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.

We’re going to go to questions.

This just gives me an opportunity to explain how land banking works in this province, how speculative profit-making works in this province.

Just before the government made their decision in November 2022, developers in Hamilton were buying up land at extraordinary interest rates and at high costs. Also, we had a tree farmer in Hamilton that had absolutely no interest in selling his land who had three speculative developers come to buy his land. Why is that? Because they knew that this land would be rezoned for profit, not to build housing that people need, not to build housing that people can afford but for profit.

Interjections.

They know that what the Premier said couldn’t have been further from the truth. They know that the Premier broke a promise when he campaigned. They see through this. People aren’t stupid. I think the Premier thought that the people of Ontario were going to buy all of his lines and that they were stupid. And they’re not stupid. They work hard for their money; they work hard to feed their families; they put trust in their government and that trust has been broken. They know it and they see it and that’s why they’re so incensed.

The fact that people are so cynical with governments, the fact that people don’t have trust in their government to do the right thing, is precisely because of the kind of actions that this Premier took.

So my question to you is, why do you feel so free with the taxpayers’ dollars to go to court? You lose almost every single time. Never mind asking me to show your expense account; what I would like you to do is reveal to the people of the province of Ontario how much you have spent on government lawyers. Not you, by the way: the people of the province of Ontario. How much have they spent?

You are free with their tax dollars to pursue things that are in your personal interest and the Premier’s personal interest, but my question to you is, how much are you willing to spend to pursue your interests?

But what I want to say about the 407 is people can’t afford to drive on the 407. Your $10-billion highway through the greenbelt runs parallel to the 407. So if the former Conservative government had promised that these fees were just to pay off the cost and people could actually afford to drive on the 407, we wouldn’t need this unnecessary highway—which, by the way, if you look at who owns land around the 413? The same developers with preferential treatment. If you see all those interchanges where this government wants to put Home Depots and Tim Hortons, they’re going to be owned by the same developers that receive preferential treatment.

You want to talk about the 407? Take the tolls off of it. You’ve relieved them of their fees anyway, so take the tolls off it and let people drive on the highway that they paid for.

I think it’s unfortunate for the government to bring up the 407 highway considering that the last session of this government wrote off $1 billion that that 407 highway owed to taxpayers.

But moving on: Look, I want to change the channel because this debate is clearly becoming very frustrating for the government members, and very awkward. So I want to bring up a rising consumer issue that’s happening. In the last five years, we’ve seen a huge and dramatic increase in the cost of brown envelopes, and you can’t find them anywhere anymore. The issue is that, in fact, some consumers are reporting as they get back to us, that the cost of brown envelopes today are somewhere near the cost of Lysol wipes during the pandemic.

I just wanted to know if the member has heard about this disturbing trend.

I apologize to the Attorney General. I noted with interest the member stated that the value of this land went up by $8.3 billion or something like that, and I’ve noted in conversations with the member from Oxford that I find that number intriguing, because we hear all the time—I think the member mentioned it in her speech—that we have enough land for development. If that’s the case, how could the land from the greenbelt that we put in go up in value by $8.3 billion? Because if we had enough land, I couldn’t see that going up. I’m just wondering, how could that land that we took out of the greenbelt go up in that kind of value if we have enough land? Either we need more land for development or we don’t, and that’s my question for the member.

Let me start by saying, do we support a bill that returns the greenbelt lands—the greenbelt lands that you essentially absconded with—back into the hands of the people of Ontario? I agree with that.

Interjection.

Not everybody—maybe in your caucus—but not everybody in the province of Ontario can afford a single-family home, four bedrooms, four-car parking garage. That’s not what most people can afford in this province. So our plan is to make sure everybody in the province, whether it’s a small co-op apartment or whether it is a large home, can afford it. But your government has—

I’m pleased to rise to speak about Bill 136, the proposed Greenbelt Statute Law Amendment Act, 2023. And I would like to say here that I would like to share my time with the member from Flamborough–Glanbrook.

As stated by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, we are following through on our commitment to fully restore these lands and provide enhanced protections to the greenbelt moving forward. In order to achieve this, the government of Ontario is introducing legislation that would, if passed, restore all properties that were redesignated or removed within the greenbelt and the Oak Ridges moraine areas in late 2022. That being said, we have not wavered in our commitment to build more homes for Ontarians.

