Thank you to the member opposite for this question. I think, as the Minister of Natural Resources would have responded had it been directed to him, Mr. Speaker, that the conservation lands are being protected here for the purpose that they were set up for when Hurricane Hazel came through in the 1950s. They were set up to protect the lands against floods and propose flood mitigations. That remains at the core of the conservation authorities, and our minister has very articulately put forward concisely that’s what this plan addresses. In fact, they’ve done a very good job to make sure that flood mitigation, that protecting the lands against flooding, to protect homes further downstream—that is their core responsibility. That remains intact, Mr. Speaker, and that is a core part of our plan to move forward.

But at the same time, Mr. Speaker, the status quo is not an option in this province. Some 200,000 more people come to this province every year to call home. Where are they going to live? We have too many people that can’t afford or can’t attain houses for their—front doors and back doors and apartments and rental units that meet their needs, that meet their budgets.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that this plan is dealing with the challenges in front of us boldly, and taking us on behalf of all Ontarians to provide them the dream of home ownership.

Thank you to the Minister of Finance for his comments. One of the changes that is proposed in this bill that has raised alarms with many people in this province are the changes to conservation authorities. People rightly point out that what has been of greatest concern around this government’s approach to conservation authorities is the development of warehouses on wetlands. The question that critics have raised is whether this bill is actually about building housing, or is it about allowing more warehouses on protected wetlands. Can the minister tell us exactly how limiting the ability of conservation authorities to protect sensitive wetland areas is going to help spur new housing in the province?

Interjection.

Three hundred and twenty acres a day we lose in the province of Ontario to development. Of the 36 conservation authorities, 31 of them are in high-density areas in Ontario, in the southern part of the province. So there is no doubt that schedule 2, as it’s currently constructed, will have a negative impact on sustainable development and planning.

I think that they’re here today. Conservation authorities—are they here today? I’m sure that they have some very interesting things to say.

I do want to say, the provincial government, the 444 regional and local municipalities, and the 36 conservation authorities—of these, the ones most directly tasked with looking out for animals, land and environment during the planning process are conservation authorities. Today, for the second time in under four and a half years, this government has had a go at them.

I think that we have to remember the Premier’s comments in 2018 when he said, “Listen, on paper we’re not going to go into the green belt.” Then he met with those developers and said, “You know what? We can open this up,” and then had to backtrack again.

The focus on conservation authorities, I think, for us, is worrisome on a couple of levels. I do think it’s important to also point out that conservation authorities are doing their job well, especially given the history of the province. If it’s not broken, at least try to embrace this philosophy of doing no harm.

Moving on, I think the response from communities like Waterloo, for instance, is going to be really interesting, because we just went through an extensive planning process. The developers are not that happy with it, but the focus has been on the intensification of housing within a hard line around Waterloo region, and I think Hamilton has actually had the same conversation.

Schedule 9, just to move off conservation authorities for a second, specifically deals with the Planning Act, this elimination of the land use planning responsibilities of the following upper-tier municipalities: Simcoe, Durham, Halton, Niagara, Peel, Waterloo, York and other prescribed upper-tier municipalities. This means decisions about official plans, zoning bylaws, subdivision plans and consents within a region will now be made only by lower-tier municipalities.

For the last two-plus years, Waterloo region has been meeting with community groups. Waterloo region is a very engaged group of citizens who care deeply about how their community grows. The good places to grow legislation that the previous Liberal government brought forward, which had us intensify—that has been working. It may not be always the prettiest housing, but it ensures that people actually have a place to live, and it’s primarily around transit.

So when you have a regional municipality like Waterloo doing exactly what government has asked them to do and then you throw schedule 9 in and you remove that responsibility for the very thing that you asked them to do, I would have to say it’s a little bit insulting.

I want to try to say a few good things, because I always try to. The non-profit housing developments, including co-ops and residential units mandated under an inclusionary zoning bylaw are exempt from development charges. That should help with some of the barriers that the not-for-profit sector has seen in our respective communities. Also, the intensification piece, as I’ve mentioned, that Bill 23 actually deals with, is somewhat encouraging. We’ll have to see how that plays itself out.

But the municipalities under this piece of legislation now have to waive community benefit charges and parkland dedications for the percentage of a development that is affordable or attainable residential units as defined under the Development Charges Act, as well as for residential units required under an inclusionary zoning bylaw—that may raise some ire of the municipalities.

