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

November 24, 2022

43rd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2022-Nov-24 (PDF)

L033 - Thu 24 Nov 2022 / Jeu 24 nov 2022

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 24 November 2022 Jeudi 24 novembre 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

Windsor International Film Festival

Assisted housing

Events in Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound

Injured workers

Holodomor

Poverty

Aaron Fisher

Land use planning

Trans Day of Remembrance

Gender-based violence / Violence sexiste

Brenn-B Farms

Introduction of Visitors

Question Period

Health care

Child and family services

Public transit

Skills training

Municipal development

Red tape reduction

Health care

Correctional services

Health care

Gasoline prices

Northern Ontario development

Cancer screening

Water quality

Health care workers

Women’s services

Business of the House

Deferred Votes

Health Care is Not for Sale Act (Addressing Unfair Fees Charged to Patients), 2022 / Loi de 2022 sur les soins de santé qui ne sont pas à vendre (lutte contre la facturation d’honoraires injustes aux patients)

American Thanksgiving

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Introduction of Bills

Rent Control for All Tenants Act, 2022 / Loi de 2022 sur le contrôle des loyers pour tous les locataires

Petitions

Road safety

Soins de santé

Climate change

Employment standards

Employment standards

Social assistance

Public sector compensation

Alzheimer’s disease

Health care

Northern health services

Employment standards

Visitors

Correction of record

Orders of the Day

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

Private Members’ Public Business

Stay Home If You Are Sick Act, 2022 / Loi de 2022 permettant aux employés malades de rester chez eux

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 November 23, 2022, on the motion for third 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?

MPP Lise Vaugeois: Thank you, Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on Bill 23.

It is apparent that this government has a deep fear of democracy, because with every bill that has come before this House, the government has attempted to undermine core democratic processes, shifting power and resources away from ordinary working people and their elected representatives to those with deep connections to the Conservative Party.

First, there was Bill 7, which forces people to move where they don’t want to live, far away from their families and their support systems. In the north, they can be moved up to 150 kilometres away. But guess what? Since there isn’t a single opening in long-term care anywhere in the entire 93,000 square kilometres of my riding, and the law provides the option to send folks even further away, they could wind up anywhere—in Toronto, in Niagara—who knows? How gracious of this government to shove people wherever there is an empty room. Is it any wonder that there are now charter challenges being brought against this bill?

While speaking of disrespecting fundamental rights—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Point of order, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Point of order, the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Mr. John Yakabuski: If I’m not mistaken, we’re debating Bill 23.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We are indeed debating Bill 23 at third reading.

Mr. John Yakabuski: It sure sounds like a debate on Bill 7 to me.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you for your assistance.

I’m listening to the member for Thunder Bay–Superior North, who has the floor.

MPP Lise Vaugeois: Thank you. There is a pattern in the bills, which connects with Bill 23. We are speaking of disrespecting fundamental rights.

Following Bill 7, there was Bill 28, which tried to override the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It took the threat of a general strike to wake up the government on this one.

But sadly, even after being forced to rescind Bill 28, this government continues to go full tilt at eliminating democratic rights, with Bill 23 and Bill 39, which really put the politics of bullying into law. We have before us two bills that say, “It’s good to rule by minority fiat. Hooray for the iron fist of the Conservative government”—and then there’s the destruction of the greenbelt that benefits key Conservative supporters.

I must say, I find it disturbing that members on the government side of the House are so cavalier about democratic rights. You were sent here—we were all sent here—to solve problems, not to appoint yourselves as bullies and enforcers who get to decide which democratically elected representatives will be heard and which will be ignored. What shocks me is that so many of you are willing—

Interjection.

MPP Lise Vaugeois: Sorry.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I want to remind the member that she should make her comments through the Chair, not directly across the floor.

MPP Lise Vaugeois: All right.

Perhaps democracy is something Conservatives are happy to put aside whenever there’s a convenient excuse.

Apart from disliking democracy, it’s also apparent that this government dislikes science and those with scientific expertise, as the government seems to be determined to cut out the role of conservation authorities in assessing the suitability of lands for housing, and they are doing this in spite of the imminent threat of climate change.

In the case of Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act, the government gives developers a free ride, removing fees that municipalities and conservation authorities need to fulfill their mandates, thus downloading the costs onto already overburdened municipalities. In fact, this is a repetition of a pattern going back to the mid-1990s, possibly during the Mike Harris years, when provincial governments started downloading responsibilities to municipalities while withholding the money needed to fulfill those responsibilities. Is it any wonder that so many municipalities, certainly those in my region, are struggling to maintain basic services?

I have received an unprecedented number of briefs from organizations and letters from individuals deeply concerned about Bill 23.

These organizations include the association of municipal organizations—an organization that represents 444 Ontario municipalities, which, shockingly, was denied a hearing by this government—the Ontario conservation authority, the Ontario nature conservancy, Ontario Nature, Citizens United for a Sustainable Planet, the hunters and anglers of Ontario, the Thunder Bay Field Naturalists, and the northern Ontario municipal association, along with many individuals who took the time to write extensive analyses of the bill.

The feedback has been remarkable in the consistency of the concerns raised and the efforts to be heard.

I would like to read excerpts from a number of these letters and reports.

From Thunder Bay resident Bryan Mackay:

“While I understand the need for additional housing in the province, I don’t feel it should override the liberties of citizens and organizations trying to voice their opposition and appeal decisions being made that can impact their quality of life.

“Bill 23 will restrict the rights of individuals and citizen groups to appeal land use permits. This is a right that I feel I should have under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Allowing Bill 23 to restrict the fundamental freedoms of individuals and citizen groups to appeal legislation is undemocratic and appears to be more authoritarian in nature.

“I’m also concerned when an elected representative of the people of Ontario doesn’t seem concerned at all about taking away their freedoms in the name of economic development.”

And he quotes from Hansard, so this is a government statement: “We would also place a limit on appeals from individuals and community groups, for instance, that would further hinder the progress of official plan amendments and zoning bylaw amendments.” He said, “This comment supports my concerns.”

He also agrees with the concerns of Gravel Watch Ontario about Bill 23, and they wrote, “Shifting the municipalities’ and conservation authorities’ responsibilities weakens the long established regional planning framework and represses the technical expertise which is critical to the review of development applications. In addition, amendments to the Ontario Land Tribunal contravene its purpose to provide justice and fair, principled resolutions for land use planning conflicts.”

He went on and cited a number of other points from Gravel Watch Ontario:

—restricting public access and involvement to the municipal level only, denies public access to legal recourse;

—restricting access to justice is contrary to governments’ role to protect the public interest;

—allowing appeal rights for “specified persons”—that is, government agencies and major corporate entities—erodes public trust in government and perpetuates land use conflicts;

—arbitrarily awarding appeal costs without request;

—empowering the minister to order an amendment to an official plan if the minister is of the opinion that the plan is likely to adversely affect a matter of public interest;

—removing the two-year moratorium placed on official plan and zoning bylaw amendments from pits and quarries, which, I must say, is a major issue in my region; and

—finally, structuring the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force without representation from municipalities, conservation authorities, environmental groups or the public.

Mr. Mackay concluded by saying: “I am asking you to find a more creative solution to building additional housing that still allows voters to use their democratic right as citizens to appeal planning decisions.”

Another constituent, Kyla Moore, wrote: “Bill 23 eliminates regulations that empower conservation authorities to effectively steward and conserve lands and watersheds to balance human, environmental and economic needs, while shifting massive costs and fees onto municipalities and taxpayers instead of having growth pay for growth.

“Bill 23 disempowers municipalities and undermines democracy by giving the minister the power to override planning decisions, and makes changes to public reading requirements, appeals processes, and restricts the public’s participation in decisions which affect their communities.

“Bill 23 erases and replaces policy which protects our natural heritage systems with policy designed to facilitate development, it rewrites the rules for designating wetlands as worthy of protection” thus ensuring very few will be protected, “and provides a high-risk ‘pay to slay’ option for unproven and historically unsuccessful land trade-offs (e.g., pay into a fund to destroy a natural area on the promise to rebuild it elsewhere).

“Bill 23 represents another broken promise to Ontario’s Indigenous communities. Indigenous peoples are connected to nature, including wetlands that support culturally significant plants and species. The provincial government should step back and make a genuine effort to learn from Indigenous approaches to sustainable management of land and waters, and this bill should be redesigned and implemented with Indigenous participation and consent.”

She quotes from the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: “Reconciliation between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians, from an Aboriginal perspective, also requires reconciliation with the natural world. If human beings resolve problems between themselves but continue to destroy the natural world, then reconciliation remains incomplete.”

I will now read from another document. This one was signed by a couple of hundred people. I imagine this went to all MPPs:

“In late October and early November, the Ontario government announced two dramatic and fundamental changes to how we design and build our neighbourhoods and communities, and protect the environment of Ontario.

“Bill 23 (and related regulatory and policy changes) and a proposal to remove 7,400 acres of precious class 1 farmland and natural areas from the protected greenbelt. The Premier claims these changes would build more housing more quickly. He is wrong. The proposed changes would not solve the housing affordability and supply crises. Any new supply of truly affordable housing units would be offset by the loss of affordable units through redevelopment of existing rental housing for other uses. And a new supply of diverse housing types would not begin to meet the rising demand as our population increases.”

I’d like to move to an

article that showed up this morning from Rabble media. This is a quote by Phil Pothen, land use planning lawyer and Ontario environment program manager with Environmental Defence: “It would absolutely, without a doubt be an out and out lie by the Premier if he were to go ahead and proceed”—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Speaker, is that a quote?

MPP Lise Vaugeois: Oh, sorry. I am quoting something—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Just a second.

Yes, I heard it too, just in case you’re wondering.

I’m going to ask the member to withdraw. Even though it’s a quote, it’s unparliamentary, and I ask you to withdraw it.

MPP Lise Vaugeois: I withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Continue.

MPP Lise Vaugeois: Okay.

I’ll continue: “To be honest, it would mean a death sentence to the greenbelt as a whole.”

Apparently, Minister Clark says the class 1 agricultural lands will be swapped out for 9,400 acres that will eventually receive greenbelt designation.

“Used in conjunction with Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act ... which upends conservation authorities’ powers and the province’s wetland protection system, the Ford government is playing a dangerous shell game with ecologically sensitive areas and precious farmland. Progressives and environmentalists know that this is not going to end well.

“As if those changes weren’t bad enough, the provincial government overturned Halton region’s official plan amendments ... which contained development within the existing settlement boundary to 2051.”

So the concern that’s raised in this article, primarily, is sprawl—the spreading of housing and creating very expensive houses that require more transportation, more infrastructure and more cost to municipalities to actually provide that infrastructure, while doing nothing to actually produce affordable housing and have more dense housing within already existing planning zones

I’ll go back to the letter that had so many signatures:

“The government’s proposed changes would damage our existing neighbourhoods, towns and cities as well as the farmland and natural areas that sustain them, which in turn, would harm our ability to feed ourselves, protect ourselves from flooding, and address climate change risks.

