J’aimerais remercier Daniel et Jeannette Castonguay de Chelmsford dans mon comté pour ces pétitions.

« Réparons les subventions aux résident(e)s du nord de l’Ontario pour frais de transport à des fins médicales ...

« Alors que les gens du Nord n’ont pas le même accès aux soins de santé en raison du coût élevé des déplacements et de l’hébergement;

« Alors qu’en refusant d’augmenter les taux des subventions aux résidents et résidentes du nord de l’Ontario pour les frais de transport à des fins médicales ... le gouvernement Ford impose un lourd fardeau aux Ontariens et Ontariennes du Nord qui sont malades;

« Alors que le prix de l’essence est plus élevé dans le nord de l’Ontario; »

Ils et elles demandent à l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario « de créer un comité ayant pour mandat de corriger et d’améliorer » le système. « Ce comité ... réunirait des fournisseurs de soins de santé du Nord ainsi que des bénéficiaires ... pour faire des recommandations à la ministre de la Santé qui amélioreraient l’accès aux soins de santé dans le nord de l’Ontario grâce au remboursement adéquat des frais de » transport.

J’appuie cette pétition, madame la Présidente. Je vais la signer et je demande à Danté de l’amener à la table des greffiers.

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 30, 2023, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 136, An Act to amend the Greenbelt Act, 2005 and certain other Acts, to enact the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Act, 2023, to repeal an Act and to revoke various regulations / Projet de loi 136, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2005 sur la ceinture de verdure et d’autres lois, édictant la Loi de 2023 sur la Réserve agricole de Duffins-Rouge et abrogeant une loi et divers règlements.

Further debate? I recognize the member for Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas.

It’s like a DC comic book.

Sorry he got caught.

But yes, that’s what everyone says. When I say this anywhere in my constituency, anywhere I go, even here—we like to say it—but just average folks, I say, “Oh, the Premier is sorry,” and everyone says, “Sorry he got caught.” And I bet he is sorry he got caught. I can imagine that he’s sorry that he got caught.

He’s now saying he’s going to put the greenbelt back: “I’m going to put the greenbelt back. I’m sorry. I was a bad boy.” But do you know what? He just got caught with his hands in the cookie jar, and I think he thinks that just by putting the cookies back, which may actually be half-eaten, that’s the end of it—no harm, no foul, right? Well, do you know what? Not so fast. The people of Ontario aren’t buying it yet.

The rest of the story that I’m about to share—I want to quote Sir Walter Scott, who is known to have written a lot of epic sagas. I would describe this as an epic saga. He said:

Oh, what a tangled web we weave

When first we practise to deceive.

Isn’t that going to be the truth when we unveil some of the things that have happened in this province? There are times when this information has been unfolding that I just think, “Is this real? Is this a political drama on TV? Is this really what’s happening in the province of Ontario?”

So, absolutely, I would say that what is happening here is really just like a whodunit. It’s like a mystery novel, a whodunit, and it’s a mystery with twists and intrigues and hidden connections that are starting to be unravelled. Picture: We’ve got the sprawling landscape of the protected greenbelt lands. We’ve got developers and speculators with vested interests; politicians making decisions behind closed doors; and investigative journalists, like the detectives, unearthing a lot of secrets.

The plot has been thickening as public sentiment has changed, and the truth remains elusive, but we’re getting to the point. Who orchestrated these land swaps? Who whispered in whose ear? Ultimately, who decided to reverse course—and really, the question is why? Why did they decide to reverse course? Why are they reversing course on something that they were so adamant about?

So yes, it absolutely unfolds like a gripping novel, and it really leaves us all wondering: Who is pulling the strings? Who is in charge of this province? Who is calling the shots? It doesn’t seem to be the people of Ontario, and it certainly doesn’t seem to be this government.

Think of some of the elements in a whodunit. Let me just say some of the things that we’ve seen. We have Mr. X. I mean, honestly, Mr. X—is this real? Is this real life? Because we have Mr. X.

