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

April 15, 2024

43rd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2024-Apr-15 (PDF)

L145 - Mon 15 Apr 2024 / Lun 15 avr 2024

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Monday 15 April 2024 Lundi 15 avril 2024

Members’ Statements

Seniors’ services

Crime prevention

Highway improvement

EarthFest London

Education funding

Long-term care

Semaine de l’action bénévole

Debate tournament

Special Olympics

Whitney McWilliam

Introduction of Visitors

Question Period

Housing

Electric vehicles

Electric vehicles

Taxation

Tenant protection

Taxation

Affordable housing

Health care

Taxation

Long-term care

Housing

Imposition

Affaires francophones

Taxation

Northern airports

Women’s world hockey championship

Deferred Votes

2024 Ontario budget

Affordable Energy Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 sur l’énergie abordable

Introduction of Visitors

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy

Introduction of Bills

Growing Agritourism Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 sur le développement de l’agrotourisme

Petitions

Land use planning

Road safety

Cancer screening

Social assistance

Access to health care

Mental health services

Orders of the Day

Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 pour réduire les formalités administratives afin de construire plus de logements

The House met at 1015.

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

Prayers.

Members’ Statements

Seniors’ services

One is in the town of Kingsville at the Kingsville Community Centre, where seniors can participate in tai chi, take guitar lessons and learn massage techniques.

The second is located in my hometown of Amherstburg at the Amherstburg community centre, where active seniors can participate in line dancing and play in euchre tournaments.

I want to encourage all of our super seniors in Amherstburg and Kingsville and across the province of Ontario to join one of our 300 seniors active living centres across the province. Stay active, stay connected and be a super senior.

Crime prevention

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: Auto theft has become a scourge in Ontario, up 319% since 2020 according to some metrics. The cost last year alone was north of $1 billion. Collaborations have been announced by different levels of government, yet the numbers keep growing. If we want to stop it, we must make ending this a priority and not just lip service.

Speaker, we know the root of the problem. We know where the cars are going. We must clamp down on the ports and railway yards, which is where most of these cars end up. Are shipping companies doing enough to stop this, or are they just feigning ignorance while they collect their fees? Are automakers doing enough to protect their cars, or are they just sitting by while replacement cars are purchased? Are the overall penalties enough of a deterrent for this crime?

At the end of this month, I will be hosting a town hall meeting to discuss this growing auto-theft crisis. I will be joined by Toronto police to discuss solutions and ways to protect ourselves.

At this meeting, we will also be discussing a growing type of fraud through the use of liens against our properties called notices of security interest, or NOSIs for short. Most people don’t even know these liens are registered against their own homes. At this meeting, we will discuss our bill to end this growing tool of extortion.

Highway improvement

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: Just over a week ago, I joined the Minister of Transportation at the intersection of two critical transportation corridors in Niagara, the QEW and the Welland Canal, to announce that we have issued a request for proposals to twin the Garden City Skyway. It marks another key milestone in our plan to reduce gridlock, connect more people to jobs, and provides a crucial link between Ontario’s international border crossings and the greater Golden Horseshoe.

Now, some in Niagara might ask, why twin the Garden City Skyway now? First, this is proactive infrastructure, which means, instead of falling behind, we’re getting ahead of the curve of growth for our region, because the reality is, Speaker, it’s impossible to widen the QEW in the future without first twinning the Garden City Skyway now.

Second, the original bridge cannot be rehabilitated by working on one or two lanes at a time. The entire width of the bridge deck must be rehabilitated simultaneously, meaning that without a second span, the entire bridge would need to be shut down.

With over 160,000 vehicles crossing the Garden City Skyway daily, we need to ensure that this critical link remains open. Drivers in Niagara know that under the leadership of Premier Ford, our government is getting it done for drivers by building better roads to reduce gridlock and get people moving. By twinning the Garden City Skyway, we’re not only supporting our province’s supply chain, we’re strengthening our economy and building a better Ontario.

EarthFest London

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I have some exciting news: EarthFest is returning to London this Saturday, April 20. This year’s event will build on last year’s huge success, which saw attendance of more than 3,000 Londoners and over a hundred exhibitors celebrating environmental action in London.

EarthFest brings active hope to our community by profiling the good work and achievements of the many organizations working to make London one of the greenest cities in Canada. Activities include practical hands-on solutions to help Londoners reduce their carbon footprint as well as music, art, food and fun.

Londoners know that we are facing an urgent climate crisis that demands urgent action, even in the absence of a serious provincial climate plan. Climate change is real. It’s human-caused and it’s affecting us today. We see that all around us, in the freakishly warm winter, raging wildfires, torrential rainstorms and the devastation of Tornado Alley.

I want to give a shout-out to some of the leaders in my community who have responded and continue to respond to London’s 2019 declaration of a climate emergency. These include Green Economy London, which engages local businesses in setting and achieving sustainability goals; London Environmental Network, which has reached thousands of Londoners through emission reduction projects; as well as Climate Action London, Citizens’ Climate Lobby and the new London Greening Health Collaborative.

I invite Londoners to come out this weekend, visit the exhibitors, drop by my table and learn how individuals can make a difference.

Education funding

Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos: Our government, under the leadership of Premier Ford and education minister Lecce, is committed to providing state-of-the-art learning environments for students. I’m honoured to rise today to recognize a significant investment from the Ministry of Education of $16 million in my community of Oakville North–Burlington, which will be used for the expansion of Oakville NE #5 public school. This will result in the creation of 138 additional student spaces, helping working families in my fast-growing community.

This investment is part of a historic $1.3-billion commitment, the largest single-year funding commitment in the province’s history to get more shovels in the ground faster and to build more schools.

This investment will build 16 new schools and school expansions across the province, create more than 27,000 new student spaces, and 27 of the projects will create more than 1,700 child care spaces.

Since 2018, a total investment of $142 million in Oakville North–Burlington will build five new schools and add over 4,000 student spaces and 352 child care spaces.

I’m so proud of the work our government is doing in my community and across the province as we prepare students for a future with good-paying careers.

Long-term care

Ms. Sandy Shaw: I, along with many of my colleagues, joined the Ontario Nurses’ Association information pickets that were held across Ontario. In Hamilton, it was a very lively turnout—lots of energy, lots of community support, folks honking.

These 3,000 nurses, personal support workers and other health care professionals who work in long-term-care homes will begin bargaining this week. Their demands are reasonable: They’re looking for safe staffing ratios so they can provide the quality of care our vulnerable residents need, and they want wages on par with their hospital counterparts.

ONA provincial president Erin Ariss said, “We are fighting for care, not profit, advocating for the vulnerable residents of Ontario’s corporate-owned long-term-care homes.... Our residents deserve to receive quality care, yet what we see is wealthy corporations making record profits on the backs of our residents and those who care for them. It’s not right, and it’s not safe”—I agree.

ONA members who I spoke with on Friday continue to face pushback from the profit-driven corporations that run many of these homes that they work for. What they said they see are companies prioritizing their bottom line over the well-being of residents.

I, along with my colleagues, stand in solidarity with these front-line workers. I urge the government to start listening to the voices of nurses. Their fight is our fight: to ensure quality, not-for-profit care for our seniors and all vulnerable residents in Ontario.

Semaine de l’action bénévole

M. Stéphane Sarrazin: En cette Semaine nationale de l’action bénévole, nous nous rassemblons pour reconnaître et célébrer l’importance de chaque bénévole de partout à travers la province.

Pas plus tôt qu’hier, j’ai eu la chance de participer à un brunch pour les bénévoles organisé par la municipalité d’Alfred-Plantagenet et, aussi, la chance de féliciter ces nombreux bénévoles. C’est toujours impressionnant de rencontrer ces gens formidables qui contribuent tellement à nos communautés.

La fin de semaine dernière avait aussi lieu un souper reconnaissance bénévoles dans le petit village de St-Albert dans la municipalité de La Nation. C’est tellement enrichissant de pouvoir jaser avec plusieurs de ces bénévoles et d’en apprendre plus au sujet de ce qu’ils font et de leurs organisations.

Une chose que je peux vous dire, monsieur le Président, même si je représente des petits villages, des petites communautés, nos bénévoles ont les plus grands coeurs et ils et elles contribuent incroyablement à nos communautés.

En terminant, je réitère l’importance du bénévolat, qui est une excellente façon de se faire des amis, d’apprendre plein de choses, sans compter que ça nous fournit un sens d’accomplissement incroyable.

Félicitations à tous les bénévoles de la circonscription de Glengarry–Prescott–Russell pour votre excellent travail.

Debate tournament

Mr. Vincent Ke: I have exciting news about some Ontario teens’ incredible achievements at the Harvard world schools debating tournament. Last month, almost 300 students from across the globe gathered on Harvard’s campus to compete in one of the most prestigious high school debating tournaments in the world.

After 10 rounds of debate on relevant issues of our times, a team of five talented Ontario high school students won the tournament. The debate champions are: Andy Lin, Angela Qi, Michael Peng, Kelvin Fan and Jerry Zhang from the Extraordinary Education Centre Debate blue team from my riding of Don Valley North.

This tournament included Canadian, American, Brazilian and Mexican national debate teams. The EEC Debate winners defeated Team Canada in the grand finale, becoming the first non-national team to win this tournament.

Understanding key issues, critical thinking, logic and well-structured delivery prepare students to shine their skills on the global stage of competition today, and their bright lights will make a positive impact on the world tomorrow.

Special Olympics

Mr. Dave Smith: Special Olympics Peterborough is dedicated to enriching the lives of individuals in Peterborough with intellectual disabilities through the power of sport.

The Special Olympics motto is, “Let me win, but if I cannot win, let me be brave at the attempt.” This is an organization that is very active in ensuring that every opportunity is given to these exceptional athletes.

I’ve said a number of times that everything you need to learn to survive socially in life can be learned through team sport. Sometimes you score; sometimes you’re scored on. Sometimes you compete with your friends; sometimes you compete against your friends. But most of the time, you’re on the bench and your job is to cheer on and lift up your teammates. The camaraderie that you gain from working together to achieve something will help you succeed in so many other aspects of life.

With the upcoming Provincial Spring Games in Waterloo, Peterborough will be sending a basketball team, 10 swimmers and two athletes for tenpin bowling.

Find out how you can help by going to: peterborough.specialolympicsontario.ca.

In the final seconds, Speaker, I have to give a big shout-out to the Peterborough Wolves Special Olympics floor hockey team. They were the defending champions in floor hockey nationally, and this year when they went to Calgary, they came home with the silver medal. Congratulations to the entire team. We’re very proud of you.

Whitney McWilliam

Mr. Steve Clark: I’ve got some sad news to share with the House today. I ask the House to join me in honouring the life of Whitney McWilliam—a dedicated public servant and, most importantly, beloved daughter, sister, friend and new mother to son Fynn—who tragically lost her life to cancer last week.

Whitney was the long-time executive assistant to Jeff Yurek, the former member for Elgin–Middlesex–London. She later served in the Ministries of Natural Resources and Forestry; Transportation; and Environment, Conservation and Parks before becoming a program adviser at the Ontario Provincial Police headquarters.

She was a wonderful person. Her love for her family, for her community, for our province was evident in everything she did, and her memory will live on in the many lives that she’s touched with her incredible kindness and her grace.

On behalf of the House, my sincere condolences to Whitney’s family and friends at this devastating time. Rest in peace.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Mike Harris: It’s not often that I get to do this, but I would like to welcome page Ryder Harris’s grandfather, my father and the 22nd Premier of Ontario, Premier Mike Harris, to the Legislature today.

