It’s shady.

Further debate?

Further debate?

I want to talk a little bit about committee work that had brought great, great value to the people of Ontario and that was started by a Conservative member. I’m talking about the work we did about Ornge air ambulance.

I want to bring you back to January 2012, when the whistle-blowers were coming from everywhere, telling us that things were really, really, bad at Ornge. The Auditor General—it was Jim McCarter at the time—issued a special report on Ornge on March 21, 2012. At the time, Frank Klees, who was a member of the PC caucus, was on public accounts, and so was I. We agreed, as a group, to put all of the work that we were doing on public accounts aside and focus on the special report of Ornge. It was a decision that really—it was Frank Klees at the time; the member from Oxford who is still there; the member from Nepean who is still there; as well as Julia Munro, who were on public accounts. I would say they worked at it really hard, but they were able to convince the entire group at public accounts that we should look at this special report right away, and we did. We worked for—I went back. We heard 85 witnesses during 40 hearing days, and altogether we spent 147 hours at that work.

Why am I putting that out there? Because it changed things for the better for the people of Ontario. And I give the credit to the PC caucus and Frank Klees—because they pushed really hard that we should look at what had happened at Ornge, we were able to help a lot of people turn the page and regain confidence in Ornge.

For those of you who were not there at the time, let me show you a really, really sad story of Ornge, our air ambulance here in Ontario. Air ambulance had been there for—as long as there has been ambulance, we’ve had air ambulance in northern Ontario. It had worked under the name of Ornge—without the A—for a few decades. We started to have whistle-blowers. I had them coming to me and to everybody else telling us about Dr. Mazza, who was the CEO of Ornge at the time. He was supposed to be a public servant, covered by the mandatory disclosure of salary, but we could not find his salary anywhere; whistle-blowers were telling us that it was in the realm of $1 million—it was actually $1.4 million, but it had not been on the sunshine list.

We also found a lot of wrongdoing had happened at Ornge. The first one that came to us, aside from the CEO of Ornge being paid $1.4 million a year—there was also all of the members of his board. This is a board of governance of a not-for-profit charitable organization in Ontario, funded 100% by the Ministry of Health, and the chair, Rainer Beltzner, received $232,757. All of the board members received, on average, $238,000 for sitting on a not-for-profit board of directors. None of this was available in the information that they were willing to share with us.

But it got way worse. When we started to look and, again, invited people to do testimony in front of the committee—and I have to say, the good work of Frank Klees; he was always ready, always had a ton of questions, always read all of the documents, and we’re talking, like, that thick of documents that were coming to us every week. He would ask questions.

Dr. Mazza had bought helicopters from AgustaWestland. They paid $144 million to buy those new helicopters—12 of them—when, really, Ontario only needed nine. The business case to buy new helicopters was for nine, but Dr. Mazza decided to buy 12. Not only did he decide to buy 12 helicopters, but he decided to pay an extra $600,000 for each and every one of those helicopters, and this money came back to him—$4.7 million went from AgustaWestland back to Dr. Mazza. The $2.9 million went to Ornge’s charitable foundation. Ornge also bought 11 used helicopters for $28 million, and the fleet was resold for $8 million. Anybody who’s strong in math—you all know that we had, as taxpayers, just paid $20 million more for the used helicopters than what they were worth.

So of the 12 helicopters that were bought by Mazza, we only needed nine. Two of them were not equipped at all for patient transport. This is what Ornge does—it does patient transport. If you get hurt in northern Ontario, Ornge picks you up and brings you to the closest hospital that has an emergency department open. But two of the 12 helicopters were not set up for patient transport at all, and what made it even worse is that, of the 10 that were set up—the AgustaWestland helicopters were not made for medical transport. They are really low-ceilinged, which means that if you are a paramedic caring for somebody who codes while you’re transporting them from the scene of the accident to the emergency room, there is not enough room for you to do CPR. So we had just spent—“we,” because we paid for this—$144 million to buy 12 helicopters when we only needed nine. We paid an extra $600,000 per helicopter and bought helicopters that did not meet our needs. We didn’t do that—Ornge did that for us. It gets worse. They also bought 10 Pilatus PC-12 airplanes when we only needed six, and they had to be resold.

But what really got me when I was sitting there listening to the testimonies was the operating issues at Ornge. Those are the issues that a lot of the paramedics had come to talk to me about. I used to fly down to Queen’s Park every Monday morning. I was there at 4:30 in the morning—at the airport, waiting for my flight. The paramedics sit very close to the rest of the airport, and they would come and talk to me about operational issues. The main operational issue was that Dr. Mazza had put in place these operational guidelines that said that the dispatch operators were pressured to cut costs—because he had just made a whole bunch of purchases that made no sense—by reducing helicopter launches. So the policy was that the helicopter would not be dispatched until a land ambulance had confirmed the need. Think about that, Speaker. You dial 911; there is somebody who’s just had a major accident in a mine way out in northern Ontario; and you would have to wait for a land ambulance to leave from Timmins or Sudbury and make the four-hour drive through the brush to say, “Yes, we need to dispatch an air ambulance,” or the air ambulance would not get dispatched because Dr. Mazza was trying to save costs.

This led to an inquiry by the coroner of Ontario, who showed us that eight patients had died who would have had good chances of survival if that policy had not been in place. One of those patients was one of my constituents, a nice lady from the east end of my riding whose family only gained closure as to what happened to their mom, to his wife, after the coroner released his report. All of that was only discovered because we agreed, as parliamentarians, to focus on this report; we agreed to work together so that we would get to the bottom of this. Was it pleasant? No. Did it make the government look bad? Absolutely. It was a Liberal government at the time. Deb Matthews was the Minister of Health, and we had a lot of testimony that showed that a lot of the decision-making was all written up and sent to the Premier at the time, Mr. McGuinty; sent to the Minister of Health, Deb Matthews; sent to five or six other ministers; and none of them clued in that they had to step in, that they had to have a look as to what was going on. How can you sign off on a policy that says we won’t dispatch a helicopter until a wheeled ambulance makes it out there? But it did not trigger anything from the government.

I must say that at the time, the chair of the board of Ornge was also the chair of the Liberal political party, and he would be the one who would come out with the letters outlining everything that Ornge was about to do to the minister, to the Premier, and they all thought that that was really good, that everything was just hunky-dory; it was not.

Then, we have to talk about the webs of companies. The desire to privatize was always there with Ornge. They shared that with the minister. They shared that with the Premier. They wanted to privatize. They wanted to use some of the assets—those are public assets that were going to be used by companies that were associated with Ornge but not part of Ornge.

There was a web of companies: J Smarts, Ornge Peel—Ornge Peel; who dreams that up? Anyway, it was there. It became Ornge Global Real Estate, Ornge Global Holdings, Ornge Issuer Trust, Ornge Global Air, Ornge Global Management—and the list goes on. The Auditor General had identified, I think, 40 of them. Through our work as a committee, we identified 20 private companies that were directly linked to Ornge and making money using the assets of Ornge, whether it be the building where they were, whether it be the helicopter, whether it be the planes, the ambulance—to make money for a whole bunch of private companies that were all linked to Ornge. For some reason, they all belonged to friends of the government or members of the board of directors—or Dr. Mazza himself—and they were all making a ton of money.

Meanwhile, air ambulances were not being dispatched when people in northern Ontario were needing them, to save money.

