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

June 5, 2019

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2019-Jun-05 (PDF)

L116 - Wed 5 Jun 2019 / Mer 5 jun 2019

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 5 June 2019 Mercredi 5 juin 2019

Orders of the Day

More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 pour plus de logements et plus de choix

Introduction of Visitors

Correction of record

Oral Questions

Government contract

Health care funding

Climate change

Interprovincial trade

Public transit

Government’s record

Skilled trades

Workplace safety

Broadband infrastructure

Municipal government

Public transit

Water quality

Charitable gaming

Environmental protection

Official members’ photograph

Notice of dissatisfaction

Deferred Votes

Bringing Choice and Fairness to the People Act (Beverage Alcohol Retail Sales), 2019 / Loi de 2019 visant à offrir à la population plus de choix et un accès équitable en matière de vente au détail de boissons alcooliques

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Legal aid

Autism treatment

Climate change

Transportation infrastructure

Health care

Guelph and District Multicultural Festival

Teeyan Da Mela

Eddy Lefrançois

Ontario’s Best Butter Tart Festival

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

Visitors

Introduction of Bills

Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 visant à préserver la viabilité du secteur public pour les générations futures

Making Northern Ontario Highways Safer Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 visant à accroître la sécurité des voies publiques dans le nord de l’Ontario

La Francophonie Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur la Francophonie

Ontario Food Terminal Protection Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 sur la protection du Marché des produits alimentaires de l’Ontario

Ontario Water Resources Amendment Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 modifiant la

Loi sur les ressources en eau de l’Ontario

Safe and Healthy Communities Act (Addressing Gun Violence), 2019 / Loi de 2019 pour des collectivités saines et sécuritaires (traitant de la violence armé

e) Combatting Litter for the Environment and Nature Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 visant à lutter contre les détritus afin de protéger l’environnement et la nature

Motions

House sittings

Petitions

Curriculum

Government’s record

Curriculum

Curriculum

Waste reduction

Library services

Child care

Municipal planning

Tenant protection

Campus radio stations

Climate change

Orders of the Day

Bringing Choice and Fairness to the People Act (Beverage Alcohol Retail Sales), 2019 / Loi de 2019 visant à offrir à la population plus de choix et un accès équitable en matière de vente au détail de boissons alcooliques

More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 pour plus de logements et plus de choix

Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act (Interim Period), 2019 / Loi de 2019 modifiant la

Loi sur la Société de protection des animaux de l’Ontario (période intermédiaire)

Private members’ public business

Adjournment debate

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019 / Loi de 2019 pour plus de logements et plus de choix

Resuming the debate adjourned on June 4, 2019, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 108,

An Act to amend various statutes with respect to housing, other development and various other matters / Projet de loi 108, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne le logement, les autres aménagements et d’autres questions.

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

Mr. Mike Schreiner: Good morning, everyone. I rise to contribute to the debate on Bill 108. I’m asking MPPs from all parties to listen to municipal leaders, citizen groups, heritage and environmental groups who are speaking out against Bill 108.

Over 80 municipal governments, housing advocates and environmental leaders wrote an open letter to the minister requesting that the government provide additional time to consider Bill 108. I want to quote from their letter:

“The provisions in Bill 108 would limit the ability of municipal governments to plan for, and provide amenities for the people we all serve. Our residents expect their neighbourhoods consist of more than just a grouping of homes. Parks, daycares, and recreation centres are not nice-to-haves but necessary building blocks of a thriving community.

“Residents are also concerned about losing Ontario’s natural heritage if schedules 2, 5, and 6 of the act is passed. Bill 108 threatens conservation areas, wetlands, and the plants and animals that call them home, particularly endangered species. Ontarians value and cherish their natural areas, and will not accept losing them to sprawling subdivisions when better options are available.”

Yet the government is ramming this bill through with only one day of hearings.

I had mayors reach out to me who wanted to speak on Bill 108 to express their concerns, but because there was only one day of hearings—it actually happened while the Federation of Canadian Municipalities meetings were taking place—they were unable to contribute to the debate. I believe it’s wrong for the government to silence their voices.

Speaker, I want to challenge the government’s assertion that this bill is somehow good for hopeful homeowners or people struggling to pay rent.

The chief architect of the greenbelt and highly respected urban planner Victor Doyle had this to say about Bill 108: “Despite its title, the province’s Housing Supply Action Plan and Bill 108 do very little to support an increased supply of affordable housing ... and in certain instances are directly contrary to that goal, such as restricting the use of inclusionary zoning only to major transit stations.”

The mayor of Mississauga, Bonnie Crombie, said, “We have not seen any evidence that reducing fees and timelines for developers will result in the creation of more affordable housing or that savings will be passed along to consumers. The long-held principle that ‘growth pays for growth’ would no longer apply, resulting in existing ratepayers and residents footing a larger share of the bill for new growth.”

So by reviving the old OMB rules and reducing development charges, the government is essentially handing over the keys to the province to big developers. This will leave municipalities cash-strapped and unable to ensure healthy, livable communities with recreation centres, daycares, parkland and other essential amenities. Reviving the old OMB will drag municipalities back into multi-million-dollar squabbles in front of a quasi-judicial tribunal of unelected adjudicators.

It was a good day for democracy and for citizens when the OMB was killed. As a matter of fact, members opposite, when they were in opposition, voted to get rid of the OMB, so I wonder what has changed. It’s disappointing to see that democratic power is being wrenched back away from citizens and municipalities, who won’t even have the same appeal rights as big developers under the government’s proposed new system.

The growth of our communities should be driven by the people who live in these communities, not by private interests. The government’s housing plan is straight out of the 1950s, when the best idea we had going was building more sprawling suburbs, and we now know the cost of that kind of development. We’ve evolved since then, and there are better solutions.

Worsening sprawl will not solve the GTA’s skyrocketing housing prices, but it will line the pockets of big developers and speculators. To quote the recently sacked Environmental Commissioner, “It’s fast and easy to turn a wetland to a suburb. It’s almost impossible to turn it back.”

If we were serious as a province about tackling the cause of out-of-control housing prices in 2019, then we’d be looking at the activities of land speculators and private equity firms and vacation rental companies.

Yesterday, MPPs from all opposition parties joined environmentalists and developers to speak out against Bill 108. We were joined by a developer from Windmill Development Group, which is committed to a triple bottom line: people, planet and prosperity. He spoke about ways that we can to respond to development pressures without encroaching on prime farmland and sensitive wetlands or wildlife habitat. He talked about the need for intensification around transit hubs, about the missing middle, about developing urban brownfield sites. We also could add to that list tiny homes, laneway housing, secondary suites and co-housing, to make better use of existing housing stock and urban land.

Bill 108 embraces some of those ideas, and that’s a good thing, but why put them forward in the context of an omnibus bill that does so much other damage?

It’s wrong to put endangered species at risk of extinction, and it’s wrong that endangered species don’t have a voice in this government. They can’t vote; they can’t write campaign cheques. So today, on World Environment Day, I would like to give them a bit of a voice, because I don’t want to be a part of the generation that sees so many species go extinct, and tell my kids that they can’t enjoy the wildlife that I’ve been able to enjoy.

I want to ask the members opposite—for instance, the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka, whose riding includes habitat for the threatened Algonquin wolf—will he stand up and vote against Bill 108? Or the member from Kenora–Rainy River, whose riding includes one of only two subpopulations of the grey fox, which is threatened in Ontario but not in other jurisdictions—and the minister suggests we can get rid of anyway—will he stand against Bill 108?

To the member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex, whose riding includes significant wetlands around Lake St. Clair, where the king rail lives, and is an endangered water bird: Will he stand up against Bill 108?

To the member from Niagara West, whose riding includes a few of the remaining cherry birch trees, of which the minister says, “We can cut down and pay into some pay-to-slay fund”: Will he vote against Bill 108?

Speaker, I ask because I want to echo the comments of Anne Bell from Ontario Nature yesterday, who said that if this bill passes, the proposed changes are so profound that the Endangered Species Act would be rendered into a “hollow shell of its former self. It will be pretty much useless in addressing the ongoing decline of endangered species.”

I remind members of this House that globally, one million species are at risk of becoming extinct.

I was at an event last night with the Honourable Tom McMillan, who was the environment minister in Brian Mulroney’s government. He spoke about the responsibility of all legislators in this country to address the biodiversity and climate crisis. Bill 108 does exactly the opposite.

So it would be impossible, I believe, for any MPP to read this bill and claim that it will actually improve the life of endangered species. I ask my colleagues: Do you want to be complicit in that? I hope not. I ask you not to be, and I ask everyone in this House to vote no on Bill 108.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate?

Mr. Ian Arthur: It’s a pleasure today to contribute to the debate on Bill 108, which is something like the “more, better, good homes act,” or something like that. The panache this government has for naming bills is just extraordinary.

I think that there are very few bills where the true intent of this government is so clearly laid out as in Bill 108. When you break down the different components of the bill and the acts that it amends, you really begin to have a deep understanding of where the priorities of this government lie.

This bill is a gift to sprawl developers. It endangers the last few wetlands and protected forested areas that we have, particularly in southwestern and southern Ontario, where we only have 3% coverage. Speaker, 18% coverage is what is considered safe, and we have 3%. I know that in your riding, Speaker, there were actually flood warnings from the rising water levels in Lake Ontario.

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Lake Erie.

Mr. Ian Arthur: Lake Erie—sorry. Yes, Lake Erie. Thank you for the correction, Minister.

A large part of that is that we no longer have the resiliency to deal with these extreme weather conditions, which are happening more and more often. And one of the best ways we can create that resiliency is by protecting these wetlands and forested areas, because they act like a sponge. When we have forested areas, when we have wetlands and there are these extreme weather events and large rainfalls in the spring, the province has the capacity to deal with that. When we pave over them, when we hand out these areas to sprawl developers to create subdivisions, we lose that resiliency.

It’s also incredibly expensive to do. The suburbs that are breaking up our farmland or forests or paving over wetlands—they’re some of the most expensive ones to run down the road. But they’re very profitable right up front at the very beginning because a lot of the money is made when you actually take those pieces of farmland and you chop them up, not in the actual building of the houses or anything like that. So lining up Ontario to embrace that kind of development on a massive scale is going to have dramatic repercussions for a very long time, and I think a lot of them are going to be negative.

I don’t think it’s going to deal with the affordability crisis in housing. I don’t think it’s actually going to deal with the supply crisis that we have and, I think, environmentally, it’s going to be a huge mistake.

I’d like to read a statement here from Environmental Defence. It was their submission on this:

The “government is putting Ontario’s environment up for sale at bargain basement prices. We’re concerned this move gives sprawl developers a free pass to pave over farmland, forests and endangered species, putting our clean air, drinking water, local food supply and vulnerable habitats at risk. At a time where parts of Ontario are flooded and feeling the devastating effects of climate change, allowing development in our natural protection areas like forests and wetlands is irresponsible and dangerous.

