It gives me great pleasure to stand and add the voices of the wonderful people of London North Centre to the debate on Bill 63, as the official opposition critic for economic development, job creation and trade. As I begin my remarks, Speaker, this bill is quite a surprise to the official opposition. I understand that there have been talks that have been ongoing for many months, according to city officials and municipal officials in St. Thomas, as well as central Elgin, and I must make sure that it is on the record that the official opposition has requested a briefing from the government but none has been provided to us yet. It is important. This legislation really is something that could lead to great jobs in the area, and certainly that is something that we on the official opposition side support.

If I think back, my grandfather actually was an employee at Ford Talbotville, and it is as a direct result of his being a union member that my mother was able to go pursue university at the University of Western Ontario, now known as Western University. It was because of that union job she received a scholarship, you see. It changed the trajectory of her life, of course, and, as a result, needless to say, of my life and my sister’s and my brother’s.

I think it’s wonderful to see that we have an 800-acre or 320-hectare site of land. Flavio Volpe has gone on the record to say many good thing about this. He said it puts St. Thomas “at the head of the pack right now,” and, “One of the most important things in chasing one of these investments is land assembly, being close to multi-modal access (highways, rail and airports) and labour. St. Thomas has all of that.” He also goes on to say that he’s glad that St. Thomas “has bought a ticket to the dance.”

London was a great manufacturing city, as well as St. Thomas, back many years ago. Unfortunately, due to a lack of continued provincial investment and provincial attention, many of those manufacturing jobs left. London had Kellogg’s, McCormick, major industries that unfortunately chose to leave. There was also General Dynamics Land Systems—pardon me, I’ll need to correct my record. I’m misremembering.

In terms of Bill 63, it would be creating a mega-site. A land of adequate size, it’s going to be a suitable location capable of accommodating this major new investment. What is unclear about this, though, is we don’t know who the industry players are. This has not been revealed to us by the government. There is no indication of who will be occupying this site, what this is going to look like, how many people will be employed by this. It’s all very unclear.

In theory, this looks like something that we can absolutely support, because it will be the creation of good jobs—hopefully well-paying jobs, hopefully union jobs. What is surprising is that, on first glance—because, as I said, this was just dropped upon us with no briefing whatsoever—I’m pleased to say that there doesn’t seem to be any poison pills in here, which is often happening with omnibus pieces of legislation, as I’m sure you well know.

But because this legislation seems short on details, we’re being asked to go on trust. We’re being asked to simply push this through. In this bill itself, I don’t see any mention or use of any MZOs or changes to land use planning, but I would like to also make sure that it is on the record that this government recognizes that there does need to be additional investments for child care, additional investments for housing. These are important things that this site is also going to require.

If we delve back into the history, a decade ago auto manufacturing facilities closed down. It cost the area thousands of jobs, and this is also part of this Job Site Challenge that the government has announced in 2019. Hopefully, if the rumours are true, this will be the site of an electric vehicle battery plant—but again, still pretty short on details.

Flavio Volpe has also said, “I like St. Thomas’s story. Everyone loves a comeback, and 2008 to 2010 was not kind to this community that has an incredible manufacturing history. It would be great to see another major auto investment in a town with a past.” I couldn’t agree more, Speaker. This will be a great economic benefit for the city of St. Thomas as well as for the city of London, because there will be also people who are travelling to these great jobs.

Also, as we look towards this, I look forward to the briefing from this government. I am surprised that this has been dropped upon us—there have been no details—because this goes back all the way to June. In June, St. Thomas announced that it had assembled this site, and it announced that it was doing so to woo manufacturing. So we know that there have been discussions that the government has had with the city of St. Thomas and with industry players, and yet the official opposition has not been made aware of those discussions.

