It’s a pleasure to lead off third reading debate for the proposed More Homes Built Faster Act. But I wanted to make sure that the Minister of the Environment had a chance to do his unanimous consent—and I see that the Minister of Red Tape Reduction, the Associate Minister of Housing and I all have our red ties on today. I think we can all agree in this House, no matter what political stripe you hold, that we’re so immensely proud of Canada’s men’s soccer team and we all wish them all the best. We wish them much success at this World Cup—something that many Ontarians, especially of my vintage, have been waiting for for decades. It’s a great day to be a Canadian.

The bill that we’re debating in third reading today supports our government’s third housing supply action plan—you heard that correctly, Speaker—in three years. Our government made housing such a priority because we know that too many Ontarians are finding it hard to find the right home and things are getting more challenging for them. This isn’t specific to any generation or age group. It’s difficult for young people who are eager to raise a family in the community of their choice. It’s also difficult for newcomers who are coming to Canada and ready to put down roots and start a new life. We’re also seeing seniors who are looking to downsize and find a home where they can stay near their family and near their loved ones. It’s not just limited to one part of our province. It’s not just a big-city problem. The housing shortage affects all Ontarians, whether they live in rural or urban areas, or suburban areas, and whether they live in the north or the south of our province.

Speaker, the problem we’re dealing with in Ontario is clear: There simply isn’t enough housing to meet the demands of our growing province.

We knew, as a government, that we needed to get a plan in place to build more homes faster. And I’m so pleased that this plan, which has been tabled and has finished second reading and has gone to committee and now is here today for third reading, has already received high praise from so many housing partners and beyond. A news release issued by the Ontario Real Estate Association—many people in this House met with OREA members; some even were at the conference to hear President Clinton speak—said it’s “just what the doctor ordered when it comes to getting more homes for families built faster right across the province.”

I’m going to quote another individual I’ve come to meet and to work with over the last four years, who I respect immensely, and that’s Justin Marchand, the CEO of Ontario Aboriginal Housing Services. Here’s what Mr. Marchand said: “The Ford government is taking a balanced approach to ensure the needs of existing residents are respected ... while also ensuring there are new opportunities for new residents and a growing Ontario.” He went on to say that the proposed legislation “strongly supports economic growth, while simultaneously supporting municipalities to build stronger, more vibrant and resilient communities.”

David Wilkes, president and CEO of the Building Industry and Land Development Association, said, “The plan introduced ... by the government is the clear, powerful transformation we need to solve our housing supply and affordability crisis.”

Joseph Mancinelli of the Labourers’ International Union of North America said that our bill is “a positive step forward in building a transformational action plan that will cut red tape and invest in critical housing infrastructure while spurring economic development and creating thousands of jobs for our members and men and women across the skilled trades.”

I want to thank Mr. Mancinelli and LIUNA for their strong support and their strong partnership in moving forward with getting our skilled trades and housing connected.

I could go on, Speaker, but it is clear that many people and many organizations across this province support the initiatives we’re proposing. The many stakeholders who have praised the plan all agree that it’s balanced, transformative and much needed—and “much needed” is a key phrase, because Ontario is in a housing supply crisis. There are far too many hard-working Ontarians looking for homes that meet their needs and their budget.

Our government’s proposed More Homes Built Faster Act would support our goal of building 1.5 million homes over the next decade. It proposes bold action to meet that goal. This bill also builds on the dozens of pieces of legislation, regulations and overall policies that our government has introduced over the last four years, under the leadership of Premier Ford, to help build more housing.

The actions we’ve taken are working well, but more needs to be done to address this evolving housing supply crisis.

Speaker, there are many Ontarians who work hard day in and day out but who cannot find a home of their own that they can afford.

Statistics Canada reports that houses are about 300% more expensive in Toronto than in the 1990s. It’s not your parents’ or your grandparents’ housing market anymore. The impact is very severe.

For example, the Generation Squeeze Lab at the University of British Columbia, in a report funded by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., calculated that it would take the typical young person in the greater Toronto area 27 years of full-time employment to save for a 20% down payment on the average-priced house.

It’s no exaggeration to say that we need an all-hands-on-deck approach to get homes built as quickly as we can to meet this enormous demand and desperate need that is in Ontario today.

On top of the housing crisis we’re currently experiencing, we expect that Ontario’s population is going to grow by over two million people by 2031, and we expect that approximately 1.5 million of that will be right here in the greater Golden Horseshoe. That’s why—and this is very important—we need both near- and long-term plans and solutions to deal with the current housing shortage and to deal with the growth-fuelled demand for housing that we know is coming. We know that the demand for housing in the greater Golden Horseshoe and in Ontario is going to get even more fuelled because of population growth.