“What’s equally concerning is that this plan is short on details on how it will actually address housing affordability. We know that opening up distant farmland for low-density housing isn’t going to provide affordable housing, but it will make commutes longer, taxes higher ... provisions and delaying habitat protections, these changes represent a gutting of” the act.

So, environmental groups are against Bill 108—probably to be expected, to be honest with you—but what’s more remarkable is the number of municipalities that are actually against Bill 108. Right here, I have a stack of submissions from municipalities all across Ontario, and this is only a small portion of them. The municipalities, almost in their entirety, have spoken out in their dislike of this bill. They’re focused a little bit less on the environmental protections, although they do talk about that extensively.

They sent a submission in—many of them are the same; many of them sent in the same submission. I’m going to start by reading from the city of Toronto: “Whereas the legislation that abolished the Ontario Municipal Board and replaced it with the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal received unanimous—all-party support”—this is the first line. I’m reading from the city of Toronto submission.

I’m going to move on to the Halton region and read the second line: “Whereas all parties recognized that local governments should have the authority to uphold their provincially approved official plans; to uphold their community driven planning; and”—that was from Halton.

Now we’re in Aurora: “Whereas Bill 108 ... once again” allows “an unelected, unaccountable body to make decisions on how” their “communities evolve and grow.”

On to Markham: “Whereas the city of Markham”—and that would have been substituted for any of the other municipalities—“requests that the proposed changes to the Planning Act provide greater deference than that previously afforded to local, municipal decisions on development applications, by restoring the test under the Planning Act that appeals must be on the basis that the municipal decision is not consistent with the provincial policy statement, fails to conform with a provincial plan, or fails to conform with the local and regional official plan(s)”—from Markham.

Now on to Oliver Paipoonge municipality: “Whereas this MOU is ‘enshrined in law as part of the Municipal Act’. And recognizes that as ‘public policy issues are complex and thus require coordinated responses ... the province endorses the principle of regular consultation between Ontario and municipalities in relation to matters of mutual interest’; and

“Whereas by signing this agreement, the province made ‘a commitment to co-operating with its municipal governments in’” accordance to “‘new legislation or regulations that will have a municipal impact’”—that’s from Grey county. I know the member from Grey county talks to his constituents a lot.

Now on to Niagara-on-the-Lake: “Whereas Bill 108 will impact 15 different acts—Cannabis Control Act, 2017, Conservation Authorities Act, Development Charges Act, Education Act, Endangered Species Act, 2007, Environmental Assessment Act, Environmental Protection Act, Labour Relations Act, 1995, Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act, 2017, Municipal Act, 2001, Occupational Health and Safety Act, Ontario Heritage Act, Ontario Water Resources Act, Planning Act, Workplace Safety and Insurance Act....” That’s from Niagara-on-the-Lake.

We’re going to go a little bit closer to my home and the township of Frontenac. “Be it further resolved that the township of South Frontenac”—and we can substitute, again, any of the municipalities that dislike this tremendously—“call upon the government of Ontario to halt the legislative advancement of Bill 108 to enable fulsome consultation with municipalities to ensure that its objectives for sound decision-making for housing growth that meets local needs will be reasonably achieved; and

“Be it further resolved that a copy of this motion be sent to the Honourable Doug Ford”—sorry; the Premier—“Premier of Ontario, the Honourable Christine Elliott, Deputy Premier, the Honourable Steve Clark, Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Honourable Andrea Horwath, leader of the New Democratic Party, and all MPPs in the province of Ontario.”

I read from a number of them, but there’s still a stack here. We have Ajax; we have the city of Hamilton; we have the entire Durham region. We have Georgina, Brampton, Newmarket, Halton Hills, Southwest Middlesex, Grimsby, the York region, Aurora, which I already said, and Oakville. This isn’t even all of them. These are just the ones I had printed copies of in my office.

The mass opposition to this—the municipalities are saying, “Stop. Give us time to have some input on that.” That’s what they’re asking. They’re saying that they should have a right to determine their own governance and their own ability to effect development in their ridings. It’s hard to believe that this government wants, in this frankly bull-headed manner, to push forward with these changes when there is that much opposition to them.

That was a petition sent to the government, but many of the councillors and mayors across Ontario have also spoken out in other ways, apart from the formal petition. I’m going to read a couple of their quotes.

Chris Murray from the city of Toronto said there was “limited evidence” the legislation would make it easier or faster to build housing. “There are no tools in Bill 108 that address head-on our affordable housing challenge.” That’s one.

From Mississauga: “The province’s new housing legislation is a plan made by people who don’t have a clue how municipalities work....’”

In Halton Hills, regional chair Gary Carr said, “Quite frankly, this bill has been written by the developers,” which is indicative of what I’ve been saying this whole time. There’s no consultation with municipalities. They’re almost entirely opposed to this bill.

It is a gift to a very specific type of developer. Let’s be very clear that this is a boon to sprawl developers. There are some excellent developers out there, doing gentle densification, working on brownfield development, and we need to support them and they should continue what they’re doing. But the breaking up of wetlands, forested areas and farmlands is not the solution for housing anywhere in Ontario.

From the region of Peel: “Bill 108 will once again allow an unelected, unaccountable body to make decisions on how our communities evolve and grow.”

Oakville mayor Rob Burton told the National Observer that Bill 108 indicated that Ontario is under “a centralized authoritarian regime.” He’s using some strongly worded language. He says, in relation to

schedule 5, “The damage is going to be immense.” The damage “to the environment is going to be immense....

“I am alarmed at this unconsultative, one-sided, uninformed set of sweeping, draconian measures that will only harm communities and the environment, and will not achieve their stated goals.... It’s a joke. It’s a travesty.”

That’s a few of the comments that you’re getting from municipalities across Ontario. Many of them I wouldn’t really say are bastions of progressive ideals, but they really do have a fundamental problem with that.

My critic area is the environment, so I do want to spend some time on

schedule 5 and the changes to the Endangered Species Act.

I want to say that Bill 108 is a massive step backwards for endangered species in Ontario. It does provide an avenue for sprawl developers to pave, or pay to pave, over wetlands and protected areas, and it undermines the scientific integrity of COSSARO and the scientific intent of the Endangered Species Act. It allows the minister to overrule protections, and it is being rammed through the Legislature with little debate or stakeholder input, which I just made abundantly clear by reading all those submissions.

Gutting the Endangered Species Act at a time in history when we are facing human-caused mass extinction is—I don’t have the words; it’s audacious, maybe, but cruel and irresponsible and shirking our responsibilities as leaders and legislators. We are moving in the opposite direction. We are facing a crisis, Speaker. And it is a crisis. The entire scientific community is united in it being a crisis. Yet, our move, as a province, is to remove what few protections we actually have for endangered species in the name of development. It’s the wrong way to go, Speaker. It is absolutely the wrong way to go.

I’m going to quote the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, and they did not mince their words: “Nature is declining globally at rates unprecedented in human history—and the rate of species extinctions is accelerating, with grave impacts on people around the world now likely.... We are eroding the very foundations of our economies, livelihoods, food security, health and quality of life worldwide.”

Now, the only good thing about the report is that it says it’s not too late to make a difference, but that we need to take action on every level, from local to global, and that would actually include provincially. We would have to actually do something provincially, and that would mean expanding protections, taking a more aggressive stance on protecting endangered species. We have to do that, Speaker. We will never get back what we lose if this legislation is passed. We will never get it back.

We live in a time where we must turn the mechanism of government to do everything in its power to deal with this crisis, be it for endangered species, be it for the air quality and our own health, be it for our food security—the ability to feed ourselves is going to be tremendously affected in years to come. We, and this government, are focusing on the wrong thing. It’s hard to be able to see where that path leads and, frankly, not to be able to do anything about it, because there’s incredible damage coming.

It’s going to hurt people across this province, regardless of their income level, regardless of where they live. The effects are going to be detrimental. It’s hard to see that coming and not be able to do anything.

I pray that this government listens to municipalities, listens to environmental groups and pauses Bill 108 to do some meaningful consultations with people across Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate?

Ms. Marit Stiles: Good morning. Speaker, as always, I’m pleased to join the debate today on behalf of my community, the great riding of Davenport, where, I have to say, the housing crisis is being felt acutely. And it is a crisis, Mr. Speaker, of affordability; I would say less of availability, more really of affordability. I hear it every single day when I’m on the doorsteps talking to my constituents.

Under the previous Liberal government, we did see housing become increasingly unaffordable in Toronto, pushing more people into the shelter system or out onto the streets, and certainly more and more people barely making ends meet because so much of their income has to go to housing. The former government talked about affordable housing—I will give them that—but when push came to shove, their agenda always put landlords and, again, big developers before people in need of housing.

This government is taking that agenda to new heights, handing developers really extraordinary powers over our communities, under the guise of addressing a housing crisis.

In Toronto, the average market rent—for those who may not reside in the city—is about $1,492 for a two-bedroom, not including utilities. Honestly, in my community, there is no way you’re going to find a unit for that price. I doubt that, actually. In Davenport, we’ve seen rents increase—and this is going to shock a few people out there—by 35% since 2012, in just seven years.

Of course, we know that under both of these governments, we haven’t seen wages increase accordingly. It’s something, again, that comes up at the doorstep every time I’m out canvassing. I meet people in their thirties—often a young couple in their thirties starting out. Maybe they both even have full-time jobs. That’s pretty awesome. They’re terrified that they will be forced to leave their apartment because they won’t be able to afford a new one in the same neighbourhood.

Also, as they start their family they’re really not sure whether they’re going to find a place that’s close to a school or anywhere near a school, or if they have children that they’ll be able to find a space in a school nearby, in the same neighbourhood.

The idea of home ownership: When we talk about that at the doorstep, people laugh. It’s incomprehensible that home ownership would be an option. It’s something that simply can’t even be entertained by young people in my riding.

For people who are precariously employed—and that number is also growing in Toronto—even a legal rent increase can mean that they’re going to be forced to move, and we see that happening increasingly.

Mr. Speaker, think of minimum wage earners and how much of their income goes to rent each month. It doesn’t leave, really, anything left over for groceries or other necessities of life, and we see that increasingly. Those are the people in our food banks. Those are the kids who rely on the student nutrition programs that this government may end. These folks are worse off after this government’s decision to roll back the minimum wage that was supposed to come into effect, let’s remember, on January 1.

Now that we’re in June, those minimum wage earners have about $600 less in their pockets, thanks to this government. It’s something to keep in mind as we weigh this legislation and, frankly, all legislation. We should be asking ourselves, “Will this make life better for working people or worse?”

Mr. Speaker, one thing is for sure: This bill will do nothing to ensure that new affordable housing is built or that existing affordable housing remains that way. It won’t stop landlords from jacking up rents—you had an opportunity; you didn’t take it—and it won’t protect tenants from renovictions, which is a big issue in my community. In fact, some of my constituents right now at 394 Dovercourt Road are facing renoviction. I know it’s happening across the province, actually. It’s quite terrifying.

So what does this bill do? There are a whole lot of goodies in here served up to make wealthy developers even wealthier. That’s pretty much what this bill is about.