I also wanted to add to the record the voice of the London Economic Development Corporation’s Kapil Lakhotia. He confirmed that the St. Thomas area—now, again, this is news from back in January. Kapil Lakhotia confirmed that the London-St. Thomas area is getting attention from manufacturers. And also recently in our news, there is an EV battery plant in Windsor that will employ almost 2,500 people when it opens in 2024. Lakhotia said, “As we work with EV suppliers, we’re confident more investment will come to this region. If a facility is being purpose-built for Cami, that’s wonderful. Winning a major investment bodes well for our region. It shows confidence to other (automakers) that we have the labour and capacity and business climate for EVs.”

EV investment, of course, is going to require a number of things. It’s going to require land. It’s going to require a workforce. It has to make sure that there’s a stable electrical supply and the access to raw materials. Southwestern Ontario really is the automotive manufacturing hub of Canada. There are so many different automakers as well as auto-parts suppliers; it is a wonderful industry. There are good-paying jobs—union jobs—which are cap-able of supporting a family, one where there are pensions, one where people can go to work, make a good day’s wage, come home and know that they have benefits, that they will also be able to retire.

It is concerning. I would like to see more protections for workers from this government. This is wonderful; we see many announcements about jobs. But I want to make sure, with all these announcements about jobs, that they’re also going to be well-paying union jobs. On the side of the official opposition, we’ve always been in favour of things like card-check certification, making sure it’s easier for people to be able to join unions, to make sure that they have those workplace protections, because without them, it is just a job. We want to make sure that these are jobs that, again, can sustain a family, can support young people when they eventually go to school and support people when they’re in retirement.

As we look through this bill, it is interesting that this bill is being pushed, because clearly there is a lot of interest in this. With this, these tools that are being achieved within this bill are also possible within other means. Annexation is provided for in the Municipal Act, but this seems to be rushing it through. Perhaps that’s because there is going to be a substantial investment from industry which, again, is a great thing, because our manufacturing sector had a major collapse almost 20 years ago. There were so many workers in southwestern Ontario who were the ones who were hit especially hard.

There have been fears for a number of years about the long-term viability of Ontario’s auto sector. Many have even wondered if North American manufacturing would move to California with Tesla. But here in Ontario, things do seem to be turning around. There have been announcements with Stellantis in Windsor, the Project Arrow. Demo EV is another powerful demonstration of the strength of Ontario’s auto sector in the EV era. I would like to say, from the side of the official opposition, we welcome this increase in manufacturing. We welcome these great new jobs.

As I said, Bill 63 bypasses that normal annexation process in the Municipal Act; I believe it’s part 5. The government is jamming this through as fast as possible. We just would like to know why. That’s all we would like is just some clarity. We would like to know who the industry players are and what we can do to support it, because on this side of the House, we’re happy to support the creation of good, new jobs and long-term union jobs.

As well, I wanted to take a look toward—Sean Dyke, the chief executive of the St. Thomas Economic Development Corp. said, “If you look across Ontario, there is a general shortage of quality industrial land and we have to say, ‘We are open to business. We are ready.’” He has said that he is “definitely looking to pursue an investment in the EV sector. It is grown at such a rapid pace....’”

If we look back, earlier this year, Stellantis and South Korean battery manufacturer LG Energy Solution announced it is building Canada’s first large-scale vehicle electric battery plant in Windsor. It’s a $5-billion investment. As I said earlier, it’s going to employ about 2,500, and it’s going to be on more than 80 hectares of land.

These are really interesting, important investments for the province. These are important investments for the St. Thomas region. It’s wonderful to see that a place that was so hard hit by the collapse of manufacturing will again have a manufacturing renaissance.

However, to this government, have they looked towards the necessary investments for housing? We’ve had many discussions in this chamber about investments in housing that have been absent from the province. We’ve seen much of it being left up to the private, for-profit industry. We’ve seen the removal of rent controls. Young families or people hoping to save money to eventually buy that first home are being subject to—within the absence of rent control, their rent is going up, after they complete their lease, at a terrible rate.

You know, you plan. When you decide to move into a new location, a new home, you do those financial calculations. You decide, “Okay, I have this much money I can spend on housing, this much on food, this much on entertainment,” and that’s all part of that equation.

