Speaker, my question is to the Premier.

People in Scarborough are once again feeling abandoned as the SRT is being decommissioned without an adequate replacement. The original plan was that the Scarborough RT routes would be converted to a dedicated off-street busway during the seven-year closure of the line. This would save riders 10 minutes compared to on-street service. However, this month it was reported that buses would continue to operate on-street, and even though council has voted to convert the busway, they lack the funding to do so.

Speaker, why is the government refusing to help the long-suffering residents of Scarborough?

Scarborough transit users already have some of the longest commute times in the city because the government has failed to provide the needed operating funding for the TTC. On top of that, regardless of what this government will say, with recent service cuts, guess which routes are most affected? In Scarborough—with increasing commute times once again for commuters.

Now this government is refusing to fund the $2.9-million investment necessary to ensure residents in Scarborough get the dedicated bus line and SRT replacement while they’re waiting for that subway.

So my question again to the Premier: Will this government commit to funding an adequate replacement service for the people of Scarborough?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for the question.

I think she knows very well that our government has been the first government to be there for the residents of Scarborough when it comes to transit. Our government, under the leadership of this Premier, put forward a plan for a three-stop subway extension in Scarborough for the first time. We did that not just on our own; we did it with city of Toronto support—city council supported it. Unfortunately for the residents of Scarborough, that member opposite and the entire NDP caucus voted against our plan for the residents of Scarborough.

We’ve been there for the residents of Scarborough with respect to transit, with respect to health care, and with respect to housing.

This is an infrastructure deficit we inherited from the Liberals that we are addressing—but the members opposite continually vote against.

This MZO was first requested by Rice Commercial Group. Just to remind everyone, that’s the same developer who bought $80 million of protected greenbelt land just two months before the Conservative government opened it up to be paved over. In January 2022, the developer asked Caledon for an MZO. By September, without the support of the town council, they had it.

I’m going to give the Premier another chance to clear the air right now, and if he won’t do it, maybe at least the minister will stand up.

To the Premier: Were there any conversations that occurred between anyone in his government and the Rice Group before the mayor requested this MZO?

Interjections.

Interjections.

To the Premier: Will his government support my legislation for much stronger integrity rules?

Interjections.

To reply for the government, the government House leader.

Government House leader.

To reply, government House leader.

To reply, the Premier.

Interjections.

Start the clock.

The next question.

Let me get this straight: A democratically elected mayor asked for an MZO so that he could bring jobs into his community. Not only are they against housing, but they’re against jobs for the people of Ontario. They tie it up nicely in a bow. It highlights why Ontarians, election after election after election, have turned their backs on the NDP and why in the last election they shrunk the caucus by over 10 members.

Are we going to put MZOs in place for people who can bring jobs to the province of Ontario? You’re darned right we are. We’re going to do that. Are we going to continue to bring MZOs in those communities that want to work with us to bring more housing, jobs and opportunity? Yes. Will we go even further and bring MZOs in those communities that fight jobs and opportunity—but that we know are good for the people of the province of Ontario? You’re darned right we will, because we have a mandate to grow the economy, build jobs and continue to make this the most prosperous province in Canada, and we’ll get it done.

Now we’ve got the full triumvirate complete: They’re against jobs, they’re against housing, and now they’re against a hospital being built in Newmarket, the new Southlake hospital. Yesterday, they were against long-term-care homes being built in Pickering.

This is the mandate of the NDP: Oppose everything, oppose growth, oppose jobs, oppose the people of the province of Ontario. Don’t build rental housing. Ensure that the next generation of this province only has to rely on the government. That is the strategy of the NDP. That’s when they’re happiest—when people rely on government.

What we want to do is to give people the opportunity to succeed, because when we do that, this province and this country prosper, and that is what has grown this province for generations. It is why millions upon millions of people come here. They don’t want a handout. They want the opportunity to succeed, and we’ll give them that.