Hon. Stan Cho: Speaker, it’s the first time I’ve been first to introduce my visitors.

I have a special visitor here this morning, Speaker. I’ve actually got His Worship Captain Sam Billich’s accomplishments right here. If I read it all out, I’d have five House duties a week, because it would take too long. So I just want to say he’s a decorated veteran, having served for 28 years in both the British and Canadian armies, established three nursing scholarships in his mother’s name. And, of course, he travels with great company: Order of Ontario recipient Rosemary Sadlier, who is here with him.

The captain is also the recipient of the Minister of Veterans Affairs Commendation for his involvement in the creation of the veterans’ memorial which sits here on the grounds of the Legislature.

We are humbled to have you. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Wayne Gates: My guest isn’t here today, but yesterday I had the privilege of going to a birthday party in Fort Erie at Garrison Place with the staff. We were there to honour Burd Sisler, who is a Canadian war veteran who belongs to Legion Branch 71. His family, his friends and the staff were celebrating his 109th birthday yesterday. Talking to him yesterday, he said he’s looking forward to celebrating his 110th next April 14.

I just wanted to raise that in the House today for Burd.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: I want to introduce an accomplished developmental service worker, Desiree Da Costa, who is with us today. Desiree penned All About Me and Cerebral Palsy. She’s written a beautiful book that inspires kids in our schools. We are so grateful for you. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: It gives me great pleasure to welcome students and teachers from Westdale Secondary School in my riding of Hamilton. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’d like to recognize a group of people here from the sand and gravel association: Ryan Wall, Walker Aggregates and Walker Construction; Carol Siemiginowski, Lafarge Canada Inc.; Sarah Nicoll-Lawler, Walker Aggregates and Walker Construction; Scott Boyle, Miller Paving Ltd.; Gerry McGuire, Izumi Aquaculture; and Robert Mantha, Walker Aggregates. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s my pleasure to welcome, from the Ontario Stone, Sand and Gravel Association, John MacLellan, who is from Rankin Construction in the great riding of Waterloo. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Brian Riddell: From my riding of Cambridge, I’d like to also introduce some people from the Ontario Stone, Sand and Gravel Association—and to not screw up their last names, I’m not going to say them: Sharon, David, John, Mal, Frank and Jim. Welcome to your House.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I have a few constituents here today. I have Kevin Vallier, CEO of Farm Fresh Ontario, and Melinda McArthur, the vice-chair of Farm Fresh Ontario. I also have John MacLellan, who is a councillor from the township of Wainfleet and is here today with the Ontario Sand, Stone and Gravel Association.

Hon. Kinga Surma: I’d like to welcome Michael McSweeney, the executive director of the Ontario Stone, Sand and Gravel Association. They will be hosting meetings throughout the day and, of course, will be having their reception in the evening.

As you know, aggregate plays a big role in building infrastructure, so I welcome all of the members to the House today.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): If there are no objections, I’d like to continue with the introduction of visitors.

Mr. Amarjot Sandhu: I would like to welcome members from the Ontario Stone, Sand and Gravel Association to Queen’s Park today. They’re working across the province to supply important materials to the important projects that are busy building Ontario: Sharon Armstrong, David Hanratty, John MacLellan, Mal Wensierski, Frank Kielbowich and Jim Karageorgoes.

Hon. Graydon Smith: Like others, I want to introduce members of Ontario Stone, Sand and Gravel Association this morning: Michael McSweeney, Rob Pierce from R.W. Tomlinson, Neal DeRuyter from MHBC planning, Pat Madden from Austin Powder Company, Mohammed Mousa from Dufferin Aggregates and Julie Harrington from OSSGA. Thank you, and welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Jess Dixon: I want to note the contributions of today’s page captain, Shivanshee Patel, who is from my riding and a student Doon Public School. Thank you so much for everything you’re doing.

Hon. Jill Dunlop: I would like to introduce two of my guests here today: Dr. Jodi Cooley and Michael Whitehouse from SNOLAB up in Sudbury. Thanks for being here today.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I, too, would like to recognize in the galleries today a former member who represented Nipissing in the 32nd, 33rd, 34th, 35th, 36th and 37th Parliaments and served as Premier of Ontario from 1995 to 2002, Mike Harris. Welcome back.

That concludes our introduction of visitors for this morning.

Question Period

Housing

Ms. Marit Stiles: Good morning, Speaker. This question is for the Premier. After the previous Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing resigned in the midst of a scandal and, of course, this ongoing RCMP criminal investigation, there was a real opportunity for a new minister to actually take the housing crisis seriously. But last week’s bill was weak, it was unambitious, and it lacked the vision that we need to actually get housing built. Among other shortcomings, the bill doesn’t legalize fourplexes and as-of-right, which means they’re going to remain illegal in many, many parts of this province.

A single detached home is out of reach for about 80% of Ontarians, but a fourplex apartment could be an affordable option. So why is the Premier ruling this out?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: Well, Speaker, it’s just the opposite; we’re not ruling anything out. There is no law against that right now in the province of Ontario. So we encourage municipalities to make the decisions that are in the best interests of their taxpayers.

At the same time, well over seven million people in the province of Ontario already live in communities where as-of-right four is the law. What we are running into, though, is that this is not something that is solving the crisis in any way, shape or form. My understanding is that although it’s legal in the city of Toronto, less than 70 of these units have been built; I know in other communities, like Vaughan and Richmond Hill, zero have been built.

We also know that as-of-right three has not been as successful as we had hoped it to be; less than 20,000 units have been built in that program. That is why, in this bill, we are removing the obstacles so that we can get the as-of-right three right across the province of Ontario—and we will allow our municipal partners to continue to make decisions on their behalf.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, that sounds like a lot of excuses.

I should not have to remind this Premier or this minister that legalizing fourplexes was a top recommendation of the government’s own Housing Affordability Task Force. There are a lot of folks right now who are disappointed that this government has not implemented this recommendation, including the Ontario Real Estate Association. It’s just another example of how this government refuses to treat the housing crisis with the urgency that it deserves.

What’s the government’s solution? Well, according to the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, it’s telling people to go to a for-profit homeless encampment instead.

Can the Premier explain why his government continues to fight the legalization of fourplexes?

Hon. Paul Calandra: I don’t know how much more clear I can be to the Leader of the Opposition. There is no law that says you can’t build a fourplex in the province of Ontario. So it is hard for me to legalize something that is currently not illegal in the province of Ontario.

What we’re focusing on is ensuring that there is infrastructure in the ground so that, as opposed to building, let’s say, 70 fourplexes in the city of Toronto, we can build 1.5 million homes across the province. What the Leader of the Opposition fails to understand is that in order to build homes across the province of Ontario, our municipal partners need sewer and water capacity. That is why the Minister of Infrastructure is bringing forward the largest infrastructure program for sewer and water and roads in the province’s history. We’re doing this in the absence of the federal government.

We’re going to continue to do all that we can to put the infrastructure in the ground so that we can build not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of homes in every part of this province.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, $5 billion of federal money for housing is on the line because this Premier doesn’t like a certain type of housing.

The reality is that the government’s new housing bill does nothing to get housing built. It spends as much time reversing this government’s mistakes as it does putting forward any real solutions, and believe me, what it does put forward is very piecemeal.

In contrast, British Columbia’s NDP government has moved swiftly, and they are seeing results. While housing starts are down here in Ontario, they’re up 11% in British Columbia. There are new investments in non-market housing, new protections for tenants.

Why won’t this Premier implement the NDP solutions that have been proven to work in British Columbia?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Paul Calandra: We lived NDP solutions in the province of Ontario from 1990 to 1995. And if it wasn’t for that Premier sitting in the gallery today, we would still be suffering under the rules of the—

Interjections.

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

Members will take their seats. Order. Order.

Restart the clock. The minister still has some time.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Under the policies of this government, under the policies that were brought forward by the former Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, you know what we have? The highest starts in purpose-built rental housing, not over the last couple of years, but ever. Under the policies of this government, we have the highest number of new home starts in decades. Under this government, we’re removing red tape so homes can get built faster. We’re building more university campuses by making it as-of-right so our students can have homes in the face of unilateral federal cuts.

We’re listening to our municipal partners, because the Minister of Infrastructure is bringing forward the largest unilateral infrastructure, sewer and water program in history, and the Minister of Education is building schools in all these new communities—roads, everything. We’re getting it done.

Electric vehicles

Ms. Marit Stiles: I will remind the minister that it was in 1995 that this province stopped building truly affordable housing in this province. We are behind by 1.4 million units right now because of that decision.

Last week, the Premier doubled down on preventing new homes from having EV charging infrastructure. The government knows the cost of installing an EV charger during construction is so much cheaper than putting one in later. Drivers say the lack of charging infrastructure is a huge barrier for those who would otherwise own an electric vehicle.

Why has this Premier refused to make it easier for people to buy and charge an electric vehicle in their home?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: We have done no such thing. In fact, we’re making massive investments so that people have jobs and can buy electric vehicles.

What the opposition would rather do is they’d rather keep people unemployed and then subsidize them to buy vehicles. What we want is to give people the ability to work in the province of Ontario—$28 billion worth of investments.

But as I said last Thursday, it is not up to the government of Ontario to fund a decision that you make. She talks about British Columbia—the highest price for gas in British Columbia; the highest expenses; the place that is most expensive to live in the country, British Columbia.

We are bringing jobs back, opportunity back. That is the record of this government: 700,000 jobs, cutting taxes, cutting red tape, bringing back employment to the province of Ontario in the same way that the 22nd Premier of the province of Ontario did each and every day, focused on the people of the province of Ontario.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: I’ll go back to the Premier. I don’t think the minister has been following what’s happening in this sector, but EV sales are down here in the province of Ontario, and the Premier isn’t doing anything about it. Not only is he jeopardizing the province’s so-called made-in-Ontario electric vehicle program; he’s risking the tens of thousands of good jobs that go with it, like the workers in Oakville who feel let down by the Premier’s lack of action or the delay of EV production by Ford Motor Co.

Back to the Premier: Workers in Oakville are worried. Will you show some leadership, or will you leave them behind like you did with the GM workers in Oshawa?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Economic Development.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: The previous Liberal government, supported by the NDP, chased 300,000 manufacturing jobs out of our province and brought our auto sector to the brink of collapse. In 2019, Reuters reported that companies planned to spend $300 billion on EVs and none of it was coming to Canada.

Since then, over the last three years, Ontario has attracted $28 billion in new EV investments, creating thousands of good-paying jobs across the province. Unfortunately, the NDP and the Liberals voted against every single item that brought this unprecedented success to Ontario.

By creating the conditions for businesses to succeed, our province is now a global auto manufacturing powerhouse.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. The member for Ottawa South will come to order. The member for Brampton North will come to order. Minister of Education will come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I heard you.

Start the clock. Final supplementary.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Ontario has the workers, we have the expertise and we have the energy to power a strong EV sector here. It used to be a signature policy of this government, but now they’re throwing it in reverse, with a weak commitment to electric vehicles and sustainable infrastructure. In the process, this Premier is jeopardizing sales and production by not making our new homes EV-ready. It is so short-sighted.

The people of Ontario want to know—and I’ll go back to the Premier again—is the government backing away from plans for a sustainable auto sector in Ontario?

Interjections.