I could go on and on as to everything that went wrong, but the point I want to make is that a lot was learned from this. A lot of people who were hurt—and we’re talking mayors of small communities; we’re talking families of people who died or had severe health impacts; we’re talking the hundreds of people who worked for Ornge, especially the dispatchers, who were told they had to follow those policies. They had all lost faith in the system. They had lost all confidence in Ornge.

Ornge needs some really, really specialized workers. We don’t have, in Ontario, very many specialized care paramedics. We have specialized care paramedics for pediatrics who work for Ornge; those are very few. All of those people were either leaving Ornge or trying to find a job somewhere else. And when you have that level of training, let me tell you, it’s not hard to find a job someplace else.

The work that we did as parliamentarians to take the time to work together, to hear dispatch and all of this, helped us regain the trust of the people who worked for Ornge, regain the trust of the people like me in northern Ontario who depend on Ornge, and helped the families who were hurt turn the page.

I hope that, this afternoon, everybody will vote in favour of a select committee. We can learn from the mistakes of the past and make it better for everyone in Ontario by showing them that this will never happen again, that we have learned from it, and that we want to do better.

I’ve been listening intently to the comments made by the members opposite, and I appreciate them, really, because I had actually forgotten about the—not forgotten; I shouldn’t say that. It had been out of my memory—about the scandals that were predominant in the previous Liberal government with respect to Ornge, and the gas plant scandal. I appreciate the members opposite for refreshing this House on that.

The members opposite talked a lot about, what was the motivation and why did we do this, but I wanted to say this first and foremost: I obviously have committed to and will be bringing forward legislation that will protect the greenbelt through legislation. What does that mean? Obviously, currently, the greenbelt can be changed through regulation and not through legislation, meaning that since its inception governments are able to bypass the House in order to make changes to the greenbelt. We will be making changes and ensuring that legislation is brought forward to codify the boundaries of the greenbelt, and I will be doing that as soon as possible.

I will go a step further by ensuring that we add the 9,400 additional acres to the greenbelt that we had previously talked about, including the Paris-Galt moraine, which I know is something that many people had talked about preserving and protecting for a long period of time, but it had never been done in the province. We will be doing that.

A lot of time has been spent by the opposition explaining to us the need to have a select committee, and I certainly appreciate hearing from the members opposite why they believe a select committee should be brought forward. Let me just say this: In their own comments here today, they show why a select committee is actually not needed and why we will be voting against that.

The members opposite talk about what happened during the Liberal time in office with respect to Ornge, and they talked about the gas plant scandal. You will remember, Madam Speaker, the members themselves have talked about the cost to taxpayers. They talked about the loss of faith and trust in the then Liberal government. The members opposite talked about how that impacted their communities, and the extraordinary work done by Progressive Conservatives to extract that level of accountability from them. But one of the hallmarks of that and one of the reasons why a select committee was so important is because the government of the day refused to acknowledge that it had made a mistake.

Madam Speaker, the Auditor General reported, and the government has accepted all of the Auditor General’s recommendations, full stop. Every single one of those recommendations, the government has acknowledged, and we are acting on all of those.

We are going a step further, and we are ensuring that we codify the boundaries into legislation.

The Premier said it on behalf of all of us, frankly—we made a mistake. We acknowledge that mistake. We thought that there would be broad public support in order to build housing as quickly as possible by accessing the greenbelt. That was a mistake for which we apologize.

But make no mistake that we are completely focused on ensuring that we can build 1.5 million homes across the province of Ontario. We will not be deterred in that. Whilst we acknowledge that it was a mistake to consider the greenbelt lands, we do not for one moment believe it a mistake to continue to focus on building homes for the people in the province of Ontario, and I’ll get to a little bit more on that.

Specific to the request for a select committee, Madam Speaker, and again, the member for Toronto–Danforth and the member for—forgive me; Algoma–Manitoulin?

A vast majority of their speech highlighted the challenges of those two scandals in the Liberal government. But in the final analysis, the government of the day refused to acknowledge that it had made a mistake—we did. But the opposition NDP, at the time, did nothing. In their speeches, both of these two members talked about how horrific those two scandals were to Ontarians. They talked about their communities. They talked about the billions of dollars that were actually spent and wasted on the gas plants. They talked about the impact it had during an election. They talked about the fact that it drove a Premier out of office. But when Progressive Conservatives went to act on those two reports—not once but twice tabling motions of non-confidence in the government—how did the NDP vote? They voted to keep that government, which they say is one of the most corrupt governments in the history of this province, which they have been talking about now for about 40 minutes. They voted to maintain that government in office.

Progressive Conservatives, at that time, were clear. They wanted that government out of office and defeated because of those two scandals, which the government refused to acknowledge were actually even a problem—those two scandals which directly cost taxpayers billions of dollars.

The member for Nickel Belt and the member for Toronto–Danforth talk about the success of those two select committees, but what they fail to talk about is their failure to hold the Liberals accountable for those two scandals.

So specifically on the creation of a select committee, I say to the honourable members, in this instance, it is not required because the government has acknowledged it made a mistake. The government has heard from the Auditor General. The government has accepted all of the Auditor General’s recommendations, and the government will move one step further to ensure that the greenbelt is protected. We will go even further. We will add additional lands to the greenbelt because we know how important it is that we do it.

In her message, the Leader of the Opposition talked about how important affordability is to the people of the province of Ontario. We’ve seen this a million times from the opposition, haven’t we, colleagues—it’s say one thing, but do something else.

The member opposite talks about the motivation for doing this, and I think it really speaks to the affordability question that the Leader of the Opposition talks about. The motivation was to build homes for people who can’t otherwise afford them. Do you know why they can’t afford them? Because we’re not building enough homes. Why are we not building enough homes? Because of the obstacles and the red tape that was put in the way by the Liberals and NDP over 15 years—full stop. It goes further than that. It’s not only red tape and obstacles that they put in the way. Not only did they have the opportunity, between 2011 and 2014, to vote the Liberals out of office so that we could address some of these problems—in their own words, two horrific scandals—in select committees to review those scandals. And what action? Nothing. But they continue to vote for policies which take money out of the pockets of the people of the province of Ontario.

We’ve talked about this a lot. One of the first things we talked about was a carbon tax. And they lost their minds.

The member for Toronto–Danforth talks about affordability. This is a member who supported a policy that saw our electricity rates skyrocket. This is a gentleman who is singularly unconcerned with the fact that millions of Ontarians had to choose between heating and eating because of the policies that he supported then and that he continues to support now—policies that we are fighting against. That is the record of the NDP, in co-operation with Liberals.

When we said we had to get rid of a carbon tax, what did they say? No. They said it would have a huge impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Do you know what has impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions? Our nuclear fleet. Do you know who is restoring our nuclear fleet? It is this government. Who is against that? It is the opposition who is against that.

Think of what the carbon tax costs us. Do you want to talk about—

Interjections.

Nickel Belt.

Further debate?

Decades now.

The member says I’m reaching. I’m reaching because there are Conservatives over there; there are far fewer NDP. But that’s not the point. Do you know why there are far fewer NDP? Because they have never voted for measures that help build housing. They have never voted for measures that help put money back to the people of Ontario. They vote against measures that would get people moving around more. They vote against transit. The member for Toronto–Danforth talks about building transit but votes against it.

