role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

October 27, 2022

43rd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2022-Oct-27 vol. A (PDF)

L021A - Thu 27 Oct 2022 / Jeu 27 oct 2022

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 27 October 2022 Jeudi 27 octobre 2022

Orders of the Day

More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 / Loi de 2022 visant à accélérer la construction de plus de logements

Members’ Statements

illumi Mississauga

Housing

Deborah Foster

Arrowhead Coffee Company

Municipal elections

Health care funding

Billy Bishop Museum ceremony

Social assistance

HMCS Oakville

Ajax Pumpkinville

Report, Financial Accountability Officer

Introduction of Visitors

Question Period

Public Order Emergency Commission

Public Order Emergency Commission

Public Order Emergency Commission

Long-term care

Services de santé dans le Nord / Northern health services

Housing

Indigenous children and youth

Public Order Emergency Commission

Mining industry

Public Order Emergency Commission

Public safety / Sécurité publique

Conservation authorities

Child abuse prevention

Government investments

Affaires francophones

Child care

Notice of dissatisfaction

Business of the House

Introduction of Visitors

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Justice Policy

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Introduction of Government Bills

Strengthening Post-secondary Institutions and Students Act, 2022 / Loi de 2022 sur le renforcement des établissements postsecondaires et les étudiants

Introduction of Bills

Protecting Agricultural Land Act, 2022 / Loi de 2022 sur la protection des terres agricoles

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Child abuse prevention

Petitions

Social assistance

Injured workers

Tenant protection

Social assistance

Social assistance

Social assistance

Affordable housing

Health care

Orders of the Day

More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 / Loi de 2022 visant à accélérer la construction de plus de logements

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Good morning. Let us pray.

Prières / Prayers.

Orders of the Day

More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 / Loi de 2022 visant à accélérer la construction de plus de logements

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 26, 2022, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 23,

An Act to amend various statutes, to revoke various regulations and to enact the Supporting Growth and Housing in York and Durham Regions Act, 2022 / Projet de loi 23, Loi modifiant diverses lois, abrogeant divers règlements et édictant la Loi de 2022 visant à soutenir la croissance et la construction de logements dans les régions de York et de Durham.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Further debate?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Good morning, everyone, and colleagues in the House. I will begin this morning by saying thank you to my colleague Minister Clark for your tireless leadership and dedication to an important issue that matters to so many Ontario families, seniors and those who are vulnerable.

Everyone in Ontario should be able to find a home that is right for them, but that is simply not the current reality. Too many people are struggling with the rising cost of living and with finding housing that meets their families’ needs. Ontario needs more housing, and Ontario needs it now.

Tout le monde en Ontario devrait pouvoir trouver un logement qui lui convient. Mais la réalité actuelle est tout autre. Trop de gens ont du mal à jongler avec le coût de la vie qui augmente et avec la recherche d’un logement qui répond aux besoins de leur famille. Il faut plus de logements en Ontario, et il les faut maintenant.

Attainable housing has undoubtedly become one of the most important topics of the day, which is exactly why this government, and Minister Clark and the Premier in particular, have led the charge in stepping up to the plate to address and tackle this issue head-on.

It is not the only subject, however, that has continued to dominate headlines. Geo-political crises and supply chain issues continue to strain society, especially as far as people’s pocketbooks are concerned. This is not lost on our government. It is also why today it is my sincere honour to address the measures this government has taken in our mission to help keep costs down in this province, particularly as it relates to the housing file, and I’m pleased to be here today to speak to the government’s recently introduced More Homes Built Faster Act.

It is very clear to this government that families, seniors and people from every corner of this province are looking to cut back on their household expenses. Our government believes this is an opportunity to help support people through a very challenging time. As I mentioned earlier, over the last four years the government has introduced many new policies to build more housing against the backdrop of a system that is not working as well as it could.

In 2019, we created the province’s first-ever housing supply action plan to cut through the red tape and get more homes built faster. Last spring, we introduced our More Homes for Everyone plan, and we have committed to introducing a housing supply action plan every year to meet our commitment to build 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years, and our government is taking bold action to get those 1.5 million homes built over the next 10 years.

While I can say the government’s new policies are working, we know more work needs to be done to reach our goal of building 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years to address this province’s housing crisis, starting with reducing red tape and delays that are holding back the construction of housing. We must reform these processes at the provincial and municipal levels to ensure everyone can find a home that meets their needs and their budgets.

D’abord, réduire les formalités administratives et lever les obstacles qui retardent la construction de logements et créent d’importantes difficultés pour les jeunes et les familles, les nouveaux arrivants, et les aînés qui envisagent de prendre un logement plus petit—nous devons réformer ces processus aux paliers provincial et municipal pour que chacun puisse trouver un logement adapté à ses besoins et à son budget.

Our government is building a durable foundation for action that will increase housing supply and attainability over the long term, even though we know that the effects of this plan will not be felt overnight. The proposals contained in this legislation, if passed, would ensure cities, towns and rural communities grow with a mix of ownership and rental housing types that meet the needs of all, from single-family homes to townhomes and mid-rise apartments. We remain committed to releasing a new action plan every year over four years to help build more homes and make life more affordable for Ontario families.

Before I go any further, let me just share some of the actions we have taken to date on this file. I want to spend a moment echoing what Mr. Clark said earlier this year at the Association of Municipalities of Ontario conference. Ontario cannot tackle this housing crisis on its own. Municipal councils play a crucial role in increasing the housing supply. The province cannot do it alone, so our government has been working closely with municipalities to identify opportunities and solutions to help us collectively and effectively address the housing crisis. What we have heard from them was very clear: Municipalities need the tools and flexibility to get shovels in the ground faster.

Les conseils municipaux contribuent grandement à enrichir l’offre de logements. La province ne saurait le faire seule. Notre gouvernement travaille donc en étroite collaboration avec les municipalités pour trouver des occasions et des solutions susceptibles de nous aider à contrer collectivement et adéquatement la crise du logement. Le message des municipalités est clair : elles ont besoin des outils et de la souplesse nécessaires pour pouvoir mettre leurs projets en chantier plus rapidement.

That is why the province has also passed the Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act in September in respect of our cities in the most urgent need of new housing, namely Toronto and Ottawa, where more than one third of Ontario’s growth across the next decades is expected to take place. Thanks to that legislation, if proclaimed, mayors in these two great cities would get the ability to drive policy changes, select municipal department heads and bring forward budgets. These changes are intended to be in effect on November 15, 2022, in Toronto and Ottawa, the start of the new municipal council term.

Efficient local decision-making will help to expedite the development timelines, which is why we have enabled municipalities to take the opportunity to bypass red tape and get housing built faster.

Our work with municipalities does not stop there. We’re also encouraging gentle intensification by giving some property owners the right to build up to three units on most urban residential lots without lengthy planning approvals and development charges. And we are creating a new attainable housing program to drive development of housing. Sites across all regions of Ontario will be considered, including those in the north, central, east and southwest regions.

We are building more homes near transit, unlocking an innovative approach to design and construction, and getting shovels in the ground faster. We are continuing to introduce consumer protection measures for homebuyers and using provincial lands to build more attainable homes so, whatever their budget, Ontarians can find a place to call their own.

We’re also introducing changes to renew and update our heritage policies to reduce red tape, strengthen the criteria for heritage designation and provide clearer, fairer and more transparent guidelines. This is good policy work that will drive meaningful change.

I will now turn my attention to renters, as there are measures we are considering at this time that could help those who rent—for example, units sitting empty in incidences where they have been purchased as an investment, but not rented out. Too many units are sitting empty while would-be homebuyers and renters sit on the sidelines, priced out of the market. To encourage these property owners to rent or sell their unoccupied units this winter, Ontario will release a policy framework setting out the key elements of local vacant-home taxes. We’re also going to look at how the property tax assessment system can better support affordable rental housing.

Mr. Speaker, we are also calling on the federal government to come to the table and work with us on potential HST incentives, including rebates, exemptions and deferrals to support new ownership and rental housing development, because all levels of government need to work together to get more homes built and address the housing crisis.

These actions are all part of our government’s broader approach to support everyone—everyone in Ontario—living in a home that meets their needs and meets their budget. Let me be clear: As part of this commitment to tackle Ontario’s housing crisis, we need to prioritize Ontario families and Ontario homebuyers. That is why our government got to work immediately. On March 30, 2022, we increased the non-resident speculation tax to 20% from 15%, and expanded the tax to apply province-wide, beyond the greater Golden Horseshoe.

These changes further deterred non-resident investors from speculating on Ontario’s housing market. This measure helps make home ownership more attainable for Ontario residents, and that is exactly why we are now increasing Ontario’s non-resident speculation tax rate from 20% to 25%, to prioritize Ontario families and Ontario homebuyers. This increase will mean it is the most comprehensive non-resident speculation tax rate in the country.

Following this, Ontario will also consult on potential measures to address concerns related to land speculation. For example, the province will explore ways to discourage construction slowdowns that may be artificially driving up prices of new homes for Ontario families through land speculation.

Speaker, Ontarians sent our government a strong message when they re-elected us earlier this year: They expect us to deliver on our pledge to get more housing built. Over the last four years, our government has introduced dozens of new policies under our first two new housing supply action plans: More Homes, More Choice in 2019 and More Homes for Everyone in 2022. These have helped to substantially increase housing starts in recent years, but we know we need to do more to hit our target of 1.5 million new homes over the next 10 years.

We are introducing this plan now to accelerate the progress begun with our previous housing supply action plans. It is a clear indication that our government understands the urgency of the housing supply shortage and is moving fast to tackle it. For various reasons, too many people continue to struggle with the rising cost of living and with finding housing that meets their family’s needs.

Ontario needs more housing; Ontario needs it now. Ontario’s housing supply crisis is a problem that has been decades in the making and will not be resolved overnight. That is why we have committed to introduce a housing supply action plan each year over the next four years. It will take both short-term and long-term strategies and a commitment from all levels of government, the private sector and not-for-profits to drive change.

Addressing the rising cost of living and helping keep costs down are pillars of our government’s plan in so many measures that have already been announced and are already under way in Ontario. We stand here proud and ready to continue to support the people of this province, especially in this ongoing period of challenge and uncertainty. Everyone in Ontario should be able to find a home that is right for them. Families in Ontario should not have to choose between food and filling up their gas tank. That is our bottom line, and it will always be our bottom line.

In spite of the challenges we have collectively weathered, and will continue to weather, my belief in Ontario remains firm: I’m proud of the people of this province and proud of the workers of this province and of their resilience. This period of ongoing economic turbulence and uncertainty is real. That is why it’s my firm belief that governments must remain flexible and responsive, with a fiscal plan solid enough to respond to any challenge, and that is exactly what this government is doing.

