My question is to the Premier. Residents at 435 Nelson Street in London are dealing with a terrible landlord. The owners, who call themselves the “House Hustlers,” have pushed tenants out so they can drive prices up further. A government that truly cared for people would pass Bill 25, the Rent Stabilization Act, and end the financial incentive to kick people out of their homes. Why does this government allow bad landlords to renovict and make the housing crisis even worse?

Back to the Premier: 11 tenants are left at 435 Nelson Street. One started chemotherapy just last week. In an email to residents, “House Hustler” Amanda claimed to have “started the permit process to demolish,” yet city records show that no permit has been requested or issued. It’s clear: They’re trying to scare people into leaving their homes.

When will this government actually stand up for renters and pass legislation to stop renovictions before they happen?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Royal Bank of Canada’s research recently warned that the housing crisis is going to get even worse if governments don’t act. This government, because of their measures, have only created 8% of the housing that they promised will be created by 2025. In fact, since 2018, their measures have only created 1,100 units of affordable housing. RBC has indicated this: that drastic measures need to be taken right now by government.

So my question for the member from Hamilton Mountain is: Should the government return to its historic responsibility, do the heavy lifting, pick up their shovels and actually build the affordable housing that Ontarians need right now?

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?

It’s my honour to welcome housing advocates from across the province for our National Housing Day: Bradley Palmer, Mariana Cortes, Aishatu Ahmed, Ibrahim Elnaghi, Godfrey Benjamin, Keneisha Brown, Colleen Lamond, Soraya Naim and Gautam Mukherjee. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

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.

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?

I’d like to thank the member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound for the question. I think there has been some misunderstanding on the government side about what we’re suggesting as the official opposition. We do not believe that a private, market-based approach will succeed in creating the truly affordable housing that Ontarians need.

We believe Ontario needs to actually invest. They need to have a public builder who will deliver those non-market homes, so that people have a safe place to call home. Crossing your fingers and hoping for the best and expecting that a private, for-profit industry will do the work the government needs to do is not a plan. Hope is not a plan. There are no legislative guarantees in any of the housing bills that this government has had to really control the number of affordable units or the rate of affordability that will be delivered.

Their plan is not going to succeed. Their budget already shows that they’re not going to succeed with their 1.5 million homes.

This government could pass NDP legislation to protect tenants. It’s on the table right now. We could pass it today. But instead this government chooses to have ironically titled bills that will not protect tenants, that will not do enough.

But the member is absolutely right: The onus, the burden is placed upon tenants, who have to be their own private investigator, and that is wrong. We need to protect tenants before there is an issue rather than having these reactive solutions that simply won’t work.

There is always room for the private market. What the NDP is suggesting is that we have a public builder who is responsible for the funding, delivery, acquisition and protection of truly affordable housing. That’s something that people need. That will also make sure that people have a place to call home because, as I said, housing is health care. This government has responsibility to provide it. Housing is a human right. Housing is a social determinant of health, and this government needs to take proactive steps to make sure that it’s actually being created, not crossing their fingers and hoping for the best, like so many ironically titled pieces of legislation do.

Developers should be responsible for paying for the services that are required for all of these new homes, whether it’s electricity, sewers—all of the utilities that are necessary. But there’s no guarantee in Bill 23 that any affordable housing will actually be created. That is the biggest gap. It’s unbelievable that this government even uses the word “affordable.”

It’s always an honour for me to rise and add the voices of the great people of London North Centre, especially on a topic that I know my community is passionate about and one that I am passionate about as well, which is housing. I believe strongly that the government needs to take a leading role. They need to lead from the front. The government needs to make sure that they are fulfilling their historic responsibility for providing an adequate supply of affordable housing in the province.

You see, housing is a human right. But housing is even so many more things. Housing is also health care. Housing is a social determinant of health. Housing is foundational for every single person in this province in order to enjoy their life.

We also need to see a government that is concerned with the creation, the building of non-market homes instead of a private, market-based approach that focuses on tax cuts, deregulation, sprawl across our treasured greenbelt. Their solutions are ones that simply make it harder for people to pay the bills and to put food on the table. There are also no guarantees of enough new affordable homes within this province’s flawed plan.

