I listened intently this morning to the minister’s speech. He mentioned that he was a former mayor of North Bay—a very popular mayor, I would say.

As a former mayor, does he agree that we should abandon the basic democratic principle of 50% plus one? Under this new act, with the strong mayors, there are occasions when a mayor only needs 30% of council. I was once a municipal councillor as well, and I’m very firm on making representative government 50% plus one. If a mayor can’t get half his council to agree, perhaps the mayor isn’t on the right track. What are the former mayor of North Bay’s views on the abandonment of the 50%-plus-one principle for municipal government?

I am very pleased to be able to stand and put some thoughts on the record here about Bill 39. I wish I had more time, so I’m going to cut right to the chase. This particular bill is a lot for just three schedules—and I’m going to focus mostly on one of the schedules we haven’t heard a lot about, because being from Durham region, I think it’s very important that somebody out of the seven Durham MPPs gets up and tells this story, so I will be the one.

Interjection.

Schedules 1 and 2 of this bill are about democracy.

Interjections.

Speaker, this is fundamentally about democracy, but I’m going to break it down for you in terms of the schoolyard, because that’s what I come from and I think that breaking it down for folks makes it a bit clearer. If you have six kids in the yard and they’re deciding whether to play freeze tag or hide and seek—normally, if you have a group of three and three, one of them is going to be the deciding factor. Whether you play freeze tag or hide and seek, you need four to decide—but not anymore, not in the province of Ontario, not with this. Now you just need two—because a third is all that’s required now for councils. One of these provisions in this schedule is that a mayor, for certain motions, only needs a third of council to support them.

Here is a letter that I got from someone: “Bill 39 needs to be stopped! I did not just vote in a municipal election to now have the person that I elected not necessarily have a voice at the table. The strong-mayor powers directly threaten our democracy. Nobody should be granted the power of pushing through bylaws or other legislation with only one third of the vote. What are you doing in this province? How are we sitting back and allowing this government to enact these laws which give ultimate power to the few

“Do the right thing! Stand up to Ford and put an end to all this nonsense. Bill 39, Bill 28 and stopping public comments on his greenbelt plan are all direct attacks on democracy and our ability to use our voices as a collective. That’s how dictators lead. This is not the future I want for my children.

“Do the right thing! Stop this bill!!!!

“Christina Coghlan.”

That’s a real person. Folks are having real opinions. I would have said that the government is hearing these, that they’re getting the same emails and phone calls, but some of their offices—I don’t know if you knew this—aren’t even staffed up yet. I’m happy to share those emails with them, but this is part of why Ontarians aren’t getting answers.

Here is another one, a letter from James: “I am writing to ask you to vote against Bill 39, Better Municipal Governance Act, 2022. I believe this bill conflicts with our Canadian democratic principles. Schedule 1 allows bylaws to be passed with the support of fewer than half of city councillors in Toronto and Ottawa. I believe that if the majority of a city opposes a bylaw, then that bylaw should not pass....

“Normally I would only write to my own MPP, but this law only affects the cities of Toronto and Ottawa, so I believe that MPPs from other regions should consider the opinions of people who would be affected by this bill.”

Also, it begs the question, who’s next?

The member from Brampton North was hooting and hollering about Oshawa, so I’ll tell him about Oshawa. This is an article from insauga:

“Oshawa Council Tells Queen’s Park Hands Off the Greenbelt.

“Oshawa council has given clear direction to the Province on their recent ‘swap’ of environmentally sensitive lands for lands in the Paris-Galt moraine—keep your hands off the greenbelt.

“Oshawa councillor Rosemary McConkey brought the motion before council on day one of the new term....” She basically said, “‘When you make a promise you should keep it’—and pointed out that even though Oshawa wasn’t directly involved the deal ‘will definitely affect our headwaters’ and could lead to a further loss of pristine lands in the future.

“‘This will be hard to undo once it has started’....

“Councillor Bob Chapman agreed, saying the province ‘shouldn’t be encroaching on the greenbelt. It’s sacrosanct.’”

We’re in this House talking about Bill 39 today—but Bills 23 and 39 are all attacks on our future.

I want to take us back, though, into our history, in the limited time that I’ve got.

I got a letter from Bonnie Littley, who is the co-founder of the Rouge Duffins Greenspace Coalition. She campaigned in the early 2000s to protect the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Act—schedule 2 in this bill. She said:

“The Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve was public land sold back to farmers at $4,000 an acre on the condition it remained agricultural by the way of easement on title in 1999. To protect this prime (class 1 and 2) farmland for future generations in perpetuity! This speculation will be a huge rip-off of the public purse! It is the most protected land in all of Ontario! Easements on title. In the greenbelt. An MZO to protect the area from Pickering doing the planning. The former provincial government took their planning rights away when they kept trying to pave the preserve and created the Central Pickering Development Plan, where the preserve is enshrined as agricultural. Plus its own legislation Bill 16, the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Act.

