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

October 4, 2023

43rd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2023-Oct-04 vol. A (PDF)

L094A - Wed 4 Oct 2023 / Mer 4 oct 2023

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 4 October 2023 Mercredi 4 octobre 2023

Orders of the Day

Affordable Homes and Good Jobs Act, 2023 / Loi de 2023 pour des logements abordables et de bons emplois

Members’ Statements

WhiteWater O’Brien Winery

Social assistance

Events in Brampton West

Tenant protection

Cambridge Food Bank

Marian Shrine of Gratitude

Jour des Franco-Ontariens et des Franco-Ontariennes

Ontario farmers

Police service dogs

Ontario Trillium Foundation

Report, Financial Accountability Officer

Introduction of Visitors

Manitoba election

Question Period

Land use planning

Government accountability

Municipal planning

Manufacturing sector

Government accountability

Employment

Planification municipale / Municipal planning

Land use planning

Long-term care

GO Transit

Health care

Beef farmers

Electricity supply

Homelessness

Food banks

Destigmatizing dementia reception

Visitors

Somali Centre for Culture and Recreation reception

Introduction of Visitors

Introduction of Government Bills

Convenient Care at Home Act, 2023 / Loi de 2023 sur la prestation commode de soins à domicile

Petitions

Heritage conservation

School transportation

Health care funding

Sexual abuse

Ontario Place

Road safety

Social assistance

Ontario Place

Heritage conservation

Visitors

Orders of the Day

Affordable Homes and Good Jobs Act, 2023 / Loi de 2023 pour des logements abordables et de bons emplois

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Affordable Homes and Good Jobs Act, 2023 / Loi de 2023 pour des logements abordables et de bons emplois

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 3, 2023, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 134,

An Act to amend the Development Charges Act, 1997 and the St. Thomas-Central Elgin Boundary Adjustment Act, 2023 / Projet de loi 134, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur les redevances d’aménagement et la Loi de 2023 sur la modification des limites territoriales entre St. Thomas et Central Elgin.

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

Mr. Jeff Burch: It’s a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill 134, Affordable Homes and Good Jobs Act, and to provide some comments this morning.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention a lot of us were up late last night, watching the Manitoba election. On a partisan level, obviously—you win some, you lose some—it was great to see, for us, an NDP majority government, but more importantly, and on a less partisan note, to see Wab Kinew elected as the first First Nations Premier in Canada was inspiring.

I was with my friend from Kiiwetinoong and some other folks from that community, and to see the look on their faces and to hear the commentary around the country and know that First Nations people—this really lifted their spirits after truth and reconciliation day, which we recognized on Monday, especially young people across the country. It was very inspiring and great to see. Congratulations to Wab Kinew on his victory.

I’d also like to recognize my friend from University–Rosedale, who has done an excellent job. I enjoy working with her on the housing and municipal affairs portfolio. When the government House leader quotes you often, you know you’re doing a good job as a critic. I think she’s doing an excellent job, so I want to recognize her.

Also, AMO and our municipal partners—I think we don’t recognize enough the hard work they do, especially under the difficult circumstances they’ve been subjected to over the last few years. I’ll be touching on that in my remarks regarding Bill 23 and, historically, what’s been happening with municipalities.

Of course, our stakeholders and all the citizens who have come out over the last year, concerned about the things that this government has been doing around the greenbelt and around land deals—thousands and thousands of people across the province have come out to MPPs’ offices and to the greenbelt itself to express their desire to keep that farmland and that protected land. That played a huge

part in causing this government to change course, and I want to thank all of them.

I want to, before commenting on the bill specifically, provide some context. We’ve talked about this many times before. This government and the official opposition have very different views of the housing crisis. We’ve talked a lot about how this government focuses on supply only, and supply rather than demand and the demand that is out there, which is for affordable homes, not for large single-detached homes.

We’ve never seen a situation where more folks own multiple properties. Speculation has become possibly the biggest problem in the housing crisis, next to supply, and that’s something that this government, in our opinion, has really ignored. It’s an ideological difference. This government believes that the way to address the housing crisis is just to remove obstacles; remove regulations, what they call red tape; give developers tax breaks; remove due diligence from the planning process, granting undemocratic powers to mayors.

These are all things that say, “We’re going to step back and we’re going to let the market fix the housing crisis.” That’s not a solution, and it has never been a solution in Canada.

Secondly, I want to raise that we understand this government wants to slow things down due to the disastrous summer of scandal and housing policy failure, and so this bill, clearly, is an attempt to do that—to slow down, to change the channel from the scandals and the failures of their housing policy. The theme that I think I see in all this is wasted time. If you look at how much time has been wasted, especially over the last year, dealing with scandals, dealing with questionable land deals—this is time that could have been spent addressing the housing crisis. Instead, the government is doing damage control and lurching from one scandal to another.

So while we will be supporting this bill—and I’ll explain why—I must begin by saying that this government has been in power for five years, and it has never been more expensive to rent or own a home. Obviously, given the size and urgency of the housing crisis, the meagre measures contained in this bill won’t do much to make life easier for folks who are struggling to find affordable places to live in Ontario.

This government’s failed policies and ill-advised schemes like greenbelt land grabs, strong-mayor powers and governance reviews are not delivering the housing people urgently need; in fact, they’re making things worse. The truth is, people no longer trust this government to address the housing crisis.

Specific to this bill—this bill redefines when an affordable or attainable home is eligible for the exemption from development charges under

section 4.1 of the Development Charges Act. The new definition of “affordable” is a home whose rent is no greater than the lesser of 30% of the income of the 60th percentile of renter households and the average market rent; the current definition is 80% of average market rent. So that is an improvement. The new definition of “attainable” is a home for purchase whose price is the lesser of the price that would result in annual accommodation costs that are 30% of the income of the 60th percentile of households and 90% of the average purchase price; the current definition is 80% of average purchase price.

So that is an improvement. The act also establishes an affordable residential units bulletin in which the minister shall determine the incomes and corresponding rents and purchase prices to which the term “affordable” shall apply.

Schedule 2 talks about allowing the city of St. Thomas to provide assistance for the new Volkswagen EV battery factory in St. Thomas—which was a bill that we also supported.

So defining affordability based on income, as I mentioned, is an improvement over defining strictly based on market prices—80% of a completely unaffordable market price, though, is still unaffordable.

Housing expert Steve Pomeroy told us that the 60th renter percentile is a realistic benchmark.

Redefining affordability based on income instead of the market for the purposes of a development charge exemption is an incremental improvement over the status quo because, as currently defined, developers might receive an exemption for building affordable homes that are not affordable for most people, and that might have been homes that might have been built anyway, without the exemption.

But there’s still much more the government should be doing to spur the construction of new non-market homes, especially homes that are affordable for low-income households. We’ve talked about this many times in the past. While the NDP supports incentives like development charge exemptions to encourage the construction of purpose-built rental housing, especially affordable homes, the province should be covering these costs, not cash-strapped municipalities that are already struggling after over 25 years of provincial downloads and cuts.

The Ford government shows no indication it intends to keep its promise to make municipalities whole for Bill 23 revenue losses—I’ll talk about that further—and when the NDP asked about this, the Premier said, “The municipalities love spending money.... We don’t have an income problem at the city halls across the province; we have a spending problem. That’s the issue.” That’s the kind of disdain that the Premier and this government have shown toward municipalities—in our opinion, a real disrespect for municipalities across Ontario.

This government is letting developers off the hook from paying their fair share for services that people need, including parks, transit and affordable housing. We believe this government needs to tackle the housing crisis from every angle. That includes real rent control, clamping down on speculation and getting the province back into the business of building homes people can actually afford.

This government has been in power for over half a decade, and we still do not have a clear, coherent housing policy. Over the summer, this government was lurching from one scandal to another, with no clarity of direction or motives. This creates uncertainty for our municipal partners; they’ve been very vocal about that.

Meanwhile, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., just the other week, lowered projections on how many homes will be constructed in Ontario. Canada is short 3.5 million housing units for 2030, and Ontario has the biggest supply gap. This government is not even delivering on the supply side, never mind the affordability issue, which is getting worse and worse.

As I mentioned, it’s tragic, especially over the summer, how much time has been wasted on government scandals, rather than addressing the housing crisis. For over a year, this government has been wasting time enriching their friends instead of focusing on housing. Tearing up the greenbelt was more important to them. This was sold as their big idea to address the housing affordability crisis, and we heard the government leader speak many times about providing affordable homes for immigrants on greenbelt land, which is one of the most ridiculous claims I’ve heard this government or any government ever make.

It never should have taken a series of scandals from this government for the Premier to attempt to undo the damage he has done. While people are struggling with an affordability crisis, this Premier has wasted people’s time, and after reading both the Integrity Commissioner’s and the Auditor General’s reports, it’s clear tearing up the greenbelt was never about building homes.

CityNews recently had an excellent

article that highlighted just how much time this government has wasted with this greenbelt scandal, detailing an incredible timeline. It’s amazing to think that it was almost a year ago, November 4, 2022, when the municipal affairs and housing minister announced via news release that Ontario would remove 7,400 acres in 15 different areas of the greenbelt while adding 9,400 acres elsewhere to build 50,000 homes. It contradicted a pledge directly that he made in 2021 not to open the greenbelt “to any kind of development.”

On November 11, CBC reported that the landowners who stood to benefit from the greenbelt land removals included prominent developers and that one purchase happened as recently as September. Later in November, the minister said that he did not tip off developers ahead of announcing changes to the greenbelt, and the Premier said the same a day later.

Yet, on January 6, Ontario Provincial Police said they were working to determine whether they should investigate the matter. On January 18, Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner and Auditor General both announced that they would conduct separate probes. The Integrity Commissioner launched an investigation into the minister on a complaint from the NDP leader, who asked the commissioner to investigate whether the minister broke the ethics rules around making a public policy decision to further someone’s private interests. And now—this is prior to February—the government is fully embroiled in a scandal and not working to provide housing for the people of Ontario.

Later in February, our leader asked the Integrity Commissioner to issue an opinion on the Premier’s actions surrounding his daughter’s stag-and-doe event ahead of her wedding. The Premier acknowledged that some developers who were friends attended the $150-a-ticket event and media reports say lobbyists and government relations firms were—

Mrs. Robin Martin: Point of order, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Point of order?

Mrs. Robin Martin: Pursuant to standing order 25(b)(i), I ask, through you, Speaker, that the member from Niagara Centre return to the subject matter of the bill. The member’s remarks are not germane to the item currently being debated by the House.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): I remind the member of the content of the bill and to stay within the parameters, please. Thank you.

Mr. Jeff Burch: Thank you, Speaker. And I would remind my friend that the government speakers, whom I listened to intently, provided context going back to 2018. As I mentioned, what we’re establishing is how much time this government has wasted. Rather than addressing the housing crisis, they’ve had to waste time on scandals, and now we have a bill in front of us that doesn’t really build any homes. So we have wasted time and now we’re discussing a bill that doesn’t really contain anything in it that will address the housing crisis. I think it’s very germane. We’re almost there; we’re up to August of this long scandal, but I’ll get there.

On August 25, the Premier, in his first comments since the minister’s chief of staff’s resignation, said he was “confident” nothing criminal took place on the greenbelt, but that RCMP investigation is ongoing.