I would also like to take a look at some proactive measures that the NDP has brought forward to this government, ones that are sitting on the table right now that this government could pass to protect tenants immediately, ones that would be supported by the official opposition, ones that we could get through this House in record time. Those include Bill 25, the Rent Stabilization Act, one that I was proud to co-sponsor to make sure that we are plugging the hole of vacancy decontrol that was brought forward during the last Liberal government.

You see, this Conservative government has continued a system of exploitation on tenants. They’ve made a system of unaffordability even worse by removing rent control from buildings first occupied after November 2018. It’s a system where people are paying more and more and more every year with no signs of relief, and that is on this government. They have chosen to allow unethical corporate landlords to exploit people for something that is a basic human right, which is housing.

We also have introduced other measures, such as Bill 48, to plug that vacancy decontrol hole, to have rent control for all tenants. There’s also Bill 58, which is currently on the table, the Protecting Renters from Illegal Evictions Act. These are proactive steps, Speaker, that would effectively safeguard and protect tenants. But yet we see a government that isn’t concerned about proactive measures; instead, they have looked towards reactive measures through Bill 97.

What is deeply concerning, Speaker, is that only this government could turn a Human Rights Tribunal ruling into a rent hike. What they have allowed is landlords to increase rent on people for having the right of air conditioning. How is that right? At a time of unprecedented unaffordability, they want to let unethical landlords reach deep into people’s pockets and take their hard-earned money. That’s on this government. They want to reach into people’s pockets by this decision. People who have had air conditioning units in the past will now have to pay for them; that’s on this government. That is a choice.

We have proposed so many solutions to problems of unaffordability and the problems facing tenants, but this government has said no every single time. We’ve brought forward opposition day motions. We’ve dedicated entire days to debating this within the Legislature, and this government shuts their ears and doesn’t want to listen to the voices of people who are struggling. They don’t want to listen to the voices of tenants.

They have this ironically titled legislation which does little to help homebuyers and protect tenants. It does so little. They are talking about increasing fines, but we know that fines are not levied in many cases at the Landlord and Tenant Board. The Ombudsman has even called the Landlord and Tenant Board “moribund.” My goodness.

This government has defended rent increases as high as 57%. In London, in my community, they were hit by the biggest average rent increase in all of Canada last year, 33%. And now, this year, it’s 27%. People cannot afford that. They have continued the Liberal loophole of vacancy decontrol, keeping that incentive for unethical corporate landlords to kick good people out, who have been there for many years, so that they can jack up the rent because the market will allow it.

I’ve travelled to 1270 and 1280 Webster Street, where I heard from seniors, people who were in their golden years who just want to enjoy some time in their home. And yet, this building has been sold, Speaker, and because this government does not stand up for tenants and did not plug vacancy decontrol and that loophole, these people have been served with eviction notices. Those are eviction notices that have not gone through the Landlord and Tenant Board; they’re deliberately misleading and threatening. These people are concerned about where they’re going to go. They’re concerned about possibly living in their car. It’s unconscionable, Speaker, that this government has the opportunity to stand up for tenants and chooses not to.

And if that weren’t bad enough, these people—and I’m very thankful for the leadership of the MPP for London–Fanshawe, who has canvassed these buildings; she has told people about their rights, making sure they’re informed, letting them know that these notices are ones that are not correct and an eviction order can only be ordered by the Landlord and Tenant Board. But now, Speaker, this landlord has tried to deliver a charge for parking spaces. They want to charge these residents $200 per month for a parking space—absolutely unbelievable. This government wants to open up people’s pockets so that unethical landlords can jam their hand in as far as they can.

Now, this government briefing on this bill and their ironic title—they say it’s going to make life easier for renters, help homebuyers, streamline policies to build more homes, but there’s no guarantee that their plan is actually going to create the affordable homes that people need. What is concerning is that they can raise fines all they want, but unethical landlords are not afraid of these fines, because it has failed to deter this illegal behaviour. The example at 1270 and 1280 Webster Street is an example of that. NDP legislation would protect them; Conservative legislation does not.

