Phenomenal?

It’s a real honour to participate in the debate on Bill 136, the protect the greenbelt from the Premier act—oh, I mean, the Greenbelt Statute Law Amendment Act, or, as the previous member said, the protect the greenbelt from the Progressive Conservative Party act.

I think there are many ways we could name this bill, but the one thing that is clear is the people of Ontario are outraged. They are outraged and in the midst of a housing crisis. Instead of having a government focused on building homes that ordinary people can afford in the communities they want to live in and on the land already approved for development, the government prioritized land grabs so a handful of wealthy well-connected government insiders could cash in at a minimum $8.3 billion in windfall profits.

I just want to say to the people of Ontario, thank you for saying no. Thank you for standing up, farmers, citizens, community organizations, environmental groups, local city councillors—standing up and saying no to opening the greenbelt for development. This is what people power looks like, Speaker.

I want to say thank you to the journalists who investigated, investigated, investigated and learned about the massages in Vegas and all the other shady practices that were happening around this. By the way, I said earlier today at a protest on Ontario Place that if the Premier wants a fancy massage, he shouldn’t go to Ontario Place; he should go to Vegas—because we should be protecting Ontario Place too.

I also want to say thank you to the officers of the Legislature—the Integrity Commissioner, the Auditor General—who provided the guardrails of democracy to protect from the corrupt process that led to this decision.

And thank you to the RCMP for agreeing to investigate this, because the people of Ontario deserve honest answers to how a government could waste so much time, money and effort not building homes but creating a process that led to $8.3 billion in windfall profits for wealthy well-connected elites.

The Premier said he was sorry for breaking his promise, and that’s what has brought us Bill 136. But I ask, is he sorry that he got caught breaking his promise? Is he sorry that the well-connected wealthy insiders who are his friends are not going to be able to cash in $8.3 billion now? Is he sorry that he broke his promise? Or is he sorry that the government has failed to actually focus on building houses?

I can tell you that in the months leading up to Bill 136, the Premier compared the greenbelt to Communist China and North Korea. He repeatedly, over and over again, attacked the integrity of the greenbelt. He said it was drawn up with crayons. He called it a scam. So Speaker, does he really want to protect the greenbelt? Because I can tell you, the only scam was the suggestion that the greenbelt lands were needed to address the housing affordability crisis.

We’ve had the government’s own Housing Affordability Task Force, we’ve had planners, we’ve had professional planners, we’ve had the Auditor General all say that we already have enough land approved for development in Ontario to not only build the 1.5 million homes we all want to build, but to build two million homes. So why aren’t we focused on actually building those homes?

While we’re looking at Bill 136, let’s take a moment to think about why these greenbelt lands are so important, because I think in the course of the debate around the corrupt process that led to this decision, we’ve actually forgotten why these lands were so important. First of all, the greenbelt was designed through a collaborative process led by experts, professional planners, hydrogeologists, farmers, scientists, academics and community leaders. A whole host of folks looked at how we can protect the Niagara Escarpment, a UNESCO heritage site; the Oak Ridges moraine, which is critically important to filtering the drinking water for the entire greater Toronto area; and some of the best farmland in all of North America, particularly the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve.

The forests and wetlands of the greenbelt are vital to protecting us from the climate-fuelled extreme weather events we’re facing right now. As a matter of fact, it provides billions of dollars of ecosystem services free of charge each and every year. It provides employment for economic activity of well over $3 billion each and every year. The extreme weather events it protects us from are things like the $3.1 billion of insured damages that Canadians faced last year because of the climate crisis, and according to the IBC, that’s likely three times as much when you look at uninsured assets. They protect us from the $26.2 billion that the Financial Accountability Officer has said we’re going to have to pay to protect public infrastructure in the next seven years this decade alone because of the climate crisis.

They also protect, particularly in the DRAP, some of the best farmland in all of North America. That farmland is vital to our food security at a time when global events, conflict, supply chain disruptions and climate-fuelled weather are creating spikes in food prices around the world. If there was ever a time that we needed to protect our local food supply, our local food supply chains and our farmland, now is that time—the very farmland that is the asset base that contributes $50 billion to Ontario’s food and farming economy, employing over 800,000 people in this province.