Now, First Nations, which has been brought up by the government speakers yesterday: On August 28, I think it’s worth pointing out that First Nations chiefs across the province called on the Premier to return land to the greenbelt. As we speak this morning, our leader and a number of our critics are in the media studio talking about urban boundary expansion and the disrespect that’s been shown to First Nations communities with respect to that. The chiefs brought that up on August 28 with respect to the greenbelt scandal and said very clearly that the greenbelt moves the government made were violating the Williams Treaties that were settled with the province and the federal government in 2018.

So here we are today. We just went through September. On September 4, the minister formally resigned his cabinet post. The Premier appointed the government House leader as the new Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to manage a full-blown crisis, not to build housing—and that’s important; that’s what we’re talking about this morning. It was to manage a crisis. We know what’s happened since, with the resignation of three ministers, multiple staff resigning and a potential RCMP investigation.

Recently, Speaker, in a Globe and Mail

article entitled “Ontario Government Had Targeted More Greenbelt Sites Without Public’s Notice”—

Hon. Paul Calandra: Sorry, Madam Speaker. Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Point of order.

Hon. Paul Calandra: I appreciate that the member probably hasn’t read the bill, but if he reads the bill, he will find that it is specifically geared towards the definition of affordable housing and the expansion of jobs in St. Thomas. I would ask the honourable member to focus his comments on—what he’s legislatively required to do—the bill that is before the House.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): I’ll remind the member that the bill is a discussion around the definition of affordable housing and expansion of the St. Thomas site, and to please keep your comments as it regards the bill.

Mr. Jeff Burch: Thank you, Speaker. It only took a few minutes to read the bill because there’s not a lot in it. I listened intently to the government speakers yesterday, who wandered all over the political map for a couple of hours. I’ll leave it to the Speaker to determine whether I’m on topic when I discuss issues of why the government is not addressing housing in this bill.

I’ll be talking about the things that the government should be addressing, and one of those things, obviously, was brought up just last week, when the official opposition leader tabled the greenbelt restoration act. It would be great in this bill if the government took the opportunity to do what they promised to do and repealed the greenbelt legislation. The bill that we proposed, which the government could have put in this bill, repealed the Conservatives’ 2022—

Hon. Paul Calandra: Again, Madam Speaker, point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Point of order.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Again, I bring up the same point: We are not talking about proposed bills of the opposition; we are talking about Bill 134, which is before the House. I appreciate that the member enjoyed my speech yesterday. He had the exact same opportunity, if he wasn’t enjoying parts of it, to suggest that we go back on track. That did not happen.

He has a bill in front of him about affordable housing—the definition of affordable housing with respect to St. Thomas. We will continue to interject, and we would ask that the member continue to focus his comments on the bill before him. If he doesn’t, then I would suggest he yield the floor to another member of the caucus who might actually have some comments on the bill before the House.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): To the member that is speaking, please remember what is in the bill and if you’re able to tie it back to Bill 134. Please still keep your comments within what is in the bill.

Mr. Jeff Burch: Absolutely, Speaker. I realize and recognize that the government House leader doesn’t want to talk about all of the scandals that they’re dealing with right now instead of talking about housing.

Let me talk about someone who’s looking for affordable housing in my riding. I trust that will be acceptable to the Speaker, and maybe make him a little more comfortable for a few minutes and not quite as agitated. I’m going to talk about Tim Gibson, someone from my riding who’s having a really hard time finding affordable housing. The Premier recently stated of the government’s housing policy, “It’s not a little bit better; it’s not 10% better; it’s a thousand times better on all fronts. It’s a thousand times better” since the government took office. That’s the Premier’s words.

So while the government continues to stumble from one bad idea to another, people across Ontario still do not have access to affordable housing.

Tim Gibson from my riding in Niagara Centre—60 years old. He lives in Niagara Regional Housing, and he’s lived there for 15 years. He’s on ODSP. He gets $700 a month because of the rent-geared-to-income housing. He went to the Hope Centre food bank recently. I’ve met with food banks in my riding recently; they’re having a real hard time all across Ontario. People from Feed Ontario were here last session telling all members of the Legislature—and I hope many of them took advantage of the opportunity to visit them for their reception—what a difficult time they’re having as this government’s policies fail and people have to choose between rent and food.

He went to the Hope Centre food bank, and all they had left was two cans of spaghetti sauce. So he got a $50 gift card from St. Vincent de Paul society. He was telling me this the other day. He left the grocery store with five items, including a bag of potatoes, a package of hamburger, a package of chicken, a dozen eggs and a tub of margarine. That’s all $50 got him. He wants to speak to the Premier directly to raise his concerns. He knows he’s lucky to have rent geared to income—that’s what he told me—but the housing complex he lives in is tired, and repairs are slow to come, if at all.

He worries the place will be shut down for bylaw infractions. Where would all those people go? Even though he’s housed, he worries about being homeless.

Speaker, we hear hundreds of stories from people in my riding and across Ontario on the brink of homelessness. We have food banks that have told us people who used to donate are now the ones who are receiving food, and yet the Premier has the nerve to say things are a thousand times better than ever before.

Tim Gibson, the man I just referenced, wanted to speak to the Premier, so I gave him the Premier’s number. I know the Premier says he likes to give his phone number out, so I hope he speaks to Tim.

Another example: In an

article published just the other day in the St. Catharines Standard, titled “‘Perfect Storm of Obstacles’ Impacts Food Programs,” Jessica Stephenson, who is the Niagara Nutrition Partners program manager in Niagara, said, “It’s unprecedented times at the moment. We’re currently experiencing a perfect storm of obstacles that impact how we run our programs. We’re just trying to meet that increase in student population to make sure that all students have access to a healthy meal at all times....

“Niagara Nutrition Partners receives funding from the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services but the provincial money—it has remained stagnant since 2014 despite inflation and rising population—only covers a portion of the cost, leaving gaps it works to fill through groups such as United Way, helping put ‘buffers in place,’ so” schools can provide meals year-long. Again, Speaker, this Premier thinks that things are a thousand times better on all fronts.

Housing affordability in Niagara: I hope the government House leader doesn’t mind me talking about housing affordability—

M me Dawn Gallagher Murphy: Point of order, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Second point of order: the member from Newmarket–Aurora.

M me Dawn Gallagher Murphy: Point of order: Pursuant to standing order 25(b)(i), I ask that the member from the riding of Niagara Centre return to the subject matter on this bill. Unfortunately, it’s not about nutrition; it is about housing. I know you’re just speaking about nutrition. Let’s stay on the topic of housing, please, and return the subject to the matter of the bill. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Thank you to the member from Newmarket–Aurora.

The member from Niagara Centre, we are talking about affordable housing—a reminder to keep on point with that.

Mr. Jeff Burch: Speaker, I don’t know if I’m going to continue to be interrupted, but clearly, if you look at the record of my speaking, I’m talking about people choosing between housing and food. I don’t know how I could be more relevant on this topic than talking about choosing between paying their rent and buying food. I appreciate that the members from the government want me to stay on topic. I would like them to let me continue with my speaking when I’m talking about affordable housing and food and rent. I would appreciate not being interrupted so much when I’m obviously sticking to the subject matter. Thank you.

In Niagara, we’re seeing people spend upwards of 60% of their take-home income on housing alone. According to Niagara Association of Realtors, the average price of homes sold in August 2023 was $688,754. A modest one-bedroom in Welland, for example, is going for $1,400 a month. A basement one-bedroom apartment in Port Colborne is $1,300. How does someone like Tim, who I mentioned, afford to buy groceries and at the same time pay rent when they’re only getting $700 or $800 a month?

Rents have risen across Ontario over the past 20 years, particularly since 2011. Shortly after this government was elected, they eliminated rent control on new units. There’s no legal limit set on how much landlords can charge in rent for new builds that are occupied for the first time after November of 2018.

We all agree that we need to build more homes, but we keep pointing out that you can’t just look at supply. You have to look at demand. The title of the bill is about housing affordability, but this government refuses to look at the price of homes, at the demand for affordable homes in Ontario. This government seems to keep feeding the demands of speculators while ignoring the demands of Ontarians who just want an affordable place to live.

This government has ignored the advice of its own experts and its own Housing Affordability Task Force by not ending exclusionary zoning. The government is failing to enable missing-middle housing to make it easier for people of all incomes, ages, family sizes and abilities to access affordable housing options in the neighbourhoods and communities they need to live in.

For Niagara Regional Housing, the wait-list for an affordable unit in Thorold, where I live, is eight years. In Welland, you’re waiting from four to eight years; in St. Catharines, eight to 15 years. In Niagara Falls, you could be looking at anywhere from five to 20 years for an affordable housing unit.

We have been calling for a strong public sector role to deliver new affordable and non-market housing that the for-profit sector can’t or won’t deliver. This government has relied almost entirely on the private market to deliver new housing. Their main tools have been deregulation, tax cuts and sacrificing more farmland and natural heritage to urban development. This approach, Speaker, has clearly failed.

Simply putting forward a bill that changes the definition of “affordability,” although it’s an improvement and we appreciate it, will do nothing to build new homes. There are so many more things this government should be doing. Instead, they’ve focused on delivering benefits to well-connected landowners and donors while sacrificing farmland instead of focusing on delivering housing that’s actually affordable and meets the needs of regular Ontarians.

Part of this bill is doing what this government does best, which is shifting cost and responsibility from developers onto municipalities, so we have to talk about municipalities and how they will be affected. There’s still much more the government should be doing to spur the construction of new non-market homes, especially homes that are affordable for low-income households. While we support incentives like development charge exemptions to encourage the construction of purpose-built rental housing, especially affordable homes, the province should be covering these costs, not cash-strapped municipalities that are already struggling after over 25 years of provincial downloads and cuts.

The Ford government shows no indication it intends to keep its promise to make municipalities whole for Bill 23 revenue losses. When I asked about this, the Premier said, and I remember this very vividly from question period, “Municipalities love spending money.... We don’t have an income problem at the city halls across the province; we have a spending problem. That’s the issue.”

Once again, as they’re doing in this bill, they’re shifting responsibility and costs from the province to municipalities. Again, we have another bill that fails to fulfill the government’s promise to make municipalities whole after the financial ruin they caused with Bill 23. There’s nothing to make up for the municipal deficits which will result in service cuts and higher property taxes. AMO has calculated that cities are seeing a $5-billion revenue shortfall from Bill 23. Changing the definition of affordability is not going to address that problem.

The city of Pickering is raising taxes by 2.44% due to Bill 23. Coupled with the region of Durham’s increase of 2.87%, Pickering taxpayers will be paying an additional 5.3% on their bill. The major challenge was the lack of development charges coming into the city as a result of Bill 23, which was the More Homes Built Faster Act.

In Niagara, “the legislation reduces or freezes development charges, the fees municipalities collect from developers and rely on for growth-related services such as roads and infrastructure.

“If the provincial government doesn’t offer some form of compensation,” regional chair Jim “Bradley has said the region would annually have to raise property taxes 11% to cover an estimated $122 million in lost revenue.”