Many tenants are simply unaware of their rights. If this government truly wanted to stand up for tenants and wanted to protect them, they would make sure that the vacancy decontrol hole was plugged. I have heard from so many tenants who have repeatedly reported serious maintenance issues with their units—pests, lack of heat, basic services. At 1270 Webster Street and 1280 Webster Street, residents were telling me just a week ago that they’re responsible for cleaning their own lobby, their hallways and their laundry room because the landlord doesn’t do it. But they care for their place, they love their home, they love their neighbours and they look after one another.

I’d like to also add the voice of the Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario, who says, Bill 97 “does not go far enough to protect renters and fix the dysfunction at the Landlord and Tenant Board.” This is just “a band-aid solution.” This bill is only as good as—it’s simply not good enough. It’s just a band-aid solution.

It falls short because it fails to mandate a maximum temperature in the summer, similar to the mandated minimum temperature in the winter. This is something that our housing critic, the MPP for University–Rosedale, has called for. Last summer, I was canvassing on this very issue before it came before the Human Rights Tribunal. I canvassed an east London apartment complex where people who are busy, who are seniors, single parents, people working multiple jobs, were saddled with the choice: They were told that they could not install air conditioning units, which they had done for years. They were told that that was not allowed, that they would have to purchase an air conditioning unit from the landlord and they could have a payment plan to then pay it off. People were told that this was a must, this was the law, and many people made that choice. I shudder to think about the price that the landlord charged for these air conditioning units. It’s unconscionable.

Now, this government in their wisdom has seen fit to let people who have had air conditioners, people who even have the sleeves that are in their units because the builder understood that there would be a necessity to have air conditioning units—those people now have to pay. They’ve never had to pay before, but this government wants them to pay. This government wants to reach into their pockets and take their money.

This government also has really done a disservice to local councils by their removal of development charges—$5 billion, as has been estimated by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

They’ve also opened up large swaths of the greenbelt, auctioning it off to the highest donor and their insider friends, the people who actually pull the government strings in the backrooms. That is not something that is going to create the affordable housing that Ontario needs.

What is also really quite shocking is the systems that this government has in place that are supposed to protect homebuyers. For many years, when this government was in opposition, they railed against Tarion. They said how it was a system that was unacceptable. The Premier himself said that it was a monopoly, which it is, and they said that they would repair it. But now, since they’ve gone over to the government side, suddenly the song they’re singing has changed. Instead of overhauling and reforming Tarion, they’ve actually created yet another bureaucratic nightmare.

What is disturbing about this is that the information—when homebuyers have concerns with a builder, they report that, and it should be information that is posted on the Ontario Builder Directory. Unfortunately, that information is not being posted, so consumers are not being protected. Consumers don’t know when a builder who they may be seeking to invest in—it’s the biggest investment of their entire life. They don’t have accurate information provided on the Ontario Builder Directory. It’s deeply, deeply concerning.

It’s something as well that people are forced to pay for. Homebuyers are obliged to pay provincially mandated warranty fees, and it’s factored into the price for new home buyers. They’re stuck paying for it. For a long time, the entire composition of the Tarion board has been suspect. It has been one that has been controlled by the Ontario Home Builders’ Association. There are no consumer advocates on it. There is just a deep, huge concern. The official opposition has brought forward legislation again to help protect people who are making the largest investment of their life, with our consumer watchdog. But this government chooses not to stand up for homebuyers at all.

I think as well of so many people who have had absolutely horrendous stories. I think of Earl Shuman, who lost his life after making the biggest investment of his life and battling with Tarion for years and years and years.

I think of Daniel Browne-Emery, who, again, had mould in his basement the size of pizzas. Finally, after battling for years and years and years, he succumbed to cancer. He took a paltry amount of money as a buyout so that he could at least give something to his family, so that he could leave some sort of legacy.

I think as well of Gayle and Gary Dudeck, who have reached out to every single member in this House. I know you’ve received the letter—every single MPP did. They are from Oshawa. They described how their daughter and partner were fighting with a home builder who was engaged in some really disturbing behaviour. They said there was a weasel clause in the contract that stated that all of the lots had to be serviced by January 13 and if not the builder could cancel. The lots weren’t serviced by January 13—no surprise there; that was probably their intention the entire time—they were serviced on the 28th, 15 days later. That allowed them to renegotiate the contract with the purchaser. They added $200,000 to the purchase price.