The members opposite talk about building where land is available, but some of the members opposite have already told me that they feel their community has already played enough of a role in building. Well, I say to them very clearly that, no, nobody has played enough of a role in building homes for people. It is an absolute that we must build more homes for the next generation of Ontarians. Every community will play a role in helping us do that, and every community across this province, frankly, is excited at the prospect of having the ability to participate in doing that.

I have heard from small communities in northern Ontario who have said to me, “We can build five or six homes, and we want to be a part of it”; I’ve heard from larger communities that have said that they can do even more.

I’ve heard from communities that say, “We need more long-term care in our riding,” and we’re going to deliver.

At the same time, we have been very clear—they have voted against it—we are going to build homes around the transit infrastructure that we’re building. This is one of the recommendations of the Housing Affordability Task Force that they talk about and that many of them are so terrified of now. They’re very afraid of that because we will come through; we will build housing across our transit systems.

It is a much larger transit system, you will know, Madam Speaker, because we are making significant investments that have brought two-way, all-day GO trains, for instance, to different parts of the province that never had them before. I’m proud of that. I think it’s very good news for the people of the province of Ontario that we’re doing that. But it also gives an opportunity for people in those communities to live by transit corridors, so they don’t have to drive cars. They can get to where they have to work without getting in a car and driving. The NDP is opposed to that.

The NDP, actually, is even opposed to measures that would see the cost of transit and transportation cost less. Let’s unpack that just for a second, because it’s important when you talk about housing affordability and why we are voting against this motion. Somebody in my riding—frankly, I don’t know if the NDP have ever held a seat in the 905, so I’m going to help explain to them some of the realities of 905, up in York region, because I know the member for Oshawa is about to say it’s 905 there. In York region, you can get on a bus or you can get on a GO train and you’ve got to pay; you get on the TTC and you’ve got to pay; or you could go to Mississauga transit, and you’ve got to pay for the GO train in Mississauga and Brampton; you might go to Durham region. The NDP think that that is a good use of taxpayers’ money. Do you know what we say? We say, no, it’s not. There should be one fare.

We have talked about this in this province for a very long time. We brought in a unified fare system. How have the NDP voted? This is a common-sense measure that will save the average transit user in our area about $1,600 a year—$1,600 right back in the pockets of those people who need it the most. The NDP voted against that measure. So let’s see—$1,600 out of your pocket if the NDP were elected for transit and transportation, because they don’t believe in a unified fare. Who knows what the cost of a carbon tax is? Take that right out of your pocket.

The NDP that set the record for spending in the history of the province of Ontario—in the short time that they actually held office—want to bring those same types of policies back to the province of Ontario. It is the same type of policies that we’re seeing in Ottawa. We talked about this right from the beginning. From the time that we took office here, we said when you increase red tape, when you increase costs, when you have out-of-control debt and deficits, that is not good for the economy and, ultimately, it’s not good for people. They disagree, and they continue to vote for those types of policies, which now have led to interest rates increasing faster than at any other time in this country’s history—it’s not just them here, because this very same crew that held the balance of power here and could have made a change here in 2012 or 2011 now holds the balance of power in Ottawa.

Interjection: Do you miss Ottawa?

I met with the mayor of Ottawa on Thursday—very supportive of the things that we are trying to do to build housing; very supportive of the things that we’re doing on transit and transportation; very supportive of cutting red tape and taxes for the people of the province of Ontario. But not to distract from what they’re doing in Ottawa, the NDP—it’s no surprise that the leader of the NDP in Ottawa was amongst that crew here that kept the Liberals in office here in the province of Ontario. In Ottawa, we’ve had SNC-Lavalin, we’ve had that justice minister who had issues, and just on and on and on, but they keep them in power—

Interjection.

When you talk about increasing interest rates, Madam Speaker, do you know what that means? That means a family who is about to start out and go buy their first home all of a sudden can’t afford to buy their first home. That means that families who are about to renew their mortgages can’t afford to renew their mortgages and continue to pay for the home that they have. That’s what that means. That’s what high interest rates and the policies that the NDP support mean for the people of this country.

I would challenge the members opposite to give their friends in Ottawa a call and say, “Reverse course”—don’t do like they did when they were here, and put the people of Canada first. When they had the opportunity, they didn’t put the people of Ontario first, and we are still trying to dig out of the mess that was 15 years of Liberal and NDP government in this province. We will continue to focus on that.

This morning, I talked about the bargain that was Canada for so many years—if you come to this country and work hard and play by the rules, you should have the opportunity to do better. It’s the one thing that we do—you leave your country, your province, in a better spot than what you found it in. Because of how disastrous the Liberals were, it was a low bar for the province of Ontario. It was a low bar, but we exceeded that so much—700,000 people have the dignity of a job, who didn’t when we took office. They’re working hard. But the bargain for them, the bargain for generations who have come to this country, was that if you do that, you work hard, you play by the rules, then your kids would do better than you do.

That’s why my parents came to this country. That’s why they left Italy to come here. My mom was 18; my dad—I don’t know; 26. They came here. My dad got off a train and started working almost immediately. The entire family lived in a home. They shared beds. When one was working, the other would leave. But they knew that one day, they would be able to have their own piece of the Canadian dream if they worked hard. And they did, right? They did. They moved out. One bought a home—I’ve talked about this—in the member for Scarborough Southwest’s riding. A wartime bungalow, a small, little 1,200-square-foot bungalow is where my family started its journey of home ownership. But they could do that.

One of the reasons I actually got into politics in the first place is because I remember—I was 10 years old when the first Liberal government, in my lifetime, anyway, brought the country to its knees with interest rates at 18% or 19%. Again, similar: out-of-control spending, higher taxes, the inability for the country to compete and to build a growing economy. I have never forgotten the stress. My parents were really good at it, Madam Speaker; they were really good at pretending like nothing was wrong, but you knew something was wrong. You knew something was wrong, and that is partially what drove me into office.

I will not be here in government and leave that as the legacy for the next generation. I just simply will not do it. So we will get 1.5 million homes built for the people in the province of Ontario. Do you know why, Madam Speaker? Because that is the bargain. That’s the bargain that we have here. As I said, work hard and you have the ability to get out of your parents’ basement. Think of all of these kids right now. When my 17-year-old daughter says to me that she might never be able to buy a home, that’s not the Ontario we grew up in. That’s not the Canada that we grew up in.

So when the opposition label, “What did you do? Why did you do it?”—look, I talked about this in my first news conference. My family was one of the first families in the province of Ontario to put a conservation easement across our farmland. I’ll never forget that work—it was done by Don Prince and the Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust. We took 60 acres of our land back in 2004 and we put a conservation easement on top of that in favour of the Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust.

Why would a guy who has done that and a family who has done that be so willing to move so quickly to build homes? Because we are in a crisis. I acknowledge the fact, Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, that we made a mistake in where we chose to build those homes. We’re stepping back from that and we’re doing what is right because that’s what the people have asked us to do, but it doesn’t mean that we will stop on our motivation to build homes.

It goes further than that, right? Because not everybody just wants or can immediately start out building a home. Like my parents when they came here, there were many of them renting a home in a riding. That was the start of their dream: renting a home in a community. For many, that is the start, and the policies that we have brought in have helped us see purpose-built rental housing at its highest level in over 15 years. Imagine that: its highest level in over 15 years. We have people getting back into building rental housing in this province like never before, and they’re doing that because they know they have a government who’s a partner, a government who’s focused on building affordability for all types of people.