The other thing I want to say is that this is not some abstract point that I’m trying to make here today. The dream of home ownership is being dashed, and so many well-intentioned, talented people are struggling to find attainable housing for themselves and for their families. This is the reality that many Ontarians are facing. This is the reality that our government must continue to work on to help change.

The task before us is enormous, but like any task, it’s accomplished one step at a time. So let’s look at the steps that this government has put forward to help deal with that problem.

In 2019, our first housing supply action plan, More Homes, More Choice, made very important strides to speed up planning timelines, it made development costs more predictable, Madam Speaker—it’s great to see you in the chair this morning—it made it easier to build laneway homes and basement suites, and it further harmonized provincial and national building codes. We know that those changes were effective—and Madam Speaker, now that you’re in the chair, I want to make sure you realize that I’m going be sharing my time with the Associate Minister of Housing and the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. And I want to again welcome you to the chair this morning. It’s great to see you there.

We know that the changes in our first housing supply action plan, More Homes, More Choice, were effective, because last year, 2021, we had 100,000 housing starts, which was the most that this province has seen since 1987, in over 30 years. We also know that the 30-year average for housing starts was about 67,500. So we look at last year—significant growth in housing starts that made it effective. A lot of those extra starts were due to our first housing supply action plan. But we knew we had to do more.

So we released our second housing supply action plan, More Homes for Everyone, earlier this year. The second action plan built upon our first and helped to speed up approvals even further. It set out steps to gradually refund fees if municipal planning decisions weren’t made within legislative time frames. It also created new tools, like the Community Infrastructure and Housing Accelerator. This tool will give municipalities the opportunity to work in partnership with the province to unlock lands for priority housing and lands for key infrastructure needed to support more homes.

I want to stress that we built our second housing supply action plan on feedback from the public and feedback from stakeholders, while also heeding the recommendations from our Housing Affordability Task Force. We appointed industry leaders and experts to our task force, and they recommended strong measures that could increase the supply of market housing in Ontario. The task force completed its report to the government this past February. In their report, they recommended measures the government could take to increase the supply of housing. They noted that the roots of the housing supply problem were decades in the making. They also noted that past efforts to cool the housing market gave only temporary relief to homebuyers. The task force said we have to start thinking long-term, and they echoed the government’s alarm on the housing supply front.

The reason we needed to move forward was clear to us. We had to move quickly.

The task force identified bottlenecks that occur because of delays in approvals for development and zoning applications. They noted that this has to be addressed if we’re going to get shovels in the ground faster to create new construction. They also pointed out that these approvals are often delayed or hindered because of opposition from members of local municipal councils. Too often, we hear excuses similar to, “I’m not against increased density; it’s just not in the right neighbourhood.” We hear that all the time. These sorts of objections have to stop being a barrier to creating homes for people to move into.

That’s why we passed the Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act in September. The legislation and its accompanying regulations give the mayors of our two biggest cities, Toronto and Ottawa, more authority to move forward provincial-municipal priorities like building more homes in their communities.

We followed up on that introduction with our Better Municipal Governance Act last week. The act, if passed, would take decisive action to address the housing supply crisis by assessing how best to extend strong-mayor powers and reduce municipal duplication to deliver on our shared provincial-municipal priorities—primarily the building of 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years.

Madam Speaker, all of the work that we’ve done on the housing front leads us here today.

The task force’s work has been invaluable to our government and is our long-term housing road map; it’s the long-term view of how we can deal with housing supply. Their recommendations are guiding the work that we’re speaking about today in the More Homes Built Faster Act—the policies and the tools that will help us build more multi-unit housing, get that gentle density that will enable Ontario to accommodate those in need of attainable housing.

Our proposed act and the new housing supply action plan contain numerous measures that will help address the housing crisis. The measures range from reducing government fees to fixing development-approval delays that slow down construction and increase costs.

The government is going to create a new attainable housing program to drive the development of housing across the province. I look forward to working with the Minister of Infrastructure, the Honourable Kinga Surma, on creating this program that would really leverage these unused government assets.

Other measures in the bill include increasing the Non-Resident Speculation Tax to defer non-resident investors from speculating on the province’s housing market, and freezing, reducing and exempting government charges to spur more new construction and further reduce the cost of housing.

