Pour le député : vraiment, je crois que c’est un gouvernement vraiment honteux, et tous les gens en Ontario le croient aussi.

La crise du logement est vraiment réelle. Avec ce scandale, le plus grand jamais en Ontario, nous avons perdu beaucoup de temps pour améliorer les choses pour les gens. Nous avons plein de gens—les sans-abris. L’hiver s’en vient et il y a des gens dans ma circonscription qui vivent dans des tentes maintenant.

Est-ce que vous pouvez expliquer au gouvernement ce qu’il a perdu et comment c’est un autre échec à propos de cette crise de logement?

Je suis contente de dire que partout dans notre province, nos communautés grandissent. La population de l’Ontario a augmenté de plus de 500 000 nouveaux résidents l’année dernière et a dépassé les 15 millions pour la toute première fois. Notre population devrait croître de quatre millions de personnes au cours de la prochaine année. Donc, je me demande si le député d’en face se joindra à nous pour aider à construire les maisons dont nous avons besoin, tout en protégeant la « greenbelt »?

Another lucky coincidence.

Really, another lucky coincidence.

Why are we here? Well, the Premier’s chief of staff, Amin Massoudi, no longer connected to the government—caught up in this. The Premier’s director of housing, Jae Truesdell, no longer connected to government—exiled, gone, dismissed. The Premier’s former executive assistant, Nico Fidani-Diker, also caught up in this, also implicated—gone. Then we have the Premier’s hand-picked chief of staff for the Minister of Housing, Ryan Amato—gone, jettisoned. Four people directly connected to the Premier all gone, like that. That’s why we’re here.

You know why we’re here? We’re here because all roads in this scandal lead to the Premier’s office. It’s clear. The Premier can’t even remember who he talked to—or he did talk to or he didn’t talk to and then, all of a sudden, “Yes, I did talk to him but he talked to me about that before so there was no real problem with that.” Come on, do you think we’re all stupid—myself excluded, but the rest of us? To the Premier directly: How do you expect people to believe that?

The Premier is saying that he knew nothing, but these four people who were well connected to him in the file that was one of the most important things to the Premier—because we know what the Premier likes to do; he likes development and he likes building roads, so we know he was interested in this file. Those four people are directly connected to him. They worked for him. They worked under his direction. And I would argue that the Minister of Housing was doing that, but he said, “I’ve had enough.”

I’ve worked in a Premier’s office. I’ve worked with ministers’ offices; I’ve worked in ministers’ offices. There is no way on God’s green earth that the Premier didn’t know what was going on—not possible, not believable, not for a second. And if the Premier is trying to claim that he knew nothing and he was in the same position as Minister Clark and he stuck his head in the sand, that’s fine; just do the same thing as Minister Clark did, if that’s the case. I don’t think that’s the case, and I don’t think he’s going to do it, even if it was the case.

Now we have something else going on. Why are we here? We’re here because we have an RCMP criminal investigation into the $8.3-billion backroom deal. They’re starting interviews this week. But here’s the kicker. It’s connected in this debate. Why does the Ontario taxpayer have to pay for the lawyers of the people implicated on the other side—the Premier, the minister, the staff—to cover up what went on? Why are we paying for it? Why are we paying for the Premier’s lawyers? Why? It’s a criminal investigation. It’s not a civil investigation; it’s a criminal investigation. Somebody did something wrong. That’s what people suspect. They broke the law, and now they want us to pay for their lawyers. Do you know who should pay for the lawyers? The people who benefited the most out of this $8.3-billion backroom deal and the MZOs and the urban boundaries: the Ontario PC Party. Let them pay the bill. Taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay the bill. It’s totally wrong. I think the Premier, if he was standing on this side, would say exactly the same thing, and maybe in less charitable terms. That’s why we’re here.

Hey, folks, I don’t think it’s all of you guys. I really don’t. I don’t think you knew any more than I knew. I believe that. But there are some people over there who did, and there are some other people over there who stuck their heads in the sand as the greenbelt was being carved up for purposes that were not for the people of Ontario, to the benefit of few well-connected, already-wealthy insiders who stood to make billions and billions of dollars.

I know it’s $8.3 billion for the greenbelt, but how much is the uplift for the MZOs? How much is the uplift for the urban boundaries which just got reversed by the minister this week? How many more billions of dollars are we talking about? Are we into double-digit billions of dollars: $10 billion, $15 billion, $13 billion? I don’t know. It doesn’t matter.