In my riding, we have the very first affordable housing apartment building being built—97 units of affordable housing that had never been built in our community, halfway through the construction phase right now. When I was there turning the sod on that, I can’t tell you how happy I was. I was there with the mayor of Stouffville, and we knew that it would make a difference. Because in a community like mine, we have seniors who want to go to different-style housing. They might be in a large house, and they want to downsize and move into a smaller home, thereby making their home available, but they have nowhere to go. They have nowhere to go, Madam Speaker.

The changes that we are making have seen more homes being built than ever before, but we still have a long way to go. Purpose-built rentals: at their highest level in 15 years. Housing starts: at their highest levels in 15 years. But it’s not enough. It is not enough, because if we’re to hit our target of 1.5 million homes, we are going to have to do even more, and it’s not just for them.

You look at long-term care. Long-term care is a home for someone. It is a home for someone, and when you bring 30,000 new long-term-care beds, it is 30,000 additional people who have a home who didn’t have it before. And we are going to go even further.

I was in Windsor a couple of weeks ago. We were at Meadowbrook Place, another investment that’s being made in social housing in Windsor—the first one, if I’m not mistaken, in over 30 years in that community. This is a really, really great place. It will support a couple of hundred families.

Again, it took them over 30 years to be able to build something like this. That is unacceptable. But those investments are happening, right? Those investments are happening in the province of Ontario again. You’re seeing there’s this energy around what’s happening in Ontario. There’s an energy about what’s happening around the province of Ontario.

Despite the fact that we have challenges, people can see that we are moving in a positive direction. Yes, high interest rates caused by federal policies are causing challenges for the people of Ontario. I talked about a young family, an individual who—frankly, it was his grandparents who had called me. I spoke about them in question period once. They had made 21 offers on homes—21 offers on homes and were not even in the game; not even in the game, ostensibly because there aren’t enough homes for them to buy.

This is an individual I talk about who did everything right. He bought a small bachelor apartment when he could, when he started working, with a goal of moving forward. He recently brought home—he and his wife had their first child, and they brought that child home to that bachelor apartment, but that’s not where they wanted to be, right? Now, he’s grateful that he was in the market, but that’s not where he wants to be, and that’s not where I want him and people like him to be. I want them to be in a home they are comfortable in, in a home where they can flourish, because that is what the promise of Ontario is for people.

We’ve gone a step further, Madam Speaker. We’ve gone a step further, right? In order to encourage the building of homes across the province of Ontario, working with our municipal partners, we said, “Look, you’re going to have to do more within your boundary. We’re going to build more homes around transit and transportation corridors because that makes sense. There’s going to be higher density in those areas.” You can build up to three units right now. Whether it’s a basement apartment, a garden suite, we’ve brought that in, and we will start to see the benefits of doing that.

But we’re going a step further, right? We’ve brought in a program that will incentivize our municipal partners to help us get shovels in the ground faster, because they want to work with us, right? They are just as frustrated by the years of Liberal and NDP stepping on their toes and getting in the way. So we brought in the Building Faster Fund, and that is geared specifically to helping reward those communities that help us get shovels in the ground to build more homes faster across the province of Ontario.

The reaction to that has been spectacular. It is a fund that is also available in smaller communities across the province because they told us they want to participate in that fund. We have a bill in front of this House right now which I challenge the opposition to vote in favour of. I challenge the opposition to vote in favour because, in a very real sense, the bill that is in front of the House right now is a referendum on building homes. It is a referendum on buildings homes.

In that bill, we have redefined what affordable housing is. We’ve redefined it not just based on market conditions in an area; we’ve redefined it based on income across the province of Ontario in different communities because we know that what is affordable in Hamilton is different than what’s affordable in Toronto. It’s different than what’s affordable in Stouffville. So we will work from community to community to ensure that everybody can participate in that.

And make no mistake about it: This is a referendum on everything. It gives the opposition NDP the opportunity to say—and it’s not only that. I know the associate minister will talk about the extraordinary work that’s being done in St. Thomas, where thousands of jobs are coming back. We need to build housing there. But this bill is a referendum on building homes. This bill is a referendum on our policies to reduce taxes for people. This bill is a referendum on economic development. It’s a referendum on whether you believe to support our automotive sector. It is a referendum on whether you believe we should build homes in communities across the province of Ontario. The NDP have the opportunity, in this bill, to vote in favour of the bill and to say that everything that they had voted against in the past was wrong and they actually now agree with the direction that the government has taken in order to build homes across the province of Ontario.

So, I say very clearly to the opposition—and it is a deliberately focused bill so that the opposition can focus on what matters to the people of the province of Ontario. It encapsulates everything that we have done to spur on development, to bring affordable homes to the people of the province of Ontario, and the NDP can stand in their place when we bring this to a vote and they can vote in favour of that, or they can say, “We still don’t agree with building homes. We don’t agree with the definition of affordability that includes all parts of the province and at all income levels.” But they have the opportunity to do the right thing, despite the fact that they have voted literally against every single measure that we have brought in. They actually even voted against the increase in funding that we brought in for the homeless.

We spend, I think—about $700 million each year, I think, is the total that we spend and I think we increased that by over $200 million this year, and the opposition NDP voted against that. They voted against that increase in funding. I’m not sure why, but I suspect the reason why is because what that money is intended to do is to lift people out. It’s intended to lift people out and the NDP constantly want to hold people back. I’ve talked about this a lot. For the NDP, what is important is not what you do with your wealth, not what you do with your resources, it’s what they can do for you. I think Ronald Reagan said it—what did he say? Beware of anybody who comes and says, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” That is the mantra by which the NDP live by. They are happiest when people exclusively rely on government.

Now, the same thing with the Liberals, right? They just get the NDP to do their bidding for them. So the Liberals feel the same way, but they know they have the NDP to support them and to keep them in power, so they blame the NDP for that. They are one and the same.

To sum up, Madam Speaker, let me say this: We will be voting against this measure because we have acknowledged and accepted each of the recommendations of the Auditor General. She laid on the table 15 recommendations; we have accepted all of those recommendations and we’re going further. But we will not—this is not about—because they’ve shown it, in their speeches. They’ve shown that a select committee does not mean accountability for them; it just means delaying. Delay, delay, delay and stopping us from doing what is important: building homes for the people of the province of Ontario.

Because of that, we will be voting against this motion, and we will remain singularly focused on building more homes for the people of the province of Ontario, reducing taxes, fighting the carbon tax, fighting the policies that stop young Canadians from purchasing their first home or renting their first home. We will vote against all of the policies that they brought in with the Liberals that held our economy back. We will continue to focus on building a bigger, better, stronger province of Ontario and we will not let the obstacles that the NDP and Liberals like to put in the way, standing in our way of doing just that for all Ontarians.

Having listened to that, I’ve just speed-dialed my therapist so we’re all set up.

I do want to say, directly to the House leader, that he’s very, very sorry. The government is very sorry. They really feel badly, Madam Speaker, and I just want to point out that in order to apologize for something, that apology is usually made after you’ve made an accident, you’ve made a mistake. This entire greenbelt scandal was intentional. The Premier’s fingers are all over this mess. In fact, he was directly involved in the hiring of Ryan Amato. He overrode his own Minister of Municipal Affairs and put that player into the game, because that is how this Premier views environmental protections, this whole housing crisis that he says this is the solution—their own government’s Housing Affordability Task Force told them, “You don’t have to have to build on the greenbelt, you don’t have to carve out all those urban boundaries. You have all the tools in the tool box you need; you just have to pay attention to your own government task force.”