But many people weren’t following what this government did back in 2018. With the removal of rent control—I believe it was Bill 147 where rent control was removed on all new builds that were first occupied after November 2018. What that meant was that these people, after completing a lease, then received the information that their rent would be increasing at a terrible rate, not subject to the year-over-year guideline. That is something that people can’t factor in. They can’t plan for that kind of dramatic increase. There are stories of people’s rents going up by 10%, 20%. It could go up by any number.

Frequently within this chamber, we also hear about the dramatic increase in the number of rental starts since this government has taken power. And while that may be true, that is probably largely due to the fact that the industry now sees that there’s an opportunity. In the absence of rent control, the creation of this new rental housing will allow people to exploit folks, quite frankly, because rent control protects people. The absence of it is exploitive. That’s something that is deeply frightening.

As I said, you used to be able to save up money when renting. It didn’t cost as much as a mortgage. Some people actually just choose it so they have that freedom. They might like to take vacations. They might like to spend money on other things. They might want to make investments in other parts of their lives, so they want to keep their housing budget rather low. That would be possible if rent prices were reasonable.

At this time, we’ve seen rents increasing at such a terrible rate that they’re often larger than the cost of a mortgage, and that’s unsustainable. In the London area, as I mentioned in a question earlier this morning during question period, the rent stability bank, a program that is to help folks who are in rental arrears or at risk of losing their housing, has seen a dramatic increase in its use. That’s something that should be a concern to this government.

Further, we also remain concerned that the creation of new and affordable housing is not something that is being done by this government. On the official opposition side, we believe that there should be a public builder, one that is tasked with the creation of truly affordable housing that is also protected by legislation.

There have been measures such as Bill 23, which has been touted by this government as something that will create new affordable housing, but there’s no provision for what that affordable housing will look like, what the rates will be and how that will be protected with legislation. Unfortunately, it’s affordable housing in scare quotes. It’s affordable housing that might not be affordable at all. It’s shocking to think that the greenbelt land swap that has been talked about with this government, that is supposedly going to be one that’s going to create affordable housing, is in fact—it makes no sense.

I had the opportunity to travel with the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs—I believe I saw you there, Speaker—and we heard from many municipalities who are concerned about the removal of development charges paid by those private developers, that were paid to municipalities, those development charges that help with the creation of infrastructure, the creation of sewers, the creation of so many other things that are necessary for a housing development. The removal of those, which has been put forward by this government, is a measure that is supposedly something where private developers are going to pass down savings to the consumer. But there’s no guarantee. That’s the thing. Developers might not have to pay these development charges, but there’s no protection in the legislation to ensure that that money that they are not having to spend to municipalities is going to then be passed through as a cost savings to consumers. That remains concerning.

In bills like these, with Bill 63, I think about all of those young families who will be thrilled and excited to get a good job, hopefully with an excellent employer who is paying them well, has union representation, has benefits, has a pension, has all the things that we know are vitally necessary for any young family. But what happens, Speaker, if they’re not able to find that place that is truly affordable? Or even if they do, what if they find a place that’s affordable, and then in one year their rent goes through the roof and they run the risk of losing their housing? What if they find a place that’s affordable and then, with the market creeping up such as it is, they end up not being able to start a family? A young couple might find themselves in a one-bedroom place, never able to expand, never able to start that family, to have or adopt a child. That remains deeply concerning.

With this bill, I do hope that we in the official opposition hear very shortly from the government about when they intend to provide us with a briefing, when they intend to explain the need for this, the need for expedience. It’s not to say that we don’t want to say yes, because we are very much in support of good jobs. We are very much in support of investments—especially myself, being from the London North Centre area—in southwestern Ontario.