Until then, I will say this: I firmly believe our collective strength will continue to carry us forward through any challenge. We, as Ontarians, are standing strong together, and together with sheer resolve and a government that has your back, we will get it done.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’ll now ask for questions to the Minister of Finance.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Thank you to the Minister of Finance for his comments. One of the changes that is proposed in this bill that has raised alarms with many people in this province are the changes to conservation authorities. People rightly point out that what has been of greatest concern around this government’s approach to conservation authorities is the development of warehouses on wetlands. The question that critics have raised is whether this bill is actually about building housing, or is it about allowing more warehouses on protected wetlands.

Can the minister tell us exactly how limiting the ability of conservation authorities to protect sensitive wetland areas is going to help spur new housing in the province?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Can another minister reply?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Yes. Minister of Finance.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Thank you to the member opposite for this question. I think, as the Minister of Natural Resources would have responded had it been directed to him, Mr. Speaker, that the conservation lands are being protected here for the purpose that they were set up for when Hurricane Hazel came through in the 1950s. They were set up to protect the lands against floods and propose flood mitigations. That remains at the core of the conservation authorities, and our minister has very articulately put forward concisely that’s what this plan addresses.

In fact, they’ve done a very good job to make sure that flood mitigation, that protecting the lands against flooding, to protect homes further downstream—that is their core responsibility. That remains intact, Mr. Speaker, and that is a core part of our plan to move forward.

But at the same time, Mr. Speaker, the status quo is not an option in this province. Some 200,000 more people come to this province every year to call home. Where are they going to live? We have too many people that can’t afford or can’t attain houses for their—front doors and back doors and apartments and rental units that meet their needs, that meet their budgets.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that this plan is dealing with the challenges in front of us boldly, and taking us on behalf of all Ontarians to provide them the dream of home ownership.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Markham–Thornhill.

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: Thank you, Minister, for your presentation. Mr. Speaker, I’m very pleased to see our government is continuing to take the housing supply crisis seriously.

This morning as I was driving on the DVP, a small builder called me asking how our new bill can build more housing faster. He has been struggling with a development application for five years to build five houses, going through the bureaucratic jargon and all kinds of red tape there is at the municipality.

I’ll ask the member: Can the member please let us know why our government is not only building more houses but also building more houses faster? That is very critical to alleviate the housing supply crisis urgently and introducing yet another plan. Please could you elaborate why we have to build more houses faster?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The question is to the Minister of Finance, and I’ll recognize the Minister of Finance to reply.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for making sure I respond to that question.

I appreciate the genesis of that very thoughtful question—to the member opposite. What we have to acknowledge in this province is that the dream of home ownership is the dream of many families. It’s the dream of many hard-working Ontarians. It’s the dream of many people that come to this province for the first time, like my family. You’ve heard me say before, I’m the son of Hungarian World War II refugees who came through the ocean into Halifax, into Ontario—my mother, whose family set up in Port Colborne; my father here, with not a nickel in their pockets, not a proficiency in the language.

And this province was welcoming to them. They were able to find jobs. They were able to raise a family. They were able to send us to school and had the opportunity and the freedoms that they did not have from where they came.

And one of the core rights, really, for people that come from wherever they come from, is to be able to have a home, Mr. Speaker. We cannot let the people of Ontario down. We didn’t let my family down back in the 1950s and 1960s, and we’re not going to let the people of Ontario down right now. We need more homes. We need faster homes. We have to work federally, provincially, municipally. We have to do it together so the dream of home ownership exists for everyone in this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The next question?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I have a question to the minister. Under Bill 23, building more houses faster—this government is always in a hurry.

So I’m questioning the government under

schedule 8. There are four new sections and subsections that had been proposed under this

schedule 8—the Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act. It says here:

“The minister may appoint a chair of the board of directors from among the members ... ”

“The administrator shall report to the minister as the minister requires.”

“The minister may issue directions to the administrator with regard to any matter within the administrator’s jurisdiction and the administrator shall carry them out.”

“No action or other proceeding shall be instituted against the administrator or a former administrator for ... any act done in good faith in the exercise”—you understand where that is going. But the crown is going to be liable for it.

So my question is, can the minister provide a specific example and legal case where an administrator was held personally liable to explain why this new

section is so imperative when we’re talking about building homes?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Thank you for that question and, of course, the minister who tabled the legislation yesterday will have lots of opportunity to get into the details within the legislation. But what is paramount here, and I’ll come back to it again: We have to build more homes, and we have to build them faster. I think we can all agree that that is a noble objective. We need affordable and attainable housing in this province, and the status quo is not an option.

We saw last year, for the first time—I came to this province in 1985, and in 1987, two years later, 100,000 homes were built. The next time over 100,000 homes were built was in 2021. We have not been building enough homes and apartments and condos and family dwellings in this province for 30 years. That is the challenge that we collectively face. Yes, we’ll go through the specifics and make sure we get the best possible policies and programs in place, but we have to agree—

The Acting Speaker (M me France Gélinas): Thank you.

Next question.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: I want to thank the finance minister for all his work. He knows I’m very passionate about our seniors in our community, and of course this bill touches a lot of demographics. He’s done a lot of work in terms of letting seniors renovate their homes and be able to stay in their homes longer, but it all comes down to supply in this bill.

I wanted to ask him in terms of the different demographics this helps, from seniors to new immigrants. Yesterday, we heard new census data come out that, in 2021, 23% of our population has been increased by landed immigrants—the largest since Confederation—and that’s going to increase by 34% by 2041. I want to ask him how this bill addresses all different demographics in our province?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: What a terrific question, and thank you for the hard work you’re doing in your riding.

I’ll talk about both the newcomers as well as seniors, because you addressed both in your question.

First, on the newcomers: back to my mother, in 1944, when she separated from her family—didn’t know if they’d ever be connected again. When they moved to Montreal from Ontario, I remember my mother and her brother, my grandmother and my grandfather and three great-grandparents all living under one roof. For many families, that’s the dream of home ownership. Everyone’s circumstances are a little bit different. So we’re trying to do what they were able to do many years ago.

With regard to seniors, I hear it all the time, and you’re absolutely right: making it easier to live at home longer by investing in infrastructure, as well as health care that comes to your home, and other programs like the community paramedicine program. You’re absolutely right: The home and community care, the $1 billion that we’re putting in there, is all driven so that seniors can live at home longer, where they want to be.

But we’re also very mindful that your house—

The Acting Speaker (M me France Gélinas): Thank you.

Further debate?

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s a pleasure for me to join the debate on Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act.

Before I begin, though, I just want to say thank you to all the people who have reached out to the member from Hamilton Mountain. She’s suffered a sudden death in her family, and I know the government side and this side, including the independent members, have reached out to her, and I think that that is a hopeful moment for us.

I also wanted to talk about a theme that has emerged over the last four years and now continues into this term, around the legislation that the government brings forward, and it’s sort of the theme of what you see is not always what you get. On housing, though, every member of this Legislature is experiencing huge pressure in our communities to build affordable housing and to ensure that that housing is where people live and work. That’s one of the key pieces that I’m going to be focusing on as I comment on Bill 23.

I wanted to give some context for those comments, because in Waterloo region, with a population of some 600,000, the regional government has just sanctioned a tent city. It’s part of a broader plan, but people in Waterloo region have literally no place to live, and so they’ve taken matters into their own hands. These people are members of our community who have been displaced, who have suffered illness in their family, who have lost their jobs. Many of them were contributing to the local economy prior to the pandemic. Then there’s also the complications around mental health and addiction and the lack of resources.

So it’s really through a combination of circumstances—and in some instances, for some folks, truly a perfect storm—you have people and families who are living in tents in Waterloo region. As the winter approaches I hope that we can all express our collective concern that living in a tent in Canada is something that should fill all of us with a sense of responsibility to address this in a meaningful way and with urgency.

With Bill 23—in some respects there are parts of this legislation that are encouraging. Some of the intensification pieces are exactly some of the stuff that we have advocated for, for years. The fundamental difference, I think, in the way that we approach housing and the way that the government does is that we do see a role for government to play an active role in investing and directly building affordable housing. Prior to the 1990s, the government filled that gap, where the private sector was not building affordable housing. The private sector is not going to build affordable housing. They are not.

There is no money in building affordable housing. So there is a role for government to directly play in direct development and funding of truly, deeply affordable housing.

Right now the not-for-profit sector—I’m thinking of an organization in Hamilton and now Waterloo region, Indwell—are filling that gap, but 30 units at a time, 40 units at a time. We know that for the 60 people who are living in tents in Waterloo region, that housing will not come online in time for them. So they are looking at a very cold winter.

It’s not that municipalities have not been trying, but they do have financial limitations to doing so. The mayor of Kitchener, who was just recently elected—congrats to him—said that this hybrid shelter outdoor model—that’s what we’re calling it— obviously it’s a transitional piece of housing programming, but it’s going to require wraparound services. This is a quote from him, that it will need investment from upper levels of government to ensure there will be wraparound supports.

So municipalities—all the hotels, all the motels, everything is booked, everything is full. There’s no other place, so this is where one of the most affluent communities in Ontario is really trying to formalize a tent city.

The region goes on to say that paying for such a plan wasn’t accounted for in the region of Waterloo 2022 budget, which is really interesting, when the Minister of Municipal Affairs says, “Oh, municipalities have all this money in reserve”—$8.2 billion, I think he said. When a municipality like Waterloo is factoring in $3.4 million just from September to December of this year and $10.2 million for 2023 to maintain and protect vulnerable citizens—in tents—I don’t think that the minister is factoring in these costs that municipalities have. One of the regional councillors said, “While the price tag is big, we can’t afford not to do it.”

I wanted the context for where the region of Waterloo is. They’re trying to find creative solutions. I don’t think any one of us ever thought that we would be sanctioning a tent city, though. It’s quite a statement.

I’m going to focus my comments today on

schedule 1 and

schedule 2, because this is a big piece of legislation. We saw it get walked in and the House leader sort of heckled that it’s an omnibus piece of legislation if it’s more than three pages. There’s a lot in this bill that needs our scrutiny, Madam Speaker.

Schedule 1, in particular, is of concern to us, because it will encourage the displacement of already existing rental units. I’m hoping that the government has a review of

schedule 1.

But this is

section 111, which the city of Toronto uses to require the replacement of affordable rentals that are demolished or converted during redevelopment. What our concern is, essentially, is that it is unclear what limits the government is seeking to impose. It has launched a consultation after the fact, which I have to say is not always the best way to consult, but this provision puts tenants at risk of being displaced from their neighbourhoods and threatens the inclusivity of growing cities. We’re already seeing this happening in our communities, but

schedule 1 may accelerate this development.