What we’re going to focus on—and again, while they try and stray and move all over the place. Yesterday, I was reminded that they voted against mining. They voted against new subways in Toronto. They voted against housing. They voted against purpose-built rentals. They voted against long-term care. Now we hear that the Leader of the Opposition does not want new hospitals built in the province of Ontario. What they want is a province and a generation of Ontarians whose only source is the government. They want people to rely on the government.

We want people to succeed. We’ll give them the resources and the tools they need to succeed, like we have done for generations, when Progressive Conservatives have been in charge.

Through you, Mr. Speaker: I called Scarborough the forgotten city until this party, the PC Party, came into office—they were no longer forgotten. They were ignored under the previous two governments, NDP and Liberal, when it came to hospitals—zero funding. They were ignored when it came to the medical school—zero funding. And when it came to the Scarborough subway, not one single member of the NDP, not one single member from the Liberals that had all their members in Scarborough, even tried to attempt to do the Scarborough subway. They voted against the hospital, they voted against the medical school, they voted against the subway—and the nerve to stand up here?

We’re tunnelling a Scarborough subway. but not only that, we’re going to continue expanding the Scarborough subway right across Scarborough and make sure that 630,000 people finally have a voice after decades of being ignored—

Interjections.

I think it’s time for some good news today—so I’m going to ask the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.

As summer approaches, many Ontarians are looking forward to enjoying the natural surroundings, facilities and trails at Ontario’s parks. Our park system has been referred to as the hidden gem of Canada, but it’s no secret that they’re becoming widely known and very popular. With attendance numbers showing that there is a greater demand for our provincial parks, it’s important that our government continues to invest in upgrades and amenities that individuals and families can enjoy.

Speaker, can the minister please explain what our government is doing to make the Ontario Parks experience even better than it has been in the past?

My constituents appreciate the importance of our parks system, having the privilege of living near the Kawartha Highlands Provincial Park and the Petroglyphs Provincial Park, where there are so many opportunities to experience the outdoors.

Ontario’s provincial parks operate in many regions across our province. While they vary in size and location, our park system is vitally important to the tourism sector, as well as preserving ecosystems and contributing to the overall well-being of Ontarians. For this reason, our government must continue to make investments into infrastructure and programming that will help to draw even more visitors to Ontario parks.

Can the minister please explain what our government is doing to expand and build upon the provincial parks system?

I’ve heard this whole song and dance before. Have I ever seen a municipality, have I ever seen a politician—outside of ours—that doesn’t love spending money? You guys love spending money. The municipalities love spending money.

Mr. Speaker, when I went down to city hall, I heard the same song and dance. First meeting with the CAO—“We’ve got to raise taxes 30%.” Well, guess what? We found a billion dollars, did a 0% tax increase, never went once to the province hat in hand.

We’re there to help the municipalities—but isn’t it amazing that they forget about all the new income and revenues up to the city coffers when they start building homes? The tax revenue—they forget about that.

We don’t have an income problem at the city halls across the province; we have a spending problem. That’s the issue.

Speaker, the member opposite was on local council; so was I; so were many of the individuals in this chamber. I never blamed anybody for my budgets. I sat at the budget table. I made decisions that were based on the best interests of my constituents when I was an elected official. I did the same thing when I was a CAO.

Municipalities control their own destiny in terms of what they decide—the service levels and the taxation levels for them. We work with municipalities. We’ve indicated that we want to better understand the impacts of More Homes Built Faster. That’s why we announced recently the appointment of auditors who will work with a select group of municipalities, and what we find will inform us on our decision moving forward.

But to sit there and try to draw a line from this government to a decision made in a local council—the member knows better than that.

Speaker, through you to the Premier: Ontario municipalities say they are facing financial disaster due to revenue losses caused by Bill 23.

A recent Peel region report said Bill 23 will cost the region $2 billion to $6 billion in lost revenues. To replace those lost revenues, Peel will need to raise property taxes by at least 25% and more than double the utility rate. And Brampton says it will need to raise property taxes by 80% because of Bill 23.