But another key attribute to this that I think is vital to discuss is when we think about young people who are entering this workforce, ostensibly created by this hopefully new EV plant: What about transit? Are we going to have regional transit available for these young folks? Just because somebody might first get a good job doesn’t mean that they have a vehicle. There are some people who might be exiting post-secondary education. They might be re-entering the workforce from time off, for goodness knows what reason. But I know that right now is an economically difficult time, so with this plan, has the government considered transit links between the city of London and St. Thomas? Have they considered what infrastructure improvements are going to be necessary on the area highways? Have they made sure that they have consulted with folks in the region about what’s necessary, what’s going to help and what needs to happen in this plan?

Speaker, I think that this is a great idea on paper. I don’t see anything that is a major concern. As I said, we have only just started to delve deep into it, because it was only dropped upon us at the very last minute, but it’s something that I think the official opposition is very interested in. We are very much in favour of large-scale investments in Ontario, in the region, when we think about the economic prosperity that that will bring to many families and a rejuvenation within the area, because not only with this investment, which is one part of a much larger, complex machine—there will be other off-site jobs which will help support.

We think about auto manufacturing—and yes, there are the places and the factories that assemble the auto vehicles, but then there are also the parts manufacturers. There are many smaller different locations that might make all the components that are necessary to go in the cars. And so I think this is very intriguing, because this could be part of a much broader and much larger investment within the region. It shows that clearly there is confidence in the area.

However, I must also state that in order for multinational corporations and other large players to have confidence in Ontario, we also need to buttress and to support our publicly funded and publicly delivered health care system, because when international eyes look at our area, they want the see a workforce that is healthy. And part of that health, firstly, is housing, as we’ve discussed, but the second is public health care—publicly funded and publicly delivered health care. They want to make sure that their workforce is not only able to come to a job, but is able to stay on that job, is able to work hard and contribute to the economic prosperity that each business in our province needs.

If we have emergency rooms that have been closing, if we have people who are unable to have a primary care physician, if we have people who are endlessly waiting for surgeries because of the lack of funding that has been provided to our publicly delivered health care system, then I remain concerned. This investment may be good, but what about our long-term prospects? With the bill that we discussed earlier, Bill 60, the privatization and the profitization of our health care system is one that I think international players might be concerned about. They may look towards other jurisdictions that have better long-term economic prospects.

When we look at education—employers not only look at the health, the housing, but they also look towards education. The FAO report recently that the Financial Accountability Officer delivered was damning, quite frankly. It showed that in the next three years, Ontario would be underfunding and cutting from health care by $5 billion. The officer also showed that there would be underfunding of education by $1.1 billion, and from justice by $0.8 million.

At the same time, if that weren’t bad enough, this isn’t just money that was going somewhere else. It wasn’t being moved to other program spending. It was being moved into a contingency fund. It was being moved into a place where there is no scrutiny, no oversight. There is no accountability for that money. It’s really the antithesis of transparency. That $20 billion—almost $20 billion over three years—is money that has been called a slush fund. It’s money that can be spent in any way the government sees fit. That makes no sense at the same time when there are these drastic, dramatic cuts from programs that we rely upon, like health and education and justice. It really makes absolutely no sense. So that remains a tremendous, tremendous concern.

And I would say for the record that I think that employers or people who are looking towards making investments in Ontario might see that and also become concerned. These investors and these multinational corporations would be looking for a willing partner, a trustworthy partner—a partner that they can rely upon and can depend upon. When the FAO exposes things like that, I’m not sure that they would feel that way.

It also remains a deep concern of ours that this government has not treated workers fairly and with respect. I would love to see, with this boundary adjustment, the creation of jobs but also the protection and the promotion of good union jobs.

I think this is potentially a very wonderful thing, but there are just some key parts missing. On the one hand, I am very thankful that it’s not an omnibus piece of legislation, that there are no poison pills hidden in it, and that it seems to be relatively straightforward. But there are so many questions behind it. In the absence of a briefing, in the absence of clarity from this government, we remain interested but somewhat concerned just for the lack of detail, if I may.