In Waterloo region, we’re seeing renovictions, demovictions, and those units are being flipped over and they’re being turned into condos, essentially. In one instance, an entire building of seniors was displaced. Our office worked diligently to try to find them some options; many ended up living with family because they had no other choice and they had no other options. Then one group of ladies, who I like to call the golden girls, three of them who were displaced, found a one-bedroom together and are living together. I’m sure that this is not how they saw their retirement.

I’m pretty sure that this is not how they saw themselves living out those last golden years: in a one-bedroom apartment with three senior ladies.

I do like to remind the government that we have a responsibility to seniors in the province of Ontario. Many of these seniors are women, they are on fixed incomes, and they really and truly have no option. When those rental protections are not there for them, they obviously have to find some creative options, but sometimes these moves put them at risk. Our colleague is trying to make some arrangements around regulations around group homes to ensure that when people move from an apartment, if they’re renovicted or demovicted, and they end up in one of these privately run homes in a room, that they’re protected and that they’re safe. Clearly that is not happening in Ontario right now.

Schedule 2: I have to say, I’m going to quote heavily from the Narwhal, because I’m a big fan of the work that they do. Fatima Syed and Emma McIntosh really did a deep dive on this piece of legislation, in addition to our excellent researchers with the NDP.

These are the main concerns around the changes to the Conservation Authorities Act: instead of requiring approval of the minister before selling or disposing of land that was paid for by a provincial grant, the conservation authority need only give the minister notice of the sale of disposition; and the ERO notice indicates that the province intends to require, via regulation—so they’re following in the pattern of the Liberals of bumping everything down to the regs—that conservation authorities identify land suitable for housing development.

This is not the work of a conservation authority. This is not their mandate. Their mandate is to protect the land, to prevent flooding and to ensure that watersheds are protected.

There’s a long history of conservation authorities. We went through that last time the government had a go at conservation authorities, so we don’t need to go there again. But I have to say, when the Premier says to the Toronto Region Board of Trade, as he did on Tuesday, “We want to build the right type of housing in the right places,” I feel like the Premier doesn’t really understand the right type of housing that is needed, and has a very different definition of affordability, and also around the right places.

We see the right places around the core infrastructure, where you have transit, where you have work and employment options, where there is green space and does not contribute to more sprawl, which actually adds to the tax base. Every new subdivision that is built, the next subdivision is paying for it from a taxation perspective. The costs that municipalities are incurring through this process can’t be downloaded anywhere except to the property tax base. This is something that I wanted to put on the Ford government’s radar.

At the time, though, there was no—when the Premier was at the Toronto board of trade, there was no mention, of course, that the plan depends, in part, on a massive gutting of conservation authorities, which oversee and protect vital and deteriorating watersheds.

So to understand the full scope, there was a briefing. Our critic has done a great job on this file; she did her one-hour lead yesterday. But there was also an internal government document which was shared with some stakeholders. In that document, which was actually later confirmed through the legislation, some of these changes are unprecedented around conservation authorities. The legislation will repeal 36 specific regulations that allow conservation authorities to directly oversee the development process. If passed, it would mean Ontario’s conservation authorities will no longer be able to consider pollution and conservation of land when weighing whether they will allow development.

There is a climate crisis. It’s pretty bad when the Insurance Bureau of Canada issued a response to this legislation and said, “Hey, listen, people. Climate change is real. There’s a cost to not planning for and being responsible for sustainable development, and this actually impacts the entire well-being of the province—not just our health, but also the economy of the province of Ontario.”

The government is also seeking to force the agencies to issue permits for projects that are subject to “a community infrastructure and housing accelerator.” So this is a new tool that allows the province to expedite zoning changes. The important part, on this piece, is that it will limit authorities’ ability to weigh in on developments to issues of natural hazards. Once again, this is the core business of conservation authorities. The changes are aimed at reducing the financial burden on developers and landowners making development-related applications and seeking permits from conservation authorities.

The Ford government repeatedly denied this Tuesday, and I’m probably going to hear this again today. Yet, under the new proposed rules, conservation authorities would also be compelled to identify and give up any land that they hold that could be “suitable for housing.” This is a major change. Conservation authorities have been looking around the crown property that they are duly responsible for, and saying, “Oh, I think some nice houses could go over there in that corner.” And our agriculture critic has already pointed out—how many acres of land are we losing?

Mr. John Vanthof: Three hundred and twenty.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Three hundred and twenty acres a day we lose in the province of Ontario to development. Of the 36 conservation authorities, 31 of them are in high-density areas in Ontario, in the southern part of the province. So there is no doubt that

schedule 2, as it’s currently constructed, will have a negative impact on sustainable development and planning.

I think that they’re here today. Conservation authorities—are they here today? I’m sure that they have some very interesting things to say.

I do want to say, the provincial government, the 444 regional and local municipalities, and the 36 conservation authorities—of these, the ones most directly tasked with looking out for animals, land and environment during the planning process are conservation authorities. Today, for the second time in under four and a half years, this government has had a go at them.

I think that we have to remember the Premier’s comments in 2018 when he said, “Listen, on paper we’re not going to go into the green belt.” Then he met with those developers and said, “You know what? We can open this up,” and then had to backtrack again.

The focus on conservation authorities, I think, for us, is worrisome on a couple of levels. I do think it’s important to also point out that conservation authorities are doing their job well, especially given the history of the province. If it’s not broken, at least try to embrace this philosophy of doing no harm.

Moving on, I think the response from communities like Waterloo, for instance, is going to be really interesting, because we just went through an extensive planning process. The developers are not that happy with it, but the focus has been on the intensification of housing within a hard line around Waterloo region, and I think Hamilton has actually had the same conversation.

Schedule 9, just to move off conservation authorities for a second, specifically deals with the Planning Act, this elimination of the land use planning responsibilities of the following upper-tier municipalities: Simcoe, Durham, Halton, Niagara, Peel, Waterloo, York and other prescribed upper-tier municipalities. This means decisions about official plans, zoning bylaws, subdivision plans and consents within a region will now be made only by lower-tier municipalities.

For the last two-plus years, Waterloo region has been meeting with community groups. Waterloo region is a very engaged group of citizens who care deeply about how their community grows. The good places to grow legislation that the previous Liberal government brought forward, which had us intensify—that has been working. It may not be always the prettiest housing, but it ensures that people actually have a place to live, and it’s primarily around transit.

So when you have a regional municipality like Waterloo doing exactly what government has asked them to do and then you throw

schedule 9 in and you remove that responsibility for the very thing that you asked them to do, I would have to say it’s a little bit insulting.

I want to try to say a few good things, because I always try to. The non-profit housing developments, including co-ops and residential units mandated under an inclusionary zoning bylaw are exempt from development charges. That should help with some of the barriers that the not-for-profit sector has seen in our respective communities. Also, the intensification piece, as I’ve mentioned, that Bill 23 actually deals with, is somewhat encouraging. We’ll have to see how that plays itself out.

But the municipalities under this piece of legislation now have to waive community benefit charges and parkland dedications for the percentage of a development that is affordable or attainable residential units as defined under the Development Charges Act, as well as for residential units required under an inclusionary zoning bylaw—that may raise some ire of the municipalities.

In

summary, Madam Speaker, I just want to say, I feel like if the government was truly concerned and interested in accelerating affordable housing, having a more reasonable definition of what affordable is would be a good start, and we do need a strong public sector role to get done what the private sector will not do and can’t be done. The private market can’t be expected to build homes for low-income people, and increasingly, it isn’t even building homes for the middle class.

Unfortunately, this piece of legislation misses that part, but as I said, there are good parts of it that we’re still exploring, and I look forward to the questions and answers from the members of the Conservative caucus.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Questions and answers?

Mr. Nolan Quinn: We know that when push comes to shove the opposition always opposes building more homes. The NDP often selects their candidates by looking for the most NIMBY—not in my backyard—local city councillors.

The MPP for Toronto Centre and former Toronto city councillor is quoted in the media saying, “Good luck trying to build your tower or ... condo if we don’t give you the road occupancy permit. Good luck if we don’t give you that permission to remove that single ... little tree. It is ... not going to happen.”

Speaker, my question to the member opposite is, how can they support the building of more homes while their own members have a history of putting up roadblocks to new housing?

Ms. Catherine Fife: I can effectively counter that but not in a 30-second period of time.

What we have said, actually, is that we fought for inclusionary zoning. The Conservatives did not support that. We fought for intensification. The Conservatives did not vote for that. What the member failed to address in my comments is why you are insisting on building housing that actually will be unsustainable, that the Insurance Bureau of Canada says is financially and fiscally irresponsible.

If you want to have a discussion around our record on housing, it is very strong. In fact, some of the aspects are even contained in the legislation. But what we’re not willing to do is move forward without a sustainable plan that’s focused on affordability and attainability. We want to make the legislation better. That’s part of our job.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Question?

Mr. Chris Glover: The member from Toronto Centre was a city councillor just before she became an MPP. Toronto has 252 cranes working on construction projects in this city. It’s five times the second-highest number of cranes in the crane index, which is Los Angeles. This government sets population targets for our cities, including the city of Toronto. Toronto is on track to exceeding the population targets and the housing that’s needed to achieve those.

So the question is, why is this government, through this bill and through the strong-mayors bill, undermining the power of the city council of Toronto, which has been so successful in achieving the population targets and building the housing that we need in the city of Toronto?

Ms. Catherine Fife: I think that based on a previous question and based on the member from Spadina–Fort York’s question, people see affordable housing very differently, and that is very clear, unfortunately, in this legislation.

The government is actually changing what is considered to be affordable and—well, I think they made it to 80%. Yes. They defined an affordable residential unit as being a rental unit where the rent is no greater than 80% of the average market rent—80%. That doesn’t leave a lot of extra money for food, for living your life.

Toronto has its own challenges, Waterloo region has its own challenges. A piece of legislation that recognizes that those communities are different and plan differently—I think by this stage of the game the government could have brought forward legislation which recognizes those differences.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Question?

Mr. Rob Flack: We all know that municipal fees on new developments have continued to increase and approval delays continue to grow longer and longer. I think of members opposite here—in London, I think it’s over five years or close to five years, from beginning to end, before we can even begin to build a house.

Delays in new housing are now 40% longer than they were only two years ago. Since 2020, in the GTA, we’ve got a 36% increase. Municipal charges are adding nearly $117,000, or $53 per square foot, to the cost of a low-rise home in the GTA.

So a simple question: At the time we find ourselves now, with a housing crisis throughout this province, who does the opposition think picks up the costs of these excessive development fees? Who do these costs get passed down to?

Ms. Catherine Fife: I guess the member is kind of making my point. When the minister who’s responsible for municipal affairs says, “Listen, municipalities have over $8 billion in reserves just sitting there like it’s a big piggy bank”—if the municipalities dip into those reserves and are charged under these new rules to move forward and lose out on the funding that is generated through development fees, then the property taxpayers are going to pay the price. So this bill becomes a downloading to the municipalities.