Ontario’s housing affordability crisis, mired in the current federal government’s National Housing Strategy underfunding the province of Ontario by roughly $480 million, is taking a very heavy toll on all Ontarians. It’s becoming increasingly difficult for Ontarians to live happy and healthy lives due to decades of inaction, and it is our duty to fix this crisis. That is why our government refuses to leave Ontarians out in the cold and why we continue to fight for Ontarians trying to achieve the dream of home ownership.

It would indeed be a disservice to our children if they are forced to move out of this beautiful province simply because they cannot afford a home. We need to foster the growth of future Ontarians, and the first step is to allow them to remain in Ontario. That is why I am proud to represent a government that stands firmly behind its promise to build one and a half million homes by 2031.

It is also our goal to work with all of our partners to help municipalities build new homes as soon and as efficiently as possible. Municipal governments across Ontario want to build homes for their people, but countless layers of red tape are making this impossible. We have embarked on an ambitious mission, and we will confront the housing crisis head-on. Our commitment is unwavering, and our goal is clear: to build at least one and a half million new homes by 2031. This is not just an arbitrary number; it is a promise to the people of Ontario that affordable housing is our priority. It is a staunch commitment to ensure that everyone living in Ontario has access to safe, affordable and comfortable housing. It is my belief that with the legislation currently being proposed by our government, including Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, and Bill 134, the Affordable Homes and Good Jobs Act, we can create a province where home ownership is a realistic and achievable goal for all Ontarians, and anyone will be able to find a place to call a home.

On our path to achieve this goal, we are proposing to keep the 9,400 acres that our government added to the greenbelt in 2022 under greenbelt protection. These include lands in Paris-Galt moraine and in urban river valley areas. This proposed legislation also reinstates the protections provided for the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve easements and covenants, thereby recognizing the importance of this agricultural land and ensuring its sustainable use for the present and for the future generations that will occupy the new homes our government promises to build. Returning these lands to the greenbelt is a pledge to our children and to our grandchildren that our government will protect the natural beauty of Ontario, its fertile soil and the diverse ecosystems that call it home. We are preserving the very essence of what makes our province such a desirable place for people to live.

Speaker, I want to be clear: If this proposed legislation is passed, our government will be responsible for making the greenbelt the largest that it has ever been, securing sustainable agricultural land to enrich the lives of present and future Ontarians.

Restoring the protections and policies of the Greenbelt Act in its entirety includes the need for a review every 10 years, as was mandated by the previous government when the legislation was originally introduced and passed. In our commitment to restoring the protections and policies of the Greenbelt Act in its entirety, we must not forget the importance of periodic review. Decennial reviews of the greenbelt lands will act as insurance to the people of Ontario moving forward that their voices will be heard and policies surrounding the greenbelt-protected territories will be refined to serve the evolving needs of our society.

Speaker, I would also like to make it clear that in order to effectively preserve the greenbelt lands, our government will be in direct contact and in constant engagement with Indigenous communities and municipalities situated in and around the affected areas.

Moving forward, we will ensure that this review is conducted with the utmost integrity and impartiality. It will be led by a panel of non-partisan experts, individuals who have dedicated their lives to the field of conservation, agriculture and environmental protection. These experts will have Ontario’s best interests at heart and will carry out their duties with the utmost diligence, with a singular focus on the betterment of our province through agricultural preservation and the sustaining surrounding regions.

To close, the Greenbelt Statute Law Amendment Act, 2023, is a testament to the enduring commitments of our government. It will ensure that greenbelt lands are protected and secured in the most robust fashion they have ever seen, allowing the Ontarians who will eventually occupy the 1.5 million homes this government will get built to be fulfilled by the natural beauty of Ontario: its fertile soil and its diverse and wonderful ecosystems. Additionally, the agricultural utility afforded by the reinstatement of the protections provided for the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve easements and covenants will be appreciated by present and future Ontarians who will have the pleasure of enjoying homegrown foods grown in prime Ontario farmland.

Our government remains steadfast in providing the tools required by municipalities to build more homes in our ever-growing province. And with this legislation, if passed, they will be able to do so, all while respecting Ontario’s historic green space.

Finally, our government remains open to further feedback on the proposed amendments, as evidenced by our postings on the Environmental Registry of Ontario and the Regulatory Registry.

The Greenbelt Statute Law Amendment Act, 2023, is another step in allowing us to continue to build a more affordable and sustainable Ontario.