“Taken together, the changes would:

“—do little or nothing to address the shortage of truly affordable housing;

“—facilitate expensive urban sprawl and inappropriate high-rises at the expense of more diverse housing types designed for all stages of life and ranges of incomes;

“—divert limited construction materials and labour away from building mixed and affordable housing, and direct them instead towards sprawl development, creating fragmented agricultural and natural landscapes;

“—remove from the greenbelt thousands of acres of valuable natural areas and agricultural land, and turn them into sprawl development;

“—undermine the protection of wetlands, woodlands, rivers, streams and wildlife habitat across Ontario;

“—destroy key land use planning processes that Ontario municipalities, conservation authorities and residents need in order to protect, manage and plan for climate-resilient ecosystems and communities.”

I’m going to move ahead to a specific concern from a lawyer in my riding:

“I ... want to bring to your attention the Lempiala gravel application to insert a new industrial use of aggregate extraction next to the cottage/residential uses at Trout Lake.... Removing existing rights of appeal by Trout Lake landowners will mean that our fight against this proposed intrusive use will be at an end, and the peace, serenity and natural beauty now enjoyed at Trout Lake will be forever lost.

“Premier Ford is saying that our multiple-year battle with Lempiala is retroactively wiped out as of Oct 25/22, all for the purpose of building houses faster in southern Ontario. It makes no sense. It is a long-standing principle of planning law in Ontario that neighbours have the right to comment and appeal proposed new uses nearby their lands. Buffering between conflicting uses is an important planning principle that will lose all meaning if citizens lose their appeal rights.

“Adjacent to the McIntyre River (Trout Lake is the source lake) ... is an area that has been noted as provincially significant wetlands.... The proposed Lempiala aggregate operation will no longer have to set back its extraction operations from the potential PSW lands which are partially found on the Lempiala lands. It is quite obvious that the Ford government’s Bill 23 favours land developers instead of residents nearby and entirely disregards PSW lands.”

I will move to conclude. I’d like to think about the International Plowing Match, where we had the opportunity to meet with so many farmers. One of the strong messages that I certainly heard from farmers was the need to protect farmland, to not lose any more farmland to development, and to do whatever we could to stop urban sprawl. We are seeing exactly the opposite of that taking place with Bill 23 and then with Bill 39.

We have a responsibility to our constituents, to our citizens, to be thinking about climate change, to be really protecting the future—for our children, for our grandchildren, for ourselves—from environmental degradation. Climate change is a real threat. We need more parkland. We need more wetlands; we need to preserve those wetlands. They protect us from flooding. In my region, flooding is a very serious concern, and we can’t pretend that it’s not there.

So I respectfully request that the government retract those elements of Bill 23 that undermine democratic participation, that undermine commitments made to protect the greenbelt, and that undermine the capacity of communities to manage their own flood lands and land planning processes.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): It is now time for questions.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I want to thank the member for Thunder Bay–Superior North for her address to the Legislature this morning.

When I listen to the honourable member and the members of her party, what I see is a narrative that is very supportive of those groups that raise money being opposed to the government—so they’re lining the pockets of their supporters as well.

What I don’t understand is why any party that wishes to govern in this province someday would do everything they could to stop the province’s and municipalities’ ability to build housing for their residents and the residents who are coming here—half a million newcomers coming every year for the next number of years, with the federal government’s immigration plan.

We have a housing crisis. We need to build 1.5 million homes.

Why is it that we’re the party that wants to see Ontario grow, and you continue to be the party of Ontari-no?

MPP Lise Vaugeois: First of all, I will note that most of the organizations that I cited are run by volunteers.

Secondly, we all agree that there’s a housing crisis, but is the crisis an excuse for overriding democratic principles, democratic practices? It should never be permissible to make those kinds of—they’re not just compromises; they’re breaches of really fundamental principles that are going to exclude the people of Ontario from participating.

We’re not opposed to building more housing. We know we need more houses, but we also know that those houses can be built on land that has already been zoned for building.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: Point of order.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): I apologize. Point of order: I recognize the member for Barrie–Innisfil.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: Thank you, Speaker. Pursuant to standing order 7(e), I wish to inform the House that tonight’s evening meeting is cancelled.

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: In my city of London, council had a special meeting on Tuesday to discuss Bill 23, and staff reported just yesterday that they see a potential shortfall of $97 million, a hole in the city’s budget. The mayor is asking this government to slow down and take the time to do proper consultation with municipalities.

Effectively, this bill is undermining public participation. Bill 23 is literally undermining democracy.

If the government is not consulting with municipalities like London, I’d like to ask the member, whose interest are they acting on behalf of, and who’s giving them the mandate to go ahead and ram this bill through and effectively shut down democracy in municipalities throughout the province?

MPP Lise Vaugeois: Thank you for the question.

First of all, we’ve probably all read the articles pointing to who owns the different parts of the greenbelt, who seem to be influencing decisions.

I will say that the association of municipal organizations—again, many of us attended their annual conference, something that’s seen as very, very important. Speaker, 444 municipalities shut out from being part of the conversation about this bill—I find that shocking and appalling. I know that the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association has also not been consulted at any time. So I don’t know who is being consulted when the municipalities directly affected are not given a voice.

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

Ms. Laura Smith: I want to thank the member from the other side for providing their information. I am concerned, though—they’ve expressed their issues with what is trying to be put forth, but I would turn this and ask, what is their proposal to build 1.5 million homes?

MPP Lise Vaugeois: I think I’ve already addressed that.

You will find that most municipalities are already saying that they can infill. They don’t need to be expanding into wetlands. They certainly don’t need to be expanding into conservation lands, which—the bill also requires conservation authorities to identify parkland to suddenly turn over into housing land. The problem almost everywhere is not a shortage of land, and their own advisers have told them that; it is a matter of getting homes built. We do not need to trample democracy and we don’t need to use wetlands to fulfill those objectives.

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

M me France Gélinas: It was clear, through the member’s speech, that we support low-cost family homes and climate-friendly communities. But the part of the bill that takes away the power of conservation authorities to protect our wetlands, to protect our woodlands, to protect other sensitive green areas is going to do a lot of damage in the long run.

Can the member explain to us the activities that the conservation authority is having in her part of the province?

MPP Lise Vaugeois: Conservation authorities are responsible for entire watersheds. They’re responsible for managing and understanding, on a scientific basis, how water flows, how water is absorbed, what happens when there are extreme rain events and so on. So they do very important work. They are also there to advise municipalities. That is supposed to be their role, but that role is largely eliminated by this bill. It’s very concerning.

We have also been talking about housing, and I spoke yesterday about not-for-profit housing and how I don’t see anything in either bill that supports this.

As I said yesterday, we have two shovel-ready projects ready to go in Thunder Bay. They’re not for-profit. All the planning has been done. All the permitting has been done. But there’s no provincial support, so it remains a large gap in the planning.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Again to the member: One word she gives, “infilling”—I don’t know what the NDP thinks—I know they like to be against things, because that’s what they are; they’re the party of no. They have no plan for actually building 1.5 million homes. Last year, which was the best year in the last 30 years, we built 100,000 homes. I don’t know if they think that the tooth fairy and Santa Claus are going to build the new housing here in Ontario.

You actually have to have a legitimate alternative to what the government is proposing to finally get the barriers out of the way that stand in the way of building more housing in the province of Ontario. We have no choice. The crisis is upon us. And all you people do is say no, no, no—you criticize, but you do not have any kind of viable alternative to reaching that goal of 1.5 million homes in the province of Ontario. Come up with something real or get on board with a plan that will help grow Ontario and give those young people you’re talking about a real chance in the future.

MPP Lise Vaugeois: I believe the government shut down our proposal earlier this week, so, unfortunately, you didn’t get to hear the NDP plan for housing.

What are these barriers? You haven’t actually given any evidence at all that municipalities are resisting having development. What they are resisting is having irresponsible development on wetlands, sprawl, and wasting farmland, which is needed to provide a secure food network for ourselves so that we get to survive. We need those farms, and we need that farmland. I’ve seen nothing in anything that the government has said that actually gives a reason for stomping all over democratic rights and wasting our farmland.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: I want to thank the member for her really excellent remarks. She does such an amazing job representing the folks of Thunder Bay–Superior North—a really excellent MPP. I think a lot of people from across Ontario today will appreciate the care you brought in those comments.

I wonder if you wouldn’t mind expanding a little bit more on the question of food production—because this is land that presumably could be used to feed the people who this government says they’re building for. We know that this isn’t really what this bill is about, but I wonder if you wouldn’t mind commenting a little on that.

MPP Lise Vaugeois: Food security is about being able to grow and provide our own food. When we waste our farmland, we become more and more dependent on food that is trucked in from far away, which leaves us all vulnerable to anything—weather events in other parts of the province and so on.

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

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I rise to participate in third reading debate on Bill 23, a bill that is seeing significant and growing opposition across the province. Everyone from municipal leaders, farmers, community organizations, environmentalists and local taxpayer associations are saying no to the government’s housing bill—everyone but a handful of wealthy land speculators who are going to turn millions into billions with this bill. Why the growing opposition? Because Bill 23 is not going to solve the housing crisis.

As a matter of fact, it’s going to make the housing crisis worse because it’s going to download costs onto municipalities, increasing property taxes and making our communities less affordable. It’s going to force people into long, expensive commutes and unaffordable ways of living. It’s going to increase insurance costs because of the risk of increased costs from the damage of climate-fuelled extreme weather events.

I want to speak to the government MPPs: We do not need to dismantle environmental protections, attack local democracy, pave over farmland and wetlands and the nature that protects us, download costs onto property taxpayers, and force people into long, expensive commutes to solve the housing crisis.

The most efficient, cost-effective and affordable way to address the housing crisis is with good planning—zoning changes that allow four-plexes and walk-up four-storey apartments in neighbourhoods across the province; mid-rise apartments and missing middle housing along major roads in transit corridors—clamping down on housing speculation, and investing in deeply affordable co-op and non-profit housing.

We had the Canadian co-operative association here at Queen’s Park last night. They are ready to get back to building homes that people can actually afford.

I want to say to the government members, check out Bill 44 and Bill 45, which I put forward to help us solve this crisis, making changes to zoning that allow four-plexes and walk-up four-storey apartments in neighbourhoods as of right. Those are the kinds of solutions their own housing task force said were needed. The task force didn’t say that we need more land like the greenbelt and farmland to develop. No. They said we need to make changes to planning—changes like my proposal to allow six- to 11-storey apartments as of right along major roads and transit corridors.

That’s how we build housing quickly in communities where people want to live and in affordable ways, so we make municipal governments more affordable and we make household budgets more affordable. That’s how we solve this crisis—not with Bill 23.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): It’s time for questions. I recognize the member for Elgin–Middlesex–London.