I know the government side views municipalities—they are creatures of the provincial government, and you have overridden many of their rights and responsibilities over the years.

Come November 15, there are a number of new councillors that are elected across the province. I think

schedule 9 is going to be hugely problematic for the government.

So in the end, this legislation will increase property taxes on the tax base.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Question?

MPP Lise Vaugeois: During the last session, this government already undermined the ability of conservation authorities to manage where development takes place in relation to wetlands and watersheds. In this new legislation, they’ve further undermined their ability to fulfill their responsibilities by removing the ability to monitor potential development for pollution. No community is going to be happy with development that threatens the health of the land, air or waterways. So it’s beyond me that they would remove this ability from conservation authorities.

Second, they are pressing conservation authorities to offer up conservation lands for development. We have these lands for a reason. They’ve been fought over, fought to attain. So I’m wondering why the government is creating conflict within communities over revered conservation areas, and equally, why they are asking conservation authorities to abandon their responsibility to monitor for pollution.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Thank you very much for the question from Thunder Bay–Atikokan, who asked a question about what I said. Thank you very much for that.

I think the conservation authority piece—the government is betting on the housing pressures to outweigh the environmental and progressive sustainable planning practices. It’s a bit of a gamble, I would have to say.

Brian Denney, who is the former chair of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, said, “So when the government tells” conservation authorities “to get back to their core mandate, it’s just another way of saying, from a developer’s perspective, that they want conservation authorities to get out of the way.”

Then another quote: “Conservation Authorities can be an easy scapegoat” for governments “because it’s an extra layer, an extra body, an extra approval that’s required before shovels can go into the ground,” said Kellie McCormack, Conservation Halton’s director of planning and regulations.

Conservation authorities are not out to stop development. They’re out to stop unsustainable, dangerous development.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Question?

Mr. Anthony Leardi: Speaker, during the member from Waterloo’s comments, I think she said words to the effect of the following: “The private sector isn’t even building homes for the middle class.”

Now, when I heard those words, it sounded like she was blaming private sector home builders for whatever delays or lack of supply is happening. But in my experience, home builders are coming to me all the time and saying, “Anthony, we want to build homes. We’re getting blocked by municipalities. We’re getting blocked by conservation authorities. We’re getting blocked by regulation and taxes and fees, and it’s just terrible. Let us build homes.” They’re begging us, “Let us build homes.”

So I’m asking the member from Waterloo to clarify her comments. When she said, “The private sector isn’t even building homes for the middle class,” was she blaming private home builders? Was that what she was doing?

Ms. Catherine Fife: I really miss the former member from Essex, I just want to tell you.

What I’ve said is that we need a strong public sector role to get done what the private sector won’t and can’t get done. The private sector is about making money. That is their core business, and that’s fine, but they’re not building affordable housing for low-income people because there’s no money in it. There’s no money in it. I’m sure that the former member from Essex, God love him—did I mention that I miss him? He fought hard for affordable housing because he understood that government has a role in building that housing in a sustainable way because it strengthens and supports the economy. I wish this member understood that.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Further debate?

Mr. Mike Schreiner: It’s an honour to rise in this House today to participate in second reading debate of Bill 23. I think everyone in this House, and everyone across the province, agrees that we are in a housing crisis. We have a whole generation of young people wondering if they’ll ever be able to afford a home. We have many people across this province struggling to pay the rent and meet their bills.

So I’ve been eagerly awaiting this legislation, eagerly awaiting the provincial government actually taking aggressive action to meet the scale of the crisis, because every day they delay the crisis gets worse.

That’s exactly why, a year and a half ago, the Ontario Greens put out a housing affordability strategy that Canada’s largest circulation newspaper called a master class plan in delivering the solutions we need to address the housing crisis, solutions that showed how we could build 1.5 million homes through gentle density and missing middle and mid-rise developments so that we don’t have to pave over the farmland that feeds us and the wetlands that protect us, so that people can actually have an affordable home where they want to live, close to where they want to live, work and play.

We talked about how we could both spark private sector development and also non-profit co-ops and non-profit housing to address deeply affordable housing needs that especially the most vulnerable in our province need.

Speaker, the government delivered some of those solutions in Bill 23. They started to move on getting rid of exclusionary zoning. They’ve come up with some ideas to speed up the approvals process. They’ve made things less expensive for non-profit and co-op housing providers—though I’d say they haven’t provided the financial support that governments used to provide for those housing supporters.

But I want to say, to sum up this bill—the good things aside—it’s underwhelming on supply, it’s missing in action on affordability and it’s dangerous on environmental protections. So I’m hoping the government will work with the opposition at committee to solve these problems with the bill, because the bill is creating a false choice between building housing supply and environmental protections.

Let’s talk about supply. If we really want to get rid of exclusionary zoning in this province, we should not only go to triplexes, we should go to quadplexes. We should also allow for walk-up apartments in residential neighbourhoods. So let’s take exclusionary zoning further. Some municipalities are actually doing that, and let’s work with them to do that across the province. We need to have mid-rise development along the entire major transit corridors and major arterial roads in this province—not just around transit stations, but along the entire strips of those roads, to be able to build the supply we need along the entire transit or major arterial road corridor.

When it comes to affordability—and we’re talking deep affordability, affordability that is 30% of people’s income, not 80% of high market rates—we need the government to step up and support co-op and non-profit housing. We need to remove the caps in this bill for inclusionary zoning and expand exclusionary zoning across our communities. We need to tackle speculation, especially the kinds of speculation that’s buying up rentals for low-income people, tearing them down and then building luxury apartments that middle-class and working people can’t afford.

Speaker, when it comes to environmental protections, this government has been systematically, over the last four years, dismantling environmental protections. They continue with that in this bill by weakening conservation authorities.

Let’s remember: Why were conservation authorities strengthened? In 1954, Hurricane Hazel hit this province: 81 people died in the flooding; 2,000 homes were damaged or destroyed. And the province said, “Never again.” We would learn from that mistake, and that’s why we strengthened conservation authorities. That’s why we said we were not going to build housing in places that it wasn’t safe to build housing. Just ask the folks in Atlantic Canada right now what they’re going through. Conservation authorities—by the way, brought in by a Conservative government—were brought in to protect people’s property, to protect their livelihoods and their lives.

You know, it’s ironic that on the day the Insurance Bureau of Canada issued a statement saying that we have to stop building homes in unsafe places in this country, because the cost of doing that is escalating, because the extreme weather events are escalating, this government put forward a housing bill that actually opens the door to building more housing in unsafe areas. It’s unaffordable for people. It’s unaffordable for government.

A report was just released. The cost of sprawl to municipal government: $3,462 per home. The cost of gentle density: $1,460 for homes. Let’s—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): It’s time now for questions and answers. Questions?

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: I was thrilled to hear the member’s comments that he thinks that 1.5 million homes is not enough, and I’m glad to hear he wants to build more. Certainly we’re not prohibiting people from building more, but we know that this is the minimum that we have to achieve in order to bring the cost of housing down.

I wanted to ask him in terms of—everyone is going to have different needs. I was talking to the finance minister earlier; we got census data that came out this past week saying that our landed immigrant population in 2021 is 23%, and that’s going to go up to 34% by 2041. We have an aging senior population, and they’re looking to downsize as well.

So we have a lot of this missing middle that we’re trying to address in this bill: laneway suites—we talked about it—the gentle density. Why are we prohibiting people? If me and my husband want to build an addition to our home so that our family can live with us and take care of our kids, why not? Many families have grown up this way, and it allows affordability for everyone. Right now, it’s prohibitive. There’s extra fees. There’s red tape. It takes years for seniors to move in their family members. So why are you preventing those seniors from living a great lifestyle with the rest of their family?

Mr. Mike Schreiner: Speaker, 1.5 years ago I put forward a proposal to end exclusionary zoning in this province. I believe I was the first in this Legislature to do that, to say we can build fourplexes and laneway suites and secondary suites and granny suites in existing neighbourhoods in this province. So I’m all for ending exclusionary zoning, and I recognize—and I said this in my comments—that this bill goes part of the way to ending exclusionary zoning. But I think it could go further. Why not fourplexes? Why not walk-up apartments? That’s what housing experts are asking for.

In communities like Mississauga, for example, if we would bring in the types of exclusionary zoning exemptions that I’ve been advocating for, we could build 435,000 additional homes within the existing urban boundary alone. That’s the affordable, fiscally responsible and cost-effective way to build more homes.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Question?

M me France Gélinas: Thank you to the member for his comments. I was just curious to see what his opinion is of setting the target for affordable housing at 80% of the average cost of housing. What does that look like in Guelph and the region that he serves? Do you think that this will help in my neck of the woods?

It’s 10 to 12 years before you can move into an affordable housing place. Does he see anything in the bill that will help the hundreds and thousands of families that are waiting for affordable housing?

Mr. Mike Schreiner: Unfortunately, and again in my comments, I said that deep affordability is missing in action in this bill. Let’s be honest about that.

We need market solutions, and there are market solutions in this bill, and I support many of those market solutions. But if we’re truly going to address the deep affordability people need, we need to define affordability as 30% of income, not 80% of already sky-high market rates.

No person who works minimum wage in this province can afford to rent a one-bedroom apartment in any city in this province: in Guelph or Sudbury or Windsor or Toronto, Ottawa, Timmins—wherever you go. People need deeply affordable housing. Most of the deeply affordable housing built in this country was built in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, when governments provided support. Let’s do that again.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): We have time for one more quick question and a quick response.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: I’m glad the member is supportive of many things in this bill to get supply moving. As we all know, the more supply we get moving, the easier it’s going to be for more people to move into homes to bring down the cost of living.

One thing I haven’t heard him address is our young people, our young population, many of whom are living with their parents or in a secondary suite, thanks to the previous bill we introduced. These individuals who are young, who are trying to get into the housing market, they’re relying on more supply to help them get into the housing market. I want to ask the member opposite if he is going to prohibit them from such a dream, or—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Response?

Mr. Mike Schreiner: One of the reasons I put forward a plan 1.5 years ago to build more housing supply was so that the next generation can afford a home, including my daughters, who are wondering if they’ll ever be able to afford a home.

So what I would ask the members opposite: Are you ready to work with the opposition at committee to amend this bill so we can actually build homes that young people can afford in places that aren’t dangerous for their property to build those homes?

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Further debate?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: 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—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): It is now 10:15, time for members’ statements.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

illumi Mississauga

Mr. Deepak Anand: More than 20 million brilliant LEDs in a captivating outdoor walking journey on a 600,000-square-foot site: This is not a dream; it’s actually a reality in my riding of Mississauga–Malton, with 14 magical universes at illumi—A Dazzling World of Lights, an immersive extraordinary light show, the first of its kind in Ontario, and one of the largest sound and multimedia shows in the world, where families can come together and marvel at the imaginative power lights can bring.