It’s about the way this government thinks it can do business here, the way the Premier thinks he can do business here. That’s why we’re here debating this morning.

A year and a half ago, we didn’t need this legislation. Why do we need it? Because the Premier tried to carve up the greenbelt, just like he was probably carving a pumpkin last night—probably still cleaning it up, too.

Look, I think we should protect the greenbelt, but I think members on the other side have to ask themselves the question: What’s going on inside my party? What’s happening?

I saw last week—and I’ll give another example of this. All of a sudden the government, in unwinding the urban boundaries, and maybe the MZOs soon, took the previous minister, who had already done the right thing, and he got thrown under the bus—because it’s not just him, right? What I heard was, “We’re going to back the bus over him again.” Rather than backing the bus over the previous minister, instead of doing that, why not just do the right thing? It would be a lot easier that way. I don’t think it’s fair to that minister. I don’t think you can put it all on a small group of people. That’s just preposterous.

The truth is going to come out, folks. It’s going to happen. The Mounties—what about the Mounties?

The truth’s going to come out. It eventually will, so why don’t we just get there? If you know you’re going to end up somewhere, just get there. Just get there, because for all of you it’s just going to be another story another day that you’re going to have to explain to your constituents, that you’re going to have to answer questions for—that you’re going to have to defend the indefensible.

That happens over there on the other side. I know that sometimes you’re in government and you have policies that you don’t really believe in, but you’ve got to toe the line. You’re on a team. You’re playing on a team. I understand that.

This is different. This is a criminal investigation into an $8.3-billion backroom deal that benefited a handful of people who are already billionaires, for the most part, and who, by the Premier’s own admission, are his friends and his fundraisers. Why should you have to defend that? You didn’t do it. Maybe some of you knew what was going on and you just kind of turned your head; I don’t feel as sorry for you as I do for other members who are thinking, “What the heck is going on here? How did that happen?” Why should you have to defend that? It’s not a bad policy decision. It’s an action that has ended up in a criminal investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and that is very serious. That’s not a bad policy decision. That’s a question of ethics, and it’s important to the people of Ontario.

God love you, I’m glad I’m not in your spot.

Thank you to the member from Ottawa South for his comments.

Madam Speaker, why we are here: for the reason we got elected—from my riding, and most of my colleagues—for the historical reason that the people elected us to do the change and bring hope and dreams to the people of Ontario. That’s why we are here. I have to remind the member opposite.

But we are in a housing crisis. I was talking to, regularly, on a weekly basis—from building the one house or somebody building a subdivision, the house prices went up. The number one reason is the process. The municipalities have red tape and bureaucracy is killing our housing industry—no supply.

Our government is taking decisive action. We know that the greenbelt issue is—we acknowledged that, the Premier acknowledged that, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing acknowledged that. That is what real leadership is all about—we admit and we move on.

This bill is a great bill, and I’m asking the member opposite to join us—

Thank you to the member from Ottawa South for his presentation. I also have a question about—the government admitted that they made a mistake giving preferential treatment for greenbelt speculators. Do they also admit and do you think they should admit that they made a mistake in giving preferential treatment to the speculators when it comes to the arbitrary MZOs? Because that still has not been reversed, and there are a lot of parts of the greenbelt that are actually not reversed through this restoration act as well.

I just want to say to the member, who I greatly respect, I don’t think you knew anything about this. I’m not trying to be critical of you. I’m being critical of the Premier and some other people close to the front row and in the front row who knew about it, or who were part of it, or who were in the offices.

It’s good that we’re here this morning to protect the greenbelt from the Premier or whoever else in the next couple of years ends up sitting in that chair from that side. I’m not sure who it’s going to be—it will be somebody, I’m sure. We shouldn’t have to be here this morning.

If it was about housing, you would go to real rent control; you would actually build a corporation that acted as a bank and worked with developers to build housing that was affordable, and a mix of housing. That’s what you would do. I think all three parties here have suggested that. Actually, you did that, as a government, way back in the 1970s.

Just get your hands dirty. Pick up the tools.

But this greenbelt thing, why we’re here this morning, is all about land speculation.