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

To reply, the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Todd Smith: It’s quite clear that our plan is working: 300,000 manufacturing jobs left our province for other jurisdictions at a time when those who are running the auto plants were saying that Ontario was the most uncompetitive jurisdiction in North America to build cars, to now, six years later, investing $28 billion into EV platforms, EV battery manufacturing facilities. The world is moving to EVs in Ontario because we have the energy and we’re committed to building the energy infrastructure to support the implementation of electric vehicles.

Now, the NDP energy critic is against all of the investments that we’re making in our nuclear sector, including building small modular reactors at Darlington, leading the world on that front; putting an extra 4.8 gigawatts at Bruce Power; refurbishing the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station. That’s how we’re going to power Ontario well into the future.

Electric vehicles

Ms. Jennifer K. French: My question is to the Premier. This government has boasted about their electric vehicle investment, but like so much they do, they aren’t plugged into what is really needed. Folks are excited about electric vehicles, but they won’t buy them if they know they can’t charge them. When this Premier was elected in 2018, one of his first moves was to rip out EV charging stations, cancel EV rebates and end the building code requirement to make sure homes were wired and ready. Without the infrastructure, automakers are signalling a slowdown on EV production. This Premier is putting good auto jobs at risk.

When will this Premier switch gears and support the future of electric vehicles by committing to the charging infrastructure that they will require?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: Speaker, let’s wrap it up. Let’s see what we’ve done. The Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade has encouraged $28-billion worth of EV manufacturing to the province of Ontario. The Ministers of Mines and Northern Development are unlocking the resources of the north so that we can power the investments in the south. The Minister of Energy is investing in small modular reactors—so the opposition knows, these are the reactors that will power the EV revolution of tomorrow—while refurbishing our nuclear fleet.

And later today, we will be voting on an NDP bill that will kill what the Minister of Energy is doing, put in jeopardy what the Minister of Natural Resources is doing and put in jeopardy the $28 billion worth of investments.

So this is what I tell you: We will vote against that, and we will continue our program of investing in the people of the province of Ontario so that they have the resources to invest in themselves and they have the resources to invest in their communities. It’s about giving people the tools they need to succeed.

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Again, my question is for the Premier. The future is electric—on the road, across communities and at home. Building EV-ready homes is future-proof, but that’s not what we’re building today. Aftermarket charging infrastructure is expensive, and when compared to the minimal cost of wires and the rough-in in a new build, planning ahead is the way to go. EV-ready homes are more affordable for homeowners and drivers.

This Premier has said he’s picking the side of developers, but we hope he will switch to be on the side of auto manufacturers, autoworkers, drivers and homeowners. Building houses already roughed in for charging is an easy and practical fix that we could do today to save people a lot of money.

So my question is, will the Premier put charging rough-ins back in the building code so we can have EV-ready homes?

Hon. Paul Calandra: No, Mr. Speaker, what we will do is we will allow homeowners to make those decisions on their own. Because that is what we do: We allow homeowners to make that decision on their own.

As I said on Thursday, I come from an Italian family. Many of my relatives—even ourselves, we had a stove in the garage. It was a 220-volt stove, because a lot of us like to cook in the garage. I didn’t ask the people of the province of Ontario to cover the cost of that stove in the garage. Do you know what my dad did? He called an electrician, who put the stove plug in the garage, and he paid for it, Mr. Speaker.

So I think the people of the province of Ontario can make that decision on their own. They don’t need big daddy government coming in on their behalf. My goal is to keep the price of home building low so that more Ontarians can afford to build it, not higher.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Oshawa will come to order. The member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke will come to order. The Minister of Energy will come to order. Order.

The next question.

Taxation

Mr. Trevor Jones: Good morning, Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Energy.

On April 1, the federal Liberals—supported by the queen of the carbon tax, Bonnie Crombie—increased the carbon tax by 23%. This costly tax is raising the price of everything, for both energy costs and food prices. It’s forcing Ontario drivers to pay over 17 cents per litre more at the gas pumps.

Speaker, it’s so disappointing to see the Liberal and NDP members of this Legislature turning a blind eye to the hardships people everywhere are experiencing. They should be joining us and calling on the federal government to scrap the carbon tax now.

Can the minister please explain why the carbon tax is causing damage to all aspects of life for the people of Ontario?

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks to the great member from southwestern Ontario, who is always standing up for residents in his part of Ontario and ensuring that they can afford to live in our province.

As we continue to reduce taxes and reduce fees and reduce the cost of living, the federal government continues to jack it up. On April 1—just a couple of weeks ago, Mr. Speaker—the federal government did it again: a whopping increase of 23% to the federal carbon tax, which is impacting the price at the pumps. It’s impacting the price of home heating for natural gas furnaces, the price at the grocery store. It’s impacting the cost of living in Ontario.

Last week we saw something interesting at the federal Parliament. We actually saw the federal NDP, with Jagmeet, and we saw the Parti Québécois—or, actually, the separatist party—supporting a Conservative motion to encourage Prime Minister Trudeau, who increased the carbon tax, to meet with Premiers right across the country. All of them are opposed to the carbon tax. It’s time to sit down, have that discussion and also scrap the tax.

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

Mr. Trevor Jones: Thank you to the minister for that response. It’s reassuring to hear that our government continues to stand up to the federal government and fight for the people of this province.

Speaker, people in my riding of Chatham-Kent–Leamington are concerned about the impact a whopping 23% carbon tax hike will have on their home energy bills. They feel it’s unfair to them and communities across Ontario that the federal Liberals have burdened us with this unnecessary cost.

Our government will not give up, Speaker. We’ll continue to fight this tax, deliver affordability for Ontario and put more money back in people’s pockets.

Speaker, can the minister please explain how the carbon tax is punishing people in Chatham-Kent–Leamington and throughout Ontario who rely on natural gas and propane to heat their homes?

Hon. Todd Smith: Speaker, it’s pretty simple: The federal carbon tax is right there on the bill, clearly marked for anybody who is an Enbridge customer or has natural gas coming into their home. It’s the federal carbon tax right there on the bill that sometimes actually is more expensive than delivery costs.

The people of Ontario are feeling the pinch, but it’s not just the people of Ontario; it’s people right across the country that are getting hammered by this federal carbon tax. Just look at Newfoundland, where the Liberal premier, Andrew Furey, actually pleaded with Prime Minister Trudeau to put the pause on, back on April 1. But since he hasn’t done that, he’s now joined the chorus of Premiers of all stripes, from right across the country, to sit down and have an adult discussion—something the Prime Minister hasn’t done since 2016—with the Premiers, Speaker.

We believe that the Prime Minister should be sitting down with those Premiers. I just wish that the queen of the carbon tax here in Ontario, the Liberal leader, would support us in sitting down and having that mature discussion about axing the tax in Ontario.

Tenant protection

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: My question is to the Minister of Housing. A new report shows that Ontario rents have risen three times higher than guidelines due to rent control loopholes, with an average increase of 54.5% over the last decade.

Thousands of tenants in Parkdale–High Park and across Ontario are experiencing massive increases to the cost of housing, and there is no end in sight.

My question is, will you close rent control loopholes so Ontarians can find and maintain housing?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Attorney General.

Hon. Doug Downey: I’m very proud of the number of purpose-built rentals that we have increased. As the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing mentioned just moments ago, we have historic records of purpose-built buildings, and that is something that is important to the people of the province of Ontario who need a place to live.

We are working non-stop at achieving our goal of 1.5 million housing units, and we will get there with or without the help of the opposition, who would vote against every single initiative that we do when we achieve these records.

Mr. Speaker, I’ll have more to say in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary? The member for Toronto Centre.

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: Back to the Premier: Today, my constituent Lindsay is receiving an N13, a demoviction notice. She tells me, “As a tenant who is now dealing with finding a home on top of dealing with the immediate aftermath of experiencing domestic violence, I’m at a complete loss. All of the homes being built are not made for people like me and my two young children. I’ve started looking for housing options so I can continue to live and work in Toronto once demovicted, but there is nowhere safe that I can afford to raise my family.”

Speaker, there is no affordable rental housing in Ontario because of the rent control loopholes that have been introduced by the Conservative government.

Will this government admit that they have the power to help Lindsay and her two young children by introducing real rent control today?

Interjections.

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

The Attorney General.

Hon. Doug Downey: The reason we have a housing challenge isn’t because of a particular policy that we put in place; it’s because the Liberals, during their entire mandate, supported by the NDP at every turn, did absolutely nothing except create red tape, create barriers, get nothing built—absolutely nothing.

When this government came to power, we recognized the crisis for what it is, and we made a public commitment. The Premier made a commitment. The municipal affairs and housing minister made a commitment. We will build 1.5 million spaces, and we’ll do it, notwithstanding that we’re starting from behind. We’re starting from behind because no investments were made; no money was put forward; the red tape was building up. But we will persevere. We will get the job done.

We are getting the job done, and we will not apologize for that.

Taxation

Mr. Will Bouma: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade.

Speaker, the federal Liberals think that they know better than the hard-working people of this province. When people are hurting because of the rising cost of living, it seems logical that governments of all political stripes would do their part to reduce costs. Instead, the Liberals are doing the opposite: They are hiking taxes at a time when families are already struggling to get by. Families are having trouble heating their homes, filling their gas tanks and putting food on the table, and the Liberal solution is to make things more expensive. The worst

part is that Bonnie Crombie and her Liberal colleagues don’t even have the guts to stand up and tell the Prime Minister to get rid of this terrible tax.

Can the minister please explain what risks the federal carbon tax poses to our economy?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: The federal Liberals are doing to our country what the previous provincial Liberals did to the province of Ontario. Raising taxes at every opportunity, they chased businesses and jobs out of the province. Our manufacturing sector was on the brink of collapse, with 300,000 manufacturing jobs lost.

We came in and lowered costs right across the board. We’ve restored Ontario’s ability to compete on the global stage. And 700,000 more men and women are working today than before we took office.

Speaker, our message to the federal government is clear: Do not jeopardize the progress that we have made. Scrap the tax today.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Will Bouma: Thank you, Minister, for that response.

We’ve heard loud and clear from the people of Ontario that the last thing they want is a carbon tax. But the federal Liberals are actively ignoring the concerns of hard-working Ontario families, just as the previous Liberal provincial government did.

We don’t believe the way to fight climate change is by crushing businesses and workers with tax hikes, and neither do the people of Ontario. We have an abundance of clean energy right here in our province, and we’re making sure Ontario is a leader in building clean tech for the future, like electric vehicles. That’s how to help lower emissions; not by implementing a carbon tax that drives the cost of everything up and up and up.

Can the minister explain how the carbon tax will hurt the progress that we’ve made in reducing costs so that businesses and workers can succeed?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, the previous Liberal government’s high taxes chased businesses and workers out of the province, but when we took office, we reversed course. We cut 500 pieces of red tape, saving businesses $1 billion annually. We put in immediate equipment writeoffs, saving businesses nearly $1 billion every single year. We lowered WSIB premiums by 50%, saving businesses $2.5 billion annually. As a result, those businesses that fled the province under the Liberals are coming back. We have reshored companies that left for cheaper, more competitive jurisdictions. And we’ve rebuilt our province’s manufacturing might, with 700,000 new people working again.

We can’t allow the Liberals to crush our momentum.

Scrap the tax today.

Affordable housing

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: My question is to the Premier. The owner of property in Innisfil has been charging people facing housing insecurity $500 to set up a tent on their property. The ad for the property notes that they will have access to a communal washroom and kitchen. Shockingly, instead of working to resolve this province’s homelessness crisis, the member for Innisfil has started referring people to this for-profit encampment.