Now, through HCRA, this government claims that renegotiations are illegal, but there’s been no enforcement. HCRA took 15 months reviewing the Dudecks’ complaint and they emphasized in their code of ethics that price renegotiations are unacceptable. They still did nothing. In their summary, they said that the builder could have communicated better, but there were no penalties and no negative repercussions for the builder. How is this government, through HCRA, standing up for homebuyers? They are not.

Typically, as well, when people enter into these issues with an unethical home builder, they are subject to having to sign non-disclosure agreements. It silences people. They’re stuck in a situation where their only option, after making the biggest investment of their lives and having their rights taken away and being subject to these massive increases—they then have to sign an NDA.

Whenever the minister for MGCS is questioned on this, there’s always a repeated, canned response. There’s been no positive action for purchasers. This government has known about this for many years. They’ve known about it for 15 years while they were in opposition. They promised to do something and they chose not to. It’s heartbreaking that people are stuck with this.

Many folks have reached out from the Ottawa area who had concerns with Greatwise Developments, which engaged in that very same sort of renegotiation of price. They said, “Well, the market has changed. The cost of materials is up.” That does not change the contract that they legally committed to.

I’d like this government, if indeed they want to stand up for homebuyers and protect tenants, to consider the proactive measures that they need to do. Increasing fines after someone’s rights have been taken away is not enough. That is not getting ahead of the problem. In fact, they ought to know, with the Ombudsman’s report and the backlog of cases at the Landlord and Tenant Board and all of the voices of people across Ontario who have struggled with that system, that Bill 97 is nowhere near enough.

In this bill, as well, they could end exclusionary zoning, a measure that their own Housing Affordability Task Force Report has called for. Their own budget shows that they are not on track to meet the 1.5 million homes they are pretending they’re going to reach.

Instead, this government really needs to focus on adequate housing as a human right. They need to make sure young people have an affordable, safe place to call home. They need to make sure that there’s a rights-based approach to housing, that there’s a variety of public policy tools to make sure that these housing units are being created.

There needs to be investment from this province. There needs to be a focus on non-market housing. Too often, we see a government that is overly reliant on the private market. They believe they can simply make a policy change and that the private market will magically create affordable housing. That is not the case. There is no way that a private, profit-motivated organization is going to create the affordable housing that Ontario needs. Their motive is profit. They have to deliver value to their shareholders between 10% and 15% of investment. Their motive is not going to be creating the affordable housing that Ontarians need.

You see, the NDP has always been and will always be the party of housing. Despite all of the flaws of the Rae government in the 1990s, that government created the greatest amount of social and affordable housing of any government before it. Much of that housing still exists to this day, Speaker, despite the attempts of the Liberal government to redevelop some of that housing into luxury condos.

We see also this government allowing huge holes through Bill 23, allowing these real estate investment trusts to snap up rental buildings to redevelop them into luxury housing. That is backwards. The Non-Resident Speculation Tax has loopholes big enough to drive a truck through.

If this government wants to truly focus on affordable housing, they need to build and provide that affordable housing. Don’t expect someone else to do the heavy lifting for you. The official opposition is here to work with you. Use us, and we will build it together.

I’d like to thank the member from Mississauga–Malton for his presentation.

During the pre-budget consultations, we heard from many different organizations and individuals who were deeply concerned about the current housing allotment under the Ontario Disability Support Program. They advocated for an increase to that because the cost of living is so much higher than it has been in the past, but also—before this member answers and goes to the talking points about the paltry 5% increase—what we heard from people was that many people are struggling to afford basic necessities. Why has this government chosen to only support people living with disabilities by 5%, still leaving them underneath the poverty line?

It’s an honour for me to rise today in support of our opposition day motion to re-establish rent control within the province of Ontario. Hearing debate today, it’s clearer than ever how out of touch Conservatives have become.

