Speaker, Gabrielle lives in London West and has been on a child care wait-list for two years. She was only able to return to work because she found home child care, and she and her husband adjusted their work schedules so that one can do the 8:30 drop-off and the other can do the 4:30 pickup.

Gabrielle works at London Health Sciences Centre and told me that many nurses want to get back to work after their mat leaves, but they can’t because they can’t find child care.

Speaker, does this government understand that a child care plan without a workforce strategy is not going to help women like Gabrielle get back into the labour market?

I received an email from London West constituent Sue Fotheringham, who shared her grave concerns about the minister’s decision to reverse the OEB ruling, which, of course, is an independent regulator in this province. She said that pushing the cost of natural gas installation onto current homeowners is absurd, given the struggles that Ontarians are facing in finding affordable housing and putting groceries on the table.

Why is the government siding with Enbridge to increase their profits and legislating increased costs for existing natural gas consumers when the OEB has determined that this is not in the public interest?

As MPP for London West, one of the things I hear about most from constituents is around the home care that they receive. Either they don’t get enough hours allocated; there’s a revolving door of PSWs who don’t show up; they don’t get enough notification of when the visit is going to be. I also hear from PSWs who are constantly frustrated by their inability to provide the care and support that they were trained to provide. They are underpaid, overworked and certainly very much undervalued.

We understand the problems with this government’s approach to home care. I wondered if the member could elaborate a little bit about what an NDP government would do to improve home care in Ontario.

I want to assure the member across the way that I am very much informed about what is happening in my community.

There was an initial investment from the province that, following the budget, was supplemented by an additional $8 million for London-Middlesex; $1 million of that went to Middlesex, leaving London with an additional $7 million. That is funding that came after the city had developed the health and homelessness whole-of-community response. It is funding that needs to be supplemented to a much higher degree if the city is to be able to move forward with this model, innovative program to actually deal with the health and homelessness crisis that we are facing in the city of London.

I appreciate the comments from the Solicitor General.

An effective response for my community in London would have been stable, permanent funding for the COAST program. That is a program that pairs police officers with mental health workers, social workers and nurses so that they can respond effectively to the crisis of mental health and addictions that we are seeing in our city. We have a crisis that has triggered a whole-of-community response to address the escalating levels of mental health and addictions and homelessness. That permanent funding for the COAST program, which is what my community has been asking for for several years, would have gone a long way to improving community safety in London.

In London, we have 2,000 people on the by-name list, who are unhoused. We have 6,000 households, representing 11,000 individuals, who have been waiting, sometimes for a decade, to get into rent-geared-to-income housing, and in the meantime, they’re living in substandard housing; they’re couch-surfing. They are not able to get into that kind of housing stability that’s going to help them move forward and build their lives. Housing is where it has to start.

I want to thank the member for her question, and also for her advocacy for paid sick days over the years.

Certainly, we know that a low-wage worker—many women saw the gender wage gap that was highlighted in the FAO report. Women in low-wage professions, when they have a child who is sick, when they are sick, are faced with this impossible choice: Do they forgo a day of pay, stay home unpaid so that they can care for their sick child and recover from the illness that they themselves are suffering? Or do they go to work, send their child to school and risk spreading illness to others in the workplace or in the school? We know what happens when they make that choice, which is understandable. They risk spreading illness to others, who go to our hospital and add pressure to our overextended health care system.

I know the member is aware of Indwell, a 72-unit building that recently opened in our city. Those 72 units came at a big price tag, much more than the additional funding that the government has provided.

London is not the only community across this province that is facing the crisis of homelessness. We need a much more significant investment from this government to address the crisis.

There are many non-profit agencies—in my community, we have Anova, we have the London Abused Women’s Centre, we have Atlohsa—across this province that provide support for those experiencing gender-based violence. Staff at those agencies are burnt out. There has been no increase in base funding for years. Those staff are dealing with wages that are so low that it is challenging for them to find housing in our communities, with rents increasing so dramatically. An increase in base funding, the stabilization of support that non-profit agencies require to serve people who are experiencing violence or who are experiencing any kind of challenge, would make a huge difference. And let’s not forget, most of the workers who work in the non-profit sector are women, so that increase in base funding would make a huge difference for women in this province.

We know from the Financial Accountability Officer that this government has a track record of not allocating funding. There has been record numbers of unallocated pots of money. There has been a huge increase in contingency funds, and there is no transparency whatsoever as to where those funds will be allocated. Budget after budget, we have seen monies allocated on paper but not actually spent.

The people of this province deserve a lot more transparency in where public dollars are being invested.