A report by the city of St. Catharines stated, “The proposed reduced fees will shift the financial burden onto existing taxpayers instead of growth paying for growth. This will put significant stress on the city’s budget and planning to accommodate for the lost revenue required for the city’s capital projects.... Further financial risk will be taken by the city due to the downloading of responsibilities, additional studies, programs, staffing and the increased need for long-term debt.”

Although I’m not sure I’ll have a chance to address it today, Speaker, municipalities, on top of this financial stress, are facing the anxiety presented by this government’s tinkering with governance. It’s interesting that one of the first things the government House leader did in taking over the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing was to put the brakes on that, but it would be nice for municipalities if they didn’t have to deal with further confusion and had some idea of how the government plans to deal with those regional governance reviews.

“In Brampton, city council received a staff report in November estimating revenue losses equalling as much as an 80% property tax increase.” And all of these increases, Speaker, are under the guise of helping to create housing in Ontario.

In Guelph, “staff are also recommending eliminating the annual $500,000 transfer to the city’s affordable housing reserve fund to help offset the impacts ... from Bill 23....” So there’s an example directly impacting a city’s affordable housing reserve fund.

In Waterloo, they’ve said that the draft budget contains a proposed tax increase of 5.35% that would add about $75 to the average property tax bill. However, over the next five years, the city stands to lose between $23 million and $31 million in development charges—fees paid by developers to municipalities to offset the cost of new facilities and services.

Waterloo also said, “Between the impacts of record inflation in 2022 and the implementation of Bill 23, local municipalities are projecting significant tax increases.

“Regional government is looking at a hike of ... 9.8%, adding $147 to the average property tax bill.”

“The township of North Dumfries is projecting a 4.8% property tax hike for 2023” as a result of this government’s housing policy on regional governments “in large part due to the expected impacts” from the More Homes Built Faster Act.

Huron-Perth: “Without additional funding from the province to offset this loss of revenue, municipalities will have little option but to put these costs back on the taxpayer. Adding more costs to existing property owners will increase their costs and could negatively impact current homeowners, who may already be struggling with rising interest rates, to keep their current housing affordable.”

In Markham, they’ve said, “City staff members presented a report on the various impacts of the proposed Bill 23 legislative changes. The most alarming revelation was that the changes in Bill 23 could cost the city $136 million in annual revenue, requiring an increase of 50% to 80% on property taxes to maintain existing service levels, equalling an estimated $600 to $1,000 per year to the average homeowner.”

Now, this bill would have been a perfect opportunity, Speaker, for the government to keep their promise to make municipalities whole.

Brampton city council has joined other municipalities in voicing serious concerns over the economic impacts of the provincial government’s Bill 23. The bill is equivalent to an 80% property tax increase over the next 10 years. To put it simply, that bill, Bill 23, shifted a significant financial cost from developers onto already struggling municipalities and that cost would be handed down, obviously, to folks who are struggling to find a home to own or rent.

Now, we’ve talked a little about things that could have been in this bill, and one of the things I’ve heard, actually, from the new minister, the government House leader, when he took over the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing after the scandals through the summer, was that they may be taking up an NDP idea, which is a “use it or lose it” clause for developers.

Folks will remember that this government, in its efforts to blame municipalities for everything that goes wrong in the housing market, put very strict rules on municipalities about the time that it takes to move approvals through municipal planning departments—not a bad thing to require municipalities to do things in a reasonable period of time, but they failed to do the same thing with developers.

So, it was great to hear the minister, when he was attempting to change channels after the scandal, take up a good NDP idea which is to bring in a “use it or lose it” clause for developers. There’s a housing development in Port Colborne, in my riding, that was approved in the 1980s and has yet to break ground. AMO and the big city mayors have all pointed out that there are 1.25 million homes in the approval pipeline that are not being built. The government could have taken advantage of this opportunity, after already speaking about it in the media, to make that part of this bill, but they chose not to. I hope that they move forward and do that in the very near future.

During question period I asked the previous Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing if this government would “stop blaming municipalities, do what is fair and implement a sunset clause of approvals so that developers and builders must build housing in a reasonable period of time after they’ve been approved.” We have yet to hear a commitment from the government, as I’ve mentioned. I hope we hear that soon.

The NDP has put forward amendments in committee to Bill 23. They were rejected unfortunately by this government, and I hope they’re changing their tune now. Our amendment stated, “Section 41 ...

(15.4) Subject to and in accordance with the regulations, a municipality may, by bylaw, impose penalties on the owner of the land for failure to substantially commence development within a timely manner after the plans and drawings have been approved under this section.”

Planners, Mr. Speaker, say that if the province could incentivize developers to build what it is already approved, they would be 85% of the way to their goal. Now, we can argue about whether that’s exaggerated—I’m sure the government would say it is—but let’s say it was only 50%. Let’s say by implementing something like this, we could get 50% to our goal, why would the government not move forward to this if it wasn’t because they are afraid of the pushback from their developer friends?

In a CBC article, the chair of the Regional Planning Commissioners of Ontario, Thom Hunt, said, “If the province could incentivize developers to build what is already approved by municipalities, they’d be 85% of the way toward their goal, well ahead of their target. I think the report starts to tell the story that the housing supply challenge isn’t really a land supply or development approval problem.... The bigger problem is, probably, how do you compel a developer to build? How do you increase the rate of construction?”

Unfortunately, we have here another housing bill that fails to include a sunset clause to incentivize developers. Despite the government not taking action, some municipalities are already moving ahead with this plan, because they know that it would work.

In April 2022, Aurora mayor Tom Mrakas stated, “Aurora town council unanimously approved a motion ... to add a sunset clause to all future site-specific zoning bylaw amendments. What this means is that if a development applicant does not satisfy the time frame requirements and obtain a building permit, the development approvals will be revoked and the zoning of the property will return to its original state.”

The statement goes on to say, “With this planning mechanism in place, Aurora can be better positioned to foster appropriate development that will meet the needs of current and future residents when they need it.”

Here’s a simple yet effective mechanism this government could implement today. They could have put it in this bill. Instead, since coming to power they’ve wasted everyone’s time with things like strong-mayor powers, regional reviews and flip-flops on selling the greenbelt. It’s great to hear the new Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing speaking to the media and indicating he may move forward with an NDP idea, and I hope, certainly, that we see that happen. Unfortunately, it didn’t happen in this bill.

Things that we would have loved to see in this bill, Speaker:

—implementing real rent control—we’ve talked about that;

—building truly affordable housing, including non-profit, public, co-op and supportive housing;

—cracking down on greedy land speculation;

—establishing inclusionary zoning to build homes within existing neighbourhoods near transit and other key infrastructure; and

—getting the federal and provincial governments back in the business of building homes that people can actually afford.

When the government says that the official opposition, the NDP, are always saying no, that they don’t have solutions, that’s not true. We’ve proposed solutions continually and we have some solutions that could be implemented right away. It would have been really easy to include some of this stuff—especially the sunset clause that I referred to—in this bill, but the government is not trying to solve the housing crisis; they’re trying to handle a scandal.

AMO released a response to Bill 134, the Affordable Homes and Good Jobs Act. They put out a press release: “At its meeting on September 29, the AMO board considered the recent request made by” the minister “to mayors across Ontario regarding their views on the recommendations of the Housing Affordability Task Force.”

Remember, Speaker, this was the task force that said, “You don’t need to build on the greenbelt. We have enough land within urban boundaries. We don’t need to force urban boundaries to expand. We don’t need MZOs. We have the land we need.”

AMO says, “The minister has requested that all heads of council respond to the request by October 16 or risk financial penalties for their municipality. AMO had previously requested that the ministry extend the deadline to allow mayors to consult with councils; however, the request was not granted.”

So here’s AMO saying, “Look, our members have received your request. We want some time so the mayors can talk to their councils,” and the minister said, “No, no, I’m not going to give you that time.” They can waste all the time they want, but they’re not going to give municipalities time for mayors to even speak to their councils.

“AMO states that at a sector level, municipalities conditionally support all task force recommendations with a few exceptions, provided that the government puts in place”—and here is what AMO wants. It’s not pie in the sky, nothing unreasonable. Here’s what they want:

“—a fair and sustainable funding framework to support infrastructure and growth, that is not unduly subsidized by existing property taxpayers”—we talked about that already;

“—a comprehensive, sequenced implementation plan that gives both developers and municipalities certainty regarding costs and rules to support effective long-term decision-making”—doesn’t sound unreasonable to me;

“—an accountability framework that accurately recognizes the roles and responsibilities of different housing partners and does not hold municipalities accountable for the actions of developers or provincial ministries. Mechanisms must be included to ensure that public investments are tied to outcomes in the public interest;

“—a core focus on non-market housing”—that’s something we’ve talked about for a long time—“which was not within the mandate of the housing affordability task force. A robust non-market housing sector is a critical part of a well-functioning overall housing system and needs to be prioritized by governments”—they’re saying government needs to get back in the game;

“—a public policy review by the Ontario Public Service verifying that each recommendation is feasible, likely to result in increased housing supply and/or affordability and is in the public interest.”

It’s amazing that we don’t have that already.

So the letter identifies top recommendations from the task force for prioritization, as well as three recommendations that AMO objects to on principle.

“AMO has previously stated that the government has chosen its own path in addressing the housing crisis”—that’s AMO, representing 144 municipalities across Ontario. The government haven’t listened to us. They’ve chosen their own path “in addressing the housing crisis in Ontario, despite the advice of municipalities, and will be accountable for its outcomes. AMO has also stated that municipalities will do everything within their power to help the province to achieve its housing targets and outcomes. The AMO board believes that the response outlined in the letter is reflective of this approach.”

So they’re saying, “The government hasn’t listened to us. They’ve gone their own way. But we still want to work with you.” There’s time to change direction. Municipalities want to work with the government, but they can’t blame municipalities for every problem that exists with the affordable housing crisis. They have to work with municipalities, and they have to listen when municipalities come to them.

Bill 63, which the NDP supported, is being renamed Supporting Manufacturing in St. Thomas Act. I want to emphasize, in closing, some of the things I said when originally speaking to Bill 63. As you all know, the opposition supported this bill, and we have to give credit not only to municipal, provincial and federal governments, but, as we pointed out, to unions as well, who went through very difficult times with thousands of their members losing jobs. They went to the bargaining table.

So I think we have to give some credit where credit is due to unions like Unifor and the Steelworkers and others who have gone to the bargaining table and worked with the government. This was obviously something that was led by the federal government and with the industry to try to create the conditions to bring some of these jobs back. And this is one area where we all came together in this House and supported that EV battery factory, which will bring back some of the many manufacturing jobs that have been lost in the past.

St. Thomas was one of those areas in Ontario that was devastated when we lost manufacturing jobs, especially in the 1990s. According to Statistics Canada, from the early 2000s to the mid-2010s, the number of employees in manufacturing fell by roughly half a million in Canada, and we’ve seen the long-lasting impact of that first-hand in Niagara. For example, the St. Catharines General Motors plant, at one time, was up to 11,000 or 12,000 manufacturing jobs; now they’re down to a couple of thousand. So it’s great to see the possibility of some of those jobs coming back, and the official opposition was happy to support a bill that helped to make that happen.