In summary, Madam Speaker, I just want to say, I feel like if the government was truly concerned and interested in accelerating affordable housing, having a more reasonable definition of what affordable is would be a good start, and we do need a strong public sector role to get done what the private sector will not do and can’t be done. The private market can’t be expected to build homes for low-income people, and increasingly, it isn’t even building homes for the middle class.

Unfortunately, this piece of legislation misses that part, but as I said, there are good parts of it that we’re still exploring, and I look forward to the questions and answers from the members of the Conservative caucus.

What we have said, actually, is that we fought for inclusionary zoning. The Conservatives did not support that. We fought for intensification. The Conservatives did not vote for that. What the member failed to address in my comments is why you are insisting on building housing that actually will be unsustainable, that the Insurance Bureau of Canada says is financially and fiscally irresponsible.

If you want to have a discussion around our record on housing, it is very strong. In fact, some of the aspects are even contained in the legislation. But what we’re not willing to do is move forward without a sustainable plan that’s focused on affordability and attainability. We want to make the legislation better. That’s part of our job.

During the last session, this government already undermined the ability of conservation authorities to manage where development takes place in relation to wetlands and watersheds. In this new legislation, they’ve further undermined their ability to fulfill their responsibilities by removing the ability to monitor potential development for pollution. No community is going to be happy with development that threatens the health of the land, air or waterways. So it’s beyond me that they would remove this ability from conservation authorities.

Second, they are pressing conservation authorities to offer up conservation lands for development. We have these lands for a reason. They’ve been fought over, fought to attain. So I’m wondering why the government is creating conflict within communities over revered conservation areas, and equally, why they are asking conservation authorities to abandon their responsibility to monitor for pollution.

I figured I couldn’t leave our amazing conservation officers out, so welcome to Queen’s Park. We’re going to get a chance to chat later. I’ve actually had a chance to get out and about with them in Timmins, Thunder Bay and also in North Bay. They do fantastic work protecting our fish and wildlife in our community, so thank you for being here today.

I also want to the welcome the OPSEU conservation officers. I had a great meeting this morning with Micah Plourde and Stefan Desantis, and I know that my colleagues across the aisle and across all parties will be meeting with conservation officers today. Welcome to Queen’s Park, you guys.

I just want to give a shout-out to Graham Dunville, a conservation officer here from Thunder Bay.

I too want to welcome the conservation officers to Queen’s Park today, and give a special shout-out to Sean Cronsberry, who is detached out of Guelph. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

I’m going to tell you a quick story about a place called Houston. Has anybody ever heard of it? The Houston Astros? Houston? Well, they did the same thing that your government is thinking of doing: building on our wetlands. And do you know what happened in Houston? They destroyed all the wetlands and they built on the wetlands, and then they had the worst flood in their history because the water had nowhere to go. Where did the water go? Help me out, Conservatives. You guys are pretty smart. Where do you think it went? It went up, and they had floods.

So my question is, why are you trying to weaken the conservation authorities and build on our wetlands with the number of floods we’ve had in Windsor, Fort Erie, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ottawa? What are we doing?

My question is to the Premier. Ontario prides itself on its natural resources, which are protected by conservation officers, who are trained and equipped to handle poachers, high-risk arrests, search and seizures, and much more. These officers often find themselves in remote areas alone with little to no backup readily available.

For decades they have been requesting reclassification and higher pay in line with comparable positions like OPP officers. Why has the government not taken steps to rectify the issue and ensure that Ontario has the resources it needs to protect and grow the province’s natural resources?

These officers play a vital role in the continued protection of Ontario’s natural beauty and ensuring the safety of individuals who are enjoying Ontario’s vast resources. Attracting and retaining the best qualified conservation officers is a challenge with the ongoing wage discrepancy.

Does the government have a plan to recruit and retain conservation officers?

I just want to say that conservation officers in Ontario play such an important role. They have done so for generations; they will continue to do so for generations. We thank them for that every single day. They have over 200,000 interactions a year with members of the public, making sure that they’re educated, making sure that they are following the rules.

It’s a big province, Mr. Speaker. When they needed more, this government provided more: 25 new conservation officers in Ontario, bringing the number to over 200.

This government supports our conservation officers. I look forward to meeting with them this afternoon and discussing their concerns. My door is always open to the great conservation officers here in Ontario.

I’ll just remind this House again: 25 new conservation officers doing incredible work throughout Ontario. We thank them every single day.