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

November 1, 2023

43rd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2023-Nov-01 vol. A (PDF)

L106A - Wed 1 Nov 2023 / Mer 1er nov 2023

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 1 November 2023 Mercredi 1 er novembre 2023

Orders of the Day

Greenbelt Statute Law Amendment Act, 2023 / Loi de 2023 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne la ceinture de verdure

Members’ Statements

Barbecue event in Newmarket–Aurora

Canadian Remembrance Torch

Winter road safety

Entretien hivernal des routes

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease / Upper Canada Child Care

Welland Food Drive

Violence in schools

Goodwill Amity Power of Work Awards Lunch

Remembrance Day

Anti-Semitism

Introduction of Visitors

Independent members

Question Period

Government accountability

Government accountability

Government accountability

Taxation

Government accountability

Taxation

Government appointments

Municipal development

Taxation

Affordable housing

Children and youth

Taxation

Dental care

Taxation

Prostate cancer

4-H Ontario

Visitor

Canadian Remembrance Torch

Correction of record

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy

Introduction of Bills

Bongo Studios Inc. Act, 2023

Petitions

Labour legislation

Municipal planning

Hospital services

Social assistance

Sexual violence and harassment

Health care

Addiction services

Don d’organes

Anti-vaping initiatives for youth

Assistance sociale

Children’s mental health services

Orders of the Day

Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act, 2023 / Loi de 2023 pour mieux servir les consommateurs et les entreprises

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Greenbelt Statute Law Amendment Act, 2023 / Loi de 2023 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne la ceinture de verdure

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 31, 2023, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 136,

An Act to amend the Greenbelt Act, 2005 and certain other Acts, to enact the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Act, 2023, to repeal

an Act and to revoke various regulations / Projet de loi 136, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2005 sur la ceinture de verdure et d’autres lois, édictant la Loi de 2023 sur la Réserve agricole de Duffins-Rouge et abrogeant une loi et divers règlements.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): When we last debated Bill 136, the member from Mushkegowuk–James Bay had the floor. He still has time on the clock. I recognize the member from Mushkegowuk–James Bay.

M. Guy Bourgouin: Bon matin, tout le monde. Ça me fait tout le temps plaisir de me lever pour mes commettants ou mes citoyens de Mushkegowuk–James Bay.

Ce matin, encore, je vais revenir un petit peu, vu que j’avais commencé—peut-être que ce sont de nouvelles personnes qui écoutent ce matin. On débat un projet de loi : la Loi modifiant la Loi de 2005 sur la ceinture de verdure et d’autres lois, édictant la Loi de 2023 sur la Réserve agricole de Duffins-Rouge et abrogeant une loi et divers règlements.

Ce matin, ce qu’on débat, c’est un projet de loi où le gouvernement dit : « Bien, on va protéger la ceinture de verdure contre le gouvernement. » Plus ou moins, c’est ça que ça veut dire. C’est assez—comment est-ce qu’on dirait ça? C’est ironique que le gouvernement veuille protéger la population de l’Ontario contre le gouvernement. Ce n’est pas plus compliqué à comprendre : le gouvernement s’est fait pogner les deux mains dans le plat de bonbons. Puis, il y avait plus que leurs mains dans le plat de bonbons—on se comprend, là—il y avait aussi leurs amis proches qui avaient les deux mains dans le plat de bonbons.

Puis, aujourd’hui, avec ce qu’on voit—c’est un précédent, là. On n’a jamais vu un gouvernement qui s’est fait l’objet d’une investigation criminelle par la GRC. C’est un précédent. Si on se souvient, en 2018 quand le gouvernement Ford a été élu, ils disaient : « Nous, on ne fera pas comme les libéraux ». On se souvient que les libéraux—il y a une raison pourquoi ça fait deux élections qu’ils ne sont même pas un parti officiel. C’est parce qu’ils ont vécu un scandale eux aussi. Mais ils ne feront jamais comme eux autres. Ils ne feraient pas comme eux autres.

Ils seraient un gouvernement qui serait pour le peuple, qui serait transparent et qui ne vivrait pas la même situation que les libéraux ont faite avec le gouvernement.

Ils n’ont pas fait comme les libéraux; ils ont fait pire que les libéraux. Là, on vit une crise. On voit un gouvernement qui se fait investiguer criminellement par la GRC—pas fort, là. On a un gouvernement qui se pète les bretelles et qui dit : « Nous, on est là et on fait les bonnes choses. On est transparent. On consulte. »

Quand on entend nos amis du gouvernement parler, pour ce projet de loi—quand tu penses que, quand ils parlent pour ce projet de loi là, ils usent les mêmes mots, les mêmes arguments que, nous, on disait dans le temps, quand on votait, quand on disait : « Non, on ne peut pas supporter le projet de loi envers la ceinture de verdure. » Je peux vous dire qu’on a amené des amendements, puis ils ont refusé tous nos amendements. Mais on ne pouvait pas supporter le gouvernement. Quand ils disent : « Oh! oui, le NPD a voté contre; l’opposition a voté contre »—oui, on a voté contre.

Je vais vous le dire honnêtement, je suis content qu’on ait voté contre, parce que regarde le jackpot qu’ils sont dedans, comme c’est là. Ils se font investiguer criminellement.

Je sais qu’il y a du monde intègre sur ce bord-là de la Chambre. Il y a des députés qui sont très intègres. Je veux répéter certaines paroles que mon collègue de Timiskaming–Cochrane a dit hier quand il a parlé justement de ce projet de loi, parce qu’on sait qu’on a appris que le caucus était mis au courant de la situation de la ceinture de verdure. Ça veut dire que vous ne pouvez plus plaider non coupables ou que vous n’étiez pas au courant, que vous avez à répondre à qui vient vous voir—puis, je sais qu’il y a du monde intègre là-dedans, parce que si ces investigations démontrent que vous étiez impliqués ou que le gouvernement était impliqué, ça va refléter même sur vous autres.

Mon collègue, la manière dont il l’a expliqué, il a dit : « Il y a quelqu’un qui va payer le prix pour ça. » J’espère que ce ne sont pas certains de vous qui vont payer le prix cher pour ça. Il y en a qui vont le payer, par exemple. Il y en a qui vont payer le prix, puisque ça prend tout le temps un « fall guy », comme on dit. Ça prend du monde qui va payer le prix. Mais vous pensez si c’est vous qui payez le prix? Je sais que vous êtes intègres, certaines personnes là-dedans. On ne peut pas dire tout le monde, mais j’en connais—on bâtit des relations.

Veut, veut pas, même si quand on parle des projets de loi ou on parle dans la période de questions, on fait de la confrontation peut-être un peu trop partisane, à la fin de la journée, il y a des relations qui se bâtissent. Mais comment allez-vous répondre à la GRC quand vous ne pouvez plus dire : « Bien, au caucus, on l’a appris et on n’a rien fait »? Parce qu’on est élu pour faire certain qu’on protège les intérêts des citoyens. Puis, je sais qu’il y en a de vous autres qui voyaient très clair.

Il y a une chanson qui me revient tout le temps à tête; elle est en anglais, par contre. Je vais vous la chanter ce matin.

It goes, “Whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? Bad boys, bad girls, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?”

Interjections.

M. Guy Bourgouin: On rit de ça. C’est ironique, mais, veut, veut pas, ça peut arriver, sérieusement. On ne rit pas de la situation—des fois, il faut rire de ces choses-là. À la fin de la journée, c’est ce qui se passe.

Je veux vous parler un peu plus de mon comté et comment ça ne s’arrange pas, parce qu’on sait qu’avec tout ça, un projet de loi pour protéger les citoyens du gouvernement qui se fait investiguer par la GRC, par l’OPP—écoute, il y a un nouveau rapport qui va sortir. Bien, il est sorti : plus de 700 pages sur les MZOs. Si, moi, j’étais sur votre bord, je serais inquiet, pas à peu près, parce que, moi, je me souviens qu’on a voté contre. On a voté contre pour les mêmes raisons qu’on disait : « Non, ça prend de la consultation publique. Ça prend de la transparence. »

Puis ça prend bien de choses—on vous a amené des recommandations, mais non. « On sait plus. On est le gouvernement. We know best. »

Tu sais, on voit un aigle en haut-là et on voit un hibou sur notre bord. Il y a une raison pour ça, et il ne faut jamais oublier : parce que, nous, on est là pour conseiller notre gouvernement quand on voit des lacunes dans vos projets de loi. Ça ne veut pas dire que, à cause que vous êtes une majorité, vous faites de l’abus ou que vous faites—on a une obligation de vous le dire, puis on l’a fait. Qu’on soit sur n’importe quel bord, on a une obligation à nos citoyens de faire sûr qu’on protège leurs intérêts. Que ce soit le gouvernement, l’opposition ou bien donc même un parti qui n’est pas reconnu, on a une obligation de le faire.

Dans ce cas-ci, je peux vous dire qu’il y en a de vous, j’en suis certain, qui vous vous posez des questions avec tout ce qui se passe aujourd’hui. Si ça se détermine qu’il y a eu de l’abus de pouvoir et qu’il y a des charges criminelles qui se mettent, pour certains de vous ça va peut-être refléter sur vous, même si vous n’aviez rien à faire avec ça. Ça, c’est dommage pour des personnes que je connais qui sont très intègres.

Je veux revenir un petit peu sur la ceinture de verdure. Il y avait tout ce brouhaha-là et le gouvernement donnait des passe-droits à ses amis proches, les gros donateurs. C’est ce qu’on découvre. Là, ce n’est pas moi que le dit. C’est la vérificatrice. C’est le commissaire à l’intégrité.

C’est notre chef qui a poussé pour avoir ces investigations-là. Puis là aujourd’hui, mais, on est rendu où on est : avec une investigation par la GRC. Mais c’est un gouvernement qui veut tout le temps se péter les bretelles, et qui a dit : « Non, nous, on ne fera pas la même affaire que les libéraux. » Ils ont juste fait pire.

Quant à bâtir les 1,5 million de maisons qu’on doit bâtir dans la province, on sait que le privé fait

partie du portrait. On n’est pas contre le privé—au contraire. Même si le gouvernement semble dire, les conservateurs aiment dire, qu’on est contre le privé, on n’est pas contre le privé. Le gouvernement dit que le privé va être capable de bâtir certaines maisons, mais le privé le dit, eux autres mêmes, qu’ils ne seront pas capables de tout bâtir, les maisons. C’est là que le gouvernement doit venir aider.

Le gouvernement doit venir aider quand on parle de « supportive housing », quand on parle de « subsidized housing », quand on parle de coopératives, quand on parle des soins de longue durée et on parle aussi des—je me souviens dans mon comté, aux dernières élections, ils ont fait une grosse annonce. On sait que nous, on a une maison de soins de longue durée qui est un « C home ». J’en ai parlé cette semaine, puis j’ai envoyé une lettre au nouveau ministre. J’espère que le ministre revienne avec des bonnes réponses, parce que quand on parle de ma circonscription, que c’est prêt de—on attend trois ans et plus.

La maison de soins de longue durée qu’ils avaient annoncée en 2022 est supposée d’être ouverte en 2025. C’est une maison privée—une des deux. À Kapuskasing, on parle d’Extendicare. Quand ils ont annoncé ça, c’était bienvenu pour la communauté. J’ai même remercié le ministre dans le temps ou le premier ministre Ford dans le temps. J’ai remercié le gouvernement de faire l’annonce, parce que c’est un grand besoin dans notre région.

Mais, là, il nous reste peut-être 18 mois avant 2025, et il n’y a rien de fait—zéro; zéro de fait. Il n’y a même pas une pelletée; même pas rien. La municipalité est très concernée. On entend d’Extendicare que, non, ils ont des projets pour le faire. Mais aussi, ils disent : « Bien, là, on n’a pas assez d’argent pour bâtir, parce que ça coûte trop cher. » Puis en plus, ils m’ont dit qu’avec la situation des agences, ça coûte trop cher.