To conclude, we will be supporting Bill 134, Affordable Homes and Good Jobs Act. However, this government has been in power for over five years, and we’ve yet to see a comprehensive, transparent housing plan based on facts and evidence. The government continues lurching from one random decision to another, one scandal to another, with no consistency in their direction or their motives. While this government continues to waste everyone’s time, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., as I mentioned, lowered their projections on how many homes will be constructed in Ontario.

People need affordable places to live, but this government’s failed policies are not delivering the housing people urgently need. In fact, they’re making everything worse. People no longer trust this government to fix the housing crisis. Given the size and urgency of the housing crisis, these measures in this bill are meagre measures that won’t do all that much to make life easier for people. Redefining affordable housing by tying it to a person’s income and not the market is an improvement, but this government is still letting developers off the hook from paying their fair share for services that people need, including parks, transit and affordable housing.

As a result of government inaction, more and more folks are struggling to pay their bills and keep a roof over their head, like Tim Gibson, who I mentioned, from my riding. It’s never been more expensive to rent or own a home after five years of Conservative government. We’ve been calling for the government to tackle the housing crisis from every angle to make it easier to buy or rent a place to call home. That includes real rent control. It includes clamping down on speculation and getting the province back into the business of building homes you can actually afford. We will continue to do that work, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Question?

Mr. John Yakabuski: I listened intently to the member on his speech, and I didn’t hear very much about Bill 134 until the last couple of minutes when, out of the blue, they announced that they’re going to support the bill, as they did Bill 63.

If you remember when Bill 63 was going through the Legislature here, what tipped the scales in favour of the NDP supporting was the calls they received from union leadership that said, “You’re toast if you don’t support this bill redefining the boundaries around St. Thomas,” because it was integral and of paramount importance to be able to establish an EV battery manufacturing facility in the St. Thomas region. So again, they were taking their marching orders from their stakeholders—not necessarily the people of Ontario—who will support this bill without question.

Bill 134 is so important to people in my riding who do have lower-than-average incomes and pay more as a percentage of their income to pay for housing. Thank you for supporting it. It’s about time you got behind this government’s entire—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): The member from Niagara Centre.

Mr. Jeff Burch: Thank you to the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke for that, although what he says is completely false. We were always supporting the EV battery manufacturing plant—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Unparliamentary. You’ve got to withdraw that.

Mr. Jeff Burch: Withdrawn.

We were always supporting that bill and didn’t receive any calls from unions. I come from Niagara, where we have a General Motors plant, and there was never any doubt that we were going to support manufacturing jobs coming to Ontario.

In terms of the bill and my only addressing the housing in the last couple of minutes, obviously the member wasn’t listening.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further questions?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: The member mentioned the election last night and how that election resulted in an NDP government taking power in Manitoba. I think that makes me feel hopeful.

As the official opposition in Ontario, the NDP and our leader, Marit Stiles, have been trying to get to the housing scandal and fix housing so that people actually have affordable homes.

I want to ask the member: In 2026, when we actually have an NDP government in this province, can you summarize how the NDP government will fix the housing crisis in this province so people can afford homes, and stop tinkering around with the Conservative bills that don’t fix the housing crisis?

Mr. Jeff Burch: What an excellent and balanced question that was. I think that we’ve been pretty clear with our proposals. When you think about this government and the fact that they removed rent controls in the middle of a housing crisis, that says it all right there—a government that removes rent controls.

I think I spoke as well about just our different approach to housing, which is looking historically, looking at facts and evidence and understanding that the government has to intervene. The marketplace is not going to correct housing just by increasing the supply. Government has to get back into the business of providing housing.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further questions?

Mr. Mike Harris: I’ve got here the NDP plan—well, we’ll call it a plan—on what they would like to do to build more affordable and, I believe, non-market rental homes, to the tune of 250,000 homes in the province. Using some basic math, what it costs, roughly, to build a home right now is around $500,000. For 250,000 homes, we’re talking about—what is it? A billion and a quarter, something along those lines? I’m just wondering what taxes you would raise to be able to pay for those homes.

Mr. Jeff Burch: Sorry, maybe you could communicate with me later. I have no idea what you’re referring to; I’m saying that honestly.

But I can tell you that I just talked about sunset clauses on developers, making sure that, as the government House leader himself has proposed to the media—putting a sunset clause on developers so that they start building rather than speculating and sitting on approvals, according to the big city mayors, would create hundreds of thousands of units of housing. That’s something we can do without spending any taxpayer dollars.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further questions?

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: Thank you to my colleague from Niagara Centre. It’s always a pleasure to hear you speak in the House.

Three times they interrupted you during your speech, even though you were speaking dead on to the bill. They’re always trying to change the subject, or at least change the channel.

Coming from northern Ontario—and you spoke a bit in your discussions on this bill—do you see anything in there that will help us build more affordable, supportive and co-op houses? Because this is what’s lacking in my area. People have nowhere to go. There’s a lack of housing, and plus, we know there are programs that qualify if you have 100,000 in population, yet in northern Ontario, we don’t see very much over 100,000. So can you speak on this, please?

Mr. Jeff Burch: Thank you, my friend, for that question. Thank you for recognizing that. I’m not sure what all the interruptions were about. At one point, I was talking about people struggling to choose between food and housing. It’s about affordable housing, so I’m not sure what the problem was there.

But the answer is no, there’s nothing in this bill that will create any housing at all. It changes a definition of what is affordable housing and talks about an EV battery plant in St. Thomas.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further questions?

Mr. Anthony Leardi: I want to ask the member about the second half of this bill. The member spoke of having General Motors in his region, a fine automotive manufacturer here in the province of Ontario. In my region, we have Stellantis and Ford, other fine automobile manufacturers. This bill talks about Volkswagen and its historic $7-billion investment in the province of Ontario, brought in part through the incredible efforts of the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade.

I am very excited about that investment and what this bill talks about, because it means, in my riding of Essex, people are going to have good, solid jobs for life, well-paying jobs. And I’m wondering, since the member has General Motors in his riding, is he excited about this bill and that $7-billion investment by Volkswagen? Because it’s going to have great effects in his riding too.

Mr. Jeff Burch: Thank you to the member from Essex. I believe I said in my speaking that everyone can share the credit. I believe it was led by the federal government. The provincial government was there, municipal government, St. Thomas. That’s what the bill was about. I supported it, and I also brought up the fact that I think unions can take some of the credit as well, along with all the members of this House who supported the bill.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further questions?

MPP Jill Andrew: Thank you to our member for impactful conversation on the government’s bill. This bill is entitled, I believe, the Affordable Homes and Good Jobs Act. It certainly is an improvement that the government is proposing to define affordability based on income as opposed to strictly based on market value.

But the question I have—particularly in St. Paul’s, where rent is soaring—is, why will the Conservative government not commit to real rent control? We have tenants in St. Paul’s who had to leave the community, actually. The rent was $2,500 a month. The landlord proposed $3,500 a month and then they went to $9,500 a month for a two-bedroom condo. This wouldn’t be able to happen if we had real rent control in Ontario.

Can the member discuss why real rent control—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Response? Niagara Centre.

Mr. Jeff Burch: Thank you, my friend from St. Paul’s. Yes, it boggles the mind that any government in the middle of a housing crisis would remove rent controls. It’s had terrible effects on folks, especially in Toronto. I really appreciate the advocacy that she does and also our critic, the member from University–Rosedale.

We just saw this week people protesting about renovictions and the situation is just horrible, so hopefully one day the government sees the light. It would be a big deal for renters, but it wouldn’t be a big deal for them just to put rent control back.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further debate? Further debate?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you very much, Speaker. Your voice is so soft compared to mine, I didn’t hear you right off the bat. But I certainly appreciate the opportunity.

However, I do want to say, Speaker, because there’s so little time and I would prefer not to have my address today split in two, I’m going to move adjournment of the debate.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Mr. Yakabuski has moved the adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour of the motion will say “aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This is a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1008 to 1015.

Pursuant to standing order 49(a), the Speaker interrupted the bells and deemed the debate to be adjourned.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

WhiteWater O’Brien Winery

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I recognize the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I wasn’t expecting to be so early, but then again, I probably caused the problem.

“It can’t be done”: Don’t bother using those words when speaking to an O’Brien. When folks told Del O’Brien some 50 years ago that establishing an airline in Pembroke wouldn’t work, he proved them wrong.

Well, his son Jason has done it again. Against conventional thinking that you couldn’t establish a vineyard in Renfrew county, he and his wife Lioutsia have done just that. On September 2, I had the honour of attending the official opening of WOW, the WhiteWater O’Brien Winery. Nestled on the shores of Lake Allumette, the vineyard stretches for a quarter of a kilometre and basks in the constant westerly breeze blowing off over eight kilometres of open water. The westerlies ward off late spring and early fall frost and act as air conditioning in the summer.

This enhances the moderating effect of cool nights and hot days, which is similar to many of the great vineyard locations around the world.

The vineyard is part of the 700-acre O’Brien farm, which has been in the family since the 1830s and is one of the earliest and largest certified organic farms in the Ottawa Valley. WhiteWater O’Brien Winery is currently producing four varieties: two whites, one red and a rosé. Speaker, I can tell you they are all very, very good.

I want to congratulate the O’Briens on their grand opening and let everyone know that in addition to being available on site, an online delivery service is under development. Renfrew County’s WhiteWater O’Brien Winery is on the march and the O’Briens are leading the charge.

Social assistance

Miss Monique Taylor: I rise today to amplify the voices of so many Ontarians who are struggling daily to make ends meet and are reaching out with nowhere to turn. Instead of hearing meaningful solutions to legislated poverty from this government, they are seeing headlines which are filled with scandal after scandal—scandals which are helping developers and certainly not them. Many calls to my office point out how life is getting harder, not better.

Just over a year ago, some of my caucus colleagues and I shed light on what small amount of money was left to buy food on the social services diet. You may recall I spent $57 for two weeks of food. This was the reality for so many on Ontario Works and the Ontario Disability Support Program day in and day out. It was tough. It was physically and mentally draining. The lessons we learned in those two weeks opened up conversations with thousands of people struggling to get access to housing, much-needed medications and food.

Fast-forward to today. I wonder what that same amount of money would buy off the shelves. What would I have to leave behind: the loaf of bread, the can of tuna or the cucumber that was the only fresh item in my basket? As we continue to listen and learn, we hear the challenges. History doesn’t have to repeat itself. We can make change.

I will continue to call this government to action and demand social service rates keep people safe, fed and hopeful for a better way forward.

Events in Brampton West

Mr. Amarjot Sandhu: I had a very productive break from the House. I spent the summer connecting with the community and joining a wide variety of events.

One of the most remarkable aspects of our country and our province is the wide diversity of cultures. The social fabric of our province gives us, as elected officials, the opportunity to immerse ourselves in a wide variety of beautiful cultures and traditions.

A couple of notable events that I participated in over the summer included the Brampton Boat Race, Ride for Raja, Jalsa Salana, and the Taste of India Food Festival. The Brampton Boat Race is a beautiful display of the Malayalee culture that originates from the Kerala region in India, organized by the Brampton Malayalee Samajam. The Ride for Raja is an event organized by the Sikh Motorcycle Club with all the funds going towards helping children and youths in Peel region.