Founded by Normand Latourelle, one of the founders and artistic directors of Cirque du Soleil, in the first four weeks illumi attracted over 150,000 attendees, created 200-plus jobs in the community, bringing a common theme for parents, children, families and the broader community to enjoy: the theme of imagination, enabling community members to develop their passion and imagination.

My heartfelt thanks to the staff and management for making these visits memorable. Illumi has made a commitment to stay for a long time and will bring an opportunity to help other small businesses by giving them an outlet for outreach to the local community. To taste the experience of fun at illumi and for further details, please visit www.illumi.com and get dazzled.

Colleagues, simply put, let’s go to illumi and build memories.

Housing

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: Everyone is struggling in the province, and for some, the housing crisis is inevitable.

In my riding, agencies for low-income housing have three-and-a-half-year wait-lists. We have low-income rentals that are abandoned and deemed unfit because agencies have no funds for repairs. Our private rental companies/landlords have hundred of names on their wait-lists.

We have refugees and immigrants who want to start life here in our small communities, but we have no place for them to live. Inflation is so high that people cannot afford their rent and are looking for subsidized housing. They are left choosing between food or rent.

Our population is aging and our seniors have nowhere to go, as LTC homes are full and booked solid for years to come.

Businesses cannot attract new workers as they have no accommodations to offer them.

Long-term-care homes and hospitals cannot attract or retain doctors and nurses as they have no accommodations for them.

People with special needs who are seeking group homes are either waiting years for a spot or are being sent hundreds of kilometres away for a place to live, leaving them completely alone and apart from their families. The list goes on and on, and it’s only the beginning.

Premier, the need to remedy this issue is now. Investment needs to happen now so that people and families of Mushkegowuk–James Bay won’t end up on the streets.

Deborah Foster

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: I rise today to pay tribute to Deborah Foster. Many of you may recall her in this Legislature as she did appear before us at the finance committee, where she advocated for so many small businesses throughout Barrie and Simcoe county. She touched the lives of so many people. She was passionate for life. She lifted up those around her. She helped folks like Sarah Taylor, who she acted as a mentor for, and so many small businesses. She had a passion for cooking and a zeal for life and, let’s not forget, her passion for airplanes.

Many years ago, she opened up a businesses called OfficeInc!, and through that business she was able to help so many others that we know around our communities, like Jay’s Sticky Buns, which operated out of a kitchen called the #Yum kitchen. They now have their own location in the community, and they’re sold out every day. Through #Yum kitchen, she helped young and all-aged entrepreneurs really be able to export their love of cooking throughout their community.

She was a true entrepreneur. In fact, she received the Arch Brown entrepreneur award back in 2011 from the Barrie Chamber of Commerce and the city of Barrie. She was unstoppable, and she will be missed in our community. But when we reflect upon all the businesses and all the entrepreneurs she lifted up, we can take comfort in the memories of all the lives she touched.

I want to pay my condolences to the family of Deborah Foster. You will be missed in our community.

Arrowhead Coffee Company

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: It gives me great pleasure to recognize a Canadian veteran-owned and -operated small business today.

One week ago, I had the sincere privilege to tour Arrowhead Coffee Company in St. Catharines. It was a tremendous honour to visit this small business that has a simple goal: to create a supportive community determined to help veterans and first responders thrive, giving back to veteran charities aligned with their goals, while also roasting some great coffee.

Arrowhead goes out of their way to employ veterans. They offer routine and a support system for returning servicemen and -women. They give back whenever and wherever. Everything they roast and produce happens right in St. Catharines. It is an Ontario product created by an Ontario company that employs Ontario veterans. Lane Bally, a former Canadian Forces member, bought the company two years ago. I want to recognize how his company is giving back to the community through their hiring and charitable efforts.

What has always been clear to me in this House and in this chamber is that we all share, no matter our political stripes, a tremendous dignity and respect for the sacrifices of our veterans. This is why I am honoured to recognize the Arrowhead Coffee Company here today, a small business in St. Catharines that supports veterans in a very big way.

Municipal elections

Mr. Ric Bresee: I’m very happy to rise today to acknowledge the recent municipal election. As many of you know, there are 18 lower-tier municipalities in my riding of Hastings–Lennox and Addington. Of course, once again, the municipal clerks, acting as the returning officers for these elections, have done an outstanding job in ensuring that the elections operated with tremendous professionalism. I would like to publicly thank them for their role in this vital democratic institution.

This election saw the return of many mayors in my riding, including Paul Jenkins in Bancroft, Tom Deline in Centre Hastings, Dennis Purcell in Faraday, Loyde Blackburn in Madoc township, Jan O’Neill in Marmora and Lake, Bob Mullin in Stirling Rawdon, Neil Ellis in Belleville and Henry Hogg in Addington Highlands.

It also brought us some new heads of council, with Randy Wallace in Carlow-Mayo, Tony Fitzgerald in Hasting Highlands, Kim Carson in Limerick, Dave Hederson in Tudor and Cashel, Don DeGenova in Tweed, Claire Kennelly in Tyendinaga, Michael Fuerth in Wollaston, Terry Richardson in Napanee, John Wise in Stone Mills. And in Loyalist township, my former deputy mayor is now mayor: Jim Hegadorn.

For those who are new to these positions, I welcome them to their new governance roles. And for those who are returning, I thank you for continuing to show your dedication to your community and to your neighbours.

As these new councils begin to gather to learn the procedures and gain a fuller understanding of how their municipalities work, I look forward to working with them as partners to improve the permitting and planning processes to ensure that we can all work together to build homes in communities across the province. It takes all levels of government to do something that we’ve never done before: adding 1.5 million homes in this province. It’s vitally necessary and we will get it done, making sure that the dream of home ownership is viable for the next generation.

Health care funding

Ms. Marit Stiles: Over the past month, I’ve been visiting communities across the province to support our local champions who are running in municipal elections. From North Bay to Nepean, from Fort Erie to Sault Ste. Marie I had some great conversations with people about what they care about, and, let me tell you, Speaker, one thing I’m hearing very clearly from everyone is concern about the state of our health care system. Hallway medicine is commonplace again, as are 12- to 20-hour wait times to see a doctor in emergency.

People are worried that this government’s plans to sell off more of our health care system to for-profit companies looking to make a buck will be paid for by their loved ones or themselves. People are worried that the government’s disrespect for nurses and other health care workers is creating a massive staffing crisis.

Chesley hospital emergency room is closing until December—December. Why? Because of a critical nursing shortage.

Every single dollar moved out of public health care into the pockets of corporations is a dollar less for working people, for local hospitals and for strained emergency rooms. It’s time for this government to reverse course on its sell-off of public health care to respect and properly compensate the people who provide that care and to ensure that local care is there when people need it.

Billy Bishop Museum ceremony

Mr. Rick Byers: Members, this morning, it is my pleasure to tell you about an event I attended last Sunday in Owen Sound put on by the Billy Bishop Museum honouring local veterans in our community.

As you know, Billy Bishop was a flying ace in the First World War. He was the top Canadian and British Empire ace of the war and received the Victoria Cross. Billy Bishop was born in Owen Sound, and his birthplace is now a national historic site and museum, and a popular local destination.

On October 23, the Billy Bishop Museum held its annual veterans’ ceremony at the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 6 in Owen Sound, complete with colour guard and bagpipes. It was a great show. The eight local veterans honoured were Able Seaman Audrey Chester Coultis, Leading Aircraftman Elwood Moore, Private Harry George Tucker, James (Jim) Cohen, Aircraftwoman Joan Mavis Cracknell, Master Warrant Officer Kenneth Surridge, Chief Warrant Officer Lawrence Victor James Surridge and Master Warrant Officer Wayne Kennie.

It was a beautiful, meaningful, moving ceremony honouring these eight veterans which clearly told the story of their commitment and sacrifice to our country and to our community.

Thank you to all involved in putting on this excellent event, and of course, thank you to our eight extraordinary Grey-Bruce veterans.

Social assistance

Mr. Mike Schreiner: It’s an honour to rise today and give voice to the countless number of my constituents on social assistance who are reaching out to me to share just how desperate it is to live in legislated poverty.

I want to remind the members opposite that somebody on Ontario Works survives on $731 a month. Somebody on Ontario disability support is forced to live on $1,200 a month. I can’t tell you how many of my constituents have reached out to say that even if they can find a place to live, trying to pay rent with such low amounts of money is becoming increasingly impossible. To put food on the table when inflation is more than 11% is impossible.

Tragically, I have constituents reaching out who are considering medical assistance in dying because their state of desperation is so great.

I believe Ontario is better than this. I know we’re better than this. And, Speaker, I know that money doesn’t grow on trees, but we can afford to double social assistance rates in this province to end legislated poverty. We know that poverty costs this province $33 billion in additional health care costs and lost productivity. So let’s spend the money up front to help people live lives of dignity.

HMCS Oakville

Mr. Stephen Crawford: Founded in 1910, the Royal Canadian Navy has played an important role in the security of our nation. The Royal Canadian Navy has a long tradition of giving Canadian ships names with Canadian connections. During the Second World War, one of those ships, a Canadian-built Flower-class corvette, was named after the town of Oakville.

On November 5, 1941, HMCS Oakville was one of the few Canadian warships to be christened in their namesake town, and the ceremony was one of the largest ceremonies, if not the largest, of a warship in Canada. Thousands of people converged on the town of Oakville to see the corvette-class ship. The mayor adopted the crew and the ship as honorary citizens and stated proudly that the town would never forget the ship.

HMCS Oakville served during the Battle of the Atlantic, the longest continuous battle of the Second World War. On the evening of August 27, 1942, HMCS Oakville was engaged and sank the German U-boat U-94 during an escort mission off the coast of Cuba.

Only a few decades after the war, memory of the town’s famous warship was forgotten. In fact, if not for the efforts of Lieutenant Sean Livingston, a local reservist, author and naval historian, the story of HMCS Oakville would have certainly been lost.

On November 5 of this year, the Oakville Museum will celebrate the history of the warship in an exhibition at the Queen Elizabeth Park Community and Cultural Centre. The display is aptly named Oakville’s Flower and will feature artifacts, displays, historical accounts and photographs of the HMCS Oakville. As we approach Remembrance Day, I encourage everyone to learn more about the history of our ship and remember all the great veterans from the Second World War.

Ajax Pumpkinville

Ms. Patrice Barnes: I rise today to say it’s an honour to represent the people of Ajax and I am looking forward to accomplishing much together.