I don’t believe that the vast majority of people on this side knew what was going on. I think some people turned their heads, and there’s a group of people in there who knew what they were doing. Now what they’re saying is, “Pay for my lawyers.” I say no, we’re not going to pay for that. The Ontario PC Party should pay for it.

The last time it was changed—22 months; I think 2,000 people in the consultation; 17 changes, 340 acres; added 20 river basins and 20,000 acres. Okay? You guys took it out.

Interjection.

Come on. Stop saying the “17 times.” Just take it out of your talking points. Do we have whiteout? Does whiteout still exist? Somebody in the House leader’s office, get some whiteout and just take that line out.

Interjections.

Mr. John Fraser: Okay, they’re hearing me behind the desk. Just take it out, because it doesn’t mean anything. It doesn’t mean anything.

We’re not protecting the greenbelt from these people here. We’re protecting them from you. And you have to put forward legislation—

I think we’ve all seen it. I’ve seen a few MZOs where I’m going, “Yeah, they built the long-term care home, but how come they need all this other land? Oh, that’s interesting. And who’s building the long-term-care home and who owns all that land? Oh, that’s interesting. And where do they put their money? Oh, that’s interesting.”

But you know what? Here’s the good news: We’re going to be able to talk about this for the next three years, because it’s not going away, because the longer you drag it out instead of getting to where you need to get to—we’re going to keep talking about this—

Thank you very much for your words today. I agree with you; we shouldn’t be here. It’s unbelievable.

I want to pick up on your theme of how much this is going to cost Ontario, both figuratively and literally.

We see this government—I can’t imagine how many of these individual MPPs had fundraisers with these developers. That’s a connection that I wouldn’t want to have to be worrying about in the middle of the night. So what about those fundraisers?

The Attorney General now is going to go to court, with our taxpayer dollars, to seek a special judicial review on environmental assessments simply so that they can ram through Ontario Place and their Highway 413. Who does that benefit? Insiders, speculators, friends of the Premier.

This goes way beyond the greenbelt in terms of what it’s going to cost taxpayers and what’s at stake.

To the member opposite, a very lively presentation you made there. I do have to say, 17 times that party carved out the greenbelt, so we could throw a lot of questions your way about lawyers etc. and transparency.

But through Bill 136, the Greenbelt Statute Law Amendment Act—if this passes, and I hope it does—we intend to enshrine the greenbelt boundaries in legislation, which will be different compared to what the previous government did. Any future changes would require discussion and a vote by all MPPs. My question to the member is, will you join us and support a fair and open process?

That’s a good MZO, but do you know what? In 15 years, we did 18 MZOs—one, eight. In three years, you did 110. That’s a factor of 35 times more MZOs. We don’t have 35 times Stellantis plants across this province, right?

My point is, it’s a tool that you use to help your community. That’s a good thing. It’s a tool that we used 18 times to help communities. But 110 times, over the will of councils? That’s not to help communities.

Your MZO is a good MZO, and I stand behind that, and as a member you should do that. That was the right thing for you to do in this House. But for God’s sake, don’t attach it to the rest of the dirt.

Good morning, Speaker. It’s an honour to rise in the House today to speak on the Greenbelt Statute Law Amendment Act, 2023. As the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has outlined previously, our government is introducing legislation that, if passed, would restore lands and property back to the greenbelt and the Oak Ridges moraine. That’s approximately 7,400 acres of land being put back into the greenbelt in municipalities across the GTA including Grimsby, Hamilton, Vaughan, King, Richmond Hill, Markham, Ajax, Pickering, Clarington and Whitchurch-Stouffville.

The legislation would enhance protections by ensuring future changes to the greenbelt boundaries are done transparently and through the legislative process, meaning any changes to the greenbelt boundaries would require the approval of this House, which means better protection of our greenbelt lands. If this legislation is passed, the greenbelt will be better protected and even larger.

On top of the land being put back into the greenbelt, our government is adding an additional 9,400 acres. These are lands in the Paris-Galt moraine and 13 areas in the urban river valley. The new urban river valley areas include Stoney Creek and Battlefield Creek in Hamilton, and Fourteen Mile Creek in Oakville. These are just to name a few. Our government is doing more to protect the greenbelt for future generations and following through on our commitment to restore lands, as well as protect and maintain the lands we’re adding. We are a government that is following through on our commitments.