Really, even though I’m kind of making light of this, this is not a small mistake—this is not, “Oops, sorry. I apologize.” This greenbelt scandal is a colossal scandal, and it’s still unfolding. We talk about $8.3 billion in speculative profits, but the cost of what this costs Ontarians, municipalities, taxpayers are still to be tallied up. There’s no way this hasn’t cost—all of the staff, all of the resources, all of the lawsuits, all of the legal advice—this has been expensive for the people of Ontario, and it’s probably not going to get any better any time soon, I’m afraid.

Like any good mystery novel or whodunit, there’s always what’s called the double narrative. If you’ve read any mystery novels, there are the things that unfold, and then there’s the underlying story that comes at the reveal. So there’s one narrative that is hidden and gradually revealed, while the other is the open narrative, which often transpires in the present time of the story. So there’s a double narrative, a hidden story.

The double narrative, or the convenient cover story, in this province of Ontario whodunit is the narrative that this was all about housing. I don’t believe it.

Caucus, do you believe this was about housing?

No.

And people are suffering for it.

No. My constituents don’t believe it. Nobody, not one person in Ontario is buying it. As Mayor Mel Lastman used to say, nobody is believing it at all.

Why should they believe it, when report after report, leaked documents and uncovered evidence shows otherwise?

Let’s start with the government’s own task force—your own appointed housing task force. And what did it say? The topline from that housing task force that made 55 recommendations, that, despite what the associate minister is saying, you haven’t moved on—you’re moving on them pretty quick now to cover up your tracks, but you didn’t implement any of the recommendations from your own housing task force. And what was the thing that they said is most important here?

“A shortage of land isn’t the cause of the problem. Land is available, both inside the existing built-up areas and on undeveloped land outside greenbelts.

“We need to make better use of land.”

Right there—land wasn’t the problem. You want to build housing? It’s not about land.

The Ontario Greenbelt Alliance, which is a group of over 1,000 environmental groups and just average folks in the province, said, “The province’s removal of 7,400 acres from the greenbelt was met with overwhelming public opposition. Data did not support the government’s false assertions that the land was necessary for solving the housing crisis. The Auditor General, regional planners, and the government’s own Housing Affordability Task Force concluded that more than enough land has already been designated in towns and cities to build all the needed housing for decades to come. Destroying important greenbelt lands had nothing to do with solving Ontario’s housing crisis and instead seemed more focused on creating massive speculative profits for urban sprawl developers well-connected to the provincial government.” Does that not describe what is happening here in the province?

We have further evidence that this wasn’t about housing and that the government was not listening to anyone but the speculators. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture spoke out and wrote to the Premier, saying, “The greenbelt doesn’t need to be developed to solve the province’s housing crisis....

“‘The housing crisis facing Ontario is real, and we understand the government’s need and plan to add more housing stock to the market. We also think this plan can be achieved by building within existing urban boundaries—utilizing underdeveloped areas, reclaiming abandoned industrial lands and building up instead of out.’

“The OFA said it will remain ‘a willing partner’ with the government to find solutions to address the housing crisis without having to develop on farmland.”

So, after all of this, despite all of the evidence saying that this was not about housing, I wonder if this government and this minister finally accepts the conclusion from their own Housing Affordability Task Force that a shortage of land is not the cause of the housing crisis and carving up the greenbelt and forcing urban boundary expansions on municipalities was not ever, ever about housing. It was a land grab, a land banking exercise. We know it, you know it, and you’ve been found out.

But there is a housing crisis. That is what we are facing. We’ve lost so much time in addressing it. It’s unbelievable how much time we’ve spent.

Ontario’s housing supply continues to stagnate, and your government’s policies are failing. In fact, you don’t really have any policies when it comes to addressing emergency housing, the shortage of housing; when it comes to housing encampments. What is your plan? You haven’t shared it with us in the House. You are failing when it comes to actually putting a roof over people’s heads. You spent a year, wasting precious time with what is now a blatant attempt to give greenbelt land to speculators. Your failed housing policies have left Ontarians without a housing supply, and that continues to stagnate while demand soars through the roof.

It’s so clear that we need to build different types of housing.

