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?

The public at large is very confused as to why this government, number one, is not answering questions in the Legislature directly when it comes to the greenbelt that our leader has been asking. Today, a reporter, Jeff Gray from the Globe and Mail, asked the Premier, “Why was your staff running around so concerned about those lands which are owned by a man identified as your friend, or co-owned by, Shakir Rehmatullah?”

This is the Premier’s answer; this is why people are confused why he won’t answer real questions. He said, “I had a great meeting, by the way, with Mayor Chow. What a wonderful person she is.” This is not respectful; this is not transparent.

So I want to know, if all these facts weren’t uncovered by the Integrity Commissioner and the Auditor General and now an RCMP investigation, would this bill be before us, or was the government just going to tear up the greenbelt regardless if facts weren’t uncovered by the—

This question is for the member for Brantford–Brant. As this member can understand, the previous government, propped up by the NDP, built a very strung structure which is called a structural deficit. For this bill, we are talking about building more homes for Ontarians. Can the member let us know how this bill can reverse the course of the previous government, propped up by the NDP?

We’re going to move to questions.

To respond, the member for Brantford–Brant.

I appreciate the question from the member. And it’s true, Madam Speaker: We’re going to have to find another place to put those 50,000 homes that were going to go into the greenbelt now. I think that’s a reality that we all have to face and our communities all have to face too. Sometimes I wonder about this megacity that we will be constructing around the GTHA and how that will connect through the greenbelt lands that will be protected, but we are absolutely committed, both to environmental protection and to building homes for everyone.

We’ve heard suggestions about how government should just build everything. There was a Conservative Premier who tried that once, and I think that proved the fact, when Bill Davis tried that experiment, that government-built social housing just doesn’t work.

And I heard the mayor of Toronto asking for $550,000 per dwelling unit in order to build social housing in Toronto when I have people who could do that for $250,000 locally in the private sector.

And what’s interesting—and I’m sure the members in the opposition can check their own email inboxes, but I can tell you that no one in Brantford and Brant is talking about the greenbelt. What they’re talking about is affordability. What they’re talking about is getting rid of the carbon tax. What they’re talking about is decreasing interest rates on their homes so that they can afford to stay in our community. They want to be able to buy cheaper food. I know the NDP doesn’t understand any of those things, because they think that the government should take care of you from the cradle to the grave, but the people in my riding want the opposition to speak to Jagmeet Singh and ask him to remove HST.

Interjection.

Next question?

We’re going to move to further debate.

PressProgress.

It’s always an honour to speak in the House and, actually, it’s always a pleasure to listen to debate in the House. I actually enjoy that. Today, the bill we’re debating is 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—Bill 136.

Speaker, I hope I have your indulgence before I start my debate—something big and bad happened in my riding yesterday, and I’d just like to take a minute to talk about it. It might not seem like a big thing to everyone, but to us, it is. Yesterday, Gay Lea Foods announced the closure of Thornloe Cheese by putting a notice on the door.

Now, Thornloe Cheese is emblematic for our riding. We saved it once from Parmalat, and we kept the quota and transferred it to northerners, and then that’s how Gay Lea ended up getting it. It’s one of the biggest issues we have faced, and just putting Gay Lea on notice that we’re going to fight for that quota again. Because Gencor, the company that had it before, and Gay Lea did a great job at marketing the cheese and showing what northern Ontario is capable of, and we’re not just going to wave goodbye. Just putting Gay Lea on notice. We want to work with them, whether it’s with them or with another cheesemaker, but we’re not letting Thornloe go easily or at all.

I see some nods, and I really appreciate that support. It’s amazing. I don’t know how many shares I’ve had when I put out the press release. Gay Lea didn’t even put out a press release, and we were just shocked. And I’m a Gay Lea member. I’m a shareholder in Gay Lea, and I strongly support Gay Lea all the time because they’re a co-operative, and co-operatives are supposed to be more cognizant of the community. Well, they weren’t cognizant of our community, and we’re going to fight back.

Interjection: Good job.

The bill is Bill 136. I’ve been in the Legislature for a while, and it used to be that when we’d report articles—we use articles, newspaper articles, to prove our point, right? And the Liberals, when they were in government, would use the Star, and the Conservatives: “Oh, the Star is so Liberal,” and the Conservatives would use the Sun, and it would be, “Oh, the Sun is so Conservative.” And—well, we don’t actually have a paper in the NDP, but—

But anyway, and then social media came along, and now we’ve got this—you know that nobody trusts mainstream media, and that’s a big problem, because media play an important role. But it’s hard. It’s hard now to find a media source that everyone agrees with on an issue. But I think I found one that everyone will agree with or disagree with equally.

I think I’m going to quote the Beaverton, date line, September 25—I don’t have the date right. Date line, September: “PC government introduces legislation to protect greenbelt from ... PC governments.” I think that’s about the best description that we could have of this bill. We’re supportive of the bill, but come on; let’s just go back a little bit. I listened to the other speakers. So, we have, in 2018, the Premier promising developers to open up the greenbelt. And then, oh, not opening up the greenbelt, and then, oh, opening up the greenbelt, and now locking the door, supposedly. Really. And it truly is the PC government protecting the greenbelt from the PC government or from the friends of the PC government. That is what’s really happening here.