The Jalsa Salana is an event organized by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at that promotes the religion of Islam through preaching peace and inclusivity. The Taste of India Food Festival is an amazing event that displays the unique cultures of India through food and music.

This summer provided an opportunity for me to immerse myself within the community, enriching my knowledge about the various cultures that make up our society.

Tenant protection

Mr. Peter Tabuns: The Toronto Star this morning reported drops in housing starts, with more drops expected, notwithstanding claims made by the government. This is dire news. It’s bad for all. It’s very bad for tenants of corporate landlords who are being mercilessly squeezed.

A constituent wrote to me the other day about the 5.5% rent increase she and others in her building are facing. As she said, “Our salaries are not increasing. Many of the people in our building are on Old Age Security, CPP or on social support.” They can’t afford an increase like that. She noted that units two years ago in that building rented for $1,300 a month and are now going for $2,000 a month.

It is no wonder that tenants—people, generally—trying to deal with the housing crisis are facing those really difficult decisions about having a roof over their head or buying groceries regularly. It’s no wonder that when I go to food banks in my riding at the invitation of those who are running them that I see large numbers of people.

Speaker, we need action on housing. We need a restoration of rent control with the end of that practice of having unlimited rent increases when a tenant moves out, we need a ban on above-guideline increases and we need substantial direct government investment in housing. People are hurting. We need the action now.

Cambridge Food Bank

Mr. Brian Riddell: Today I’m excited to share a heartwarming story from my riding of Cambridge. Jamie Colwell dedicated much of his spare time this past summer to assisting those with food insecurities. With the help of a team of volunteers, Jamie was able to collect 4,200 pounds of food and more than $6,000 for the Cambridge Food Bank. It’s amazing.

It’s not the first summer he’s done this. He spent weekends collecting donations outside of grocery stores. Last year he did the same thing, raising $5,400 for the food bank to buy healthy snacks for kids heading back to school.

The support Jamie has shown for the Cambridge Food Bank comes at a critical time. Dianne McLeod, executive director of the agency, said the need for food assistance is increasing every month and volunteers like Jamie help meet the ends of what these people are really requiring.

Recently, Jamie was presented with a volunteer award of merit at the food bank’s annual general meeting. I’d like to congratulate Jamie for his hard work and for being a citizen of Cambridge.

Marian Shrine of Gratitude

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: It is said that two decades ago, beneath a historic cottage on the banks of the Humber River here in Toronto, a miraculous healing occurred. And so, at this special place a shrine was built, and people were welcome to come and gather and pray. It is called the Marian Shrine of Gratitude in honour of Holy Mother Mary, whose name was invoked at that desperate time of need.

So the people came, countless thousands, day after day, year after year, in rain and in shine, sometimes in the night with the stars above and the sounds of nature all around. They came in the coldest of months in the winter too because, you see, the iron-wrought gates of this special place would never close, because only God knows a person’s time of need. The people would come to bask in the feelings of peace and calm the spiritual oasis provided. Many would come to pray for a miracle in their darkest hours and swear that doing so changed their lives forever.

But this summer, the place was abruptly sold—its gates now closed, with guards casting people out with tears in their eyes; barriers erected to keep them away.

Today, the faithful are now called squatters, because they still come to pray every night at 8. The welcomed are now called unwelcomed and mocked—the very same people who loved and maintained this special place for so many years; the great statue to Mother Mary torn down along with other religious artifacts, statues, monuments and more.

This summer, I called on the government to review the heritage significance of this special place and put an urgent stop to the damage. Over 20,000 have signed petitions to save this special place. I will be presenting many of their names to the government this afternoon, hoping they will be moved to step in and help in this hour of need.

Jour des Franco-Ontariens et des Franco-Ontariennes

M. Stéphane Sarrazin: Le lundi 25 septembre dernier était une journée spéciale. Pour plusieurs de mes collègues, c’était un retour en Chambre ici à Queen’s Park, mais pour moi, c’était une journée de célébration avec les Franco-Ontariens et les Franco-Ontariennes de ma circonscription et de partout à travers notre belle province.

Ce jour-là, le 18 e monument de la francophonie a été inauguré dans un petit village de 1 200 habitants qui fait

partie d’une municipalité d’environ 10 000 de population dans l’Est ontarien. Ça a été un honneur pour moi de prendre la parole en tant que représentant du gouvernement de l’Ontario à cette inauguration, qui a eu lieu dans le petit village d’Alfred, qui se trouve à être mon village natal, monsieur le Président. Près de 1 000 personnes ont pris part aux célébrations. Plusieurs résidents d’Alfred accompagnés de plusieurs élèves et de professeurs des écoles francophones environnantes étaient présents.

J’aimerais profiter de l’occasion pour féliciter le comité du Monument de la francophonie d’Alfred pour leur travail incroyable. Il y a 18 monuments de la francophonie, puis sept de ces monuments sont dans ma circonscription, monsieur le Président. C’est quelque chose dont je suis fier.

Chaque année, les 80 000 francophones et francophiles de ma circonscription ont l’opportunité de participer à plusieurs levers du drapeau franco-ontarien et de célébrer leur fierté d’être francophone. Félicitations à tous les Franco-Ontariens, Franco-Ontariennes et francophiles qui ont pris part aux célébrations de lever du drapeau franco-ontarien ici même à Queen’s Park et partout à travers la province de l’Ontario.

Ontario farmers

Mr. Mike Schreiner: This is Ontario Agriculture Week, and I want to express my sincere gratitude to Ontario farmers. As we gather with our families on Thanksgiving, I know many of us will be enjoying the incredible local food we grow in Ontario.

Ontario has the best farmers and some of the best farmland in the entire world, but Ontario unfortunately is losing that farmland at an unsustainable rate of 319 acres per day. This threatens our food security and our $50-billion farming economy, yet this government is planning on losing even more farmland by imposing expense sprawl on Hamilton, Ottawa, Halton, Waterloo and so many other places. It’s greenbelt 2.0.

I want to say to the people of Ontario: Thank you for standing up to protect our greenbelt. From all of us who enjoy local food and support Ontario farmers, we say thank you.

I want you to know that I will be standing with you to protect farmland all across this province. I’m focused on solving the housing crisis by building homes that people can afford on land already approved for development, not paving over farmland to enrich wealthy insiders.

I encourage everyone to buy local for Thanksgiving and to renew your commitment to supporting Ontario farmers and protecting local farmland across Ontario.

Police service dogs

Mr. Dave Smith: When I’ve had the opportunity to rise in this chamber for a member’s statement, I have always tried to highlight some of the great people or great events in my riding, but today I’m going to deviate a little bit from that. I’m not going to talk about a person or an event. I’m going to talk about a dog—two dogs, actually: police service dog Gryphon and police service dog Isaac. These two dogs are invaluable resources for our community.

Just a couple of weeks ago during a single shift, Gryphon helped nab armed suspects in two separate incidences, two hours apart, and ensured no officers were injured.

This past winter, PSD Isaac tracked a man in his seventies who had taken his own dog for a walk in a wooded area when it started to snow. The man got lost during the snowstorm, but Isaac was able to track him and find him even though more than 15 centimetres of snow had fallen and covered his footprints.

These two dogs are amazing. It’s not just me who says that. They have the proof to back it up.

This year at the Canadian police dog championship, Isaac finished fourth in all of Canada in drug detection, while Gryphon finished fifth in drug detections as well as fourth in building searches. Well done, PSD Isaac and PSD Gryphon. Everyone in Peterborough is proud of you.

Ontario Trillium Foundation

Ms. Laurie Scott: I’m happy to share some projects in my riding of Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock that received recent Ontario Trillium Foundation grants. From environmental stewardship to funding for high-tech machinery, to investments with the Alzheimer Society for their Minds in Motion program and the Kawartha Victim Services to help those in crisis, the Trillium Foundation grants have been foundational in driving positive change.

Thank you to all those organizations that applied to the Ontario Trillium grants program and to the OTF staff for all their support in communities in my riding.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): That concludes our members’ statements for this morning.

Report, Financial Accountability Officer

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Before I invite members to introduce their guests, I beg to inform the House that the following document has been tabled: a report, entitled Expenditure Monitor 2023-24: Q1, from the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. John Yakabuski: In the members’ gallery today I have a constituent from my riding, a distinguished veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces, Michael McCloskey, who is here visiting us in Queen’s Park. But also, very importantly, Mr. McCloskey is the father of page Erin McCloskey, who was our page captain yesterday. Unfortunately I wasn’t here to introduce Erin yesterday, but I was glad to be able to introduce her father here today, and I look forward to having lunch and sharing some stories with them today.

Ms. Sarah Jama: River Almanzor is the page captain and has been for the last two weeks, and she’s from Hamilton Centre. We’re joined in the members’ gallery by her family: Nicole Almanzor and Jan Almanzor; Angela, who is her aunt; Angie and Oscar, her grandparents; Colton Almanzor, who is her brother; and Marissa Fajardo, who is her grandparent.

Thank you, River, for everything you’ve been doing this week. It’s great to have this family in the House. Welcome to your House.

M me Lucille Collard: Je voudrais souhaiter la bienvenue aux membres de l’Association franco-ontarienne des conseils scolaires catholiques, également des anciens collègues de travail. Bienvenue à Queen’s Park.

Hon. Michael D. Ford: It is my pleasure to rise in the House today and welcome members of the Somali community and the Somali Centre for Culture and Recreation here to the House. I invite all members to room 230 for a reception over lunch.

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: I’m proud to welcome my family here in the gallery today: my wife Aleksandra, my son Aleksandar and my son Ilija.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Good morning, everyone. I’d like to introduce my powerful page—wherever he is—from beautiful Beaches–East York, James Gillespie, and I encourage him to get a good night’s sleep because he will be page captain tomorrow. Welcome to the House.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: In celebration of the 25th anniversary of Ontario Agriculture Week, it’s wonderful to have the Beef Farmers of Ontario here with us: President Jack Chaffe and his gang, Craig McLaughlin, Joost van der Heiden, Jairus Maus, Thomas Brandstetter, Evan Chaffe and Darby Wheeler. And I saw Richard Horne was in the House as well.

Ladies and gentlemen, after you’ve been to the Somali reception, please come to the front lawn and enjoy a beautiful beef barbecue.

Mr. Will Bouma: I’d like to welcome to the House Stewart Kiff.

Stewart, I admire your strength and courage, I appreciate your friendship, and I am thankful for your wisdom. Have a good day.

M me Natalia Kusendova-Bashta: J’aimerais bien reconnaître mon amie Melinda Chartrand. Elle porte beaucoup de chapeaux, mais aujourd’hui, elle représente l’Association franco-ontarienne des conseils scolaires catholiques. On vous invite à la réception qui aura lieu aujourd’hui de 5 heures à 7 heures ce soir. Bonjour, Melinda.

Mr. Stephen Crawford: Speaker, I have the honour of introducing some special guests today in the members’ gallery opposite: my wife, Najia Crawford; my mother-in-law, Zahida Mahmood; and my two older girls, who are graduates of the legislative page program. Welcome back, Monica and Michelle Crawford. And my parents, Bill and Diane Crawford, are watching from home. They’re all here to support today’s page captain Sophia Crawford.