As we take a look at this, Speaker, I’m very much looking forward to the government providing us with some clarity, with some assurances, and just letting us know what their plan is. There are many opportunities which are possible here, but Speaker, unfortunately those have not yet been provided to us.

I look forward to the questions from the members across, but I can guarantee you that as they’re asking questions, I will probably be asking them my very own questions because there’s just so much that is missing from Bill 63.

I think I’ll leave my comments there, Speaker.

Really, I’m grateful to hear the comments from London North Centre. I know London and Windsor always have a good rivalry going, but we’re both well-acquainted with the manufacturing sector.

One of the most common concerns that my constituents share with me is that they’re worried about the future. They’re worried about future opportunities, future jobs, future careers. Inflation, cost of living and layoffs are dominating the headlines today. The people of Ontario are worried about their jobs, even despite the shortage of applicants [inaudible] the jobs—but they’re not always distributed properly throughout the province.

That uncertainty about the economic future of Ontario exists, so I’m hoping the member can expand on his perception of the legislation and how it can actually help support the economy and secure the jobs for workers.

I’d like to thank the member for Windsor–Tecumseh for his questions. You quite rightly cited the deep concerns that many people have right now, which are about inflation and cost of living. There are two key areas which could be addressed with greater protections for folks, such as reinstating rent control and making sure that people have a safe place to call home. In the absence of it, we’ve seen terrible circumstances for a lot of people who are frightened about losing their homes.

With Bill 23, we’ve seen also that rental buildings can be purchased by some of these international key players, redeveloped into luxury condos—and what happens to those people who are in those units, Speaker? What happens to buildings full of seniors who have lived there their whole lives and lived there in a good way, in a comfortable way, in an affordable way, who are now at risk of losing their home? Those are key ways.

There are investments like these, but they also have to be backed up with union protections, good wages, benefits and a pension.

I think about so many different industries that closed. We look at what happened to the folks at Sears, who worked there for many years, and when it came time for them to close, the business looked after shareholders before it looked after workers. The loss of pensions was something that was deeply concerning.

We need legislation in this province that makes sure to protect workers—workers first. Business will look after itself, but a business is nothing without the people who comprise it.

I’m delighted to speak today in support of Bill 63, the St. Thomas-Central Elgin Boundary Adjustment Act. As the member of provincial Parliament for Windsor–Tecumseh, how can I not support this bill, given the terrific developments that we have had the privilege to welcome in our riding as a result of similar circumstances?

Central Elgin is truly a gem for Ontario, with some of the most scenic and beautiful communities in the southwest: Port Stanley, Belmont, Dexter, Lawton’s Corners, Lyndale, Lynhurst, Mapleton, New Sarum, Norman, Sparta, Union, Whites and Yarmouth Centre.

St. Thomas is truly the Railway City—and being an engineer, I love railways—and the place where the Canada Southern, the London and Port Stanley, the Grand Trunk, the Pere Marquette and the Canadian Pacific railways rolled right through. While we do try to somewhat compete on the number of railway crossings and railway delays in Windsor–Tecumseh, the sheer number of systems present in St. Thomas certainly exceeds ours.

The St. Thomas area, particularly Southwold, was home to the Ford St. Thomas assembly plant, where the Ford Crown Victoria, the Lincoln Town Car and the Mercury Grand Marquis were rolled off the lines by its industrious employees until 2011. Those Crown Victoria vehicles were a mainstay of the Ontario Provincial Police fleet. Residents of St. Thomas and Central Elgin could look at the work that they produced with sincere pride throughout Ontario any time that they travelled.

We in Windsor-Tecumseh truly know the devastating loss that St. Thomas and Central Elgin went through when Ford was lost in the industrial change. Just within my life-time, I’ve seen the elimination of the GM trim and transmission plant, the Ford Nemak Essex aluminum plant, the Ford casting plant and Windsor engine plant, and the Chrysler Pillette van plant, all just within my riding. Directly adjacent, we had the Ford Nemak Windsor aluminum plant and Windsor casting plant. The Ford Essex engine plant had a happier end, in that it closed but then it reopened, and it continues to operate to this day.

