It’s an adjective for the verb “to reach, to achieve, to accomplish or to gain, to obtain.”

I also wanted to provide a little bit of background indicating that it was a PC Premier, Bill Davis, who also did really effectively bring in rent control, something this government is ideologically opposed to, and they want people to pay when they’re inhabiting a building after November 2018. There was a radio interview with the Premier on 640 Toronto, and he even admitted that they’re trying to work out what “attainable housing” is and that they’re working with stakeholders. They’ve been using the term for 18 months, and they still don’t know. “Attainable” is going to be a lower cost of a regular-priced home.

You know, Speaker, it’s kind of embarrassing that this government has been using this term, bandying it about, really having it as a carrot for the people of Ontario, when they don’t actually know what it means.

So Speaker, I’d like to ask the question of the government, what is “attainable” when people can’t even get into affordable housing? We have a crisis across this province with housing. I wish this government would stop using it as a shield for what they’re doing and actually address the cost of living crisis that we have here in Ontario.

After six years of this Conservative government, the housing crisis has gone from a fire to a raging inferno. People are struggling, and yet Conservatives made new roadblocks for municipalities to access provincial housing funding. Conservatives even admitted that, to the government, building affordable housing is like “taking power away” and would “destroy the integrity of the free market.”

This Legislature is full of words about housing and little action. Speaking of words, at a time when no one can afford housing, would the Premier please provide a definition for his term “attainable housing”?

Back to the Premier: Across the province, the finance committee heard from municipalities who are breaking under the burden of providing affordable and supportive housing, yet this government has spent 18 months trying to figure out what their own words meant. It’s pretty embarrassing that this government uses slogans that literally mean nothing—literally nothing, even to themselves. It kind of reminds me of the kid who tries to give themselves a cool nickname, and nobody—and I mean nobody—actually uses that name.

When will this government stop using empty words and make good on their promise to make municipalities whole?

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.