Our proposed act would require building more density near transit. It would unlock innovative approaches to design and construction, and it would remove red tape to get shovels in the ground faster.

It would also make it easier to build small housing projects, speeding up all of those housing proposals while ensuring that building permits and our very robust building and fire code requirements would continue to protect public safety.

We’re also proposing to help speed up proceedings at the Ontario Land Tribunal. This would help us to resolve cases more efficiently and streamline processes by allowing for regulations to prioritize cases that would meet certain conditions, as well as establishing service standards—something that I think everyone in this House can agree with.

Other measures would double maximum fines for unethical builders and vendors of new homes who unfairly cancel projects or terminate purchase agreements—very important.

We’re also proposing to update Ontario’s heritage policies by introducing legislative and regulatory amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act. These changes will increase the threshold for heritage designation, and it would update guidelines for the conservation of provincial heritage projects. These changes continue to support the conservation of heritage resources that are so important in Ontario, while providing both clarity and flexibility to ensure that critical housing and other priority projects can move forward in a timely manner.

We have also been in the process of consulting with the public, with stakeholders, with municipalities, and engaging with Indigenous communities to review provincial housing and land use policies to find ways that we can remove barriers to get housing built faster.

Madam Speaker, these are just a few of the many proposed changes that we’re speaking to here today with this bill

I’m going to leave the finer details of the proposed act to be elaborated on by my colleagues the Associate Minister of Housing and the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the member for Thunder Bay–Atikokan.

Before I turn the floor over to the associate minister, I want to speak to the committee hearings on the bill. Our government values expert, stakeholder and public input. That’s why four separate public hearings were held to gather feedback on the bill. I want to thank the government House leader for his work in that regard, and the committee. We have acted on the suggestions, recommendations and questions that we heard through committee.

In particular, we’ve introduced amendments that will ensure municipalities can continue to promote green standards that will lead to more energy-efficient buildings.

We will always support common-sense measures that balance the need to build more homes with concern for efficiency and the environment. That balance is precisely what our bill achieves, and it’s what Ontarians expect.

Achieving the goal of building 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years is not easy. A housing crisis that’s many decades in the making can’t be fixed overnight. But the proposed More Homes Built Faster Act and its corresponding plan are part of a very strong foundation that our government is laying so that we can start construction as soon as possible.

We need to ensure that housing keeps up with growth. In partnership with municipalities, the private sector, non-profits and the federal government, we believe as a government that we can get this done.

Our government is following through on the commitment that we made to Ontarians, and we are counting on the support of others to help us with this important priority. We are going to get it done. We made that promise in June to the people of Ontario. We are going to deliver on it, and we are going to deliver on changes to our policies, as the housing supply issue evolves.

I’m now very pleased to pass the torch over to my great friend Associate Minister Michael Parsa to continue the conversation.

The province is a signatory to Treaty 9, as the minister and associate minister know. I represent seven First Nations on the James Bay coast—six to be exact; the one in Constance Lake is the seventh. There’s such a shortage in housing on the James Bay coast. There are families who live in small homes—three, four generations who live in a small home. There are stacks of mattresses in the living room.

I’ve heard how many homes were built. How many homes did the province help, being signatory to Treaty 9, so we have a—how many homes were built on the James Bay coast to help these communities that are in dire situations in family homes?

Speaker, I want to remind the House that we’re in the middle of a housing crisis. Our best year in 30 years was last year, when we had over 100,000 starts. New Democrats, this morning, in debate on Bill 23, acknowledged the 1.5 million homes that are needed in Ontario over the next decade. The status quo does not work.

The fact that our government is advancing the strong-mayor powers over and above Toronto and Ottawa is not something that the Premier has hidden in any way, in any shape, or in any form.

We need to ensure that mayors across the province have all the tools that they need to get shovels in the ground faster. We need to ensure that we have a plan in place to build those 1.5 million homes.

We’re going to continue with our agenda as we work with our municipal partners.

Interjections.

I am proud to say that this government is keeping Ontarians safe, making sure that people and property are protected, working with conservation authorities to make sure that they are focused on that key mandate, making sure that we are building new homes in Ontario as we do all this—1.5 million new homes over the next 10 years—homes for seniors, homes for students, homes for people who are coming to this province for the very first time.

If building all of these homes and keeping people safe and keeping property safe is wrong, I don’t want to be right.