So this government often talks about red tape, and do you know what? There is red tape in Ontario, and we should all look at where we can save red tape, but red tape is all through regulation. It keeps people safe, it makes sure that everybody abides by the rules, but what happened with the greenbelt is red tape got replaced by the brown paper envelope—it did—and the brown paper envelope isn’t good for society overall; it isn’t, and you all know it.

And I say this often, because people know that I am—I’m going to get myself in trouble here; it won’t be the first time. I’m on the right of the left. People must be so disappointed, especially in rural Ontario, who voted for Conservatives all these years and now have a Conservative government and thought that they would be listened to. And now, all of a sudden, many of the rural members—the members as well must be so disappointed, because—

Now, let’s be upfront: My speech today—

Interjection.

What I find most interesting about today’s debate is that a lot of the points of the debate about why you’re putting forward this act are the same points that we put forward while you were trying to carve up the greenbelt: save farmland, how important the farmland was, how important it is—all those points are the same points.

Now I remember what I wanted to say. My speech isn’t going to really change what’s going to happen. Let’s be clear. The government has got far bigger problems than what I am saying—far, far bigger problems. Before this government, I didn’t even know there was such a thing as a special prosecutor. I didn’t know the RCMP had a special unit to investigate possible threats to democracy. I didn’t know such a thing, but they are, and those 7,000 pages and who knows what else is coming up, Speaker. It’s not my speech that’s going to cause the members of this government the problem; it’s those investigations.

Now, the Premier said he was sorry. You know what? I’m willing to accept that. I just don’t know what he’s sorry for. Sorry for promising it the first time, then backing away? Promising it the second time, then getting caught and backing away? The government House leader says the public didn’t like it—100%. Neither did the Auditor General, how it was done, or the Integrity Commissioner, how it was done. Many of the things that members are talking about today on how it’s going to be done are how it should have been done in the first place—should have been done in the first place. And that is a huge problem because what Ontarians are still wondering is, has the government actually changed course, or just changed course where they’re getting caught? That’s the question. And it’s a very, very serious question because it’s two different things, changing course because you believe it or changing course because it just got too treacherous. That’s a world apart.

The government House leader, who I respect—I actually enjoy his company some days—said that there was too much political interference when he took over the file. So, how many of you were involved in that political interference? Or was it just the Premier involved? And how many of you are going to take the fall for that political interference? You can laugh at me, and some of you motion that I should go to the other side. I’m the happy person on the right because I know for sure I wasn’t at any of those meetings. I know for sure I wasn’t briefed on any of the things that happened. I know for sure. How many of you do? And that is a serious issue because it’s going to follow you. It’s going to follow you. I know many of you personally. I respect you all. Many of you didn’t sign up for this. Many of you didn’t.

So, we are going to support this bill, but has the government truly changed? Or just changed because you got caught? And if you will remember—some of you may remember—actually, I hope you don’t, because it wasn’t my greatest moment in this House. But when this government was first elected and you were so—oh, I get it, you were you elected and you were going to do things differently, all the “For the people” signs. I remember your first throne speech. I came in and there was a brass band here. I think brass, or was it—I’m not a musician. But there was a band up there and they were playing the theme song from the Game of Thrones.

Interjection.

It’s always fun to debate my colleagues from the city of Hamilton, but we clearly don’t support a carbon tax. We clearly do not support a carbon tax and, clearly, you do not support the carbon tax either. The member prior from Thunder Bay–Superior North also suggested we need to find ways to make life more affordable. It’s staring us in the face. We could get rid of the carbon tax today if you would join us lobbying the federal government, join us lobbying your federal counterpart and actually do something that will have a tangible impact on the people of this province.

People in Ontario cannot afford groceries. They cannot afford to buy clothing. They cannot afford to fill up their car. They can’t because of an unnecessary carbon tax you continue to support. Join us and let’s—

Yes, we’re taking 7,000 pages from you. We’ll find out what you’re up to.

Thank you for your alternative facts, but here’s a fact: The province—you guys, not the federal government—charges a carbon tax. You charge a carbon tax on grain, oilseed mills, sugar manufacturers, fruit and vegetable processors and mill processors. It’s the province’s responsibility for the carbon tax and, in fact, your emissions performance standards that you collect currently is going to earn about $2.5 billion. It’s in your financial statements. What are you doing with the $2.5 billion in the Ford carbon tax that exists in Ontario? What are you doing with that to help people ease their bills, to help people put a roof over their head? It’s your tax. What are you doing about it?

Oh, I remember that distinctly, because I walked in here and I was looking for the arrow slits, because I thought maybe you’d made some other changes. And I remember distinctly thinking about that. I can’t remember what bill we were talking about, but it has to do with this bill—that this government, that government at the time, and I think still that the government—I was wondering if that was going to be their theme song, from the Game of Thrones. You know how our government had its theme song? And no, it wasn’t, because this government is too big for a theme song. It needed a theme band; it really needed a theme band. I still hold that. And I have some lyrics from the same band that I suggested should be the government’s theme band, and I’m going to read them into the record. It’s a great song. Some of you may remember this: 1980.