Mais tout ce temps, par exemple, on a du monde—là, on parle de 60 lits. On a un autre 68 lits, les nouveaux 68 lits qu’ils vont bâtir. C’est, quoi, 122, 128? Les nouveaux lits qu’ils vont bâtir : il n’y a rien de fait. Le problème—c’est ça que j’ai expliqué au ministre. C’est pour ça que j’ai dit que j’espère que le ministre revienne avec des réponses positives, parce que la communauté est très concernée.

Le « C home » qu’on a, là, il va y avoir beaucoup d’investissements. Si tu regardes la loi, la manière qu’elle est structurée, pour donner des extensions—s’ils y en donnent des extensions, il faut qu’il y ait un plan pour améliorer le « C home », mais aussi pour—bien, qu’il y ait un plan. Mais s’ils ne bâtissent pas l’Extendicare ou s’ils ne rénovent pas le « C home » pour être capables d’avoir une nouvelle maison de soins de longue durée à Kap, qu’est-ce qu’on va faire de ces 60 patients-là qui sont dans les lits? Où est-ce qu’on va les mettre? Parce qu’il n’y a pas de place.

Timmins est à plus de 150 kilomètres de Kapuskasing. Hearst : il y a un foyer qui n’est pas capable de les prendre. On a le Manoir, qui est plein à craquer. Ils vont demander pour une extension, et qu’est-ce qui va arriver? Où est-ce qu’on va les mettre? Ce monde, comme c’est là, ils ont une place. C’est ça qui est concernant. C’est ça que j’ai expliqué au ministre. J’ai dit : « Qu’est qu’on va faire de ce monde-là? » On ne peut pas les mettre dans nos poches; on ne peut pas les retourner à maison. C’est très concernant.

Il y a tellement une pénurie quand on parle de « supportive housing », « subsidized housing ». Mais c’est là que le gouvernement va falloir venir en aide pour supplémenter ce que le privé ne peut pas faire, parce que le privé dit lui-même : « On n’est pas capable de le faire. » Mais on sait que le gouvernement est contre. Quand on parle de coopératives, c’est pareil comme si on parlait de la « plague ». On parle de : « Ah, non, on ne peut pas faire ça ».

On sait que ça s’est déjà fait. Ça s’est fait avant et après la guerre. Il y a des gouvernements précédents conservateurs qui l’ont fait. Ça fonctionnait. On sait que c’est un modèle qui marche; une fois qu’il est bâti, c’est autosuffisant. C’est une coopérative qui fonctionne, mais on est fermé à cette idée-là. Pourquoi? Ça existe; ça marche. On sait qu’il y a du succès : il y a des modèles qui sont là.

Mais quand tu penses que dans les régions comme la nôtre, dans le Nord, quand on a déjà une pénurie de maisons juste pour les jeunes couples et tout ça, mais qu’on a en plus de ça—quand on parle de « supportive housing », il y a des familles qui déménagent. Elles s’en vont dans les villes pour être capables d’avoir des services, parce qu’il n’y en a pas. Il y a des attentes de trois à cinq ans. Trouvez-vous que c’est normal? Moi, je ne trouve pas que c’est normal.

C’est là que le gouvernement doit rentrer en fonction pour aider à répondre à ce besoin-là, parce que le privé le dit, eux autres mêmes, qu’ils ne sont pas là : « On ne sera pas capable de répondre à tout le besoin. » Mais on l’a déjà fait, comme gouvernement, y compris les conservateurs. On a une obligation de le faire pour répondre aux besoins des communautés comme le Nord.

Je pense à la famille qui a déménagé à Cochrane juste pour leur garçon qui était autiste. Il a fini l’école. Il était un adulte—pas de place. Ils ont vendu leur maison, et ont pris une chance de déménager à Cochrane pour trouver un placement pour leur garçon. Ils regardaient même Ottawa. Ils ne voulaient pas déménager. Ils voulaient juste de la place.

Puis, si on avait une maison de sept à huit lits, ça répondrait aux besoins de la région. On est fermé à l’idée. On est fermé à l’idée, mais on passe un projet de loi pour se protéger, par exemple.

On a une obligation de faire beaucoup mieux que ça.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: I want to thank the member for his address this morning. Clearly, Speaker, the housing crisis is the most important issue facing not just Ontario but Canada today, and in our exuberance to get the job done, we made some mistakes, and the Premier has acknowledged that. The Premier has acknowledged that we were not on the same page with the people of Ontario. As a result, we brought forth this legislation that is going to codify the boundaries of the greenbelt.

But I’m going to ask the opposition: They know what a crisis we’re in as well as we do. It’s on the news every day. Will they get behind us now to help solve the housing crisis in Ontario, which will help solve the housing crisis in Canada—because without it, the future is bleak. I want to say to the members: Stop politicking on housing and let’s get behind the solutions that are brought forth by this government that has shown leadership on this issue.

M. Guy Bourgouin: J’aime tout le temps écouter mon collègue de l’autre bord de la rue, parce qu’il est tout le temps intéressant à voir, mais disons que—pas tout à fait d’accord avec ce qu’il vient de dire là. On a fait une motion. Je vous rappellerais qu’on a fait une motion, puis que vous avez voté contre, pour adresser, justement, le manque de logements. Et, après ça, ils disent qu’on ne travaille pas avec eux autres? Je ne suis pas sûr, moi c’est qui qui n’est pas transparent. Ça a pris trois mois avant qu’ils s’excusent.

Mais pas rien que ça : en 2018, ils ont dit qu’ils ne toucheraient pas à la ceinture de verdure. Ils ont touché à la ceinture de verdure. En 2022, on se souvient que le premier ministre a dit qu’il ne toucherait pas à la ceinture de verdure. Il a touché à la ceinture de verdure.

Là, ils vivent une crise de gouvernement, un des—comment je dirais ça? Ils sont entourés d’une investigation criminelle, un scandale—le vrai mot—puis ils essayent de nous faire la leçon de transparence. Ils essayent de nous dire que nous, on ne travaille pas avec—

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

MPP Jamie West: Merci, madame la Présidente. Merci aussi à mon collègue de Mushkegowuk–Baie James. Cette situation—je me souviens quand mon fils était jeune. Il aimait beaucoup jouer avec ses jouets—et c’est le temps pour prendre un bain, c’est le temps pour manger, c’est le temps pour faire dodo, et je lui dis : « Sam, viens ici, c’est le temps pour manger. » Et tout le temps, il m’a dit « après » ou « non merci, non merci ». C’est la même chose pour le gouvernement conservateur et le premier ministre. Quand le public est très fâché de cette situation, le premier ministre et le gouvernement conservateur disent : « Non merci, non merci. »

Mais maintenant, c’est une investigation criminelle et le public est très fâché. Pourquoi est-ce que le public est très fâché contre le gouvernement conservateur et le premier ministre?

Pourquoi les citoyens sont choqués? Parce que les citoyens voient très clair. On pense souvent que les citoyens ne nous suivent pas ou qu’ils ne comprennent pas. Mais une chose qu’on sait, c’est que les citoyens, quand ils viennent et quand ils vont voter, ils vont être clairs.

Puis, je me demande, moi, où est-ce qu’ils vont être aux prochaines élections? Parce que, quand un gouvernement n’est pas intègre, n’est pas transparent et est en pleine crise, et qu’ils sont investigués par la GRC, écoute, il y en a qui vont revoler, là. Il va y avoir du monde qui va payer cher.

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

Mr. Will Bouma: I was glad to hear this morning that when the member from Sudbury thinks of our government, he thinks of his children. I really appreciate that, and I really appreciate the support from the opposition on this bill that we have before us today.

I was just wondering if the member could state emphatically here before the House that he supports this legislation and will be voting in favour.

M. Guy Bourgouin: Il veut savoir si je vais supporter le projet de loi 136, qui va protéger les citoyens contre le gouvernement. Oui, on va le supporter. Pourquoi? Parce que vous n’êtes pas capables de vous autogérer. Au moins, ça, ça va vous protéger. Ça, ça va protéger au moins les citoyens contre le gouvernement quand ça vient à la ceinture de verdure, quand il a eu de l’abus du gouvernement envers les citoyens de la province—c’est de l’abus que vous avez fait, là.

Vous avez profité de votre pouvoir, de votre majorité, pour donner des faveurs à des personnes—puis des personnes proches du premier ministre, qui ont été aux noces de sa fille, qui étaient assises à la table du premier ministre, les plus gros donateurs.

Oui, on va voter pour ça. Pourquoi? On va protéger les citoyens contre vous, le gouvernement. Vous devriez avoir honte d’amener un projet de loi de même où vous dites aux citoyens : « On va vous protéger contre nous, le gouvernement. » Pas fort, pas fort.

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

M me Sandy Shaw: Pour le député : vraiment, je crois que c’est un gouvernement vraiment honteux, et tous les gens en Ontario le croient aussi.

La crise du logement est vraiment réelle. Avec ce scandale, le plus grand jamais en Ontario, nous avons perdu beaucoup de temps pour améliorer les choses pour les gens. Nous avons plein de gens—les sans-abris. L’hiver s’en vient et il y a des gens dans ma circonscription qui vivent dans des tentes maintenant.

Est-ce que vous pouvez expliquer au gouvernement ce qu’il a perdu et comment c’est un autre échec à propos de cette crise de logement?

Mais, la réalité c’est qu’il faut que le gouvernement aille se promener dans les parcs—qu’ils sortent de leur tour d’ivoire et qu’ils aillent voir ce qui se passe.

Moi, je n’ai jamais vu des « tent cities » dans le nord de l’Ontario. On en voit à Sudbury. On commence à en voir à Timmins—du monde qui vivent dans des tentes où il fait des moins 25 degrés ou moins 30 degrés. Puis, le gouvernement, ils disent qu’ils sont là pour les citoyens.

On traite de ce projet de loi pour se protéger parce qu’ils savent qu’ils sont pris dans un scandale, puis que tout ce temps-là, ils auraient pu mettre les efforts. Il ne faut pas oublier, là, que leur propre comité leur recommandait de ne pas utiliser la ceinture de verdure. Nous n’oublierons jamais ça, qu’ils n’étaient pas obligés de la prendre. Mais ils l’ont prise pareil—

Interjections.

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

M me Dawn Gallagher Murphy: Je suis contente de dire que partout dans notre province, nos communautés grandissent. La population de l’Ontario a augmenté de plus de 500 000 nouveaux résidents l’année dernière et a dépassé les 15 millions pour la toute première fois. Notre population devrait croître de quatre millions de personnes au cours de la prochaine année. Donc, je me demande si le député d’en face se joindra à nous pour aider à construire les maisons dont nous avons besoin, tout en protégeant la « greenbelt »?

Puis, oui, on reconnaît qu’il faut bâtir les maisons. Écoute, on a mis une motion devant le gouvernement pour demander votre support pour répondre aux besoins des personnes les plus démunies ou les personnes qui en ont besoin. Fait que, oui; mais ce n’est pas vrai qu’on va embarquer dans votre bateau de corruption. Ce n’est pas vrai qu’on va embarquer dans votre scandale. Ce n’est pas vrai qu’on va vous supporter et dire : « Oui, on va supporter ce projet de loi. » Ça protège les citoyens de votre abus—

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

Mr. John Fraser: Good morning. It’s great to see you all here this morning. As I was sitting down and preparing my notes, I thought, why are we here? Why are we here right now? That’s really what the debate is all about. How did we get here?

But I do want to say in the spirit of the season that yesterday was Halloween, and what I did say with all sincerity is that I hope that the Premier can carve pumpkins better than he carved up the greenbelt, because that’s what he was doing this time last year and he made a mess of it, and that’s one of the reasons why we’re here this morning.

Interjection.

Mr. John Fraser: I’m glad I’ve got the minister all excited this morning; that’s exactly why I came. That’s why I’m here this morning. That’s not why we’re all here this morning. We’re all here because the Auditor General and the Integrity Commissioner talked about all the things that this government did behind the scenes with brown envelopes and, in the commissioner’s own words, deception, to benefit a small group, a very small group, of insiders, people who were connected. They were well connected; they were connected people. They benefited from it greatly, to the tune of $8.3 billion.