The NDP is the party of housing. We built the most affordable and supportive housing of any government before. It’s clear that the Conservative-Liberal consortium can’t build themselves. They’re content to incentivize eviction, renoviction, demoviction, and they disrespect renters as well as seniors.

London was hit by the biggest average annual increase in Canada of rental costs: 33% in one year. Last year, it was a 27% increase.

Huntington Towers is a 10-storey building where tenants were asked to pay a rental increase to cover the cost of a new parking garage.

Tenants at One Richmond Row were hit with a 7% rent hike because they were not informed that they were inhabiting a building that this government had removed rent control from.

You see, Conservatives carved a loophole in tenants’ rights with no rental protections for buildings that were first occupied after November 2018. People were already having a tough time paying the bills, yet this government saw fit to remove rights from them. They drilled a hole in their already sinking ship.

Conservative cognitive dissonance is at an all-time high with this government. We’ve heard members across pat themselves on the back for the creation of all these new rental buildings, but they don’t realize that they have enabled a system of exploitation because they’ve removed protections from people who can least afford it.

Tenants call my office regularly about legal and illegal rental hikes. But when they’ve fought back against their landlord, then their unit will stop receiving basic maintenance. It’s time for this Ontario government to actually lead from the front, stand up and make sure that they’re taking a strong public role in the building, the funding, the delivery and the acquisition and protection of rental housing.

You can start today. You can start supporting renters by supporting our opposition day motion.

My question is to the Premier.

In the middle of the night, outside a local shelter, Olivia’s makeshift tent went up in flames. The shelter beds inside weren’t available because provincial funding had run out. Olivia suffered severe burns to nearly half of her body. She’s now fighting for her life. I want to send strength to Olivia’s parents, Sean and Stephanie, as well as her friends and the service providers who knew her so well.

The city of London has double the number of unhoused people compared to two years ago—double—with 1,868 lives hanging in the balance, and the province is ignoring it.

Will this government do the right thing: invest in affordable and supportive housing and wraparound supports, expand rent supplement programs, and fund municipalities properly to ensure that shelters don’t have to close when the need is so high?

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Bills 23 and 39 are the Ford government’s latest attempt to remove protected land from the greenbelt, allowing wealthy developers to profit over bulldozing over 7,000 acres of farmland;

“Whereas green spaces and farmland are what we rely on to grow our food, support natural habitats, prevent flooding, and mitigate from future climate disasters with Ontario losing 319.6 acres of farmland daily to development;

“Whereas the government’s Housing Affordability Task Force found there are plenty of places to build homes without destroying the greenbelt, showcasing that Bill 23 was never about housing but about making the rich richer;

“Whereas the power of conservation authorities will be taken away, weakening environmental protections, and preventing future development;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately repeal Bills 23 and 39, stop all plans to further remove protected land from the greenbelt and protect existing farmland in the province....”

I fully support this petition, will affix my signature and give it to page Senna.

I’d like to thank the member from Newmarket–Aurora for her question. She is absolutely right that we are living in uncertain economic times. What I am certain of is that this government has plenty of money, but it chooses to spend it in ways that do not address the crisis.

The FAO has shown that this government, in the last quarter, failed to spend $6 billion—money that did not go out the door; money they could have spent on any number of services to make life better, especially for seniors, for young people, for people living with disabilities.

This government would pat itself on the back for the measly 5% increase they’ve given on the ODSP program, but that’s nowhere near enough to address the rising cost of living. We on this side of the House have firmly advocated for doubling ODSP as well as OW.

This government could also protect seniors by making sure that there are increased rent controls and by not allowing REITs to gobble up rental properties to redevelop them into luxury units. But this government again has blinked when it comes to the rights of seniors.

The last Liberal government sat on their hands for 15 years while social assistance rates dwindled, while they didn’t keep up with the cost of living. There were the dramatic and drastic Mike Harris cuts back in the 1990s, but the Liberals did nothing to make it better for folks.

We know that people are struggling because they’re unhoused, and they’re struggling with their mental health largely because they are unhoused.

In London, we have a whole-of-community response plan to create 600 supportive housing units. That is something that has been community-led. We also need the province to step in.