L’hon. Stephen Lecce: C’est un honneur pour moi de présenter à Queen’s Park la TFO et l’Association franco-ontarienne des conseils scolaires catholiques. Bienvenue.

Join us in 228 and 230 this afternoon for a wonderful reception of Franco-Ontarians.

Mr. Deepak Anand: Mr. Speaker, it is an absolute pleasure to introduce MLA Muhammad Fiaz from the Saskatchewan Party. He’s deputy chair of committee as a whole, member of the human services committee, and parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education. He’s here for the first time to watch question period.

Mr. Stephen Blais: It’s my pleasure to introduce someone who is well known to all of us, I think: Michau van Speyk, a passionate autism advocate, who is with us today.

Hon. Jill Dunlop: I would like to welcome Dr. Adrienne Galway from the Ontario Council on Articulation and Transfer as well as the rest of her ONCAT team to Queen’s Park today.

Thank you for being here.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): That concludes our introduction of visitors for this morning.

Manitoba election

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I understand the Leader of the Opposition has a point of order.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Yes, point of order, Speaker: I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Premier-elect Wab Kinew on his historic win as the first First Nations Premier of a province in Canada and a new bright day in Manitoba.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I understand the member for Kiiwetinoong wishes to speak to the same point of order.

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Remarks in Anishininiimowin. Good morning, Speaker. Just a point of order: As an Anishinaabe, I am very proud this morning; I’m very happy this morning. Last night, Manitoba elected its first Anishinaabe Premier. Wab Kinew is a member of Onigaming First Nation, which is part of Treaty 3 territory here in Ontario. This is a very proud moment for the province and for all Indigenous people.

Congratulations, Wab. I know you’re going to do a great job. Meegwetch.

Question Period

Land use planning

Ms. Marit Stiles: My question is to the Premier.

Earlier this year, the government made some sudden and very specific changes to the official plans of six municipalities. They carved up 4,700 hectares of farmland and green space for more sprawl, leaving municipalities scrambling.

Now, the NDP official opposition has obtained an internal government memo that reveals stark warnings about “potential contentious issues” that could come from these changes. It warns that relations with First Nations would be hurt and that forcing this on municipalities would override all the work they’ve done on local planning.

To the Premier: Why did the government push ahead with these drastic changes despite these very serious warnings from their own staff?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: Of course, we’re working constantly with our municipal partners. We’ve made it very clear to all of our municipal partners that we intend to build 1.5 million homes across the province of Ontario. We haven’t made that a secret; it is something that has driven us since 2018.

At the same time, we are seeing thousands of people coming to the province of Ontario from other parts of Canada to participate in what is the economic growth and prosperity here in the province of Ontario. At the same time, over the next decade, millions of people will come from all over the world. Because of that, Mr.

Speaker—not only because of people coming from other parts of Canada, not only because of the immigration that is coming to this country, but because we want fundamentally to get people out of their parents’ basements and into homes, whether it’s apartments or whether it’s a home of their own—we are going to continue to focus on building homes for the people of the province of Ontario, despite the opposition.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, that answer is not going to cut it because this is not happening in a vacuum. This is a land grab happening at the same time as this government was carving up the greenbelt.

Let’s look at Barrie. The government actually reduced density targets for new developments in Barrie. That means higher infrastructure costs for people in Barrie and more sprawl. But guess what? It’s bigger bucks for a select few land speculators. The government’s memo warned that these changes would make it harder for the city to meet its own housing targets.

Speaker, to the Premier: If this was actually about housing, why is his government pursuing policies that will make it even harder for future generations to find a home?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply, the Premier.

Hon. Doug Ford: Mr. Speaker, Mayor Nuttall is doing a great job up in Barrie. He wants to build homes. He wants to contribute. He has capacity, whether it’s water or sewage, and he’s asking to build more homes. That’s why we’re doing it. We consulted with the mayor, and we’re going to build the 1.5 million homes that the opposition doesn’t want to build.

Do you notice that they don’t want to do anything? They vote against building homes, vote against building hospitals, vote against long-term care. They vote against the expansion of roads, highways and bridges. They vote against everything. This province would be a disaster if you were ever on this side of the aisle here.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: I’ll tell you what, Speaker. We need that Premier to do a better job.

Speaker, the memo also covers this government’s 2,300 hectares of forced sprawl in Waterloo region, throwing out all of the consultation and the planning work that the region had already done. The government’s own internal memo warned against this, and it said that third-party requests were prioritized over evidence-based solutions by expert planners. This government knew this was wrong; they knew it.

Back to the Premier: Why did his government proceed with this plan for forced boundary changes, and who made these third-party requests?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members will please take their seats.

To respond, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Speaker, what’s exciting about that question isn’t the fact that the NDP don’t want to build homes. What’s exciting about that question is it underlines the economic success that we are seeing in the Kitchener-Waterloo area, in southwestern Ontario. We’re seeing that despite the opposition of the NDP and the Liberals.

The interim Liberal leader just called building houses a virus—he called it a virus—and that underpins 15 years of Liberal government rule in the province of Ontario. It is not a virus to have people have the home ownership that generations of Ontarians have wanted. It is not a virus for 700,000 people to have the dignity of a job who didn’t when he and the NDP were in power in the province of Ontario.

We’re a province that is growing. Our communities are growing, and they want to participate with us. They want to build homes. They want to meet those targets, and many of our communities want to exceed the targets—

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

The next question.

Government accountability

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, back to the Premier: There is a reason that we need to pay close attention to the amendments to official plans. It was amendments to York’s official plan where the government quietly signalled plans to open up two more protected greenbelt sites to speculators.

The Premier says he will supposedly reverse this greenbelt grab, so will he also reverse the changes to York’s official plan?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: No, Mr. Speaker, because the lands she referenced were never actually removed from the greenbelt. She forgot to mention that.

But what we will continue to do is, across the province of Ontario, where we are making billions of dollars of investments in transit and transportation, where we’re building brand new GO train stations, we will intensify—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Member for Waterloo, come to order.

Hon. Paul Calandra: —and ensure that we build homes around those infrastructure investments.

It again underlines what’s happening in York region. We have people who need employers in York region. When you come to downtown Stouffville, help wanted signs are in the windows because the economy is booming. Our agricultural sector is booming. Our high-tech sector in Markham is booming. It kills the opposition, because for 15 years, they worked with the Liberals to bring the province to its knees.

I’m excited, because, you know what, the Ontario that we have today is booming. It’s moving in the right direction. It’s because of this Premier and this caucus, and we won’t stop.

Interjections.

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

Restart the clock. Supplementary?

Ms. Marit Stiles: So that’s a no, Speaker. That’s a no.

Interesting, because guess who that benefits? Guess who that benefits? Another speculator with ties to the Premier and to his party.

Speaker, the Integrity Commissioner revealed evidence suggesting—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I could not hear the member who duly had the floor. Interjections are always out of order. I will continue to call out members by name if need be.

Start the clock. Leader of the Opposition.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Thanks, Speaker, and I’ll start over again.

Because guess who those changes benefit? Another speculator with ties to this Premier and his party.

Speaker, the Integrity Commissioner revealed evidence suggesting Michael Rice asked for a parcel of land in Richmond Hill to be removed from the greenbelt—land he didn’t yet own. But Mr. Rice seemed to know that this government was planning to open up this land for speculators, so he made a deal to buy the land at a rock-bottom price, and then this government changed the boundaries to include his property, driving its value up dramatically.

Did the Premier and did this government give preferential treatment to Mr. Rice?

Hon. Paul Calandra: No, Speaker, absolutely not, because the land was never removed from the greenbelt. The land was never removed from the greenbelt. It was never removed from the protection of the Oak Ridges moraine land planning act. That change never happened.

But do you know what we’re going to continue to do? We’re going to continue to do what they don’t want us to do. We’re going to focus on building an economy that is stronger than ever. We’re going to continue to focus on making sure that the next generation of Ontarians can get out of their parents’ basements and can go find homes of their own. We’re going to continue to focus on policies that have given us more housing starts than in the last 15 years. We’re going to continue to focus on policies that have given us more affordable rental housing starts in over 15 years. Do you know why that is? Because we’re removing the obstacles that they put in place.

This isn’t about housing for them. It’s not about the economy for them, Mr. Speaker. What it’s about is not understanding how to build a bigger, better, stronger Ontario, because for 15 years, they worked with them, and they failed.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, this is not and it never has been about building housing in the province of Ontario, and the people of this province know it. And you know what else, Speaker—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. The member for Sault Ste. Marie will come to order.

A number of members down at that end of the chamber will come to order.

The member for Ottawa South could come to order.

I apologize to the Leader of the Opposition.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Thank you, Speaker. I know why they’re getting so agitated. It’s because people in this province feel really let down. They feel let down.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. I apologize. The member for Kitchener–Conestoga will come to order. The Minister of Energy will come to order. We’re not going to continue this way. I’m not going to keep interrupting the member who has the floor because of excessive heckling.

Start the clock. Leader of the Opposition.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Yes, it’s hilarious.

People in this province, they’re suffering. They feel let down by this government. They’re hurting. They’re frustrated. They’re watching a government that isn’t helping them but is embroiled in scandals of their own making.

They’re seeing the pattern of preferential treatment that this government gives to their insider friends and donors. That’s why these undemocratic changes that I’ve been talking about, this forced sprawl, is being called greenbelt grab 2.0.

Back to the Premier: Will he stop making excuses for his insider friends and start fixing this mess?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members will please take their seats.

The Premier.

Hon. Doug Ford: Talk to the 700,000 people that are working today that weren’t working when you and the Liberals were in government. You chased 300,000 jobs out of the province. Talk to the people up in Durham who don’t have to pay the tolls on the 412 and 418 that you implemented and the Liberals implemented. Talk to the eight million people that got a cheque back from the government for the licence stickers. Talk to the people that fill up every single day and save 10.7 cents per litre.

You are against building homes, building hospitals, building long-term care. You are against absolutely everything in this province. Thank God we’re running the province and not you two, who absolutely destroyed the province. For 15 years you destroyed it.

Interjections.

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

The next question.

Municipal planning

Ms. Sandy Shaw: My question is to the Premier. This government unilaterally moved more than 1,000 acres of farmland inside urban boundaries in Wellington county. An internal government memo notes that these changes occurred before the county had completed a land-needs assessment and municipal comprehensive review. Instead of letting Wellington county assess where it could grow sustainably and cost-effectively, the government just went ahead and arbitrarily added 1,000 acres to Fergus and Elora.

The government doesn’t even know the impact on groundwater or the cost of infrastructure. Premier, why would your government impose such risk on the people of Wellington county without any evidence whatsoever to support this decision?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Paul Calandra: We made it very clear that we intend to build 1.5 million homes across the province of Ontario. We’ve also made it very clear to our municipal partners that we expect them to work with us.

In the member’s own home community, in Hamilton, despite the fact that their own planners said that they don’t have enough land to meet their targets of building homes, they refuse to expand the urban boundaries, so we had to make sure that we did that. You know why? Because Hamilton is expected to grow to over 800,000 people over the next decade. It is our responsibility to ensure that there is enough land available over the next two decades to meet the targets that we are setting.