While our discussion remains centred on the greenbelt, we remain focused on the housing supply crisis in our province. This is something that we can no longer ignore, especially in my riding of Burlington. In Burlington, there’s a lot of red tape. It’s difficult to build new homes. The inability to get permits to build homes and the “not in my backyard” mentality has left my community starving for housing.

Speaker, I’d like to share a story. I’m a member of the local curling club in town, and after our first game this season, I sat down with my team and our opponents just to catch up. We talked about the weather, about life, our summers, and our children and how much we miss them. Out of four couples that were seated at my table, each couple had children who had left Burlington and left the province of Ontario—some went to other provinces, some went to other countries. As I thought about this, I thought how sad it was. It’s a real shame that our kids are no longer staying to live in Ontario. These kids were all born and raised in Burlington, educated in Ontario at world-class post-secondary institutes, but they can’t afford a home in Ontario, let alone in Burlington. They’ve gone to other provinces, and even to the United States. They’ve gone to Texas, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Alberta and British Columbia. That’s where the children have gone, Speaker—mine included. They simply cannot afford to live here.

According to a poll by the Ontario Real Estate Association, 46% of prospective homebuyers under the age of 45 have considered moving out of the province in order to afford a home. Ontario, our province, is at risk of losing young, educated and skilled workers to other provinces, states or even other countries because they simply can’t afford to live here.

Let’s remove buying a home from the picture for a minute, because housing prices have doubled and even almost tripled in the last 10 years. Purchasing a home right now, with inflation and increased interest rates, has become incredibly challenging and difficult, and out of reach for most first-time homebuyers.

Statistics from the Realtors Association of Hamilton-Burlington in September 2023 show an average purchase price of $1.3 million for a detached home in Burlington. Just to add, the majority of homes in my community are single, detached homes. Speaker, for the first-time homebuyer, $1.3 million is out of reach. Even with a 20% down payment of $260,000—if you were able to save $260,000, that means a mortgage of more than $1 million. Calculating it out, based on some online tools that I used, it’s about $6,700 a month. To afford that kind of mortgage, a household would have to earn over $250,000 with no other outstanding debt or liability.

I was speaking with another family in Burlington recently. Their son and his fiancé did everything right. They went to school. They worked part-time jobs to pay their tuition fees in post-secondary, and they’ve saved $150,000 as a down payment on a home. Speaker, it’s sad to say that saving $150,000 for a down payment still doesn’t cut it. I just wanted to add here that saving in this economy is hard, let alone coming up with the amount of money that you need for a down payment on a home. Yet this couple was still able to save $150,000, and it’s still not enough.

Let’s look at rentals. On average, in Burlington, to rent a one-bedroom apartment is more than $2,217 a month, and a two-bedroom apartment can be upwards of $2,600 a month. That’s not including gas, utilities or food. All of those costs have increased due to inflation and the carbon tax.

Speaker, our young people are leaving Ontario due to a lack of affordable housing options. These are young people—our family—that we have educated and trained in our province, but they can’t live here because they can’t buy a house.

But our government is committed to our goal of building 1.5 million homes here in Ontario by 2031. Decades of NIMBYism across Ontario, coupled with red tape, have contributed to a housing supply crisis.

Still, the population of Ontario continues to grow. Although our children can’t afford to live here, Ontario’s population growth continues to rise because our province is a hub for research, manufacturing and innovation. Our province attracts people and companies from all over the world. Businesses that want to grow in dynamic North American markets come here. Immigrants who want to make a better life for themselves and their families overwhelmingly will choose Ontario as their home, because Ontario is the best place to live and grow and to raise a family, but we also need to be able to house people.

The greater Golden Horseshoe area is expected to grow to approximately 15 million people by 2051. That’s why we remain committed to tackling the housing supply crisis.

Parliamentary assistant Rae spoke about the Housing Affordability Task Force in his address earlier this week. The report came out in 2022, with a total of 74 recommendations, and 23 of these recommendations have been fully implemented.

One of the recommendations was to set a bold goal of 1.5 million homes in a span of 10 years. Our government is supporting this goal through initiatives like the Building Faster Fund, which provides incentives for municipalities that meet and exceed their housing targets. This fund can be accessed by the 50 municipalities with assigned housing targets, like my community of Burlington.

Tackling the housing supply crisis is a joint effort that takes all levels of government, including our municipal and federal partners. We welcome the long-awaited decision from the federal government to waive the HST on new, purpose-built rental housing. We look forward to working with the federal government to ensure the increase in purpose-built rental housing and that the HST is waived from qualified buildings.