Over the break, I had the privilege of attending Pumpkinville, put on by the town of Ajax and TD. The town continues to grow and build a strong community. It was hosted at the picturesque Greenwood Conservation Area for a variety of activities, including live shows from the Great Canadian Lumberjacks, Friendly Fables and Jessica Towler’s performance of Disney hits. In addition to the live stage, there were also children’s games and activities, interactive experiences, community displays and exhibitors, a sensory zone, a wonderful haunted house. And Steve and Amanda’s No Frills provided pumpkins to all who attended.

The Pumpkinville event was tailored for families and children but saw more than 12,000 people of all ages come out. During these times of economic uncertainty, the event was able to be free. These events offer more entertainment toward our community, as a chance to socialize and break out of the norms, which has a huge benefit for mental health.

Community events like these are some of the main reasons the Ajax community is so strong. Under the Premier’s leadership, we hope this government will continue to encourage and find opportunities to support events that are playing an integral role in the recovery of our communities

Report, Financial Accountability Officer

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I beg to inform the House that the following document has been tabled: a report entitled Economic and Budget Outlook: Ongoing Budget Surpluses Expected for Ontario, Fall 2022, from the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We have in the Speaker’s gallery a special guest, a former member of the Legislative Assembly who served in the 35th Parliament as the member for Perth: Karen Haslam. Welcome back.

M me France Gélinas: I would like to introduce Angela Preocanin, who is first vice-president of the Ontario Nurses’ Association, as well as Erica Woods, who is government relations for the Ontario Nurses’ Association. Welcome to Queen’s Park, ladies.

Hon. Kaleed Rasheed: This October 29 marks the 99th anniversary of the proclamation of the Republic of Turkey. This morning, we will be doing a flag-raising ceremony on the front lawn, so please join us.

I would like to welcome Consul General Sinem Mingan, Can Mingan, Mebsure Taskin, Can Burc Gursoz, Sinan Erdemir and Babi Taufiq to Queen’s Park. Welcome.

Mr. Michael Mantha: I’d like to introduce the members of OPSEU conservation officers, who hosted a fabulous breakfast this morning: Drew Pegrum, Ben Sumner, Colin Cotnam, Mark Bailie, Victoria Edwards, Todd Steinberg, Julie Lawrence, Rob Ciraco, Mike Campese, Alex Smith, Micah Plourde, Stefan Desantis, Graham Dunville, Brendan Cote, Tyler Grant, Jennifer Cox, Matt McVittie, Derek Hebner, Sean Cronsberry, Christopher Bierman, JP Hornick, Laurie Nancekivell and Heather Douglas. Thank you, meegwetch, merci—great breakfast this morning.

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: I’d like to welcome Robert Ciraco to the Ontario Legislature. He’s an Ontario conservation officer and also a constituent from Richmond in the great riding of Carleton. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

MPP Jamie West: I also want to the welcome the OPSEU conservation officers. I had a great meeting this morning with Micah Plourde and Stefan Desantis, and I know that my colleagues across the aisle and across all parties will be meeting with conservation officers today. Welcome to Queen’s Park, you guys.

Ms. Laura Smith: I would like to present to you Daniela Tabachnik, my amazing executive assistant. It’s not her first time in the House but it’s her first time here as a member of the team. Thank you very much, Daniela, for being here.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I too want to welcome the conservation officers to Queen’s Park today, and give a special shout-out to Sean Cronsberry, who is detached out of Guelph. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Graydon Smith: I just want to take this opportunity, as well, to welcome conservation officers to Queen’s Park today. They’re doing an amazing job in Ontario, specifically Tyler Grant, Todd Steinberg and Matt McVittie from my riding of Parry Sound–Muskoka. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Kevin Holland: I just want to give a shout-out to Graham Dunville, a conservation officer here from Thunder Bay.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I too would like to welcome all of the fine conservation officers here this morning, particularly Derek Hebner from my riding of Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. We’ve had a long working relationship. It’s good to see you. I think it’s your first visit to Queen’s Park. Have a great day.

Mr. Mike Harris: I figured I couldn’t leave our amazing conservation officers out, so welcome to Queen’s Park. We’re going to get a chance to chat later. I’ve actually had a chance to get out and about with them in Timmins, Thunder Bay and also in North Bay. They do fantastic work protecting our fish and wildlife in our community, so thank you for being here today.

Question Period

Public Order Emergency Commission

Mr. Peter Tabuns: To the Premier: The Public Order Emergency Commission’s lawyers have been very clear that if the Premier and Minister Jones don’t testify, there will be “important gaps” in its record. For an instant last week, it seemed like just maybe the government recognized the value of testifying, only declining the commission’s invitation “for a moment.”

According to the Premier, the buck stops with him, but apparently not when he will be forced to answer hard questions about the impact of his decisions. What changed the Premier’s mind between last week and this Monday?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To respond, the government House leader.

Hon. Paul Calandra: I thank the member for the question. As he knows, this was, of course, a policing matter.

The Prime Minister had made the decision to invoke the federal Emergencies Act for the first time. By the terms of that legislation, a federal inquiry into the federal government’s use of that act has to take place. Obviously, it’s happening right now.

We are assisting the inquiry by ensuring that any key cabinet documents that might help inform the commission in doing its work are made available to the commission. At the same time, the Deputy Minister of Transportation and the Deputy Solicitor General have also been made available to the commission as they continue their work into the federal inquiry into the federal use of the act.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I had no idea that the Premier’s state of mind was of a police matter, but I will move on.

On October 17, the Premier told reporters that he had not been asked to appear before the commission in Ottawa, but lawyers for the commission revealed that both the Premier and Minister Jones had been asked multiple times to appear voluntarily, with government lawyers being told as early as October 11 that there was the possibility of a summons.

So this government knew that the Premier and Minister Jones might be compelled to testify before the Premier said he had never been asked by the commission to appear—very curious, Mr. Speaker.

Can the Premier explain why he said he wasn’t asked?

Hon. Paul Calandra: In fact, Mr. Speaker, we have been working with the commission and assisting them in doing the work that is required by the terms of the legislation when the federal government decided to invoke the federal Emergencies Act.

As you know, Speaker, it was a policing matter. The government of Ontario certainly doesn’t direct the police, and I’m hoping that the Leader of the Opposition isn’t suggesting that the government of Ontario should be directing police.

But, at the same time, it is important to assist the federal inquiry as it researches and investigates the federal government’s decision to use the federal Emergencies Act. That is why we are providing cabinet documents to assist the inquiry, and that is why we are providing top officials at the Solicitor General’s ministry and the Ministry of Transportation to assist the inquiry as it investigates the federal government’s use of the federal Emergencies Act.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The final supplementary.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Again I’ll note that to say this is a police matter, when I asked what the Premier was thinking when he said what he said, is not exactly being open and straightforward.

If the Premier keeps hiding from the inquiry, we’ll ask just two of the many questions the commission has for him—we’ll ask him right here and save him the bother and expense of having to go all the way to Ottawa. He can answer them here.

First, why did the government wait two weeks to invoke provincial emergency powers? That’s not a police question. And why did the Premier decline to participate in at least two of three tripartite meetings between the city of Ottawa and the federal government?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Interesting question, Mr. Speaker, because the member is right. On two occasions we, of course, had a state of emergency in the province of Ontario, and by the terms of the provincial state of emergency and the reopening Ontario act, we created a select committee to review the reopening Ontario act.

At the conclusion of both of those states of emergency, a report was presented to the House outlining why the government of Ontario went with a state of emergency. On both of those occasions, a four-hour debate then ensued on the government’s use of a state of emergency in the province of Ontario. Now, the debate never lasted four hours because, after one or two speakers, the opposition decided to sit down and not continue the debate on that.

That is why I continue to say to the member opposite: This is not a political issue; this is a policing matter that happened in Ottawa, that happened in Windsor, and that is why we are assisting the federal inquiry of the federal government’s use of the federal Emergencies Act. That is why the Deputy Solicitor General has been put forward. That is why the commissioner of the OPP has been put forward, and that is why we are assisting by providing cabinet-level documents that are important to the commission’s work at that time.

Public Order Emergency Commission

Ms. Chandra Pasma: Last week we learned from the commission hearings in Ottawa that while the Premier was busy hiding from his political responsibilities, the occupation of our city forced kids with cancer to miss chemo and radiation treatments at CHEO. Families of sick children were also forced to pay out of pocket for hotel rooms to ensure they weren’t late for surgery.

This was a crisis, and the commission wants to ask the Premier what solutions he had in mind to address it. Ottawa residents want to know too. Is the Premier fighting the summons so he doesn’t have to admit he had no plan?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Government House leader.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Just the opposite, as I’ve said on a number of occasions, of course: We are assisting the commission. We are assisting the commission after the federal government and the Prime Minister decided to invoke the federal Emergencies Act. Now, of course, no government has ever utilized the federal Emergencies Act. But, by the terms of the act which was brought in, a federal commission of inquiry has to be invoked so that they can ascertain whether the use of the Emergencies Act by the federal government was appropriate at the time.

Now, in doing so, it is important to note that we’ve ensured that the commissioner of the OPP and OPP officials are present to assist the commission in doing its work because, ultimately, this was a policing matter.

The member should know that the Ontario government does not direct its police in how to undertake its activities. That is why the commission is investigating. That is why they brought forward the commissioner of the OPP. That is why we are providing the Deputy Solicitor General, that is why we are providing the Deputy Minister of Transportation and that is why we are assisting by proactively sending important cabinet documents to the commission so that it can help in doing its work.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question.

Ms. Chandra Pasma: Kids missing chemo treatments isn’t just a police matter, it’s a crisis, and it’s a crisis that the Premier had no plan to address.

Workers in Ottawa lost thousands of dollars in income because the occupation shut their workplaces down for 28 days. They used up all their savings, struggled to pay rent, had cellphones cut off and defaulted on student loan payments.

One of the questions the commission wants to ask the Premier is why he wouldn’t attend tripartite meetings on the situation—and guess what, Speaker, Ottawa residents want to know that too. Why does the Premier think he doesn’t owe Ottawa workers any answers?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, as I reiterate to the member, actually, Ontario was in a state of emergency at that time, and there was a select committee which was formed with all members of the House, which also included the independent members in that select committee. I appeared before that select committee while the situation was unfolding in Ottawa.

At the conclusion of the state of emergency in the province of Ontario, of course, a report was presented to this House, and a four-hour debate was convened to investigate the Ontario government’s use of the state of emergency at that time. Of course, debate on that collapsed when the opposition felt that it no longer needed to review the government’s decision to have a state of emergency.

Having said that, we want to assist the commission in its work on the federal government’s first-ever use of the Emergencies Act. That is why we’re proactively sending cabinet-level documents, frankly, to assist the commission in doing its work as it reviews the decision of the federal government on the policing actions during that time.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Final supplementary?

Ms. Chandra Pasma: Kids missing chemo, workers without income—and the Premier doesn’t think he needs to offer any answers.