Mr. Rob Flack: Thank you, Speaker. Through you to the member opposite: I understand the concern you have about conservation areas, farmland. But is it not about balance? Where are the two million people—1.5 million homes going to come from?

Mr. Mike Schreiner: The 1.5 million homes are going to come from passing my bills, Bill 44 and Bill 45, to start. They will actually come from listening to your own hand-picked housing task force. I didn’t agree with everything the task force said, but the task force clearly and explicitly stated that we do not need more land to build the 1.5 million homes we need because we already have 88,000 acres of land approved for development within existing urban boundaries.

The government’s plan to pave over wetlands, to pave over the greenbelt, to pave over the farmland that feeds us is all about literally a handful of land speculators turning millions into billions.

Let’s make housing about the people of this province—building affordable communities where people can live, protecting the farmland that feeds us.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: I want to thank the member from Guelph for his comments. I think we share many similar concerns about this legislation.

Last night, the member from Guelph and I were able to both participate in an online meeting with Water Watchers. I wonder if the member would care to bring some of the concerns that were raised at that meeting to the Legislature and share with the members opposite some of the concerns of folks from across this province.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I appreciate the member’s question.

I participated in a Zoom town hall with the member from Davenport last night—literally hundreds of people across the province, many of them in rural ridings, quite frankly, represented by Conservative MPPs, saying, “Let’s solve the housing crisis without paving over the farmland that feeds us and that contributes $50 billion to the province’s economy, without ways that threaten our wetlands that clean our drinking water and protect us from costly flooding events.” When Hurricane Hazel hit this province in 1954, 81 people died and thousands of people lost their homes.

The province said, “Never again.” That’s why they brought in strengthened rules for conservation authorities—to conserve things. Conservatives, I guess, used to believe in conserving things; they don’t seem to believe in that anymore, with Bill 23. A lot of their own voters were on this call last night, saying, “Can you convince them to do the right thing and shelve Bill 23?”

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: I want to thank the member for Guelph for his comments today. He talked about having proposed Bill 44 and Bill 45, and he talked about intensification into four-plexes and things like this.

You would have to agree that there are things in Bill 23, in our bill, and between all our housing bills that would provide for expansion—granny suites, driveway suites. There are intensifications in current housing models that would help build those homes.

Have you done any actual analysis of how any of the things that you’re talking about would actually get us to the number of 1.5 million homes here in the province of Ontario—or is everybody else going to have to live in a condo in Toronto or other metropolitan areas, on the 42nd floor? How do we actually get 1.5 million homes built—the homes that the people want and deserve?

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Back to the member from Guelph.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: The zoning changes I’m proposing, studies show, could build 435,000 homes in Mississauga alone—just in Mississauga, Speaker.

Housing experts, including the government’s own hand-picked housing task force, have said the kinds of zoning changes that I have put forward in Bill 44 and Bill 45 are the transformative changes we need to build 1.5 million homes in the communities people want to live in, close to their families, close to where they work, in places where they can actually afford to live.

The government is proposing to pave over farmland and wetlands and to force people to live in places where they have to engage in long, expensive commutes, making life less affordable for them—

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

Mr. Rob Flack: I’ll be sharing my time this morning with the member from Mississauga–Erin Mills.

Speaker, it is my pleasure and privilege to rise in the House today for the third reading of our government’s More Homes Built Faster Act. We’ve talked about it this morning.

Over the next 10 years, I think we can all agree, there will be two million new Ontarians living in our great province. Most of these individuals will choose the greater Toronto and Hamilton area to make their home. They know, like myself and all members of this House, that Ontario is the best place to live, the best place to work and the best place to raise a family.

However, I think we can all agree as well that we have a serious housing crisis in Ontario. Many Ontarians are struggling to find an attainable home. Whether renting an apartment, obtaining the ultimate dream of home ownership or downsizing for retirement in their home community—that’s important—many are struggling to find the right home that suits their life’s requirements.

Housing attainability and the need for more housing are daunting issues in my riding of Elgin–Middlesex–London. The London St. Thomas Association of Realtors is reporting year-to-date average sale prices for a single-family home at almost $800,000. That’s up 16% compared to the same time just one year ago. To make matters even more concerning, the average sale price is up 81% from just three years ago—a staggering increase that has put the dream of home ownership out of the reach of many of my constituents.

As the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing said in this House yesterday, we are displacing a generation of Canadians from home ownership.

This is a tragedy in the making—a tragedy that can be avoided by unleashing the benefits of Bill 23.

We know that finding the right home is all too challenging. Again, we need to act now. Action is needed—defer and delay is no longer an option.

That is why our government is dedicated to getting 1.5 million new homes built over 10 years. In partnership with eight ministries, along with municipalities and industry experts, our government’s new housing supply action plan builds a strong foundation for success. If this proposal is passed, it will help cities, towns and rural communities grow, with a wide range of ownership and rental housing opportunities that meet the needs right across our province. Our plan will build more homes in strategic areas—along transit corridors—unlock innovative approaches to design and construction, and get shovels in the ground faster.

I am proud that our government is doing our part by releasing a new action plan every year over the next four years—starting with today’s plan—to build more homes and make life more affordable across this province.

Yes, Speaker, attainability and affordability are crucial to our long-term success.

Housing prices are widely out of sync with the reality of everyday folks. Simply stated, we have a supply problem. We argue that in this House, but it seems to be difficult to understand. This should not be a secret to anyone in this Legislature. More demand than supply, coupled with historic low interest rates have created this crisis.

Has there been a softening of house prices lately? Absolutely. Higher interest rates have caused this correction, and we have a supply problem. However, market fluctuation is not in any way going to solve this housing crisis.

Bill 23 addresses these challenges of supply head-on and offers solutions, not rhetoric—it ends defer and delay.

Speaker, on June 2, this province elected a government with an agenda to build more homes faster. That is exactly what this bill does—it gives municipalities the tools to get shovels in the ground faster and meet the needs of a growing province.

This bill brings accountability to our municipal partners as well, to do their part to get shovels in the ground faster and more effectively.

Next year alone, as we’ve said, there are 500,000 people immigrating to Canada, and we all know most of these folks are going to end up right here in Ontario.

Last year, Ontario saw the most homes built, as we have said, since 1987; 100,000 new homes were built—impressive, indeed. However, we still fell short of our housing supply need by 50,000 homes. For this reason, we need action and we need shovels in the ground today, and fast.

I’d now like to take some time to talk a little bit about infill and densification, which seems to be a popular subject this morning and throughout the last week or so. I think it’s safe to say that all of us in this House believe in good infill—build in, build up, and build on repurposed land. Yes, we need to remediate more brownfield sites in our municipalities to allow even more effective infill. Gentle densification makes sense, and this government supports our municipal partners as they accelerate needed densification. However, infill is only one part of the solution.

We simply cannot meet our province’s housing demand in the next 10 years through infill alone. We need more housing than gentle densification will offer.

How do we accomplish our collective goal? We strategically, we boldly and we confidently pass Bill 23. Our housing supply disadvantage becomes an opportunity with the benefits of Bill 23. This bill has made it clear that there will be a focus on the greater Toronto and Hamilton area, where the greatest need for new housing exists. Developing this area limits urban sprawl by building adjacent to existing settlements.

Speaker, gentle densification is a key part of our government’s solution, but again, this alone will not get the job done.

For those lamenting the loss of municipal development fees, our government makes a compelling point. We know that some cities have continued to increase charges in new housing. Municipal fees are adding an average of $116,900 to the cost of a single-family home in the GTA. At the current interest rate of 5.7%, this adds approximately $812 to a homebuyer’s monthly mortgage. This is simply unaffordable for most Ontarians. Despite the drastic increases, these development charges have only been accumulating in municipal reserves.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing estimates that self-reported municipal development charge reserves, province-wide, total almost $9 billion. If you say it slowly, it sinks in: $9 billion in reserves. I wait in anticipation as we experience the benefits of investing these reserves in support of local infrastructure throughout Ontario communities. It’s time we did that.

The More Homes Built Faster Act not only makes sense, but it also builds a strong foundation, as I’ve said, for this province to grow. This Premier and this government have planted a garden of economic prosperity. We need to make sure we nurture this garden to its full potential. By doing so, we will continue to create an environment for people to prosper in this province.

In my riding, the London St. Thomas Association of Realtors reports that year-to-date home sales have generated more than $533 million in spinoff spending for our local economy, which will benefit us over the next three years.

Just think of the positive economic growth this province will experience in the months and years ahead if this bill passes. New, good-paying jobs have come to Ontario, with even more to come. Skills development and training is taking place with amazing success. Investments in infrastructure, roads, schools, energy and hospitals are being initiated. And yes, Bill 23 complements this province’s growth and prosperity agenda.

In conclusion, I support young families as they find a path to affordable home ownership. I support seniors wanting to downsize and stay in their home community. I support new Canadians who dream of buying a home but who must begin with an affordable rental option as they build their life here in Ontario. And I support special-needs housing development for those who are disadvantaged in our society.

I support Bill 23. Status quoism is not an option—neither is defer and delay. Now is the time to act. Now is the time to say yes to Bill 23.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): I recognize the member from Mississauga–Erin Mills.

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: I’m really delighted to support this bill.

According to Grammarist, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”—according to the site, it’s a saying that means “that it is not enough to simply mean to do well; one must take action to do well. A good intention is meaningless unless it is followed by a good action.” That’s not my definition. That’s the definition of the site.

We are in a housing crisis, and talking about the crisis for years and years and years—because it didn’t happen yesterday. It has been happening for maybe the past 10 years, I would say. Nobody did anything about that. Nobody addressed that. So when the government takes bold action—yes, we need that bold action. That action is needed. According to that definition, yes, we need to take bold action. We need to do something about it, and we are doing that.

When we look into some of the changes that this bill does to accelerate building—we talk about removing the two-year time-out provisions for new official plans, secondary plans, zoning bylaws and minor variances entirely. This phase by itself is two years. When we did the hearing and we were talking about housing, according to the mayors’ association—the person who was doing the submission said that the cycle would take up to 11 years from the day the developer starts the process to apply to build something until that building sees the light. This one change can eliminate two years of that cycle.

Just this one item of the bill can reduce two years of that process. We are hoping that we are going to get further than nine years—we are hoping to get shovels in the ground as soon as possible.

Talking about the needs of Ontarians—every year, around 500,000 new immigrants are coming. Even if I assume that only one third will come to Ontario—I assume that maybe more than 50% are coming to Ontario; the statistics are showing that—that’s more than 150,000 people, so even that target of 1.5 million in 10 years might not be enough to address the current and the future needs. When we do cross-planning, we need to make sure of this factor of growth. We are planning on this today. Maybe in two years the federal government will decide to get 600,000 or 700,000—we don’t know that yet, so even planning something on the current situation is the bare minimum.

I don’t know why the opposition will not be supporting something like that. They were opposition before, when the previous government was here—and neither did anything about that or even talked about that. So this is one item I would like to talk about.