I don’t think the member actually listened intently to my remarks. I gave the example of a 72-unit supportive housing building that had been constructed in London with a significant investment from the city of London, at a cost of $21 million. For one 72-unit supportive housing building—how on earth is the $202 million that’s allocated in this budget to meet the needs for supportive housing across the province going to address the serious crisis that we are seeing in communities across Ontario in homelessness? London deserves a piece of that $202 million, but so do so many other communities in this province.

It’s my pleasure to rise today to participate in this debate on the 2023 Ontario budget. I have to say, Speaker, I was really struck by the editorial in the Toronto Star that described this as “An Ontario Budget Without Vision.” The Toronto Star editorial writers said, “If this budget were a Christmas present, it would be a three-pack of white socks. Not entirely useless. But an exercise in going through the motions.”

Speaker, the leader of the official opposition has very clearly described this budget as a document that fails to meet the moment. It fails to acknowledge the reality of the hardships that people in Ontario are facing. For me, as the representative for London West, it certainly fails to address the homelessness crisis that we are seeing in our community, the lack of access to affordable housing, the crisis in access to health care services.

I want to focus my remarks on housing and homelessness.

A couple of weeks ago, we had a proud moment in our city. Indwell, a non-profit supportive housing provider, opened up a new 72-unit supportive housing building in London. That came at a cost of just over $21 million for 72 units of supportive housing. Of that $21 million, the province contributed the absolute bare minimum that was necessary for Indwell to be able to access federal dollars.

It’s encouraging, finally, after years of avoiding any involvement in providing supportive housing, to see this budget make an allocation for supportive housing. But $202 million across the province is going to do nothing to address the breadth of the need that communities are experiencing. The 72 supportive housing units in London came at a cost of $21 million. This government is allocating $202 million for supportive housing for 444 municipalities across Ontario.

In London, we have seen a dramatic increase in the number of people who are homeless on our streets. We currently have more than 2,000 people who we know are experiencing homelessness on a daily basis. That doesn’t take into account the number of people who are precariously housed, who are couch-surfing, who are not counted in the by-name list. We have more than 6,000 applications for social housing in our community. That represents 11,000 parents and their children who are trying to get access to housing they can afford.

Our community came together and acknowledged the health and homelessness crisis as a major priority—as the number one priority—for the city of London to move forward on in a collaborative. So 60 social service providers and 200 individuals came together with funding from a very generous anonymous donor family who provided a gift of $25 million to jump-start an innovative, never-seen-before plan to develop a whole-of-community response to deal with health and homelessness in the city of London.

That plan alone calls for 600 net new supportive housing units that will be necessary just in London alone, and that is just what’s needed in the next three years. So you can see, Speaker, how the $202 million that’s allocated to meet homelessness needs across the province is nowhere near enough to address the concerns of other municipalities outside London.

Now the city of London’s pre-budget submission had actually called on the province for a significant investment of $15 million in capital funding to support the construction of these net new supportive housing buildings, as well as an additional $4 million in annual operating funding for the supportive housing programming. So that is the mention of London that we would have expected to see in this budget. We saw one reference to London—one reference to a school that’s being built. We need new schools, there’s no doubt about it, but this was an announcement that had already been made by this government, and that’s the only reference to the city of London in the entire budget.

London is looking at a $97-million deficit caused by the measures that this government brought forward in Bill 23 that were supposed to tackle the housing crisis that we see in Ontario. Instead, this budget actually confirms that not only did the measures that the government set out in Bill 23 fail to move Ontario forward to meet that 1.5 million homes goal, but we’re actually falling further behind. The numbers that are reported in this budget show that Ontario is lagging in the pace that it will need to meet if we are going to achieve that 1.5 million home target.

When I talk about Bill 23, there’s the financial impact on municipalities with the revenue hole that it’s going to create in municipal budgets, but there is also, associated with Bill 23, the attack on the greenbelt. This budget would have been an opportunity to actually take some serious measures, some bold and strong measures, to deal with climate change mitigation and resilience. We saw none of that in this budget, and that has people in my community very concerned.

The other thing that is of huge concern to people in London is the money that this government is allocating to expand for-profit private health care facilities. Instead of investing in excellent stand-alone facilities like the Nazem Kadri ambulatory surgical care centre that is run under the oversight of a hospital, this government decided not to invest in those kinds of services and hospitals but instead to funnel yet more money to investor-led private for-profit health care facilities. They’ve increased the budget from $18 million last year to $72 million this year, and that has a lot of people concerned.