That’s what people are wanting protected. That’s why these greenbelt lands are so valuable, and it’s why it’s so valuable that we also push back against greenbelt 2.0—the abuse and misuse of ministerial zoning orders, the enforced boundary expansions—because we simply cannot continue to lose 319 acres of farmland each and every day. That threatens our food security and it threatens our food and farming economy.

This sprawl agenda that led to the desire to open the greenbelt for development and require municipalities to increase their boundaries also makes the housing crisis worse. We have great, good documentation showing that the cost of sprawl development is 2.5 times higher than actually building homes within existing urban boundaries. Why, Speaker? The cost of water lines, sewer lines, hydro lines, transit lines, roads, libraries, parks, schools—all of that is incredibly expensive.

As a matter of fact, the city of Ottawa conducted a study that showed that when you build through sprawl, it costs each taxpayer in the city an additional $465 per person per year, but when you build within existing urban boundaries, gentle density, missing middle, you save $606 per person per house per year. That’s $1,000-per-person-per-year difference. We simply cannot, on a financial and economic basis, afford the government’s sprawl agenda.

That’s exactly why we not only need to protect the greenbelt, but we need to be looking at things like creating a food belt to protect prime farmland, and it’s also why we need housing policy that’s going to build homes within existing urban boundaries. That’s exactly why I’ve put forward bills like Bill 44 and Bill 45 that would make it legal to build multiplexes and four-storey walk-up apartments; that would make it legal—remove all the red tape—to build six-to-11-storey apartment buildings along major transportation corridors, so we can increase housing supply in the most affordable way, that protects our farmland, protects our wetlands, protects our green spaces.

It’s also why I’ve put forward bills that truly protect the greenbelt, that close some of the loopholes that the previous Liberal government left in the greenbelt, like my Bill 111, No More Pits or Quarries in the Greenbelt Act, so we can say no to the Caledon mega quarry that would blast a hole on hundreds of acres of farmland; like my Bill 110, No More Highways in the Greenbelt Act, so we can say no to the super-sprawl 413 that would pave over 2,000 acres of farmland, 400 acres of the greenbelt, traverse 85 wetlands and threaten 100 waterways within the province. If we’re truly going to protect the greenbelt, then those provisions should be in Bill 136, Speaker.

In addition to increasing market supply—and I’ve put forward a number of solutions around increasing market supply, including the two bills I’ve talked about. Also, I’m going to continue to push this government to replace the $5.1 billion they’ve taken away from municipalities, money that’s required to build the servicing so we can actually build 1.5 million homes, so people can turn the water on, flush the toilet and have the services they need. We’re also going to need non-market supply as well, Speaker.

We’re also going to need a government that’s going to step up and support non-profit co-ops and supportive housing spaces in this province. Some 93% of the deeply affordable homes in Ontario were built before 1995. What happened in 1995? The provincial and federal governments got out of housing. We need government to be a partner with the non-profit and co-op sector again.

Finally, Speaker, we’re going to have to take action to get speculation out of the housing market. I mean, we saw a government try to benefit speculators by opening the greenbelt for development. We need to get speculators out of the housing market, Speaker. Nearly one third of Ontario’s housing wealth is owned by speculators. Speculators are driving first-time homebuyers out of the marketplace, which is why we need things like multi-residential speculation taxes, vacant home taxes and other measures to protect first-time homebuyers in the province—

I want to thank, as always, the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane for his phenomenal comments. I really enjoy—

So I’d love to get your take on this, to the member opposite: The member for Rosedale mentioned with respect to the Housing Affordability Task Force that “Doug Ford’s own Housing Affordability Task Force fails to address or provide recommendations to make rent more affordable for everyday Ontarians.” Given that, and given your reference to it in your comments about being reliant on the recommendations from this task force, which of the other task force recommendations would you support?

That’s actually a really good question, and I appreciate your listening. I don’t have the task force right in front of me—I support the task force’s recommendation that, actually, shortage of land isn’t the main barrier to building more housing in Ontario, despite what the government says. I very much support that. And this bill proves it, because if shortage of land was it, then you’re definitely not going to be able to reach your targets.