And by the Premier’s own admission, they’re his friends. They’re at the wedding; they’re at the stag and doe. They hang with him. It’s all good—

Interjection.

Mr. John Fraser: And they’re fundraisers too. Thank you for reminding me. I actually didn’t forget; I was getting there. So that’s why we’re here. That’s why we’re here, so you guys can protect the greenbelt from you.

To be fair to all of you, it wasn’t all of you. It’s a couple of people, mostly the Premier, that we have to protect the greenbelt from. And I’m glad that he saw the light. I really do believe that he felt the heat.

Interjection.

Mr. John Fraser: Speaker, I don’t mind being heckled, but he doesn’t have to come all the way over here; I can hear him. I can hear him. I hear him in my dreams.

So why are we here? Why are we here, Minister? We’re here because you tried to carve up the greenbelt and give it to your friends, give it away to your friends—and not a lot of your friends, just a few friends. You know what? Families are struggling right now. I’m sure they really like the fact that you wanted to give a handful of people, well-connected insiders, an $8.3-billion payday while they’re just trying to pay the bills. We should be here talking about a return to real rent control. Why aren’t we talking about that? No, we’re talking about protecting the greenbelt from the Premier.

So why are we here? I’m going to keep asking that question. Well, we’re here because the Minister of Housing resigned. Another cabinet minister resigned. Then the Minister of Labour thought he was better off going to Woodbine than he was staying here. What does that tell you? He literally pulled the chute the day after the Premier did his backflip. That’s why we’re here. Three cabinet ministers—three. Maybe there will be some more.

Speaking of flip-flops, it’s connected. We did this greenbelt flip-flop because the government was discovered. Everything was ripped back. So we did the flip-flop with the greenbelt. Then we did a flip-flop on the MZOs. Why did we do that? Well, we did a flip-flop on the greenbelt because the government essentially got caught red-handed trying to benefit a small group of well-connected insiders—by his own admission, the Premier’s friends.

If we’re reversing the urban boundaries now, is it because we’re doing it for the same reason we did it for the greenbelt? It certainly looks like that. This morning I read a story about a well-known Conservative, Quinto Annibale, who—Vaughan Working Families, if we all remember that, and God knows what else—successfully got his greenbelt excluded—sorry, his golf course, which is a bit of a greenbelt in some ways, excluded from the greenbelt. What’s with that? Another well-connected insider.

MPP Jamie West: Another lucky coincidence.

Mr. John Fraser: Really, another lucky coincidence.

Why are we here? Well, the Premier’s chief of staff, Amin Massoudi, no longer connected to the government—caught up in this. The Premier’s director of housing, Jae Truesdell, no longer connected to government—exiled, gone, dismissed. The Premier’s former executive assistant, Nico Fidani-Diker, also caught up in this, also implicated—gone. Then we have the Premier’s hand-picked chief of staff for the Minister of Housing, Ryan Amato—gone, jettisoned. Four people directly connected to the Premier all gone, like that. That’s why we’re here.

You know why we’re here? We’re here because all roads in this scandal lead to the Premier’s office. It’s clear. The Premier can’t even remember who he talked to—or he did talk to or he didn’t talk to and then, all of a sudden, “Yes, I did talk to him but he talked to me about that before so there was no real problem with that.” Come on, do you think we’re all stupid—myself excluded, but the rest of us? To the Premier directly: How do you expect people to believe that?

The Premier is saying that he knew nothing, but these four people who were well connected to him in the file that was one of the most important things to the Premier—because we know what the Premier likes to do; he likes development and he likes building roads, so we know he was interested in this file. Those four people are directly connected to him. They worked for him. They worked under his direction. And I would argue that the Minister of Housing was doing that, but he said, “I’ve had enough.”

I’ve worked in a Premier’s office. I’ve worked with ministers’ offices; I’ve worked in ministers’ offices. There is no way on God’s green earth that the Premier didn’t know what was going on—not possible, not believable, not for a second. And if the Premier is trying to claim that he knew nothing and he was in the same position as Minister Clark and he stuck his head in the sand, that’s fine; just do the same thing as Minister Clark did, if that’s the case. I don’t think that’s the case, and I don’t think he’s going to do it, even if it was the case.

Now we have something else going on. Why are we here? We’re here because we have an RCMP criminal investigation into the $8.3-billion backroom deal. They’re starting interviews this week. But here’s the kicker. It’s connected in this debate. Why does the Ontario taxpayer have to pay for the lawyers of the people implicated on the other side—the Premier, the minister, the staff—to cover up what went on? Why are we paying for it? Why are we paying for the Premier’s lawyers? Why? It’s a criminal investigation. It’s not a civil investigation; it’s a criminal investigation. Somebody did something wrong.

That’s what people suspect. They broke the law, and now they want us to pay for their lawyers. Do you know who should pay for the lawyers? The people who benefited the most out of this $8.3-billion backroom deal and the MZOs and the urban boundaries: the Ontario PC Party. Let them pay the bill. Taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay the bill. It’s totally wrong. I think the Premier, if he was standing on this side, would say exactly the same thing, and maybe in less charitable terms. That’s why we’re here.

Hey, folks, I don’t think it’s all of you guys. I really don’t. I don’t think you knew any more than I knew. I believe that. But there are some people over there who did, and there are some other people over there who stuck their heads in the sand as the greenbelt was being carved up for purposes that were not for the people of Ontario, to the benefit of few well-connected, already-wealthy insiders who stood to make billions and billions of dollars.

I know it’s $8.3 billion for the greenbelt, but how much is the uplift for the MZOs? How much is the uplift for the urban boundaries which just got reversed by the minister this week? How many more billions of dollars are we talking about? Are we into double-digit billions of dollars: $10 billion, $15 billion, $13 billion? I don’t know. It doesn’t matter.

It’s about the way this government thinks it can do business here, the way the Premier thinks he can do business here. That’s why we’re here debating this morning.

A year and a half ago, we didn’t need this legislation. Why do we need it? Because the Premier tried to carve up the greenbelt, just like he was probably carving a pumpkin last night—probably still cleaning it up, too.

Look, I think we should protect the greenbelt, but I think members on the other side have to ask themselves the question: What’s going on inside my party? What’s happening?

I saw last week—and I’ll give another example of this. All of a sudden the government, in unwinding the urban boundaries, and maybe the MZOs soon, took the previous minister, who had already done the right thing, and he got thrown under the bus—because it’s not just him, right? What I heard was, “We’re going to back the bus over him again.” Rather than backing the bus over the previous minister, instead of doing that, why not just do the right thing? It would be a lot easier that way. I don’t think it’s fair to that minister. I don’t think you can put it all on a small group of people. That’s just preposterous.

The truth is going to come out, folks. It’s going to happen. The Mounties—what about the Mounties?

MPP Jamie West: They always get their man.

Mr. John Fraser: That’s right. They always get their man. We’ll say they always get their person; it doesn’t sound quite the same. But they always get their man.

The truth’s going to come out. It eventually will, so why don’t we just get there? If you know you’re going to end up somewhere, just get there. Just get there, because for all of you it’s just going to be another story another day that you’re going to have to explain to your constituents, that you’re going to have to answer questions for—that you’re going to have to defend the indefensible.

That happens over there on the other side. I know that sometimes you’re in government and you have policies that you don’t really believe in, but you’ve got to toe the line. You’re on a team. You’re playing on a team. I understand that.

This is different. This is a criminal investigation into an $8.3-billion backroom deal that benefited a handful of people who are already billionaires, for the most part, and who, by the Premier’s own admission, are his friends and his fundraisers. Why should you have to defend that? You didn’t do it. Maybe some of you knew what was going on and you just kind of turned your head; I don’t feel as sorry for you as I do for other members who are thinking, “What the heck is going on here? How did that happen?” Why should you have to defend that? It’s not a bad policy decision.

It’s an action that has ended up in a criminal investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and that is very serious. That’s not a bad policy decision. That’s a question of ethics, and it’s important to the people of Ontario.

God love you, I’m glad I’m not in your spot.

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

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: Thank you to the member from Ottawa South for his comments.

Madam Speaker, why we are here: for the reason we got elected—from my riding, and most of my colleagues—for the historical reason that the people elected us to do the change and bring hope and dreams to the people of Ontario. That’s why we are here. I have to remind the member opposite.

But we are in a housing crisis. I was talking to, regularly, on a weekly basis—from building the one house or somebody building a subdivision, the house prices went up. The number one reason is the process. The municipalities have red tape and bureaucracy is killing our housing industry—no supply.

Our government is taking decisive action. We know that the greenbelt issue is—we acknowledged that, the Premier acknowledged that, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing acknowledged that. That is what real leadership is all about—we admit and we move on.

This bill is a great bill, and I’m asking the member opposite to join us—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): My apologies to the member.

Response?

Mr. John Fraser: I just want to say to the member, who I greatly respect, I don’t think you knew anything about this. I’m not trying to be critical of you. I’m being critical of the Premier and some other people close to the front row and in the front row who knew about it, or who were part of it, or who were in the offices.

It’s good that we’re here this morning to protect the greenbelt from the Premier or whoever else in the next couple of years ends up sitting in that chair from that side. I’m not sure who it’s going to be—it will be somebody, I’m sure. We shouldn’t have to be here this morning.

If it was about housing, you would go to real rent control; you would actually build a corporation that acted as a bank and worked with developers to build housing that was affordable, and a mix of housing. That’s what you would do. I think all three parties here have suggested that. Actually, you did that, as a government, way back in the 1970s.

Just get your hands dirty. Pick up the tools.

But this greenbelt thing, why we’re here this morning, is all about land speculation.

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

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Thank you very much for your words today. I agree with you; we shouldn’t be here. It’s unbelievable.

I want to pick up on your theme of how much this is going to cost Ontario, both figuratively and literally.

We see this government—I can’t imagine how many of these individual MPPs had fundraisers with these developers. That’s a connection that I wouldn’t want to have to be worrying about in the middle of the night. So what about those fundraisers?

The Attorney General now is going to go to court, with our taxpayer dollars, to seek a special judicial review on environmental assessments simply so that they can ram through Ontario Place and their Highway 413. Who does that benefit? Insiders, speculators, friends of the Premier.

This goes way beyond the greenbelt in terms of what it’s going to cost taxpayers and what’s at stake.

Mr. John Fraser: Apart from that small group of well-connected insiders, the one group that’s become rich in this government are lawyers. And they stand to become richer because the Premier wants us to pay for his lawyers and, everyone who’s caught up in this investigation, he wants us to pay for their legal advice. There’s a criminal investigation, and the Premier says, “Pay for our lawyers, taxpayer. Yes, I know you can’t pay the rent. I know you’re having a hard time putting food on the table. I know you’re struggling to get your kids in sports. But you know what?

Pay for my lawyers in this criminal investigation. Pay for my lawyers and the lawyers of my staff and the lawyers of my colleagues that are caught up in this.”

I don’t believe that the vast majority of people on this side knew what was going on. I think some people turned their heads, and there’s a group of people in there who knew what they were doing. Now what they’re saying is, “Pay for my lawyers.” I say no, we’re not going to pay for that. The Ontario PC Party should pay for it.

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

M me Dawn Gallagher Murphy: To the member opposite, a very lively presentation you made there. I do have to say, 17 times that party carved out the greenbelt, so we could throw a lot of questions your way about lawyers etc. and transparency.

But through Bill 136, the Greenbelt Statute Law Amendment Act—if this passes, and I hope it does—we intend to enshrine the greenbelt boundaries in legislation, which will be different compared to what the previous government did. Any future changes would require discussion and a vote by all MPPs. My question to the member is, will you join us and support a fair and open process?

Mr. John Fraser: The greenbelt didn’t need protection from us; it needed protection from you.

The last time it was changed—22 months; I think 2,000 people in the consultation; 17 changes, 340 acres; added 20 river basins and 20,000 acres. Okay? You guys took it out.

Interjection.

Mr. John Fraser: Hey, well, Quinto wants to know about his golf course that got taken out. Is it still taken out? Sorry, I had to put that in there.