We’ve heard not just from the Auditor General but from patients of private health care facilities who talk about the aggressive upselling that they have experienced at these facilities. As much as the government would like to say, “Oh, no, you won’t pay at a private health care facility,” the experience of patients in this province has been very different. They have had to pay. They’ve been told they need surgeries that, when they’ve gotten a second opinion, they find out that that surgery was unnecessary. They’ve been told they have to pay for the ability to stay longer than they would otherwise have been asked to stay. So there are huge concerns about funnelling public dollars into private health care facilities.

But, Speaker, just to get back to what I said initially, this is a budget that falls flat. It really ignores the pressures that Ontario families are facing, the affordability pressures that Ontario families are facing, as daily, we get calls from people who tells us about the huge spike in their Enbridge gas bills. The price of food in grocery stores, the price of Internet services, the price of insurance—everything is increasing, and this budget includes no measures to help people deal with those realities.

In particular, for those who are the most vulnerable, the most disadvantaged, those living on social assistance, this government provided a measly 5% increase when we know what’s needed is a doubling of social assistance rates.

I’d like to commend my colleague the member for London North Centre on his remarks. We come from a community where there are currently at least 2,000 homeless people who are on the by-name list. There are many other people who are precariously housed. We have 6,000 applications for social housing, representing 11,000 parents and children in our community.

London has identified a need for a minimum of 600 net new supportive housing units. We know from a recent supportive housing complex, Embassy Commons, which has only 72 units, that the cost is significant. That was $22 million for one 72-unit building.

Will this budget enable London or any other municipality to meet the need for supportive housing?

I want to give a shout-out to the compassionate, skilled and exhausted mental health workers from CMHA Thames Valley Addiction and Mental Health Services, who have been working tirelessly on the front lines of the pandemic in the face of an unprecedented mental health crisis that shows no signs of improving.

Here’s the reality in my community, Speaker: since 2020, a 137% increase in children’s mental health crisis calls and a 72% increase in mental health support calls; since 2021, a 171% increase in crisis response team interactions. Many of the 75,000 people who have used the crisis lines or participated in programs are first-time users of mental health services. Many are also former or current clients whose crises are worsening. Almost all are presenting with more complexity than ever before—serious mental illness, addiction, poverty, trauma, and homelessness.

You can imagine the moral distress and vicarious trauma experienced by staff as they watch their clients suffer and even die, despite their best efforts, as they’re forced year after year to do more with less and provide care in a chronically underfunded system. Who can blame them if they decide to move to a hospital or school, where salaries are as much as 33% higher, or leave the sector altogether?

The Thames Valley CMHA is looking at a $3-million shortfall if all vacant positions were filled. Without an increase to their base budget, as we call for in this motion, they face some tough choices: Do they leave 35 positions vacant and put even more pressure on current staff? Do they ignore staff burnout and put their own staff’s mental health at risk? Do they deny or delay service for those in desperate need of mental health support, forcing them to go to the ER to access services?

Speaker, our community needs the vital programs delivered by CMHA.

I call on this government to support our motion today and invest in the 8% base funding increase. Lives are at stake.

My question is to the Premier. In the face of an unprecedented health and homelessness crisis, Londoners have rallied behind a transformational whole-of-community response to help those struggling with homelessness, mental health and addictions. With leadership from local agencies, hospitals, emergency services, police, businesses, developers and city council, our community is united in making system-level change, and a generous donor family has galvanized $35 million in direct community funding. But London can’t do it alone.

Will the Premier commit today to funding the hubs and supportive housing units that are core to this first-of-its-kind local strategy?

As I was saying this morning, I really appreciate this opportunity to join the debate on Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act. As every MPP in this chamber is hearing from their constituents, we are in a dire housing crisis in this province.

I just want to set the stage a little bit in terms of what’s going on in my community in London. London recently achieved a number of firsts, and they are not firsts that we are proud of. Rentals.ca just reported earlier this week that London experienced the biggest average rent increase in Canada, a 33% increase in average rents over the last year. Tenants in London are being hit hard by having to deal with a 33% rent increase, and the reality is that many may be financially evicted from their units because they can no longer afford the rent.

That’s especially the case for tenants who are living in buildings that were built after November 2018, because one of the earliest things this government did on the housing file was to remove rent control off of new builds, or post-November-2018 construction. That is causing huge pressures in our housing market, when tenants are facing that kind of rent increase and struggling to try to afford that in the face of all of the other affordability questions or pressures that Ontarians are experiencing.