My question to the Premier is this: Is he going to start counting tents as part of their affordable housing numbers?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: It really highlights just how irrelevant the NDP have become in pretty much every single policy issue facing the province of Ontario.

The reality is this: We have increased funding to the Homelessness Prevention Program to record levels. The member will know this because she voted against that, as did the entire NDP caucus. We’ve actually increased homelessness prevention funding in every part of the province, including in the member’s own riding, by 34%. She will recall that she voted against that as well.

What we are doing across the province of Ontario is restoring, rehabilitating and renovating our affordable housing stock. Do you know why? Because we were left with an infrastructure deficit by the previous Liberal government, supported by the NDP. What have we done? We are renovating, rehabilitating and restoring 123,000 affordable housing units in the province of Ontario. That is an unmatched record in the history of this province.

We will continue to support those who want help. As the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services said, we will leave no one behind. That is our goal each and every day.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: To the minister: It’s clear that you’re going to help people who are in need of help, who want help, by referring them to for-profit encampments. That’s what your government is doing.

Unfortunately—and this is shocking but not surprising—this for-profit encampment is targeted toward people who are on OW or ODSP because the programs don’t even cover the cost of rent.

This Conservative government has fuelled a housing and affordability crisis, and now they seem to be endorsing its exploitation.

Speaker, will the Premier tell Ontarians whether for-profit encampments are part of his affordable housing strategy?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Again, Speaker, truly a question from the NDP that really highlights just how irrelevant they are in the discourse in the province of Ontario. It is no wonder nobody pays attention to them. It is no wonder that members leave their caucus in droves, Mr. Speaker.

Here’s what we’re doing: We’re putting infrastructure in the ground. Do you know why we’re putting infrastructure in the ground, colleagues? So that we can build millions of homes across the province of Ontario. You know why we have to do this work, Speaker? Because for 15 long—long—arduous years, the former Liberal government did absolutely nothing. And do you know who supported them in that? The NDP: the most irrelevant party that this province has ever seen.

Now, to go a step further, they are as irrelevant in Ottawa as they are at Queen’s Park—ignoring what the people of the province need, ignoring what the people of Canada need. You have an opportunity later today. Vote for our budget because it has historic levels of—

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

Health care

Mr. Adil Shamji: For the Premier: I never thought I’d see the day when having a family doctor in Ontario made you lucky; when people paid hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars just to access primary care; when riding the subway meant being bombarded with advertisements for health care services that should be insured but aren’t.

Looking back at the last six years, a lot has changed. Now we have nurse practitioner-led clinics charging subscription fees to desperate patients while executive health clinics make a fortune in a primary care marketplace of this government’s making.

By 2026, 4.4 million people won’t have access to a family doctor, and we can’t even say that our emergency departments are always open anymore.

Mr. Speaker, with so little to show under his watch, why is it that the Premier only increased health care sector funding by 0.59%, but has more than doubled the amount that he pays the staff in his own office?

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

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Oh, Speaker, it continues to amaze me that members of the Liberal Party who actually cut the number of residency spots available for Ontario students wishing to practise and learn medicine in the province of Ontario can stand up and talk about our record. Our record clearly shows that we are investing in a health care system, whether that is including a base increase; new medical schools in York region, in Brampton, in Scarborough; ensuring that we have new clinicians able to train, practise, learn and ultimately be licensed in the province of Ontario. We are making those investments because we know that people need to have access to primary care practitioners.

I look at the announcement that we made in February—the expansion of primary care, including nurse practitioner-led clinics in his own community and across Ontario—and I see those investments already bearing fruit, because we already have additional clinicians hired taking on new patients.

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

Mr. Adil Shamji: Mr. Speaker, it’s unfortunate to hear the Minister of Health talk about her record because she omits the fact that her record is of the worst health care system performance in our province’s history. This government is so busy rewarding its friends and enriching insiders that they have forgotten their duty to uphold the Canada Health Act.

But perhaps “forgetting” is too generous because every time this government’s neglect brings another feature of public health care to its knees, there is always a private, for-profit model there to save the day. Whether it is exorbitant subscription fees to nurse practitioners or executive health clinics, whether it’s pricey Pap smears or costly cataract lenses, whether it’s staffing agencies gouging our hospitals and long-term-care homes, this government rolls out the red carpet for anyone praying to the almighty dollar.

Mr. Speaker, what should patients who can’t afford this Premier’s private health care agenda do once his gravy train has left our public health care system behind in the dust?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: The Liberal member opposite can throw around all the quips he wants. The truth is that we are making investments in our publicly funded health care system in Ontario.

Ontario leads Canada in the lowest wait times for surgeries across Canada. Ontario leads Canada in the number of individuals who are matched with a primary care practitioner.

We will continue to make those investments because we see how they are changing lives in the province of Ontario. In Minto, Ontario, a February announcement led to a nurse practitioner being hired and already taking on new patients. In Kingston, Ontario, we have clinicians who are bringing on new patients, rostering new patients in their communities.

That work will continue across 78 new facilities and expanded practitioner-led clinics because we know it’s making an impact, and we know we are changing—

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

The next question.

Taxation

Ms. Laura Smith: My question is for the Minister of Energy. The Liberal carbon tax is punishing Ontario families. Last year, the federal government decided to exempt one form of home heating fuel, mainly used in Atlantic Canada, from the carbon tax. But they’re hiking the carbon tax on lower-emission natural gas here in Ontario, where the majority of residents now have to pay more to heat their homes. That’s just not right. Residents in my riding of Thornhill tell me they already feel the impact of the carbon tax on their energy bills.

The people of Ontario deserve to be treated fairly. The federal Liberals need to get rid of this carbon tax right now.

Can the minister please explain how they are making home heating and more things expensive and impacting Ontarians?

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks to the member for Thornhill. We’re doing everything we can to make life more affordable for the people of Ontario here under the leadership of Premier Ford, while Prime Minister Trudeau and the federal Liberals seem content to make life more expensive for the people of Ontario and the people of Canada. That goes for the queen of the carbon tax, Bonnie Crombie, as well, who seems happy to have the federal carbon tax in place so that she doesn’t have to take a position on it.

We have taken a position on it. We’re making life more affordable. That’s why we’re seeing new investments in our province, particularly in the EV and EV auto space, where companies are flocking back to Ontario and creating hundreds of thousands of jobs in our province, where, again, under the leadership of the previous Liberal government for 15 years, we saw 300,000 jobs leaving for other jurisdictions. Over 700,000 jobs are coming back. That’s all because of our sound energy policy that ensures we’re competitive with other—

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

Supplementary question.

Ms. Laura Smith: Thank you to the minister for his solid work within his portfolio.

This is exactly what our government spoke up about—the carbon tax—what we fought tooth and nail. It’s ludicrous that the Liberals think it’s a good idea to raise the carbon tax by a staggering 23% when Ontario families are already struggling with the increased cost of living.

But this is most concerning. This gets so much worse. The federal government and opposition parties want to nearly triple the tax by 2030. That’s simply not acceptable. Can the minister please explain why Ontarians cannot afford the continued tax increase on groceries, transportation and everything else in between?

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks again to the member from Thornhill for the question. It’s pretty obvious when you drive by a gasoline station now and you see the price at the pumps is over a buck sixty and, in some parts of northern Ontario, more than that. The carbon tax has gone up a staggering 23% two weeks ago, on April 1, under the leadership of Prime Minister Trudeau and the federal Liberal government, supported by the queen of the carbon tax, Bonnie Crombie, and her Ontario Liberals, who still continue to say that the people of Ontario and the people of Canada are better off with this horrible carbon tax than they would be without it.

The NDP: While some of them have supported us in the House, Jagmeet on the weekend was trying to walk back his demands to have a carbon tax or not. He is supportive of the carbon tax again, but that’s typical of NDP policy. They don’t know which way to go.

We’re with the people of Ontario. The opposition parties are against them, particularly on energy costs.

Long-term care

Mr. Wayne Gates: My question is to the Premier. We’ve learned a lot about the impacts of Bill 7—hundreds of families forced from their communities, cancer survivors fined $400 a day unless they follow the Premier’s orders to leave their families. We didn’t learn of Bill 7’s impact because of transparency from this government; we learned of it from the hard work of reporters.

Now the government is refusing to tell the public how much they’re fining seniors. Will the minister stand up today and tell the public how much money they have fined seniors for the crime of wanting to stay close to their families?

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

Hon. Sylvia Jones: What Bill 7 has allowed hospitals to do is to actually ensure that they have beds available for people who need them in an acute way. The treatments, the ongoing rehabilitation that happens outside of a hospital setting is made available because of the ability for hospitals to ensure that alternative-level-of-care patients are being looked after in different places, whether it is in community, whether it is in our long-term-care homes.

I’m proud of the fact that we’ve had over 2,000 individuals have a home in their community because we’ve taken the time, working with our long-term-care partners, with our hospital partners, to make sure that they have the appropriate care in the appropriate place—a home.

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

Mr. Wayne Gates: Back to the Premier: As expected, there’s no transparent answer from the minister—whatever one decides to answer.

Look at the actions of this government. First, they say they’re not aware of anyone being fined under Bill 7. Then, when shown the actual bills sent to the patients, they come clean and tell us that seven patients have been charged. Now, after daily requests, the government refuses to tell the media how much they’ve fined seniors. It sounds like the Conservatives are really proud of their legislation.

If the Premier thinks Bill 7 is such great legislation helping seniors get into long-term care, why won’t you tell the public how much you’re fining seniors?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Speaker, as the member opposite just clearly showed, it is such a small number of individuals who’ve been billed by the hospitals, that we’ve actually been told.

We have a legal opinion that says putting out those numbers would put at risk individuals’ identity—to be identified. We’re protecting patients to ensure that doesn’t happen.

We have ensured that such a small number had to be billed by their local hospitals. We want to make sure that the work is at the hospital and the community, working with the most appropriate placement, and we will continue to do that.

Housing

Mr. Mike Schreiner: My question is for the Premier. The housing crisis is getting worse. It’s like a forest fire raging out of control. But the government’s new housing bill is like bringing a garden hose to put out the fire.

After wasting six years putting wealthy, well-connected insiders ahead of building homes that people can actually afford, it feels like the government is admitting defeat, begging municipalities to bail them out, when the Premier says no to building homes that people can afford in the communities they know and love.

Will the Premier stop saying no to an entire generation of young people who just want a home they can afford, and say yes to legalizing gentle density and mid-rise housing across the province, as-of-right, so we can start building homes people can afford now?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: I love the passion from the member, but when it comes to building in his own community, an as-of-right four community, a sum total of zero have been built, Mr. Speaker. Do you know why that is? Because the city of Guelph needs infrastructure. They need sewer and water capacity. I hear it from the mayor constantly. I had a wonderful conversation with the mayor, when we were providing a Building Faster Fund cheque, who identified the fact that his additional assistance through the Building Faster Fund would go to building more sewer and water capacity so that he could build even more homes.

The opposition can focus on policies that do nothing because it makes them feel better. We saw that from the Liberals for 15 years: announce all kinds of things, but don’t accomplish anything. That’s all that they care about.

We’ll build the sewer and water capacity so that we can build, not hundreds, not tens, not 70 fourplexes in Toronto, zero in Guelph, but millions of homes in every part of this province, Mr. Speaker, because that’s how we will tackle the affordability crisis.