The occupiers harassed schoolchildren and their parents and threatened to drive circles around local elementary schools. They trapped people with disabilities in their homes, preventing Para Transpo from getting downtown. They took food from a homeless shelter.

The commission wants to know why the Premier waited until February 11 to declare a provincial emergency—stop me if you’ve heard this one before, Speaker—but Ottawa residents want to know that too.

So will the Premier quit hiding, come to Ottawa and testify and give Ottawa residents the answers we deserve?

Hon. Paul Calandra: In fact, we came to this Legislature at the conclusion of the state of emergency in the province of Ontario. We submitted a report on the Ontario government’s use of the state of emergency. We allowed for a four-hour debate in this House on the state of emergency. That debate collapsed soon after it began, ostensibly because the opposition did not believe that it warranted any further debate. In essence, they were in agreement on the invocation of the state of emergency in the province of Ontario.

Having said that, the federal government has a different process. The federal government invoked the Emergencies Act, and by the terms of invoking the Emergencies Act for the first time, their process is that there has to be an inquiry into the Prime Minister’s invocation of the act. That is why we are providing cabinet documents to assist, that is why the commissioner of the OPP is there, and that is why top officials from transportation and the Deputy Solicitor General are appearing before the commission.

Public Order Emergency Commission

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: My question is for the Premier, and the people of Windsor would appreciate it if the Premier would actually stand up and answer it.

Speaker, while protesters shut down the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, the Premier chose to sit on his hands and do nothing, much like he is now. The city of Windsor, along with the Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association and the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association, had to file an injunction in an attempt to end the blockade. This was after the mayor and chief of police wrote to the Premier and Minister Jones requesting additional supports. Again, this government chose not to act.

My question is in two parts. Why won’t the Premier and Minister Jones appear before the Emergencies Act inquiry committee and explain why they refused to help the people of Windsor? And the commission wants to know, why did this government, the provincial government, delay using provincial emergency orders?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To respond, the government House leader.

Hon. Paul Calandra: The member opposite will remember that during that time I appeared in front of the select committee that this House struck with respect to the state of emergency that was invoked by the Premier. She will know that she asked many similar questions and that answers were provided in an extensive appearance in front of the select committee that this House struck, because that is the process here in the province of Ontario. It is a process that we proactively put in place—

Mr. Joel Harden: Two weeks later.

Hon. Paul Calandra: I hear the member from Ottawa say, “Two weeks later.” Actually, no, it was a year ahead of time, because we wanted to ensure that when the state of emergency under the reopening Ontario act was in place that this Parliament had the right to overview and to assess what was happening. That is why we then brought a report to this House, not on one occasion but on two occasions, and allowed four hours of debate, which they, on both occasions, allowed to collapse after mere hours. We did what we had to do to keep the people of Ontario safe.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: We know that every hour of the Ambassador Bridge blockade caused a catastrophic impact to our local economy with ripple effects on both sides of the border, yet the Premier took days to intervene. When it comes to Ottawa, he was at the cottage on a snowmobile for part of it.

Premier Ford and Minister Jones skipped out on several intergovernmental meetings while the blockade in Windsor and the occupation in Ottawa raged on. This Premier claims to be the most accessible and transparent Premier ever in history, so why did the Premier and Minister Jones continue to hide instead of coming clean about their delays and inaction?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Government House leader.

Hon. Paul Calandra: I think now we’re getting to the crux of it, colleagues; I think we’re getting to the crux of it. What you’re hearing from the NDP is that, should they ever get the right to form government—which we have already confirmed will never happen in the province of Ontario—they want to have the ability to direct the police. They want to have the ability to order the police on how to do their jobs.

Now, the people of the province of Ontario remember full well what happened when they had the authority to do anything. They bankrupted the province of Ontario. Now, can you imagine the NDP, now standing in this House and suggesting that the government of Ontario should direct the police on how to do their jobs. The conservation officers that are here would be trembling in their boots at the thought that this crew might be ordering them how to do their jobs.

How about we allow the police to decide how to police the province of Ontario in a safe fashion?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The House will come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The official opposition will come to order.

Please start the clock. Next question.

Long-term care

Ms. Christine Hogarth: I have a very important question for the Minister of Long-Term Care. From 2011 to 2018, the Liberal government actually produced only 611 long-term-care beds—that’s all that was added to our system. And you know what, for many years, the Liberal government, propped up by the NDP, overlooked the realities of Ontario’s aging population and were indifferent to their needs.

As the needs of our aging population become more prominent, the failure of past governments to plan ahead was not only neglectful but disrespectful to Ontario residents and our seniors who need care. Their inaction and failures have contributed to the gaps that are evident today.

What is this minister doing to address the growing needs for long-term-care beds in this province?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Member for Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston.

Mr. John Jordan: Thank you to the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore for the question. After years of neglect from successive governments, we have made a commitment to fix long-term care. Our government is investing $6.4 billion to develop new beds, as well as redevelop existing beds to meet modern standards. Currently in the development pipeline, we have over 60,000 net new beds and upgraded beds, but this is only one component of our plan to fix long-term care.

We are also improving the quality of life and care for residents. We are doing this by hiring and retaining personal support workers, installing air conditioning in every resident’s room and increasing care to a new standard of four hours per resident per day. This is up from just over two hours.

Our government is making historic investments to fix years of Liberal neglect and get it done for the seniors of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question.

Ms. Christine Hogarth: I want to thank the parliamentary assistant for his response.

Speaker, as Ontarians age, their health care needs grow, and these needs are felt throughout the community, through increased demand for hospitals, retirement homes and long-term-care and emergency services. The parliamentary assistant mentioned that the government is building approximately 60,000 new and upgraded long-term-care beds across this province, and I am pleased and very thankful that 256 new beds are coming to my riding of Etobicoke–Lakeshore.

With many Ontarians nearing the age of retirement and with many others already requiring long-term care, it is important that these beds are built quickly and efficiently. Speaker, can the minister please provide an update on the status of these projects?

Mr. John Jordan: Thank you once again to the member for the question. As of September, 44 long-term-care projects are currently under construction or have already opened their doors. I have had the pleasure of visiting some of these beautiful new homes.

But building these beds is only one part of our government’s plan to fix long-term care. We recognize that many Ontarians need additional support right now to stay in their homes, which is why we have invested in community paramedics. Through this service, paramedics conduct in-home visits and remotely monitor the health of Ontarians.

Just this morning there was a testimonial in the Northumberland News which said, “This program has helped keep my mom out of the hospital. Since we have been on the program, ... her anxiety is down, and she is doing much better.” The Northumberland chief of paramedics said, “Working with our community partners, this is another opportunity to make health care services more easily accessible to vulnerable residents.” This is exactly—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much.

The next question.

Services de santé dans le Nord / Northern health services

M. Guy Bourgouin: La crise de santé s’aggrave à tous les jours, et nous avons un gouvernement qui n’offre pas de solution immédiate et qui n’appuie pas nos communautés et leurs propositions.

L’Hôpital Notre-Dame de Hearst, en collaboration avec Kapuskasing et Cochrane, a soumis une demande d’appui pour un programme d’anesthésiste et de praticien/praticienne pour alléger le fardeau sur le seul anesthésiste permanent dans la région et enlever la pression sur l’hôpital et les travailleurs de ce milieu.

Monsieur le Premier Ministre, votre ministre a dit à plusieurs reprises aux hôpitaux de partager leurs idées et de présenter des solutions pour améliorer le système. Cette demande a été déposée au mois de mars 2021. Alors, pourquoi est-ce que votre gouvernement n’a pas donné de réponse pour ce projet?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Eglinton–Lawrence.

Mrs. Robin Martin: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Unlike previous governments in Ontario, which were supported by the opposition NDP, our government has taken many steps to improve the physician supply, including expanding medical education, Ontario’s international medical graduate program, using other non-physician health care providers to provide team-based primary care, the northern and rural recruitment initiative and the northern Ontario physician retention initiative as well as locum programs.

I know you’re speaking about your situation in your community in the north. We’ve expanded education for medical students, as I said, including at Lakeridge hospital, the Northern Ontario School of Medicine as well. And we have those northern initiatives, as I indicated, that help provide physicians in the north. We’re certainly going to continue to work on improving the physician supply in northern communities and all other communities in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question.

M. Guy Bourgouin: Mon bureau a envoyé une lettre demandant à la ministre pour un service de suivi en septembre. De plus, je lui ai donné une copie personnellement en main. Nous avons encore demandé un suivi au début d’octobre et nous n’avons toujours pas eu de réponse—pas fort.

Monsieur le Premier Ministre, ce n’est pas tout. Qu’est-ce qu’il en est au sujet de la demande d’Ontario Health North East vis-à-vis le projet de loi 7 pour qu’elle prenne l’Hôpital Notre-Dame en considération spéciale pour une redésignation des lits NSD pour ne pas vider notre deuxième plancher et fermer les services de soins pour notre communauté? Est-ce que votre gouvernent va répondre aux demandes de nos hôpitaux afin qu’ils puissent desservir notre population adéquatement?

Mrs. Robin Martin: Thank you again to the member opposite. I haven’t seen the letter that you referred to, but our government is responding. As I was saying, the things we’re doing in the north include the Northern and Rural Recruitment and Retention Initiative program, which began earlier but offers financial incentives to physicians to establish practices in rural and northern Ontario, and they grant about $80,000 to $117,000, paid out over four years, while a physician establishes a practice there.

They’re available in any community defined as rural using the rurality index, and in all five of Ontario’s northern urban rural reference centres: Timmins, North Bay, Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay.

We have also got the Northern Physician Retention Initiative, which provides eligible physicians in northern Ontario with a $7,000 retention incentive paid at the end of the fiscal year if they continue to practise full-time in northern Ontario beyond an initial four years.

We are going to keep working on initiatives to make sure we have the physician supply we need in the north and elsewhere.

Housing

Mrs. Daisy Wai: My question is to the Associate Minister of Housing. Recently, a report from the Union Bank of Switzerland stated that Toronto and the GTA have one of the riskiest housing markets in the world. According to the study, the report says that home prices have increased by 17% in Toronto and the GTA compared to a year ago. The study also highlights low levels of housing under construction and that local housing prices are rising rapidly due to high demand of speculation.

The price of housing is becoming more and more unaffordable for people who want to move into Richmond Hill. Speaker, can the minister please share what our government is doing to help build more homes and provide housing opportunities for my constituents in Richmond Hill?

Hon. Michael Parsa: I want to thank my hard-working colleague from Richmond Hill for that wonderful question and certainly for her tireless work in our community.

We know housing prices have skyrocketed. We have seen report after report saying the same thing, which is why we have committed to introducing a housing action plan every year to address the crisis that we are currently in.