Come on. Stop saying the “17 times.” Just take it out of your talking points. Do we have whiteout? Does whiteout still exist? Somebody in the House leader’s office, get some whiteout and just take that line out.

Interjections.

Mr. John Fraser: Okay, they’re hearing me behind the desk. Just take it out, because it doesn’t mean anything. It doesn’t mean anything.

We’re not protecting the greenbelt from these people here. We’re protecting them from you. And you have to put forward legislation—

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

Ms. Doly Begum: Thank you to the member from Ottawa South for his presentation. I also have a question about—the government admitted that they made a mistake giving preferential treatment for greenbelt speculators. Do they also admit and do you think they should admit that they made a mistake in giving preferential treatment to the speculators when it comes to the arbitrary MZOs? Because that still has not been reversed, and there are a lot of parts of the greenbelt that are actually not reversed through this restoration act as well.

Mr. John Fraser: Oh, yes. Not many of you will remember this, but the Premier’s going to do more backflips than Simone Biles when we get to the end of this. Yes, those MZOs, they’re going to get reversed. Someone’s going to take a look at them. We’ve already done urban boundaries. They didn’t reverse the urban boundaries because they saw the light; they just felt the heat of a criminal investigation—the RCMP, a criminal investigation. So, yes, I expect that.

I think we’ve all seen it. I’ve seen a few MZOs where I’m going, “Yeah, they built the long-term care home, but how come they need all this other land? Oh, that’s interesting. And who’s building the long-term-care home and who owns all that land? Oh, that’s interesting. And where do they put their money? Oh, that’s interesting.”

But you know what? Here’s the good news: We’re going to be able to talk about this for the next three years, because it’s not going away, because the longer you drag it out instead of getting to where you need to get to—we’re going to keep talking about this—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Thank you.

Further questions?

Mr. Anthony Leardi: The member from Ottawa South made considerable reference to MZOs. An MZO was used to guarantee the Stellantis-LG plant got built in Essex county. Does the member from Ottawa South support the use of an MZO to guarantee that Stellantis-LG plant gets built in Essex county?

Mr. John Fraser: That’s a good MZO, but do you know what? In 15 years, we did 18 MZOs—one, eight. In three years, you did 110. That’s a factor of 35 times more MZOs. We don’t have 35 times Stellantis plants across this province, right?

My point is, it’s a tool that you use to help your community. That’s a good thing. It’s a tool that we used 18 times to help communities. But 110 times, over the will of councils? That’s not to help communities.

Your MZO is a good MZO, and I stand behind that, and as a member you should do that. That was the right thing for you to do in this House. But for God’s sake, don’t attach it to the rest of the dirt.

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

Ms. Natalie Pierre: Good morning, Speaker. It’s an honour to rise in the House today to speak on the Greenbelt Statute Law Amendment Act, 2023. As the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has outlined previously, our government is introducing legislation that, if passed, would restore lands and property back to the greenbelt and the Oak Ridges moraine. That’s approximately 7,400 acres of land being put back into the greenbelt in municipalities across the GTA including Grimsby, Hamilton, Vaughan, King, Richmond Hill, Markham, Ajax, Pickering, Clarington and Whitchurch-Stouffville.

The legislation would enhance protections by ensuring future changes to the greenbelt boundaries are done transparently and through the legislative process, meaning any changes to the greenbelt boundaries would require the approval of this House, which means better protection of our greenbelt lands. If this legislation is passed, the greenbelt will be better protected and even larger.

On top of the land being put back into the greenbelt, our government is adding an additional 9,400 acres. These are lands in the Paris-Galt moraine and 13 areas in the urban river valley. The new urban river valley areas include Stoney Creek and Battlefield Creek in Hamilton, and Fourteen Mile Creek in Oakville. These are just to name a few. Our government is doing more to protect the greenbelt for future generations and following through on our commitment to restore lands, as well as protect and maintain the lands we’re adding. We are a government that is following through on our commitments.

While our discussion remains centred on the greenbelt, we remain focused on the housing supply crisis in our province. This is something that we can no longer ignore, especially in my riding of Burlington. In Burlington, there’s a lot of red tape. It’s difficult to build new homes. The inability to get permits to build homes and the “not in my backyard” mentality has left my community starving for housing.

Speaker, I’d like to share a story. I’m a member of the local curling club in town, and after our first game this season, I sat down with my team and our opponents just to catch up. We talked about the weather, about life, our summers, and our children and how much we miss them. Out of four couples that were seated at my table, each couple had children who had left Burlington and left the province of Ontario—some went to other provinces, some went to other countries. As I thought about this, I thought how sad it was. It’s a real shame that our kids are no longer staying to live in Ontario.

These kids were all born and raised in Burlington, educated in Ontario at world-class post-secondary institutes, but they can’t afford a home in Ontario, let alone in Burlington. They’ve gone to other provinces, and even to the United States. They’ve gone to Texas, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Alberta and British Columbia. That’s where the children have gone, Speaker—mine included. They simply cannot afford to live here.

According to a poll by the Ontario Real Estate Association, 46% of prospective homebuyers under the age of 45 have considered moving out of the province in order to afford a home. Ontario, our province, is at risk of losing young, educated and skilled workers to other provinces, states or even other countries because they simply can’t afford to live here.

Let’s remove buying a home from the picture for a minute, because housing prices have doubled and even almost tripled in the last 10 years. Purchasing a home right now, with inflation and increased interest rates, has become incredibly challenging and difficult, and out of reach for most first-time homebuyers.

Statistics from the Realtors Association of Hamilton-Burlington in September 2023 show an average purchase price of $1.3 million for a detached home in Burlington. Just to add, the majority of homes in my community are single, detached homes. Speaker, for the first-time homebuyer, $1.3 million is out of reach. Even with a 20% down payment of $260,000—if you were able to save $260,000, that means a mortgage of more than $1 million. Calculating it out, based on some online tools that I used, it’s about $6,700 a month. To afford that kind of mortgage, a household would have to earn over $250,000 with no other outstanding debt or liability.

I was speaking with another family in Burlington recently. Their son and his fiancé did everything right. They went to school. They worked part-time jobs to pay their tuition fees in post-secondary, and they’ve saved $150,000 as a down payment on a home. Speaker, it’s sad to say that saving $150,000 for a down payment still doesn’t cut it. I just wanted to add here that saving in this economy is hard, let alone coming up with the amount of money that you need for a down payment on a home. Yet this couple was still able to save $150,000, and it’s still not enough.

Let’s look at rentals. On average, in Burlington, to rent a one-bedroom apartment is more than $2,217 a month, and a two-bedroom apartment can be upwards of $2,600 a month. That’s not including gas, utilities or food. All of those costs have increased due to inflation and the carbon tax.

Speaker, our young people are leaving Ontario due to a lack of affordable housing options. These are young people—our family—that we have educated and trained in our province, but they can’t live here because they can’t buy a house.

But our government is committed to our goal of building 1.5 million homes here in Ontario by 2031. Decades of NIMBYism across Ontario, coupled with red tape, have contributed to a housing supply crisis.

Still, the population of Ontario continues to grow. Although our children can’t afford to live here, Ontario’s population growth continues to rise because our province is a hub for research, manufacturing and innovation. Our province attracts people and companies from all over the world. Businesses that want to grow in dynamic North American markets come here. Immigrants who want to make a better life for themselves and their families overwhelmingly will choose Ontario as their home, because Ontario is the best place to live and grow and to raise a family, but we also need to be able to house people.

The greater Golden Horseshoe area is expected to grow to approximately 15 million people by 2051. That’s why we remain committed to tackling the housing supply crisis.

Parliamentary assistant Rae spoke about the Housing Affordability Task Force in his address earlier this week. The report came out in 2022, with a total of 74 recommendations, and 23 of these recommendations have been fully implemented.

One of the recommendations was to set a bold goal of 1.5 million homes in a span of 10 years. Our government is supporting this goal through initiatives like the Building Faster Fund, which provides incentives for municipalities that meet and exceed their housing targets. This fund can be accessed by the 50 municipalities with assigned housing targets, like my community of Burlington.

Tackling the housing supply crisis is a joint effort that takes all levels of government, including our municipal and federal partners. We welcome the long-awaited decision from the federal government to waive the HST on new, purpose-built rental housing. We look forward to working with the federal government to ensure the increase in purpose-built rental housing and that the HST is waived from qualified buildings.

Municipalities are encouraged to meet their goals by adopting official plans and zoning bylaws that exceed three units per lot. This could be a main residence, a basement apartment or a laneway home. These additional options would make it easier for people to live closer to their families and their jobs, and to remain in their own communities.

The More Homes Built Faster housing supply action plan will help rural communities, cities and towns by increasing a mix of rental housing development like townhomes and mid-rise apartments.

Speaker, I live in a neighbourhood that has mixed development, and this type of neighbourhood works better than most NIMBYs could ever imagine. Interestingly, I was told that I was part of the problem because my home used to be a single-family home that was rebuilt into two residences. But I had the foresight to see that converting larger homes into apartments or towns could be a solution to Ontario’s housing supply issue.

On the street where I live, there are single-family homes, some large, some very small; there are multi-family homes, like the one that I live in, a semi-detached home; there are condos, and there are rental units, all within a one- to two-block area of where I live. It’s neighbourhoods like these with all kinds of housing and developments that encourage density and diversity in population. Unfortunately, not everyone sees this as a good thing.

Our government often references NIMBYism from the other side—“not in my backyard”—but I think we’re past that; in my community, we’re at the BANANA phase, which is, people don’t want to build anything near anyone at any time. That needs to change—and not just in my backyard, in all of our backyards.

The Housing Affordability Task Force recommends ways to reduce NIMBYism by streamlining the approvals process and urban design rules. This, along with eliminating exclusionary zoning, will allow for gentle density, like in the neighbourhood where I live, to make better use of existing infrastructures like multi-family homes.

Our government has given municipalities a number of tools to cut the red tape and to speed up the approval process to build homes faster and to build communities like mine, with different types of housing that will support the growing population of Ontario. This will help my riding and many other ridings in Ontario reach their housing targets, and it will get more shovels in the ground faster.

This is the kind of bold action our government is taking in keeping its promise to build more homes faster. The government is ending the housing drought caused by previous governments that put this province in a housing supply crisis in the first place.

Our government will continue to develop plans to address the housing supply because we know that continued action is necessary to meet the demand. It will take both short-term strategies and long-term solutions, as well as a commitment from all levels of government, to drive the change that Ontario needs. We owe it to future generations, we owe it to our children, to build homes so that they’re not moving to other provinces, states and countries because that’s where they can afford to live.

This also includes amendments to Ontario’s building code to allow encapsulated mass timber buildings to be constructed up to 12 storeys high.

Speaker, the housing supply in Ontario remains a challenge. Our policies are working and delivering results by implementing the recommendations of the Housing Affordability Task Force. We’re re-examining the process and looking for new and innovative ways of working to get shovels in the ground and get housing built.

As my colleagues have mentioned before me, in 2022 Ontario saw the second-largest number of housing starts since 1988. That’s amazing news, but it has taken 34 years. That’s far too long. Years of not building homes, years of saying “not in my backyard” have put us in this current housing supply crisis.

Ontario grew by more than 500,000 people last year, and we need to house these new Ontarians. Our province continues to grow and our economy continues to boom. With that boom we need more homes for workers so they can live near where they work.

Just this year, Volkswagen announced that they will establish an electric-vehicle battery manufacturing facility in St. Thomas. Again, we are attracting businesses from around the globe, businesses that are creating conditions for growth, economic development and job creation. As we attract these new businesses to Ontario we attract workers to good-paying jobs. That’s why our population is expected to increase to 15 million people just in the greater Golden Horseshoe area alone.

Ontario is a place where it doesn’t matter where you come from, who you love or how you choose to worship—everyone deserves the same opportunity to succeed. We have attracted the world’s leading businesses and amazing people who have helped to build the identity of this province. That’s why we’re ensuring that municipalities across Ontario can build the homes needed to meet their housing targets, homes the people in our province need. I don’t think we can sit back and watch as Ontarians are priced out of the market and I don’t think we can allow NIMBYs to control the types of housing built in our province.