To the member: $202 million is a drop in the bucket when it comes to the need that is all across Ontario, and this government has missed the mark.

When I think about this government’s response to unions, I also need to cite the most recent court loss by this government when it comes to third-party advertising. Their legislation, which they had mirrored from the Liberals, was unfortunately something that was struck down.

When it comes to the creation of housing, this government isn’t even following its own recommendations from the housing supply action plan. The housing starts across this province are at an all-time low, and the province needs to do its part by enlisting a public builder to create those homes, to spur investment, to make sure that we are creating affordable and supportive homes—not leaving everything up to private industry, but actively engaging with the economy and not sitting on the sidelines.

I’d like to thank the member from University–Rosedale for her comments and for pointing out the $1-billion cut that AMO pointed out that this government has enacted through Bill 23, one that—they also promised that they would make municipalities whole and then failed to do so within the budget.

Right now, housing starts are stagnant—and I believe the member from University–Rosedale has called on the need for a public builder.

I want to ask the member, what kind of protections for renters would be responsive to the current moment that Ontarians face right now? What should have been done within this budget?

Speaker, everyone in London recognizes the homelessness crisis, and understands the dire need to ensure unhoused, marginalized Londoners have supports to rebuild their lives and finally be safe. More than 200 people have died on London’s streets in the past three years. No one among us should be able to turn and look away from human suffering and preventable tragedy.

In response to this mounting crisis, London city council engaged a broad spectrum of Londoners in their Health and Homelessness Summits. They created a collaborative plan known as the Health and Homelessness Whole of Community System Response, which will create 24/7 community hubs with on-site care, as well as build the desperately needed 100 supportive housing units this year and 600 in total.

London leaders have stepped up. After an historic $25 million gift by an anonymous London family, millions more have been donated by London’s amazing business and community leaders who have rallied to join the fight. The Health and Homelessness Fund for Change, fundforchange.ca, is administered by the London Community Foundation. The need is there. Community support is there and engagement is there.

London is a leader, Speaker, but we can’t do it alone. The province now has a chance to stand with London and support this noble and worthy cause. I echo the calls of community leaders, experts, local organizations and city council. I encourage the province to provide emergency homelessness funding to London in the 2023 budget.

I thank the member from Oakville for his comments. I listened intently.

We had the opportunity to travel on the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, and we heard from many folks and organizations across the province who underscored the importance of housing as a social determinant of health.

Here on the opposition side, we believe in stretching a dollar as far as it goes. We believe in upstream investments, such as the province creating affordable housing, making sure that there’s robust primary care infrastructure, making sure that we have nurse practitioners and family health teams.

My question is specifically about business. I would say that it is bad business—is it not?—to reward somebody who does not deserve it, somebody who has not earned it, somebody whose track record actually means that they are not doing the correct job. When we look at the example of Infrastructure Ontario, we have heard, in the Auditor General’s report, about how ineffective they are. My question is, why is the government cherry-picking only the things that they like out of the Auditor General’s report and not responding to all the things that need to be done?

One third of housing in London is owned by real estate investors who scoop up entry-level properties away from first-time homebuyers. This is on top of the 86% of condo apartments already owned by investors—86%; that’s more than twice the provincial average.

Speaker, this government is telling the people of this province that they’re building new homes. It remains to be seen whether these will be truly affordable homes.

What is this government doing to ensure that first-time homebuyers can actually get into these new homes?

They talk about record housing starts, and the reason for that is that you have removed rent control. You’ve created a power imbalance between the owner and between renters.

Professor Diana Mok from Western stated: “Interest in housing used as an investment tool likely spiked in Ontario after the province removed rent controls on new builds after 2018.” Again, this has led to an unfair power imbalance where landlords can jack up the rent in between or when someone completes their tenancy, because there is no rent control. You did that. You did that to renters.

Young families are being completely left behind. The Housing Stability Bank, a local program that helps renters get out of arrears, is reporting a 35% increase in demand for their services. People are sinking even more under water each day.

Will this government close the loophole that allows foreign investors and real estate investment trusts to stockpile rental properties across Ontario?