Is the task force perfect? I don’t think so, but they provided some very good recommendations, and one of the biggest ones, you chose to ignore.

The next question.

I appreciate the member from Brantford–Brant’s question. When you lose 319 acres of farmland every day, it’s to multiple types of development. It’s to highways; it’s to commercial development; it’s to business development; it’s to housing development; it’s to quarries. Like, there’s a whole host of ways in which farmland is being taken out of production.

If you look at the Ontario Farmland Trust based out of the University of Guelph, 319 acres of farmland is being lost each and every day in this province. That’s equivalent to the size of the city of Toronto. That’s exactly why we need the kinds of solutions I’m calling for, for gentle density and missing-middle housing, along with smart single-family housing development to ensure that we build homes in a way that’s smart, that protects farmland.

Interjection: It’s 319.

I want to go back to the reporting that happened, the interview that happened today. Rob Ferguson from the Toronto Star is asking the Premier, “Just wanted to follow up on Jeff Gray’s question from the Globe. He was asking about a property, I think it was up in Nobleton, and then you said you weren’t aware of it being removed and then you said no, you didn’t do it. So those are kind of like two different answers.”

Here’s what the Premier answered: “Just a message to everyone out there tonight, drive carefully, drive slowly. The kids are going to be out there, trick or treating and having a lot of fun, and we’ll be out there. I was thinking, I’m going to dress up as a media person tonight. I don’t know if it’s Colin D’Mello or who, but maybe I’m just going to dress up as my buddy Colin.”

These are non-consequential answers. Does the member believe that the Ford government is taking the serious greenbelt criminal investigation seriously, or do we expect this kind of nonconsequential answers during an investigation under the RCMP on the greenbelt?

Thank you.

We’re going to go to questions, and the member for Brantford–Brant is very eager to ask the first question.

Thank you. You’re done with the time for your answer.

Next question.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Report continues in volume B.

Speaking of Highway 413, a $10-billion highway through the greenbelt, my question to the member is, you’ve spoken against this and you said it’s going to be an ecological and financial disaster. I agree. It was under the federal Impact Assessment Act. We have the Attorney General that is now going to court to get a judicial review on the opinion of the Supreme Court, even though had no problem with the federal impact assessment already under way.

We also heard the Attorney General was curious about my Highway 407 bills, but Highway 413 runs parallel to 407. Why do we need this highway when people have already paid for the 407 and we can just take the tolls and save the greenbelt, save farmland, save our wetlands?

Thank you, Speaker. Through you to the member from Guelph, you know, I really appreciate your comments. Coming from my municipal background—I served for eight years in the Tecumseh committee of adjustment, which was really finding minor variances when the planning law didn’t really match the situation at hand. I think there was a reasonable argument that there were some lands within the greenbelt that, when you look at them, development on four sides just with one undeveloped parcel in between, that would be reasonable to allow that remaining parcel to become developed.

I’m wondering if you would share that perspective that there could be lands within the greenbelt that are suitable for development, particularly when they’re already serviced.

Ça me fait tout le temps plaisir de parler en Chambre et surtout d’un projet de loi qui est assez intéressant, il faut le dire : la 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.

Ce qu’il y a d’intéressant avec ce projet de loi, c’est que c’est pour protéger la population de l’Ontario contre son propre gouvernement—contre son propre gouvernement. Alors, vraiment, il passe un projet de loi—c’est ça ce qui est ironique là-dedans. C’est assez ironique—merci, là. Ce gouvernement passe un projet de loi pour se protéger contre eux autres. Après ça, on se demande pourquoi le monde est cynique quand ça vient envers les politiciens.

Je ne suis pas sûr, si on traiterait avec un projet de loi de même, s’ils ne s’étaient pas fait pogner—comme ils disent en bon français—avec les deux culottes à terre. Je ne suis pas sûr si le gouvernement de l’Ontario serait—on traiterait d’un projet de loi de même quand on voit toute la corruption qui s’est faite en province.