Thank you to the member for your comments. You talked about the skilled trades, recognizing that we’re building 1.5 million homes as well as the infrastructure that we’re committed to in this province, with highways, hospitals, schools. You also mentioned the skilled trades fairs. I was wondering if you could expand on that a little bit. I think it’s very exciting. Anything that we can do to encourage young people to enter into the skilled trades, we need to do. I applaud your ministry for the work that you’re doing to do this.

I am glad to have the opportunity to stand and offer a few comments on Bill 23, which is titled by this government the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022.

This is the second time that it has come before the House since it has been to and through committee and back. So for the folks at home who blinked—yes, things are moving that fast, and unfortunately, we aren’t seeing the changes that we’d like to see with it having come back from committee. My colleague from University–Rosedale—for anyone who missed her speech and is very interested in knowing and understanding the housing file, they should check that out. I really appreciated the remarks, and I will let them stand for themselves and not go into what could have or should have happened at committee.

But I will talk about the concerns across our communities, what we’re hearing from folks about this bill, which—the government wants everybody to wear the “We’re Building Homes” T-shirt. And the fact of the matter is, we do need more homes. We do need affordable homes. We need to see a range in supply, absolutely. But the problem is this bill makes a mess of that landscape, so to speak.

The bill would download most land use planning and authority onto lower-tier municipalities while limiting the ability of municipalities to collect development charges for certain growth-related infrastructure costs. The bill also allows the government to limit municipal protections for tenants facing displacement due to redevelopment and severely reduces the power of conservation authorities to protect wetlands, biodiversity and ecological health. That’s sort of the banner. That’s how we’re breaking it down today.

I wanted to read something that puts it into people-speak—

Interjections.

Back to the bill: This can get confusing for people, and I’m not trying to condescend. There are a lot of moving parts in this bill. And when the government says, “We need homes, we need homes,” and everybody does the nod of, “Yes, of course, we need homes”—but I’m going to highlight some challenges in this bill that are going to make things, I will say, more problematic and will not streamline the process the way that the government has said that they will, whether that’s just a mistake on their part—although we heard it at committee; there are ways that this government could have improved—well, not just this legislation. This legislation is a bag of malarkey, but there are things that could help us to have the homes and the responsible planning that needs to happen.

Here is an article from the Pointer: “Bill 23 Is ‘Ecological Insanity,’ Implodes Sustainable Urban Planning in Unhinged Give Over to Sprawl Developers”—

Interjections.

Interjections.

“Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, creates an open season on critical ecosystems and habitats in Ontario, a fundamental shift in land use policy that will lead to the destruction of wetlands, woodlots and other critical habitat and effectively sets fire to the province’s carbon reduction targets.

“The legislation mirrors what subdivision developers have been aggressively lobbying for—a bill that paves the way, literally, for more land gobbling sprawl across southern Ontario.”

One of the quotes from the article, from Tim Gray, who is the executive director of Environmental Defence: “It’s pretty much a catastrophic attack on planning that looks to blow up the system ... And that, of course, is gonna have devastating impacts on the environment, but also on the livability and sustainability of our city.”

I’m going to read from my regional chair. Chair Henry put out a statement on Bill 23, the province’s most recent housing supply bill, and some of the pieces of his statement are:

“While we welcome potential changes to help streamline processes ... there are concerns with provincial Bill 23....

“It has proposed numerous changes to the Planning Act and Development Charges Act that, if passed, will significantly impact how municipal governments plan for, and recover the costs associated with growth. It has unintended consequences and widespread implications that impact all Ontarians economically, socially and environmentally.”

He goes on to say, “Successful urban planning also requires a vision—a bigger picture. It’s about shaping communities that balance growth, services and protecting our environment for our residents. We need to protect our wetlands to mitigate flooding; and to take care of the woodlands that support the air we breathe. Ensuring a safe, prosperous and healthy future is what we have been elected to do.”

He goes on to say, “And we believe that growth should pay for growth. Development charges have traditionally been collected to fund large infrastructure projects required for new builds. Without them, municipalities are forced to cover the costs through increased property taxes and water and sewer rates—a burden on existing residents and businesses....

“We encourage the province to engage in further dialogue with municipalities and residents to help ensure the environment—and the health and safety of all Ontarians—remains at the forefront.”

We did talk about what happened at committee. AMO, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario—normally this government tends to stand up and read their comments in debate, but interestingly, they haven’t for this one. But part of their submission on Bill 23 is this:

“AMO shares the concerns expressed by Conservation Ontario that the changes proposed in Bill 23 will not meet the goals for increasing housing supply and will instead increase the risks to life and property for Ontario residents. The diminished role of CAs could also lead to more development being located in natural hazards, higher costs as a result of property damage due to flooding or other climate change events, increased burden on municipal partners, and the decline of the ecosystem approach currently applied through the established integrated watershed management lens.