“The minister spoke of lands that are appropriate for development because they are beside an urban area. That logic is 1980s sprawl logic since a ton of ag lands are beside urban areas. The Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve is also nestled beside the Rouge Park, which also has a lot of agricultural activity and the other side protects one side of Duffins Creek. Then it can be argued it’s appropriate to have an ag preserve where it is.

“Also, why is there no mention of the homes being built right now in Seaton? Pickering is also identified as an urban growth centre in the provincial growth plan and is required to hit certain densities in the urban core before moving into new greenfield sites. They are approving condo towers as we speak. In short. They don’t need any new lands for development. Period. This is not passing the smell test.”

I had a chance to meet Bonnie, and we had a good chat at the rally—there were 200 people, give or take—in Pickering. I was glad to spend a freezing cold Saturday with them. A lot of those folks have been fighting this fight for a long time.

A bit of history, Speaker: In 1993, the NDP government established the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve. In 1998, the city of Pickering endorsed the conclusion of a rural study which called for that land to remain rural.

Just for folks at home who are thinking, “What is she talking about?”, schedule 2 of this bill says that the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Act should be repealed—and that’s like this government has to peel off that safety, that protection, in order to take that chunk of land out of the greenbelt. When everyone is talking about Bill 23 and pulling stuff out of the greenbelt for development, in our neck of the woods, this has to happen first, before they can get at it, because this is super-duper-protected land.

In 1999, the Ontario government, Durham and Pickering signed an agreement to protect these lands as farmland in perpetuity, which means forever and ever and ever. After this agreement was signed, the Ontario government began selling that land to farmers for cheap, but as a condition of the sale, the purchaser had to agree to easements or limitations protecting the land forever as farmland.

In 2005, a Globe and Mail article said that the sale of those lands was overseen by Tony—Miele? Is that how you say it? I’d have to ask the PCs; I think you guys all know him. He was the then president of the Ontario Realty Corp. He has been in a couple of different articles lately, like the Toronto Star “Friends with Benefits?” investigation on the PC-connected beneficiaries of the Highway 416 proposal. Even more amazingly, that guy who was involved in selling off the land is the chair of the PC Ontario fund, the PC Party’s campaign donation war chest. It’s just so interconnected.

Back in the day, in 2003, shortly after Miele sold the protected farmland to various farmers for next to nothing, companies owned or controlled by Silvio De Gasperis snapped up these properties from the farmers, buying all but three lots of its current land holdings, totalling more than 1,300 acres. He paid a total of $8.6 million at the time, which is next to nothing. He bought up a lot of land that was supposed to be protected forever and ever and ever.

There was a developer-funded growth-management study that contradicted that earlier recommendation. Then the Liberals came and put it into the greenbelt, thwarting De Gasperis and his plans for vast riches.

Fast-forward, and here we are. A land dispute is being resurrected nearly two decades later by this PC government, whose political donations are collected and managed by that same Tony Miele, and De Gasperis stands to make bajillions of dollars—somebody could correct me on the exact figure.

I’m out of time.

Earlier today, I talked about visiting an enterprise located in Thornhill by the name of Macrodyne. Macrodyne Technologies is a thriving, state-of-the-art facility that creates hydraulic presses, and they serve international markets. They are very, very good at what they do, and they showed me exactly what they do. I was incredibly impressed. When I sat down with them in the boardroom, I asked them, “What is your biggest issue? What can Ontario do to help you?” And they said this, very succinctly: “Please build more homes.” Their biggest problem was keeping employment. Nobody would stay there. There aren’t enough homes. There is simply nowhere for them to live.

On this side of the House, we understand the need for working diligently with our large municipal partners to build more homes.

Do the opposition not recognize that the province has a role to play in ensuring that we plan for growth?

I want to thank the member for Oshawa for that presentation.

To the member, through you, Speaker: I’ve been grappling with this notion of minoritarian rule, as the member said. I’m grappling with the notion that a 30% vote is now a majority in the mentality of this legislation and, I’m going to presume, with the government.

I just want to reflect on the fact that in the last election, 10% of the electorate voted for this caucus; 10% of the electorate voted for your caucus, Speaker, the Liberal caucus; in addition, a part voted for the Green member and the Green member elected; and 20% voted for this government. If this Legislature is actually reflective of what the people of Ontario voted for, we would be a majority. It would seem that if Bill 39 is to be believed, the NDP currently could be in government with the Liberals. How does the member feel being in government—if the government applies this principle?