Our goal is 1.5 million new homes and our government will get it done. We’ll achieve this by working together with municipalities and the federal government and staying focused on our commitment, our commitment to the people of Ontario and to future generations, our commitment to the greenbelt.

Our greenbelt is the largest in the world, permanently protecting two million acres of farmland and environmentally sensitive areas like the Oak Ridges moraine, Fourteen Mile Creek and Stoney Creek. Our government is following through on its commitment to restore lands that were originally removed and redesignated. We’re adding in more lands, and we will continue to ensure that any future changes to the greenbelt are transparent. Through the Greenbelt Statute Law Amendment Act, 2023, if passed, our government will be adding lands to expand and protect the greenbelt and to preserve environmental spaces for future generations.

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

MPP Jamie West: Thank you, Speaker, and thank you as well to the member from Burlington. She talked a lot about unaffordable housing, and we’re hearing that from a lot of people for a very long time. But I think the Conservative government really has to reflect on the fact that this bill about protecting the greenbelt from the Conservative government is here because in the last year and a bit, as they’ve been working toward rewarding wealthy, well-connected developer friends, they’ve not done work toward providing housing.

Even if this went through—even if they rammed it through and the public wasn’t able to catch them and the press wasn’t able to provide all the information or the Auditor General—it still wouldn’t have led to housing for several years. There is housing that could be built right now that they’re not focused on.

I think they need to reflect on this, Speaker. So I would ask the member, why do you need a law to protect the greenbelt from yourselves?

Ms. Natalie Pierre: Thank you to the member for the question. Our government has listened to Ontarians and we’re following through on our commitment to restore, to grow and to enhance protections for the greenbelt. That’s why this legislation, if passed, would restore all properties that were redesignated or removed from the greenbelt in late 2022. While it restores all properties that were redesignated or removed, the government is proposing to keep the 9,400 acres in the greenbelt that were added in 2022. These include lands in the Paris-Galt moraine and in the urban river valley areas across the GTA.

At the same time, the truth remains that Ontario is growing at an unprecedented speed, with recent projections showing as many as 4 million additional people who will move to Ontario by 2031.

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

Mr. Will Bouma: I really enjoyed the member from Burlington’s speech. She touched on her “why.” Why is she here? It’s because she cares about her community and because she cares for her children. The fact of the matter is that I also have a child that’s moved out of this province because she can never find a home here.

There’s a saying that says, “Shoot for the moon and at least you’ll be among the stars.” I think one of the reasons why I love working with the Premier so much is because he’s not afraid, for the sake of the people of the province of Ontario, to shoot for the moon. And when he has to, he’ll apologize and he’ll back off, and we see here one of those instances where we need to build housing in the province of Ontario for the sake of our own families and for the people that we care about back home, the 150,000 people that I represent in Brantford–Brant.

I was wondering if the member could speak a little bit more about her “why” and why she’s proud to serve with our government and to shoot for the moon, so that at least we could be among the stars.

Ms. Natalie Pierre: Thank you to my colleague from Brantford–Brant for the question. I think my answer has two points. One, it’s to keep our family close by and to offer the same opportunity to our children that I feel I was afforded as a young person growing up in the province of Ontario.

The other focus, and something that I hear from a lot of business owners in my community, is a struggle to staff and to get employees, and for employees to live somewhat close to where they work. One of the issues that we have is that we have businesses, we have small manufacturers, we have medium-sized manufacturers, but we don’t have workers who can afford to live in the same community or even neighbouring communities.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): We’ll move right now to members’ statements.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Barbecue event in Newmarket–Aurora

M me Dawn Gallagher Murphy: On Sunday, October 22, I hosted my second-annual community barbecue event for Newmarket–Aurora at Newmarket’s Riverwalk Commons. It was an eventful afternoon and I was thrilled to see so many familiar faces while meeting some new ones too from our vibrant community. This event is more than just an opportunity to enjoy good food and fun activities. It is about bringing people together, fostering a sense of unity, building relationships and celebrating the diversity that makes my community so special.

I thank all my community members who came out, from the Chinese to the francophones to the Black community members; the Jewish, Muslim and Christian community members; to the members of the LGBTQ York Pride community. Thank you. And what do we all have in common? It is the desire to live together in peace, celebrating our differences while promoting a life of acceptance, kindness and compassion.

I will continue to proudly serve my constituents and to listen, understand, connect, advocate for them and to work together for the betterment of my community.

Canadian Remembrance Torch

Mr. Chris Glover: Remembrance Day is fast approaching, and today in the House I’m proud to speak of a recent initiative to help future generations actively remember and honour the sacrifices of all Canadians. This includes those who served and the many who made the ultimate sacrifice in World Wars I and II, the Korean and Afghan wars and the many peacekeeping missions, and to honour those who are serving or have served in Canada’s Armed Forces.

The Canadian Remembrance Torch initiative was founded by Karen Hunter, and the torch was designed and built by McMaster engineering students. It was lit on Parliament Hill in September 2022. Its flame was flown by Air Canada to the Netherlands, where Princess Margriet participated in a “passing the torch to the next generation” ceremony.

Throughout 2023, the Canadian Remembrance Torch has participated in many high-profile events across Canada, and in 2024, the torch will participate in D-Day’s 80th anniversary commemorations at Juno Beach Centre in Normandy. Other initiatives of the Canadian Remembrance Torch include a Student TorchBearers Program, a Faces to Names initiative to create a digital archive of all Canadians who have died in war, and peacekeeping missions and community events that take place each year.

The Canadian Remembrance Torch will be passed on to future generations to help communities and students to remember and honour those who have served and are serving so we can live in peace and democracy.

Winter road safety

Mr. Ric Bresee: As winter approaches, each morning across many areas in all of Ontario, people will wake up to fresh blankets of snow. My riding of Hastings–Lennox and Addington is almost 200 kilometres north to south and more than three and a half hours of driving time. The snow hits more in the Maynooth area than it does down on the shores at Bath and Deseronto.

I know that most of my colleagues here in the Legislature will be travelling a lot across their ridings, across this great province, and so this message is for all of you and for all of our constituents. As we come into the colder season, we have a number of important community events coming out. Remembrance Day is around the corner, followed by a great number of Santa Claus parades and festivals of all types. I hope that everyone participating in these events enjoys themselves but, most importantly, I want to take this opportunity to remind people to get prepared.

Winter can sneak up on you, so please, make sure your car is ready: snow tires, full washer fluid, emergency kits. These are obvious and fairly easy to do, and while they might not be needed every time, they are so very important when they are needed. I would also ask you to please take a couple of minutes to warm up the car and fully scrape off those windows. Those few moments can literally save a life.

No matter where you live in Ontario, I hope this winter is filled with cold weather fun and safe arrivals home.

Entretien hivernal des routes

M. Guy Bourgouin: La saison froide est à notre porte. Elle arrive encore plus vite dans le Nord. Je prends la parole aujourd’hui pour mettre à l’attention de tous mes collègues une préoccupation pressante qui touche les résidents du nord de l’Ontario, en particulier ceux qui dépendent des autoroutes 11 et 17 pour leurs déplacements quotidiens.

Plusieurs d’entre vous ne connaissent pas la réalité des routes du Nord. Je vais donc vous dresser un portrait : j’habite à Kapuskasing, une ville d’environ 8 500 habitants. Le matin, comme tous les Ontariens, on va amener nos enfants à l’école, on se rend au travail ou bien on va à nos rendez-vous médicaux.

La plupart d’entre vous utilisent des routes locales pour se retrouver sur l’autoroute lorsque vient le temps de faire de plus grandes distances. Quand vous amenez vos enfants à l’école, vous empruntez des routes piétonnes ou vous utilisez les voitures en utilisant les routes et les boulevards. Vous vous rendez à vos rendez-vous médicaux en transport, en taxi ou bien en voiture en utilisant les routes principales et les grandes artères.

À Kapuskasing, pour toutes les activités quotidiennes, on prend l’autoroute 11. On l’utilise chaque jour. Qui d’autre l’utilise? À peu près tout le monde qui traverse l’Ontario, incluant les transports commerciaux effectués en semi-remorques.

Nos lois actuelles en Ontario manquent d’attention et c’est la réalité. Avec l’hiver qui arrive, c’est le temps de trouver des solutions et de mettre en place des lois pour augmenter la sécurité des autoroutes en Ontario.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease / Upper Canada Child Care

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: After my private member’s bill, Bill 157, received royal assent in 2021, I am pleased to recognize Wednesday, November 15, as the second COPD Awareness Day in Ontario. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD, is a progressive but incurable lung disease characterized by a narrowing of the airways that makes breathing increasingly difficult as the disease worsens. I encourage everyone to educate yourself on the risks of COPD and to be proactive in maintaining good lung health.

Mr. Speaker, last week, I had the pleasure of attending the opening ceremony for Upper Canada Child Care’s new child care centre at St. Rene Goupil–St. Luke Catholic Elementary School in my riding of Markham–Thornhill, alongside the Minister of Education. As the African proverb goes, “It takes a village to raise a child,” and in this case, it truly does. The York region Catholic board, Upper Canada Child Care, dedicated staff, supportive parents, the Ontario government and the federal government have joined forces to provide essential care.

Thank you to the Minister of Education and his leadership, and to our government for investing $3.9 million in child care, and for making childcare more affordable and accessible for Ontarians.

Welland Food Drive

Mr. Jeff Burch: This Saturday, November 4, in my riding, the Hope Centre, Open Arms Mission and the Salvation Army will come together for the 32nd annual Welland Food Drive. Residents and businesses able to donate are encouraged to give online or donate food at their doorstep. Once collected, donations are sorted at Club Richelieu.

Welland is grappling with its worst food insecurity crisis in decades. Recently, Jon Braithwaite, CEO of the Hope Centre, said, “More people than ever are facing food insecurity in our community with close to one in 10 Wellanders accessing our food bank in the past 12 months.” Open Arms tells me that they are projected to serve over 20,000 people this year.

We’re hearing this across Niagara Centre. Port Cares in Port Colborne recently said that their agency has seen its monthly food bank usage soar from over 1,700 people just 15 months ago to a record 2,900 now—nearly one in seven Port Colborne residents, with numbers continuing to escalate.

Speaker, the demand and pressures placed on community food banks has never been greater, but I am proud of how our community is responding. Folks in Welland who want to lend a helping hand can visit www.wellandfooddrive.com or their Facebook page, @wellandfooddrive, to learn more. Those looking to volunteer are encouraged to reach out to one of the three food banks.

Violence in schools

Mr. Stephen Blais: Education should be the great equalizer, not the great divider in Ontario. Schools should be a source of hope, not of fear.

Mr. Speaker, I recently met with parents, teachers, teachers’ associations and school boards, and one thing that they all said to me was that there has been a noticeable increase in classroom violence. A teacher from my riding recently wrote that, from grade 6 down to kindergarten, classroom violence is present at every level. She has been punched in the face, bit, kicked and hit numerous times by students.

And while classroom violence has increased, the number of educational assistants has decreased. There’s a lack of educational assistants, a lack of resources and programs for students with special needs, a lack of mental health supports, and overcrowded classrooms. This has all led to an increase in violence and disruptions in our schools, putting the safety and well-being of our students, our kids and staff at risk. This is absolutely unacceptable in a province as prosperous as Ontario.

I’m calling on the government to reverse its cuts to education and invest that money to keep classrooms safe by hiring more educational assistants, reducing class sizes, expanding special education services, supporting mental health initiatives and bringing character education back to our schools. Let’s respect our students and our educators by keeping them safe in the classroom.

Goodwill Amity Power of Work Awards Lunch

Ms. Natalie Pierre: I’m happy to rise today to speak up about an upcoming event in my riding. Goodwill Amity’s 17th annual Power of Work Awards Lunch is happening this Friday, November 3, in Burlington.

