That’s a very good question.

When the minister set out the job site challenges, municipalities had a chance to apply. St. Thomas was chosen. Remember, part of the original lands that were acquired butted up against land that St. Thomas already owned. So it just complemented that piece, and the infrastructure that St. Thomas has is going to service that site. That is why. Then, as time moved on, an opportunity presented itself—understanding, as I said earlier, we’re competing with 40 states. Many opportunities and investors presented themselves and, as such, we needed to be shovel-ready, and to do it we needed to act quickly, with speed, to ensure that we could act in a timely manner to meet their specific timelines to close any potential deal now or a year from now. That’s why the added lands, again, butting up to the original lands that were bought were acquired.

At the end of the day, it’s important for us to remember that this is the best site in all of Ontario, and, I might even argue, North America—

I think we’re planting the garden for success. So if we can prove that we can get this done, this legislation passed—and I appreciate the members opposite’s support, and I’ll say that publicly. I take yes as yes. The bottom line is that if we do this well, I think it will set the stage for attracting further investment throughout all areas of Ontario.

Thank you to the members opposite.

The member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke seemed to not be able to take “yes” for an answer. He seemed very riled up that we were saying yes, and that felt interesting.

We’re talking about the potential for battery plants and battery vehicles in this area and across the south. I know he has been up to Sudbury several times, and the mining community around there. What does it mean for mining companies in the north?

Well, that makes one of us.

I always enjoy listening to the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke—

With the infrastructure that’s happening—and we know the conditions of our roads up north and what’s going to happen with all these mines being developed. Speaking to the president of the road builders of Ontario—they recognize that our infrastructure is not there, as we stand.

I’d like to hear from the government what they are going to do to make sure that our highways—Highway 11, in particular. With the way that our highways are right now, how are they going to support all this extra travelling on our highways? Right now, we are suffering because, as you know, we have many accidents happening. Some of the roads that are being cleaned still are problematic. I’d like to hear from the government their position on—

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s good to see you in the chair.

I’ve been reading a book at night—which is all you do when you get to my age—about how 85 years ago, right in this chamber, there was a great debate going on about a man from Central Elgin. Mitch Hepburn was the Premier at the time. I think about it because of the gentleman from the other side there talking about his dad working at GM in Oshawa. It was a great debate going on. I’ll go into it sometime, when I’ve got a lot more time. I found it quite interesting that you’re from Elgin and Hepburn was from Elgin. Anyway, it would be interesting times if he was still here.

My question is, how have the investments that this government has already made set up the province for success, like this project in Elgin you’re talking about?

Thank you for my colleagues’ wonderful presentations.

With our government’s policies, Ontario has seen more than 600,000 new jobs created since the province elected us in June 2018. It is clear that this government has a plan and it’s working. In 2022, the government’s plan to cut through excuses, get shovels in the ground and create new jobs with bigger paycheques once again shows that we have a clear direction for the future of this province.

Speaker, would any one of my colleagues please speak to where this legislation falls in the government’s plan to build Ontario and what else we can expect to see in the near future?

Further questions?

Further debate?

There’s hope.

And I’m going to point to the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. There was a broadband bill a while ago—and that’s why I talked about Tommy Douglas. We would have supported that bill, but in the middle of that broadband bill, there was a planning section about a ministerial zoning order for some place where we didn’t believe it should be. When I questioned the member, he said, “Well, if you don’t like it, just pretend it’s not there,” and he tore it out of the bill. It was very theatrical. It didn’t really get the response that he was expecting. To be quite open and forthright, I was going to try to repeat it, but I only have one thumb, so I couldn’t tear it out.

Laughter.

But this bill is not like that. This bill has a clear purpose, and actually, this bill speeds up a process that already exists, because annexation is possible within the Municipal Act. As a former municipal councillor in a small municipality—we shared some services. We shared water with another municipality, and we shared other services with a third municipality. It was really hard to come to an agreement on who should pay what and how it should be paid. It was really hard, and they were small municipalities. So we can fully understand that when an investor—and it’s a major auto manufacturer—is looking at this area, coming back to St. Thomas, they want to deal with one municipal entity. That makes complete sense to us. They want to deal with each issue once—with the planning, with the zoning, with the infrastructure. This is speeding up the process.