So, to hear the House leader say, “We’ve accepted 14 of the”—there were 14 and then they said “all of them”, but it’s actually, Madam Speaker, they were just really, really sorry that they got caught. They got caught—and that’s when the 15th recommendation to put all of that greenbelt land back into the greenbelt, where it should never have been tampered with.

So that’s what were dealing with. We’re also dealing with—I mean the government has already said, “We’re not going to support your select committee.” This government is embroiled in a lack of transparency and undermining the democracy of this province.

It’s not altogether surprising. Our leader has brought forward a motion to get a special permit to pull the witnesses into this place; they shot her down. At public accounts, I asked the public accounts committee to prioritize the select report from the Auditor General. It’s our core business, our core mandate, as a committee to review this; it got shut down.

At every turn, this government says, “No, we’re not digging any deeper. We know we got caught, we’re really sorry, but we still don’t have the legislation.” Let me tell you, if you as government members are going out into the public and saying, “Just trust us,” this is an absurd statement. Nobody in this province trusts this government and for good reason.

Now, I want to say, it is true, the greenbelt grab underpins this government’s attitude towards our democracy. This Premier, I feel sometimes, thinks that he’s running his sticker business, where you can just make a little deal here and make a little deal there. That is not how democracy operates.

And I want to thank the media, actually, because the media has done a very good job in really chasing the money, and when you follow the money, you follow the handshakes, you can get so far. But mostly it’s been through FOI, and the government has also tried to deny the media their ability to FOI documents, Madam Speaker.

Paul Webster, from the Toronto Star, published a piece which actually resonates really well in this very moment as we are trying to get some transparency with this government.

“Opening up thousands of acres of protected greenbelt lands will be an $8 billion win for a small group of land developers close to the government officials”—this is from the Auditor General’s report. But he goes on to say:

“But the greenbelt land carve-out isn’t the only mega land deal the Ford government is cooking up.

“At the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO), officials are in overdrive to kick-start building the 60-kilometre Highway 413 through much of the GTA’s last remaining nearby open countryside.” This is another carve-out, Madam Speaker. “And that means hefty cheques would soon be issued to the owners of well over 2,000 hectares of prime farmland along that highway’s path.”

Now, we know, and we raised this when Highway 413 was first raised, this is a pet project, really, for this Premier. Along that highway, you have the same cast of characters who have benefited from the greenbelt grab. So there’s money to be made by this highway, and it will only save two minutes for those commuters. If you put the same amount of money, the same $6.9 billion, towards public transit, you move 27,000 people. I mean, it is common sense where you invest to actually benefit the people that we’re elected to serve.

I will also say it’s a little surprising that they came out so hard against this select committee, because Conservatives in the past have supported select committees. They have supported transparency, finding solutions and trying to learn from mistakes—not that this is a mistake—but in the past there have been.

Even Mike Harris, the former Premier of this province, brought in a special commission, an independent commission, to look into the Walkerton deaths, which were seven people who died and 2,000 people were sick. That was a majority government, because earlier we heard: “Well, you know, the gas plant scandal—the only reason we got that select committee was because it was a minority government.” Well, it was a majority PC government. They brought in the Walkerton commission. We found out what happened. Hopefully, governments in the future will learn from that.

On the other side of the coin, this Ford government—I mean, just look at the media that you’re reading. This is not going away. We’re going to keep trying. We will be relentless to get answers on this issue, because it speaks to a bigger issue of how this government does business.

This is the headline from the Hamilton Spectator and the Waterloo Record today: Ford government’s expansion of urban boundaries driving speculation boom. You’re driving up the cost of land. That’s what you’re doing. This is a direct quote from the article: “There are three themes here: real estate speculation, death by a thousand cuts to natural heritage and agriculture, and top-down ministerial behaviour bordering on corruption.” This is what’s in the media today. It’s not dying down, people.

There was one article that I read—you know, I came in during the gas plant scandal, and I won the seat in Waterloo, which kept the government at a minority level. For me, it was a pretty good day. I like to think it was a good day for the people of this province, because that led to greater transparency. Eleven days later, then-Premier Dalton McGuinty prorogued the Parliament to shut down the debate on the gas plant scandal. He shut it down.

I don’t know if this Premier was paying attention during that time, but this Premier is definitely experiencing that Dalton McGuinty effect in that he doesn’t see the writing on the wall.

But the people of this province care deeply about this issue. They truly do, because they see that it’s connected to the urban boundary expansion. They see that it’s connected to Highway 413 and the Bradford Bypass, and Ontario Place. For the love of humanity, who signs a 95-year lease in business?

Interjection.

We’re going to go to further debate.

Is it 99? Ninety-nine.

I have to say—and moving the Science Centre so a developer can build on that site. You couldn’t make it up, Madam Speaker. You really can’t.

But my friend Paul Webster, here, goes on to say that the government’s own records show that many of those cheques along the 413, and I’m connecting it to the 413, because that’s why the select committee is so important. It’s to prevent further mistakes, further waste of money. He goes on to say that a “select group of land speculators and property developers” have “been buying up these lands in recent years, spurring a huge increase in the land values.” And the MTO—we’re trying to get answers from the MTO about Highway 413. These are not state secrets. They’re building a highway. We’re trying to get the costing of that highway. We want to figure out how much it’s going to cost to appropriate the land, to buy the land. You would think that this is a secret cabinet, Hogwarts style, Madam Speaker.

The ministry has said, “But just how much the MTO estimates these purchases will cost taxpayers and just which land speculators and property developers will get them, is something government lawyers are keeping a secret.” So this government has literally lawyered up.

I will also note that at estimates, because I was trying to get some answers, as a finance critic will try to do, the House leader showed up, on behalf of the Premier, and two lawyers—two lawyers, just to have a finance critic ask some questions about projected expenses. And he had to turn to those lawyers a couple of times.

So I just want to say that, on the Highway 413, the ways that these decisions around major infrastructure projects and major capital projects are being made lack transparency. They lack authenticity. They lack basic financial due diligence. It’s the people of this province that suffer, because while the government is busy making all these deals with all of these people who are going to make a ton of money, while they’re distracted with this, they’re ignoring their own Housing Affordability Task Force, which says, “This is how you build housing.” Housing is so key. It is the key. It is the anchor to the economy, to education, to the environment—it is everything. And yet this government is so distracted with their deals.

I do want to say that, in addition to Highway 413 and the Bradford Bypass and Ontario Place and the “MZOs are us” by Mr. X—honestly, this reads like a House of Cards episode that nobody would even believe. It’s so far-fetched. It is so embarrassing. Other people from other provinces are looking at Ontario and saying, “What the actual heck is going on there?” Especially when you follow the cast of characters.

I think that the mandate letters also were a fairly strong indicator of why this government is hiding from transparency. Who doesn’t want to tell the people that you’re elected to serve, “These are my goals. These are my aspirations as the Minister of Health, as the Minister of Transportation, as the Minister of Long-Term Care. This is what I want to get done for the people of this province.” Why is that such a secret? It defies all logic.

But there’s one thing for sure: This greenbelt scandal has destabilized and compromised trust in our democracy. And understanding how this even happened and how it was even possible that a staffer was able to move files in brown envelopes or little zip files—

This Auditor General’s report is unprecedented, absolutely unprecedented. She has actually called it “indefensible” from this government. These are just a few of the headlines from her report:

“Government-Imposed Greenbelt Removals Proceeded Without Evidence They Were Needed to Meet Housing Goals”—no evidence.