Last year, the minister promised to make municipalities “whole” for these revenue losses. So why doesn’t his budget include a single penny to do so?

If the minister is really holding off on compensating municipalities for Bill 23 because he wants to perform audits first and make sure municipalities are speeding up approvals, why is he cutting the very programs that fund these initiatives?

Interjections.

The parliamentary assistant and member for Oakville.

The Premier.

My question is for the Minister of Finance.

Our province, much like the rest of the world, is in a time of great economic uncertainty. Ongoing supply chain disruptions, inflation and increased interest rates have created pressures for people across Ontario. Individuals and families are looking to our government for leadership and help during these challenging times to provide support so that life can be more affordable. They need to see that our government is continuing to focus on initiatives and investments that will provide financial relief.

Speaker, can the minister please explain how our government is continuing to work on behalf of all Ontarians during these challenging economic times?

That said, the people of our province expect that their government will continue to look for further ways to reduce costs and make life easier.

Unlike the previous Liberal government that was out of touch with the people of Ontario, our government remains committed to focusing on issues that will help individuals and families in their everyday lives.

Speaker, can the parliamentary assistant please explain how our government is making life more affordable for all Ontarians?

Thank you to the great member from Chatham-Kent–Leamington for that great question.

Speaker, our government has a responsible plan to ensure that our province remains on a strong and steady economic path forward. Our economic plan to build Ontario is grounded in our commitment to supporting families, empowering our workers and strengthening our business partners. We have laid a strong fiscal foundation on which our government will continue to build Ontario with a plan for recovery.

We eliminated licence plate renewal fees as well as licence plate stickers and refunded the past two years’ fees for eligible vehicles.

We extended the current gas tax and fuel tax cuts until December 31, 2023.

That puts real money back into the pockets of Ontarians. This is what the people of Ontario expect and deserve from their government.

We are making transit more affordable by eliminating double fares for most local transit services in the greater Toronto area for commuters and also those who use GO Transit services. Our government is also working to expand this initiative to support more people commuting into Toronto.

For low-income seniors in Ontario, these uncertain times are even more challenging. That is why we temporarily doubled the Guaranteed Annual Income System payments for eligible seniors until December 2023 to ensure more seniors who need financial help will get it. And we’ll be introducing legislation to expand the GAINS program, starting in July 2024, to see about 100,000 additional seniors be eligible for the program, for a 50% increase in recipients. We are also proposing to adjust this benefit annually so that it will increase with inflation.

Our government continues to support the people of Ontario.

Thank you very much. Next question.

The supplementary question.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

The next question.

Speaker, through you to the honourable member: It was quite a day yesterday at committee, I have to say, and some of her questions were—I wasn’t sure where she was going.

But the government House leader has been pretty clear this morning about where we’re going. We’re going to continue to use those planning tools, minister’s zoning orders, Community Infrastructure and Housing Accelerators, to get priority projects done.

We’ve got more active cranes in Toronto right now than most American cities put together—I gave you the list the other day: Chicago; Washington, DC; San Francisco and Seattle, combined.

Again, let the honourable member know what she’s actually voting against when she votes against the use of MZOs—4,420 long-term-care beds, a big step forward in our government’s mandate to provide 30,000—under her government’s watch, 600 beds.

We’re going to continue to use these tools to move forward—

The facts are clear: We’re supporting the building of long-term-care homes through some of our planning tools. We’re supporting 117,000 housing units, 650 supportive housing units, 152,000 new jobs, because of the minister’s zoning orders that we’re using.

I was in your city last night with the Toronto Rotary Club and the Homes for Heroes Foundation, whom we partnered with in Kingston. The executive director of the foundation was pretty clear to Rotarians in this city that our MZO in Kingston saved him half a million dollars and got shovels in the ground faster to help 20 homeless vets who didn’t have a place to call home. Those are the partnerships that we’re creating.