The other item I would like to talk about is affordable housing, which is kind of the focus of the opposition. In every discussion around this group of bills to accelerate the housing or solve that crisis, they’re talking about affordable housing—every single time we raise anything, they talk about affordable housing.

When we talk about decreasing the DCs for not-for-profit organizations and for some specific purposes like rental buildings and special affordable housing—I’m not going to use the government narrative, that we know that it’s going to encourage more affordable housing; I will use the testimonies from the organizations who are doing that.

For example, Simone Swail, manager of government relations at the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, said, “The commitment to waive development charges for all affordable housing developments will have a tangible and positive impact on the ability to develop new, affordable co-op homes in Ontario. We also look forward to engaging with the province in order to reduce the property tax burden on affordable housing providers, include co-ops.”

The VP of housing and homelessness at WoodGreen Community Services said, “This bill is a bold thrust to address the housing needs of the missing middle and innovative construction of supportive housing for the even more dire needs of the homeless population.” This is not our wording; this is the wording of the specialists, of the guys who are in this area, the guys who know their sector.

Jeff Neven, CEO of Indwell, said, “The proposed reduction in development costs and fees for affordable and non-profit housing will directly impact our costs, and make it easier to allocate resources where they are needed most.”

All those organizations are in the affordable and homeless areas, and their testimony is supportive for the bill—so I don’t know, again, where this is coming from.

If we talk about just housing which is affordable, the dream of young people to buy a house is getting further and further—more difficult. We know that lots of young people still live with their families because they can’t afford to buy a house.

Some of the statistics here show that the development charges for the average GTA single-family home in 2021 are about $116,900—$116,900 for a one-family unit. If we assume that this family house would be $1 million, this is more than 10% of the cost of the house—and it’s piggybacked. The developer is not going to pay that from his own pocket—it’s going to be added to mark it up on the price.

Condos—$100,000 of the price of a condo is a DC. So when we see this removed, that means a reduction in the price of the unit, making it more affordable.

Again, I understand that the opposition keep talking about, “What are the guarantees that developers will download that cost reduction to the end user or the cost of the unit?” I can’t guarantee that. Nobody can guarantee that. But it’s a step, and after that we can talk about the cost and the margins and everything else. But some steps have to be taken first; then we can assess the results and take further steps.

The final piece I would like to talk about is removing the third-party appeal amendment, removing some of the provisions in the bill that would have limited third-party appeals for official land and zoning bylaws.

We have two issues: as the minister said, NIMBY, the “not in my backyard” approach—so anybody can stop a project by going to the appeal process and saying, “I don’t like this building in my backyard or close to my house”—or BANANA, “build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone,” so any developer would have to go to the middle of nowhere to be able to get no problems to build or otherwise every walk of life can walk in and file an appeal and the process will go for another year or so until that gets rectified in the courts or the appeal process.

This is an extra cost in the project, because this project, which is on hold—the clock is ticking; the cost is going up. So whatever the developer sold the unit for, or was planning to sell the unit for—in two years, the cost is going to become more, and he will have to mark up for that cost.

The acceleration of housing is not only helping to address the crisis timing-wise, but also price-wise. We have to bring that down first.

I will close with a quote from the member from University–Rosedale, who said in the House that she urged the government to look at ways that we can fast-track “missing middle development so we can build two- and three-bedroom townhouses and laneway housing.” She is saying the current situation or current solutions we have do not meet the need.

We need to think out of the box. We need to take bold action. We need to take innovative ways to solve some of the issues, to be able to address the crisis.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): It is now time for questions and answers.

Ms. Marit Stiles: I was listening carefully to the remarks of both members.

I have a question for the member from Elgin–Middlesex–London. He mentioned the dropping of development charges. What the government is proposing here will eliminate development charges from the building of these luxury developments that we’re going to anticipate seeing in the greenbelt.

I’ve been talking to lots of people, community leaders in Brampton, this past weekend, and in every meeting I went to, people raised concerns about this legislation, and they raised specific concerns about the dropping of development charges. They wanted to know, and I’d ask the member opposite, would you like this new property tax that will have to be imposed on the people of Brampton to make up for these charges being dropped—would you prefer that to be called the PCP Ontario tax or the Doug Ford tax?

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): The member will withdraw.

Ms. Marit Stiles: I’ll withdraw.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): The member for Elgin–Middlesex–London.

Mr. Rob Flack: I would say, listening to the member opposite—and I appreciate your question and concern—a couple of things. Number one, let’s get the $9 billion invested in this province, and let’s not tax people—

Interjection.

Mr. Rob Flack: No, you don’t want that? It’s sitting there. Use it.

Number two, I would call your program the defer and delay program, and that isn’t going to work.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Through the Speaker, please.

Questions?

Mr. John Yakabuski: I want to thank the members for their comments.

I’m so glad that the member for Davenport raised the question of development charges. The NDP over there talk about affordable housing, but they want to support everything that continues to make housing less affordable.

My colleagues talked about $800-plus a month in the mortgage payments at current rates. My friend talked about somewhere around $119,000 being added to the cost of a home.

We have a housing crisis in Ontario.

I want to ask my colleagues, when there’s almost $9 billion in development charge reserves, isn’t it important that we do every possible thing we can to help lower the cost of building those 1.5 million homes across the province of Ontario?

Mr. Rob Flack: Thank you to the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. It’s a great question.

Again, I want to emphasize the cost of housing, because of supply shortages, is paramount in this province. I would really like to see the benefits of taking the $9 billion throughout many of our larger municipalities and cities in this province, to see it invested back into the infrastructure that’s going to support, quite frankly, the new homes that are going to be built, whether it’s roads, hospitals, schools—whatever it may be. We need to invest this money to support this community. Having it sit in limbo isn’t doing anyone any good. It isn’t helping our communities. It isn’t helping new home buyers.

It isn’t helping seniors. It is not helping new Canadians who want to have an affordable home.

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

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I want to thank both members for their comments.

I want to direct this question to the honourable member from Elgin–Middlesex–London, who I actually have a great deal of respect for. We have a lot of disagreements in this House, but that member and I both have farm backgrounds and both represent ridings where food and farming are very important to the economy, culture and way of life of our constituents. So I know the member cares deeply about the fact that we’re losing 319 acres of farmland each and every day in Ontario.

I would ask the member, if there was legislation put forward—bills like Bill 44 and Bill 45—that showed how we can make zoning changes supported by developers, home builders, housing experts and the government’s own housing task force, and that would increase housing supply without paving over farmland and increasing property taxes, would the member be open to considering alternatives to Bill 23?

Mr. Rob Flack: Thank you to the member from Guelph. I have a great affinity for you, as well, and the city of Guelph. I was born there. I went to university there. I first lived there when I started my career. So Guelph is a special place to me.

I appreciate your question, and if you’re asking, am I open to listening and learning—absolutely; anytime, anywhere. It doesn’t mean we have to agree, though.

I would point out your concerns, and I hear them—and I’m going to say again, I think it’s about balance. Infill gentle densification is not going to solve this problem. We’ll disagree on that. On this side of the House, we believe that that is not going to solve the problem. So it’s about balance, and I think we’ve struck a balance here. We don’t agree, but I’m very confident that time is of the essence—speed, speed, speed. The one thing I’ve learned since coming to this place and listening and learning again is that we move on glacial time here; it is not fast. We have a crisis that needs speed and needs action now—and that is exactly what this bill does.

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

Mr. Aris Babikian: One of the most common things I hear from concerned constituents is that their children won’t be able to afford a house of their own.

I am concerned about the future of my two nieces. Both of them are professionals. One of them is married. She’s a civil engineer, and her husband is a civil engineer, and they cannot afford to buy a house.

We know that adding more supply is key to bringing costs down. This will help first-time buyers as well as seniors looking to downsize.

Besides working to build more homes, what else does this plan do for first-time homebuyers?

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: Thanks for the question.

As I mentioned in my speech, this is an issue that has been dangling for a long time, and we are addressing it. Since this government came into power, we have introduced dozens of new policies under our first housing supply action plan, More Homes, More Choice Act, in 2019, and the More Homes for Everyone Act, in 2022, and the piece of legislation in hand today.

We know that we have to accelerate building. We know that we have to add capacity. That demand and supply is unbalanced, which causes prices to go up and makes it difficult for new families to acquire. We need to have more houses built fast and cost-efficiently to be able to meet their needs.

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

MPP Lise Vaugeois: The member from Mississauga–Erin Mills mentioned that the clock is ticking.

I have mentioned before that there are two shovel-ready, not-for-profit projects in Thunder Bay. We’re still waiting to hear or have some kind of response from the government about how they will support those projects.

My question is actually about farming and farmland. You’ve talked about the increased population that will be coming to the province. What is the province’s plan to replace the food produced on the farmland that is being lost? How do you intend to feed this growing population?

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Back to the member from Elgin–Middlesex–London.

Mr. Rob Flack: Thank you, Speaker. I’m not worried at all, through you to the member opposite, about feeding the people of this province.

I’ll give you a little example. When I started my career, there was very little grain corn grown in eastern Ontario; the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke will attest to that. I had a customer in my former career that just took off 200 bushels to the acre of grain corn.

This province is growing immensely in its ability to use new genetics, both in plant and animal. We continue to grow, and we will continue to grow.

We are a net exporter of food in this province. We have, to the north, the northwest Clay Belt. As we open that up in the months and years ahead with good tile drainage—it’s the beginning of the Prairies in Canada—we’re going to produce even more food. I am not worried about this province meeting its own needs—in fact, it’s feeding more Canadians. We will continue to export food throughout the next 10 years, easily, confidently, and with the great farming community we have in Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): We do not have time for further questions. However, we do have time for further debate.

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s always an honour to be able to stand in this House—and, today, take

part in the debate on Bill 23, a highly contentious piece of legislation. But I think there’s one thing that we all agree on in the Legislature and provincially: that there is a need for more housing.

I appreciate some of the speakers from this morning who actually brought up relevant points about how they want to portray this legislation.

Our job in the opposition is to bring up potential problems that the government needs to recognize, rectify and, hopefully, on some of these things, put the brakes on.

I just listened to the member from Elgin–Middlesex–London talk about his confidence in the farming sector. I share that confidence. Where we perhaps differ, and where many farmers in this province differ—including the Ontario Federation of Agriculture—is, we put a value on every acre of farmland, because in the future we’re going to need northern Ontario.

I’ve farmed in northern Ontario my whole life. The member knows that; I bought feed from his company. When I started buying feed, we were a net importer of grain in Timiskaming, and now we’re a massive exporter. But saying that we’re going to replace the best land in the province with land in northern Ontario and that we can waste the best land in the province by paving it over for houses—I reject that; it’s not an either/or. We need to build houses, but we can’t ignore every other issue in this province to do it. We have to balance. I reject categorically the government’s line that we can only, right now, look at housing—and look away from everything else.