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

Mr. Mike Schreiner: Speaker, this government has been in power for six years, and the housing crisis gets worse. They’ve spent more time in the last year reversing their housing policies than actually putting forward bold solutions to the housing crisis. As a matter of fact, it was this government that took infrastructure money away from municipalities in the first place.

The government’s failure to fix the housing crisis is making life in Ontario unaffordable. The Premier says no to gentle density, no to mid-rises, no to missing middle, no to rent protection, no to federal funding for homes. It’s time to say yes to housing in this province.

The government has the power to say yes to six- to 11-storey buildings along major transit corridors, to say yes to multiplexes. Will they do it now so we can get building homes in this province?

Hon. Paul Calandra: In fact, in the provincial policy statement and the provincial planning statement, which was released at the same time, it does just that. But you can’t do any of that unless you have infrastructure that allows that to happen. It allows it to happen.

This is the fallacy of what you hear from the Greens, the Liberals and the NDP: They get up in their place and they fight for policies that they know won’t build homes. What we’re doing is putting in the infrastructure that is needed to build a home.

But you know what else we’re hearing, Mr. Speaker? We’re hearing that the high-inflation policies of the federal Liberal government—a carbon tax, which has led to high interest rates—are stopping people from getting shovels in the ground. More importantly, it is stopping people from being able to afford those homes. So why don’t the members opposite work with us to get the federal government to eliminate the carbon tax, reduce costs, bring down red tape, bring down all costs, bring down interest rates and we will meet our challenges—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. Member for Ottawa South, come to order.

The next question.

Imposition

M. Anthony Leardi: Ma question s’adresse à la ministre associée déléguée aux Petites Entreprises. Depuis sa mise en place par le gouvernement fédéral libéral en 2019, la taxe sur le carbone génère des revenus provenant des petites entreprises. Les libéraux avaient promis qu’elles pourraient recevoir des remboursements. Cette promesse a été formulée il y a cinq ans.

Le gouvernement fédéral libéral admet qu’il doit 1,3 milliard de dollars en remboursements aux petites entreprises, mais il n’y a aucun plan de remboursement à l’horizon. Le gouvernement fédéral libéral retient donc 1,3 milliard de dollars de remboursements.

Monsieur le Président, est-ce que la ministre associée peut nous expliquer quels sont les impacts de cette situation sur les entreprises ontariennes?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Parliamentary assistant and member for Glengarry–Prescott–Russell.

M. Stéphane Sarrazin: Merci à mon collègue le député d’Essex d’avoir soulevé ce problème auquel sont confrontées les petites entreprises de l’Ontario.

Monsieur le Président, depuis le début, le premier ministre Ford et notre gouvernement se sont tenus fermement aux côtés des petites entreprises ontariennes qui travaillent fort contre le gouvernement fédéral pour abolir la taxe sur le carbone.

Il est inacceptable qu’après cinq ans, le gouvernement libéral n’ait pas tenu sa promesse d’offrir des remboursements, retenant des sommes colossales de 1,3 milliard de dollars dues aux petites entreprises de notre province. Il s’agit d’argent qui aurait pu être réinvesti dans leurs entreprises, leurs personnels et nos communautés locales partout à travers l’Ontario.

Par conséquent, nos entreprises—qui sont ceux qui créent des emplois—ont été forcées de supporter le fardeau financier d’une taxe inefficace qui augmente les coûts, sans aucune alternative viable.

Monsieur le Président, contrairement aux libéraux et au NPD de l’opposition, nous sommes à l’écoute des entreprises ontariennes et nous continuerons de demander à Ottawa d’abolir cette taxe.

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

M. Anthony Leardi: Merci à l’adjoint parlementaire pour sa réponse. Le gouvernement fédéral a laissé tomber les petites entreprises de l’Ontario, au niveau des remboursements de la taxe sur le carbone. Cet enjeu dépasse largement la question des remboursements. La Fédération canadienne de l’entreprise indépendante nous informe que plus de la moitié des entreprises sera forcée d’augmenter des prix. La dernière chose dont elles ont besoin, c’est une nouvelle hausse de la taxe libérale.

Monsieur le Président, est-ce que l’adjoint parlementaire peut nous expliquer de quelle manière notre gouvernement provincial appuie nos petites entreprises à l’heure où la taxe libérale fédérale sur le carbone menace leur survie?

M. Stéphane Sarrazin: Merci à l’excellent député d’Essex. Mon collègue a raison de souligner les effets dévastateurs que la taxe fédérale de carbone a sur les petites entreprises et les familles de l’Ontario. Le coût se reflète sur tout ce que les propriétaires de petites entreprises achètent, rendant l’équilibre budgétaire de plus en plus inabordable sous le poids de cette politique de taxation sur tout.

Qu’il s’agisse d’une augmentation des coûts pour les producteurs, les agriculteurs, ou d’un transport plus coûteux des marchandises jusqu’à nos marchés, les effets négatifs sont indéniables pour tout le monde, sauf pour le gouvernement libéral fédéral et provincial obsédé par cette façon de vouloir toujours augmenter les taxes.

Notre gouvernement se tient au côté des entreprises et travaille fort pour s’opposer à cette attaque pour réduire les coûts.

Contrairement à la chef du Parti libéral, Bonnie Crombie, qui est en faveur des taxes sur le carbone encore plus élevées, nous continuerons à lutter—

Le Président (L’hon. Ted Arnott): Merci beaucoup.

The next question.

Affaires francophones

Nous savons qu’il y a beaucoup plus à faire, et c’est pour ça que je travaille en étroite collaboration avec le ministre de l’Éducation pour nous assurer que les francophones de l’Ontario aient accès à des professeurs et des écoles francophones.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): And the supplementary.

Encore à madame la Ministre : environ un francophone sur deux choisit d’être servi en langue anglaise lorsqu’il s’inscrit sur la liste d’attente pour un médecin de famille, en espérant que ça soit plus rapide.

Nous avons présenté aussi une stratégie globale pour le recrutement et la formation de main-d’oeuvre francophone pour nous assurer que nous avons des travailleurs en santé pour donner accès aux francophones en Ontario à des services de santé. Ça inclut des infirmières et des médecins, monsieur le Président. Nous travaillons avec l’Hôpital Montfort et avec l’Université d’Ottawa et La Cité et les collèges à travers la province de l’Ontario pour nous assurer que nous avons ces travailleurs en santé.

Et de plus, monsieur le Président, nous avons fait beaucoup de travail auprès du gouvernement fédéral pour leur tenir à leur promesse d’avoir un corridor en immigration pour des travailleurs en santé qui nous viennent de l’extérieur.

Monsieur le Président, ce n’est pas un problème que nous allons remédier tout de suite aujourd’hui, mais nous travaillons depuis plusieurs années à remédier ce problème.

Taxation

Mr. Aris Babikian: Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Long-Term Care. The federal Liberal government raised the carbon tax by 23% on April 1. As Premier Ford has warned since day one, this tax is raising the cost of everything. It increases building costs and makes it more expensive to construct long-term-care homes. That’s not fair.

The Liberals, led by Bonnie Crombie queen of the carbon tax, continue to remain silent on this topic. Unlike the Liberals, our government will to continue to speak up, continue to fight for our seniors and continue to deliver real affordability.

Speaker, can the minister tell the House what our government is doing to build more homes and support seniors in our province?

Hon. Stan Cho: Speaker, this government has a plan. Let’s contrast that plan with the plan that the Liberals—or lack thereof—had since 2003, 21 years ago. They held that power until 2018. In that time, when they exited government, 611 net new beds to show for their efforts. That’s not enough for an aging population. This government knows that.

That’s why, since assuming office, we introduced the largest capital expansion plan in this country’s history to build and redevelop 58,000 spaces for our great seniors in this province of ours. To date, 18,000 spaces have been built or are under construction. However, we are facing challenges indeed, thanks to this carbon tax and the 23% increase on April 1. In fact, that’s why this budget introduces over $155 million to help our government continue to build Ontario’s long-term-care sector, an additional $200 million that homes can use towards capital development.

We have two minutes and 25 seconds until we vote on that budget. It’s never too late to do the right thing. I hope the Liberals vote in favour.

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

Mr. Aris Babikian: Thank you to the minister. My constituents will be pleased to hear how our government is building new long-term-care homes and is standing up for Ontario seniors.

Our seniors deserve to receive the care that they need and enjoy the high quality of life that they deserve in a long-term-care home. But the carbon tax is increasing the price of everything, from the costs of building material and transport to the day-to-day operations of the long-term-care homes.

Our government will always support Ontario families and ensure seniors can stay in the communities they helped build, close to their loved ones.

Speaker, can the minister please tell the House what our government is doing to protect Ontario’s families, especially our seniors, from the negative impact of the carbon tax?

Hon. Stan Cho: Speaker, this government is doing a lot, but do you know what would help our efforts? If the Liberals sitting to the left of that fine member would call their buddies in Ottawa and tell them, “Get rid of this tax.” There’s federal MPs doing the same for the Liberal Party. Why can’t the MPPs in this Legislature do the same?

To the member’s point: a 40.5% increase in construction costs in that member’s riding. That is a severe challenge to getting these spaces online and we know that we need it. I know that member’s riding. I have visited that member’s riding. It is a diverse riding. People come here from all over the world, and what we all have in common is that somewhere in our lives, we have a senior who built our lives as we know it, who gave us the opportunities that we have in this great country of ours.

Stand with us, to the Liberal Party over there. Stand against the queen of the carbon tax and say to axe this tax. Let’s get shovels in the ground. Let’s take care of our seniors in this great country.

Northern airports

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: The Ministry of Transportation operates 27 airports in Nishnawbe Aski Nation territory. The First Nations rely on these airports for critical goods and services. The waiting areas are substandard; unsafe facilities for passengers and pilots alike. The airports in Kiiwetinoong still need runway extensions and modern navigational aids to improve the flight access.

Speaker, when will the waiting areas in these airports be held up to standard and make sure that these runways are extended? When will these standards be brought up to standard, just like any other airport in Ontario?

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

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: Our teams have been working with many of the airports in those northern communities, and I can assure the member that we’ll continue to work with them, as the province has provided a commitment to 100% of the remote funding on an operational side: $14.5 million every single year.

We’ll continue to ensure those issues that have been raised by that member with respect to some of the flooding are taken care of and that we work together to ensure that those are fixed so we can continue to support that vital piece of infrastructure in our north. I look forward to working with the member on that specifically.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): That concludes our question period for this morning.

Women’s world hockey championship

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Niagara Falls has a point of order.

Mr. Wayne Gates: Thanks for allowing me to say a few words. I just want to congratulate the Canadian national women’s hockey team, who last night defeated the United States of America 6-5 in a thrilling overtime victory in Utica, New York. I can tell you that half the fans were from Canada, cheering on our women’s hockey team. So congratulations to our women’s hockey team.

Deferred Votes

2024 Ontario budget

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Next, we have a deferred vote on government order number 76, that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

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

The division bells rang from 1143 to 1148.

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

On March 26, 2024, Mr. Bethlenfalvy moved, seconded by Mr. Ford, Etobicoke North, that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Anand, Deepak

Babikian, Aris

Barnes, Patrice

Bethlenfalvy, Peter

Bouma, Will

Bresee, Ric

Byers, Rick

Calandra, Paul

Cho, Raymond Sung Joon

Cho, Stan

Clark, Steve

Coe, Lorne

Crawford, Stephen

Cuzzetto, Rudy

Dixon, Jess

Dowie, Andrew

Downey, Doug

Dunlop, Jill

Fedeli, Victor

Flack, Rob

Ford, Michael D.