Municipalities are encouraged to meet their goals by adopting official plans and zoning bylaws that exceed three units per lot. This could be a main residence, a basement apartment or a laneway home. These additional options would make it easier for people to live closer to their families and their jobs, and to remain in their own communities.

The More Homes Built Faster housing supply action plan will help rural communities, cities and towns by increasing a mix of rental housing development like townhomes and mid-rise apartments.

Speaker, I live in a neighbourhood that has mixed development, and this type of neighbourhood works better than most NIMBYs could ever imagine. Interestingly, I was told that I was part of the problem because my home used to be a single-family home that was rebuilt into two residences. But I had the foresight to see that converting larger homes into apartments or towns could be a solution to Ontario’s housing supply issue. On the street where I live, there are single-family homes, some large, some very small; there are multi-family homes, like the one that I live in, a semi-detached home; there are condos, and there are rental units, all within a one- to two-block area of where I live. It’s neighbourhoods like these with all kinds of housing and developments that encourage density and diversity in population. Unfortunately, not everyone sees this as a good thing.

Our government often references NIMBYism from the other side—“not in my backyard”—but I think we’re past that; in my community, we’re at the BANANA phase, which is, people don’t want to build anything near anyone at any time. That needs to change—and not just in my backyard, in all of our backyards.

The Housing Affordability Task Force recommends ways to reduce NIMBYism by streamlining the approvals process and urban design rules. This, along with eliminating exclusionary zoning, will allow for gentle density, like in the neighbourhood where I live, to make better use of existing infrastructures like multi-family homes.

Our government has given municipalities a number of tools to cut the red tape and to speed up the approval process to build homes faster and to build communities like mine, with different types of housing that will support the growing population of Ontario. This will help my riding and many other ridings in Ontario reach their housing targets, and it will get more shovels in the ground faster.

This is the kind of bold action our government is taking in keeping its promise to build more homes faster. The government is ending the housing drought caused by previous governments that put this province in a housing supply crisis in the first place.

Our government will continue to develop plans to address the housing supply because we know that continued action is necessary to meet the demand. It will take both short-term strategies and long-term solutions, as well as a commitment from all levels of government, to drive the change that Ontario needs. We owe it to future generations, we owe it to our children, to build homes so that they’re not moving to other provinces, states and countries because that’s where they can afford to live.

This also includes amendments to Ontario’s building code to allow encapsulated mass timber buildings to be constructed up to 12 storeys high.

Speaker, the housing supply in Ontario remains a challenge. Our policies are working and delivering results by implementing the recommendations of the Housing Affordability Task Force. We’re re-examining the process and looking for new and innovative ways of working to get shovels in the ground and get housing built.

As my colleagues have mentioned before me, in 2022 Ontario saw the second-largest number of housing starts since 1988. That’s amazing news, but it has taken 34 years. That’s far too long. Years of not building homes, years of saying “not in my backyard” have put us in this current housing supply crisis.

Ontario grew by more than 500,000 people last year, and we need to house these new Ontarians. Our province continues to grow and our economy continues to boom. With that boom we need more homes for workers so they can live near where they work.

Just this year, Volkswagen announced that they will establish an electric-vehicle battery manufacturing facility in St. Thomas. Again, we are attracting businesses from around the globe, businesses that are creating conditions for growth, economic development and job creation. As we attract these new businesses to Ontario we attract workers to good-paying jobs. That’s why our population is expected to increase to 15 million people just in the greater Golden Horseshoe area alone.

Ontario is a place where it doesn’t matter where you come from, who you love or how you choose to worship—everyone deserves the same opportunity to succeed. We have attracted the world’s leading businesses and amazing people who have helped to build the identity of this province. That’s why we’re ensuring that municipalities across Ontario can build the homes needed to meet their housing targets, homes the people in our province need. I don’t think we can sit back and watch as Ontarians are priced out of the market and I don’t think we can allow NIMBYs to control the types of housing built in our province.

Our goal is 1.5 million new homes and our government will get it done. We’ll achieve this by working together with municipalities and the federal government and staying focused on our commitment, our commitment to the people of Ontario and to future generations, our commitment to the greenbelt.

