Thank you to the member from Mississauga—

I noticed you said that your government hasn’t increased the tax, but that’s not quite true because in the city of Mississauga, this government passed Bill 23, which waived development fees and those development fees cost the city of Mississauga $90 million per year. So this is downloaded onto the taxpayers.

It’s downloaded onto the taxpayers of the province and off to the municipality of Mississauga. And in spite of giving $200 million—actually, for Peel region it’s $200 million but for Mississauga it’s $90 million a year. In spite of giving a $90-million gift to developers from the taxpayers of Mississauga, Mississauga was only able to achieve 27% of the housing target starts that they were supposed to build. So you’re raising taxes and—

It’s now time for questions and answers.

Erin Mills.

Number two: Despite the fact that Mississauga was only achieving 27% of the goal, because we kept pushing, I can count from one traffic light 11 cranes or 11 risers at the same time in Mississauga.

We are in a housing crisis. No matter what we are pushing, it looks like we still have not yet gotten what we want. This government will continue pushing to get those housing targets done.

My question for you: In Mississauga, I didn’t see affordable housing development for many years. Now we are removing some obstacles to get more entities interested to build affordable housing. Why should you expect that every developer fee has been waived? This is not clear in the media and in the talk about affordable houses. Affordable houses are supported and subsidized for the low-income.

There’s many items in this bill, actually. As I mentioned, changing the procedures to get things done faster, building the 413, putting infrastructure in place because, if you stay on the highway in gridlock for half an hour, you are not arriving to your destination and you are emitting more gas emissions while you are delayed on the highway. If the whole trip would take, let’s say, an hour, and we save 20 minutes, which is one third, I have saved one third of the emissions, hypothetically. So this bill is helping in this.

And again, the other thing which is not helping is, every time we do a gas tax cut of two cents or three cents, the federal guys say, “phase 5, phase 9, phase 11,” and add more taxes and more taxes and more taxes.

But that doesn’t mean that it’s not on the table. We don’t know. It can be added. I don’t know. But we, at least, are taking a few steps towards that. We are trying to remove the tolls and make sure that we save the people some money.

Point of order, Speaker.

I’m very pleased to be standing up here this afternoon on a Thursday to speak to the Conservatives’ new bill called the Get It Done Act. When I read the bill, when I think about what this bill is going to get done, I think this bill is going to spur the construction of expensive and very large single-family homes that very few people can afford and it is going to make it easier and quicker to build a multi-million dollar highway, Highway 413, that no one is recommending be built. I’m also concerned about what this bill reveals about this Conservative government’s terrible approach to addressing climate action because, instead of moving forward with a price on pollution, this government wants to politicize action on climate.

I want to first talk about sprawl. I feel like I’m watching the same movie again and again and again. When I open up this bill, Bill 162, and I look at it again, what I see is the same movie playing out once again. The movie that we are talking about is the move by the Conservatives to meddle with planning processes again and redraw municipal boundaries of Halton and Waterloo and Peel and York and Wellington county, areas that abut some of the most productive farmland in North America. They have rezoned this land in order to green-light development. That is what is happening in this bill.

This is a government that is being investigated by the RCMP for allegedly making secret, sweetheart deals with a very small handful of developers to rezone their land so they can make a whole lot of cash extremely quickly at the expense of the environment, at the expense of farmers and at the expense of the greenbelt. It looks to me like this bill is going to be doing the same thing, but you’re hoping that having the municipality officially request it makes it all look okay and it makes all the dodgy stuff go away.

We are already seeing reporters go through the rezoning that is now going to be happening because the municipal plans have been rewritten and then rewritten again and then rewritten again and now, they’re rewritten again. Reporters are already going through this new rezoning that’s happening and they’re seeing some—I don’t know—interesting stuff.

For instance—I’m going to read at this point—there is a residential development in Caledon that will now proceed on a patch of green space in an “island” of housing in a sea of warehouses. This land—surprise, surprise—is owned by big donors to the Conservative Party. Okay. Coincidence?

Interjection: I think not.

Interjection.

Okay. Protections will now be removed from agricultural land to build 120,000-square-foot industrial building with an approximately 400-to-500 truck-and-trailer parking near the future Highway 413. So, when we’re talking about land speculation, maybe this could be it. Once again, the land is owned by a Conservative Party donor. Is it a coincidence? Let’s let the RCMP decide.

Then there’s a golf course that is now going to be rezoned to allow for residential development, and this golf course is owned by—

Interjection.

The golf course is owned by a PC Party donor with links to the De Gasperis family. Once again: Is this a coincidence? Let’s let the RCMP investigate and find out, because chances are, they will. It looks kind of fishy.