Actually, this is from our housing critic, MPP Jessica Bell, who does fantastic work in this House, highlighting all the time the needs, and providing great ideas and great suggestions that this government never, never seems to take up on. Apparently, they know best—but clearly you don’t, because you’re not helping people with their housing. She said, “It’s crystal clear that we need to build different types of homes that can house Ontarians at every stage of their lives, in the communities they want to live in.... We need to get serious about good policies that will help build the affordable homes we need and get the government back in the business of building housing.”

Recent estimates from the Canadian Housing Statistics Program revealed that the housing supply slowed last year under Ford’s government, with growth rate far below the urgent demand for affordable housing. So we know that for months Ford has been distracted, handing out MZOs or urban boundary expansion to his wealthy insiders, as I’ve described, instead of concentrating on building the homes we urgently need.

MPP Jeff Burch, our municipal affairs critic, said, “With today’s news, we see how much progress Ford has really cost us. We can’t afford any more of his bad decisions.” That is absolutely the case.

If there’s any doubt that this government’s action when it came to the greenbelt, when it came to MZOs, forced urban boundary expansion, amendments to official plans at the pen of the minister—if there was any doubt that this was about building homes or providing housing for people, the 7,000 pages of documents that we released yesterday prove my point. Not only was this government—the Premier’s office was involved in this greenbelt scandal. They were never serious about housing. It was always just a cover story. It was always the double narrative.

Let me tell you, if you don’t want to take it from me, I’ll just read from some of those uncovered documents.

There were warnings—the government staff asked to “stick to limited messaging about housing.” Under a heading titled “Comms”—communication messaging—a handwritten note reads, “In for a rough ride. Hold the line. It’s all about housing.” That’s from Ryan Amato, who had this to add: “Everybody keep your mouth shut and stick to it.” So, clearly, clearly, this was not about housing; this was about messaging and a cover story.

How did we get here? I want to talk about the two bombshell reports, the Integrity Commissioner’s report and the Auditor General’s report. Really, if this is a whodunit and if a crime has been committed, I would just have to say that this is exhibit A—the evidence that’s in the Integrity Commissioner’s report and the Auditor General’s report. I’m sure you’ve all read it. I’m sure all of Ontario has read it or knows about it. But let me just read some of the table of contents to give you a flavour of what this is all about:

It says, “Government-imposed greenbelt removals proceeded without evidence they were needed to meet housing goals....

“The selection of land sites ... was biased and lacked transparency....

“The greenbelt may not be ready for housing development in time to meet government goals....

“Government’s exercise to alter greenbelt did not factor in financial impacts or costs, or clarify fiscal responsibilities....

“Government did not factor in environmental and agricultural implications into the greenbelt boundary changes....

“The public and municipalities were not effectively consulted on the greenbelt boundary changes....

“Indigenous communities and leaders say the province failed to properly consult them on greenbelt changes....”

It just goes on and on.

I would like to add to make sure that we’re clear that she also said, “use of personal email accounts contrary to public service cyber security guidelines.” We know there are records that have been deleted, and our leader has written to the Information and Privacy Commissioner and has written to the secretary of cabinet to make sure that those records are retained. This is not Watergate, so I’m sure that they’re busy erasing the tapes in there. What I’m saying to you is that this is serious business. It also says, “Record-Retention Policies for Political Staff Communications Needs Reinforcing”—and no doubt, that is the case.

Also, let’s look at—I guess if that was exhibit A, this is exhibit B, which is the Office of the Integrity Commissioner’s report, again in response to a letter from our leader, Marit Stiles. This was an unprecedented report, 170 pages or so—a huge report. Let me just boil it down got you: The findings of the report by the Integrity Commissioner described the process leading to land removals as being “marked by misinterpretation, unnecessary hastiness and deception,” and said it “resulted in the creation of an opportunity to further the private interests of some developers improperly.” So it furthered the pecuniary and financial interests of some developers. That’s what this process did.

The Office of the Integrity Commissioner found that Minister Clark—who, as we know, has since resigned—broke the law. The integrity act is the law in the province of Ontario. You might not like it. We brought forward an opposition day motion to strengthen this act; you voted against that. I don’t know why. I don’t know why you wouldn’t want more integrity in the province, but that’s a question for you to ask yourselves.