Ghamari, Goldie

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Mike

Hogarth, Christine

Holland, Kevin

Jones, Sylvia

Jones, Trevor

Jordan, John

Kanapathi, Logan

Ke, Vincent

Kerzner, Michael S.

Khanjin, Andrea

Kusendova-Bashta, Natalia

Leardi, Anthony

Lecce, Stephen

Lumsden, Neil

MacLeod, Lisa

Martin, Robin

McCarthy, Todd J.

McGregor, Graham

Mulroney, Caroline

Oosterhoff, Sam

Pang, Billy

Parsa, Michael

Piccini, David

Pierre, Natalie

Pirie, George

Quinn, Nolan

Rae, Matthew

Riddell, Brian

Sabawy, Sheref

Sandhu, Amarjot

Sarkaria, Prabmeet Singh

Sarrazin, Stéphane

Saunderson, Brian

Scott, Laurie

Skelly, Donna

Smith, Dave

Smith, David

Smith, Graydon

Smith, Laura

Smith, Todd

Surma, Kinga

Tangri, Nina

Thanigasalam, Vijay

Thompson, Lisa M.

Tibollo, Michael A.

Triantafilopoulos, Effie J.

Wai, Daisy

Williams, Charmaine A.

Yakabuski, John

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): All those opposed to the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Andrew, Jill

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Bell, Jessica

Bourgouin, Guy

Bowman, Stephanie

Brady, Bobbi Ann

Burch, Jeff

Clancy, Aislinn

Fife, Catherine

Fraser, John

French, Jennifer K.

Gates, Wayne

Gretzky, Lisa

Harden, Joel

Hazell, Andrea

Hsu, Ted

Karpoche, Bhutila

Kernaghan, Terence

Mamakwa, Sol

Mantha, Michael

McCrimmon, Karen

McMahon, Mary-Margaret

Pasma, Chandra

Rakocevic, Tom

Sattler, Peggy

Schreiner, Mike

Shamji, Adil

Shaw, Sandy

Stiles, Marit

Tabuns, Peter

Vanthof, John

Vaugeois, Lise

West, Jamie

Wong-Tam, Kristyn

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Trevor Day): The ayes are 72; the nays are 34.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I declare the motion carried.

It is therefore resolved that the House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Motion agreed to.

Affordable Energy Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 sur l’énergie abordable

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 172,

An Act to improve energy affordability through distributed energy resources and deep retrofits / Projet de loi 172, Loi visant à rendre l’énergie plus abordable grâce aux ressources énergétiques distribuées et aux rénovations majeures.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Call in the members. This is a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1152 to 1153.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): On April 11, 2024, MPP Tabuns moved second reading of Bill 172,

An Act to improve energy affordability through distributed energy resources and deep retrofits.

All those in favour, please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Andrew, Jill

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Bell, Jessica

Bourgouin, Guy

Bowman, Stephanie

Brady, Bobbi Ann

Burch, Jeff

Clancy, Aislinn

Fife, Catherine

Fraser, John

French, Jennifer K.

Gates, Wayne

Gretzky, Lisa

Harden, Joel

Hazell, Andrea

Hsu, Ted

Karpoche, Bhutila

Kernaghan, Terence

Mamakwa, Sol

Mantha, Michael

McCrimmon, Karen

McMahon, Mary-Margaret

Pasma, Chandra

Rakocevic, Tom

Sattler, Peggy

Schreiner, Mike

Shamji, Adil

Shaw, Sandy

Stiles, Marit

Tabuns, Peter

Vanthof, John

Vaugeois, Lise

West, Jamie

Wong-Tam, Kristyn

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): All those opposed to the motion will please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Anand, Deepak

Babikian, Aris

Barnes, Patrice

Bethlenfalvy, Peter

Bouma, Will

Bresee, Ric

Byers, Rick

Calandra, Paul

Cho, Raymond Sung Joon

Cho, Stan

Clark, Steve

Coe, Lorne

Cuzzetto, Rudy

Dixon, Jess

Dowie, Andrew

Downey, Doug

Dunlop, Jill

Fedeli, Victor

Flack, Rob

Ford, Michael D.

Ghamari, Goldie

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Mike

Hogarth, Christine

Holland, Kevin

Jones, Trevor

Jordan, John

Kanapathi, Logan

Ke, Vincent

Kerzner, Michael S.

Khanjin, Andrea

Kusendova-Bashta, Natalia

Leardi, Anthony

Lecce, Stephen

Lumsden, Neil

MacLeod, Lisa

Martin, Robin

McCarthy, Todd J.

McGregor, Graham

Mulroney, Caroline

Oosterhoff, Sam

Pang, Billy

Parsa, Michael

Piccini, David

Pierre, Natalie

Pirie, George

Quinn, Nolan

Rae, Matthew

Riddell, Brian

Sabawy, Sheref

Sandhu, Amarjot

Sarkaria, Prabmeet Singh

Sarrazin, Stéphane

Saunderson, Brian

Scott, Laurie

Skelly, Donna

Smith, Dave

Smith, David

Smith, Graydon

Smith, Laura

Smith, Todd

Surma, Kinga

Tangri, Nina

Thanigasalam, Vijay

Thompson, Lisa M.

Tibollo, Michael A.

Wai, Daisy

Williams, Charmaine A.

Yakabuski, John

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Trevor Day): The ayes are 34; the nays are 69.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I declare the motion lost.

Second reading negatived.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): There being no further business this morning, this House stands in recess until 1 p.m.

The House recessed from 1157 to 1300.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Matthew Rae: I would like to introduce a couple of visitors I have here today. I have Andrew from the tourism association of Ontario, I have Sara and Derek from the OFA and from the great riding of the Perth–Wellington, and I have Melinda and Kevin from Farm Fresh Ontario—and it is also Kevin’s birthday today.

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy

Ms. Laurie Scott: I beg leave to present a report from the Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy and move its adoption.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Julia Douglas): Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 162,

An Act to enact the Protecting Against Carbon Taxes Act, 2024 and amend various Acts / Projet de loi 162, Loi édictant la Loi de 2024 sur la protection contre les taxes sur le carbone et modifiant diverses lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed? Agreed.

Report adopted.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

Introduction of Bills

Growing Agritourism Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 sur le développement de l’agrotourisme

Mr. Rae moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 186,

An Act to limit the liability in respect of agritourism / Projet de loi 186, Loi limitant la responsabilité à l’égard de l’agrotourisme.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Would the member for Perth–Wellington like to briefly explain his bill?

Mr. Matthew Rae: Yes, thank you for that opportunity. The bill enacts the Growing Agritourism Act, 2024,

an act that applies in respect of agri-tourism activities that are carried out as a part of a farming business that has an annual gross income of $7,000 or more.

Agri-tourism activities are defined as agriculture-related educational, entertainment, historical, cultural, limited accommodations or recreational activities, including you-pick operations or farm markets, conducted on a farm that allows or invites members of the general public to observe, participate in or enjoy that activity.

The act provides that if an agri-tourism provider includes warning language set out in the act in signs at or near the main entrance of each agri-tourism activity or in every contract entered into with each participant in respect of the agri-tourism activity, no cause of action arises against an agri-tourism provider for any harm a participant sustains during an agri-tourism activity if harm is a result of a risk inherent in an agri-tourism activity.

The act also provides that agri-tourism providers are not required to eliminate risks inherent in an agri-tourism activity.

Petitions

Land use planning

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of the people of Wilmot, who are very upset, for good reason, that their prime agricultural land is being expropriated without transparency or without due process.

It reads, “Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately pause all plans to expropriate and rezone lands in Wilmot—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I have to interrupt the member for Waterloo and remind all the members that standing order 42 prohibits members from reading the petition. They must make a statement summarizing the contents of the petition and they can indicate the number of signatures attached but shall not read the text of the petition.

Member for Waterloo.

Ms. Catherine Fife: So now all of us are mad. I’m just joking. I thought I could read the “therefore” part, not the “whereas.” I mean, what the hell is going on? Okay.

People in Wilmot are very angry for good reason. They are expropriating their land without good cause, without good rationale. I support the people of Wilmot and sustainable farming practices in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I want to thank the member for Waterloo. I didn’t write the standing order, but I have to enforce it, and the House passed it.

Petitions?

Road safety

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I always enjoy presenting petitions and sharing the voices and concerns of people across the province. In this case, I received a letter explaining that the petition that I am presenting to the House has 985 signatures, and that’s in addition to the almost 7,000 that they have submitted before on an issue close to my heart, in support of Bill 15, which is the Fairness for Road Users Act.

These folks have highlighted that they would seek stiffer penalties for drivers involved in fatal accidents where people were killed or catastrophically injured. Of course, I have stood by bikers’ rights organizations and others, especially those road safety advocates, in moving this bill forward. It is my bill. I support them and certainly we want this government to do right by these folks.

I support this petition, will affix my signature and send it to the table with page Aislyn.

Cancer screening

MPP Jill Andrew: This petition is in support of a Toronto local hip-hop artist and battle rap pioneer, Bishop Brigante, who at 45 was diagnosed with colorectal cancer. He wants to lower the minimum age for colonoscopies from 50 to 30 years of age, so we can have quicker detection. He’s trying to raise public awareness around colorectal cancer. The current age, for anyone who doesn’t know, for an asymptomatic cancer screening is 50, and we want to see that age lowered so we can help save lives.

There are many people in the arts community, in the film and TV community and, of course, in the health community who are speaking out about this. Bishop, Jully Black and many other artists are coming out in large numbers. I just want to tell them thank you and also say that I agree and support this petition and I’ll be affixing my signature to it.

Social assistance

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: It gives me great pleasure to present the following petitions on behalf of Dr. Sally Palmer, professor emerita at the school of social work in the faculty of social sciences at McMaster University. Now, to Dr. Palmer: Unfortunately, we’re not entitled to read directly the words from petitions within the Ontario Legislature due to recent changes by this government, so this will be my

summary.

I fully support the petition to double social assistance rates, will affix my signature and deliver it with page Simon to the Clerks.

Access to health care

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: It is my honour to present the following petition entitled “Support the Gender Affirming Health Care Act.” Within the petition, it points out that two-spirit, transgender, non-binary, gender-diverse and intersex communities have a great deal of difficulty when it comes to receiving the health care that they need in Ontario. Within Ontario, people should not have to fight for a health care that understands and recognizes their identity.

So this petition is to pass the gender-affirming health care act, something that I believe everyone, if they’re listening to their conscience, should pass, should support, and I hope that this government will finally decide to listen to its conscience once and for all.

I support this and will deliver it with page Armaan to the Clerks.

Mental health services

Ms. Catherine Fife: It is my distinct pleasure to present a petition that I’m not allowed read but focuses on the crisis in mental health across this province, in particular the experience of the Roth family, where they were denied access and timely care and their daughter Kaitlyn died by suicide. We can do better in the province of Ontario. I fully support the alternative destination locations for care instead of emergency rooms.

With that, I’ll be affixing my signature to the petition that I cannot read.

Orders of the Day

Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 pour réduire les formalités administratives afin de construire plus de logements

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 11, 2024, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 185,

An Act to amend various Acts / Projet de loi 185, Loi modifiant diverses lois.

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

Ms. Jessica Bell: I’m pleased to be rising here today to speak about Bill 185, the government’s latest housing bill, called Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024; I always love your titles.