Our greenbelt is the largest in the world, permanently protecting two million acres of farmland and environmentally sensitive areas like the Oak Ridges moraine, Fourteen Mile Creek and Stoney Creek. Our government is following through on its commitment to restore lands that were originally removed and redesignated. We’re adding in more lands, and we will continue to ensure that any future changes to the greenbelt are transparent. Through the Greenbelt Statute Law Amendment Act, 2023, if passed, our government will be adding lands to expand and protect the greenbelt and to preserve environmental spaces for future generations.

Further debate?

The member from Ottawa South made considerable reference to MZOs. An MZO was used to guarantee the Stellantis-LG plant got built in Essex county. Does the member from Ottawa South support the use of an MZO to guarantee that Stellantis-LG plant gets built in Essex county?

Questions?

Thank you, Speaker, and thank you as well to the member from Burlington. She talked a lot about unaffordable housing, and we’re hearing that from a lot of people for a very long time. But I think the Conservative government really has to reflect on the fact that this bill about protecting the greenbelt from the Conservative government is here because in the last year and a bit, as they’ve been working toward rewarding wealthy, well-connected developer friends, they’ve not done work toward providing housing. Even if this went through—even if they rammed it through and the public wasn’t able to catch them and the press wasn’t able to provide all the information or the Auditor General—it still wouldn’t have led to housing for several years. There is housing that could be built right now that they’re not focused on.

I think they need to reflect on this, Speaker. So I would ask the member, why do you need a law to protect the greenbelt from yourselves?

Thank you to the member for the question. Our government has listened to Ontarians and we’re following through on our commitment to restore, to grow and to enhance protections for the greenbelt. That’s why this legislation, if passed, would restore all properties that were redesignated or removed from the greenbelt in late 2022. While it restores all properties that were redesignated or removed, the government is proposing to keep the 9,400 acres in the greenbelt that were added in 2022. These include lands in the Paris-Galt moraine and in the urban river valley areas across the GTA.

At the same time, the truth remains that Ontario is growing at an unprecedented speed, with recent projections showing as many as 4 million additional people who will move to Ontario by 2031.

The other focus, and something that I hear from a lot of business owners in my community, is a struggle to staff and to get employees, and for employees to live somewhat close to where they work. One of the issues that we have is that we have businesses, we have small manufacturers, we have medium-sized manufacturers, but we don’t have workers who can afford to live in the same community or even neighbouring communities.

On Sunday, October 22, I hosted my second-annual community barbecue event for Newmarket–Aurora at Newmarket’s Riverwalk Commons. It was an eventful afternoon and I was thrilled to see so many familiar faces while meeting some new ones too from our vibrant community. This event is more than just an opportunity to enjoy good food and fun activities. It is about bringing people together, fostering a sense of unity, building relationships and celebrating the diversity that makes my community so special.

I thank all my community members who came out, from the Chinese to the francophones to the Black community members; the Jewish, Muslim and Christian community members; to the members of the LGBTQ York Pride community. Thank you. And what do we all have in common? It is the desire to live together in peace, celebrating our differences while promoting a life of acceptance, kindness and compassion.

I will continue to proudly serve my constituents and to listen, understand, connect, advocate for them and to work together for the betterment of my community.

Remembrance Day is fast approaching, and today in the House I’m proud to speak of a recent initiative to help future generations actively remember and honour the sacrifices of all Canadians. This includes those who served and the many who made the ultimate sacrifice in World Wars I and II, the Korean and Afghan wars and the many peacekeeping missions, and to honour those who are serving or have served in Canada’s Armed Forces.

The Canadian Remembrance Torch initiative was founded by Karen Hunter, and the torch was designed and built by McMaster engineering students. It was lit on Parliament Hill in September 2022. Its flame was flown by Air Canada to the Netherlands, where Princess Margriet participated in a “passing the torch to the next generation” ceremony.

Throughout 2023, the Canadian Remembrance Torch has participated in many high-profile events across Canada, and in 2024, the torch will participate in D-Day’s 80th anniversary commemorations at Juno Beach Centre in Normandy. Other initiatives of the Canadian Remembrance Torch include a Student TorchBearers Program, a Faces to Names initiative to create a digital archive of all Canadians who have died in war, and peacekeeping missions and community events that take place each year.

The Canadian Remembrance Torch will be passed on to future generations to help communities and students to remember and honour those who have served and are serving so we can live in peace and democracy.

Further questions?

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.