I want everyone in this province and the newcomers to have shelter, to have a home they can be proud of. I also want them to have a home where they don’t have to worry about the basement flooding because we ignored wetland rules, or where their sewer backs up because there was a lack of money to install new sewer systems when they built these developments, because not every municipality is sitting on huge reserves.

I was a councillor for a long time in a small municipality. The reserves are there for a reason. If you have a calamity, you need to fix it. If you’re going to drain all the reserves, because you are not putting the money in when you put in a new development to build the sewer systems, to build the underground infrastructure, to build where the schools have got to go, to do all those things, and if you’re going to put that all on the back of the current taxpayer—there’s a reason why the Association of Municipalities Ontario are quite upset about Bill 23.

You’re just transferring the cost from one group to another, instead of looking, overall, at what the issues are so that we can proceed for everyone—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): I apologize; I must interrupt the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane. The time for debate is over.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

Members’ Statements

Windsor International Film Festival

Mr. Andrew Dowie: Before I begin, I want to say thank you to the government for the news that we’ve received from the project P3 pipeline that construction of our Windsor-Essex regional acute-care hospital would be accelerated by a year. Under this government, the previous excuses and inaction holding up the project have stopped and commitments made to us have been exceeded. I’m very proud to be part of a government that supports Windsor–Tecumseh.

I rise today to roll out the virtual red carpet for the Windsor International Film Festival. It was another banner year for WIFF, held from October 27 until November 6 at Windsor’s Capitol Theatre, with over 45,000 tickets sold and new second screenings already scheduled. Vincent Georgie and his team have done an amazing job, creating the biggest festival in WIFF history, with over 300 screenings of 177 films.

By coincidence, my wife, Mary, and I ran into the member for Essex and his wife, Jackie, at the back of the line for the film Walkerville’s Willistead Manor: The Home that Shaped a Community, directed by Nick Shields, which detailed Willistead’s rich and fascinating history.

Other local favourites included Artifice, by writer-director Gavin Michael Booth, and North of Normal, featuring the youngest headliner of the festival, River Price-Maenpaa.

The member for Essex and I were also delighted to announce, on behalf of Minister Lumsden, new Reconnect Ontario funding for WIFF in the amount of $185,000.

The WIFF board and their volunteers have made “lights, camera, action” a beloved part of our community fabric.

To all the volunteers, we send to you our sincere thanks for all of your hard work.

Assisted housing

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: All MPPs know that there is a lack of supportive housing in Ontario.

My office has heard from many families over the years desperate to find affordable, safe and permanent housing solutions for their loved ones with developmental disabilities.

The Rodger family—their son Patrick has been waiting over 10 years.

Recently, I heard from the family of Christy, a 50-year-old woman with Down syndrome. Christy’s parents are in their eighties and nineties and have moved to an assisted-living facility. They have been fearless and determined in providing Christy with all the best opportunities for care for the past 50 years. Now they need our help. They need to find Christy a safe and permanent place to live, but they cannot. The system is failing them.

Caregivers do their best to take care of their loved ones but the reality is, families cannot be expected to provide this level of support indefinitely. People with disabilities need to know that there’s a reliable supportive housing system for them. They deserve the dignity and independence that can come from living in those homes, and their families deserve the peace of mind that they will be taken care of.

This government needs to do what is right. Building and funding supportive housing options needs to be as automatic as building any form of housing in Ontario.

The families of Patrick and Christy are feeling left behind and cast aside. This government needs to assure them that Bill 23—building homes faster—incorporates a comprehensive plan to create more supportive living accommodations, to guarantee that all people with living disabilities don’t have to wait for decades for a home they deserve.

Events in Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound

Mr. Rick Byers: I rise this morning to let members know about the Kiwanis Owen Sound Santa Claus Parade I had the pleasure of participating in last Saturday evening. It was the 77th running of the parade, and notwithstanding 60 centimetres of snow having fallen, it was a fantastic show. Local firefighters, paramedics, Canada Post workers, the Salvation Army and many, many more were there, as well as thousands of hardy families watching from snowbanks. Of course, Santa was there to provide his personal joy and the spirit of the season.

I had the pleasure of walking with members of the Owen Sound municipal council, including both new and re-elected members. I look forward to working with them and other municipal councillors in Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound.

After the parade, there was the Festival of Northern Lights, also in downtown Owen Sound. Dozens of light displays were lit up along the banks of the Sydenham River. It is a spectacular display that will keep the downtown lit up through Christmas and New Year’s.

Next up for Santa is Grey Highlands, my home community, tomorrow. Then, next week, he’s on to Durham, Lion’s Head, Meaford, Dundalk, Hanover and Wiarton. He will be a busy fellow.

Speaking of Wiarton, there are now only 71 days before Willie makes his prediction about the arrival of spring. I understand that Wiarton Willie is already starting vocal exercises and linguistic training to make sure his views are well understood.

I look forward to seeing you all in Wiarton on February 2, 2023.

Injured workers

MPP Lise Vaugeois: Many workers who experience permanent injuries while on the job are forced into poverty and homelessness because the WSIB has a routine policy of turning down claims, forcing injured workers to launch appeals that take years to resolve. Instead of workers getting the financial support they need and are entitled to, they wind up trying to survive on ODSP. That’s off-loading the financial responsibility of employers onto the public—a free ride for employers and a lose-lose situation for workers and the public.

Yesterday, the Minister of Economic Development bragged about cutting employers’ WSIB premiums by 30%—and then, later that year, at the same time as injured workers are being forced onto ODSP, he gave $1.2 billion back to employers.

This year, injured workers were betrayed yet again when their cost-of-living allowance was set a full 2% lower than stipulated in law and in WSIB policy. While this government thinks nothing of showering businesses with money intended to support injured workers, they are happy to rip off workers by deliberately shortchanging them on their cost-of-living increase. This is disgraceful and cruel.

Your treatment of people with disabilities is unacceptable.

Holodomor

Mr. Stephen Crawford: I rise today in honor and respect of the Ukrainian Holodomor Memorial Day. On the fourth Saturday in November, we commemorate Holodomor Memorial Day across Canada. On this day, we remember the great famine of the Soviet Union of 1932-33, when millions of Ukrainians were forcibly starved to death by the Communist Soviet government.

The Ukrainian word “Holodomor” means murder by starvation. Under horrifying and unimaginable conditions, up to 10 million men, women and children perished from starvation. Through propaganda, economic control and the tyrannical need for power, the Stalinist government killed and tortured millions of people.

Today, efforts to raise awareness of this tragic genocide against the Ukrainian people are stronger than ever.

My riding of Oakville stands in solidarity with the people of Ukraine and our Ukrainian community. We share sorrow regarding Russia’s military invasion of Ukraine.

In 2016, 3.6% of Oakville residents reported having Ukrainian heritage.

Over the last eight years, millions of Ukrainians have been displaced by war, and the Halton region and Oakville have welcomed Ukrainian newcomers to our community.

I want to thank St. Joseph’s Ukrainian Catholic Church and St. Volodymyr Cultural Centre, who have undertaken many initiatives to help the victims of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

This Holodomor Memorial Day, let us remember the millions who suffered and died at the hands of the Soviet dictatorship, and let us also think about the 42 million courageous Ukrainians now living in a country under attack, and the millions more of Ukrainian diaspora throughout the world.

Poverty

MPP Jamie West: There’s a disturbing trend happening across Ontario.

Earlier this year, I spoke several times about educational support workers who work full-time and go to food banks to feed their children.

Earlier this week, I met with SEIU health care workers. They’re in a labour dispute at Kerry’s Place Autism Services, and one of their concerns is that they work full-time and can’t afford to feed their families.

Yesterday, I visited McMaster University’s teaching assistants at the CUPE 3906 picket line. One of the workers told me, “I make so little that I can’t afford butter.”

Speaker, these are all examples of hard-working individuals who still have to rely on food banks to feed themselves and their families. Nobody working full-time should have to go to a food bank.

If you’re not employed, it’s even worse—65% of food bank users are on Ontario Works or ODSP. That’s because receiving less than nine grand a year is intentional legislative poverty. Nobody can survive on that.

The Conservative government could make things better, but they deliberately choose not to.

It is almost Christmas. Before you know it, Speaker, politicians across the aisle will start encouraging Ontarians to donate to local food banks. But instead of asking for donations, the Conservative government could legislate Ontarians out of poverty. They could fix WSIB. They could double OW and ODSP. They could invest in truly affordable housing. And they could amend the Employment Standards Act to ensure that employment conditions are safe and secure and that they are paid a living wage.

Aaron Fisher

Ms. Jess Dixon: I stand today to tell this House about Aaron Fisher, one of Hespeler’s own. Tragically, Aaron is now one of Hespeler’s lost. He passed away this past Friday after a swimming accident that occurred while he was on vacation in the Philippines—what was, for him, supposed to be the trip of a lifetime. Aaron was only 37. He leaves behind the twin lights of his life, his two young sons, Sammy and Cole.

Aaron Fisher had a commitment and dedication to his community that is rarely seen. I only had the chance to meet him once, but his passion and his devotion to Hespeler in particular was obvious. Aaron served as the executive director of the Hespeler BIA and was the admin on multiple local Facebook groups. He managed the yearly creation and maintenance of the free ice rink in Victoria Park and was a vocal supporter of the Hespeler skate park project.

Aaron was also a champion of citizen-led political engagement. He was the past president of the Kitchener South–Hespeler Federal Liberal Association, and over the years he contributed countless hours of his time to Liberal campaigns, both federal and provincial. Although Aaron and I were on different sides of the political coin, Aaron was an incredible example to all of us of someone who really put in the work behind his words.

Aaron, although we were strangers, I think I can speak for Hespeler when I say that you will be so missed. This message will be recorded and etched forever into the volumes of Hansard. The impact of that may not be felt by all listening, but I believe it would matter to Aaron, and so I’ll say his name again: Aaron Fisher.

Land use planning

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: The greenbelt was created in 2005 to prevent further loss of farmland and natural heritage, to restrict urban sprawl, and to develop vibrant communities where people can live, work and play. It cleans our air and water, reduces our flood risks, and provides a home for wildlife. And 4,782 farms are protected by the greenbelt, with 68% more revenue earned by greenbelt farms than the average Ontario farm.

Last week, I heard from Peggy Brekveld, president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, about Bill 23. She stated: “319 acres” of farmland “are being lost each day. That is 75 million carrots, 25 million apples and 1.2 million bottles of VQA wine”—for those of you who care—“per year. That’s why this matters to every single one of us around this table.”

Maybe you remember the jingle, “Good things grow in Ontario”—not without our precious farmland and greenbelt, they won’t.

Ontario is supposed to be open for business, but it’s time we ask, “Whose business?” Certainly, not Ontario farmers, once this government has its way with the land.