This bill was also introduced at the same time as the government introduced an updated provincial policy statement for comment. These are pretty significant developments when it comes to the housing file, and I’m going to spend a bunch of my time today talking about what’s in the bill, as well as a little bit about what’s in the provincial policy statement, and then read some of the comments that have come in from stakeholders and also express some of what I like, what I have some concerns about and what I think is really not so great.

To summarize, this government has given us a bill that I would call a grab bag of half measures that reverse some of the really terrible housing mistakes that you’ve made in previous bills; notable is Bill 23. Some of the measures that you’ve introduced will also spur construction of new homes. I can see that. We do have a red flag that some of the homes that will be built will be single-family homes on farmland—sprawl. Sprawl is very expensive, and we have some concerns that this bill will really double down on that very expensive housing type.

Every time this government introduces a new bill, I really like to go through it and see what’s in it, and every time there is a new bill, I always see some flip-flopping. The government has attempted to cut back on development fees, and now we see that a lot of the development fee charges are back again. This bill also has flip-flopping as well.

What does this bill actually mean for people in Ontario who are struggling to find and keep their home? In the near term, it’s not going to help people find a home they can afford. It’s not going lower the rent. It’s not going to address the homelessness crisis. It’s not going to make it cheaper for people to buy their first home. That, I think, is a shame, because that is what housing affordability and the housing crisis is about: It’s about making homes affordable. When I look at this bill, there really isn’t a lot in the bill that’s going to address that critical issue of affordability. This government is cheap, and it’s people that suffer as a result of it.

I want to talk a little bit about the state of the housing crisis today. You just have to open up the newspaper, go to CBC, and every week, there are new, scary statistics and evidence and stories showing how bad it is out there—especially if you are lower-income or middle-income, you are really struggling to find a home to keep.

I’ll give you some examples. When it comes to the homelessness crisis—these are people who just can’t afford to find a home—we know that encampments in the city of Toronto have doubled; they’re at pandemic levels. We know that there are encampments in towns and cities all across Ontario, and that is new. It didn’t exist in the same way six years ago.

We know that the Auditor General, over five years ago now, said to this government, “You need to have a plan to address homelessness, because currently you don’t have one.” And six years later, this government still doesn’t have an effective plan to address homelessness. You would think, in a housing bill, that there would be a chunk of that bill that’s geared to addressing homelessness, but there isn’t. There’s nothing in this bill on that.

Then, I think about renters. There are 1.7 million renters in Ontario today; it used to be 1.4 million, but it’s going up because people can’t afford to buy a home. And when I look at the renter crisis and whether this bill addresses people who rent, I don’t see anything in there.

Your offices and our offices regularly get calls from people who are being illegally evicted, who cannot find a home, who are struggling with an above-guideline rent increase, who are being demovicted because their building is being converted into a condo. These people are worried. They’re scared. They don’t know if they’re going to be able to afford to live in Ontario anymore. What they want to see and what we want to see are strong measures to protect renters. We want to see strong rent control, including vacancy control, so there’s a cap on how much the rent can be raised between tenancies.

We want to see an effective Rental Housing Enforcement Unit. If a renter has an issue, like their washroom is not working, or they have mould that’s exacerbating their allergies or their asthma, and their landlord isn’t doing anything about it, they should have a number to call; they should be able to speak to a bylaw officer. There should be enough staff in that unit to respond, and the bylaw officer should have the enforcement tools and the capacity to take action, which means they should call up the landlord or the property manager and say, “This is the standard. Your renter is concerned.

There’s evidence to show that you’re not doing your part as a landlord. If you don’t fix it, there will be consequences to that.” That’s what renters want. They want a level playing field. They want their home to be properly maintained. There’s nothing in this bill that’s going to help those renters—and this isn’t a one-off thing. When I canvass, I’ll go into building after building after building and I’ll speak to renter after renter who will say to me, “This place isn’t properly maintained.” It’s standard operating procedure, and that needs to change.

We need to lift the floor to ensure renters can live in good homes.

And then the final piece, where I really see the housing crisis getting out of control—homelessness, renters—is for the first-time homebuyers who want to get their first home. If you are a first-time homebuyer in Ontario today, you are in a very tough situation because it has never been more expensive to buy a home and to pay off the mortgage of that home, with rising interest rates or high interest rates and the high cost of a home.

The National Bank of Canada’s recent statistics tell us that we are in the worst housing crisis for first-time homebuyers that we have seen in 41 years. That’s this government’s legacy. You’ve priced people out of the dream of home ownership. You’ve had six years to fix it. And under the six years this government has been in power, it has gone from bad to worse. That’s why people are saying, “I’m taking my skills and my talents with me, and I’m moving to Alberta.” Not good.

So the state of housing in Ontario today is really not great on all levels.

There’s so much that’s not in this bill that should be in there. There is no commitment to affordability. There is no fourplexes as of right. There is no commitment to increase density near transit stations or along transit corridors. There is no commitment to inclusionary zoning to require developments to do their fair share and build some affordable homes in big new developments. It makes sense. A lot of cities have done it. New York has done it—lots of cities. But we can’t. Why not? I don’t know.

There’s no rent control or vacancy control to stabilize rents and keep renters housed. There’s no improvement to the Landlord and Tenant Board, even though there are over 53,000 people waiting for a hearing at the Landlord and Tenant Board to get their disputes resolved in a fast, fair and efficient way—not happening here in Ontario.

There are no measures in this bill to stop illegal eviction, to curb AGI abuse and to stop bad-actor landlords who fail to properly maintain their homes. You would expect to see that in a housing bill, but it’s not there.

There is no plan in the bill to curb speculation to help first-time homebuyers buy their first home, even though we see CMHC data telling us very clearly that investors are buying three, four, eight, twelve homes and they’re pricing out first-time homebuyers.

There is no plan to increase investment to end or seriously address homelessness. There is no serious plan to build affordable homes or supportive housing. There’s none of it.

This government has chosen to put all their eggs into the basket of building more homes, especially homes on farmland, and I’ve got a lot of concerns about that. Nor does this government take any serious effort to address the question of who are we building homes for and how much are they going to cost—a lot missing.

When I look at what this government is doing, I often look at what the BC NDP government is doing and I like to do a compare and contrast. This government likes to say, “Well, we’re going to just build our way out of the housing crisis. We’re going to build so many homes, you won’t believe it. We’re going to build 1.5 million homes and it’s going to make everything affordable.” But, even going by your own benchmark of building more homes and ignoring everything else, you’re falling short. In Ontario, housing starts are going down month over month. You can see the CMHC data. It is very clear: Housing starts are going down.

The Conservatives like to say, “Well, it’s all the federal government’s fault. It’s all the Bank of Canada’s fault. It’s everybody’s fault but ours.” The reality is that other provinces have found a way to build in this tougher housing environment, and it is the BC NDP government where housing starts are going up. They went up 11%. What are they doing right and what is the Conservative government doing wrong, and why aren’t some of the things the BC NDP government are doing right in this bill? I don’t get it.

I’m going to give a little bit of a

summary of what the BC NDP government is doing, and hopefully, for the MPPs opposite, you’ll introduce these as amendments in committee.

The government in BC is legalizing more affordable housing options, including semis, townhomes, multiplex apartments in all neighbourhoods, and they’re increasing density along transit corridors. That makes a lot of sense to me. I would like to see an amendment in committee that would allow that.

The BC NDP government is allowing taller apartments and condos near transit stations. That also makes a lot of sense. It’s smart, sustainable urban planning. This government has had two years—two years—to approve increased density near transit stations in Toronto. You’ve had over 104 requests from the city of Toronto to do that and you can’t bring yourself to do it. I don’t get it. It makes a lot if sense.

The BC NDP government is also bringing in what I really like to see, which is that they’re investing money into building and buying housing. What that looks like is, they’ve established a fund, $500 million, and they’re giving it to non-profits, land trusts and developers to buy and build non-market housing. It makes a whole lot of sense. It’s much quicker, it’s cheaper, and it makes a whole lot of sense. It keeps people housed. I would like to see this government move ahead on an initiative like that.

They’ve set up a renter protection fund and they’re also looking at taking very practical measures to address speculation. I’m not exactly surprised that this government doesn’t like to touch investor-led speculation, given who your donors are, but I think it’s pretty important that you do so because it is a very effective way to stabilize housing prices, help first-time home buyers and renters.

The BC NDP government, for instance, has brought in measures to restrict Airbnbs in investment properties. We can convert Airbnbs to long-term rentals and increase long-term rental stock so our health care workers and our construction workers, our supermarket workers can afford to find a home and keep a home that’s a rental. They can save up and buy their own home. It makes a lot of sense.

They’ve brought in a vacant home tax. If you are an investor who doesn’t pay your fair share of taxes in BC, or you leave your home vacant for more than six months of the year, then you’re required to put a chunk of money—give it to the government so they can build affordable housing. You can either rent out that property, sell it or contribute your fair share to affordable housing. It’s a vacant home and speculation tax. It’s incredibly popular. It has raised over $80 million for affordable housing and it has motivated people who have a vacant home to rent it out or sell it. It’s win-win-win.

This government—I hear them every year say they’re going to look into bringing forward a vacant home tax. Fall economic statement, latest budget—they always say it, but the details never arrive. The legislation never arrives. The regulation is never posted. You talk about it, but you don’t act on it. I think it’s really important that we act on it.

The BC NDP government is also bringing in real estate transparency, beneficial ownership. No longer can an individual set up a numbered corporation or a real estate investment trust and buy properties anonymously, often for the purposes of tax evasion or fraud. It’s a huge issue in BC. We know it’s a huge issue in Ontario. We know it’s driving up housing prices. OREA supports it; stakeholders support it; we support it. The federal government is looking into it. It’s very practical.

I would like this government to move forward on a practical measure like that. It’s the kind of measure that I would like to see in a housing bill. It’s not there yet. Maybe it will be in the next one. Maybe I’ll be pleasantly surprised, and it will be introduced in committee.

So that’s what the BC NDP government is doing right.

There are some things in this bill that aren’t bad. Then, there are some things in this bill that really are terrible. Then, there are a whole lot of things that should be in this bill that aren’t. I’m going to spend a bit of time going into the bill itself. I’m going to go step-by-step, for those who are listening.

The first measure that I’m going to look at is a

schedule where the province can compel the city of Toronto to provide assistance directly or indirectly to a specified manufacturing business or other industrial or commercial enterprise. Currently, municipalities are banned from offering special discounts and incentives to one industry over another. It’s to stop a Hunger Games mentality where municipalities compete with each other. So this would give the city of Toronto the power to do that, and it will enable the province to compel the city of Toronto to do that, too. I’m curious to know if the city of Toronto asked for this power, or if they’re wanting it.

I’m curious to know what specific industry will be getting that special incentive, tax break etc. I have those questions.

The second piece of the

schedule that is a little concerning is this government is going to ban third-party appeals to the land tribunal, which will mean that residents will not be able to go to the land tribunal to contest a development, be it a condo or a quarry. The government brought this change in with Bill 23, where they banned third-party appeals. But then, there was all this backlash and concern, so they backtracked a bit. Now, it seems that you want to reintroduce it again.

When we are thinking about the land tribunal, it’s very clear the land tribunal does need to be reformed. There are some frivolous applications to the land tribunal that are stopping very worthy projects, such as a hospital expansion or an affordable housing development. What comes to mind is the affordable housing development in the member for Willowdale’s riding. It’s 59 modular homes that will be built near a transit station to house people who need supportive housing. That project—city of Toronto was fair, and they put supportive or affordable housing projects in every riding in the city of Toronto.