Two other firsts: The latest census data that was released earlier this fall showed that London is the fastest-growing city in Canada. There was a 10% increase in population over the last decade, and that, of course, exacerbates the pressure that we are experiencing in our housing stock. And London is a destination that embraces newcomers, that has really put a focus on welcoming newcomers to locate in our city, and so that is another issue that is putting pressure on the housing stock, combined with our post-secondary institutions and the need to ensure that there is housing available for all of the students who come to study in our city.

The third first that we recently became aware of—again, from Statistics Canada—is that London’s homeownership rate is dead last among major Ontario cities. So actually, that is not a first; that’s the opposite of a first. We have the fewest percentage of homeowners in our city compared to other cities in Ontario. The Ontario average is 68.4%. In London, we’re four points below that: Only 62.6% of our population own homes.

As we all know—I have young adults in their twenties; many of us are in that same demographic. It is particularly challenging, disheartening and frustrating for these young adults to ever imagine a future where they will be able to afford a home. We hear that a lot about Toronto, but it’s the same reality in communities like London. That was corroborated in the data that show that in London, only 50% of young adults aged 30 to 34 in London own a home. That’s down from 56.3% in the previous census, and there was a four percentage point decline for young adults aged 35 to 39. So the housing crisis is real. The housing crisis is affecting both tenants and people who want to own a home, particularly young people who are looking to get into the housing market, and we collectively have a responsibility to do something to address this crisis.

The bill that is before us today attempts to do that, and that is important. We need to see more homes built faster, as in the title of the bill. But we also need a whole swath of other strong measures and bold actions to be taken.

The intensification provisions that are in this bill, the changes to the Planning Act, will take some baby steps to increasing that stock that we know we need to achieve. The government’s task force before the election had shown that Ontario will need 1.5 million new homes built over the next decade. It was sad to hear that the government’s own background papers estimate that the intensification provisions in this legislation will add about 50,000 new units over the next decade. That is far, far short of the 1.5 million homes that are necessary to meet the needs of our growing population. In terms of supply, we need purpose-built rentals. We need non-market options. We need co-op housing. We need supportive housing. We need so much more than what this bill is going to deliver.

And when we have a population that is so reliant on rental housing, we need to strengthen protections for tenants. What does this bill do? We see in schedules 1 and 4 that this bill weakens protections for tenants. It allows the minister to impose limits and conditions on rental replacement bylaws that require that any affordable units that are demolished or converted during redevelopment are replaced. This bill eliminates those rental replacement provisions that are in place through municipal bylaws in Toronto and Mississauga, but it also prohibits any municipality from having those kinds of provisions.

Former Toronto city planner Jennifer Keesmaat said this is going to this is going to make it open season on low-income tenants who are living in purpose-built rentals that, like many of the purpose-built rentals in our province, are deteriorating in condition and are demolished. Those units will be gone. Municipalities will no longer be able to require that tenants can move back into a new building that is constructed at the same rent. Once again, it is going to displace thousands of vulnerable tenants across this province and increase the pressure on other communities that perhaps have lower average rents versus Toronto and Mississauga, where those bylaws are in place.

We need to ensure that there is a strong public role in new housing investments to make sure that those new builds that are constructed actually are affordable. This legislation defines affordable as 80% of market rent, but when market rent is over $2,000, 80% of that is far from affordable for many, many, many people in this province. We need to increase the supply of deeply affordable housing as well as those supportive homes that are so, so lacking in supply in our province.

We also need to take stronger regulatory measures, like a speculation tax, a vacancy tax. We heard earlier this week that the government is increasing the non-resident speculation tax, but there is so much more that can be done on the regulatory side to really spur the construction of those 1.5 million homes we need.

This bill is a step forward in some senses. As the government has estimated, it will increase our supply by 50,000 units over 10 years, and the difference between the 50,000 units that will be spurred by this bill and the $1.5-million target that we know we have to meet—the difference, this government has decided, will be made up by municipalities. So the legislation requires municipalities to have a housing pledge with a specific target that they are supposed to meet in terms of new home construction. But as the Globe and Mail has pointed out and as various commentators have pointed out, a housing pledge without any kind of penalty for municipalities that don’t meet that pledge is not going to produce those units that are necessary.

Before I reach the end of my time, I want to raise some very significant concerns about other measures that are proposed in this bill, in schedule 2 and schedule 9. Those relate to the Conservation Authorities Act and, in schedule 9, the Planning Act. Specifically, I’m referring to the changes that the government is proposing to the role of conservation authorities in planning matters. The changes that are set out in these two schedules of the bill limit or, as some would say, gut the oversight role of conservation authorities in the planning process.