Speaker, I’ve been working with the Premier now for five years, and once in a while, the Premier is not afraid to take a step back, to change direction and even to apologize when we make a mistake. I think that’s one of the most gratifying things about having the opportunity to work with this government. Yet so often, you will see governments and even Prime Ministers change direction, but they don’t apologize.

I remember looking at my wife once and saying, “Why do you put up with me?” Please, no one say anything—and she said, “Because when you apologize, I can tell that you mean it.” And I think that’s also true of our Premier: He can look into the eyes of the camera, into the eyes of 15 million Ontarians, apologize and mean it, change direction and do what’s right for the people of Ontario.

And with those remarks, I will close.

Next question?

I’m going to change the dial as well. I think I heard the member from Sudbury say that they support the bill. We’ve heard the Leader of the Opposition as well as the housing critic say that they share our goal of increasing supply and building the homes that we need by 2031. So I’m going to dial back to a time when the member from St. Paul’s said building more homes may not necessarily be the answer. Now, the member from her party is saying that building more homes is the right answer but that the taxpayers should pay a minimum of $150 billion to build a maximum of 25,000 homes a year. So my question to the opposition is, what’s their plan to build 1.5 million new homes by 2031, and how much will it cost the taxpayers?

The member for Flamborough–Glanbrook.

Thank you, and good afternoon, Madam Speaker. I’m proud to rise for the second reading of our government’s proposed Greenbelt Statute Law Amendment Act, 2023.

Thank you to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Associate Minister of Housing, and the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for all your hard work on this legislation.

As stated by my colleagues, our government is introducing legislation to restore all 15 areas of land that were removed or redesignated from the greenbelt and the Oak Ridges moraine at the end of last year. The restoration of these 15 parcels of land is important to constituents across the 10 local municipalities of Vaughan, King, Richmond Hill, Whitchurch-Stouffville, Markham, Pickering, Ajax, Clarington, Grimsby and my hometown of Hamilton.

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this time to reiterate the important pieces of this proposed legislation that would, if passed, benefit all Ontarians. Not only would this legislation keep the 9,400 acres that were added to the greenbelt in 2022, but the Greenbelt Statute Law Amendment Act, 2023, would enhance existing protections to greenbelt land. These protections would ensure that any future changes to the boundaries of the greenbelt can only be made through an open, public and transparent process that would require approval from this House.

The requirement of a review every 10 years, along with an enhanced review process, will result in any changes to the greenbelt to be based on the decisions of the people of Ontario. The review will be led by impartial, non-partisan experts in conservation, agriculture and environmentalism and will also include engagement with Indigenous communities and municipalities. Once final, these experts’ recommendations will be provided to the Auditor General and the Commissioner of the Environment for consultation to ensure the process was indeed fair.

If this legislation is passed, the greenbelt will be larger and better-protected than it has ever been. The act would restore protections previously provided by the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Act, 2005, recognizing the importance of this agricultural land and ensuring its sustainable use for generations to come.

Madam Speaker, this Greenbelt Statute Law Amendment Act follows through on our government’s commitment to fully restore these lands and to provide enhanced protections to the greenbelt moving forward. Our government is following through on ensuring that any future changes to the greenbelt boundaries can be made only through the open, public and transparent legislative progress. Our government also remains focused on following through with confronting the housing crisis by building at least 1.5 million new homes by 2031.

Relating to the proposals that I’ve already outlined, the legislation would also include measures to strengthen the province’s immunity from landowners attempting to seek damages based on government actions related to the greenbelt. The intent of these measures is there should be absolutely no impact to taxpayers for restoring these parcels of land to the greenbelt, regardless of what has been said or what has been done by government officials.

Madam Speaker, in the past 10 years, house prices in Ontario have almost tripled. Home ownership has become beyond reach for many first-time buyers. Recognizing this crisis, our government has adopted one of our clear mandates as building more homes for the province. As the member for Perth–Wellington stated, our government developed a Housing Affordability Task Force compromised of industry leaders and experts. The task force consulted with municipalities, with industry and with the public to identify measures to address the housing supply crisis and to get homes built faster.

The Housing Affordability Task Force published its report in February 2022. Overall, the report sets out 74 recommendations. Madam Speaker, of this number, 23 are fully implemented, 14 are in progress and the remaining 37 are under review. The first recommendation, to set a goal of building at least 1.5 million new homes over the next 10 years, has been adopted by our government as the core of our housing strategy. All of our housing initiatives, Madam Speaker, such as introducing legislation and re-examining processes, are focused around this goal of 1.5 million new homes.