The Integrity Commissioner—this is David Wake, K.C., by the way—found that the minister broke the conflict-of-interest guidelines in the act, and also broke section 3, which is the use of insider information. That just does not sound great to me—for a minister of the crown to be charged with that and found to have broken the act. These are serious charges.

I know that this government also has managed to not allow us to consider a reprimand for the minister, which is part of the act. Somehow, with your use of your majority in the House, you have made sure that this House, which is accountable to the people, has not had an opportunity to consider an appropriate reprimand for breaking the law, for a conflict-of-interest breach and a breach of the use of insider information. I find that shameful, if you actually had any concern for the functioning of what is supposed to be a house of democracy.

Let me talk now about—I’ve talked a lot about this—the greenbelt. We know what has happened with the greenbelt, but let me just talk now a little bit about urban boundary expansions, MZOs and amendments to official plans—or, as we like to call it, greenbelt scandal 2.0, or my favourite: “Come for the wedding. Stay for the MZOs.”

It used to be cake and some kind of candy.

But now it’s MZOs, because 18 MZOs were handed out as wedding favours to developers who sat at the table at the Premier’s daughter’s wedding—unbelievable.

There’s so much here. At the risk of getting bogged down with my own papers and getting bogged down with the government’s own evidence of their own malfeasance, let me just say that looking into the issue of the MZOs and the urban boundaries was something that we as the official opposition wrote—again, Marit Stiles, MPP Burch and myself wrote to the Auditor General, and we also wrote to the Environmental Commissioner to ask about these MZOs and the process. We know that the MZOs, the urban boundary expansion and the official plan amendments were done in the same way. The same preferential treatment, the same lack of due process resulted in all of these lands being forced into development. We know now that all of these amendments to official plans, these urban boundary expansions, these MZOs—who do they benefit? The people of the province? No. They all benefited—largely, the vast majority—99% of them fell to benefit a few developers who sat at the table at the wedding, a few developers who are connected to the Premier, a few developers who had—what was it called, the massage? It was called the good luck golden massage?

Interjection: The good luck massage.

Interjections.

So we know that this was equally as questionable a practice, and it’s equally of concern to the people in the province of Ontario. It’s of concern to the Auditor General, because she said that she’s already looking into this—that she’s going to be conducting an audit and she’s going to look at other issues like the amendments. We also know, of course, that it’s of interest to the OPP and the RCMP, but we’ll get into that in a minute.

How do we know that the urban boundary expansions and the MZOs was a process that benefited a few? Well, we had leaked documents. We had the ministry’s own documents that said that when they were considering the urban boundary expansion—not just in Hamilton, but with Waterloo, Barrie, Wellington—that the same day that they opened up lands for development, the government forced expansion on many communities, like Hamilton. Hamilton’s urban boundary was forced to be expanded by 2,200 hectares, overriding what the people of the city of Hamilton wanted—and the city council. They did not follow the decisions. We received the documents that showed that the government knew that this was bad policy. The government’s own documents show that they knew that doing this would cause the loss of farmland, environmental concerns—and that the costs were not to be calculated. When we talk about costs, we’re talking about all those servicing fees that taxpayers have to pay, that developers don’t have to pay. We’re talking about sewer and water, roads, schools, hydro—all of those things that they knew that the costs were not calculated, but they still went ahead and forced the urban boundary expansion.

Who really wanted this, let’s just say? The records show, in these leaked documents from the ministry’s own records, that unnamed parties requested dozens of the changes Ontario made to Hamilton’s plan. More than a third of those 77 changes had no listed purpose or rationale—it all just said, “Third party.” So, really, my question is, is that what the province is? Are we a province that’s run by Mr. X? Are we a province that’s run by third parties? There are planning rules. Where is the concern for good planning that helps not just you as a government, but helps people who are trying to live their lives, communities that are trying to grow their communities appropriately? None of that. That was all thrown out the window to serve the pecuniary interest of a few insider friends.

We’re not really sure why this government has overlooked the interests of the people of the province of Ontario, but we do know for a fact that, in one instance in Hamilton, developers requests were copied word for word into an official planned amendment. They said, “Can you make this change?” The minister made this one particular amendment—very unusual. It just said, “See that piece of land there on your official plan? Can you change that for me?” “Sure thing.” The minister’s pen made that change.