Why is this important and vital? Automotive jobs are good jobs, and for every job in an auto plant, there are 18 others supported by it. When good jobs are lost, it’s not just the local economy that suffers. It leads to displacement of family members. Our populations decline as people move to find work, and in turn, with reduced demand for goods and services, even more job loss.

It’s hard to fathom this here in the vicinity of Queen’s Park. You look outside, and construction is all around us. You visibly see people working, especially right next door at the MacDonald Block. There are cranes here. There are construction barriers. There is excavation. There are closures on the 401, although that seems to be three decades plus in the making, as the province demolishes narrow overpasses and constructs collector lanes to address demand. And really, an economically viable Toronto with vitality is the only Toronto that I’ve ever known. Whether in a period of economic growth or a period of recession, the building and improving here never seems to stop.

But that’s not our reality in southwestern Ontario. Years will go by where our communities will never see a crane. A crane is a sign of growth; it’s a sign of hope and delivering upon promise of hope and optimism for a better future, of revitalization. It brings forward a beneficial community impact that I could not do any justice in trying to describe. Bill 63 will dramatically support and accelerate economic revitalization for the people of St. Thomas, of Central Elgin and of Elgin county.

My riding of Windsor–Tecumseh is now home to the NextStar Energy electric vehicle battery plant, Canada’s largest automotive investment in its history, an investment of over $5 billion. We have experienced first-hand the benefits of the hope and promise of this facility already, and it is just getting built out of the ground as we speak, with an opening anticipated in the next two years. NextStar is not just a new plant, but a new lease on life for our existing manufacturing facilities in the city. NextStar on its own, separate from any other impacts, will create over 2,500 direct jobs to start. NextStar truly means that our largest industrial employers will continue to operate in our community for a new generation and will grow their workforce.

The NextStar development was no accidental event or stroke of luck to land this development. My own hometown of Tecumseh faced a remarkably comparable situation to what is being described in the bill, although with some differences. The city of Windsor had prepared a land use needs report in 1996; it showed more industrial land was needed to meet future growth. Collaboratively, the three municipalities—Windsor, Tecumseh, and the county of Essex—agreed to a boundary adjustment which transferred approximately 6,500 acres of land from the town of Tecumseh to the city of Windsor.

Undoubtedly, the decision to transfer jurisdiction over these lands was not entirely beloved. There were political consequences, but it was the right thing to do. Interestingly enough, while the specific lands around the Banwell Road corridor were not envisioned for this annexation at the front end of it, Windsor had the infrastructure, service capacity and fiscal capacity to service the land immediately. As a much smaller municipality, Tecumseh did not. This boundary agreement between Tecumseh, Windsor and Essex county took effect over 20 years ago now, on January 1, 2003.

The 2008 recession was devastating for our local manufacturing economy. The Windsor region is the first to experience the effects of an economic downturn and the last to return to prosperity, but in a roundabout way this paved the way for what was to come with NextStar. NextStar landed there because the land was available and was serviced. The boundary adjustment completed years before meant that the complexity of the project on the site was lessened dramatically. The NextStar site is located in that Banwell Road corridor. It’s located on Banwell Road at the E.C. Row Expressway, right at the boundary of Windsor and Tecumseh.

The city of Windsor, the province of Ontario and the government of Canada collaborated on incentives to help make the business case for the NextStar site, including land assembly by the city of Windsor. NextStar officials only required consultation with one municipality instead of two. Having few complications and all partners on the same page is very much a determining factor made by a company in where to site a plant.

NextStar coming to Windsor was never a sure thing. For one, the site was smaller than desired; it’s about 800 acres. There was intense competition to land this once-in-a-lifetime investment. So with Bill 63, St. Thomas and Central Elgin can cross that potential complication off of their list. The consolidated industrial site that is the subject of this bill is large enough to meet virtually any company’s needs. It is a site that has the incredible potential to create thousands of new jobs for St. Thomas and for Central Elgin and for our province; a shovel-ready site with railway access, electrical and sewer services and an easy connection to Highway 401 via Highbury Avenue.