“The Selection of Land Sites for Removal from the Greenbelt was Biased and Lacked Transparency”.

“The 2022 Greenbelt Boundary Changes Were Inconsistent with the Greenbelt Plan’s Vision and Goals....”

“The Proposal to Cabinet Did Not Clearly Explain How Land Sites Were Identified, Assessed and Selected....”

She also noted in 4.5 that “Most of the Land Removed from the Greenbelt May Not Be Ready for Housing Development in Time to Meet Government Goals.”

And finally, the “Government’s Exercise to Alter the Greenbelt Did Not Factor in Financial Impacts or Costs, or Clarify Fiscal Responsibilities.”

So this was essentially: “Off the side of the Premier’s desk, we’re going to arrange for these carve-outs.” How else can you explain a staffer driving around Ontario, picking up the ice cream selection of greenbelt land plots that they want, and then all of a sudden it’s done? It’s done.

The fact there are so many questions left unanswered, and the fact that the government is shutting down all attempts at greater transparency and accountability, is deeply concerning—not just for us as the opposition but for the people of this province.

There is this narrative that the Premier said last week. Right here in this House, he said this did not cost anybody a dime, not one public cent. Well, this clearly is a statement that has not been fully thought out, Madam Speaker, because the Ontario public service was working on this special project under the leadership of Ryan Amato, who the Premier hired, who I also want to point out was completely unqualified and not trained for the job and who now has resigned.

So in this instance—and if you walk it back a little bit, we’ve seen the Premier in that backroom promising to carve out some of the greenbelt. Then, in April 2021, he said, “I’m not touching the greenbelt,” and then in May 2021, it was alleged that then Silvio DeGasperis paid $50 million for 100 acres of farmland in Vaughan that was never supposed to be touched. And get this—this is why there’s so many questions: It was alleged that to cover their purchase, they borrowed $100 million from CIBC at an interest rate of 21% annually. It’s almost like they knew something would change to benefit them greatly. It’s outrageous. You can only take out a loan at that percentage when you know the payback is right around the corner. Borrowing at these rates reeks.

There’s so much material, it’s shocking. I mean, the financial impacts are real. There is no way in humanity that these developers who bought this land and then turned it over and are making hundreds of millions of dollars are just going to walk away. So the lawyers are going to be doing okay in the province of Ontario, but we still have a housing crisis.

I would urge the government to restore trust back in our democracy. Look at your own task force recommendations and invest in housing so that people have shelter. And I would urge you to open up this House to the people who were elected to serve, create this select committee and do the right thing—and for the people. Throw out those little banners that you have on all your desks if you’re not going to do this, because nobody is buying what you’re selling.

Thumb drives.

Further debate?

I’ll use my time today to continue to speak about the dream of housing stability and home ownership for all Ontarians in this great province. I rise out of a sense of duty, purpose and urgency as I address this assembly in response to the opposition motion, not merely as a representative of this government, but as a voice echoing the hopes, dreams and frustrations of countless Ontarians who feel the weight of the housing crisis.

Let me be clear: While the opposition may be content with crafting and bringing motions, this government is committed to forging solutions. Mr. Speaker, we bring action. We are the architects of action, the bearers of change—not change for the sake of change but as champions of the people’s will.

Let me take a moment to reflect on the past. For the last decade, the previous Liberal government, supported by the opposition today, had a front row seat and watched the housing crisis unfold, and what did they do? Respectfully, not much. What’s left? To use an agricultural term, the fields were fallow; the crop wasn’t planted, and we did not have a housing harvest that could benefit the people of this province.

But under this Premier and this government, we’ve chosen a different path. We don’t just identify problems, we roll up our sleeves and tackle them head on. While they watched, we worked; while they deliberated, we delivered; and while they hesitated, we’ve hustled and we’re getting it done because that’s the Ontario spirit, and that’s how we’re going to get houses built in this province.

I’d like to take this opportunity to reflect on what my ministry and our government have done to address the housing supply crisis since 2018. It’s been a journey of commitment, of relentless pursuits of solutions and an unwavering dedication to the people of this province.

Since 2018, we’ve been on the ground listening to the real stories of Ontarians. We’ve seen the struggles of families priced out of their dreams, young couples delaying life’s milestones and seniors grappling with skyrocketing rents. But there’s been a difference. We didn’t just listen, Speaker; we’ve acted. We’ve taken these stories, we’ve taken these pleas for help and turned them into policies and actionable steps that will really make a difference. And we will continue to act.

In 2021, we didn’t just set records, we shattered them. Record housing starts in 2021 and in 2022: That’s 100,000 families in each year with a new beginning, a new chapter. It’s 100,000 testimonies to our commitment to the people of Ontario. And in 2022, we kept that momentum going. Why? Because for us, every housing start isn’t just a statistic, it’s a story, Speaker. It’s a story of a child’s first steps, of a family’s gatherings, of dreams realized. It’s a testament to our government’s dedication to ensuring that every Ontarian has a place they can call home.

Mr. Speaker, make no mistake: There is still much work to do and, as associate minister, I’ll work around the clock with Premier Ford, Minister Calandra, our municipal partners and our community homebuilders to get shovels in the ground through every means necessary, through every means possible. We’re here to deliver results, and while the opposition may question our methods, they cannot question our commitment to get the job done.

As the Associate Minister of Housing, part of my new mandate is modular and attainable housing. This isn’t just a new direction; it’s a revolutionary approach to addressing the housing crisis. I’m excited to tackle this challenge, not only because it’s a new avenue, but it’s a tool in the tool box to help get shovels in the ground and people living in homes.

Innovation: Our goal is to construct modular and innovative housing at attainable prices, addressing the pressing need for affordable homes right across Ontario. This is not just thinking outside the box, Speaker; we’re redesigning the box altogether. Modular housing isn’t just a buzzword for us, it’s a game-changer, and again, it’s a tool in the tool box to get the job done. By harnessing the power of off-site construction, we can speed up the building process, making homes more affordable and showcasing Ontario’s manufacturing sector.

Let me tell you, this isn’t just about building homes; it’s about building communities, fostering economic growth and ensuring that Ontario leads the way in housing innovation. I think about the modular and attainable housing market along with job creation and economic growth, improving our labour opportunities, creating good-paying jobs, not only in the big cities but where all these modular manufacturers live throughout this province, where we can get good local jobs and get them fast. To achieve this vision, we will work closely with Infrastructure Ontario and the Ministry of Infrastructure. With the manufacturing might of Ontario—as it always has been and has continued to grow under this government—and the knowledge of industry experts, we will embark on a journey that encompasses both short-term and long-term objectives, supporting the development of modular attainable housing. We will do everything in our power create new provincial housing supply by leveraging the assets we have on hand. This collaborative effort will help us address the housing crisis as well as foster economic growth.

Our government’s plan to develop an attainable housing program, as publicly committed in the fall of 2022 as part of More Homes Built Faster, serves as the foundation of this initiative. We are also committed to further exploring modular housing and other innovative construction options, as announced in the Helping Homebuyers, Protecting Tenants Act. Building these successes will scale up to develop an attainable housing program, encompassing both public and private land across all regions of Ontario. By working together, we can reshape the housing landscape in Ontario, making home ownership attainable for all and positioning our province as a leader in this important sector.