When the trees are logged and the farmland is paved, what will you eat? Where does this end? I thought our province’s abundance of farmland producing fresh food and products for us to enjoy and export around the world was something we were proud of. Once it’s gone, it’s gone; we won’t be able to pass a bill to develop more farmland on top of cement.

PS: Developers need to eat too.

Trans Day of Remembrance

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to ask for the attention of the House.

It being 10:29 a.m., as provided by the Trans Day of Remembrance Act, 2017, the assembly shall now pause and observe one moment of silence in honour of trans people who have died as a result of anti-trans violence. I’ll ask members to please rise.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. Members may take their seats.

Members’ statements?

Gender-based violence / Violence sexiste

Ms. Natalia Kusendova-Bashta: It is a great honour to rise today to raise awareness of an issue which impacts women and girls in Ontario. The month of November marks Woman Abuse Prevention Month and the 10th anniversary of Ontario’s Wrapped in Courage campaign.

Le mois de novembre marque le Mois de la prévention de la violence faite aux femmes et le 10 e anniversaire de la campagne Enveloppés de courage. Nous savons trop bien qu’il faut accorder plus d’attention au problème de la violence faite aux femmes et aux filles dans notre province.

Sadly, since last November, there have been over 40 documented femicides in Ontario—this means 40 intentional killings of women for no other reason than their gender. Moreover, countless more women and girls are trying to survive in unsafe households, on the streets and in our communities.

The Wrapped in Courage campaign, organized by the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses, has been helping women since 2013. The campaign has been bringing attention to gender-based violence across Ontario through the wearing of purple scarves. Each year, throughout November, Ontarians are asked to show their support for survivors of women abuse by wearing a purple scarf, which can be purchased from their local women’s shelter.

In my community of Peel, organizations like Embrave, the Peel Committee Against Women Abuse, Take Back the Night Foundation and Armagh House are doing incredible work supporting survivors.

I was proud to recently participate in the Take Back the Night march with our Associate Minister of Women’s Social and Economic Opportunity in Brampton to show our support and dedication to ending gender-based violence in Ontario.

I would like to encourage all members of this House to wear their Wrapped in Courage purple scarves on Tuesday, November 29, in recognition of Woman Abuse Prevention Month.

Brenn-B Farms

Ms. Donna Skelly: I want to take the time this morning to recognize the tremendous contributions the Brenn family has been making to Ontario’s agriculture industry.

Brenn-B Farms has been growing crops and raising livestock on their 2,000 acres in Flamborough for four generations. Brenn-B Farms dates back to 1915, when the property was purchased by Thomas Brenn. Thomas’s great-grandsons Chris and Shawn are now running the business.

This past September, the brothers took the Premier, Minister Thompson and myself on a tour of their farm. At the time, they were harvesting potatoes. They have a reputation for growing high-quality potatoes. Brenn-B harvests about 28 million pounds of potatoes each and every year.

They are a leader in food safety and traceability. With the help of OMAFRA, they have invested in technology that can monitor their products for quality and safety, from planting to retail distribution. They sell to every major grocer, right across Canada. Brenn-B has always kept up with the changing technology. They have received recognition for being progressive farmers of the future.

I want to congratulate Brenn-B Farms for continuing their tradition of producing high-quality crops. They have been feeding people across Ontario and beyond for over a century.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We have with us in the chamber today a former member of the Legislature, who served as the member for Parkdale–High Park in the 38th, 39th, 40th and 41st provincial Parliaments, and she was recently invested in the Order of Canada. Cheri DiNovo is here. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: I, too, would like to give a very warm welcome to my predecessor and former boss, MPP Cheri DiNovo from Parkdale–High Park, who is also the author and lead of the Trans Day of Remembrance bill, which is now law. We mark that date today. Thank you, Cheri.

Hon. Jill Dunlop: I would like to introduce some attendees from Intellectual Property Ontario to Queen’s Park today. We have Karima Bawa, chair of the IPON board; Peter Cowan, CEO; and Amon Khakimov, senior director of corporate affairs of IPON. Thank you for being here today.

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: I, too, would like to acknowledge in our House, in her House, former member of provincial Parliament Rev. Cheri DiNovo, who initiated the Trans Day of Remembrance, which we will mark today. She’s also the author of the most number of 2SLGBT bills that have ever been introduced in Canada, right here in Ontario.

I’d also like to welcome Rev. Junia Joplin, Pippa Josselyn-Hamilton, Martine Stonehouse—thank you very much for your attendance today—and Susan Gapka from the Trans Lobby Group, who’s inviting everyone to the Trans Day of Remembrance flag-raising at 12 o’clock outside of Queen’s Park. All are welcome.

Welcome to your House.

Mr. Will Bouma: I just want to take a moment to welcome our chaplain, Charlie Lyons—he has been a great mentor to me—and his mentor, Terry Dorey, from MentorLink Canada. Welcome to the people’s House.

Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos: I’d like to issue a very warm welcome to my friend Constantine Sardelis and his father, George Sardelis, who are here today.

Mr. Rob Flack: I’d like to welcome Elizabeth and Matt Wilson, proud parents of page Scarlett Wilson from the riding of Elgin–Middlesex–London. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Kevin Holland: I’d like to welcome Mayor Fred Mota from the town of Red Lake. Red Lake is probably one of our most westerly communities in the province. Certainly, it’s the most westerly town in the province of Ontario, being 100 kilometres from the Manitoba border. He’s here in town today to partake in meetings with AMO, as the first vice-president of NOMA. He’s a great representative for northwestern Ontario and someone I’m proud to call a friend. Welcome.

M me France Gélinas: The Ontario Association of Medical Radiation Sciences are here today. That includes: Katherine Tuomi, member of the board; Gregory Toffner, president and CEO; Stephanie Shiplo, chair of the board; Yusuaf Omarkhail, treasurer; Hema Merai, a director; and Keara White, also a director.

Also with us today—I’m happy to welcome JP Hornick, president of OPSEU/SEFPO; Sara Labelle, regional vice-president of OPSEU/SEFPO; RM Kennedy; Michael Hurley, OCHU/CUPE president; Stella Yeadon from CUPE; Angela Preocanin, Ontario Nurses’ Association first vice-president; Bernie Robinson, second vice-president of ONA; Erica Woods, Ontario Nurses’ Association; and hard-working Leonora Foster, a nurse from SickKids, also an ONA representative.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: I have members of my team joining me here today who I would like to introduce. Natalie Tuysusian, Christopher Martin-Chan and Jenna Bendayan are going to be watching the proceedings with us today, so I just wanted to welcome them to the Legislature.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Because we have some time, an introduction of sorts—he’s not actually here today, but as you know, I have a large family, and tomorrow, my brother Frank, who lives in MPP Byers’s riding, will be celebrating his 70th birthday. I don’t think I’ve ever mentioned Frank in this place; I should have sooner.

Happy birthday, brother.

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: I missed introducing two of my constituents, residents of Parkdale–High Park. Ben Scott and Tian Yue are here at Queen’s Park, and they participated in our press conference this morning to call for rent control for all tenants.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Again, I’ll ask members not to make political statements during introductions.

It is now time for oral questions.

Question Period

Health care

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier.

The situation in our hospitals right now is critical. In a rare and historic moment, the five largest health care unions in Ontario have joined together to condemn this government’s inaction on the response to the crisis in our health care system. Together, they represent 295,000 front-line health care workers who feel disrespected and undervalued by this government. This government has consistently failed to listen to front-line workers.

Will the Premier and Minister of Health agree to meet with public health care leaders and implement their solutions?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Deputy Premier and Minister of Health.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I meet regularly with health care providers and health care leaders in the industry because I want to hear about their innovative solutions.

The investments that we are making and the changes that we are making in the short, medium and long term truly are making a difference. Would I like to see it go faster? Absolutely, but I am not going to shy away from continually highlighting the fact that it is our government and this Premier who have made the investments in the health care system, including the addition of two new medical schools in the province of Ontario, one in Brampton and one in Scarborough—unprecedented, historic investments.

The last time we saw an expansion in medical schools in the province of Ontario was with a previous Conservative government. We had a health care system that desperately needed attention—it is getting that with this government. And we will continue to make those investments.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Again, to the Premier: We know how little this government cares about front-line workers in our health care system. It appears they’re starving the public health care system to manufacture a crisis and create a reliance on for-profit companies. We’re already seeing hospitals and long-term-care homes being forced to rely on agency staff and being gouged by the prices that they charge. Instead of investing in permanent, full-time staff, this government has instructed Ontario Health to cut even more resources from staff.

How can the Premier justify reducing spending on health care staff during a health care human resource crisis?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat a falsehood; it’s still a falsehood.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to ask the minister to withdraw

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Finish your answer.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: The facts spell a very different story.

Where was the member opposite when we were investing? Where was the member opposite when we actually put money in the budget that was going to give a $5,000 retention fee for our very, very hard-working nurses in the province of Ontario? The member opposite and his party chose not to support those investments.

Where was the member opposite when we expanded the number of residency positions available in the province so that in rural, northern and all parts of Ontario, we would have more family physicians and more health care professionals being able to practise in the province of Ontario? They voted against that.

We will continue, with our most recent budget—a $5-billion increase in the health care budget—to make those investments. I’d like to see the member opposite—

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Well, Speaker, the minister can cite all kinds of numbers. Talk to the people who are waiting in the emergency rooms—

Interjections.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Talk to the people in the emergency rooms to find out what’s real and what’s not real.

Speaker, this government has no intention of listening to front-line health care workers. Unions representing hundreds of thousands of workers are urgently calling for the public sector solutions that this government is not interested in. We have the space and we have the capacity in our health system; all we need is the political will from this government to repeal Bill 124, to improve workloads, and to incentivize health care workers to remain in the system instead of driving them out.

Will the Premier commit to the solutions proposed by health care workers to improve access and quality of care in Ontario?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Where was the member opposite when we directed the College of Nurses of Ontario to quickly review, expedite and license, when appropriate, new internationally educated nurses in the province of Ontario? They did not support that.

Where was the member opposite when we, through a directive, said to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, “We have internationally educated primary care physicians who want to work in the province of Ontario—we want you to assess, review and, when appropriate, license them.” Where was the member opposite? Again, they did not support these changes.

We will continue to work with all health care providers in the province of Ontario when they bring forward innovative ideas, and we will continue to fund those innovations, because we understand the people of Ontario deserve better than what they’ve been getting for the last 20 years.

Child and family services

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: My question is to the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

Yesterday, I asked the minister to do much better for Ontario’s youth in care. This government has known about children suffering in for-profit group homes like Hatts Off for years. In 2018, the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth was circulating a draft report to ministry officials, raising concerns about the safety of children in these homes. The report found that vulnerable youth were subjected to inadequate care and inhumane punishments on a regular basis. In 2019, the Conservatives fired the provincial advocate and eliminated the office altogether—curious timing, don’t you think?

Even worse, the government’s own inspection reports of group homes detailed bathrooms covered in black mould, smeared blood on walls, and children sleeping on soiled mattresses. This government knew—they’ve known for four years, and yet these vulnerable children continue to suffer under their care.