This is an action-packed event filled with inspiring stories and valuable learning opportunities. At this event, we’ll come together to celebrate Power of Work Award winners, including two remarkable job-seekers who have triumphed over adversity to achieve their employment goals, and also celebrate a local employer who has been unwavering in providing exceptional employment support and opportunities to job-seekers in Halton. Work gives people a sense of hope, purpose and confidence.

This event is not just about recognition of leadership in our community, but it’s also a chance to connect with friends, community members and business leaders. Together, we make a significant impact and provide a hand up to those facing barriers to employment right in our own community.

Goodwill provides job seekers with access to free workshops, skills training, resumé assistance, job search guidance, mental health resources and basic needs support through Goodwill Amity’s employment services in Burlington. Mark your calendars for November 3 and be part of a lunch that not only fills your stomach but also your heart.

Remembrance Day

Mr. Nolan Quinn: Lest we forget: This powerful phrase first used in Rudyard Kipling’s 1897 poem entitled Recessional, and became linked with Remembrance Day after the First World War.

Lest we forget: This plea serves as a reminder to all countries to never forget the sacrifices of those who have served in wars, conflicts and peacekeeping operations around the world.

November 11: A day we come together to honour and commemorate those brave men and women who serve and have served our country in times of war. We wear a poppy to remember, as a visual pledge to never forget those who have served and sacrificed. We wear our poppies to support and thank our veterans and members of the armed forces.

Speaker, I recently had the opportunity to attend three war memorial cenotaph rededication ceremonies. I was fortunate to be present at the Lost Villages Cenotaph rededication in South Stormont, the Van Camp Cenotaph in North Dundas and the Williamsburg Cenotaph rededication in South Dundas. My federal counterpart, MP Eric Duncan, chair of a few committees, worked for over a year to raise money to refurbish and modernize the Mille Roches-Moulinette War Memorial at Lost Villages Museum and the Williamsburg Cenotaph, as well as to raise funds to refurbish the Van Camp Cenotaph in North Dundas. These refurbished cenotaphs will serve the next generation and ensure they remember the sacrifice.

Thank you to veterans for their service. Thank you for your bravery. Thank you for protecting our freedoms. Thank you for your sacrifice. Lest we forget.

Anti-Semitism

Mrs. Robin Martin: In the days and weeks following October 7, my office has received hundreds of messages from constituents expressing their gratitude towards our government for our support of Israel and our recognition of its inalienable right to defend itself and its citizens. A significant portion of these messages are from constituents who have family members in Israel or are Israeli themselves; almost every one knows someone who has been killed or kidnapped.

Others write and share concerns about what is happening in Canada, in Ontario and Toronto. People are concerned about the protests on our streets, in our schools and on our university campuses that glorify or promote terrorism by waving signs or flags of the Taliban and Hamas, and calling for the gassing of Jews. They are shocked by people who rip down posters of the hostages, including infants as young as nine months old, that Hamas is still holding, and by those who continue to spread misinformation.

On the eve of Remembrance Day, we appear to have forgotten what we once had learned. That’s why I was delighted to join Minister Lecce this morning in announcing that lessons on the Holocaust will be expanded in grade 10 history, mandatory in September 2025, and will explicitly link the Holocaust to extreme political ideologies, including fascism, anti-Semitism in Canada in the 1930s and 1940s, and the contemporary impacts of rising anti−Semitism.

We cannot stand for the glorification of terrorism on our streets, and I, and I’m sure all of my colleagues will do everything we can to prevent that.

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

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We have with us in the Speaker’s gallery a group of grade 9 students participating in the Legislative Assembly’s Take Our Kids to Work Day. Please join me in warmly welcoming our students to the Legislature today.

Also in the Speaker’s gallery we have some special guests from the riding of Simcoe–Grey: my first cousin Todd Arnott and his daughter, Maile Arnott. Welcome. It’s great to have you here.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Today is food bank day of action here at Queen’s Park. I want to welcome all food bank representatives here with Feed Ontario, with a special welcome to June Muir of the UHC Hub of Opportunities in Windsor. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Matthew Rae: In the gallery up there is Brooklyn Mattinson, associate director of regulatory and government affairs at RBC, and her colleague Alanna Sokic, senior manager of provincial and municipal affairs. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Chris Glover: I’d like to welcome to the House Karen Hunter, the executive director of the Canadian Remembrance Torch, and Yuvraj Sandhu, a McMaster student and member of the original design team for the Canadian Remembrance Torch.

The torch is in the Legislature today, and if any members would like to get a picture with the Canadian Remembrance Torch, it will be on the grand staircase after question period.

Mr. Adil Shamji: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Dianne Martin and Dickon Worsley. Dianne is the CEO of WeRPN; Dickon is the president of WeRPN. I’d like to thank them for their attendance today and for all the incredible work that their members do to serve patients here in Ontario. Thank you for being here.

Mr. Kevin Holland: I want to welcome some guests here from Thunder Bay today: a long-time friend, Amy Kemble, and her daughter, Olivia.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s my pleasure to welcome a number of guests from the great riding of Waterloo today. We have Justice Colin Westman, a.k.a. Santa Claus, for his kindness; Margaret Anne Voll; John Pendergast; and my friends Cheryl and Nige Gordijk, who are community leaders. They’re joining us for lunch today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady: I’m very proud to bring my niece, Peighton Brady, and her friend Bella Argenti to the House today for grade 9 Take Our Kids to Work Day. I’m sure they’re hoping that I take them to a big mall on the way home. Welcome to the House.

Mr. Billy Pang: Today is Take Our Kids to Work Day. Four grade 9 constituents from Markham–Unionville are visiting the Legislature today, including Jasmine Lau; Katelyn Mak; Nicholas Chow; and my son, Simeon Pang; along with my staff Dickson Mak. Welcome to the House.

Ms. Marit Stiles: It’s bring-your-kids-to-work day, and for some of our staff too. I’m really happy to introduce Nivine Zaher and her son, Moe, and Heather Douglas with her daughter, Evangeline. Welcome to your House.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: It’s a real honour to welcome Elana Harte, Carine Nind, Jessika Kunkle and all the folks from the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada to Queen’s Park today.

Hon. Rob Flack: To complement the member opposite’s introductions, in the members’ gallery, from the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, we have Tim Ross, Courtney Lockhart, Allison Chase, Cassia Kantrow, Mary Ann Hannant and April White. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: It’s my pleasure to introduce to the House today, from the Golden Horseshoe Co-operative Housing Federation, Doug Sider, Willy Noiles, Monica Brodeur, Janice Fisher and Lisa Britton. Welcome to your House. Thank you for building homes, and thank you for building community.

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: I would like to introduce Ms. Zoe Luo from my riding, who is a friend of one of our Sergeants-at-Arms here.

Hon. Charmaine A. Williams: It’s an honour to introduce my staff member Rangina Kargar, who was an MP in Afghanistan before the Taliban came and took over; she had to flee to Canada. She has brought her son, Homan Kargar, to Queen’s Park for bring-your-kids-to-work day.

MPP Jamie West: I’m looking for him, but it’s been more than 30 years since I’ve seen him: He’s my former camp director, John Malcolmson. We called him “Malc.” He’s the executive director for Scleroderma Ontario.

Mr. Vincent Ke: I would like to introduce my assistant, Wendy Wei, and my guest, Jimmy Lin, who is a high school student. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’d like to continue, unless there’s an objection.

The member for Burlington.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Oh, Oakville.

Mr. Stephen Crawford: That’s okay. Thank you, Speaker.

I wanted to introduce some residents from Oakville. We have Carole Baxter, who is the Halton District School Board trustee for wards 1 and 2, and her son, Isaac. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: It gives me great pleasure to welcome to your House Willy Noiles. He’s from the Ontario Network of Injured Workers Groups, and he’s here today representing the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada. I personally want to thank you for all your hard work, Willy, that you do on our riding association.

Mr. Stephen Blais: I, too, would like to welcome the members from the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada. Thank you for coming to Queen’s Park and helping twist some arms to build housing.

M me Dawn Gallagher Murphy: I’d like to welcome representatives from Scleroderma Canada and Scleroderma Ontario who are here today for a series of meetings, and they hosted many earlier this morning for a breakfast.

Please join me in welcoming John Malcolmson, Scott Munnoch, Karol Bedoya-Carvajal, Erin Stanhope, Stephanie Densmore-Farmsworth, Maggie Larche, Tanawan Sukonthapanich, Marta Braga, Jasmeet Kaur, Maureen Sauvé, Silvia Petrozza, Scott and Tracey Heard, Hurmat Ahmad, and Nancee and Merle Henry.

Mr. Joel Harden: I also want to welcome friends from the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada: Caroline Chapman, Dawn Richardson, Diana Yoon, Patricia Tessier and Courtney Lockhart from the great riding of Ottawa Centre.

I also want thank the Scleroderma Society of Ontario for a fantastic breakfast this morning and for your wonderful advocacy. Thanks for all you do.

Hon. Nina Tangri: I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park today the Indo-Canadian Council for Arts and Culture, the Toronto Malayalee Samajam and the Indo-Canada Kerala Chamber of Commerce. They are going to be hosting a Kerala Day lunch reception right here in room 228, starting after question period. Everybody is welcome.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I just want to introduce, from the Food Bank of Waterloo Region and Feed Ontario, Kimberley Wilhelm and Michelle Rickard; Amy Slack from the Cambridge Food Bank; and Haedin Slack, also from the Cambridge Food Bank. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I’d like to welcome Scott Helps, chair of Egg Farmers of Ontario, and its entire provincial board of directors for being here and starting our day off with a wonderful breakfast.

Independent members

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Ottawa–Vanier has informed me she has a point of order she wishes to raise.

M me Lucille Collard: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I didn’t realize introductions were finished.

I am seeking unanimous consent that, notwithstanding standing order 100(a)(iv), five minutes be allotted to the independent members as a group to speak during private members’ public business today.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Ms. Collard is seeking the unanimous consent of the House that, notwithstanding standing order 100(a)(iv), five minutes be allotted to the independent members as a group to speak during private members’ public business today. Agreed? Agreed.

Question Period

Government accountability

Ms. Marit Stiles: Good morning, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. Providing honest testimony under oath is a core principle of justice in this province. I hope that’s something we can all agree on. The Premier told the Integrity Commissioner that he was “not immediately familiar” with greenbelt speculator Sergio Manchia because, apparently, he meets thousands of people, he said. Yet senior political staff were texting each other that the Premier “needs to stop calling this guy.” My question to the Premier is, what is the nature of his relationship with Sergio Manchia?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: As we’ve said on a number of occasions, and as has been confirmed by both the Integrity Commissioner and the Auditor General, the Premier of course did not have knowledge of the lands with respect to the greenbelt. But at the same time, I’ve also been very, very clear that I was unhappy with the political staff involvement with respect to the official plans. That is why I briefed the Premier on it, and he asked me to repeal the provincial changes to those official plans. We’ve done that, and we’re moving forward to make sure that we can build 1.5 million homes by working with our municipal partners. We’ll get that job done.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: It should have been an easy one to answer, I think, Speaker. But it’s not just the phone calls; the Premier testified that he was not involved in any way with site selection of greenbelt removals and his first time viewing them was on November 2, 2022. He further testified that he had no recollection of meeting Mr. Manchia and had no recollection of any conversations with him about the greenbelt. Now we have a new document that seems to contradict the Premier’s testimony. It shows he had a meeting with Mr. Manchia, the then mayor of Hamilton and the member from Flamborough–Glanbrook on September 20, 2021, where they all agreed to pursue removing lands from the greenbelt.

My question is to the Premier again. Can the Premier confirm he met with Mr. Manchia in 2021 to discuss site-specific greenbelt removals?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that this particular individual has been advocating for the removal of those lands from the greenbelt for many, many, many years and has met with every Premier in the entirety that he has held those lands.

We made a decision with respect to the greenbelt that was not accepted by the people of the province of Ontario. That is why we reversed that decision. At the same time, after reviewing the changes to the official plans that were made by the province, the decision was made that there was too much involvement from political staff in that. That’s why, after I was given the opportunity to brief the Premier on that, he asked me to repeal the provincial changes. We’re doing that.