Speaker, we recognize that we must build housing that meets the needs and budgets of all Ontarians. We recognize that housing isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution; that’s why we’re investing in supportive housing, ensuring that every Ontarian, regardless of their circumstances, has a roof over their head. We’re streamlining processes, cutting through the bureaucratic maze and ensuring that those who need support get it and get it fast. I would again point out my visit last week to St. Thomas and the Indwell announcement—45 spaces, with $1.2 million in funding given. Previous to that, $3 million in capital support—a great initiative and I think one that is going to be replicated throughout the province for the days, months and years to come.

We heard the calls for help from those battling mental health issues; from our seniors, who have given so much to our province; and from those that need a helping hand just to get back on their feet. Navigating this complex network can be challenging, especially for individuals with diverse needs and their families. That is why my ministry is diligently collaborating with the Ministries of Health and Children, Community and Social Services to enhance and streamline the supportive housing system—again, a big part of our plan and important as part of the Affordable Homes and Good Jobs Act we presented this morning.

Together, we have embarked on several initiatives aimed at improving Ontario’s supportive housing system. These include developing a common pre-screening approach to ensure individuals are directed towards appropriate housing and supports. We’re also working towards establishing local integrated supportive housing planning requirements, promoting coordination between the housing, health and community service sectors to provide client services with complex needs.

Additionally, we have conducted a cost avoidance review in supportive housing, which will provide valuable insights into how supportive housing can help us reduce the reliance on high-cost provincial systems such as hospitals. In line with our commitment to action, we have made significant investments in supportive housing through the Ontario Social Services Relief Fund. Service managers and Indigenous program administrators have utilized this funding to create approximately 1,200 units of supportive housing, a remarkable achievement that is already making a tangible difference.

Speaker, all of this is to say that while the opposition raises doubts, we’re raising roofs, and we’re raising them for seniors, newcomers, students, first-time homebuyers and those who need supportive housing.

We have actively sought input from key stakeholders and partners across the province by hosting supportive housing round tables. Since being appointed to my new role, I have already met with supportive housing partners like Indwell, the Learning Enrichment Foundation and the House of Friendship to build strong partnerships across these sectors.

Again, I give a shout-out to our friends at Indwell doing a wonderful job. I believe they’ve now got 24 buildings, facilities, throughout the province, and growing, with 1,200 tenants in these spaces. I know if everyone has had a chance to meet Mr. Jeff Neven, the CEO, he’s worth talking to. I have talked to all communities, and any community in this province, if you have a need for supportive housing and to work with someone like Indwell, it certainly is worth the time to speak with that group—it’s very, very impressive—along with many others, but in particular, I was with him last week and two weeks before. He’s a very impressive individual indeed.

We’ve also stepped up to ensure that Ontarians at risk of experiencing homelessness have access to safe and stable housing. When we talk about homelessness, we’re talking about our neighbours, our friends and our fellow Ontarians. And we’re not just talking; we are investing. As I said this morning, Speaker, over $700 million will be invested this year to ensure that no Ontarian has to spend a night without shelter. That’s up $200 million, a little over—a great percentage increase and a great commitment to our community folks who need to fight this crisis day in and day out. This substantial increase in funding will enable us to provide caring assistance and resources to many more individuals and families who are at risk of experiencing homelessness.

But we’re not stopping there, Speaker; we’re also investing in programs and initiatives that address the root causes of homelessness, from mental health supports to job training programs. Projects are already under way across the province to expand supportive housing options for those experiencing homelessness, mental health challenges, addiction, violence or poverty. This program is a result of true innovation. It is an amalgamation of the Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative, Homes for Good and the Strong Communities Rent Supplement Program, all great programs and working well.

We did this so Ontarians are not just seen as numbers but as people in need of assistance, to whom we can provide tangible support through initiatives such as supportive housing and rent supplements or by connecting with services like Ontario Works or health care providers.

We are leveraging every asset, every piece of crown land, every opportunity to ensure that homelessness becomes a thing of the past. We will continue to implore the federal government to fulfill its responsibility in supporting municipalities and asylum claimants.

We recognize our efforts cannot be alone as we address this magnitude. I think everybody knows that Ontario is underfunded by $480 million for housing and homelessness under the federal National Housing Strategy. We need to get that funding coming our way, and that is why we continue to advocate to the federal government for our fair share of homelessness funding. We acknowledge that there is still much more work to be done. We will continue to advocate for increased federal funding and explore innovative solutions to ensure that every person in Ontario has a place to call home.

Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of speaking about Bill 134, the Affordable Homes and Good Jobs Act, this morning, but let me reiterate: This isn’t just legislation; it’s a commitment—a commitment to families like the ones across my great riding of Elgin–Middlesex–London, to newcomers across Ontario that we’re on their side. We’re cutting red tape, boosting construction and ensuring that the dream of home ownership is within the reach of every Ontarian.

Let me give you an example, Speaker. The folks I’m working with in my ministry now, young people, all have a dream to own their own home, and not one of them is able to do it. I think back to when I bought my first house in the early 1980s, I thought it was pretty daunting; it was crazy. Interest rates were 19%. I heard the minister here talk about when his parents bought their home. When I bought my first home, I was a young guy, and it was 19%. It was daunting, but I could still make the down payment. I could still make the monthly payment work, pay my taxes, pay my insurance and live decently. It was scary, but fortunately, I took out an open mortgage and, within a year, interest rates had dropped to 12%. I thought I had manna from heaven. I was living the dream.

Unfortunately, today, we think interest rates are high at 6%, 7%. Relatively speaking, what we’ve seen, at least in my life, throughout business and mortgages, they’re not that high, but they are high with respect to the debt people are carrying or the debt they have to carry to at least own a home and make the payments. So it’s not fair. We have to do better, and this government is focusing on making sure we do better and we get everybody in a home that they deserve. Because while it was tough back 40 years ago, it’s even tougher today. I know there’s a few in the Legislature that have experienced those times, but today, it is even tougher.

Through our proposed legislation, we’re paving the pathway to affordable and attainable home ownership for everyone. We’re not just setting targets; we’re hitting them, and while others prefer to dwell on the past, we’re focused on the future. For too long, Speaker, decades of inaction and red tape have made housing unaffordable for far too many people. That’s why, since taking office, our government has taken bold steps to cut red tape and increase the housing supply. From our housing action plans to cutting development fees, we’re building the most homes we have in over 30 years. Again, two years in a row, we’ve had record starts. We had more starts this year in terms of percentage increase in numbers built than any other province in the country.

But again, we know that more needs to be done. Too many families are stuck renting month to month, with no hope of ownership. That’s why, through the Affordable Homes and Good Jobs Act, we’re proposing changes to boost affordable construction while supporting job creation. And both of those complement each other.

We’re also proposing changes to attract investments like Volkswagen’s electric vehicle plant coming to St. Thomas, creating thousands of jobs. This will strengthen communities as we build infrastructure and homes for the future.

Again, last week, in and around London and surrounding communities, I had a chance to meet with many individuals. We talked about the jobs coming to southwestern Ontario, not only through London, St. Thomas and Windsor with Stellantis—we certainly have great economic prospects ahead of us. Shovels are in the ground. The dirt is being moved in St. Thomas. It’s fascinating to see, but it’s also daunting because when you think 3,000 people are coming to work directly there, 1,000 at least to build the plant over the next three years, we’ve got to get shovels in the ground and houses built. So we’re looking at every opportunity there is throughout the province, throughout southwestern Ontario, and directly around the St. Thomas plant to find available land, available builders and available opportunities, be it single family homes, small, tiny homes or modular homes to get shovels in the ground to get these homes built so people can afford to have a place to stay and live.