But Willowdale just couldn’t bring themselves to say yes, the member for Willowdale couldn’t bring themselves to say yes, and two years later, that affordable housing project is stalled. Those modular homes are sitting in a warehouse somewhere—we think it’s Parry Sound—wrapped in shrink wrap. The city is spending upwards of $50,000 a month in rent for these modular homes to sit empty when they should be in Willowdale, housing people.

When I think about people who hold up useful, needed developments, I always think of the member for Willowdale and his decision to hold up affordable housing in his own riding.

It makes a lot of sense to bring in land tribunal reform so that projects that are of the public good and have affordable housing requirements are not needlessly held up in the land tribunal. But to say that nobody can bring an application to the land tribunal I think is bit much. Municipalities and residents deserve to have a say over what happens in their community.

It makes sense for the provincial government to work with municipalities to ensure that they can meet their housing targets and to develop official plans that enable them to do so and that the land tribunal becomes a tribunal not of first resort but of last resort because projects are being approved and built, following an official plan that says yes to density. I believe that would be a better way.

This bill is looking at making changes to the building code to allow 18-storey mass-timber buildings. We are hearing from stakeholders that this is a good thing. We agree. It makes sense to build using timber. We know that it is structurally sound, and it is good to see that this change is in this bill.

What we would also like to see in this bill, given that we’re talking about the building code, is a commitment to mandate electric-vehicle charging stations in new developments so that we can do the sustainable thing and transition, be a leader in moving to an electric-vehicle-led province, where we not just build electric vehicles in Ontario but we make it easy for people to buy a vehicle and use a vehicle and get from A to B in an electric vehicle.

But that’s only going to happen if it’s easy for people to charge the electric vehicle, because if you can’t charge it, you can’t drive it and you’re not going to buy it. I’ve had residents approach me and say, “I would love to buy an electric vehicle, but I have nowhere to charge it, because I don’t have my own driveway.” It’s stopping them from making that choice, which we know more people should be encouraged to make. So it would be good to see that change in the building code.

We’ve also heard from stakeholders, given that we’re opening up the building code, that the building code needs to be enforced, which means that when new construction is happening there are competent and qualified building inspectors that go to that site to ensure that the builder is doing everything they need to do to meet code—because what we don’t want is an individual moving into a home, spending a million dollars buying that home and then finding out that that home is defective, that there’s mould after 18 months, that they have flooding, that the heating and cooling system doesn’t work very well even though the building is new.

We are getting these calls from residents who have moved into new condos, spent upwards of a million dollars on that new condo, and they’re finding that the building is defective. It makes a lot of sense that we make sure that the building code is enforced.

We’re also hearing from stakeholders about the building code and the need to lift the building code floor so we are building energy-efficient, resilient and well-made homes. We know the building code is being reviewed right now. There are conversations that are happening to align the building code provincially with the building code federally, and what we hear again and again and again is that the provincial government wants to keep the building code at the bare minimum when we know we need to lift the floor so when people buy a home they’re getting a well-maintained home, and that means improving the building code. We would like to see these changes in the bill.

The next change I’d like to discuss is the move by this government to no longer require parking in a development near transit. That is a move that we think makes sense. Stakeholders, environmental groups, planning authorities have said that it is time to do that.

There are a few caveats that I want to point out, however. The first caveat is that, if we are looking at building big buildings with less parking, then it’s essential that we make sure that the public transit that services that building is very good.

The government is bringing in a use-it-or-lose-it law that gives municipalities more power to motivate a developer to build a development, once they’ve been given the approvals to do so. I would like to personally thank the member for Niagara Centre, who is sitting right here next to me. Let’s give him a round of applause. The reason why is because the member for Niagara Centre has been advocating for quite some time now for municipalities to have the power to bring in a use-it-or-lose-it policy. We are pleased to see a use-it-or-lose-it policy in this bill.

Essentially what this is: If a developer applies to build but then they don’t build, then they could lose the right to build. The reason why this is so important is because we have a housing crisis. We need to build more homes and we are not in a situation where we can allocate planning staff to approve permits, going through all that process, and then having developers sit on that land—maybe because they want to make more profit later on; maybe because they want to sell it, because once it’s rezoned, it’s worth more money, and for them, it’s really about a flipping opportunity and not a building opportunity.

That’s not what we want. We want construction to take place. So this is a good move.

The government is giving municipalities the power to move forward on a use-it-or-lose-it policy by giving them a few new powers. One, they can reallocate sewage or water capacity from one development to another if this developer is not building in at timely manner, and they’re also giving municipalities the power to set expiry dates for site plan and subdivision approval. So if a site plan is approved and, in two years’ time, the developer hasn’t built it, then the site plan approval could be withdrawn. This all makes sense to us. If we hear something different from municipalities, we’ll let you know, but that actually makes sense to us.

This government is looking at putting more guardrails on the ministerial zoning orders—controversial ministerial zoning orders. These have been controversial for some time because the province essentially gave themselves the power to exempt a development from local planning and provincial rules, and also to impose their own rules on a development. We know that it created a two-tier planning approval process, where, if you were maybe giving money to the PC Party, were friends with a minister, then you can use the MZO process and get your development approved very quickly.

That meant that everyone else, all the other developers, had to go to the back of the line and use the more traditional, mainstream planning process.

So it was really a two-tier system, and a lot of developers were very upset by that process, as well as residents who said, “What about us? We want to have a say,” and municipalities who said, “We want to have a say in how things get planned in our neighbourhoods and our cities.” So it was very controversial.

Once again, you’re looking at rewriting it. This rewrite means that an applicant—so the developer—has to explain why it’s necessary, maybe get local municipal appeal for the project, and the government has said that we will post it on the Environmental Registry if it’s non-urgent. So if it’s an urgent MZO, you don’t have to post it on the Environmental Registry, but if it’s a non-urgent MZO, you do. That’s our assessment of it right now. We’re a little concerned about what this means, but we do appreciate that there are some additional guardrails compared to what it was before.

The government is looking at changing development fees again. You remember Bill 23. Bill 23 was an absolute disaster when it came to development charges. The government made the decision to radically change how development fees were collected. Municipalities were no longer able to be collect development fees for affordable housing, and that remains true, as well as for parkland charges, and that the development fees had to be phased in. It was a lot of changes.

A lot of municipalities came to us, including AMO, and said, “Because of this, we are going to be losing $1 billion a year in infrastructure revenue, because you’re hampering our ability to collect developer fees from developers to just partially pay for infrastructure”—it just partially covers the cost of infrastructure. And this government, at the time, chose to ignore those calls.

Time went on, and what we found is that a lot of municipalities had to dramatically raise property taxes to cover the cost of the infrastructure: 5%, 8%, 10%—that’s on you. I want to call that a Ford tax. What we also found is that municipalities no longer had the money that they needed to pay for the infrastructure to allow development to happen. And in some regions, municipalities were saying, “We actually can’t even approve that development because we don’t have the money to pay for the infrastructure to connect those new homes to the sewage and the roads and the water that they need.” It actually hampered housing construction. It also threw planning departments into chaos.

I am pleasantly pleased to see that with Bill 185, there is some rollback on that. There is an acknowledgement from this government that municipalities matter, that their development fees matter and that funding for infrastructure matters. So that’s a partial step in the right direction. I don’t know why we had to waste two years or more for the government to realize what everybody else knows, but we did. Meanwhile, the housing crisis continues.

This is what concerns me. I’ve read through what some of our stakeholders are saying, and I’m going to spend a little time reading what AMO has said, because they did take a deep dive into the development charges piece. AMO said, “AMO will continue to highlight the need to reinstate both housing services and the cost of land as eligible DC costs.” So you’ve partially returned some powers, but municipalities are still out some money. And they give an estimate. They say, “Together, these changes are costing municipalities around $4 billion over a 10-year period and will have a material impact on municipalities’ ability to invest in community housing.”

So what AMO is telling you there is that even though there have been some modest rollbacks of the development charges framework, municipalities are still not able to collect developer fees for affordable housing. They’re still not able to do it. In the middle of a housing crisis, they still cannot collect development fees for affordable housing and shelter. I think that is a shame and I think that does need to be changed because every municipality I talk to is telling me they have a homelessness crisis. They have a wait-list for people who want to get into community housing or supportive housing. They can’t meet the need. So that is a problem.

There have also been some changes around how development fees are collected and whatnot. Municipalities are no longer required to refund application fees if they don’t get a development approved within a strict time frame—good. The government brought this change in with Bill 109.

We kept hearing from planning departments that it actually slowed the process down, because municipalities will say, “We don’t have the capacity to get this approved within the 90-day time frame that you want it approved by, that we’re required to get it approved by, so we’re going to make you do all this pre-work in advance, before you can even submit an application.” They couldn’t get it done within the time frame.

We also see here in this bill that the government is looking at banning municipalities from telling developers to do work before they’ve officially submitted a development application. That’s one way of trying to solve the problem. The challenge with that is, we’re already hearing from cities that are telling us, “That’s a concern because we are not able to get an application approved where there is even just some kind of public consultation”—we’re talking about one meeting—“with the time frames that we have.”

This bill is also looking at taking away the right for some regional municipalities to be the leaders in planning responsibility. It looks like Halton, York and Peel regions will be losing their ability to plan, and that Waterloo, Durham, Niagara and Simcoe—their ability to plan will also be restricted in some way in the future, on proclamation. What we worry about here is that downloading the right to plan to local municipalities could create very chaotic and haphazard planning, because it affects a region’s ability to plan well and to plan efficiently. It could create a very piecemeal planning process.

So we’ve got some concerns about that. We are talking to municipalities to see how it affects each municipality in particular, because it seems like some municipalities have different perspectives on it.

A Waterloo resident is pretty concerned about how this decision to eliminate planning responsibility from the region and download it to local municipalities could affect the Waterloo area. He says it could affect our water supply, which is a huge concern. He’s worried that if the Conservatives continue down this watch, we could have another Walkerton, which is also very concerning. He’s also very concerned about how this decision to remove planning authority from the region could affect environmental protections and farmland in the area, including greenbelt land. So there are some concerns there that I urge this government to look into.

This bill is also going to be exempting student housing from the Planning Act, which would give universities and colleges more latitude to build more student housing, and it would enable them to build student housing more quickly.

Let’s be very clear: Building student housing is absolutely essential. Some of the worst housing shortages and housing affordability crises we have in Ontario are in towns that have a big student population—we’re talking Ottawa, Kingston, Waterloo, Kitchener, Toronto, London, Hamilton. It is a problem.

In my riding, I have the University of Toronto. We regularly work with students who cannot afford to pay the rent or who are living three, four people to a bedroom—or having people sleep in a lounge room because they can’t afford to have a home to their own or to share a home with one person.

When you look at the price of student housing—honestly, I was flabbergasted. To rent a dorm—so you’re sharing a room—at the University of Toronto can cost you a minimum of $2,300 a month, and it could go up to $3,000 a month. That’s a lot. That’s more than any student I know would want to spend, and it’s more than most parents I know would want to spend.

When we’re thinking about building more student housing, it’s a good thing. But what I would urge this government to do is to also address the issue of affordability. Are we building student housing so that universities can drain even more revenue from people, because they’re not being funded properly by the provincial government? Or are we building student housing that’s affordable for students? I fear that this government is going to be moving down a path where we’re building student housing that’s not affordable for students.

It is also concerning to me that student housing is exempt from the Residential Tenancies Act. If you are a student, you don’t have protection from illegal evict