“Municipalities have successfully relied on the benefits of a long-standing conservation authority partnership which has used local watershed science to guide decision-making. Bill 23 places new responsibilities on municipalities related to natural hazards and natural resources that they are unprepared for and under-resourced to take on.”

It’s a long submission. I would encourage the government members to read it.

Connected to that is what I will share from my local conservation authority. In my area, it’s the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority—yes, famously known for purple woods and their phenomenal maple syrup. I had kind of—not a funny joke, but had said to them that once the government has finished with all the conservation authorities, the only thing they will be allowed to do is make maple syrup, but considering that that’s one of the fees and that they may have to freeze their fees, they may actually—who knows?

I don’t mean to make light of it, but the conservation authorities—so this bill makes some changes, and I’m just going to put this into kind of everyday language and then I’ll read what they have said, which is probably a little bit more helpful, but what I’m going to explain is what I want folks at home to understand.

This bill has made changes so that they can’t enter in any agreement about planning. They can still enter into agreements with a municipality, like maybe a tree-planting agreement kind of thing but not about planning. They’re literally not allowed to offer input. So if a municipality, as happens all the time, goes to a conservation authority and their expertise and says, “Hey, I have a developer who has got a suggested subdivision here. Can you put eyes on this and flag any problems,” the conservation authority would do that with their experts and planners and provide that feedback, and the municipality doesn’t have to do anything with that. They can ignore it. The council can override any input—the conservation authorities actually can’t get in the way of, okay? They were allowed to offer input, and then the municipality could decide what to do with permitting and what information to give to the developer, like, “Hey, here’s a wetland. You don’t want your houses to sink,” or what have you.

Now, the municipalities are still required by their rules and whatnot to ensure that they meet the requirements under the Planning Act and their environmental requirements, but they’re not allowed to talk to the conservation authorities. That’s now not allowed. You’ve got community leaders who have to still have the environmental lens put on it, but they’re not allowed to talk to the experts, so now they’re going to have to figure out how to build that capacity in their own planning departments. Maybe it’s hire someone or use a planner they currently have and have them suddenly develop the expertise or whatnot. I don’t know how that makes the process faster, and I maybe oversimplified that, but that’s the gist.

Now they are forbidden from getting their input, recognizing that a CA, a conservation authority, could provide that input when asked, and it didn’t even have to be heeded. Tell me how this makes it faster. I’m willing to bet you can’t, because it won’t. But it was on the wish list of—I don’t know. Was this on Silvio’s wish list? I don’t know.

The Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority has said basically what I said: “This amendment would prohibit conservation authorities from offering our expertise on ecology, natural heritage, wetlands, and biodiversity for proposals under prescribed acts such as the Planning Act. We are concerned that the proposed amendment will have unintended consequences that will lead to slower and more costly approvals and environmental degradation.”

And the thing is, the conservation authorities have been building relationships with municipalities. Through the years, we’ve known that there have been challenges to be overcome, but for the most part, they have worked out through the years a relationship that works. To just punch that relationship in the face and say, “You’re not allowed to talk anymore,” is so weird and problematic.

As they have said:

“We have well-established practices and locally supported agreements with our municipalities that provides effective and timeline-compliant advice. Without the ability to comment on development applications, there would be information gaps resulting in slower development approvals and added costs to developers to fill these information gaps. Municipalities would need to establish alternative capacity for environmental review that would be less cost-effective than the service conservation authorities currently provide.... Without conservation authority review of development applications, there would be an increased risk of environmental impacts.

“The proposed amendments will deprive our multiple municipal partners of the locally grown expertise they want and need—and rely on daily—to understand and implement environmental planning considerations; it will lead to fewer homes built slower and thereby directly undermine the objectives of the government’s housing plans....

“Also of concern are proposed changes that could negatively impact our ability to protect people and property from flooding and erosion.... This will result in longer response times, increased costs and an increased risk to people and property from natural hazards. Municipalities will also assume sole liability for the impact of development on natural hazards within municipal boundaries and on neighbouring upstream and downstream communities....”

What they have said is, succinctly, “We respectfully recommend that development authorized under the Planning Act not be exempted from a requirement for the permit under the” Conservation Authorities Act “and that all current conservation authority hazard-related responsibilities remain unchanged.”