I did raise in second reading that—yes, I bring up the loss of agricultural land every time I speak; if I have to speak on something, I bring that up. We believe, in the NDP, that there should be a process where you can assess, frankly, whether there’s a better use for that land than producing food. I think in this case, although we never want to lose agricultural land, the benefits to the economy, the benefits to the environment—because this will, from what we understand, provide clean auto—automobile manufacturing, the overall—that’s a big word for me. It will be a benefit to the economy and to the green economy. We believe that, in this case, based on what we know, the loss of agricultural land, in this case the loss of farmland, is—although all farmland is precious, and we have to treat it as so, we have to look at it in the bigger picture. On this one, the bigger picture says this is a worthwhile project.

I was thinking, when I was—it was a long time ago, when the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke was young, in the 1970s—

I do remember, in the 1970s, going to visit my aunt and uncle who lived close to Fingal. He worked at the plant in Talbotville—so that’s that neighbourhood. That family built a quality life from that job.

We in the NDP want people in Ontario; I think we all do. It’s hard for me to really take offence to people, but I sometimes take offence when they say, “One political-philosophical belief doesn’t want jobs, and another one does.” I’m of the firm belief that we all want this province to be the best province it can be. We often disagree on the best way to get there, but we all—otherwise, if we didn’t believe that, we wouldn’t be here. This is an incredible job, an incredible experience. I’m happy to represent the people of Timiskaming–Cochrane. To be here, to want to work as hard as we all have to do to get here, to stay here, you have to believe in our system and in our province.

Before I veer off too far again—I was looking for my glasses, and then I realized I never use notes anyway.

I think this bill is an example—we do have some issues with the way the bill was. If we had had a bit more notice, we would have been more comfortable. When you have a bill introduced one day with no warning and you have to debate it the next day, you’re always looking for the poison pill—we’re getting used to it, so every time, we look for it. I’m going to give you the biggest example: I’m probably the only small-c conservative here who didn’t vote to use the “notwithstanding” clause to take away people’s rights. That was a big poison pill. I’m proud that I didn’t vote for that. But this bill, Bill 63, is straightforward. It makes economic sense. It not only helps the people in the St. Thomas area; it helps people across the province, across the country. The auto sector is important to people across the province.

In my riding—I am between the towns of Temiskaming Shores and Cobalt—we have a refinery that can refine rare-earth metals. It’s going to recycle batteries. It is going to provide the basis for electric vehicles, for the batteries. And our riding is going to benefit from it big-time. Around Timiskaming–Cochrane, both within and around—in Sudbury, there are big nickel deposits, but we’re finding nickel all around our riding. Nickel is very important in the manufacture of electric vehicles.

I do take exception sometimes when the government says that this will be the first time that northern Ontario has ever contributed to the auto industry, because that is not accurate. We have had iron ore mines in my riding that have fed the steel mills of southern Ontario, and those steel mills also played and still play a critical role in auto manufacturing.

Speaker, you’re from the Hamilton area. Iron ore from Timiskaming went to Hamilton—a lot of it. And when those mines closed, it caused a huge—we know what it’s like to have one of your main industries go dormant.

And now that we’ve had a resurgence in mining—forestry is doing well, agriculture is doing well—we know what it’s like. Now we have an area in Timiskaming–Cochrane where, like many other parts of the province, we can’t find the people to fill the positions. Before, we lost a lot of population. All our children went somewhere else, because there was no work. And now we’re looking for people to come, as many other parts of the province are. There are jobs. There is a quality of life in Timiskaming–Cochrane. We all say we have the greatest ridings in the province, and we all feel that way, because we all believe in Ontario. But there’s a quality of life in Timiskaming–Cochrane that is unparalleled. You have to like snow, but if you like snow—and we have a beautiful summer. We have a beautiful winter. We don’t have much spring and fall.

A while ago, we had the owner of the Canadian Tire in Cochrane, in the north part of my riding—he moved from a franchise in southern Ontario, and he moved to Cochrane. I was talking to him, and I asked about southern Ontario—as a farmer, I love Timiskaming–Cochrane, but if I could move my 500 acres from Timiskaming–Cochrane and plunk them in Oxford, I’d be there. He said, “Well, the one great thing about northern Ontario, about Cochrane, is that we actually have four seasons.” If you’re a Canadian Tire owner-manager and you load up on snow shovels, toboggans, snowsuits or whatever, and you have one or two big snowfalls like we have in this area or farther south, you might not sell your inventory. But in Cochrane, you load up for winter; we’re getting winter.