Under the Liberals, they’re going to continue to vote against all of our measures that create housing, create jobs—

My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

This week, we’ve had committee hearings on Bill 97 and heard from many stakeholders about what Bill 97 will mean for their municipalities, their professions and their neighbourhoods. It seems that once again, the government is insisting on hoarding power and removing meaningful consultation while promoting sprawl. Bill 97 allows lands subject to MZOs to not comply with local official plans, the provincial policy statements, and provincial plans. Collectively, these plans are intended to serve the public interest and include policies on life safety, accessibility and flood hazards. As drafted, for lands subject to MZOs, these policy documents may not apply to downstream approvals for permits, licences and other approvals. This is dangerous.

Will the government confirm that policies related to life safety, flood hazards and accessibility remain applicable to lands subject to an MZO?

In committee, I was just simply asking whether you respected planners and conservation authorities. Those are pretty clear questions that weren’t answered.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 97 contains a new Planning Act definition of “areas of employment” that excludes institutional buildings, stand-alone retail and offices. Employment lands that currently have these Planning Act protections will lose them from their removal of conversion to permit residential uses. Under Bill 97, residential uses will always outbid job-creating uses such as offices, retail and other commercial uses. In Toronto, this could impact up to 25% of all employment lands, along with 150,000 jobs on these lands.

Will the government consider allowing service uses that workers need close to their place of employment that are not captured in this new definition? Because we know that the distance from place of work to residence is the most critical factor for a better quality of life.

I think that member spoke a little too soon. I might get cheeky in my response, so I’m sure I will get heckled.

This Premier made a historic commitment to expand capital and announced not one but two new provincial parks. And we announced just recently—by our incredible member, PA Yakabuski—over $3.3 million in vital infrastructure upgrades to Algonquin Provincial Park.

Speaker, when we make these historic investments in the budget for new provincial parks—it’s regrettable that the NDP and members opposite voted no. They voted no to expanded recreational opportunities for Ontarians; it’s just shocking. I’m not surprised they voted no to public transit. They voted no to tax cuts on low-income families. They voted no to record infrastructure spending in rural communities.

On this side of the House, we’re going to grow Ontario for all income brackets, for all Ontarians, regardless of your background, while also expanding—

My question is to the Premier.

My constituent Bill is an 87-year-old who reached out to my office in March. With failing vision, he urgently needed cataract surgery. But Bill was told he would have to wait 19 months for his surgery in a public clinic—over a year and a half wait. The underfunded public system forced Bill into a private clinic.

To the Premier: What is normal about this government making seniors go to private clinics for their vital health care?

Bill couldn’t wait. He’s a lifeline for his partner because he drives. In Conservative Ontario, an 87-year-old senior was burdened with $4,510 to pay. It is unconscionable, and it’s on this government. I highly doubt this government has any clue what the private clinic is pulling from the public purse on top of this ridiculous amount. This clinic actually nickel-and-dimed Bill for COVID-19, adding a $10 charge on his invoice.

Again to the Premier: What is normal about an 87-year-old getting gouged for their essential health care?

You do understand that community clinics, including cataract clinics that we have expanded on the first of this year in Windsor, in Kitchener-Waterloo and in Ottawa, are now, today, performing more cataract surgeries so that your constituents, my constituents, the people of Ontario who have been languishing on wait-lists do not have to have that experience?

The suggestion that when you go into a community surgical centre you are paying with anything but your OHIP card is categorically false.

I think the member opposite should be spending more time explaining to Bill how Bill 60 is actually going to improve that access and continue to decrease wait times in the province of Ontario—which, by the way, in Canada, we actually lead.

Interjections.

By expanding our community’s surgical access through Bill 60, we are actually ensuring that people get those shortened wait times to make sure they can be back with their family, back in their jobs, back with community.

Bill 60 has some additional parameters that will ensure people know exactly what the OHIP-funded services are in that clinic. But more importantly, what we are doing is ensuring we are expanding access so that individuals do not have to travel as far and get access faster. What part of that process is the member opposite concerned about? Because what I see is a win, where people get shorter wait times, back in community, faster service.