Since we were elected in 2018, our government has made this mandate of building more homes a top priority and put forward numerous measures to increase the housing supply, as my colleague the member for Elgin–Middlesex–London discussed earlier. Madam Speaker, we have encouraged increased density through Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act. We introduced measures that encourage the creation of up to three units on most urban residential lots, enabling additional housing options on lots where neighbourhoods already exist without lengthy planning approvals and development charges. We have worked with municipalities to remove red tape and to speed up the process. This is reflected in 2021 and 2022, as those years saw the most housing starts in over 30 years, with close to 100,000 homes built each and every year. We have announced the expansion of strong-mayor powers to heads of council who have committed to housing targets provided by the province.

We are also proposing to revise the definition of “affordable residential units” through Bill 134, the Affordable Homes and Good Jobs Act, to reduce the cost of building much-needed affordable units. The proposed changes would affect the collection of municipal development-related charges related to affordable housing. Madam Speaker, a revised definition of “affordable residential units,” taking into account local incomes and local market factors, would determine which residential units should be eligible for municipal development-related charge discounts and exemptions. Both rental and ownership properties that meet this new “affordable residential unit” definition would be eligible for discounts and exemptions from municipal development-related fees

We are also further incentivizing municipalities to build more housing through our housing targets and the new Building Faster Fund. This three-year, $1.2-billion fund will provide up to $400 million per year to municipalities that meet or exceed their annual housing targets. The fund can be accessed by the 50 municipalities who have been assigned a housing target, and a portion of the funding will also be reserved for small, rural and northern communities not yet assigned a target.

Madam Speaker, this legislation, if passed, would help combat the current housing crisis by allowing and encouraging more homes to be built right across the province. We are following through on our commitment to build 1.5 million new homes through increased density on urban residential lots, the removal of red tape throughout the building process, revising the definition of “affordable homes” and providing discounts and exemptions to homes that meet this new definition. This legislation would also restore and provide enhanced protections to the 9,400 acres of greenbelt land moving forward.

Madam Speaker, we’re following through on our commitment that any future changes to the boundaries can only be made through an open, public and transparent process. Our government remains steadfast in reaching our goal of 1.5 million new homes by 2031. We cannot ignore that we are in the middle of a housing supply crisis. Decades of inaction, burdensome red tape and NIMBYism created Ontario’s housing supply crisis, and we are seeing its effects. Too many people in Ontario are struggling to find an affordable home. Too many Ontarians have been priced out of the housing market, through no fault of their own. Our government is fighting back, and we will continue to fight for Ontarians. We’re going to do that by working together under Premier Ford’s leadership, by working together with municipalities and by updating processes that get housing built faster.

Since the beginning of our mandate, we have put forward numerous measures that help increase the supply of housing. We’ve done this by:

—encouraging increased density through Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act;

—working with municipalities to remove red tape and to eliminate duplication in the planning process;

—announcing the expansion of strong mayor’s powers to heads of council who have committed to the housing targets provided by the province;

—proposing to revise the definition of “affordable residential units”; and

—further incentivizing municipalities to build more housing with housing targets and the new Building Faster Fund.

These are just a few of the many measures we have taken to build new homes and to prepare for the growth that we know is coming.

Thank you to the member from Thunder Bay–Superior North for the question. I think one of the things we have to talk about is the carbon tax. Has there ever been one piece of legislation in this country that has done more to raise the cost of life, of living, of building, of eating, of heating, of purchasing clothes? Nothing has driven up the price, the cost of living more than the dreaded carbon tax. For years, this opposition party and its federal counterpart have supported the carbon tax, and we just saw today from the Bank of Canada, that it is an almost 18% increase in the cost of inflation due to the dreaded carbon tax. You ask me how could we build more affordable homes, how could we make life more affordable? We could ask you to join us in convincing the federal government to finally shed the carbon tax.

My question is for the member from Brantford–Brant. Earlier, the member from Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas spoke about housing being stagnant. I believe that’s the word she used, “stagnant.” To that end, the member has voted against every initiative that this government has put forward to build new housing.

I’m wondering, can the member clarify for this House the accurate state of housing starts that this government has achieved?