Our most recent bill, More Homes Built Faster Act, which was introduced just earlier this week expanded on our agreement to work with municipalities by introducing as-of-right policies. These new measures allow up to three units to be added on a residential property without needing a bylaw amendment or having to pay development charges. This means basement apartments, main residence, the garden house can be converted into a home without any barriers. It will immediately increase supply and provide some relief for local residents like those in Richmond Hill.

Speaker, this is just one of the many ways our government under the leadership of Premier Ford is getting it done for Ontarians to build 1.5 million homes in the next 10 years.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question.

Mrs. Daisy Wai: Speaker, thank you to the Associate Minister of Housing for the answer.

My constituents in Richmond Hill are concerned about their economic future and the ability to own a home. They are worried about rising interest rates and the lack of houses being built. They are concerned about what kind of housing options will be available for them, and if they will be able to live in the communities they grew up in.

We are at a critical juncture to address this problem for future generations. That is why we need our government to take urgent action today and ensure that houses are being built. Speaker, once again to the associate minister: What is the government doing to help build homes and build the homes faster?

Hon. Michael Parsa: Thank you to my colleague for the follow-up question.

Speaker, we will be building more homes and building them faster by reducing unnecessary costs and expenses that are passed down directly to the consumer.

We’re making it easier and more predictable for builders to determine project costs and timelines so more homes can be built on budget and on time. We’re also setting local municipal housing targets in 29 of the largest municipalities to encourage home construction and development.

For example, right here in the city of Toronto, we’re asking the city to build 285,000 more homes in 10 years, and in my riding—which I am proudly sharing with my colleague from Richmond Hill—we’re asking the same, for the city to build more than 27,000 new homes in that same time period.

Mr. Speaker, we are taking the necessary, bold steps that are needed to get more homes built faster. Our most recent bill adds to the foundation that is required to build 1.5 million homes. We are laser-focused on making sure Ontarians have a house to go to every single night—one that is loving and safe for them—and we will not waver from that commitment.

Indigenous children and youth

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: My question is to the Premier. Devon Freeman, a young man from Georgina Island First Nation, was 16 when he disappeared from the group home he was in and died by suicide. His body was found six months later. At the inquest into Devon’s death, Mimi Singh, a lawyer for Ontario, said that this government could only endorse “the spirit” of the provincial recommendations.

Speaker, is it the position of this government that recommendations designed to prevent the deaths of Indigenous children misconceives democracy?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you very much for the opportunity to reply.

The death of a child is a tragedy, and first and foremost, I want to offer our government’s and my thoughts to Devon Freeman’s family and loved ones.

Our government wants every child and youth to have a safe and loving and stable home, and for families to be strengthened and communities to be strengthened and supported through preventive services and early intervention. That’s why we’ve embarked on the child welfare redesign, and we will continue that work.

Knowing the importance of these recommendations, our government is taking the time to review and properly consider them so that we can offer the right solutions that make the lives of children and youth better.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question.

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Speaker, we know that the recommendations for these systemic issues that harm children have been presented over and over again. We have these recommendations from the inquests into the deaths of children, Jeffrey Baldwin and Katelynn Sampson, from 2014 and 2016. Now we have them from the inquest into Devon’s death. It is unacceptable for this government to use jurisdiction and democracy as an excuse to withhold resources that could implement these recommendations.

Why is this government not properly supporting these recommendations from the inquest into the death of Devon Freeman?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: I want to be clear that our government is supportive of all of the recommendations, but we want to make sure that the coroner’s jury had an opportunity to review and see them.

I also want to say that I am grateful and our government is grateful to the jury, to the participants who were involved in this very difficult inquest.

We are reviewing the recommendations, and we look forward to them informing our continued work in this child welfare redesign and in this case.

Public Order Emergency Commission

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for the Premier. Last February, the residents of Ottawa endured three weeks of lawlessness in their downtown core. People’s personal safety and public safety were both under threat. People suffered. Women couldn’t walk to work and feel safe. Families couldn’t enjoy their neighbourhoods. They couldn’t go to a park. Businesses were closed. And for two weeks, this Premier did nothing.

Families want some answers as to why the Premier did nothing for two weeks. They deserve answers and, quite frankly, they deserve an apology. They deserve the Premier saying, “I’m sorry that you had to endure that, and my inaction caused it to go longer.”

Speaker, the question is simple: Will the Premier stop his court action, apologize to the citizens of Ottawa and give testimony in front of the inquiry?

Hon. Doug Ford: It’s really unreal what I’m hearing there, Mr. Speaker. The member from Ottawa knows it’s a federal inquiry—he lives there—into the federal government’s use of the federal Emergencies Act, not the provincial emergency act. This is about the federal government.

As much as the member wants to play politics and pretend that it’s a provincial situation, as much as the member wants me to direct the police—he knows I don’t direct the police. I don’t direct municipal police. I don’t direct provincial police, and I do not direct the RCMP.

Top officials from the OPP that were running the operation in conjunction with the municipal police and the RCMP, in my opinion, did an incredible job. But again, to the member from Ottawa, he knows it’s a federal issue. He knows it’s a federal inquiry, and that’s up to the federal government. It’s not up to the provincial government; it’s up to the federal government.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question.

Mr. John Fraser: Therein lies the problem, exactly the same problem that happened last February: “It’s someone else’s problem. It’s not my problem. I’m not going to worry about it.”

The problem is, when it comes to public safety and people’s security, it’s all of our problem. Speaker, the Premier was not there for the residents of the city of Ottawa.

The Premier may win in court next week, but he’s losing every single day in the court of public opinion. I can remember three Premiers in this province who, when they were called to testify before a committee or through court were there: Premier McGuinty, Premier Harris and Premier Wynne. What makes this Premier any different? They did this because it was the right thing to do. They didn’t shirk their responsibility. They knew that that came with the office.

Speaker, through you, I will ask again, will the Premier simply drop his court action, apologize to the city of Ottawa and do the right thing: take his responsibility and testify before the inquiry in Ottawa?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: As the public saw, I was out there non-stop speaking to the people. As the member for Ottawa and his neighbours—he was hiding in his basement. Let me be very clear: This is a federal inquiry. And I love, Mr. Speaker—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Official opposition, come to order. Government side, come to order.

Hon. Doug Ford: I love that he uses previous Premiers at an inquiry. I’ve got to remind him, he was part of the most politically corrupt government this province has ever seen—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock.

Will the Premier take his seat. The Premier must withdraw the unparliamentary comment.

Hon. Doug Ford: I withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Start the clock. You may conclude your answer. You have a few seconds left.

Interjection: I think he’s done.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Start the clock. The next question.

Mining industry

Mr. John Yakabuski: Under the previous government, the mining and critical minerals industries were not a priority, and Ontario’s economy suffered as a result. That is why our government needs to take urgent action to strengthen Ontario’s economy, meet our climate goals and secure good jobs for the people of Ontario by partnering with this sector.

Speaker, people all across Ontario know how crucial investments are to the mining industry and how vital it is to secure them. Could the Minister of Mines please provide an update on how our government has delivered for the people of Ontario as it relates to mining sector investments?

Hon. George Pirie: Thank you for the question from the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. I recently attended with the Premier the opening of Vale’s Copper Cliff south mine. It was a tremendous event. Vale was extremely happy to see the Premier go underground to celebrate the reopening of this complex.

Vale spent over $900 million to redevelop this mine, and they’re going to spend another $900 million with the Creighton mine to do the very same thing. Now they’re going to spend $1.8 billion to produce copper and nickel and cobalt, minerals that are essential to producing the batteries that are required to decarbonize Ontario’s economy.

This is totally supported by this government and this Premier. We’re very supportive of this. We’re very ecstatic that this is happening in Ontario, under the leadership of this Premier.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I want to thank the minister for his response.

In the past, projects in the mining industry have taken decades to plan, assess and put into production. We all know these timelines are simply not good enough, especially if we expect to meet our climate goals.

Ontario’s mineral exploration and mining industry can be a global leader once again if our government steps up and delivers much-needed support.

Speaker, we have a significant opportunity to create thousands of jobs by opening new mines and expanding existing ones.

Could the Minister of Mines please provide concrete examples of how his ministry is cutting red tape and streamlining processes associated with mining projects, answering the call for urgent action?

Hon. George Pirie: Once again, thank you very much for the question from the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Mr. Speaker, our message is simple: We cannot go green without mining, and Ontario is the best place in the world to mine. The time is now to eliminate unnecessary regulatory burdens, improve timelines, increase transparency and improve business certainty.

We built the Kidd Creek mine in three years, and perhaps that was a little too fast, but we’ve got to do better than 15 years to build mines now.

Right now, we’re developing regulations that will help exploration companies find the critical mineral mines of the future and promote innovative, new strategies to recover critical minerals from old mine tailings.

There’s much more to do, but we will never stop driving efficiencies into how the mines are developed, because we know how important it is to Ontario and the globe to mine these critical minerals, to support decarbonizing our economy in Ontario, and to secure the supply chain—again, all efforts that are led by the Premier here in Ontario.

Public Order Emergency Commission

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: To the Premier: The Public Order Emergency Commission’s lawyers have been clear with this government that if the Premier and Minister Jones don’t testify, there will be “important gaps” in their record. For an instant last week it seemed like just maybe the government recognized the value of testifying, only declining the commission’s invitation “for a moment.”

According to the Premier, the buck stops with him, but apparently not when he’s being forced to answer very difficult questions about the impact of his decisions.

How did the Premier’s mind change between last week and this Monday?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Government House leader.

Hon. Paul Calandra: In fact, Mr. Speaker—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Hon. Paul Calandra: I’m disappointed to see that the opposition is not happy to see me on my feet. I don’t understand. I certainly value them.

Mr. Speaker, I’ve said on a number of occasions that we actually have been assisting the commission, right from the onset. Of course it’s important to assist, as the federal government act requires that there be a commission of inquiry following the federal government’s decision to enact the federal Emergencies Act. Of course, we’re going to assist. That’s why we’ve provided cabinet-level documents.

We’re assisting by ensuring that the commissioner of the OPP and other policing officials, who were there on the ground helping the Ottawa Police Service and who have important information, are testifying in front of the commission—because it was, after all, a policing matter, so one would expect that police officials would be there, colleagues. That is why the Deputy Solicitor General and officials from the Ministry of Transportation are also on the ground.

So we have been assisting the commission, and we will continue to do so as required.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question.

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: My question is to the Premier and to the Premier only. I want an answer from the Premier. He is in the House.

On October 17, the Premier told reporters that he had not been asked to appear before the commission in Ottawa, but lawyers for the commission revealed that both the Premier and Minister Jones had been asked multiple times to appear voluntarily, with government lawyers being told as early as October 11 that there was the possibility of a summons. So this government knew that the Premier and the minister might be compelled t