Why hasn’t the government taken meaningful action to help children living in these group homes?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: The member opposite makes an important point: that our government did know at that time that more reports were not going to be helpful. The evidence was there.

That’s exactly why we are redesigning the child welfare system and implementing very important measures that we are monitoring and making publicly transparent: increasing the inspections, increasing the number of inspectors, and increasing the number of unannounced inspections. All of these are measures that are making a difference. We’re increasing the data collection in a meaningful way. We’re consulting with the youth and people with lived experience in the system to make the system better. Their voices matter. We are listening to their voices. We are implementing a child welfare redesign.

It is very important work, as you have outlined, and we are taking action on this all this time. We will continue to do that very important work.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: When you’re talking about transparency—maybe you shouldn’t have fired the provincial child advocate, who raised the alarm bells with you.

For four years under this government, these children continue to be abused. That’s not action on the part of the government; that is neglect. This isn’t just a failure of Hatts Off; it’s a massive failure of this Conservative government. They virtually abandoned these children.

Children in the care system are subject to physical restraints, little to no food, overmedicating and cruel punishments, including prolonged isolation.

Dwayne Ferguson, like Cassidy Franck, was unable to access the care and support he needed at a Hatts Off group home in Hamilton. Cassidy, thankfully, got out, but Dwayne tragically died by suicide outside of a Hatts Off home in 2014.

Yesterday, I asked the minister to commit to pursuing an investigation into Hatts Off, and she refused.

Will the minister commit today to a full investigation into Hatts Off so that no child spends another day in these horrific conditions and no more children die in care? Yes or no?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’ll remind members to make their comments through the Chair, not across the floor of the House.

The minister to reply.

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: I repeat: This is exactly why we are implementing a new child welfare system. This is part of our child welfare redesign, something that the previous government never did, something that you supported the previous government not to do. So we are doing the work that you never did, and we’re making a difference in the lives of children. We are providing more oversight and more accountability. These are important measures. We don’t need more reports. We know what needs to be done, and we’re doing it—something that you never did.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Once again, I’ll remind the members to make their comments through the Chair.

Final supplementary.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: While the minister tries to play politics and shirk responsibility, there are children who are literally dying in these homes.

Speaker, I’m starting to see a really disturbing pattern with this Conservative government. They aren’t doing anything to address the crisis in our children’s hospitals. They aren’t providing adequate funding to our schools. They aren’t addressing the growing wait-list for autism services. They aren’t supporting kids in the care system. It’s like they don’t care about the kids at all.

Will the minister commit to a full investigation into Hatts Off today?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Well, you’ve definitely identified who’s playing politics.

We are putting more money into the child welfare system for the redesign, to address human trafficking, to address sexual abuse, to address the inferior situations in some homes. Some homes have been closed. We are improving the oversight. We’re improving accountability. We are improving inspections. We’re improving the number of inspectors. We are listening to the sector. We are listening to people with lived experience. We have done consultations.

Twenty new inspector positions across the province to support the inspection and oversight of licensed residential placements—we boosted the number of inspections, and we’ve increased the number of foster home inspections for each licence renewal. To increase transparency, we started publicly posting licensing information, something the previous government, supported by the NDP, never bothered to do.

So don’t tell me who’s playing politics. I know very well who’s playing politics.

Interjections.

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

Once again, I’ll ask the members to make their comments through the Chair, not directly across the floor of the House.

The next question.

Public transit

Ms. Jennifer K. French: My question is to the Premier. This week, Infrastructure Ontario released a new market update revealing significant cost increases and delays for several of the government’s public-private partnerships. The last of the Ontario Line P3 contracts is now expected to be finalized in 2026, an unexplained four-year delay from the date in IO’s 2019 market update. Earlier this month, IO signed a P3 contract for the Ontario Line south package that will cost an astonishing $1 billion per kilometre. Just five years ago, for comparison, the Toronto-York Spadina subway extension cost $383 million per kilometre—a far cry from $1 billion per klick.

Why have subway costs gone up by more than two and a half times under this Premier?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Associate Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Stan Cho: It’s an ironic question from the member opposite.

Let’s start with the fact that, as the member should well know, construction project costs around the world are facing economic pressures, with rising inflation and supply chain challenges.

I’m glad, though, that the member brings up the Ontario Line, because this government is the only government that is filling the transit gap that was left by the NDP and Liberals for decades. We’re taking action to fill that gap and putting forward the largest transit expansion plan in Canadian history, to the tune of $61 billion.

Let’s look at the facts. The Ontario Line will see almost 400,000 passengers every single day. It will reduce crowding on existing subways. This will put 57,000 jobs within 45 minutes—commuting to Toronto, and it will put 227,000 people to work.

We’re not going to take any lessons from the NDP on building transit. They simply didn’t do it.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question. The member for Toronto Centre.

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: My question is to the Premier. According to the Toronto Star, the Premier’s decision to take over the Ontario Line from the city of Toronto was proposed by Michael Schabas, a private consultant who has embedded himself at the executive level of Metrolinx, a public transit agency. Another embedded private consultant who worked on the Ontario Line was Brian Guest, currently embroiled in the Ottawa LRT P3 fiasco and under allegations of a conflict of interest. The Ontario Line’s project director was yet another embedded private consultant named Richard Tucker, whose background is actually in real estate development and not in transit.

Will the Premier admit that there’s a connection between the skyrocketing P3 costs and the capture of Metrolinx by private, self-serving consultants?

Hon. Stan Cho: I guess the irony thickens in the supplemental. The reality is, that member voted against every single measure to build transit and now questions when this government actually gets it done. In fact, it was that party who called the plan to build the Ontario Line fiction, a back-of-a-napkin plan. Well, I see shovels in the ground. The reality is, these lines are getting built.

Speaker, that member and that party not only voted against the Ontario Line; they voted against the Eglinton West extension getting us to Pearson airport; they voted against the fine people of Scarborough with the Sheppard East extension; they voted against the Yonge North extension and, of course, the Ontario Line. They even voted against $1.6 billion in Safe Restart funding to keep transit agencies alive during the pandemic.

The reality is, if the NDP had it their way, there would be no transit in Ontario.

This is the only government getting it done for commuters in Ontario.

Skills training

Ms. Laura Smith: Mr. Speaker, through you: Like nearly every jurisdiction globally, Ontario is experiencing a labour shortage across almost every sector. At the same time, there are young people in this province who cannot find a job. This is unacceptable.

The skilled trades require more individuals than ever to fill these prosperous and respected careers that will provide stability for those workers and their families. By 2026, it is expected that one in five job openings in this province will be in skilled-trades-related occupations.

Ontarians expect their government to continuously update initiatives and make investments for all students, ensuring they have the skills required to succeed in the modern world.

Can the Minister of Education please update this House on how our government provides the tools our youngest learners need to succeed?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: I want to thank the member from Thornhill for the question.

I want to build on the passion of the Associate Minister of Transportation in this House by recognizing that this government, under Premier Ford, has a $160-billion infrastructure plan to build subways and hospitals and schools and transit in every region of this province. To do that, we need a talent pool of young, ambitious people who are ready to take on the jobs of tomorrow.

That’s why we’ve brought forth a plan to expand skilled trades training within our schools—because the broader vision for this government is to ensure that the next generation of workers and thinkers and entrepreneurs are financially literate, are emotionally intelligent, are ready for the jobs of tomorrow and have the technological fluency they need to succeed.

We know so many young people still cannot get a job related to their skills. Our vision and investment today expands the Dual Credit Program that will allow more young people to learn within our high schools and get a job at the end of their journey.

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

Ms. Laura Smith: I want to thank the minister for his valuable information. It is a fact that a career in the skilled trades is both in demand and well-paying. I am grateful that our government is making a significant effort to support our young people, which will help our economy prosper now and in the future. It is also encouraging to hear the minister say the Dual Credit Program that our students readily have access to is a priority and properly funded.

To the Minister of Education: Will he please outline how many students will benefit from this program extension and how it will help and provide economic stability in a key sector of our economy?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: I want to note that today, with the members from Scarborough Centre and Ajax, and the Minister of Finance—we joined together to announce a major expansion of the Dual Credit Program, which allows students in high school to take college courses to complete towards their apprenticeship training. This is allowing young people who otherwise likely wouldn’t graduate to not only complete their learning but get access to a high-wage career. It is very promising.

A 30% increase announced by this government today in apprenticeship learning within our schools—2,200 more young people in the coming year will benefit from this learning, in addition to a curriculum that finally is labour-market-aligned, ensuring that young people learn skills they can apply and can monetize in a competitive global economy.

Our vision and our mission is clear: We want young people to graduate with the skills necessary to compete and succeed in the world.

Municipal development

Ms. Jessica Bell: My question is to the Premier. Bill 23 is about to eviscerate Toronto’s affordable housing construction program. Removing housing services from development charges is going to cost the city $230 million in revenue. It will restrict Toronto’s ability to deliver on its 10-year housing targets, invest in new shelter services, and carry on with several of its affordable housing development and protection programs.

Will the government help Toronto deliver its affordable housing plan and cover the loss in development fees?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Steve Clark: Well, without the New Democrats’ support, we’re supporting Mayor Tory, providing him with strong-mayor powers to help him meet his goal of his share of the 1.5 million homes we’re going to be building over the next 10 years as part of our housing supply action plan. And despite the NIMBY chants from New Democrats, we’re going to continue to work with Mayor Tory and the city of Toronto so that they can meet those targets in partnership. We’re going to continue to provide them the tools to get shovels in the ground faster.

Again, the member has to realize that the most significant changes in development charges are exactly the type of homes that she talked about in her question—the deepest differences in development charges are for affordable housing, attainable housing and inclusionary zoning units. I think we can agree—or maybe she doesn’t agree—that that’s the type of housing that Torontonians need.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Jessica Bell: Back to the Premier: We can protect our democratic norms and build housing at the same time; it’s not one or the other.

The money that is received from development charges is already committed, and ignoring the revenue losses from Bill 23 risks virtually every significant program Toronto has to provide affordable housing. Giving the mayor the power to pass bylaws over the objections of two thirds of Toronto’s elected council will do nothing to fix that.

What is the government’s plan to help municipalities build truly affordable and supportive housing?

Hon. Steve Clark: I just told that member how we’re going to incent affordable housing. We’ve supported our municipal partners throughout the pandemic. We provided, under the leadership of Premier Ford, a historic agreement that provided our municipal partners with over $4 billion to ensure that they had the tools.

Again, this member speaks against the strong-mayor powers in Bill 39. I want to remind her that John Tory won a city-wide mandate with over 342,000 votes—36,000 more votes than every city councillor combined. He has a city-wide mandate to get shovels in the ground. We’re going to give him the tools to get it done.