For one, it brings back the hated Ontario Municipal Board in

schedule 11. Let’s remember that this is a completely unaccountable body stacked with developers, which has the power to override municipalities completely. And let’s remember that for years municipalities pleaded with the previous government, the Liberal government, to address this structure, until finally, when they were facing an election, they agreed to shift the balance. Now this bill restores the power of the OMB to be the final say on planning decisions—a very poor decision and one that I think we will suffer for as a province.

In my community, what that means is that when it comes to major developments like those that are happening along Dufferin Street—oh, I could talk for hours and hours about the developments happening on Dufferin Street.

I think what you’ll find when you go to communities like mine is that people aren’t objecting to development. They understand the need for intensification. But they want truly affordable units. They want something for that height that’s going to be achieved. They want investment in parks and community recreation centres. Sometimes—sometimes—the city gets it right and we get some of those things.

In the case of what’s happening along Dufferin Street, there will no longer be any incentive for developers to work with the community and the local councillors before construction. They can simply wait it out, the developers; appeal to the OMB, which is now the LPAT and I guess will be the OMB again—it’s hard to keep track—and most likely they’re going to have their plans rubber-stamped. It will just be approved. So all the work that communities do to try to extract some community benefit will be gone.

This tilting of the scales back toward developers runs absolutely roughshod over municipalities, city planners, school boards, and most importantly, those local community members. It takes away any incentive, any carrot and, frankly, any stick that municipalities have to negotiate those community benefits.

To make matters worse, this bill would restrict what development charges can be levied from new developments. This is very shameful. Right now, those development charges help all community members benefit when new buildings are constructed. They pay for things, again, like parks, green space, streetscape improvement, libraries, child care spaces—all of which ultimately are great news for communities. They make sure that when that development happens, it happens within a neighbourhood where people, when they move into those buildings, can know that there is going to be a space in a school nearby, child care, community recreation services, that kind of thing—green space, my goodness.

The details of that new system are going to be left to regulation, but the act specifies that these charges will be capped based on a prescribed percentage of the appraised value of the land, and not the number of new residential units.

The bill also frees developers from the prospect of paying education development charges, an issue near and dear to my heart as the education critic for the official opposition. Once again, what we see happening is power transferred away from local boards and centralized in the hands of the minister to decide what is best for growing schools and growing communities. Mr.

Speaker, in the past, I know myself, personally, and our party have advocated for more use of education development charges so that we could invest not just in schools in growing areas, but also in the $16-billion repair backlog that we have in our schools, schools that any minute now are going to get so hot—if the weather warms up like it usually does at this time of year—that our kids are going to be literally getting sick in class because of lack of air conditioning, let alone leaky roofs and freezing classrooms in the winter.

Interjection: And the education workers who work there.

Ms. Marit Stiles: And the education workers who work there, who have to deal with those poor working conditions, as do the children.

Speaker, in Davenport and other parts of Toronto, density is increasing. This bill hampers the ability of the city to ensure that amenities and public services will be there to support that increasing density. By giving developers a free hand to do as they please, a few people stand to make a lot of money, a great deal of money, at the expense of smart, urban development and what we call “complete communities.”

I’m not going to read from the city council manager’s report, as I had intended to, because there have been some new developments I want to make sure I have time to get to.

But, Speaker, the question is, how did we get here? We know that some of Ontario’s wealthiest developers were quietly funding a massive third-party advertising campaign, Ontario Proud—some across the way will be familiar with that—that was really dedicated solely to electing this government. Achieved. I know that my constituents and people across Ontario have many questions about the influence of those powerful lobbyists on government policy.

I will add, it wasn’t just this government, because I recently had the experience of sitting on a panel with a former member from Beaches–East York, I believe, Arthur Potts. He says he was a lobbyist with the city for developers, for construction companies, and many of the same people that, unfortunately, he pointed out ironically, defeated his government and helped elect the members opposite. But he gave me some really interesting insight into what this government is doing. He actually agrees, ironically, with some of what the government is doing because he supported those companies.

But anyway, Speaker, like many members in this House, my inbox has been deluged with emails opposing this bill and opposing the undemocratic way it has been rammed through the Legislature, leaving only—let’s remember—one day to hear from the public about such sweeping changes. It’s a complete slap in the face to the people who sent us here. I feel like a broken record sometimes, because unfortunately, we have to talk about that all the time, whether it’s a committee or here—

Interjection: It’s happening.

Ms. Marit Stiles: It’s happening all the time.

I don’t care what the bill is or how right the government thinks they are; the people of Ontario have a right to take

part in the legislative process. This is their House, and they have a right to be heard. These are their laws.

Despite these attempts to limit participation by regular people in this process, people have certainly been making their voices heard. We have heard about many, many municipalities that have objected to this bill, from places large and small.

We’ve also had a groundswell of opposition from ordinary citizens to this bill. Amendments to the Endangered Species Act—and I know my colleague just spoke very eloquently about that. I want to revisit that issue. As many will know, Ontario currently has over 230 species at risk, including Blanding’s turtles, lake sturgeon and the boreal caribou. Bill 108 essentially allows developers to pay to break the law, buying their way out of the Endangered Species Act. This has been, I think, quite a concern for so many Ontarians. I can’t tell you how many people have emailed me about this.

The bill completely ignores environmental and animal science. It sells out our natural heritage in these backroom deals, hidden away from public oversight or any scrutiny. That is, I have to say, chilling.

This is an emotional subject, Mr. Speaker, and one that I do believe transcends party politics, because no matter what part of Ontario you live in and no matter how you vote, Ontarians know that our natural environment and biodiversity are part of what makes this province one of the most beautiful, livable places on the planet. We are so fortunate, and we are at such risk. The idea that we, as humans, somehow exist outside of these ecosystems is fundamentally flawed, yet it seems to be pervasive in this government’s approach to the environment.

And that is truly disappointing to me, personally, to the people I represent and, I think, increasingly to many, many Ontarians, and also, I would say, especially to the next generation, to the young people who are out there every Friday, pleading with us to do the right thing.

Speaker, our very survival as a species is intricately linked to the environment in which we live. If this bill is allowed to pass, we will only be accelerating the species loss that science has already told us is headed for catastrophic levels. I, for one, do not want to pass that burden onto my daughters or their daughters, and I expect some members opposite feel the same. I hope you will find the courage to join us in opposing this deeply flawed legislation.

Just before I close, Mr. Speaker—I have a few more minutes—I want to talk about some news that has emerged today in an interview with the Globe and Mail where the municipal affairs minister has said that he intends to send two proposed official plan amendments, one for the development of Toronto’s midtown and the other for the development of the downtown, back to Toronto officials on Wednesday—that’s today—with major revisions meant to address what he calls “the city’s housing affordability crisis.”

To comply with this directive, the city is going to have to go back to the drawing board, I guess. I want to say how deeply disturbing this is to many of us living in this city—once again, no consultation, no discussion even with people who were elected to represent our city, city councillors—nothing.

I want to quote the minister here, Mr. Speaker, in this article. He says, “As a politician, it’s very difficult, because I am looking out for those people who don’t live in those neighbourhoods right now, who don’t have that voice.” Huh? What? What does that even mean? This minister should be concerned about what’s going to happen to people already living in that neighbourhood, as well as the people who are going to move in, because those people aren’t going to have community centres or daycares.

Already, there are notices up on the fences around developments happening in these areas of the city—if you haven’t, I urge you to go out and check it out yourself, because there are signs on those fences that say, “We cannot guarantee that your child will have a space at this school,” which really means they won’t, and then they will have to be bused to another school.

I just want to point out that the cost of that, the cost of busing, as this government should know, is astronomical. It’s an enormous part of our education budget. It will continue to grow. What we need are more community schools. If you’re building high-rises and you’re going to go higher and higher and not think about those investments, we will all literally be paying that price in the future. I think that’s just one example of where this can go so badly wrong.

The minister talks about needing to allow for more development and building higher buildings in these areas near transit stations and transit growth. But the problem is, we have people literally standing on crowded platforms, kids on crowded platforms—I’ve talked about this before in this House. Kids on crowded platforms getting to school by subway, at risk of getting pushed into the—I mean, this is my nightmare as a parent. I really urge the government to understand the implications of this.

I know what this is about. This is about giving a gift, frankly, back to those who have supported you, big-time developers, and the Liberals previously did exactly the same thing. But Ontarians have had enough of this and Torontonians have had enough of this. We are going to pay the price, and all those people, those families who you say you want to support, are going to literally pay the price. It is terrifying and it is really, deeply undemocratic, so I have to say shame on the government for this.

In closing, I want to thank everyone who has taken the time to write in and share their views on this deeply flawed legislation. Whether you are someone who has been waiting on the affordable housing waiting list for 10 years and you know this bill will only put housing further out of reach, whether you’re a concerned neighbour who wants smart, responsible growth in your community and not a return to the bad old days of the OMB, or whether you’re someone who knows that we’re already up against the extinction clock for too many species, I want you to know that we hear you and that we will be opposing this bill every step of the way.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate?

Ms. Jessica Bell: It’s an honour to stand up to speak to Bill 108, the More Homes, More Choice Act, on behalf of the residents of University–Rosedale. Now, there’s no doubt that we have an affordable housing crisis in Ontario. We certainly have an affordable housing crisis in University–Rosedale. It’s the number one issue that my constituents face. When I go door-to-door, this is the issue people bring up most frequently.

We also just did a community meeting in Kensington to discuss and talk about ways that we can individually help people who are facing an affordable housing problem—maybe they’re facing eviction—and also look at some of the political reasons why we are facing an affordable housing crisis. Some of the stories that came up in that community meeting are really indicative of the ways that our affordable housing crisis affects people on so many different income levels and in so many different ways—people that allegedly would be helped by this bill, the More Homes, More Choice Act.

Those people include the individuals who live at 54-56 Kensington. Almost all of them are men who are struggling to get by—it’s a rooming house, like many places in Kensington—and they are being threatened with illegal eviction by a new landlord who wants to jack up the rent and turn some of the apartments into Airbnbs. These people are terrified because if these people are evicted, some of them will end up homeless, which is terrible.

And for one of those people who lives very close to them, an individual called Kwame, who the Kensington-Bellwoods community legal clinic has been working with, actually had that fate when, once again, a new landlord bought his apartment and illegally evicted all of the tenants, including Kwame.

They called the police, the police came and actually charged the landlord for hurting the tenants and illegally evicting them, but the police did not have the ability to return Kwame to the apartment. The Landlord and Tenant Board, even though they ruled in Kwame’s favour—because the landlord is appealing, Kwame and his former roommates are not able to access that apartment and Kwame is living in a shelter on Bathurst Street right now.

Then there are other people in the more middle-income bracket, such as a resident of University–Rosedale whose kid goes to the local school. He and his partner are both earning a decent income and want to stay in the riding and want to keep their kid in their school, because their child has friends, their child likes the teacher and, quite frankly, it’s really very difficult for a child to move them to a different school. His landlord evicted him, and now he’s paying $3,500 a month rent for a two-bedroom apartment because that’s all he could find in the riding.