Do you know what? These speculators weren’t just any speculators, yet again. The Premier took direction from the exact same people who were at his daughter’s stag and doe this time. They’re the same people who were interviewed by the offices of the Legislature, the Auditor General and the Integrity Commissioner, because of preferential treatment in the greenbelt.

An Ancaster councillor—and this is where this particular amendment happened, which is Wilson Street in Ancaster—said, “It’s entirely undemocratic for the province to accommodate for-profit interests that are in complete contradiction to the public’s interest.”

So, really, are we going to find out how many changes to official plans came directly, word for word, from speculators? It’s really shocking.

So these are the leaked documents, or this information—we don’t have time for that; there’s so much of it.

But I want to say, sadly, where are we now? We’re in a province where the RCMP are investigating this, and we have what has been assigned a special prosecutor. Does that sound good? No.

A criminal probe and the RCMP investigation: The Royal Canadian Mounted Police has officially launched a criminal investigation into the greenbelt changes made by the Ford government. The investigation centres around the controversial decision to open up protected greenbelt lands for housing development, which sparked intense debate and scrutiny.

And what is the role of the special prosecutor? An RCMP officer mentioned that the special prosecutor would be involved in the case. The special prosecutor’s role is connected to the complexity of working with witnesses who may be bound by confidentiality—and we know that 93 NDAs were signed with Amato’s work—and that one possibility is that the special prosecutor serves as an independent outside legal adviser to police during the investigation. We know that the special investigator looks, in particular, into these instances of fraud, looks particularly into interests that are exactly what we suspect has transpired here.

I think they are extra-special and overachievers.

Yes, I think so too.

Quite a bit here—I’ve done my leaked documents, and I’ve made perfectly clear that the environmental damage was overlooked not only in the greenbelt, as the Auditor General said, but in the forced urban boundary expansion. As their own document said, they didn’t take into consideration the environment in any way, in any regard.

Let me just double down on the special prosecutor and make sure that I’m clear. The special prosecutor—let me see what they’re investigating. Maybe the Attorney General, who I saw was here, can help me with this. Really, a prosecutor is most commonly used in Ontario, and they tend to seek out special prosecutors when there’s concern that a possible conflict of interest could emerge if an Ontario prosecutor handled the case. So this is hot enough that it’s taken away from the Attorney General’s office and put in the hands of a special prosecutor.

I’m sure that as this story unfolds, we’ll continue to learn more about the role of the special prosecutor. I’m sure many of us haven’t had occasion—hopefully, we’ll never have occasion—to get a call from a special prosecutor. It’s something that I would not be looking forward to. I understand that the RCMP said they’re going to begin making those phone calls.

As I said, this is—

Again, it is the largest scandal in the province of Ontario. Is it possible that it could be bigger than big? We’re going to see, when we start to hear the results of the investigation by the RCMP and the special prosecutor.

I think I have enough here for three hours, but I only have about 18 minutes left.

The other thing that I want to remark on is that this bill—really, in terms of word count, the word count related to indemnities is the biggest part of this bill. Are we surprised by that? What did we see with this government when it came to the deaths in for-profit long-term-care homes? What did they do? They gave those for-profit homes where deaths occurred—6,000 deaths in the province of Ontario. They made sure that those for-profit homes were indemnified so that families—victims, essentially—were not able to seek redress in the province of Ontario.

I understand there’s a class action lawsuit being launched. I don’t know if it’s registered, but it’s for the families of the people at Orchard Villa. Orchard Villa had the largest proportional death count in the province. That’s the home where they had to call in the army. The reports from that were almost unspeakable. It’s really hard to read that report. Again, the government gave them an indemnity. But that’s not enough. As a parting gift, they gave them an extension, a 30-year contract, to continue to operate more beds, and for longer, in the province.

So it really is special, in Ontario, when you’re a special friend of the Premier. Things just seem to work out really well for you—not so much for the families of all those people who died in long-term care.

Let’s just say the dean of the Osgoode law school described the protections from liability in the bill as “broad”—no kidding.