In schedule 2, the role of conservation authorities in reviewing and commenting on planning and development matters within their jurisdiction will be strictly limited to matters falling under their core mandate, so that would be flooding, erosion or drought. The bill would prohibit conservation authorities from reviewing or commenting on specific proposals under a prescribed act. Conservation authorities will no longer be allowed to prohibit certain activities relating to the use or modification of water courses, wetlands, erosion and other matters. This is of grave concern to many people in this province, not just environmentalists, but of course environmentalists have sounded the alarm. We are in a climate crisis. We just saw the impact of Hurricane Fiona. These are not just 100-year severe weather events; these are 500-year severe weather events that we are experiencing on this planet. There was just a recent report showing that we’re going to be nowhere close to meeting that UN target of reducing global warming in the amount of time that we have to unless we take stronger measures. Undermining the role of conservation authorities, limiting the role of conservation authorities is exactly counter to what we should be doing.

Interestingly, the federal parliamentary budget office had recognized the work that Ontario’s conservation authorities had been doing to keep losses associated with flooding in Ontario lower than losses seen in other Canadian provinces. The last thing we want to do is to limit and undermine the role of conservation authorities in sound and sustainable development planning.

I just want to close by saying that this government has given us no confidence that it is committed to housing. We just saw in this year’s estimate a $100-million cut to the provincial government’s housing program. They have to do a lot better than what’s in this bill.

I rise today on behalf of the people in London West to participate in the debate on Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate because it comes on the heels of a municipal election. I know many of us engaged with voters in the municipal election and we heard very, very clearly from people in our communities that housing is a number one priority—along with health care, of course, but housing is a huge issue for people in our communities.

Homelessness is a huge issue for people in our communities. Certainly in the city of London the homelessness crisis has reached a point that we haven’t seen before. The riding of London West is located in a suburban area of the city. It’s one of the most affluent areas of the city and we are seeing encampments in parks in London West, in Jesse Davidson Park, that we haven’t seen before. We have not seen a homelessness crisis of this kind of proportion that has spread out from the downtown core and has reached areas of the city like in my riding of London West.

This is a big concern for people. It is an affront to people’s morality to see neighbours, to see human beings who have no place to live, who are forced to live in encampments because there are no other options.

Right now in this province we have a housing crisis that is caused by a number of factors. People can’t afford to buy new homes and therefore they are staying in rental accommodation much longer than they were before. We have a shortage of purpose-built rentals. We have a shortage of rental housing options for people to live in, and people are being priced out of the rental market.

One of the decisions that this government made after they were elected in 2018 was to remove rent control on buildings that were built after November 2018. That has caused huge pressures in communities that finally were able to get some rental housing built after November 2018. The tenants who have moved into those units are hit unexpectedly with annual rent increases that are financially impossible for them to enable them to stay in their rental units.

It’s a domino effect, Speaker, when we don’t have the supply for people to buy who want to buy, when we don’t have the supply for people to be able to afford to rent, and when we don’t have protections for tenants who are living in our rental accommodation.

Then, of course, we have the lack of supports for people who are struggling with mental health and addictions. We don’t have protections in place for the most vulnerable people, who are living in inadequate group homes because there are no other options and they need some kind of living arrangement that enables them just to have a roof over their heads. And literally that is all they’re getting—a roof. We saw a recent report in the Toronto Star, an undercover investigation that looked at those appalling, just unconscionable living conditions that many people—the most vulnerable people in this province—are forced to accept because they have no other options. They’re living in these unregulated, substandard group homes—

I don’t think there’s any question that hospitals, alternate-level-of-care beds, are not the greatest place for people to be, but neither is a long-term-care home that is not of the patient’s choosing—a long-term-care home that likely has availability because no one wants to go there. We all know of those long-term-care homes that became notorious during COVID-19 because of their abject failure to protect the residents who lived in those homes.

Unless this bill is accompanied by a huge effort to improve PSW wages, to make those jobs good jobs, to improve supports for seniors in long-term-care homes, moving vulnerable people from one situation of crisis in a hospital to another situation of crisis in a long-term-care home will do nothing to solve the problem.

Clearly, I do not think it is okay to allow the provision of personal health information to any entity without the consent of the person whose information is being shared.

I did want to comment on the fact that private sector long-term-care homes are very likely to be the biggest beneficiaries of this bill, because many of the long-term-care homes that have the shortest waiting lists, that will be able to accommodate these alternate-level-of-care patients, are those private sector homes that other people don’t want to go to. They are the homes that were exposed as having the worst protections in place for seniors during COVID-19.