At the same time, our municipalities will have the opportunity to provide additional comment over the next 45 days to some of the changes that they would like to see in those original official plans that they had provided some years ago.

We will move forward. We will continue to ensure that we can meet our goal of building 1.5 million homes for the people of the province of Ontario.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, I’m sorry to say it, but it only gets worse. The Premier says he doesn’t remember Mr. Manchia—remember, we just reviewed that—but Mr. Manchia hosted an intimate, $1,200-a-ticket fundraiser for the Conservative Party at his home, also on September 20, 2021, and the Premier was there. In fact, new reporting indicates that the promise to remove Mr. Manchia’s land from the greenbelt happened at that very fundraiser.

To the Premier: Does the Premier remember Mr. Manchia now? Did he provide assurances he would remove greenbelt lands at a private fundraiser for the Conservative Party?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Paul Calandra: The Premier has been clear that no, he did not. At the same time, that has also been made clear through the Auditor General’s report as well as the Integrity Commissioner’s report.

At the same time, as I said, this particular gentleman and others who own lands in the greenbelt have been advocating for years to have lands taken out of the greenbelt. They’ve met with many Premiers and many members of all parties.

We made a public policy decision that was not supported by the people. Ultimately, what we’re trying to do is build 1.5 million homes for the people of the province of Ontario. We’ve reversed the greenbelt decision, Mr. Speaker.

But let me also be very, very clear: We will not stop on our goal of building 1.5 million homes for the people of the province of Ontario. We will double down. We will work with our municipal friends to ensure that we build those 1.5 million homes. We will hold our municipal partners accountable, and at the same time we will hold developers and home builders accountable with a new “use it or lose it.” We’re in a crisis and we will get the job done.

Government accountability

Ms. Marit Stiles: Once again, none of this story is adding up, Speaker.

Back to the Premier: I’m not the only one who is going to be questioning the discrepancy between the Premier’s testimony and the growing mountain of evidence. I would bet that the RCMP’s special prosecutor, who is investigating the alleged criminal corruption by this government, is going to be interested too.

So I would ask the Premier, would the Premier like to take the opportunity to correct the record?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: Again, as I have said on a number of occasions, we will assist the RCMP, the Integrity Commissioner or anybody who is doing work on this.

At the same time, we are going to continue to move forward on our goal of building 1.5 million homes for the people of the province of Ontario.

Look, Speaker, we are in a housing crisis in the province of Ontario ostensibly because the Liberals and NDP put obstacle after obstacle after obstacle in the way of building homes. We became one of the least enviable jurisdictions in order to do business. In fact, industries that had been the pillar of Ontario’s economy for decades had said that they could no longer do business in the province of Ontario.

That all changed in 2018 when we doubled down to ensure that we cut red tape, that we reduce taxes for our small, medium and large job creators, that we reduce taxes for families, making life more affordable for them. It is the Liberals and the NDP who stand against families and stand against affordability. We’re going to do all that we can to improve the economy and keep it growing.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Well, Speaker, they’ve replaced that red tape with brown envelopes and USB keys.

The Premier also testified that he had no conversations—no conversations—about the Gormley GO station area prior to November 4, 2022. But minutes from a meeting on October 13, three weeks earlier, say, “Gormley—decision on areas is with the Premier’s office right now” and goes on to say, by the way, the “Premier doesn’t understand [the lands are] in the Oak Ridges moraine.”

Back to the Premier: Could he clarify his testimony?

Hon. Paul Calandra: As I said yesterday, I actually campaigned—it’s online—in two elections to have the Gormley lands taken out of the greenbelt and made available for Whitchurch-Stouffville to develop. Of course, the Premier, on both occasions when I’ve advocated for it, said, “Absolutely not.” He has turned me down on both occasions. The Gormley lands were never taken out of the greenbelt.

The mayor of Stouffville asked for them to be redesignated as part of the official plan. The region of York pulled that out, Mr. Speaker, and that’s where we’re at.

It is so important that we continue to build on our goal of 1.5 million—they’re going to stand in the way of all of it. It’s no secret, right? They’re against ministerial zoning orders that build social housing in their ridings. They’re against ministerial zoning orders that build long-term care. They’re literally against everything that is moving the province forward.

They have cornered the market on saying no. We have cornered the market on building a bigger, better and stronger province of Ontario, and we’ll double down to do it.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, those lands were redesignated, and the minister knows that.

The Premier testified he was not involved in any way with site selection before November 2, 2022. He repeated the same claims to the media just yesterday. But now we know he was discussing a site-specific removal with Mr. Manchia a year earlier, and we just keep finding more evidence: meeting notes that say the Premier’s Office wants this done, that the Premier’s Office asked for a picture to make sure it’s captured.

To the Premier: Does he still expect people to believe that he wasn’t involved from the start?

Interjections.

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

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Again, both the Integrity Commissioner and the Auditor General have confirmed the same, so I would suggest to the members opposite that if they don’t have faith in either of those two officers of Parliament, they should table a motion in front of this House saying that they don’t have confidence in either of those two—

Interjection.

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

The member for Hamilton Mountain will withdraw her unparliamentary remarks.

Miss Monique Taylor: Withdraw.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Restart the clock. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has the floor.

Hon. Paul Calandra: I’ll conclude by saying this: Today, I was joined by the Minister of Finance in Toronto, where we announced that the province of Ontario will be eliminating the HST, so a 13% tax, on purpose-built rentals. Do you know what they’re doing there? Two towers—I think 26 and 21 floors—of rental housing for the people of Toronto.

That is just the start. We are seeing purpose-built rentals at record levels in this province—record levels. For the past 30 years, they have never hit the targets that they are hitting today. And that’s what we continue to do: double down on policies that bring housing to the people of the province of Ontario. They’re against it; we’ll remove the obstacles and remove the taxes—

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

Government accountability

Ms. Marit Stiles: I guess, Speaker, they just want to drag this all out.

An internal document from this week’s latest pile of evidence discusses a change to York region’s official plan that would reclassify 29 hectares of Vaughan lands owned by the Milani family and designate it for future development. These lands are also located within the Oak Ridges moraine in the greenbelt. The document includes commentary from Ryan Amato, who reportedly said that the Premier’s Office “wants this done.”

So this question is to the Premier: Why did his office want this done?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: What we want done is we want to build more homes for the people of the province of Ontario, full stop. We don’t want to drag anything on. We want to get down to the business of building more homes for the people of the province of Ontario. That’s why we’ve brought policies to this House to do just that. That’s why they have voted against every single one of those measures.

When the Minister of Finance brings in a bill to reduce, to eliminate taxes on purpose-built rentals, they will vote against it. When the Minister of Infrastructure brings a bill forward to build transit faster, they vote against it. When we bring a bill that would build homes around transit—transit-oriented communities—they vote against it. When we bring a bill forward to eliminate the lowest-income earners from tax rolls, they vote against it. When the minister brought in a bill to increase ODSP rates and to put it towards inflation, to mark it towards inflation, they vote against it.

They vote literally against everything. They stand for literally nothing, and that is why that party is so divided and spending more time fighting each other—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

The final supplementary.

Ms. Marit Stiles: It’s not about building homes; it’s about who gets government favours just because they’re Conservative insiders.

Late last year, the former minister added a “special provision” to York’s official plan just so those specific greenbelt lands could be developed. And remember, those lands were owned by the Milani family. The Milani family and their companies have donated more than $100,000 to the Conservative Party over the last 10 years.

So Speaker, I need to ask, to the Premier: What is the going rate for a lucrative land deal in this province?

Interjections.

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

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Paul Calandra: An odd question, since the member for St. Catharines announced somebody who is here with the co-op housing federation who serves on her electoral district association. I’m sure that person is doing really good work on behalf of the association that he represents, and also good work for the party. You can have it both ways.

But what we’re doubling down on is this: building more homes for the people of the province of Ontario, eliminating red tape so that we can get more shovels in the ground, eliminating taxes so that we can have more purpose-built rentals—ensuring that the people of the province of Ontario can share in the exact same dream that millions of people who came to this country have always had: the dream of home ownership.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the party opposite—they’re against immigration; they’re against building homes; they’re against working people.

The member for Sudbury can’t get the smile off his face, because he voted against the miners in his own community time and time again.

If it was up to them, our economy would sink, there would be no homes built, and the people would only rely on government.

We want the—

Interjections.

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

Taxation

Mr. Will Bouma: My question is for the Minister of Energy. The carbon tax is driving up the cost of utilities, as it is driving up the cost of everything. People across our province are struggling, and life is more unaffordable today because of the imposition of the federal carbon tax. Sadly, many individuals and families are worried about how to pay for home heating and are forced to make decisions.

Businesses and organizations are also feeling the same pressure from the carbon tax. They worry about their financial future and the ability to continue to provide goods and services to the people in their communities.

Can the minister please explain the financial impact the carbon tax increases are having on the people of Ontario?

Hon. Todd Smith: I think the one thing we can agree on is that there’s an affordability crisis across Canada right now, and it’s because of the carbon tax.

What did the federal Liberal government do last week? They carved out their staple policy, the carbon tax—but only in Atlantic Canada—off home heating oil, which affects 2.5% of Ontario residents; over 70% are using natural gas. The carbon tax is adding $300 on a natural gas bill; it’s adding $250 on propane users’ bills across the province.

We’ve been doing everything we can, on this side of the House, to make sure that life is more affordable, just yesterday, the Minister of Finance and the Premier announcing that we are extending the gasoline rebate to 10 cents a litre until mid-next year.

While we’re doing that, the feds are continuing to drive up the cost of gasoline by 14 cents a litre this year with the carbon tax, and plan to triple it over the next number of years.

We’re working closely with the federal government. Let us help you get this right. Reduce the carbon tax.

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

Mr. Will Bouma: It’s clear from the minister’s response that our government has always been a steadfast opponent of the federal carbon tax.

However, the negative impact of the carbon tax cannot be overstated. I receive emails and calls from constituents sharing how the price of gas and food has dramatically increased, creating daily hardships. Drivers are forced to pay more at the pumps because of the carbon tax.

While our government has showed much-needed leadership and reduced the gasoline tax, sadly, the federal government has not. Instead, they increased fuel and gasoline costs by 14 cents, forcing individuals, families and businesses to pay more, all because of the carbon tax.

Can the minister please explain what action needs to be taken to respond to the negative impact that the federal carbon tax is having on the people of Ontario?

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks again to the member opposite for the question.

It’s obviously impacting the price of everything that we buy, from gasoline at the pumps to our home heating fuels to the groceries in our grocery stores. It’s costing more because of the federal carbon tax. And as we heard earlier this week from the governor of the Bank of Canada, it’s also having a massive impact on inflation.

Mr. John Fraser: It’s Groundhog Day.

Hon. Todd Smith: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite from the Liberal Party knows exactly what happens when bad energy policy is presented. His party was reduced to a minivan party in not just one election but two elections. I’m concerned for the federal Liberal Party, under Justin Trudeau—that they’re heading down the same bumpy road, that they’re going to be reduced to a minibus party if they don’t do the right thing.

Work with us. Help us help you, and reduce the carbon tax on everything, everywhere—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Mr. John Fraser: Help the Premier write another letter.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Ottawa South will come to order.

Next question.

Government accountability

Ms. Doly Begum: Speaker, as reported by the Trillium today, last year the former Minister of Municipal Affairs approved amendments to Peel’s official plan that would allow the development of a golf course located inside the greenbelt fingers in Caledon. The beneficiaries of this change include Michael Rice and members of the De Gasperis family. The Auditor General found that the ministry gave Mr. Rice and the De Gasperis family preferential treatment when their lands were removed from the greenbelt last year.

Speaker, my question is, did they also receive preferential treatment when the former minister approved these changes to Peel’s official plan?

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

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I just want to inform the NDP where the public’s mind is. The public’s mind is about the high mortgage rates—that people are losing their houses because of mortgage rates. They’re concerned about the high gas prices, and that’s why yesterday’s announcement was massive: deducting 10 cents per litre off each litre of gas. I know you don’t believe in driving cars. I know you guys don’t. You don’t believe in building roads and highways and bridges. We know that, because you vote against it every single time.