I’m going to give a plug for Cochrane right now. If you want the best snowmobiling in the province, start in New Liskeard or Temiskaming Shores or Temagami or maybe a bit farther south, in Marten River—but the longest season and the best trails are in Cochrane. The trails in Timiskaming are beautiful—the Tri-Town Sno Travellers are putting out a contract on me as we speak. I’m a proud member of the Tri-Town Sno Travellers, and the trails are beautiful, but even in Timiskaming we are feeling that the weather is not quite the same as it was 25 years ago; our winters aren’t quite the same. If you want to be guaranteed good ice, guaranteed enough snow, guaranteed a four-month season for snowmobiling, you’ve got to go a bit farther north. Right now, that’s Cochrane.

So anyone who wants to go snowmobiling, right now you can snowmobile in many, many parts of the province—and I know I’m far away from the car plant in St. Thomas, but it is economics.

I am happy to be able to support this bill. We in the official opposition support bills that don’t contain poison pills and that push this province forward. It is a bit tiring on our ears when we hear that we voted against this and we voted—yes, we voted against many Conservative budgets because, in our opinion, there were many bad things in those budgets.

There are actually in many parts of the province—at least in my part of the province, there are two Ontarios: the Ontario that’s doing very well and the Ontario that is feeling left behind.

I spent a few minutes talking about Cochrane—and I’m going to do this stat again. In the region serviced by the Cochrane District Social Services Administration Board, the rate of homelessness per 1,000 people is higher than anywhere else in the province. Remember, I just said that if you want to go snowmobiling, go to Cochrane because they have long, cold winters. The highest rate of homelessness is there, and it’s increasing.

We’re happy to support this bill. We’re happy the jobs are coming to St. Thomas. We’re happy that we can all work together to support the automobile industry, that we can all work together to support businesses in Ontario, but we are going to continue to push that everyone can benefit from the bounty of Ontario—because that’s what Tommy Douglas did, and at the end of the day, I am a Tommy Douglas NDP.

That’s a pretty tough question.

I support Tommy Douglas’s dream of having publicly delivered, publicly funded health care. That’s what I support. I support that that health care—that there’s not portions of it that are publicly funded and other portions that you need that you have to pay for yourself. I don’t support that. I wish that Tommy was still alive and that we could have a discussion on that. When I listened to Tommy’s speeches and when I listened to Tommy’s discussions in the Legislature—he had good discussions, like we’re having.

I appreciate the question.

I love to listen to the member across speaking about Tommy Douglas, and I like that he’s supporting the automotive industry.

As the member said, he was a big supporter of Tommy Douglas. But Tommy Douglas supported user fees for health care. In October 1961, in the Saskatchewan Legislature, he said, “I think there is a value in having every family and every individual make some individual contribution. I think it has psychological value. I think it keeps the public aware of the cost and gives the people a sense of personal responsibility.”

I want to give the member the opportunity to clarify: Does he agree with Tommy Douglas about supporting user fees in health care?

Questions and answers?

I appreciate the member opposite’s remarks in debate this afternoon. In particular, when he talks about the north, I very much appreciate it. I have property in the Ottawa Valley, right near my colleague here from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, and I appreciate that economic development needs to take place right across this province.

Maybe the member opposite could explain, in his opinion at least, when we think of the Ring of Fire and the natural mineral resources we can use—I know the Premier said, “Let’s not export them. Let’s put them to good use, and we can build our own supply chains and build our own EV plants, whether it’s in Windsor or whether it’s going to be wherever in Ontario.” Who knows what’s going to happen in St. Thomas? Who knows if it’s going to be EV, if it’s going to be an automotive plant, if it’s going to be food or food processing? It’s going to be great. The bottom line is, talking about automotive—how does EV help northern Ontario and the Ring of Fire help complement what you’re trying do in northern Ontario for economic development?

It’s always a real pleasure and honour to hear the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane speak. His speeches are always full of history and humour, and there’s always something to be learned from them.

He talked about the poison pill. I know that the government wants to shame us for not supporting their budget. If we can’t support most of what you’re doing, if not all, we’re not going to wear it.

Today we are debating a bill where we’re talking about bringing manufacturing back—something central to the NDP, and something that we believe strongly in the official opposition—about returning potential auto sector jobs and expanding electric vehicles and green vehicles for the future, and here is a simple, straightforward matter, where we could vote on it together.

I would like to ask our House leader: Is there a willingness by us—if the government is willing to come across at the ideas stage, to sit down with us when they’re building the blueprints for their bills, motions and ideas? Is there a willingness from the opposition to work with them for a better Ontario?