This is very typical of the kinds of situations that people in University–Rosedale find themselves in because of the affordable housing crisis.

It’s unethical that we have this situation, because there are ways to solve it. The problem is that this bill, Bill 108, is not going to address the very real affordable housing realities that people all across Ontario face at all those different levels that I was talking about.

What Bill 108 really is is a piece of legislation that was designed for, and caters to, donors of the Conservative Party. That’s what it is. It’s developers, by and large—there are good developers out there, but by and large, there are also many developers who want to capitalize on our very hot housing market and make a quick buck, and that is being done at the expense of people who already live here.

Bill 108 is a bill that gives developers free rein to trample on the environment by paying a fee, and it is putting our endangered species at risk—species that already are endangered, and then it’s putting them further at risk.

Bill 108 is a bill that overrides municipalities’—including Toronto, which is the sixth-largest government in Canada, and this bill essentially takes away Toronto’s right to make its own decisions—city councillors’ and residents’ own decisions about how we want to develop in a way that makes sense for people here. That’s not right. This bill is not going to do much at all to address the affordable housing crisis, and it’s going to do a lot of things that will make things worse.

I want to summarize a little bit more about some of the issues that I see in this bill in more detail. A lot of these issues have been brought up by residents’ associations in my riding who follow the issue of development very closely. They include the Annex Residents’ Association, the Greater Yorkville Residents’ Association, the Harbord Village Residents’ Association and the Ossington residents’ association. They really care. They’re the kind of people who care about the kind of neighbourhoods they live in and they get involved. They’ve approached me, and some of them spoke at committee, and these are some of the issues they brought up.

One is that they’re very concerned about how municipalities are being robbed of the power to provide important services, like parks, daycare centres and community infrastructure, because the amount of development charges that can be placed on a new development have been reduced, and that’s a huge problem.

Just to clarify, municipalities use development charges essentially to make developers contribute to the services that people need in an area. This makes a lot of sense, because when you have 1,000 or 2,000 people move into an area, which is what happens if you build a big condo, those people need parks to go to—many of them have little pets or kids—they need daycare centres, they need community centres. They need all these critical services to make the quality of living in a highly urbanized environment good. That’s what’s part of it.

What happens when developers don’t pay their fair share is that everyone else has to pay their fair share, or it’s not done and people’s lives are a little bit more miserable. So that’s a big win for developers and it’s a big loss for communities.

On a personal level, we just had a development, an Honest Ed’s development, at Bathurst and Bloor. The developer responsibly worked very closely with the residents’ associations, the local community and the local city councillors to try and do what was right. There’s going to be some affordable housing. There’s going to be a new park. They’ve provided some subsidies to local businesses so some small businesses can stay in the area and survive on Bloor Street and on Markham Street.

That kind of negotiating power that city councillors have to get what the community needs is lost with this bill, because this bill basically significantly reduces the power municipalities have to get those kinds of things that developers sometimes are a little reluctant to give.

Another big concern that Bill 108 raises is the proposed changes to the Planning Act, the Ontario Heritage Act and the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act. Quite frankly, these changes are a big windfall for private developers, because we’re reverting back to the old OMB rules, which means that local residents, neighbours and community groups have much less say over the kind of development that happens in their community. Quite frankly, that’s a huge problem, because residents’ associations deserve to have a say over what happens and local elected officials deserve to have a say too. This bill takes that away.

Bill 108 also robs cities of the power to address local needs and promote affordable housing. The reason why it does that is because it takes away something called inclusionary zoning. Inclusionary zoning essentially means that if a developer comes into your community, a certain percentage of units are set aside to be affordable. Maybe it’s at 80% of market rent for 50 years’ time and 20% of units are defined as affordable. All those things are variables that municipalities work with the developer to work out. That’s essentially now gone.

What’s so frustrating about that is that the city has been fighting for so long to have that inclusionary zoning power, because they know that inclusionary zoning means that affordable housing units are built.

There’s this thing called the “crane index.” It’s a real thing, and it measures how many cranes in a given area are building condos or developments. It’s one of the measures of how successful a city is or how many residential units are being built. Toronto, actually, is number one in North America on the crane index. We are building more condos and more residential units than any other city in North America. The challenge is that the units that are being built are not affordable. There was a recent study done by the city of Toronto.

It looked at the—I don’t know what it was; I think it was about 40,000 units had been built. One in 40 of them was defined as “affordable,” meaning a person on an average income in Toronto could afford them.

It’s not just about supply. It’s also about addressing this issue of affordability. The way of doing that, through inclusionary zoning, is disturbingly absent in Bill 108. It should be included; it should be returned back in there so we can actually tackle the affordable housing crisis.

Another issue that people have raised again and again is the fact that Bill 108 hands over environmental protections and conservation rules to private developers. This issue, for the residents of University–Rosedale, has been one of the biggest—the highest number of emails that I’ve received in the last few weeks has been on this issue. I’ve received over 600 letters and emails from constituents in University–Rosedale who are very concerned about the idea of allowing developers to pay a fee to get out of environmental protections.

In the words of one of my constituents, Catherine, “This is entirely short-sighted thinking. ‘Open for business’ does not have to occur at the expense of our natural environment.” I couldn’t agree with Catherine more.

I know none of this comes as a big surprise to this government. This government has, unfortunately—this is just the latest step in a whole series of moves this government has made to make affordable housing less affordable in Toronto. You’ve gutted rent control on new rental units, even though the Liberal government tried that experiment for 25 years and it was a spectacular failure—a spectacular failure. Nothing affordable has been built. Purpose-built rentals have essentially not been built. It doesn’t work.

You’ve cut 25% of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing budget, you’ve cut $40 million from the affordable rent support program and you’ve cut $11 million from the ending homelessness program. So this is the latest step in a whole series of moves to not make housing affordable in Toronto. It’s unconscionable that that is happening given how many people are really struggling to even survive in Toronto right now.

I want to spend the final few minutes just talking about the huge amount of research and evidence that is out there that identifies policies that we in this House can move forward on to make affordable housing a reality—not just in Toronto, but all across Ontario. That includes making developers pay their fair share. So, instead of reducing development charges, we increase development charges, so we can use that money to build more affordable housing units, as well as daycares and community centres. It means building more rental housing.

And maybe that means the government has to play a role in getting that started up. It means investing in co-ops, such as the ones like Kawartha co-ops and Sultan co-ops in Yorkville.

Sultan co-ops: It’s a beautiful building. It’s now self-sustaining. It doesn’t need any government intervention. A lot of seniors live there who are struggling to make ends meet but have this oasis they can live in that’s affordable. And it’s next to $1.5-million condos, right next door, that are completely unaffordable. That kind of model—and Sultan co-ops can be replicated elsewhere, but it’s not, and it should be.

We should be moving forward on inclusionary zoning. We should be fixing social housing so that people who are really struggling and who need a lot of government help have a safe place to live so they can actually build their lives. We need to make laws that protect renters and make it possible to stay in their homes so that we can challenge the sharp rise in illegal evictions and renovictions. We should engage with local residents and give them a say in what happens in their neighbourhood by not going back to the OMB process, which we know doesn’t work.

I will continue to fight with the residents of University–Rosedale to stand up for affordable housing, and to stand up for meaningful and responsible development so that we can move forward with intensification, but that it’s done in a respectful and responsible way so that Toronto could be the great, world-class city that it deserves to be—not just for international investors, but for people who live here and call it our home.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate?

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: On behalf of my constituents, I rise to speak to Bill 108, the More Homes, More Choice Act. Now, despite its title, Bill 108 does nothing to address the affordable housing crisis. It does a whole lot of other things but does not address the affordable housing crisis. So I want to make sure that it’s on the record that this bill is not going to address the affordable housing crisis.

So what does Bill 108 do? One of the key things it does is to bring back the OMB. Now, in Parkdale–High Park many of us have fought for OMB reform for years, over a decade—maybe longer. The OMB is an uneven playing field—we know that—because community groups have to fundraise. I’ve been to many of the fundraisers. It’s bake sales. It’s garage sales.

Through tens of dollars, maybe hundreds of dollars at a time, communities have to fundraise so that they’re able to hire planners, they’re able to hire lawyers, just in order to have a say in the planning decisions that impact and affect our own neighbourhoods, while big developers, we know, have entire law firms and planning firms as part of their development teams. And we know, historically, looking at OMB decisions, that time and time again they have favoured the developers over communities’ needs.

Speaker, the city of Toronto voted to “Free Toronto from the OMB.” The NDP, over the last many years, tabled many bills to free Toronto from the OMB before the Liberal government finally acted—very last-minute, I would say; just before the election—based on the growing movement of people who felt very strongly that the OMB did not represent their needs.

This bill, Bill 108, basically takes away the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, which has existed for less than a year, and brings back the old OMB. Basically, in doing so, it’s bringing back the same rules that gave lobbyists and developers power over the city. That’s right; the developers are now able to go around municipalities, around city councils, around communities, and put forward proposals before the OMB that the public, the city, hasn’t even seen. How is that fair? So with Bill 108, the Ford government is essentially giving a gift to the developers, and it’s bringing the unaccountable, unelected OMB back into Ontario.

Bill 108 has a huge impact on municipalities, a huge impact on our city here. It’s certainly not a housing bill. In fact, it is what we call a “deregulation bill” because it amends 13 different pieces of legislation in order to give developers what they want.

I won’t read all 13 of them, but it affects legislation such as the Conservation Authorities Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the Ontario Heritage Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act, the Planning Act, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, and so on. As one of my constituents called it, this bill is essentially “green-lighting the developers’ bill,” and I couldn’t agree with my constituent more.

With Bill 108, the Ford Conservatives are doing their best to remove protections that are in place right now to prevent developers from running roughshod over much-needed environmental protections and existing provincial regulations. We have heard from mayors and councils and municipalities across Ontario that this bill will make it harder for municipalities to self-govern and will do nothing to address the affordable housing crisis that the municipalities have been left to deal with after decades of Liberal and Conservative government downloading.

Here in the city of Toronto, the chief city planner, Gregg Lintern, and city manager Chris Murray, said that there is “limited evidence” that this legislation would make it easier or faster to build, and that, “There are no tools in Bill 108 that address head-on our affordable housing challenge.”

The reports and recommendations that have been made by both the Toronto city manager and chief planner demonstrates a deep concern that the envisioned changes to development charges actually threaten many of the city’s projects that are part of the city’s 10-year capital plan. Projects that include:

—a dozen child care centres that cumulatively adds to almost 600 spaces;

—more than 20 Toronto Public Library expansion and renovation projects;

—more than 100 new or expanded parks; and

—two dozen community recreation centres, five pools, four arenas and 200 playground improvement projects.

All of these projects are threatened here in the city of Toronto.

Another constituent of mine wrote, “These community projects are the spinal cord of an inclusive and cohesive society and provide invaluable service and spaces for taxpayers.” I couldn’t agree with this constituent more.

Again, another one writes:

“Currently, Bill 108 requires cities to choose between parkland dedication and instituting a community benefit charge. Both are necessary to create livable communities.