Guys, this letter wasn’t just written by tree huggers, okay? Because I know every time we talk about the environment, you roll your eyes or you have that look of, “Ugh, you guys are in the way of progress.” But the people who signed onto this letter are the folks on the board. Just like at every conservation authority, they’re elected members of our community who have a finger on the pulse of what is needed and what is challenging our municipalities, whether that’s councillors, mayors—in this case, the mayor of Clarington, the mayor of Whitby, the mayor of Oshawa and the chair of the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, Bob Chapman. These are folks who actually know what they’re talking about. I would also argue that so do tree huggers—just saying, but moving on.

Phil Pothen, Ontario environment program manager from Environmental Defence, went on to also say, to break it down about planning, “This bill’s attack on regional planning is counterproductive for housing affordability—as well as being environmentally disastrous:

“—devolving planning decisions to lower-tier municipalities would produce development that is more scattered and thus much more environmentally harmful, but also more uncoordinated and expensive.”

So what he is saying is, “This is precisely the opposite of what’s needed at a time when we need to preserve every acre of farmland and habitat, and use scarce construction materials, construction labour, equipment and supporting infrastructure to maximize the number of well-designed and low-cost homes, and transform existing post-WWII subdivisions into public transit-supporting complete communities.”

So the harm that this bill does to that coordinated regional approach doesn’t make sense to me, and I would ask that the government explain that. Because the idea of coordinated strategies across regions—doesn’t that make sense in terms of resources, in terms of initiatives and the outcomes, better planning? In this case, it says, “No. We’re just going to give it to the lower tier.” So as I said, it may be scattered, but disparate, right? How does that improve things?

I realize it was probably also on the wish list, right? Like, folks who are self-serving don’t want to serve others, you know? So I think when you’ve got interests that are profit-driven, they want to earn profit, they want to not have to answer to environmental voices or regional plans. But that doesn’t mean that they should, right?

Anyway, the letter is a seven-page document signed by more than 125 organizations and almost 100 individuals. This is a media statement about a letter that came out on November 21: “Massive Coalition of Groups Unite to Condemn” the “Government’s Secret Sprawl Plans

“Today a rare coalition of farmers, housing advocates, urban planners, environmentalists, labour unions, health care workers and community groups from across Ontario united and released a damning statement of the province’s recently proposed recipe for sprawl: Bill 23 and the proposal to remove precious farmland and natural areas from the protected greenbelt.”

David Crombie, former mayor of Toronto and former chair of the provincial Greenbelt Council, had said, “I am profoundly disturbed by the government’s proposed actions.... They won’t solve the housing crisis but they will make it harder to fix our existing neighbourhoods, towns and cities as well as protect the farmland and natural areas that sustain them. If the Premier doesn’t put the brakes on these ill-considered plans, we’ll have more sprawl and much less local food and protection against flooding and the climate crisis.”

Anyways, a seven-page letter, and they’ve outlined that this bill, “Taken together, the changes would:

“—do little or nothing to address the shortage of truly affordable housing;

“—facilitate expensive urban sprawl and inappropriate high-rises at the expense of more diverse housing types designed for all stages of life and ranges of income;

“—divert limited construction materials and labour away from building mixed and affordable housing and direct them instead towards sprawl development...;

“—remove from the greenbelt thousands of acres of valuable natural areas and agricultural land and turn them into sprawl development;

“—undermine the protection of wetlands, woodlands, rivers, streams and wildlife habitat across Ontario;

“—destroy key land use planning processes that Ontario municipalities, conservation authorities and residents need in order to protect, manage and plan for climate-resilient ecosystems and communities;

“—create an ecologically vulnerable ‘Swiss cheese’ greenbelt by allowing land speculators to develop the lands that the government would have removed from greenbelt protection.”

Speaker, I’m running out of time here, and I have letters from the community. For those of us who have staff and community offices—I’m looking at some of the government members—you would know, if you check your email, that our inboxes are filled with people concerned and protesting this on the environmental side, on the planning side. Because it’s all one and the same; we want livable, healthful communities. We want our municipal governments that we elect to be able to make decisions based on the growth plans, on responsible development—factoring in green space, yes, but factoring in floods, the potential for that mess that a property owner could be faced with when a developer doesn’t have anybody watching over them and just puts a house on a swamp. Are we allowed to call them swamps? We’re not allowed to call this wetlands anymore because this bill changes all of the designations, but it comes to the same. We need healthy communities.