My question, and this is a question that a lot of Ontarians are asking, is that is this government making decisions to help the people of Ontario or is this government making decisions to help their developer-donor friends? Which is it? Because that’s the question that a lot of people are asking. Is this the Get It Done bill or is this the “go to prison” bill? I don’t know.

What I would like to hope for is I would like this government to move forward on the kind of laws and policies that are going to address our housing affordability and our housing supply crisis. That’s what I would like to see. That’s what I would like to see in this bill. That’s what I would have liked to see in Bill 23 and a whole lot of the other bills that you’re introducing.

When we’re talking about fixing the housing supply and housing affordability crisis, I think about the recent bill that the leader of the Green Party introduced—a plan that is also in our own election platform, that we advocate for ourselves, which is to allow fourplexes on residential lots in towns and cities across Ontario. Three parties support it. Where are you? When we’re talking about building more housing for Ontarians—families, newcomers, students, people who want to downsize, people who want to buy their first home—building more homes and apartments in areas that are already zoned for development will give people more affordable housing options to rent and buy. And this government, when we ask them this question, it’s absolute crickets.

How about increasing density on transit routes, building more apartment buildings near transit routes? This government has given a whole lot of good talk about that, but the city of Toronto has been waiting two long years for this government to approve Toronto’s official plan so that Toronto can build more density as well as affordable housing near transit stations. We’re still waiting for that. I would have really liked to have seen that in this bill.

And it would be amazing if this government fast-tracked affordable housing projects—

I want to address my colleague across the row when he talks about EVs. You have not mentioned the fact that the reason why we’ve been successful at EVs in this province is because of Unifor and their incredible bargaining that they did at the bargaining table in their last round of contracts. If it wasn’t for their bargaining committee, Oshawa would have been closed. And if you guys remember, not that long ago, your Premier stood up and said, “That boat has sailed. It’s gone away.” So thanks to the union workers and brothers and sisters there that provide the best things.

But to my colleague, I’m going to ask this question again because my colleague the MPP from Oshawa really came up with something that kind of makes this bill laughable when you say you’re not going to charge tolls. The 407 east tolls, which are owned by the province of Ontario, which are paying tolls as we stand here today, the Durham council in that Oshawa area have asked to have those tolls taken off—

Final question?

I recognize the Minister of Long-Term Care.

I want to thank the member opposite for her remarks. I want to ask the member opposite, does she not feel, when we have a constancy and a stability of providing a climate for people to work and to live and to grow a family here through getting it done, when we have these issues, just as we were debating in the bill, getting it done—getting it done is meaning that we have this constancy and we’re doing things so people will come here and raise a family and feel safe in their communities too.

So, Madam Speaker, my question is very, very simple: Does she not feel that the stability and the surety that is in this bill will encourage people to come here and work and raise a family and contribute to our economy?

Point of order, Speaker.

I apologize once again to the member from University–Rosedale.

I recognize the Minister of Long-Term Care.

Applause.

I thank the member for her remarks. She touched on a couple of subjects.

Before I start, I want to say the words “climate change” for the member from Beaches–East York, just to put it on the record.

I noted the speaker’s comments on housing and, in particular, the topic of intensification. I’d just like to make it very clear that of the 1.5 million homes that will be built over the next 10 years, the vast, vast majority of them will be intensification within existing municipal boundaries. In fact, I hope she would acknowledge that the new housing policy passed by the city of Toronto last fall was a direct result, frankly, of the work this government has done. Would she agree that that intensification is the right approach for housing in our province?

Thank you to the member from University–Rosedale for those scintillating words this afternoon. This government has done a lot of things, proposed a lot of policy, and then they’ve gone ahead, and they’ve come back and reversed it and gone ahead and reversed it, and people are losing trust out there. They just want to have a better, more sustainable Ontario. I’m just wondering, with the proposal to amend the Environmental Assessment Act, do you have faith that they will be able to do that or that they’re going to do that properly, safely, sustainably?

Thank you, Speaker.

When we’re talking about building more affordable housing, the project that comes to mind is the 59-modular-home project in the MPP for Willowdale’s riding. That project has been stuck in the lands tribunal for two years now.

Interjection.

That’s what I’d like to see.

And then when we’re talking about Highway 413—there are a lot of people who have extremely long commutes in the GTHA, because where their school is is very far from where they live and work and play. It just takes them a long time to get anywhere. It is true that, when we look at all the cities and the congestion rates around North America, Toronto is one of the worst. There is a lot that we can do to fix the transportation and the transit issues that we have. I don’t think building Highway 413 is going to solve our transportation issues. When you look at the amount of money that is going to be spent on that highway and the amount of time that people will save while driving on it—it’s not 30 minutes; it’s a minute. It’s not going to save people time.