“Allowing cities to require on-site parkland dedication is a key tool for growing cities, especially as land prices rise. This makes acquiring land through purchase much more difficult.

“Parks are not simply places to relax and play, but critical pieces of infrastructure that help clean air, water, regulate temperature and mitigate the effects of extreme weather.”

Again, here a constituent is highlighting the impact of climate change and why we need our parks more than ever.

Speaker, Bill 108 is basically forcing us to choose between soft services for the community, like child care, affordable housing and parkland dedications. We shouldn’t have to make that choice between green space and community services. Both are required for sustainable communities. It limits parkland dedication to just 5% of the development site area, regardless of density.

They’re also taking away development charges. That is $924 million over 10 years from infrastructure for parks, libraries and other community benefits. Again, here we have this government bringing forward a deregulation bill that is taking away so much just in order to benefit their developer friends.

As was mentioned, it also amends the Endangered Species Act. Now, not only would the cities lose green space with the bill, but it’s going to have a negative impact on Ontario’s natural environment and our biodiversity. This bill exposes Ontario’s farmland to urban sprawl and development and also severely reduces conservation authorities’ role. It takes away protections for species at risk and also removes environmental assessments.

ProtectNatureTO and Lenka Holubec from my riding wrote to me to say, “As the world receives an urgent global assessment report from the United Nations on the imminent collapse of the natural world, Ontario is abandoning endangered species. Buried in” this bill “are 20 pages of amendments to the Endangered Species Act.

“On May 29, over 75 scientists across North America signed and sent a letter to environment minister Rod Phillips, urging him to reconsider and maintain a species-at-risk recovery program that was ‘independent and expert-based.’

“The scientists make strong reference to the first comprehensive UN biodiversity report that found that over one million species are at risk of extinction due to human activity.

“We are extremely concerned about losing Ontario’s natural heritage if” the so-called schedules in this “act are passed. As all Ontarians, we value and cherish our natural areas, and we will not accept losing them to sprawling subdivisions.”

I’d like to thank Lenka for her work in organizing against this bill. She had to work on very short notice very quickly because, like many other bills, again, this government is undemocratically rushing this bill through the legislative process.

Many constituents wrote to me about the shortened time for public consultation, that it would be almost impossible for the government to take into account all the public comments that they would be receiving, and I have to agree. I know that from Parkdale–High Park hundreds of submissions were sent. I wonder if members of the committee and members of the government have actually taken time to read them and consider them before rushing through this bill. I don’t think so, because over the weekend they were too busy staging photo ops in convenience stores as opposed to listening to the concerns of the people of Ontario.

Because so many of the submissions that were made by the residents of Parkdale–High Park will not be considered by committee, I do want to spend some of my time bringing the voices of the people of Parkdale–High Park to the chamber here. I’d like to get it into the public record that I did not receive a single email or phone call from my constituents in support of this bill. In fact, I received hundreds and hundreds of emails and phone calls basically asking me to oppose the bill and registering their concerns. These are not just form letters.

This is not just part of an email campaign; they were very detailed, personalized emails and letters. I know that the minister has received many as well because the minister was also copied on a lot of these submissions that were made.

In the first one I have here, the constituent writes, “I live in ward 4 in Toronto”—that’s Parkdale–High Park—“and I do not support the reinstatement of the Ontario Municipal Board rules, putting more power in the hands of developers and lobbyists. We cannot allow an unaccountable and unelected body to determine local planning decisions. This is unconstitutional and undemocratic.”

The other one writes—this is from constituent Dr. Erich Vogt: “I’m concerned about Bill 108 because my perspective comes from working for five decades in a range of development projects, both globally ... and locally as a member of community groups based here in Toronto. The one lesson I have learned the hard way over decades of undertaking complex infrastructure projects is that the successes and failures of projects are directly linked to the degree to which communities are meaningfully consulted and engaged in the planning and implementation processes.

“There is no shortcut, no quick and easy way to bring about consensus to successful, sustainable and inclusive projects.”

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I thank the member very much.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Unfortunately, it is now 10:15. This House will now stand recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I would ask for the members’ attention. I have an introduction I’d like to offer. We have with us in the Speaker’s gallery today a student delegation from the Maggie L. Walker Governor’s School for Government and International Studies, from Richmond, Virginia. These are the future political leaders of the United States. Please join me in warmly welcoming them to the Ontario Legislature.

Applause.

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: It’s a pleasure to introduce to the House Sue Déry, safety manager of Grant’s Transport Ltd., from New Liskeard—she is with her daughter Alisha Boskwick—Mario Villeneuve, président de Villeneuve Construction from Hearst; Dave Plourde, the mayor of Kapuskasing; and Mark Andrews, former OPP north east region traffic and marine unit commander from North Bay. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: We have here the grandmother of our Ottawa West–Nepean page, Sophia, up in the gallery. Regina Stocki is with us today. Welcome.

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: Today I rise—it is a great honour—to announce that today, June 5, is a very special day for a good friend of mine, the member from Niagara Centre. Speaker, today MPP Jeff Burch is celebrating not only his 50th birthday but also his anniversary. Happy birthday, Jeff, and happy anniversary, Linda.

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: I’m thrilled to welcome Paul Vincent and his daughter, Katie. Last year, Katie was named Ontario athlete of the year. Over the last two weeks, she won six medals—two golds and four silvers—for Canada at the Canoe Sprint World Cup in Poland and Germany. Mr. Speaker, I know we’re looking forward to cheering for her next year at Tokyo as women’s canoe events are added to the Olympics for the first time. Go, Katie, go!

Miss Monique Taylor: It has given me great pride to introduce these same folks into the Legislature almost this entire session: our autism parents and advocates Amanda Mooyer, Michau van Speyk, Amy Moledzki, Angela Brandt and Faith Munoz. Welcome back to Queen’s Park again.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: It’s a real honour to welcome students and teachers from the environment club from the York School to Queen’s Park today. I had the pleasure of meeting with them this morning and they’re in the members’ gallery here. Welcome.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Burlington.

Ms. Jane McKenna: Yay! Thank you, Speaker. I’m always usually last, so I’m grateful that I’m not today.

I look forward today to—Canadian Martyrs school is going to be here. I’m going to meet them on the grand staircase. I don’t see them yet.

I also want to wish a happy birthday to my friend Gila, the MPP from Thornhill.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Introductions of visitors. The member for Algoma–Manitoulin.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Well, introduction of a special birthday today—the member from Oshawa. It’s her birthday, as well, today. Happy birthday, Jennifer.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: It’s a pleasure for me to introduce in the House Theresa Osezua, the mother of our page captain Patrick Osezua, and his aunt Fidelia Ogoh. Let’s please welcome them to the House. Thank you very much for being here.

Hon. Monte McNaughton: I’m pleased to welcome to Queen’s Park today Helen Kearns, mother-in-law of James Northey, who works for the Ministry of Infrastructure. Helen is the CEO and president of Bell Kearns and Associates. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’m pleased to welcome Matt Wilson, president of the Ontario Ground Water Association; Dr. Joel Gagnon, head of the heavy metals lab at the Great Lakes institute at the University of Windsor; Marc St. Pierre; Marilynn St. Pierre; Kevin Jakubec; and Natalina Aquino here today.

Ms. Jill Dunlop: I’d like to welcome teachers and students from École élémentaire catholique Samuel-de-Champlain. Welcome.

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: I’d like to welcome constituents of mine: Anthonia Ayeni, with her two daughters Glory Ayeni and Greatness Ayeni, aged 9 and 6. They’re here at Queen’s Park to have lunch and experience the day with their MPP.

Ms. Christine Hogarth: It is my pleasure to introduce two constituents of mine and parents of Amelia, who is our page from Etobicoke–Lakeshore: Joseph Markson and Alicia Markson. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: I have the great pleasure of welcoming members of my staff and team from York–Simcoe to Queen’s Park today: Mary-Lynn Seeley Warr, Lucy Rose and Nicole Stefanick.

I’d also like to welcome Ariana Magliocoo from Vaughan. Ariana has joined the Ministry of the Attorney General for the summer months. Welcome.

Ms. Doly Begum: I have the honour of introducing a group of young women here in the gallery, and some in the public gallery, who came for the child care conference this morning: Eva Lacson, Jane Deng, Fatima Pinheiro, Maryam Ahmadi, Tara Stafford-Regis, Lynda Zheng, Tracy Morris and baby Olivia, Rita More, Jane Mercer, Laurel Rothman, Laura Feltham, Erin Filby, Amy O’Neil, former councillor Janet Davis and Victoria Marshall.

Mr. Robert Bailey: It gives me great pleasure today to welcome here at Queen’s Park Eric Rayson from my riding of Sarnia–Lambton, accompanied by his daughter Annabelle, who was a page in the last session with us. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Stephen Crawford: I’m pleased to introduce Yvonne Blaszczyk, vice-president, human resources and board director of BMG Group, and Nicole Crawford, proud mother of legislative page Monica Crawford and president of Navroc Investment Management. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Doly Begum: I’d like to welcome Rachel MacDougall, who is here to watch question period this morning, from my riding of Scarborough Southwest.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: It’s my great pleasure to introduce Myles Wilson, who is in the gallery today, from my constituency office. Welcome.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I had a wonderful meeting today with two students, and I welcome them to the House sincerely: Meredith Scharlach, Emma Wesley—and her mom, Tammy. Welcome to Queen’s Park, and thank you so much for meeting with me earlier today.

Mrs. Daisy Wai: I have two introductions. I would like to welcome my husband, Albert Wai, joining me today at Queen’s Park in celebration of our 40th wedding anniversary. Thank you, Albert, for your support while I serve Ontarians and work hard for the people.

I would also like to introduce Mr. Bill Rowan, Mrs. Deanna Rowan, and their son and my executive assistant’s husband, Mr. Tim Rowan. Mrs. Rowan will soon be celebrating the first anniversary of her 79th birthday, which we celebrate. She doesn’t want to say that number. Happy birthday and welcome to the Ontario Legislature.

Mr. Paul Calandra: I’m proud to rise today and recognize some of the families who are here to support and watch our page from Markham–Stouffville, Jack Lynch. His parents, Meagan and Paul Lynch, are here. His grandparents, Anne and Edward Lynch and Peter and Donna Loughlin, are here; aunt and cousins Denise Lynch, Ella Marsh, Jacob Marsh and Cameron Marsh. He’s doing an excellent job, and I know you’re very proud of him.

Correction of record

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Two members have informed me they have points of order.

The member for Algoma–Manitoulin on a point of order.

Mr. Michael Mantha: I would like to correct my record. On Sunday night, during debate, I used the term “our First Nation,” which is a very colonial term. It’s wrong, and I apologize to First Nations. I should have said, “the First Nation.” When I’m wrong, I say I’m wrong.

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

The member for Ottawa South, I believe, has a point of order.

Mr. John Fraser: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m asking for unanimous consent to ask a question on behalf of the member from Simcoe–Grey.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Ottawa South is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to ask a question this morning on behalf of the member for Simcoe–Grey. Agreed? I heard some noes.