We have a very aggressive and ambitious target for 2031: 1.5 million homes to put ourselves back on track, Mr. Speaker. We will not be diverted from that, despite the opposition of the NDP and the Liberals. All they like to do is obstacle after obstacle after obstacle. You know what we’re going to do? We’re going to remove those obstacles and we’re going to make sure our municipal partners work with us to build those homes.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Labour, come to order. The member for Orléans, come to order.

Supplementary question.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Let me set this minister straight. Hamilton has already exceeded our housing targets within our existing boundaries. In Belleville, the government ordered the city to sprawl eastward across provincially significant wetlands in the Bell Creek system. The government’s own internal memo says there may be legal risk because the decision may not conform with the government’s own provincial policy statement.

Why is this government forcing Belleville to make changes to its official plan that it knows might be illegal?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: Actually, Mr. Speaker, the city of Hamilton chose to ignore its own planners, who very clearly outlined that the existing urban boundaries did not have enough land to meet the long-term housing needs of the residents. Now, what does that mean, colleagues? What does it mean? It means that in future years, there is not going to be enough land available. It is exactly why we’re in a housing crisis today.

You have just admitted to the entire province why it is that you are such a failure in working with them. It’s because you don’t think long-term. For you, it’s all about today. For us, it’s about tomorrow and building a better future for the next generation. Our whole job about being here is working to give the next generation something better than we received. That’s the difference between you and us, and we will not be sidetracked on that—

Interjections.

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

I’m having a great deal of difficulty maintaining my patience, so I’m going to move to warnings. If you’re warned and I have to speak to you again, you’ll be named.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Start the clock. The next question.

Manufacturing sector

Mr. Will Bouma: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. The previous Liberal government, with support from the NDP, turned a blind eye as over 300,000 manufacturing jobs left this province. Their policies left us dependent on other jurisdictions for critical goods.

In contrast, our government took a proactive and common-sense approach. We recognized that in an era of geopolitical uncertainty, we need a resilient manufacturing sector so that we can make products in Ontario again.

Under the leadership of this Premier, this minister and our government, manufacturing employment is now at one of its highest levels since 2008 and is thriving in many parts of our province. Speaker, can the minister please provide an update on the successes in Ontario’s manufacturing sector and their contributions to Ontario’s prosperity?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: This Friday, our government will join with the hard-working men and women who work in Ontario’s world-class manufacturing sector in celebrating Ontario Manufacturing Day, and throughout Manufacturing Month in October, we’ll recognize the immense contributions made to our economy.

Ontario is home to more than 814,000 men and women who turn out finished products every day at our 36,000 manufacturing companies. Here’s an interesting fact, Speaker: In July, Ontario added more manufacturing jobs than all 50 US states combined. So to the manufacturing workers, we say have a great Manufacturing Day, and thank you for everything you’re doing to support our province.

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

Mr. Will Bouma: Thank you to the minister for his answer. It is great news to hear that our manufacturing sector is thriving again. The previous Liberal government gave up on the manufacturing sector as they watched jobs flee the province, thanks to their agenda of higher taxes and more red tape.

Under our government, we are witnessing manufacturers investing more in Ontario, and we are continuing to see even more jobs being created in the sector. We cannot afford to lose that momentum. Our government must continue to do all that we can to keep moving forward in building a stronger Ontario.

Speaker, can the minister please explain what our government is doing to advance job growth in the manufacturing sector?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: We understand that vital success that comes from these regional communities that we work with across the province. That’s why we put a regional development program in place. We’ve invested $110 million to support 90 companies in the last four years. Those companies themselves have invested $1 billion and created 2,200 good-paying jobs. And our Ontario Made Manufacturing Investment Tax Credit is lowering the cost for companies looking to invest in new equipment and new machinery.

By reducing the cost of business by $8 billion annually, we’ve seen the creation of nearly 40,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs since we took office. We will always support and promote our world-class manufacturing sector.

Government accountability

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: I want to provide an opportunity for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to correct their record. Yesterday, the minister insisted that Mr. Massoudi had never been registered to lobby the government. The lobbyist register tells a very different story. It shows that the firm Mr. Massoudi owns, Atlas Strategic Advisors, was indeed registered and lobbying the government on behalf of numerous clients between 2022 and 2023.

So let’s give the minister another opportunity—one more chance, Speaker. Why was Mr. Massoudi given a contract to write speeches for the Premier at the same time that he was actively lobbying this government?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Well, again, Mr. Speaker, it is actually the individual who lobbies. The member of the opposition: It’s not the company. It’s individuals who register with the Integrity Commissioner. I’d be happy to help on that. Mr. Massoudi, of course, no longer has a contract with the government.

Look, Mr. Speaker, this is all about the same thing, right? It’s about the opposition that the NDP have to building homes in the province of Ontario. We were very clear. We made a public policy decision that was not supported by the people of the province of Ontario when we said that we would try to accelerate the building of 50,000 homes on the greenbelt. That was not supported by the people of province of Ontario. We apologized for that and we’re moving on. We accepted all 15 recommendations of the Auditor General.

But, Mr. Speaker, make no doubt about it: We are going to double down in making sure that we build those 1.5 million homes for the people of the province of Ontario. That is a goal that we’ve had since 2018 and we will not be sidetracked on that mission.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: I didn’t hear an actual answer in that non-answer. What I heard was excuses. I heard a technical response. So, Speaker, let’s try this one more time.

It’s worth noting the government didn’t hire Mr. Massoudi by name to provide these services to the government, following his departure. Instead, they hired the company that he owns, Atlas Strategic Advisors, to write the Premier’s speeches and provide communication advice.

They also admitted that this undertaking was already happening until a few weeks ago—just a few short weeks. That same company is registered to lobby and is actually doing quite a bit of lobbying. In fact, the Integrity Commissioner has been looking into this, “looking into Atlas Strategic Advisors for allegations of illegal lobbying since June.” By the minister’s own admission, Mr. Massoudi was providing these services until only a couple of weeks ago.

People deserve honest and lawful government. Does the minister understand that this arrangement with a close friend of the Premier’s could potentially be illegal lobbying?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Again, Mr. Speaker, the commissioner will investigate that, and we’ll look at that. At the same time, the Premier was very clear: He expected more, and Mr. Massoudi is no longer employed by caucus research and services.

But make no mistake about it: As I just said, and I’ll say it again, I am not ashamed of the fact that we have said that we made a mistake when we wanted to build on the greenbelt. We made a mistake because we wanted to accelerate the construction of 50,000 homes across the province of Ontario. The Premier was very clear on that. We apologized. We accepted the 15 recommendations of the Auditor General.

But make no mistake about it—and I say this very clearly to people who are, right now, in their parents’ basements; students who are wondering where their first home, where their first apartment is going to come from; students on our campuses across the province who can’t find homes because we can’t get homes built in communities that refuse to build them: We will untangle the obstacles, we will get the job done and we will build for the people of the province of Ontario. That, I guarantee you.

Employment

Mr. Robert Bailey: My question is for the Minister of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development. For far too long, many Ontarians have had to make the decision to uproot their lives and move or face long commutes every day in order to find employment. Unfortunately, this means that people experience the loss of leaving their communities, because many businesses are located in large cities or downtown Toronto.

Building up communities across our province will help to strengthen our economy and build a stronger Ontario for the next generation. That is why it is important that our government continues to implement innovative solutions that bring economic development opportunities to more communities across Ontario.

Speaker, can the minister please share what our government is doing to help bring good jobs to every part of our province?

Hon. David Piccini: I’d like to thank that member for his work and for his mentorship. He has been such a strong advocate for Sarnia–Lambton.

And it’s true, Speaker: As someone who is proudly from rural Ontario, we recognize that we need all corners of this province flourishing if we’re going to unlock the economic potential and might that is Ontario. I’m proud to highlight two important funds that our ministry is working on, that the incredible team is working on to support rural Ontarians: the Skills Development Fund, which is open right now until November, and the capital stream. This is making a difference.

This morning, I just met with beef farmers. Processing capability is a big, big issue for so many farmers in communities like mine. We talked about the Skills Development Fund as an important tool to unlock the capabilities of the next generation in processing. This is just one small example of a difference this government is making to unlock the potential that is rural Ontario.

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

Mr. Robert Bailey: Thank you to the minister for that response. It’s good news that the WSIB head office is moving to London, which will save taxpayers money, help workers and also bring more jobs to local communities in southwestern Ontario. Good jobs are a catalyst for reviving neighbourhoods, inspiring communities, raising optimism and creating potential for greater economic and social prosperity.

People should be able to work near their families, friends and the places they know and love. That is why our government must continue to deliver on the actions that show respect for the working people of Ontario.

Speaker, can the minister please elaborate and explain how those decisions, such as relocating the WSIB head office to London, will help to build a stronger Ontario?

Hon. David Piccini: You know, Speaker, sometimes it’s small changes that make a world of difference. It’s this Premier, this government, that recognized that when you have all the agencies, boards and commissions on the most expensive strip of real estate in downtown Toronto—we asked ourselves, “Is that the best use of taxpayer dollars, or employer dollars in the case of the WSIB?” The answer, Speaker, is no. We’re saving $100 million by moving that facility to London, Ontario.

And what does that mean? It means we can expand—

Interjection.

Hon. David Piccini: Maybe if you would listen, you would learn something about the firefighters in Orléans that I met with.

That means expanding thyroid cancer—

Interjection.

Hon. David Piccini: Thyroid cancer, Speaker, and pancreatic cancer: expanded coverage for firefighters in that member’s community of Orléans.

We’ll take no lessons from a man who can’t get the bloody transit in Ottawa right. And he’s heckling us? We’re going to get workers working in the province of Ontario, save taxpayer dollars—

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

I’ll once again remind members to make their remarks through the Chair.

Planification municipale / Municipal planning

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le premier ministre. Plus tôt cette année, le gouvernement a apporté des changements aux plans officiels de Waterloo, Wellington, Guelph, Barrie, Belleville et Peterborough. Ces changements ont déplacé 4 700 hectares de terres agricoles et d’espaces verts à l’intérieur des limites urbaines.

Une note obtenue par les néo-démocrates révèle que le gouvernement a été averti au sujet de « questions litigieuses potentielles » qui pourraient découler de ces changements. La note avertissait le gouvernement que les relations avec les Premières Nations seraient affectées et que les municipalités considéreraient ces changements comme une ingérence.

Monsieur le Président, pourquoi est-ce que le gouvernement a apporté des changements drastiques aux limites municipales malgré les sérieux avertissements de son propre personnel?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: As I just said, Mr. Speaker, I’m proud of the fact that we are seeing such incredible economic growth in that part of the province. Kitchener-Waterloo, southwestern Ontario, is seeing a tremendous amount of growth. People want to be in that community.

Now, it’s not just building homes, right? We had to build long-term-care homes. I’ve been in all parts of southwestern Ontario, whether Leamington or Brantford–Brant—we’re building long-term-care homes in all of those communities because the NDP and the Liberals never made it a priority. We are.