It gives me particular pleasure to address the House this afternoon to speak about the importance of moving forward now on third reading of the proposed legislation, the St. Thomas-Central Elgin Boundary Adjustment Act. I am thrilled to hear that His Majesty’s official loyal opposition is supporting this bill clearly. I thought the member for Niagara Centre was perhaps only speaking for himself, but all of the NDP caucus is planning to support this bill. I congratulate His Majesty’s loyal opposition for seeing the light on this, and I hope that the members of the unrecognized parties, one of whom is in the House now, will make it unanimous. Let’s hope for that. I will speak with that goal in mind.

Speaker, this bill confirms our government’s commitment made to all Ontarians, a commitment to secure new investment opportunities in growth communities across Ontario. This bill in particular is taking steps to help secure new investment opportunities for a site in the St. Thomas area specifically. This site has the potential to create thousands of new jobs for the community, for the region and, indeed, the province.

Global investors and organizations are looking for regions in which to invest, and currently there is a shortage of shovel-ready industrial mega-site projects in the province of Ontario that are comparable to other jurisdictions. In the United States alone, there are close to 40 jurisdictions offering global investors some form of certified mega-site programs. Without immediate action, Ontario will be unable to compete for and win these transformative investments, along with the hundreds of thousands of jobs that come with these investments. That is why this legislation is necessary. This is necessary because we live and work in a global economy. If we don’t modernize and act now, much like from 2003 until 2018, Ontario will be left out. If passed in this House, the St. Thomas-Central Elgin Boundary Adjustment Act will secure the important investment opportunities necessary to have both direct and indirect jobs in the tens of thousands created.

My colleagues the Honourable Steven Clark and the Honourable Vic Fedeli stated in this House that our government is focused on securing these major investments that will employ generations of Ontario workers in rewarding and well-paying jobs. As mentioned before, Ontario is in fierce competition with other jurisdictions when companies consider making larger investments in manufacturing and industrial operations, including such investments as this multi-billion-dollar transformational project.

We know that, in contrast, the previous Liberal government for 15 years, from 2003 to 2018, chased away 300,000 manufacturing jobs. This was due to their mismanagement, the uncompetitive business environment they created, high taxes, red tape and regulation. Countless business owners told us, and presumably told many members of His Majesty’s loyal opposition, that the Liberals strangled Ontario’s competitiveness and made it very difficult for businesses to compete due to these high taxes, cumbersome red tape, higher energy costs and payroll taxes that suppressed growth.

Speaking of red tape, we have a great minister, the first full-time minister to reduce red tape and regulation in this government of the 43rd Parliament of Ontario. That’s how committed we are to eliminating red tape regulation and burdensome and cumbersome roadblocks to job-creating investments. The job losses that we saw under the Liberals can now be a footnote in history as our government takes leadership, supported by the official opposition and hopefully—hopefully—the unrecognized party members to make it unanimous in passing this bill in short order.

Through this proposed legislation, we are taking steps to ensure that Ontario can continue to compete worldwide. Since taking office in 2018, just four and a half years ago, our government has created a playing field that produced over 600,000 new jobs. The once struggling Ontario auto sector now employs 96,000 workers and indirectly employs hundreds of thousands of individuals in supply chain, parts manufacturing and distribution through the province.

As has been said in this House before, and I applaud it, that is the key to protecting core public services, to being able to make record investments in health care and education and social services and infrastructure. When we create jobs, when we grow the economy, then the treasury has the revenue to do right by the people of Ontario, to fund the public services that we all depend upon.

In 2022 alone, our government secured 150 new deals, resulting in thousands more secure, high-paying jobs. Ontario has now become one of the most competitive places for businesses to invest and grow. We have a talented workforce because our government has made significant investments in the growth of skilled trades. We have state-of-the-art research and development and an abundance of critical resources which have contributed greatly to our increased manufacturing sector.

We pledged to the people of Ontario, both in 2018 and 2022, that our government would honour its commitment to reducing the burdens of red tape regulation and high taxes and unleash the potential for the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs. We will continue to make good on that pledge, and the more support we have from His Majesty’s loyal opposition, the faster we can get the job done. We look forward to getting it done.

Under the leadership of the Minister of Red Tape Reduction, the Honourable Parm Gill, our government is getting it done. Our government has introduced with his leadership—and passed—eight red tape reduction bills. We’ve taken 400 individual actions to reduce red tape, and we have reduced Ontario’s total regulatory burden dramatically in just a short time. To date, our red tape reduction efforts have saved businesses and other organizations $576 million in compliance costs each year. But reducing red tape is only one factor.