The member for Orléans on a point of order?

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: Yes. It gives me great pleasure—if I could just have a page, maybe Patrick, come and deliver. We had two successful round tables in my riding of Orléans, on our autism round table. I would like page Patrick to deliver this to Minister MacLeod this morning. Thank you very much.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): It’s not a point of order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Do you have a point of order?

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: Yes.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Okay. The member for Ottawa–Vanier appears to have a point of order.

M me Nathalie Des Rosiers: Yes. I’m seeking unanimous consent to ask a question on behalf of the MPP for Simcoe–Grey. It’s one of my last few days in this Legislature, and I ask for unanimous consent to be able to do that.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Ottawa–Vanier is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to ask a question this morning on behalf of the member for Simcoe–Grey. Agreed? I heard a no.

Oral Questions

Government contract

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Minister of Finance. This morning, the Premier received a letter from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce urging the government not to proceed with their scheme to rip up the contract with the Beer Store. They’re joining the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and thousands and thousands of Ontarians who are raising serious concerns about this reckless scheme. Does the minister still believe it’s a good idea?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Thank you for the question. It’s interesting to note that most people in the province of Ontario were the same as I was when I first got elected—they don’t know, we don’t realize that the Beer Store is not owned by the government of Ontario. Yes, we own the LCBO, but the Beer Store is owned by three global beer giants. They were given a sweetheart deal by the Liberal government, who put profits ahead of people.

The deal is terrible for the consumers. It is killing competition. It is keeping prices high, and it is stifling our craft brewers. There is no deal like this anywhere else in the world. It is a sweetheart deal that rewards only the Beer Store and their near monopoly. We would have to open 11,500 new outlets just to be at the same level per capita as the province of Quebec.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce certainly knows who owns the Beer Store. The minister and the Premier spent a lot of public money jetting to New York and Washington, but evidently they never checked in with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Like the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, they are raising serious concerns about a government that rips up contracts on a whim.

We know the previous government did that, and now we have a government in place that’s doing the exact same things. Ontario families are wondering why the government is ready to blow hundreds of millions of dollars on this Beer Store scheme—this Beer Store battle, in fact—when that money could be so much better invested in things like education and health care.

Why is the finance minister so committed to this reckless and senseless scheme?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: We campaigned on a promise to put people first, including by growing jobs and expanding choice and convenience for Ontario consumers. Our government is open for business and open for jobs, and that approach is working. Since coming to office, 170,000 net new jobs have been created across the province. Just last week we heard from Fitch bond rating agency, who gave us an upgrade, the first upgrade in eight years—eight years, Speaker—and they did this after we brought our legislation with the Beer Store.

The fact of the matter is, it’s a bad deal for consumers and a bad deal for businesses. Special adviser Ken Hughes says the agreement with the Beer Store “stifles competition, keeps prices artificially high, and prevents new craft beer entrepreneurs from getting a strong foothold in the market.”

Speaker, we will always get the best deal possible for Ontario consumers and Ontario businesses.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The people of Ontario have been pretty clear. They want a government that’s focused on priorities like schools and hospitals. Instead, they have a government that’s ready to blow billions of dollars, potentially, on a Beer Store battle, a scheme so reckless it’s becoming an international incident now.

Will this minister back away from this reckless plan today?

Interjections.

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

The minister to respond.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Repeating Beer Store insider made-up numbers is not going to advance this cause. Nowhere else in the world does a government give the biggest beer store companies special privileges at the expense of consumers and the rest of the industry. The three global beer giants are for profits, not for the people.

You have to ask yourself, Speaker, why are these multinational companies fighting the province so hard when all we want to do is put more of their product in more stores? The reason is because their deal was so lucrative. The sweetheart deal they made with the previous Liberal government is so lucrative, they will do anything, say anything to make sure they keep their turf. They’re ignoring the economic opportunity that we know: Expanding beer and wine into corner stores, grocery stores and big box stores will add 9,100 jobs to the province of Ontario and $3.5 billion in our—

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

The next question.

Health care funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Minister of Health. Yesterday, London Health Sciences announced that they would be cutting an equivalent of 165 full-time positions due to budget challenges. Can the minister explain how eliminating 165 front-line health care workers is going to eliminate hallway medicine?

Hon. Christine Elliott: London Health Sciences has experienced some difficulties in the past, but certainly our government is helping all hospitals across Ontario, with an additional $1.3 billion into our health care system with this year’s budget, $384 million in new money for operational expenses and a $1.2-million investment for London Health Sciences Centre last fall to help them get prepared for the flu season.

However, they make their own decisions. They have their own independent board of directors. But as part of this exercise, London Health Sciences Centre is exploring opportunities to not fill vacant, non-patient-facing roles and is also reviewing parameters to mitigate overtime hours. There are no job cuts or reductions being contemplated at this time.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The hospital CEO in London was pretty clear yesterday: “It’s been very tough to operate in this environment.... [t]o operate ... where expenses are inflationary and revenue is flat.” And the Financial Accountability Office, of course, was clear that we are going to see more and more cuts as hospital funding falls behind inflation.

It was a recipe for hallway medicine under the Liberals, as they played the game the same way, and it’s a recipe for hallway medicine now, as this government hasn’t learned from the mistakes of the Liberal government.

One hundred and sixty-five health professionals are losing jobs in London. Is the government prepared to acknowledge that their scheme to end hallway medicine is simply not working because it’s fundamentally the same scheme that the Liberals had in place?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. The member for Don Valley East will come to order. The Minister of Finance will come to order. The member for Kitchener–Conestoga will come to order. The member for Mississauga–Streetsville will come to order.

Start the clock. The minister to reply.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Mr. Speaker, I will say to the leader of the official opposition, through you, that in actual fact we are increasing the amount of money that we are putting into health care: $1.3 billion this year. We promised the people of Ontario during last year’s election campaign that we would protect what matters most to them: health care and education. We’re increasing our education budget as well as health care—$1.3 billion is a lot of money; $384 million to increase the operational costs in hospitals is a lot of money.

We are working with London Health Sciences Centre. There has been an update from yesterday, I’m happy to say. We know that London Health Sciences Centre is taking steps to mitigate their budgetary challenges and is undertaking a review to generate cost savings. As I indicated in the previous response, they are also exploring active opportunities to not fill vacant non-patient-facing roles and are not contemplating any job cuts—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: For families that are worried about the state of Ontario’s health care and the next trip to the emergency room, the Ford government cuts are deeply, deeply concerning—cuts to public health, cuts to ambulance services, cuts to cancer screening and now eliminating front-line health staff at hospitals. These are the things that matter most to the people of Ontario. Is this what the Ford government is planning on doing for the next three years to our health care system? We don’t want to see what that’s going to look like.

Is the minister ready to admit that her budget cuts are causing front-line staff to be laid off, impacting care for the patients of our province as a result, and will she leave more patients waiting for care in hospital hallways by continuing with this wrong-headed move?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I guess I need to say it again: We are increasing our investment into our health care budget by $1.3 billion this year. In addition to that, what we’re doing is modernizing our system. It’s not responding to the needs of Ontarians. It’s not fulfilling their requirements. It’s not going to be sustainable for the future. The people of Ontario know that if we want to have a health care system and if we want to have an education system in the future, we need to make some changes and we need to make those changes right now. What we are doing is making sure that we will be responding to the needs of Ontarians now and into the future.

We want to make sure that they receive the connected care that they deserve, which they’re not receiving right now. Right now, once people leave hospital and they need home care, they don’t know what’s going to happen. They don’t know who’s going to be coming, when they’re coming or what care they’re going to be providing. That is not excellent quality health care. That’s what we are changing. That’s what we’re working on in hospitals and health facilities across this province so it will be sustainable for the future and it will provide—

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

The next question.

Climate change

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Minister of the Environment.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I didn’t hear what was said, but I’m going to ask the member for Northumberland–Peterborough South to stand up and withdraw.

Mr. David Piccini: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I recognize again the Leader of the Opposition. I’ll give you a few seconds.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Thank you kindly, Speaker. I appreciate that.

As I said, my question is to the Minister of the Environment. While the Ford government spends millions of public dollars fearmongering about the dangers of fighting the climate crisis, a new study by Canadians for Clean Prosperity, a business-oriented environmental group, shows that the Ford government’s inadequate carbon-reduction schemes will actually cost Ontario businesses far more than an effective one would and add as much as $154 a year to household budgets.

Will the minister be revising his sticker campaign to warn households of the ineffectiveness of and the expense associated with the Ford government’s carbon scheme?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, through you to the Leader of the Opposition: The fact that the carbon tax lobby group is saying that a carbon tax is a good thing shouldn’t be a surprise even to the NDP. The FAO confirmed that $648 is the amount that it will cost Ontario families in 2022. In fact, the report she’s referencing actually agrees with those numbers. It suggests that the difference between our plan and the Liberal plan is $550; pretty close to that $648, wouldn’t you say, Mr. Speaker?

I think the Leader of the Opposition would be more concerned about the effects of the carbon tax, for example, in Hamilton. So when I see that Hamilton Health Sciences and St. Joseph’s Healthcare are going to, together, be paying close to $3 million in additional tax to Justin Trudeau, I would think the Leader of the Opposition would be worried about what’s happening at home in Hamilton.

Mr. Speaker, we will keep talking about our plan to reduce greenhouse gases—

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

Supplementary question.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, the simple fact is that when it comes to the climate emergency we are all facing, the cost of action is nothing compared to the cost of inaction, and Hamiltonians know that very, very well. In fact, the city of Hamilton has declared a climate crisis; perhaps, this government should do the same.

This spring, it’s been more clear than ever that Ontario needs to act, yet the Ford government is moving absolutely in the wrong direction, cutting funding to tree planting and conservation efforts, even while they spend millions forcing every Ontario gas station to post partisan advertising.

Is the Ford government ready to concede that their scheme will not only cost families more but utterly fail to address the growing danger of the climate emergency that all of us are facing?

Interjections.

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

Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to respond.

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member: Again, when we got rid of Kathleen Wynne’s cap-and-trade program, a program that I know this opposition party supported, it was $264 in the pockets of Ontarians. Justin Trudeau’s program is going to take $648 out of the pockets, and that doesn’t even include the impacts on McMaster University, a very important institution, again, in the great, great city of Hamilton: $1.3 million of impact in Hamilton, where the Leader of the Opposition is from.

We will keep telling Ontarians about these programs. We will keep telling Ontarians about the impacts on families. No, we’re not going to step away from fighting the carbon tax and we’re not going to step away from fighting climate change. You can fight climate change without a carbon tax, Mr. Speaker.

Interprovincial trade

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. Last week, the minister travelled to Halifax to promote our “open for business, open for jobs” mandate at the Committee on Internal Trade. As a former international trade lawyer, I understand the importance of interprovincial trade as a key economic driver in Ontario. Interprovincial trade supports agriculture, farmers, small businesses and good jobs in my riding of Carleton and across Ontario. In 2017 alone, Ontario exported approximately $145 billion in goods and services to other Canadian jurisdictions.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, can the minister please outline how he has been working hard to reduce interprovincial trade barriers and promote the importance of free trade between provinces and territories?