“Ontario Won’t Compensate Developers after Greenbelt Land Swap Reversal.” Do you know what? Let’s say that: Do the developers need to be compensated—the speculative profiteers? I don’t think so. Do the government ministers who were complicit in this need to be covered? I’ll leave that question to the people of the province of Ontario. Do they deserve to be indemnified for any of their actions and wrongdoing? That’s a question. I’m sure the conversation between the Premier and the developers who lost out would be an interesting one. But really, these indemnities are designed to essentially insulate all those involved in this government’s change in direction.

Here’s an interesting part, because the government has done this before: It not only applies going forward; it applies going backward. That’s the unusual thing about this. This government has done this before. The indemnity they passed was not only for—when a court ruling said that their MZOs were illegal, they passed a bill that said, “Those illegal MZOs that we passed? They’re now legal, and going forward, they’ll be legal.” So they’ve done this before to cover themselves proactively, which is unbelievable to me—that you can go back and say, “Hey, that thing where you broke the law?” The government said, “We’re covered. We didn’t actually break the law, and no one can seek redress.”

Should developers sue and be compensated out of the taxpayers’ pockets? Absolutely not. The people of the province of Ontario have had enough. They’ve paid enough. Municipalities who have incurred costs, who had all kinds of planning documents, planning exercises, years of costs ripped up, deserve to be compensated. People lost money on this—average people. They don’t even know the cost. Taxpayers are going to pay for lawsuits. Taxpayers are going to pay for lost revenue. Taxpayers are going to pay for lost time, lost resources, all because of this government’s failed policy, all because this government tried to enrich their donors without a care. They didn’t give a fig about the people of the province of Ontario, who pay their taxes day in and day out, who are suffering to pay their bills. No, they didn’t care about that, and their indemnity laws make sure that they will not be held accountable.

Finally, let me just say that if this is a whodunit, if in fact a crime has been committed—we talked about their alibi, the cover story, which was housing. We talked about the evidence, which is the Auditor General’s report, the Integrity Commissioner’s report, expert reports, leaked documents, the 7,000 pages that we’re digging through now. That would be the evidence.

If there is a victim in this potential crime, it is the environment and the greenbelt and all that it protects. This has truly been an assault on the environment like no other. Do I need to reiterate that the greenbelt is a protected jewel for a reason? People were so upset about what you did because they care about it. They know its value. They understand its value. The greenbelt includes over two million acres of protected, unprotected, protected land. It includes some of the most valuable agricultural land in the country. People farm the greenbelt. It needs to be known; this is agricultural land.

The greenbelt generates almost $10 million in economic activity. It supports almost 200,000 jobs. It provides $3.2 billion a year in services like flood protection, water purification and stormwater management. It is the area that feeds us, that cleans our water, that protects us from floods, and it was poorly treated by this government—disregarded. I don’t know whether you don’t understand this, whether it just looked like too much profit to grab, whether it was just too hard for you to resist snatching it away, but it is a jewel, and people know it.

I think it’s important to say that the Auditor General, who produces a lot of reports, produced a report in May 2023 that talks about the state of the environment in Ontario. It is not particularly good news. What I want to start by saying is that the Auditor General and the Commissioner of the Environment had this to say—and this needs to be listened to through the lens of what this government tried to do and continues to do when it comes to the greenbelt, environmental protections and wetlands. They had this to say: “It is well worth remembering that protecting, conserving and restoring the environment requires a longer-term perspective. Whatever the politics of the day, elected governments are called upon to hold this longer-term perspective in sight. The actions they take, or fail to take, will be measured in the long run by future generations of Ontarians.” Isn’t that so true? This is our job. We are to be stewards of the environment for future generations in this province. I’m sad to say that this government did not take any of that into consideration.

The State of the Environment report—just a couple of highlights here are that when it comes to wetlands, which is a significant part of the greenbelt, “the natural resources ministry set targets in 2017 to halt the net loss of wetland ... in southern Ontario—where wetland loss has been the greatest.” However, the ministry has not tracked the status of progress in meeting these targets, because the ministry “informed our office in ... 2021 that the targets are no longer in effect.” This government took away targets to protect wetlands in the province. They didn’t want to be held accountable, and they didn’t want to track it. “The province has not met ... Ontario’s Biodiversity Strategy ... to conserve at least 17% of land and water systems through well-connected networks of protected areas.” There’s a lot here on the health of the Great Lakes; microplastics are not being tracked in the province.

