Bill 23 contains, as I said earlier in question period, about 50 initiatives that the government has put forward to really supplement our housing supply action plan. We went to Ontarians with a clear plan, that they accepted, to build 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years. We’re implementing that plan with bills that we’ve already passed in this session, bills that are before the House, bills that will be debated today in the House and have been debated today in the House. All of those measures, put together, will help get shovels in the ground faster.

In terms of some of the issues that the member talked about, we believe we need to work collaboratively with conservation authorities. We believe that their work is of value and they should concentrate on those measures like flood mitigation, which really was part of the foundation of their creation originally. We think we can work collaboratively, ensure that those checks and balances are in place, but at the end of the day we’re in the middle of a crisis and we need to get shovels in the ground and build more housing.

Interjections.

Interjections.

Interjection.

Interjection.

On his second comment regarding the city of Ottawa’s official plan, just like all official plans, we’re in the middle of a housing crisis. We have to ensure that those residents of Ottawa, including the ones that are represented by our exemplary member for Carleton, need to have that opportunity to realize the dream of home ownership. Official plans are the most important tool that municipalities have to make sure that we put shovels in the ground and create that opportunity for people in Ottawa so that they can realize the dream of home ownership. You can’t have a council that ignores planning advice on putting land within the urban boundary. That just doesn’t—

My office has been overwhelmed with phone calls and emails from organizations and residents of Thunder Bay–Superior North expressing their deep concern at the environmental damage that Bill 23 will bring. I will read an excerpt from one of those constituents:

“By far the greatest and most significant threat facing Ontario today is the threat of climate change and loss of biodiversity. Sacrificing wetlands to provide more housing start locations is a very short-sighted solution to an immediate housing issue but will result in much more significant long-term impacts on the future of the Earth for us and for my children and my grandchildren.”

Will the Premier remove the parts of Bill 23 that undermine regional conservation authorities’ ability to protect wetlands needed for everyone’s survival in the face of climate change?

Bill 23 is a direct attack on the well-being of all communities for the short-term benefit of those who will profit from building where they should not build. I can tell you, the builders will be long gone when the consequences of these bad decisions come knocking.

Again, I ask: Will the Premier restore the ability of conservation authorities to fulfill their mandate to protect the integrity of local watersheds?

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.

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?