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks to the member from Carleton for the great question, and the great work that she’s doing in her riding and here at the Legislature.

I had a productive trip to Halifax last week, Mr. Speaker. It’s always great to get back to the Maritimes. The Committee on Internal Trade was meeting there. That’s the body that governs the CFTA, the Canadian Free Trade Agreement, which was meant to get rid of internal trade barriers. It’s something that Ontario is a leader on. Despite the agreement being in force since 2017, progress is just too slow. Trade barriers between provinces and territories are holding back job creators in Ontario, and they’re holding back job creators in Canada, quite honestly.

The Bank of Montreal estimates that eliminating these barriers would add $15 billion to $20 billion a year to Ontario’s GDP. That’s why this is such an important priority for Premier Ford and our government. We can create thousands of jobs by tearing down these barriers. That’s why Ontario is going to continue to push for freer trade with Canada’s provinces and territories.

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

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Through you, Mr. Speaker, thank you to the minister for his excellent response. Interprovincial trade is an important issue for the hard-working people of Carleton and across Ontario. I know that I speak on behalf of our side of the House when I say that I am relieved that reducing interprovincial trade barriers is one of the minister’s key priorities in his portfolio.

We came into office on a commitment to protect what matters most, and that includes creating and protecting good jobs. That means we need to push the federal government and other provinces on this issue. The agreement Ontario signed with Saskatchewan in the fall is one example of how we’ve already taken steps to reduce trade barriers right here in Ontario.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, could the minister please expand on what other steps Ontario is taking to reduce interprovincial trade barriers?

Hon. Todd Smith: Since taking office in June of last year, we’ve been providing a lot of leadership on the interprovincial trade file. Back in October, as the member just mentioned, Premier Ford and Premier Moe of Saskatchewan signed an MOU to cut red tape and reduce trade barriers between the two provinces.

When I was in Halifax, I told my colleagues that we’re committed to getting pipelines built that will add tremendous opportunity not just in Ontario but to our country.

In April, I wrote to my counterparts and told them that Ontario is giving up our veto of pipeline projects under the Canadian Free Trade Agreement. A report from the Fraser Institute shows Canadian oil producers lost almost $21 billion last year because they can’t get their oil to market. We don’t want to get in the way of that in Ontario; we want to get out of the way so that we can see that kind of growth in our GDP and in our economy. That’s thousands of good jobs that we’re missing out on here in Ontario and in Canada. We’re not going to sit idly by while that happens.

Premier Ford has been a leader on the Canadian front. We are going to strive for a Canadian Free Trade Agreement that works for all provinces and territories.

Public transit

Ms. Jessica Bell: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Yesterday, Metrolinx quietly cut five GO bus routes altogether and significantly reduced service on two more. These cuts mean that commuters in Oakville, Milton, Bolton and North York will have to cram onto overcrowded GO buses and face even longer travel times.

Mr. Speaker, how can the minister expect Ontarians to believe he is committed to improving our commutes when he scraps bus routes and reduces service when no one is looking?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Thanks very much for that question from the member opposite, and good morning.

This Friday, it will be a year since we were elected and sworn in at the end of June. We inherited a $15-billion deficit, a record debt. What we’ve done over the last year is review, line by line, the spending within the Ministry of Transportation. What we’ve done is we have focused on expanding GO rail throughout this province. We’ve increased service 25% to Kitchener. For the first time ever we have GO rail going out to Niagara Falls and St. Catharines, and the largest expansion of service on Lakeshore East and West.

Unfortunately, we’ve looked at what buses were running in this system that were empty—barely flowing. We’ve repositioned some of those bus routes to newer routes that have been brought forward. We look forward to continuing growing our regional transportation network in the GTHA.

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

Ms. Jessica Bell: Back to the minister: The estimates came out last month. They show that the government slashed $184 million from Metrolinx’s budget.

It is now clear that the minister’s cuts to Metrolinx means axing bus service that people rely on every day. These buses are not empty. Mr. Speaker, what additional service cuts and fare hikes does the minister have planned for our region’s GO riders?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Mr. Speaker, I think the member opposite needs to take a look at the successes that we’ve had over the last year on the GO Transit system. As I mentioned earlier, we have expanded service to Kitchener by 25%, we’ve created a new route to Niagara and St. Catharines, and expanded the Lakeshore East and West routes.

We are positioning ourselves to continue to grow the GO network across the entire GTHA. Just recently, we announced that kids under 12 get to ride GO Transit for free. That’s a permanent structure.

We are going to continue to integrate our fares in the system. We’re continuing to work with our partners at CN and CP to expand ridership. Just recently, with the Minister of Infrastructure, we released the RFP that’s going to work toward expanding GO Transit across the entire network. In fact, Mr. Speaker, once this RFP is in place, GO rail will be self-sufficient by 2031. That’s the record we want to have for this government.

Government’s record

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: My question is to the Deputy Premier. The Premier continues to push a manufactured fiscal crisis in the name of finding efficiencies, yet this government seems perfectly happy to spend $1 billion of taxpayers’ dollars on booze—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. The Minister of Children, Community and Social Services, please come to order.

Restart the clock. I apologize to the member for Scarborough–Guildwood.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: Thank you, Speaker. The Premier continues to push a manufactured fiscal crisis in the name of finding efficiencies, yet this government seems perfectly happy to spend $1 billion of taxpayers’ dollars on booze in damages to beer stores, while at the same time cutting $1 billion in social services over the next three years.

The government’s priorities are wrong-headed: forcing children with autism into oversized classrooms; spending more tax dollars on ineffective and regressive climate policies; axing the child advocate but hiring a special adviser for alcohol; and firing the non-partisan expert panel on ending violence against women.

Speaker, when will this government be open for children with autism, open to real climate crisis solutions and open to the general well-being of Ontarians rather than corner store—

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Kitchener–Conestoga must come to order.

The question is to the Deputy Premier. I recognize the Deputy Premier.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Where do you start with all of those pieces, of which, sadly, very little is even based on fact?

We passed a budget that is entitled Protecting What Matters Most, and that is exactly what it does. It protects health care, it protects education and it protects the services that we rely on every day.

You have to think, coming from this Liberal member, who sat by and watched their government spend $40 million a day more than they took in—and that was fine then. That was fine for the Liberals to do—$40 million a day more than they took in.

We have been making smart, long-term decisions. We’re reinventing the way government delivers services. We’re focusing our resources on the individuals and families in greatest need. That is how we’re restoring trust, transparency and accountability, and balancing the budget—

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

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: Speaker, the reality is that this government is spending about $5 billion more than the Liberal government’s previous budget, and somehow we continue to see devastating cuts for the people, justified by sham consultations and little to no evidence-based decision-making.

Why is this government set on leaving the people of Ontario behind through countless broken promises and skewed priorities? This government can’t continue to pull the wool over Ontarians’ eyes. The evidence is right in front of us. We cannot be fooled. The people are not pawns in your political games. These are real lives that are at stake, with real consequences.

The families and the children with autism have been here day after day after day, looking for answers from this government. When will this government finally put the people first, just like you claimed?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): And stop the clock again.

Interjections are out of order and so is yelling across the floor. The member for Kitchener–Conestoga must come to order. The member for Carleton must come to order.

Start the clock. The Minister of Finance to reply.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, again, where do you start with that? Last question, we’re not spending enough; this question, we’re spending too much. Why don’t we get the facts straight?

Let me tell you what that member and her party voted against, Speaker: They voted against bringing $26 billion of tax relief to Ontario families, seniors, individuals, students and businesses. That’s what that opposition voted against. They voted against $2 billion in low-income individual and family tax credits. They voted against $2 billion in bringing child care to 300,000 low- and middle-income families. And yes, they, too, voted against bringing $90 million to help 100,000 low-income seniors have free dental.

We certainly know what they’re against now, Speaker: They’re against protecting what matters most. We will stay here, and we will protect what matters most for the people.

Skilled trades

Mr. Paul Calandra: My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. For 15 very long years, the previous Liberal government allowed the skilled trades to become complex and convoluted. In fact, their system kept people out of the skilled trades.

We know that by 2021 some one in five jobs will be in the skilled trades. These are very good jobs. These are important jobs to helping build a bigger, better, stronger province of Ontario, Mr. Speaker. I know that in my riding, tradespeople are very excited by the opportunities that this government is putting forward.

I know that last week the minister made an announcement on this. I wonder if she might help the House better understand the changes that she has brought forward and the announcement that she made last week.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Before I recognize the minister to respond, the member for Hamilton East–Stoney Creek has to come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Yes, he did.

The Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you, Speaker, and thank you to the member for his question and his great work on behalf of the people of Markham–Stouffville.

Speaker, I would like to thank the Premier as well as the member from Northumberland–Peterborough South and the MPP from Durham for joining me last Friday at the Darlington Energy Complex to announce our plan to modernize the skilled trades in Ontario.

Through budget 2019, we passed the Modernizing the Skilled Trades and Apprenticeship Act, which will reduce red tape for employers and apprentices, streamline service delivery and help promote the vibrant and tremendous opportunities in the skilled trades in Ontario. Our plan includes the implementation of a portable skills model, which will allow training and certification within and between the trades. This new flexible framework will allow our workforce to respond to the demands of the changing job market, ensuring that Ontario is open for business and open for jobs.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Hamilton East–Stoney Creek has to come to order.

Supplementary question?

Mr. Paul Calandra: How disappointing it is to see the NDP yet again voting against and working against our tradespeople. Whether it’s craft brewers, whether it’s small business people and now the tradespeople, the NDP will always vote against those people who want to work hard, make a difference for the province of Ontario and help build a bigger, better, stronger province of Ontario. It is clear they’re upset that our changes are seeing more people come into the trades. They should be happy about that.

We know what 15 years of Liberal governments created. They created a system where people couldn’t get in. When I meet with the tradespeople, they said it’s partly responsible for the increasing house prices because there weren’t enough tradespeople to do the jobs.

So I wonder, despite the opposition that we’re getting from the NDP, who don’t seem to care about hard-working people in the province of Ontario, if the minister could continue and provide us with more information on why this announcement is so good for the province of Ontario.

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you again to the member for the question. The member is absolutely right that our government is taking decisive action to reduce the burden on Ontario’s skilled tradespeople and develop a modern skilled-trades workforce.

As part of our plan to put our skilled tradespeople first, our government is investing $18.1 million in pre-apprenticeship programs to help prepare hard-working Ontarians for careers in the skilled trades. We are also investing $12.2 million to support the Ontario Youth Apprenticeship Program to help students in grades 11 and 12 gain the experience they need in the skilled trades while getting credits for school.

Speaker, by investing in the jobs of today and tomorrow, our government is delivering on our promise to get Ontarians working and make Ontario open for business and open for jobs.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The next question: the member for Sudbury—

Mr. Paul Miller: How many trades have you got?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Hamilton East–Stoney Creek has to come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Hamilton East–Stoney Creek is warned.