And it is not only the 3,000 jobs. There are 30,000 tertiary jobs coming along with this investment. It’s fantastic. And it is not just going to be in southwestern Ontario; it’s going to be in your communities. It’s every-where, so we need to get shovels in the ground—1.5 million homes by 2031. That’s our commitment. It remains.

Complementing these changes, our government is consulting on streamlining processes at the Ontario Land Tribunal to resolve disputes faster. That’s going to help as well. We are also working with municipalities to increase procurement collaboration for savings. I talked to the mayor of Woodstock today about setting targets on things that we need to do to get shovels in the ground faster in Oxford county and we’re confident that will work.

Through these coordinated proposals, we are eliminating further cost to build while enabling job growth. Combined with our past successes that have seen record housing starts, we’re getting closer to hitting that target—or being on speed, at least, to hit 1.5 million homes by 2031. Most importantly, it means more hard-working Ontario families will have an affordable place to call home—and, again, the key there is “affordable.” I come back to when I brought my home. Yes, it was always difficult, but nothing like the daunting challenge today.

In closing, let me be clear: We acknowledge that much more is required to accomplish our housing targets, absolutely. And while others may raise doubts, we are still going to focus on raising roofs for the people of this province. Every decision we make, every policy we implement, is driven by a singular goal: to improve the lives of Ontarians. That includes letting them have the opportunity to housing stability and owning their own home.

We’re not just setting targets, Speaker; we’re hitting them. We’re not just making policy; we’re delivering results. I come from a world where you got measured monthly, quarterly, yearly, and I am used to that. I am used to that accountability, and I know this government reflects that as well, too, and will remain accountable to hitting 1.5 million homes by 2031. We won’t stop until every Ontarian has a place to call home.

And I say this to those that say no: Join us in collaboration. Join us on this mission and let’s work together to build a brighter, more prosperous Ontario for all, because, at the end of the day, it really isn’t about politics. It’s about building houses. It’s about getting people into their own homes. The people of Ontario deserve nothing but the best, so support the Affordable Homes and Good Jobs Act. It’s a great step towards getting this done. Let’s work together to build a brighter and more prosperous future. And, Speaker, we will be bold, we will be innovative, and we’ll get it done for everyone to have a positive journey on their pathway to housing stability and home ownership.

Speaker, I am proud to rise in this chamber, as a member of the government caucus, under the leadership of Premier Ford. Our government has taken historic measures to strengthen the path to home ownership for each and every Ontarian, no matter whether they were born in Ontario or they came to our great province. And frankly, I think we need to recognize that this government has done all of this without any support from the Liberals or NDP. After all, this is the same NDP that propped up, as mentioned earlier, the previous Liberal government—and they outlined their scandals ad nauseam today; I appreciated the history lesson on Ornge. I was in university at the time.

We are taking action on the housing supply crisis, to begin with. For me, this is personal. As a younger MPP, I know all too well the struggles that the younger generations of Ontarians face in trying to get into the home market. I hear about it right across this province, no matter where I go—in my own community, as well as other communities that I travel to. The housing crisis is not just a Toronto issue; it’s impacting thousands of people across Ontario, from the coast of Lake Erie to the coast of the Hudson Bay. That’s why our government ran on a promise to build 1.5 million new homes by 2031, and we were given an overwhelming mandate last June to get that job done. We also received a massive mandate in the region of Peel, where we’re going to build Highway 413. We haven’t stopped, and we won’t stop, getting things done for the people of Ontario.

The last two years, as the Associate Minister of Housing referenced in his remarks, we have seen record housing starts in Ontario, including in the region of Waterloo.

Interjection.

Further debate?

It really is a sad afternoon when we are talking about the many scandals that have happened in this province of Ontario—the gas plant scandal, air Ornge—but what we saw with those scandals was an appropriate legislative response.

I want to add to this the Airbus affair, which refers to allegations of secret commissions paid to Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and other members of his ministry in exchange for then-crown corporation Air Canada’s purchase of a large number of Airbus jets. This resulted in a RCMP investigation. It resulted in much media coverage. There was an ethics committee struck, and there was also the Oliphant commission inquiry.

This is the kind of response that we need when there is such suspect behaviour on the part of governments, Liberal and Conservative alike.

The Premier was asked recently, “What’s the worst scandal in the province of Ontario?” and he was trying to say that the greenbelt scandal wasn’t quite as bad as the gas plant scandal. It was a terrible spectacle to watch the Premier decide which was the worse scandal in Ontario. But I would say, perhaps he forgot his outrage at Kathleen Wynne when she had the Fair Hydro Plan, because, at the time, the Premier said that this was the biggest political cover-up in Ontario’s history.

And this government—in October 2018, one of the first things they did when they came to power was, they struck a Select Committee on Financial Transparency. They did this. Members of that committee now—the Chair was the member for Brampton South, who’s now the Minister of Transportation. The Vice-Chair was Ontario’s Attorney General, the current Attorney General. The members from this government included the chief government whip; the member for Sault Ste. Marie, who is in the House; Roman Baber—remember?—the previous member for York Centre; we had the member for Eglinton–Lawrence. These were the current government members who thought that it was important to strike a select committee, and I agreed. The purpose of this committee was “to investigate and report on the accounting practices, decision-making and policy objectives of the previous government or any other aspect of the report that the select committee deems relevant. The public has a right to know the true state of the province’s finances and demand accountability from the government.” Sound familiar?

“The committee hopes that the current government will adopt the recommendations and commit to ensuring and maintaining transparency....” This is what we’re asking for today.

This committee—we got tens of thousands of emails. We subpoenaed the secretary of the cabinet, the Deputy Minister of the Environment. We subpoenaed Kathleen Wynne herself, who testified for two and a half hours, and the former Minister of Energy Glenn Thibeault. I spent the better part of four months in this committee getting to the bottom of this—all these members did this. And these are the kinds of legislative responses that we expect that your government would undertake. But despite this, despite this government’s outrage, we have a government here that has clearly signalled that they’re going to vote against our suggestion that they strike a select committee on the restoration of the greenbelt; they said that they’re going to vote against it, quite clearly.

At the time, Doug Ford said in a speech, “We will demand answers about where the money went. A lot of the Liberals got rich, really, really rich, under Kathleen Wynne and off the backs of the taxpayers of Ontario.”

“The purpose of our committee was to ask a lot of the questions the people of Ontario wanted answers to, and I’m confident we asked those questions,” said Ross Romano, the senior Progressive Conservative MPP, about the committee.

So this government has a record. You’ve done this, just five years ago, when you were outraged by the scandal of the Ontario Liberals. But suddenly you’ve fallen silent when it comes to your own dodgy dealings.

Despite all of this, despite all the province’s outrage, despite the fact that this is the right thing to do, we’ve heard that the government House leader is going to vote against this. And you can bet, if the House leader says that he’s going to vote against this, all these PC members are going to tuck in beside him and not support what is the right thing.

So I will say, you’ve done it before—you sat on a committee, you tried to get to the bottom of what is important to the people of the province of Ontario. My question to you now is, what changed? Why are you not committed to transparency and accountability now that you are in the hot seat?

Bill 23.