I think particularly a thing that I want to mention is poor Lake Simcoe. Lake Simcoe is one of the greatest inland lakes in the province, probably in Canada, and it continues to suffer. It says, “In Lake Simcoe—the largest inland lake in southern Ontario—dissolved oxygen concentrations, which are important for the survival of fish.... Chloride levels in Lake Simcoe—which come largely from road salt use and can be highly toxic to aquatic organisms”—and they result in algae blooms because of overloading of phosphorus. Lake Simcoe is suffering. Lake Simcoe has the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, one of the best environmental protection plans that I have seen, and this government has done nothing—not moved on that at all.

Finally, I just want to say a few things that she talks about. She goes on and talks about some of the changes that the government has made when it comes to the environment. You amended the Endangered Species Act, so now we have a pay-to-slay act in the province. You made legislative and regulatory changes to limit the work of conservation authorities and their role in reviewing the impacts of development and other activities. This is a good read—a lot of information about why the province of Ontario needs to take the environment more seriously.

Let me just say that in the minister’s speech, he took great pains—and the associate minister also—to say that they’re going to protect the greenbelt. Thank you. But they also said that we’re going to protect the greenbelt while still making lands available for important infrastructure. Further, they said we’re going to protect the greenbelt “without limiting future governments’ ability to add infrastructure.” What are we talking about here? Because I’m not sure, but my guess is we’re talking about the unneeded, $10-billion Highway 413 that cuts through swaths of the greenbelt, cuts through wetlands, cuts through some of the most fertile agricultural land in the province—pretty sure that’s the infrastructure that this government is talking about.

I would say that the government, through the Attorney General, recently announced their intention to seek a judicial review of the federal Impact Assessment Act. It is my contention that that is because this is the infrastructure that they want to ram through, that this judicial review that was under a federal impact assessment is the number one goal of this government. And, taking no lessons from how upset people were about your assault on the greenbelt, you are going to spend taxpayer dollars again, in court.

The Supreme Court had no problem with the federal impact assessments currently under way. Wasting public money re-litigating decisions and making sure that you have your way with the environment at all costs is really I don’t think what the people of the province of Ontario expect from an Attorney General. There are problems with your land tribunal. There are all kinds of problems with people seeking redress and justice in the province, so spending time and taxpayer dollars in court to fight the federal government so that you can build a highway, I would say, is not what the people of the province expect.

We also have a government that is looking to—through their EROs, through posting on the Environmental Registry, the further assault is that you are tabling four proposals that will weaken environmental oversight in the permit system for taking water, waste management and stormwater. These changes mean that the public would lose the right to participate in decisions affecting their health and safety and, worse, public oversight would be offloaded to the very same private company seeking the permit. Just like the gutting of conservation authorities and the weakening of wetland protections, this government is once again looking to enrich special interests while putting our soil and water at risk.

I asked this in the Legislature: Will this government ever, ever listen to the public instead of lobbyists and show that by cancelling these ERO postings? I’ve received so many emails about this. People are upset. They understand what you’re up to, and they’re writing to say, “Please don’t do this.”

I would also like to say, when it comes to the infrastructure and the Attorney General’s seeking of a judicial review, it is not lost on the people of Ontario that this is all about Ontario Place as well: special interests, private deals, a $650-million parking garage for Therme—subject to environmental assessment, but we have the Attorney General working at clearing the path so that Therme can profit from our public lands, from our public waterway, so we can build—what? What is it we’re building there? A luxury—

Interjection: Spa.

A luxury spa.

You will not be surprised that the people of the province of Ontario are not the trusting sort anymore when it comes to this government, and now the government’s talking about a 10-year review of the greenbelt—two years early, 10-year review. We have a broken trust with the province. You’re not listening to experts. You stack your boards and your panels with insiders. This is not a government that anyone trusts with your 10-year review.