Mr. Paul Calandra: How do you know? How do you know? How do you know what I’ve done in my life? How do you know? How do you know?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Markham–Stouffville will come to order.

Mr. Paul Calandra: Maybe you should read before you talk. That might help you before you make mistakes—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Markham–Stouffville is warned.

Workplace safety

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Sudbury can now ask his question.

Mr. Jamie West: Thank you very much, Speaker. The member from Stouffville actually talked about New Democrats not caring about workers. A good opportunity for the government to demonstrate that they do—

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: Who is it to?

Mr. Jamie West: The question is for the Minister of Labour.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. He’s going to ask his question to the government. He’s going to say who it is to. Don’t start yelling at him just as he has got the floor.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Start the clock. The member for Sudbury.

Mr. Jamie West: Thank you, Speaker. I apologize for their behaviour.

My question is for the Minister of Labour. The member opposite said that New Democrats can’t demonstrate that they care about workers. This question is about that. It’s an opportunity for the minister to demonstrate her care as well.

Speaker, as reported by the Toronto Star, three temporary agency workers died working for Fiera Foods or its affiliated plants over a 17-year span. Only after pressure and damning media reports did the previous Liberal government launch an inspection of the industrial bakery. Following those inspections, another worker, a 52-year-old temp worker, died in a related Fiera business that was not part of the previous inspections.

It’s clear there’s a pattern of incidents leading to deaths at Fiera Foods and its affiliates, but the Ministry of Labour has failed to investigate them properly. Will the Minister of Labour commit today to ordering proactive workplace safety inspections of all Fiera Foods affiliates?

Hon. Laurie Scott: I thank the member opposite for the question. Workplace deaths are a tragedy. We, on this side and at the Ministry of Labour, are not willing to compromise on protecting workers through health and safety enforcement. We’ve actually increased the enforcement budget by half a million dollars.

We are helping more workers become safer by making health and safety training more accessible, more convenient and less expensive. We’ve made health and safety training courses available online as a way to supplement in-person training. We’re modernizing government services across the board by making more information and services available online.

Mr. Speaker, with respect, we are actually increasing the number of health and safety inspectors throughout the province so that we can watch where workplace—

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

The supplementary question.

Mr. Jamie West: I would argue, perhaps, that reducing the number of hours of workplace training from three full days of in-person class to six and a half hours online is not improving safety.

I asked the minister the question because since the fourth death of a temporary worker at a Fiera business, the government has signalled to large employers, such as Fiera, that health and safety conditions will largely be self-reported. It also signals to temp workers that they have it too good and they don’t need specific protections.

In fact, since the death of the fourth temporary worker at a Fiera business, this government has cut at least $16 million from programs meant to prevent workplace injuries and deaths.

I’ll ask again: Will the Minister of Labour commit today to standing up for workers and ordering proactive workplace safety inspections at all Fiera Foods affiliates?

Hon. Laurie Scott: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite should know that I cannot comment directly on investigations that are occurring through the Ministry of Labour. But I can tell the member opposite that health and safety enforcement is not a nice-to-have; it’s an essential for this government, and we are protecting health and safety.

We’ve increased the enforcement budget by half a million dollars. We’re proud of the fact that we prioritize health and safety inspections and enforcements for our investigations that go on proactively and preventatively. I know that this side of the House and I, as Minister of Labour, are keeping workers safe. That’s what we owe them, and that’s what we’re continuing to do, by modernizing the Ministry of Labour so that more people can get educated.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I will say for the third time in this question period: We’ve increased enforcement officers for health and safety.

Broadband infrastructure

Mr. Toby Barrett: The question is for the Minister of Infrastructure. We received news, a few weeks ago, when the minister and the Minister of Agriculture arrived in my riding to unveil a key piece of Ontario’s budget commitment to improve people’s broadband connections, no matter where they live.

For years, I’ve been hearing from people in my area complaining—I hear these complaints in my own home, actually—about poor Internet service. This is going to help. It’s going to help families stay connected. It’s going to help students with their homework. It’s going to help both large and small businesses be part of Ontario’s thriving economy.

Minister, could you let people in this House—give them an idea what the SWIFT program is about and what the next steps are for this program to see some progress down in Norfolk county?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: Thank you to the member from Haldimand–Norfolk for that excellent question.

Mr. Speaker, without a doubt, being disconnected means being disadvantaged. I was happy to join the member, along with my colleague the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, for this very exciting announcement. Our government is committing up to $63.7 million to the SWIFT program. We’ve heard from our rural and northern communities and, unlike the previous Liberal government, we’re taking action.

SWIFT offers reliable broadband access, allowing residents and businesses to stream high-speed Internet from their homes, farms and businesses. People will access digital services, get their work done and connect with their loved ones.

Affordable broadband connectivity is essential in rural and northern Ontario. With this commitment, we’re proving that we’re putting the people at the centre of everything we do and protecting what matters most.

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

Mr. Toby Barrett: Thank you, Minister. I will add that the other half of my riding, Haldimand county, did not opt into the SWIFT program, and they also have some considerable issues with connection.

However, this is great news for farmers. Farmers can’t remain compliant and competitive when they can’t effectively do business online or file documents. Modern agriculture requires connectivity for a variety of jobs, checking the weather, checking the markets. Affordable broadband is essential across rural Ontario to access e-commerce, close deals, process payments, share information and connect with your customers and with your markets.

Speaker, could the minister reiterate why broadband is so important for the business of farming?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: I’ll refer this to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: Thanks to the member from Haldimand–Norfolk for that very great question. Our farmers know that access to reliable Internet is critical for their businesses to thrive. Agriculture is increasingly high tech with the rise of precision agriculture. As farming becomes increasingly highly land- and labour-intensive, technology also needs to be far more controlled and accurate in systems like GPS guidance, sensors, robotics, drones, autonomous vehicles like tractors and many more.

Farmers and those in rural parts of the province have access to even fewer resources due to the nature of their remote locations, so their need to access wider government resources such as health care and especially mental health care options online is even more urgent.

I’m proud of our government’s investment to expand broadband in southwestern Ontario through SWIFT and in eastern Ontario through EORN. We look forward to continuing this important work to make sure those in rural Ontario have the same access—

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

The next question?

Municipal government

Ms. Suze Morrison: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Today the Globe and Mail uncovered the Premier’s latest scheme to play mayor of Toronto. The Premier and his minister will be unilaterally making changes to the city of Toronto’s official plan that would “loosen the rules it would have imposed on developers in order to increase flexibility and reduce red tape for businesses.” The city will have no ability to appeal these decisions, and the people of Toronto will have no ability to make their voices heard on these changes.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier is once again making changes that will have a significant impact on the people of Toronto without any consultation. My question is simple: Why?

Hon. Steve Clark: Speaker, through you to the honourable member: I’ll tell you why. Last June we had an election, and those two official plan amendments, 405 and 406, were presented to the ministry. Those didn’t reflect our government’s priorities. We’ve made it very clear, and we continue to make it clear, that we need to build more housing. So with all due respect to the member opposite, direct your comments not to the Premier but to me. The files were sent to me and it’s my intention to provide modifications to OPA 405 and 406 to reflect government priorities.

In terms of consultation, we’ve had robust consultation. Speaker, through you to the honourable member: Our Housing Supply Action Plan, Bill 108, that’s presently being debated at third reading, makes it very clear that we are going to increase the housing supply. A Place to Grow, the growth plan for the greater Golden Horseshoe, had extensive consultation last fall and this spring. Again, unanimously, we indicated that we would be intensifying around major transit station areas.

There’s been lots of consultation. Now we’re working on implementation, Speaker.

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

Ms. Suze Morrison: Back to the minister: This is hardly the first time that this Premier has made sweeping changes that affect the daily lives of the people of Toronto. The government has stolen the subway system away from the people of Toronto. They threw—

Interjections.

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

Ms. Suze Morrison: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Complete your question.

Ms. Suze Morrison: Thank you, Speaker.

They threw Toronto’s democracy into chaos with their unilateral changes to Toronto city council in the middle of an election, and their cuts to everything from public health to education will make the lives of people in the city of Toronto so much harder. How can the minister justify running roughshod over the people of Toronto once again?

Hon. Steve Clark: Speaker, through you to the honourable member: I can justify the why. We need to leverage the $28.5 billion that our government is spending on transit. You look at those two official plan amendments: 90% of the transit and the LRT is in that area. We have to intensify around major transit station areas.

Again, the member keeps talking about the Premier. It is my intention, as Minister of Municipal Affairs, to present those modifications later today to the city. Again, we are trying to move forward on things that I would think that this member would support. We are going to continue to work on inclusionary zoning so that we can have affordable housing near transit.

But make no mistake: When we had those consultations on the Housing Supply Action Plan, when we had the consultations on A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, almost unanimously we talked about intensifying around major transit station areas. This is what we’re going to do for the people, those people who are dreaming of realizing the dream of home ownership—

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

Interjections.

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

Restart the clock. The next question.

Public transit

Mr. Billy Pang: My question is for the Minister of Infrastructure. This week, he joined the Minister of Transportation for an excellent announcement. Our government ran on a mandate to make Ontario open for business and to get the province moving. Commuters have spent years frustrated with overcrowding on the Yonge line, and they want more connections across the region. With the upload of the TTC to the province and the construction of new lines and subway extensions, our government is doing just that. Despite this, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Liberal government have chosen to play politics with infrastructure that people desperately need.

Mr. Speaker, for the first time ever, the province is taking a true leadership role in building new transit. Could the minister tell us about what our government is doing to help commuters in this province?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: Thank you to the member for that excellent question this morning. Mr. Speaker, we’re putting people at the centre of everything that we do. That means helping commuters and providing relief for people in the GTA through five great transit projects.

Prime Minister Trudeau claims that we haven’t done our part to get infrastructure built. Well, Mr. Speaker, Justin Trudeau is dead wrong. We’ve nominated 54 road, bridge and transit projects to the federal government, and Justin Trudeau has yet to approve a single project. The prime minister is worried about election season; we’re worried about the construction season.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government didn’t waste any time approving transit projects in Vancouver. They approved Vancouver’s projects before a business case was even submitted. Yet Justin Trudeau prefers to play politics. His government is not putting the people of Ontario first. We’ve submitted these projects to the federal government. I’m calling on Justin Trudeau to put his money where his mouth is: Fund our projects.

Interjections.

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

Restart the clock. The supplementary question?

Mr. Billy Pang: Thank you to the Minister of Infrastructure for the great response. The Premier made a historic announcement just a couple of months ago. Our government for the people announced a $28.5-billion subway plan that will get the commuters of this province moving. Those commuters who use Line 1 on a daily basis know the congestion that currently exists.

We have heard from people loud and clear that they’re tired of overcrowding on subways, so we are building the new Ontario Line, both for Toronto residents and people coming into the city. However, as the minister has stated, we are calling on the federal government to give their supports to the historic subway plan. Can the Minister of Infrastructure share more about the funding commitment need