We’ll go to questions.

It’s interesting that nothing in this bill has anything to do with housing—but I’ll answer his question using the TRCA response to the planned repeal of the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Act. This is from November 16. It was posted online by the conservation authority and was then mysteriously taken down; I don’t know why. Anyway, it was archived online—because nothing ever really goes away. I’m quoting from that. They said, “It is well established that earlier this year the province’s own housing experts implored them to protect the greenbelt, noting that there is sufficient developable land available to address the housing supply crisis without greenbelt lands.”

They also said in this scathing letter that disappeared, “Unlike the typical process followed for other urbanization proposals there has been no watershed plan or subwatershed plan and supporting environmental studies completed for this area involving Toronto and Region Conservation Authority ... to inform this decision.”

This is where we find ourselves today.

I’m more than happy to answer any more of their awesome questions.

You asked me how I’d feel about being in government. I would love to be in government, and I would be so excited to get rid of a lot of those folks over there.

Let’s talk about what the member had asked about actually building homes. You are putting a lot of faith in people who are really excited about massive profit margins to build homes—they don’t have to, by the way. By reclassifying watersheds—now that’s Bill 23, but it’s all the same here, the greenbelt and just opening it up. These developers are under no obligation to build anything. The minute that you reclassify a watershed and it’s now, what, “the land formerly known as wet,” or whatever you’re going to call that wetland—it’s now moist meadow or something—they’ve already made bajillions of dollars on paper. They don’t have to build anything. At what point do we see in this legislation or Bill 23 that they will, indeed, actually build homes? Show me.

Interjection.

Thank you to the member from Oshawa for her presentation.

Speaker, young families, newcomers and those all over the province dream of having their own home near where they work and play—a dream which continues to be out of reach for too many as demand outpaces supply and places more and more pressures on our housing market. Industry experts have said that bold, decisive action is needed now to address our current supply crisis.

According to a Scotiabank report, we need 1.2 million new homes now to meet the G7 per capita rate for the 10-year target that the task force and our government have set.

The need for action is clear.

So my question to the member is, why does she not agree that urgent action is needed to address Ontario’s housing crisis?

For the past few weeks, we have had a lot of hearings to listen to stakeholders, and one of the stakeholders told me—he was answering my question. I asked him, “How many years does it take for you when you have submitted all your documents and then you can deliver a house?” He said it was 10 to 11 years.

I want to ask the member from the opposite side: Under their proposal, how fast can they deliver 1.5 million houses in 10 years?

Interjection: A bajillion years.

I’m going to go to an article from the CBC—I don’t know if it was yesterday or today; it’s hard to keep up: “Wealthy Ontario Developer Close to Winning Long Battle to Build Homes on Protected Greenbelt.” In my area, Silvio De Gasperis started buying up parcels of land back in 2003. Back in 2005, he told the National Post that the province’s move to include the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve in the greenbelt would cost his company an estimated $240 million in lost revenue. He said, “McGuinty has already hurt me. I’m going to hurt him.” He “then launched a campaign to stymie plans for the greenbelt, working with Pickering to develop the preserve land anyway....

“Victor Doyle, a former senior provincial planner who helped design the greenbelt”—in his words, to answer your question—“said he felt ‘deceived as a planner and as a citizen....

“‘It’s all about, in my view, rewarding the land development interests who own this land and are clearly of primary interest to the government,’ Doyle said.”

These are folks who stand to make a boatload of money. They have been investing in this Conservative government since 2014—

Interjections.

How long?

Thank you. Other questions?

I was wanting to ask you about the greenbelt. This bill does make it much easier for PC donors who happen to own land in a section of the greenbelt that’s being opened up by this act. Why do you think the government is choosing to open up sections of the greenbelt in areas near you?

Speaker, through you to the member for Brampton North: I thank him for his excellent presentation.

I know that from his background he has a very strong understanding of the effects Bill 39 would have in upper-tier and lower-tier municipalities, particularly as it relates to planning and development, and the efficiencies it’s going to bring to build badly needed affordable housing in Brampton, but also across the region of Peel. Could he elaborate further on that?

I thank my colleague for his question. I would invite him to read the bill, where we’re very clear that we’re protecting the core mandate of conservation authorities, which is to stop flooding. What I would also say about—

Interjection.

Imagine if we were to put our heads in the sand, the way the members of the opposition would want us to. “We won’t build anything. We’ll find an excuse to never build any new homes for people. We’ll never build any roads for them to drive on. We’ll never build any long-term-care homes for aging Ontarians to go to as they grow older. We’ll never build any new hospitals for Ontarians to go to when they get sick.” Imagine if we were in that scenario.