Red tape reduction

Mr. Matthew Rae: Under the previous Liberal government, the people of Ontario were subjected to the largest regulatory burden in all of Canada. People in business were overwhelmed by red tape and high taxes. In my riding of Perth–Wellington, unnecessary bureaucracy drove away jobs, investments and opportunities for small businesses and farm families in my community.

Our government must implement better solutions to help people and businesses save time and money. While many regulations are essential to protecting people’s health, safety and the environment, nobody benefits from outdated, duplicative or overly complex rules.

What action is our government taking to reduce unnecessary red tape to make life easier for people and businesses in Ontario?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Red Tape Reduction.

Hon. Parm Gill: I want to thank the honourable member from Perth–Wellington for that important question.

We all know that for 15 years, under the former Liberal government, supported by the NDP, their failed policies drove away over 300,000 jobs out of our province, all thanks to the unnecessary red tape burden they created in the province of Ontario.

Thankfully, those days are behind us. Now we have a government that is truly committed to creating jobs, creating opportunities, and reducing unnecessary red tape burdens. Since 2018, our government has reduced unnecessary burdens and red tape that held back economic growth and prosperity in our province of Ontario. We have reduced Ontario’s total regulatory burden by 6.5%, which has led to over half a billion dollars of savings in compliances for businesses.

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

Mr. Matthew Rae: Thank you to the Minister of Red Tape Reduction for his answer. It’s great news. I’m proud of our government’s leadership that is correcting years of mismanagement and unnecessary red tape implemented under the previous Liberal government.

During these times of global economic uncertainty, it’s vital that we as a government take prudent action in providing stability and support to our business community. Reducing red tape on individuals and businesses is a key measure that this government can take to support a robust economic environment, ensuring our small businesses have confidence.

Can the minister please tell this House what is being done to continue to eliminate complicated, duplicative and unnecessary red tape?

Hon. Parm Gill: I want to thank my colleague for that question. Again, he is absolutely right about the need to continue moving forward with our work to reduce unnecessary red tape.

That’s why I was honoured to introduce the Less Red Tape, Stronger Ontario Act in the Legislature yesterday. If passed, this bill will help Ontario become more competitive, will strengthen our local supply chain, and will make Ontario services easier to access and interact with. It includes measures to increase local food production and efforts to ensure our food supply chain. It includes measures to get goods to market and improve supply chain efficiency.

We have been working hard each and every day on this side of the House to work with Ontarians, to work with businesses, to find ways to eliminate unnecessary red tape. We’re getting it done.

Health care

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: My question is to the Minister of Health. The Ministry of Health acknowledged in a memo this week that Ontario is facing a difficult and complex respiratory illness season. The government’s solution to this? They’re asking family doctors to do more.

The minister should know that the health care crisis includes a shortage of doctors. There just aren’t enough primary care physicians. More than one million Ontarians today don’t have a family doctor, and that is projected to rise to three million, or one in five, by 2025.

What is the government’s plan to address the doctor shortage?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Imagine, if you will: When the Auditor General’s report came out in 2012 and highlighted the shortage of family physicians in northern Ontario—they needed an additional 200 family physicians. Imagine, in 2012, when the Liberal government was in power, if we had actually actioned that highlight and that concern.

In contrast, I will point to the fact that we have now added an additional 160 undergraduate spots. We’ve added an additional 295 postgraduate positions. These are positions and opportunities for Ontario residents and individuals who want to practise family medicine in the province of Ontario. They will have that expanded opportunity in the next five years.

I am concerned that the member opposite and the party opposite weren’t calling for more action when they had the opportunity to do that in 2018 and the Auditor General was highlighting the issue.

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

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: My constituent Jacqueline and her husband Donald are an aging couple who were left to scramble to find a new family doctor this August after theirs retired. Donald is 90 years old and has been treated for prostate cancer for the last 20 years, and Jacqueline has been his primary caregiver at home, as he needs supervision and help with everyday tasks. They are scared because they are running out of time to find someone to guide them through Donald’s treatment, and they feel that they have nowhere to turn.

The shortage of family doctors in this province is literally a situation of life or death.

How much longer will Jacqueline and Donald have to wait?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: The member opposite highlights the exact reason why, in the summer, I sent a minister’s directive to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario saying that any individuals who have been internationally educated or who have practised in other jurisdictions have the opportunity to get their qualifications assessed, reviewed and ultimately licensed, if appropriate. It is precisely why we have done some of those short-, medium-, and long-term goals—because we understand there are immediate needs in our community today, right now.

We also understand that you must plan for the future—which, bluntly, previous governments did not do. We are making those investments now to make sure that this is not an ongoing problem in the province of Ontario.

Correctional services

M me Lucille Collard: I wish to bring a very important issue to this government’s attention that doesn’t seem to be on their radar. Solitary confinement, a process broadly recognized to be torture, is still being used as a disciplinary tool in our Ontario jails. This ineffective punishment is commonly inflicted on inmates with mental health conditions which are worsened by the cruel and disorienting practice of solitary confinement.

Administrative segregation may need to be used occasionally to keep inmates safe, but it should be humane and should not be used as a punishment. We need a much stronger system of accountability, with tribunals to verify whether administrative segregation is the only course of action to keep inmates safe.

My question is, will the government do everything in its power to make sure that our jails are not places in which people are being tortured?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply for the government, the parliamentary assistant, the member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore.

Ms. Christine Hogarth: Thank you to the member opposite for that question.

Community safety is a top priority for this government—not just for those who work and support our justice system, but for all Ontario families.

We’ve been strengthening our justice system from top to bottom, guided by three goals: keeping communities safe, holding offenders accountable, and delivering justice for the people of Ontario. We have been clear that the segregation that was allowed to drag on unconscionably by the previous governments will not stand under our watch.

The record shows that we have had a four-year moratorium on all correctional officers recruitment instituted under the Wynne-Del Duca Liberals—to thank for those conditions that, now, our government is facing. It is our Progressive Conservative government that has made changes to ensure segregation is not overused. To continue this progress, we have made landmark investments of over $500 million in the correctional system, including the hiring of 500 new staff and bringing infrastructure and investments to the staff. We are very—

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

M me Lucille Collard: People with mental health struggles are dramatically overrepresented in Ontario’s prisons, and that’s a fact. Part of the problem is that police are the main responders for mental health crises, which results in people with addictions and mental health issues being put into the justice system instead of receiving the care they need. Mobile crisis response teams help avoid this by facilitating partnerships between police and mental health and addictions professionals.

Yesterday I met with mental health and addictions professionals who see the heartbreaking effects of this issue every day, and they told me that the funding for these teams is insufficient to address the need for recruitment and retention. People experiencing a mental health or addiction crisis are in need of health care, not jail time.

So what is the government doing to expand mobile crisis response teams for these essential services so we can keep people out of the justice system and save taxpayers’ money?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The response. The Associate Minister of Mental Health and Addictions.

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Thank you for that question. It is something that our government takes very seriously.

As everyone knows in this House, our government is investing $525 million in annualized amounts to ensure that we build a continuum of care. One of the things that we look at is not just the treatment and the detox; we’re also looking at ways that we can divert people away from the emergency rooms and the justice system. One of those methods is to have mobile crisis intervention teams.

I can say that under this government we’ve had more teams established, both under the Ministry of Health investments and under the watch of the Solicitor General, to ensure that these teams are in place, to ensure that people are getting the appropriate treatment when and where they need it, and brought to places where they can truly get help—not necessarily in the corrections system.

Health care

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: Mr. Speaker, we are all aware of the added strain that the pandemic placed on our health care system. This strain is not only occurring in Ontario but is being experienced across Canada.

Because of the policies of neglect and mismanagement from the previous Liberal government, our health care workforce faces huge challenges. To address our current health care system needs, we must expand our workforce, starting with recruiting and training new health care professionals. This is particularly important in smaller communities that often face severe staffing shortages.

Can the Minister of Colleges and Universities please explain what our government is doing to train more front-line health care professionals?

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Thank you to the member for that question.

Coming from a rural area myself, I’ve seen first-hand the challenges that smaller communities have faced because of the pandemic.

While we have seen some of the best and brightest working in our hospitals and health care facilities, we recognize that we can always do more to ensure that they are supported, and that staffing levels are meeting the demands of our system.

Last year alone, we had over 25,000 nursing students studying at an Ontario college or university.

Since 2016, our post-secondary institutions are graduating, on average, 15% more nurses than before.

It’s not about getting students in class; it’s also about investing in their education. That’s why our government is investing $124 million over the next three years to support the clinical education of student nurses, to get the hands-on training they need to succeed—training that they simply cannot get in the classroom.

The people of Ontario can be assured that the world-class training our grads receive will have them job-ready and able to tackle even the most challenging times in our health care system.

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

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: Thank you, Minister, for that wonderful answer.

I appreciate what the minister had to say about investing in Ontario nurses, but we must ensure that these supports go toward the regions with the highest needs. Rural, remote and northern Ontario communities continue to face a serious shortage of health care human resources professionals. With retiring health care professionals leaving the field, young people are not filling the jobs needed to maintain the same level of care for residents.

Can the minister please outline what our government is doing to ensure that the residents of rural, remote and northern Ontario communities continue to receive access to health care professionals?

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Thank you again to the member.

I’ve been working closely with the Minister of Health and the Minister of Long-Term Care to ensure that we are not only fostering education for health care professionals but that we are also addressing specific regional and community health care needs across the province.

Earlier this year, our government launched the Ontario Learn and Stay Grant, which is going to be a huge asset for underserved communities. In the simplest of terms, if a student enrols in a school in an underserved community and takes one of the identified programs of need and commits to working in that community in their area of study for two years, the government will cover their education. Through this grant, we are investing $61 million to support 2,500 new health care professionals, in addition to the thousands more we are supporting through various ministry initiatives.

Whether they are in North Bay, Sarnia, Belleville, Thunder Bay or in any other identified communities, local colleges and universities will be training the next generation of health care professionals who will support local health care needs. I’m very excited about the Ontario Learn and Stay Grant, and I look forward to sharing an update in this House about its success in the future.

Gasoline prices

MPP Lise Vaugeois: Gas prices remain far higher in northern Ontario than in the south. In the northwest, the average cost of gas was 30 cents more per litre than in the greater Toronto area. Even in the north, the price can range drastically from town to town for no discernible reason.

Can the Premier explain to northerners why there are such huge differences in the price of gas across the province?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To respond, the member for Kitchener South–Hespeler, the parliamentary assistant.

Ms. Jess Dixon: Of course, we know that Ontario families and workers are being affected by inflation and high global gas prices; it’s particularly true in northern Ontario. Obviously, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has had geopolitical consequences that Ontario is not immune to.

Our government has taken numerous steps—back in 2018, scrapping cap-and-trade, and then, recently, extending the 5.7-cent gas tax cut for another year.

My issue would be the sort of hypocrisy of that question coming from the NDP—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to ask the member to withdraw the unparliamentary remark.

Ms. Jess Dixon: —the question coming from the NDP