I will just quote, again, from the Integrity Commissioner, who said, “The Greenbelt Act provides that there shall be another 10-year review in 2025 to determine whether it should be revised.” Again, this is from the Integrity Commissioner. “I sincerely hope that the experience of the exercise to remove lands from the greenbelt as set out in this report will be used to inform that review and any subsequent process affecting these lands.” I would say that that’s a warning to say, “Don’t do this again. Don’t use insiders, preferential treatment. Don’t break the integrity act. Don’t use your power to further the pecuniary interests of your insiders.” That’s from the Integrity Commissioner.

Very quickly, in this bill—what do we not hear in this bill? What is missing from this bill? I would start by saying that nothing here will make it better. You might sort of restore it to where it was, but it’s not going to make things better when it comes to the environment. You have still gutted the conservation authorities and their ability to apply a watershed approach to land use planning. You haven’t restored that. You have done nothing to protect agricultural lands. You still have specialty crop areas that you have done nothing with. You don’t have an agricultural impact assessment, which I would say you should do.

You also continue to approve sand and gravel extraction permits within the greenbelt, and I would like to be clear that Ontario has already approved permits and licenses for 13 times as much aggregate than the province actually requires. So really, people see this as what it is, driven by speculative forces, not real need. It’s just buying more land, cheap land, and sitting on it as a land grab.

There’s a lot you could do, really, but it’s not here in this bill because you’re just putting the cookies back in the cookie jar to appease people in the province, and my guess is, they are not going to be appeased.

Listen, this greenbelt scandal has set Ontario back years on building the homes that the province so desperately needs. You ignored recommendations from your own critics, but these dealings go way beyond the greenbelt to urban boundary expansions. Now we are concerned about what you’re doing with Ontario Place, with the 413. We know that this government was never serious about putting a roof over people’s heads. They keep talking about the dream of home ownership, but it sure just sounds to me like a time-share sales pitch from the minister. What we need is someone to take action on renovictions, demovictions, and land tribunals that only have 18 charges in the last few years. Housing encampments, shelters: That’s what is seriously needed.

It’s a sad tale that this government is still unfolding, and we need a government focused on what they seem to have forgotten, and that’s the hard-working people of Ontario. People deserve a government that is honest and trustworthy. Imagine that I have to say that: They deserve a government that is honest and trustworthy. And we certainly deserve a government that looks out for us, for average people, and not simply their billionaire friends.

Well, you know how much they love their spas and massages.

I’ll interrupt the member. I do have someone with a point of order.

I wasn’t aware that Ontario Place was in the greenbelt, so I would like her to go back to the greenbelt.

Thank you very much, Speaker, and thank you as well to the member from Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas. This is an issue that I think is resonating across the province. We’ve had a concern over the greenbelt where the Premier has been caught several times trying to carve it up—Happy Halloween, by the way. But the Premier has been trying to carve up the greenbelt and each time when he gets caught, he promises not to do it again.

Now, ever since we’ve come back to talk about this, the House leader has been promising this bill that we’re talking about here, saying, “We’re going to have regulations.” Basically, what he’s saying is, we’re going to have regulations to protect the Conservative government from the Conservative government on this. I feel like the Conservative government, and the Premier primarily, does understand why Ontario is so upset. So if the member could break it down—the way I see it is, that you’ve got a kid who got caught with his hand in cookie jar several times and now he took a big bite out of the cookie and wants to put it back and pretend that all is forgiven and it’s no big deal.

And so if the member for Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas can just elaborate on why the people of Ontario are so upset and so angry at this Conservative government.

I have a question. I heard the member—and she’s at her best when she sticks to her notes, because I heard her talking about the Supreme Court decision. She’s taking the line that Minister Guilbeault is taking that this is some sort of friendly suggestion from the Supreme Court of Canada.

But then I got thinking about it and the member is happy to defer to the federal NDP on important matters that affect Ontarians. So maybe they are willing to just cave on jurisdiction that is set out in the Constitution, Madam Speaker. But that is not my question. My question is this: If she’s so against building highways and so against building homes—I have a simple question. If we were to review your expenses, do you travel on the 407?

We’re going to go to questions.