This proposed legislation reduces the red tape that would have otherwise existed here. The government is proposing a change in the municipal boundary so that the site lies in one single municipality—the city of St. Thomas—to make site improvements and make any future construction faster and more efficient. By reducing the number of affected municipalities to one, it accelerates decision-making and approvals, ensuring the site is shovel-ready for investment.

The same laws and regulations will continue to apply; the same assets and advantages are present; the same approvals to build on this site are still needed. They will occur. The only difference is the removal of the duplication which would be corrected by this legislation.

The proposed actions show that the government is ready and willing to take the steps necessary to compete for the types of global, game-changing investments needed to create good-paying jobs in Ontario and to rebuild our economy.

Speaker, we know that in our region, there’s truly a critical shortage of shovel-ready industrial mega-sites, and I’ve heard that in my own consultations across Ontario. This is not just an issue local to my region. We need to think innovatively. It means that to compete, municipalities may need to do exactly what our nearby neighbours are doing across the American border and have been doing so for many, many years.

Ontario is in fierce competition with other areas for these once-in-a-generation investments in manufacturing and industrial operations. There are close to 40 US areas, including Michigan, Ohio, Iowa, North Carolina, Missouri and Tennessee—all great vacation spots, but also only located within a few hours drive of us. That means they can be suppliers to everything that exists in our manu-facturing footprint, and these jurisdictions offer certified site programs. Our competitors for these investments have shovel-ready sites, and it is now a widespread expectation that potential investors have of governments like ours and across North America who want to secure the investments that these shovel-ready sites be available.

In 2019, our government developed the Driving Prosperity plan that helped lead to the NextStar Energy electric vehicle battery plant. A Reuters analysis noted that car companies plan to spend $300 billion globally on EVs, and Canada at the time had zero of that investment. That is why our government is laser-focused on securing these large-scale anchor projects, including in the auto and EV space. What we learned was critical to securing these new investment opportunities: It’s having a suitable site ready to go, where timing and costs of development are readily known, and where the owner knows that they can meet project timelines.

The Job Site Challenge program began in November 2019 and was Canada’s first challenge where municipalities, economic development agencies and industrial property owners put forward large tracts of land of 500 to 1,500 acres to support large-scale manufacturing operations. Looking at the St. Thomas-Central Elgin site, it is 1,250 acres. That’s pretty close to the top end of what the industry is looking for. It reflects, relative to the whole of Central Elgin, 1.8% of the land and 0.27% of the land in the county of Elgin.

As mentioned earlier, NextStar isn’t the only demonstrated success. Umicore in Loyalist township is a transformative investment for eastern Ontario. The benefits are not simply direct. As my good friend MPP Bresee noted, for the first time, the people of Millhaven will see public transit service near their community. And as a result of recent successes like NextStar and Umicore, there is significant demand for shovel-ready sites.

In my role as parliamentary assistant, I have seen ample opportunity to witness Minister Fedeli in action. Ontario is truly in good hands to secure more than $20 billion in projects, but many of them require large-scale sites. Premier Ford and Minister Fedeli deliver investor confidence in industry, and it is helping us land these investments in the most competitive investment environment that we have seen in our history.

The shortage that we have of large, industrial sites is real. It puts Ontario at a significant disadvantage. While our communities make every effort to compete for these high-value projects, often our sites can have missing ingredients to them. This could be access to services or access to transportation infrastructure. By assembling and confirming the St. Thomas site and the governance of local regulations, it provides crystal-clear assurance to any companies locating on the site of what they need to do.