Interjection.

Too bad that you had to get caught,

That’s not like you to lose face.

So sad that you’re not as smart

As you thought you were in the first place.

Baby, I could use some of your persuasion ...

To wipe away ( ... wipe away)

the taste of your machinations....

It’s over,

Kaput except for the tail spin....

Save the dialogue ...

for the old men in the pool room....

Try it once, well I’m not so sure,

Try it twice and you’re by my door....

So sad that you’re not as smart

As you thought you were in the first place.

Too bad, too bad, so sad:

Too bad that you had to get caught,

That’s not like you to lose face.

So sad that you’re not as smart,

As you thought you were in the first place.

The money, no more than insulation.

(Too bad, insulation, too bad, insulation)

And this is a great line:

The getaway, (get get a-get a-get a-get away)

I watched with fascination....

The hideaway, Woooo! such imagination.

(Too bad, imagination, too bad, imagination) ...

I used it with no hesitation

This is a very serious issue; the song, maybe not so much. Doug and the Slugs—very appropriate. May Doug rest in peace—and I mean the real Doug, the singer.

But at this point, you’ve got an RCMP investigation—

Interjection: A special prosecutor.

Your issue isn’t the next election. That’s quite a ways away. Your issue is who’s going to take the fall, because there’s going to be a fall. There have been a few falls already, but there’s going to be bigger ones; there’s going to be bigger ones. Who do you want to take the fall for? And the question is, are they going to take a fall for you? I think that’s a very serious question that the members of the Conservative government have to ask themselves. It’s great, the all for one and the one for all, but who’s going to take the fall for you—for you, or for whoever is directing you? That’s a really important question.

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the member’s—he doesn’t have a great singing voice, but I appreciated the poetry, John, you brought in the House this afternoon.

I was just curious—it’s wonderful to hear that the opposition is ready to support us, and I heard it inferred from the previous member that they also feel that the carbon tax is inappropriate as a cost driver for the families of Ontario, so they’re coming around. It took them five years to get to agreeing with us that we need a million and a half homes in the province of Ontario, and I just want to clarify that. I understand that the NDP is supporting this piece of legislation. Does the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane truly support the fact that we need a million and a half homes in the province of Ontario?

I know there are private sector companies that will build tiny homes for around $250,000 a unit, fully furnished and delivered and built on-site. I’m just wondering, since we’re talking about housing, how the member feels about the government taking control of all housing construction in the city of Toronto and the implications that will have to the taxpayer—the money they will have to tax them—in order to make that happen?

Comments through the Chair, please.

And I hope tonight and the next few nights they actually spend some time thinking about it, because the RCMP usually do get their man or men or people or persons. Saying sorry and fixing this issue doesn’t make it go away; it doesn’t.

Thank you very much for your indulgence, Speaker.

When you created the housing task force, we were encouraged that maybe you would actually follow the recommendations. Our question is, why didn’t you? We all want housing to be built. Why didn’t you follow the recommendations of your own task force?

You know what? I can’t directly answer that question, but boy, actions speak louder than words. And each time, with the RCMP, the Auditor General, the Integrity Commissioner, then they start backing up. I think that speaks for itself.

The private sector builds houses. We’re not opposed to that. There are segments of the housing stock that the private sector is not going to build by itself. I’m a private sector person. Private sector builders need to make a profit and there are certain types of housing stock that they can’t make a profit at. With that type of housing stock, the government needs to help because with social housing, starter housing and all those things, a lot of them aren’t going to get built unless the government gets involved.

Should the government take over housing construction? No. But does it need to be involved? Absolutely.

Now they’re trying to slam the cookie jar shut and say, “Oh, oh, that won’t happen again. And all the other things that we’re doing? Oh, no, we’re not doing anything like that with the way the rest of the government runs.” Quite frankly, I think Ontarians don’t believe that anymore. They don’t.

When the Premier held his press conference this morning, his answers were so off the wall, it wasn’t even evasive; it was just from another planet. People don’t buy that anymore.

As this debate is happening, in the 2018 election that I won, I’ll never forget a conversation I had with a guy who described himself as a partisan Conservative. He voted Conservative his entire life, and during that campaign when the Premier started talking about opening up the greenbelt, he got off. He said, “I’m no longer part of it.”

I know that the Premier walked it back at the time he was running for Premier, and this guy said to me, “You know what? Now that he’s said it, I believe it’s going to come back. I don’t think he’s going to give up on it.” We saw that happen in the last session. We talked about it, then you didn’t do it and then, all of a sudden, he did. Now he’s retracting.

A question was asked—well, actually this is something where the member was going when he said, “What made the Premier stop? What made them change course?”

My question is, do you believe, outside of all the negative attention—and I don’t mean just from rank-and-file people questioning it. Do you think they would have eventually realized this was a bad course and changed the decision, or did they have to be brought there kicking and screaming?