I was in Windsor opening up Meadowbrook Place, which is the first social housing to be built in that community in over 30 years. But we need to build more. Do you know why we need to build more in that community? We need to think about more than just today. We have to think about tomorrow, because this minister and this Premier are landing economic development unseen in this province ever—is it $25 billion worth of investment coming to southwestern Ontario? They need places to live, and we will deliver for them in the part of the province that is growing like wildfire, Mr. Speaker. We’ll get it done.

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

M me France Gélinas: Je dois vous dire, monsieur le Président, que les médias qualifient les changements apportés par le gouvernement aux plans officiels des municipalités comme la « ceinture verte 2.0 ». En effet, non seulement ils s’attaquent aux terres agricoles et à l’intégrité des systèmes naturels en étendant de force les limites urbaines, mais ils accordent également un traitement préférentiel aux spéculateurs financiers privilégiés, enrichissant ainsi ces initiés aux dépens du public.

Le premier ministre ordonnera-t-il un examen de toutes les modifications ministérielles apportées aux plans officiels municipaux et annulera-t-il toutes les modifications qui sont fondées sur l’accès au gouvernement et non sur les preuves?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Speaker, any official plan that has been approved, the municipalities did have the opportunity to comment on that. The only one that has, of course, is Hamilton, and we know why Hamilton is commenting on that, because they disagreed with their own planner’s assessment that they didn’t have enough land available to meet the long-term goals of housing in their community. So they’re fighting us to stop housing from being built in their community—not today, not tomorrow, but in the future, and that is everything that is wrong with the NDP, right? It’s everything that is wrong about them.

All they think about is today. They have no concern about the future of the province of Ontario.

That is why, with the Liberals, they helped put red tape in the way. They built up huge debt and deficits. They destroyed the energy sector. They wiped out jobs and economic growth. And it kills them—

Interjection.

Hon. Paul Calandra: You hear the member for Orléans. He’s so upset that we got 700,000 jobs back in the province of Ontario. He’s so upset. I’m not upset. I think it’s a good day—

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

The next question.

Land use planning

M me Lucille Collard: My question is for the Premier. The construction of Highway 413 will require the destruction of sensitive lands currently within the greenbelt. Yet, the Premier has been very clear about his support for this project. The Premier already promised Ontarians that he would not touch the greenbelt and then promised $8.3 billion worth of land to friends through a flawed and biased process.

The Premier recently apologized for removing those lands and has once again committed to protecting the greenbelt. Mr. Speaker, protecting the greenbelt and building Highway 413 are incompatible goals.

Will the Premier please be clear with Ontarians? Will he once again remove lands from the greenbelt so he can build Highway 413 or will he learn from his mistakes and finally keep his promise to Ontarians?

Hon. Doug Ford: Mr. Speaker, the member from Ottawa maybe forgot that, back in the election, we won an overwhelming majority—the largest since 1929—and it was based on the 413 that their government put the original route in. They flip-flop back and forth; we’re building the 413. We have a clear mandate from every riding in Mississauga, every riding in Brampton, every riding in Caledon—the whole region wants the 413.

They don’t believe in building. They don’t believe in spending $184 billion in building infrastructure. Not only are we building the 413, we’re building the Bradford Bypass, we’re building Highway 7, we’re expanding the 401 east out to your area so that people can get back and forth a lot quicker, we’re expanding Highway 3. We’re building this province because it was ignored for 15 years and we’re building homes for the young students that were—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. Stop the clock. Members will please take their seats.

Start the clock. Supplementary question.

M me Lucille Collard: Thank you for answering but not answering the question.

Mr. Speaker, Ontarians do not need more highways cutting through the greenbelt. They need more public transit. Highway 413 has been widely recognized as a terrible investment. It is estimated that, at a cost of over $6 billion, the new highway would move 7,000 people per hour at peak capacity, but investing the same $6 billion in public transit instead could move over three times that number of people.

This government claims to be fiscally responsible, but it’s clear that Highway 413 does not make financial sense for everyday Ontarians. Despite the many questions surrounding this project, the government refuses to provide Ontarians with a clear business plan for it. Will the Premier explain why Ontarians should trust this government’s decision regarding Highway 413 when it refuses to be transparent about how much the project will cost taxpayers and how many hectares of prime land will be destroyed?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply, the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: I can’t believe what the members opposite are saying here. I want to take them on a trip. Whether it’s through Brampton or Mississauga—I offer them any time, any day of the week—the people of Brampton and the people of Mississauga are stuck in gridlock. The members opposite are so far out of reality.

This is about a project that is going to bring home over $350 million in GDP. We’re going to create over 3,000 jobs, and we’re going to unlock thousands of homes. We’re going to unlock thousands of jobs by building this. Unfortunately, the members opposite refused to listen to the people of Brampton and Mississauga for 15 years. They never invested in those cities. They never invested in those regions.

Under the leadership of Premier Ford, we’re building Highway 413, we’re building the Bradford Bypass and we’re building new hospitals all across this province. It’s because this government believes in building and investing in infrastructure and transportation, and we will take no lessons from the members opposite on how to—

Interjections.

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

Long-term care

Mr. Andrew Dowie: First, I want to give my appreciation to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for celebrating the province’s investment in 3100 Meadowbrook—truly a home that its residents can be proud of.

Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Long-Term Care. All seniors in Ontario deserve to be treated with dignity and receive the quality of care they need. The successive investments made by our government into building and redeveloping long-term-care homes has become a reality in many communities across the province, including my own, with 36 new and 60 upgraded beds at Brouillette Manor in Tecumseh. However, at the same time, Ontario seniors are entering long-term-care homes later than ever before and often with more medically complex needs.

Our government must continue to do all that we can to minimize the need for these residents to be transferred to acute-care hospitals because the long-term-care homes do not have the equipment, supplies and services they need.

Speaker, can the minister please explain how our government is supporting long-term-care homes to better address the increasing care needs of our seniors?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To respond, the Minister of Long-Term Care.

Hon. Stan Cho: This morning, we’ve had a lot of talk of investing in the next generation, but we also have to remember where we came from. We need to talk about the generation that created us; that’s our seniors, and I’m glad the member asked that question.

Let’s not forget that the Liberals failed to invest in our seniors. This led to an underfunding of the long-term-care sector, huge wait-lists and unnecessary hospitalizations. In some cases, this forced our seniors to move to long-term-care homes way outside their community to receive the care they needed. That’s why this government is investing over $120 million this fiscal year to support residents with complex medical needs.

The member is right: Seniors are living longer. That means there are more complications. That’s why this investment includes $20 million into the local priorities fund—a fund that allows Ontario Health to make targeted investments in staffing, equipment and services. This local priorities fund had a tremendous first year, supporting 189 projects across the province. We’re not going to stop there. We’re going to continue to invest in our seniors.

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

Mr. Andrew Dowie: Thank you, Minister, for giving that answer. It’s truly reassuring that the residents with complex needs can receive the care they deserve in the comfort of the home instead of a hospital, and there are six more new homes being rebuilt and expanded just in the Windsor region alone. Thank you to you, Minister. Thank you to the previous minister for that.

I have truly seen the impact of the local priorities fund first-hand. The Village of Aspen Lake, which coincidentally was where my grandmother lived, is a long-term-care home in East Riverside. It has received $199,065 from the local priorities fund to help purchase equipment that will make access to care faster and more convenient.

As a government, we must maintain our commitment to ensuring that residents in long-term-care homes get the quality of care and quality of life that they need and deserve, both now and in the future. Mr. Speaker, can the minister please elaborate on how our government is expanding specialized services in long-term-care homes that will support residents with complex needs?

Hon. Stan Cho: I will elaborate, and I will remind this Legislature that Windsor, Essex and Tecumseh were ignored for so long when it came to our seniors, and it took the leadership of this Premier and this Minister of Housing to fix that situation.

What the member highlights is exactly those investments: local priorities. He mentioned one very specific to his riding—a wide variety of needs. Seniors aren’t at long-term care with the same needs. We need to recognize it. That’s why we’re expanding those specialized services, including our behavioural specialized units, an innovative model designed to support residents with complex care challenges like dementia.

We’re not going to stop there. Last week, we were in Cambridge, Kitchener, Guelph—we’re going to go across this entire province. We’re going to make sure we take care of our seniors with record investments, not just into building homes, but into human health resources.

Speaker, I’ll remind this House: Seniors took care of us. It’s our turn to take care of them.

GO Transit

Ms. Catherine Fife: Speaker, the people of Kitchener-Waterloo have been waiting a decade for two-way, all-day GO service. Despite Metrolinx CEO Phil Verster’s promise yesterday that Kitchener-Waterloo would finally get trains “every 15 minutes or better on the Kitchener line,” the people of KW still have no timeline. Ten years of waiting for what we were promised is simply unfair.

Yesterday’s GO train network outage that caused such chaos is exactly the reason why the public requires a comprehensive plan and timeline, and this needs to be very transparent. Too many students—so many students—are left behind and waiting for buses. Those buses are packed. A three-hour commute is not acceptable for the people of Kitchener-Waterloo.

To the new Minister of Transportation: When will Kitchener-Waterloo finally get two-way, all-day service every 15 minutes, as they were originally promised?

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: This government has made record and historic investments in GO rail transit across this province. In fact, on the Kitchener line, just a couple of months ago, the former Minister of Transportation and our entire team announced the revised station upgrades to the Bramalea GO station.

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate and understand how important this is. That is why we have increased services on the Kitchener line and will continue to make those investments, even though that member opposite has voted against our investments each and every time. When we talk about GO rail investment and the increases that we’ve made in this province, for every single budget or fall economic statement, that member has stood up in this House and voted against that investment. That is unacceptable. On this side of the House, we’ll continue to make those investments and build transit across this province.

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

Ms. Catherine Fife: We’ll vote for legislation that works, but right now, nothing is working on the Kitchener line. The president and CEO of the KW chamber of commerce said that more trains will deliver “up to 170,000 new jobs, billions in new investment from the private sector.” Still, there’s no train from Toronto to Kitchener in the morning so people can get to those jobs in Kitchener-Waterloo. There’s no direct train on the weekend. We don’t have a GO station or a plan to ensure safe drop-off and pickups for commuters. The service is slow, it’s infrequent, it’s unreliable.

We all know that trains are good for business, good for people and good for the environment. Again to the Minister of Transportation: Why doesn’t Kitchener-Waterloo deserve what they were originally promised, and when can they finally expect to see two-way, all-day service every 15 minutes? Stop leaving Kitchener-Waterloo waiting at the station.

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: We are moving forward with two-way, all-day service every 15 minutes across the system. This is something that is really important to us, and we’ve made those investments. In fact, I’d like to remind that member opposite: Every time we have made investments to improve tracks, to improve platforms across any line, she has stood in this House and voted against each and every single one of those investments.

We are going to continue, thanks to the great advocacy of members on that Kitchener line, whether it’s the members from Kitchener, from Waterloo. On this side of the House and in this government, we’re committed to building that transit system across this province and to investing in GO rail. That’s why we’ve also launched the largest investment in public transit in the history of this province. Over $70 billion in the next 10 years are being invested across not only the Kitchener line but across this province.

Every single one of those investments, the members opposite have voted against. Whether it’s improving the Kitchener line, whether it’s improving GO rail transit, whether it’s building subways like the Ontario Line or the Scarborough extension, there’s one common denominator: The members opposite are against building transit.