Thank God, Ontarians chose this party and this government to lead our province. We’re going to build Ontario to make it better for every Ontarian.

I would also kind of lament a little bit—I wish the members on the other side of the House would trust the people of Brampton a little bit more. Brampton is the fourth-biggest city in Ontario. We’re the ninth-biggest city in Canada. The idea that a city of 700,000 people could take a little bit more ownership on some of the decisions that are impacting Bramptonians every single day should not be something ridiculed by members of this House. We’ve seen it before.

I invite members who were here in the previous government—we see the opposition fearmongering. What did they say? They said that the Premier and the PC government were going to fire all these government employees. Did we see that happen? No, actually, the only government employees who lost their jobs were the NDP caucus members, when Ontarians kicked them out in 2022, especially across Brampton.

I think it would behoove all members of this House to trust the people of Brampton a little bit more; our party certainly does. I think it’s good advice.

I think the member has a lot of educational certifications. She’s a very well-educated member for Toronto–St. Paul’s, and I respect that. But I’m not sure if the member ever took an economics course.

There are factors here at play of supply and demand. Here in Ontario and Canada, we have the lowest supply per capita of houses of any country in the G7. In Ontario, we have the lowest amount of houses per capita of any province across the country. We know and experts know that when you make supply to meet demand, that creates a more fair market for everybody.

I would say that when we speak about new Canadians, many of whom live in my riding and many of whom live in Toronto–St. Paul’s, I’m not sure how the member could go to them credibly and suggest that the NDP plan to never build anything—to never build homes, to never build hospitals, to never build long-term care, to never build any transit; to continually vote against good investments that will help newcomers come to our country—

We will go to questions and answers for the member of Brampton North.

To reply, the member for Brampton North.

I thank the member for his speech. He has obviously done a lot of research.

I know this member is a very proud and active member of the Conservative Party, so what I will say now is something that I’m sure he well knows, and that is that the establishment of conservation authorities here in Ontario came from his forebears, from his party. They had the vision to protect our water supply, to protect farmland, to protect environmentally significant land, to protect endangered species. They had the vision to establish this, and now, years later, this current Conservative government is doing everything it can to undo the important work that was done by their forebears.

So my question is, do you believe that past Conservative government was misguided in protecting these lands?

I’m glad to be able to share some points on Bill 39 and Bill 23, government bills. They’re pretty much “waste” bills, frankly, to use millennial language.

I’m wondering why the government is using immigrants as scapegoats—because no immigrant comes to Ontario asking to live on the greenbelt, asking to live on wetlands.

This government doesn’t understand that their notion of affordability is driving Ontarians into poverty. The average Ontarian does not make $130,000 a year.

So can the Brampton North member tell me which house anyone making $39,000 or $35,000—or ODSP recipients. Which house can they afford to build on Bill 39, Bill 23, or any of the other crap they’ve brought in the Legislature this year?

I’m going to try to bring it down a bit. I will ask the member a very straightforward question. We’ve heard a lot of debate in regard to how we feel that transparency and democracy are being ripped out with the introduction of Bill 39. There’s another word that I want to mention to the member, and I’m curious about his thoughts on responsibility. We are partners in this province. We are all treaty members. I’m wondering if the member can provide me his insights as to what Indigenous communities, what First Nations communities, what leadership was consulted prior to the introduction of Bill 39.

I would say, you know, Canada is a country that’s really been built by immigrants, by newcomers. I’m a first-generation Canadian. My parents came from Scotland and Northern Ireland. We have the Associate Minister of Transportation; his parents came here from Korea to build a better life. We have the member that asked the question, that came here from Sri Lanka to live in a prosperous and free country and build a better future for himself and for future generations.

I think that is a trend that we need to continue as legislators, as lawmakers in this country. We need to continue to welcome people. But who would we be if we’re going to have half a million new Canadians coming in 2025—we know the lion’s share of them will come to Ontario. Who would we be if we didn’t build homes for them to live in, we didn’t build hospitals for them to go to when they got sick, we voted for disastrous regulations that would stop them from getting a job, we would tax them to death, we would build no opportunity for any of them in the name of needlessly delaying projects—

I would say, as our government is building opportunity, we’re not just building opportunity in the GTA; we’re building opportunity in the north, as well. I was happy to see medical school expansions, for instance, in my riding in Brampton. But we also know that we’re expanding access to doctors in northern Ontario, as well. I think we need to be inclusive with all of our partners as we move forward. We need to build a better province for everybody in Ontario.