The critical factor is what we’re doing with this proposed legislation: securing new investment and expansion opportunities in Ontario focused on a particular area and moving forward from there across the province. This is to ensure that we have a suitable place to land an industrial site where timing and associated costs are readily known and streamlined to meet project timelines. That is what we mean when we say it is shovel-ready. As my colleague, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, stated last week, our government is working closely with municipal partners to introduce a land-boundary adjustment to allow the site to be fully situated within the municipality of St. Thomas, ensuring that the site is shovel-ready for investment.

As an example for other municipalities to follow, the St. Thomas site is considered highly attractive as a mega-site and has been identified as one of the few potential mega-sites in the province. We have been working not only with municipalities but also with First Nations across the province to identify other large-scale sites that will be needed in the future to support our rapidly growing array of strategic manufacturing and industrial projects.

It is important to emphasize that this is not the first time that such an idea has been pursued. A specific act with respect to the targeting of a municipal area for investment and growth was actually passed by the former Liberal government. I can’t recall and I’ll have to look at the record as to whether or not the official opposition, which was the third party then, supported the Barrie-Innisfil Boundary Adjustment Act back in 2009. But with a general shortage of quality industrial land, it is imperative for Ontario to show that we are not just open for business; we need to also demonstrate that Ontario is ready for business. That means a serious leadership approach to being shovel ready.

With that, I once again thank my colleagues on the government benches for their efforts in speaking to this bill, for the leadership of Ministers Fedeli and Clark and, as well, for the support of His Majesty’s loyal opposition. Let’s make it unanimous.

Further questions?

Thank you to my colleague from Timiskaming–Cochrane for his debate. During his debate, he talked about supporting the bill. There has been lots of conversation today about poison bills and how debate happens and omnibus bills. Previously, we talked about not travelling bills or going to committee and rushing people deputizing and speaking to the bills.

In terms of presenting solutions to the government, what are some tips, out of the many years you’ve been here, on how we could work more effectively together to have good legislation for the people of Ontario?

I’ve said in the House before that sometimes the questions from my own side are harder than the questions from the other side.

I am honoured and a bit daunted by the prospect. I am House leader, but I think from my perspective—and I’ve been in this House for a while. I have tried and we have tried to work with everyone in this House. I don’t always agree with everyone in this House, and I make it very plain when I don’t. But where we can work together, we will work together. We’re all here for the same reason, and I hope that in the future we do a better job of working together.

The goal of the bill is obvious. It makes sense. It’s not saying that there are no issues, because it’s not that—there is going to be a loss of farmland. Whenever there’s a boundary change, there are going to be people who are impacted. It’s not saying that no one is going to be impacted, but the overall benefit is larger than the problems that can be solved, and that’s our bar for a bill. If the problems caused are greater than the benefit that could happen, then it’s thumbs-down for us—I was going to say “two thumbs-down,” but I can’t do that. It’s pretty simple. If the benefit outweighs the risk—this bill very much does that, and that’s why we can support it.

I’ve talked about it in my remarks—how the auto industry has impacted northern Ontario or is going to impact northern Ontario, and how the electrification of the auto industry is going to have an even bigger impact on northern Ontario.

Regarding the Ring of Fire, the one thing that we are all going to have to realize is, we all have to benefit. There has to be a true partnership with the people who are there now. That has not happened in the past. Indigenous people are still paying the price for that. We have to be cognizant that the people who live there now have to be partners. Unless we realize that, the Ring of Fire may never happen, and that is a very serious issue.

I haven’t been here that many years—I’ve been here 12 years—but there are things that have changed. Before, when the government dropped a bill, or introduced a bill, the opposition would often have a couple of weeks or a month to do the research; we’d have a bit of a heads-up. It wasn’t always friendly. Sometimes when the opposition has more time to do research, it causes the government a bit more trouble, but at the end of the day, the province gets better legislation, because it’s our job to find the faults, if they are there.

Speaker, through you: The member offered so much valuable information, and I couldn’t help but think that one of the lessons—and there’s always a teachable moment—I draw from is that he spoke about the ways that this House can work collaboratively together.

The type of bill that’s before us now is very focused, it is very purposeful, and it’s also reinforcing a process around annexation that already exists.

I’m very curious to hear more from this member about when the government members oftentimes stand up and provide quotes that are out of context, or try to create a “gotcha” moment about a party that says no. In this case, this party is saying yes to a bill that actually is going to bring manufacturing and jobs back to Ontario. I’m very curious to know: What is it, specifically, about the bill that makes it so agreeable?