Economic developments do have uncertainty and risk, and on occasion, quick action by government is needed. Bill 63 is an example of that. It simplifies the complexity of developing the St. Thomas-Central Elgin site. Passage of the bill will make this parcel ready faster and stronger. There is no need to risk losing this opportunity to compete for and win when these companies are looking for a home. There is a lot of competition out there. Let us not give potential companies any reason to doubt our viability or our ability to deliver to them a great and sustainable business for generations to come.

For Ontario, for St. Thomas and for Central Elgin, it’s an opportunity to create thousands of jobs and to build stronger communities together. We are ready for business. I ask all members of the Legislature to support Bill 63 and to ensure that St. Thomas, Central Elgin and the county of Elgin gain all of the economic opportunities and development that the region can support for its people.

I’d like to thank the member from Windsor–Tecumseh for his presentation on Bill 63.

You mentioned the importance of Windsor–Tecumseh in terms of the auto sector. With the Ambassador Bridge, that’s a vital trade corridor. I wondered about the length of time it took for the Premier to act upon the Windsor Ambassador Bridge blockade. Flavio Volpe said it was “‘the single most disruptive event’ of the last 20 years for the automotive sector.” Transport Canada said that $2.3 billion in trade was put on hold while this government failed to act. Most damning, though, was the reputational damage to Canada and Ontario as a reliable trading partner.

My question for the member is, should the Premier not have acted faster to declare a state of emergency and protect Ontario’s reputation?

To the member of Windsor–Tecumseh: The government acted very swiftly when it comes to the three municipalities to create a mega-site in order to bring jobs to southwestern Ontario. There are workers who, when you bring them to a territory, are going to need child care, housing, transit—all those things you talked about.

There was an announcement in the spring about moving the WSIB location from Toronto to London. I’d like to know why the government hasn’t acted swiftly in that and if he knows if there are any plans to make that announcement so those workers can plan for those things when they get their job here in London.

Thank you so much to the member for his remarks. It’s always great to hear from the communities, and particularly Windsor–Tecumseh, who are a great example—and, of course, the member from Elgin–Middlesex–London as well. These communities had such great industrial development back decades ago, before Ontario was hollowed out, and now, what we’re seeing is the reindustrialization of Ontario. It’s very exciting, and this bill is very much a part of it.

I wonder if the member could outline the on-the-ground impacts for the community in terms of jobs and the resulting benefits that that will bring. You’ve seen it before. And what’s the vision for your community and those around from this exciting announcement through Bill 63?

Thank you to the member from Windsor–Tecumseh for that wonderful presentation.

Madam Speaker, I’m very pleased to see our government is continuing to take the economy seriously. I was listening to the ministers this morning and their statistics, and our achievement is really mind-blowing. The amount of investment, the billions of dollars pouring into Ontario, is really mind-blowing. I’d like to thank the ministers and our government for bringing so many investments. That means creating a lot of job opportunity for Ontarians, especially for the younger generation. I’m really thankful for that.

My question to the member: Elaborate on why the government is choosing to introduce the legislation now. What is the urgency to doing this bill?

I was listening to the remarks from the member for Windsor–Tecumseh and I wondered if he could provide any background information on the mega-site initiative. We understand that the province announced it in 2019 and then last year, or I guess in 2021, the government hired a consulting firm, Newmark, to oversee the site selection process. However, there has not been any release of the findings from Newmark, which would help us understand why this particular site was selected.

Can the member tell us why the government has not disclosed the report from that consulting firm that was overseeing the site selection process?

Thank you to the member. It is now time for questions. I recognize the member for Windsor–Tecumseh.

Report continues in volume B.

Thank you, Madam Speaker—

I always enjoy listening to the depth of analysis of the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane. Of course, he has the experience and the wealth of knowledge, being a member of this House for a long time. I understand his concern regarding losing farmland. But the interesting aspect that I personally discovered during the finance committee’s pre-budget hearings in Windsor—we had a representative from the farm industry, and they brought to our attention that, because of climate warming, many of the lands in the north are opening now for farming. He brought his own personal experience; he’s using now—