We believe in getting rid of the tolls on the 412 and 418, but you don’t believe in building any roads and highways, as I said. But you also don’t believe in building long-term care. You don’t believe in building hospitals, because you vote against us on every single issue.

My friends in the mining—by the way, I’m heading up to Sudbury to do another robocall to tell the people of Sudbury their own member doesn’t support the mining industry—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. The Premier will take his seat.

I’ll remind the House to make their comments through the Chair and that when the Speaker rises, you sit.

Start the clock. Supplementary question.

Ms. Doly Begum: Speaker, do you know what people are thinking across this province? How they’re going to keep a roof over their heads. They want transparency and accountability from this Premier and this government.

Speaker, this change to Peel’s official plan was requested by Quinto Annibale, who is the Premier’s hand-picked LCBO vice-chair and major PC donor. Mr. Annibale, along with Michael De Gasperis, was also involved in Vaughan Working Families, whose illegal ad campaign against teachers triggered an RCMP investigation just two years ago. And Michael Rice had hired another friend of the Premier, Nico Fidani-Diker, to lobby in support of projects in Caledon and Peel. Mr. Fidani-Diker attended the Premier’s daughter’s wedding reception just last year.

Speaker, the question is, did the Premier or any of his staff direct ministry officials concerning this change to Peel’s official plan?

Interjections.

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

The Premier.

Hon. Doug Ford: Mr. Speaker, unless the NDP didn’t notice, we pulled that back. I apologized to the province. We’re moving forward.

But that member who just spoke, from Scarborough, maybe she should focus on Scarborough. She voted against the brand-new hospital we’re building for Scarborough. She voted against the subway that people have been awaiting for decades out in Scarborough. She voted against the long-term care we’re putting out in Scarborough. Maybe she should get her priorities straight and focus on what people are concerned about right now, and that’s pocketbook issues.

Taxation

Ms. Natalie Pierre: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. The carbon tax imposed by the federal government is negatively impacting the people and businesses of Ontario. The carbon tax raises the price on everything, especially for businesses and manufacturers that have no choice but to either take a financial hit or pass the costs on to consumers.

Our government understands that lowering taxes actually increases revenue, creates jobs and boosts the economy. Unfortunately, the independent Liberals and opposition NDP are working against affordability. They continue to support the carbon tax and vote against measures our government has implemented to help businesses start and grow.

Speaker, can the minister please share his views on how the carbon tax impacts Ontario’s businesses?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, when we speak to companies all across the globe, they’re so excited by what Ontario has to offer. It’s our educated workforce. It’s our low business costs. It’s our innovative ecosystem—all of this and so much more. But the one concern they all bring up, because they don’t understand this, is this federal carbon tax. We look at neighbours in the US: $460 billion in two-way trade, and they ask us, “What the heck is this carbon tax that you have?” They want to think twice about investing and expanding in Ontario. Simply put, this carbon tax has stifled our growth across our economy.

Every business, in every sector, has seen their costs go up because of this terrible carbon tax.

Speaker, our message to the federal government is very simple: Get rid of this tax.

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

Ms. Natalie Pierre: The minister is absolutely right. Ontario can boast about the many successes we’ve witnessed in our province due to lowering the cost of doing business. A carbon tax never creates jobs and never provides more affordability. Its only purpose is to punish Ontario families and businesses.

Only one member from the Liberal caucus understood the negative impacts of the carbon tax and joined us in fighting to lower prices for all Ontarians. It’s time for the rest of the Liberal members who are still saying no to our motion to remove the carbon tax, to do the right thing, do it now and vote to scrap it.

Speaker, can the minister please elaborate how our economy can thrive without the need for a harmful, costly and unfair carbon tax?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Our government has proved that you can fight for the environment while keeping costs low. We reduced the cost of doing business by $8 billion a year, and that has brought $27 billion worth of EV business here in Ontario in three years. Those investments are to provide our end-to-end electric vehicle supply chain. So we are going to be producing every component of clean, emission-free EVs right here in Ontario.

Speaker, we are at the centre of environmental progress here in Ontario. Unfortunately, the federal government has taken the opposite approach. Their crushing carbon tax is making everything more expensive while doing absolutely nothing to fight climate change. We want them to scrap that tax today.

Government appointments

Mr. Joel Harden: My question is to the Premier. For weeks on this side of the House, we have demanded that the government fire Mr. Phil Verster, CEO of Metrolinx, because of the many failures under his watch, but this gentleman earns $1 million a year and he’s just had his contract renewed for three years.

But yesterday, we learned that the government has removed Janet Ecker, a former Tory cabinet minister, from the Metrolinx board in the middle of her term. Reports suggest that it was due to a column she wrote that criticized the “chaotic decision-making process” that led to the greenbelt fiasco.

Speaker, to the Premier: What message is he trying to send? Is it that the Premier can excuse gross incompetence with Mr. Verster, but criticism will not be tolerated?

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

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: Since being appointed Minister of Transportation, I’m seeking a refresh at the Metrolinx board, and with that, we have one of the largest transit expansion plans in the history of this province and also in North America: $70 billion over the next 10 years. Let the record show that the members opposite have voted against each and every single one of those investments, whether it’s building the Ontario Line, which will move over 400,000 people every single day—they voted against that—whether it’s the Scarborough subway extension which, for years under the previous Liberal government, was talked about with no action.

Under the leadership of this Premier, we have shovels in the ground. We’re going to continue to do whatever we can to build transit across this province.

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

Mr. Joel Harden: Back to the Premier: I heard what my friend just said over there about a refresh at Metrolinx. Let’s be clear: The refresh was restricted to one board member, and that one board member, on September 26, wrote an op-ed criticizing this government’s internal culture, and then she was removed from the Metrolinx board. But Mr. Verster still has his job. He makes $1 million a year while he’s presiding over failure, and we have serious transit issues in Ontario. We actually have a $500-million hole in operating funding across transit agencies in Ontario. Fares are going up and service is getting worse.

Will this government get serious about the transit system we have—not the systems they want to exist some day; the buses and trains and streetcars we have—and make sure that they get the $500 million that they need, they fire Mr. Verster right now and insist we get our transit system back on track?

Interjections.

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

The Minister of Transportation can reply.

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: The members opposite in the official opposition have done nothing to support transit in this province. When we came forward with record and historic investments to support transit systems across this province during the pandemic, the members opposite voted against that. When we put forward these historic investments to build and continue to maintain these transit projects across the province, the members opposite voted against that.

Whether it be the Ontario Line for the people of Toronto, the Scarborough Subway Extension, the Hazel McCallon Line LRT in Mississauga and in Brampton, or the new extensions, the Finch West LRT, the members opposite, every single time, when given the chance to stand up to build a world-class transit system across the province, have always stood in the way of progress.

We will not take any lessons from the official opposition on how to build transit. We’re going to continue to move forward on a $70-billion plan over the next 10 years to make—

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

Municipal development

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: We know from the sound work of the Auditor General and Integrity Commissioner on the $8.3 billion greenbelt scandal that this government has been meddling in land development processes to benefit their friends. The government is now under criminal investigation by the RCMP for potential wrongdoing related to these development changes.

The public knew and opposition members knew from the beginning that the greenbelt changes and municipal boundary changes smelled bad. Similarly, changes to Toronto’s Midtown in Focus plan smell bad too. The midtown plan for Toronto, developed with extensive consultation, was thrown out by this government without any consultation with the city or its residents.

My question to the Premier: Given the government’s track record of political interference in land development, can the Premier assure the people of Don Valley West and Toronto that there was no political meddling in the decision to overturn the Midtown in Focus plan, yes or no?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: We are working with the city of Toronto, actually, very closely with respect to their official plan. We’re also working with them on a host of other issues; issues that, frankly, have been brought on by the member’s federal party—a federal party that refuses to pay for its share of services in the city of Toronto. We have shelters that are bursting at the seams because of the policies of the federal Liberal government.

This finance minister and this Premier have stepped up to the plate and are providing funding to the city of Toronto. The federal government has yet to match that funding, as they should be doing. We are working very closely with the city of Toronto, as I said, on its official plan. We are working very closely with them. The Minister of Finance is leading a team to ensure that we can address some of the challenges that they are facing, ostensibly because of policies of the federal Liberal government.

So if the member wants to be helpful, she can call 1-800-Justin and help them see the light so that we—

Interjections.

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

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: Once again, we get empty rhetoric, spin-doctoring and pointing to our federal partners instead of a serious response to a serious question about this government’s ethics and decisions.

My community had a plan in place to ensure thoughtful, deliberate density, but now the proposed developments in my community have big signs from the TDSB and Catholic school board warning future residents that their children will be unable to go to school in their own communities. That’s not responsible development, it’s not good for community building and it’s not good for safety.

City staff, residents and elected officials did not ask for this change to the official midtown plan; in fact, quite the opposite. They continue to be shocked and outraged by the irresponsible development taking place in my community.

Once again, I will ask the Premier through you: Who advised him to overturn the Midtown in Focus plan, eliminating height restrictions and increasing the underlying value of the real estate, and are they the same people who stand to profit from these changes?

Hon. Paul Calandra: There you have it, Mr. Speaker. There you have it from the Liberals right there: Not in my backyard. That is what 15 years of Liberal government brought to the province of Ontario. The member’s own question is against building homes in her community and that is why we are in a housing crisis. When you put their NIMBYism on top of their NIMBYism, the radicalness of the NDP with the inability of the Liberals to ever accomplish anything, you have a housing crisis.

Do you know what we’re doing? We’re untangling the mess. But it’s even more than that. It’s high interest rates. Why? Because of policies of the Liberals. We had a Liberal cabinet minister on TV the other day say that the only reason that there’s tax relief from the carbon tax in Atlantic Canada is because Liberal members there said something about it. So why don’t the Liberals here and the Liberals MPs in Ontario say something about it and do something to bring more affordability to the people of Ontario instead of sitting on your butts and doing—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Stop the clock. Members will take their seats. The House will come to order so we can continue question period.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Brantford–Brant would like to place his question, if his colleagues will allow him.

Interjections.

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

Start the clock: The member for Brantford–Brant.

Taxation

Mr. Will Bouma: Thank you, Speaker. I appreciate that.

My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. The carbon tax is hurting our farmers, hurting our families and hurting our businesses. The carbon tax raises the price of everything, especially for our businesses, who have no choice but to either absorb the loss or pass on the cost to their customers.

The massive cost of the carbon tax is unsustainable for the people of Ontario. The carbon tax’s effects are widespread, including negative impacts to industries in the natural resources sector. Any barrier that creates delays and financial hardships in this sector negatively impacts Ontario’s growth and economic prosperity.

Speaker, can the minister please explain how the carbon tax has impacted the natural resources, forestry and wood sectors here in Ontario?

Hon. Graydon Smith: Thank you to the member for the question. It’s an important question because the carbon tax does impact lumber; it does impact the forestry sector.

I got a letter the other day from the president of the Ontario Forest Industries Association, and here’s what they said: “The next scheduled increase of the federal carbon tax on April 1 will have significantly damaging impacts on our sector. Fuel costs impact every stage of the supply chain within the economy and have compounding negative effects on industry competitiveness.”

Now, let’s think about that. Let’s think about the contractor getting in his truck to drive to the forest to do his work—paying carbon tax. Let’s think about the equipment used to take down a tree—more carbon tax. Let’s think about the trucks that take the logs out of the bush—more carbon tax. Let’s think of the milling process—more carbon tax. Let’s think of getting the lumber to market—more carbon tax.

Mr. Speaker, this tax has got to go. We’ve got to scrap the tax. It’s in the cost of every new home in Ontario.

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

Mr. Will Bouma: Speaker, do you know what the worst part about the carbon tax is? That it’s only going to get worse. The federal government, independent Liberals and opposition NDP want to nearly triple this regressive tax by 2030. This means fuel prices will increase, creating a chain reaction of rising costs throughout the economy. For example, the price to move and process lumber will