Quand qu’on voit que, à plusieurs reprises, le premier ministre—je pense que même mon collègue de Timiskaming l’a dit deux fois. Il a dit qu’il ne toucherait pas à la ceinture de verdure. « On ne touchera pas à la ceinture de verdure. » Une fois qu’ils sont élus, qu’est-ce qu’ils font? Ils touchent la ceinture de verdure. Après ça, une autre élection après—puis si on se souvient, en 2018, c’est ça qu’ils disaient. Là, on arrive en 2022, et le même gouvernement dit : « Non, non, on ne touchera pas à la ceinture de verdure. » Devinez ce qu’ils ont fait. On a touché à la ceinture de verdure. Puis, après ça, qu’est-ce qui est arrivé? On sait ce qui se passe, comme c’est là.

C’est un gouvernement qui se fait poursuivre. Il y a une investigation criminelle contre un gouvernement—écoute, comment je te dirais ça? On ne voit pas ça. C’est un précédent—

Puis on entend ce gouvernement dire : « Oh, vous votez contre tout. Le NPD, ce côté de la Chambre, vous votez contre tout. » Bien, je vais vous dire de quoi : je suis content d’avoir voté contre, parce que si on avait voté pour, imagine-toi ce qu’ils nous diraient aujourd’hui : « Bien, vous avez à chialer—vous avez voté pour. » C’est ça qu’ils nous diraient.

Pourquoi on a voté contre? Ce n’est pas dur à savoir. Pourquoi? C’étaient exactement les mêmes craintes qu’on voit, comme c’est là. Parce que si vous nous aviez écoutés, si vous aviez pris le temps d’écouter—parce qu’on vous a fait des recommandations. Chaque projet de loi, on amène des recommandations, parce que dans chaque projet de loi, il faut le dire, il y a de bonnes choses, mais des fois il y a des pilules empoisonnées. Quand on parlait des projets de loi qu’on voyait sur la ceinture de verdure, on se posait des questions, parce qu’il y avait des choses qui ne faisaient pas de sens.

Puis là, aujourd’hui, le projet de loi 136—ils disent la même affaire qu’on disait. Ils prennent nos paroles et les mettent pour dire : « On est obligé de faire ça parce que c’est la ceinture de verdure. Ce sont les meilleures terres agricoles au monde. On doit faire tout pour protéger ça. » Mais c’est ça qu’on disait quand on passait et qu’on a voté contre, pour dire : « Écoute, qu’est ce que vous faites là? »

Leur propre comité recommandait de ne pas—pas besoin de toucher à la ceinture de verdure. Il y a du terrain en masse. Il y a en masse de place pour bâtir des maisons ou des foyers pour les personnes. Mais on sait, par exemple, que—quand on dit “location, location, location”—on le savait que, quand ils bâtiraient dans la ceinture de verdure, l’argent était là et leurs amis en ont profité. On sait aussi, aujourd’hui, c’est pour ça qu’ils font face à une investigation criminelle, parce qu’il y a du monde connecté au premier ministre directement—qui ont été aux noces—qui ont bénéficié de tout ça.

C’est quoi le numéro, 18? Dix-huit—

Now that has moved up to 319 acres, for a whole variety of uses. I mean, Highway 413 alone, if they build it, that’s going to be 2,000 acres right there. Right there, that one highway alone is going to be 2,000 acres. I can’t argue with census data. I cannot argue with census data. The census data clearly shows we are losing 319 acres a day to all forms of development: business development, commercial development, highway development. There is a whole host of reasons. So I would suggest to the member—

So if the government was fiscally conservative, if we had a fiscally responsible government, they would pay for truck tolls on the 407. According to Transport Action Ontario, you could pay for truck tolls on the 407 for 30 years and not even get to half the cost of what it would take to construct the 413. So why not go with the fiscally responsible approach and utilize our existing assets to their full potential?

So why don’t the government agree with me and pass Bill 44 and Bill 45 so we can quickly increase housing supply right now in an affordable, responsible way? I heard the member opposite ask another member some recommendations that they would support in the housing task force. Two of the key recommendations in the housing task force to increase housing supply was to get rid of exclusionary zoning, and get rid of the barriers to missing-middle housing. Those are what my bill accomplish, Speaker.