When we’re talking about investing in new infrastructure projects to ensure that our economy works and that people can get from A to B at an affordable price and have choice, it’s essential that we do smart urban planning and we build more homes near where people work and play and go to school. It’s essential that we invest in public transportation, like the GO—we’re still waiting for all-day, two-way GO—and we need investment in local municipal transit systems. I don’t see that, and that’s what we need.

I’m pleased that I was given the opportunity to speak on this bill, and I welcome your questions.

Let’s go back to Bill 23. There are some measures in Bill 23 that I thought made sense; there are a lot that didn’t. One measure that I liked was the decision by the Conservative government to allow three residential homes on one residential lot. That was a good decision. We are asking for our government to go further and allow fourplexes, because our housing crisis is so acute, and it is also extremely important in areas like the city of Toronto to really encourage the kind of density that we need near transit stations so that people can get to where they want to go, live near public transit. Unfortunately, the city of Toronto’s official plan—we’ve been waiting for a very long period of time for the Conservative government to approve it, and the city of Toronto’s official plan does allow for increased density. So I’m looking forward to seeing you say yes to that.

There’s this idea with making legislation where you measure twice and cut once. What we see with this government is that they measure and cut at the same time. Maybe they don’t even measure at all; they just cut, cut, cut and see what happens. We’ve seen this with Bill 124, the unconstitutional wage caps. We have seen this with the heavy use of the “notwithstanding” clause to interfere in the right for people to collectively bargain. We have seen this with the greenbelt act. We have seen this with them dissolving and now reforming the Peel region. It happens again and again and again. That’s what concerns me. You have a lot of power. You have a lot of responsibility. Use it wisely.

If we are going to ensure that people stay here in Ontario and raise a family here, live their lives here, then we really need to address the housing affordability crisis and make it possible again for people to rent and buy a home that they can afford.

Further questions?

It’s a pleasure to rise on the 162 “not getting it done” bill. I’m going to start on something I’ve been talking about all afternoon because I think it’s important. I think it’s an important one to talk about because when this bill was introduced, they had a big press conference, Madam Speaker. I think you remember it. Remember, they had a big press conference about this bill? And what was the headline on CP24 and CFTO? All the headlines were very clear. It was, “They’re not going to take any more tolls on our highways.” And everybody went, “Oh, yes. Oh, yes.” And then it came out that we don’t have any tolls right now except one, which they never discussed at the press conference. We know the 407, and we can have the discussion about the—I could talk for hours on the 407 and what happened there when Harris was in. He wanted to balance the budget, so he said, “Well, I’ve got to find a way to balance the budget. I’ve got to get elected,” so he sold off the 407 for next to nothing. I’m not saying it was nothing. I don’t know the exact amount. It might have been a couple of million dollars. It’s now worth a billion dollars or more, so somebody’s made some good profit on that. But they took that money to say they balanced the budget.

But they now have the 407 east, which isn’t owned by an international company on the other side of the world. It’s actually owned by the province of Ontario, who still wants to charge the tolls on the 407 east. I had this conversation with my colleague from Oshawa, a very, very good—I think she’s a great NDP MPP. We had this conversation, and then she told me something interesting. She told me that in her community, the Durham council—which, by the way, and I find this interesting: I believe there’s five MPPs on that side of the House. Not one of you has raised this issue today, quite frankly. Not one of you has said, “No, you know what? Maybe we made a mistake. We should take the tolls off.”

But she raised it with me. But the council wants it. So it isn’t the member from Oshawa. It’s not Wayne Gates, the member from Niagara Falls, representing Niagara-on-the-Lake and Fort Erie, of course. It is actually the council of that area. And the reason why they’re so upset is they say you’re punishing the people that live in the Oshawa-Durham area because they’re the ones that travel the 407 east more than anybody.

I thought, you know what? To the member from Oshawa: It was brilliant—because she raised it. I’ve said this before. Madam Speaker, you know when I was watching this? It was about 1:30 in the morning—showing you how I can’t sleep at night—so I thought I’ll watch the Parliament station. Well, in this particular case, it was a good idea because I heard it and then I went directly to the member and I said, “This doesn’t sound right.” So I started reading the bill. I was amazed. It’s in the bill. Nobody can stand up and say I’m not talking to the bill right now, because it’s in the bill.

So I’m saying to my colleagues, I hope when you stand up, you say, “You know what? This sounds fair and reasonable. We shouldn’t be attacking the people from Oshawa, where, by the way, we have a number of our members, our MPPs. We’re going to listen to that council and we’re going to agree with an NDP amendment to take the tolls off the 407 east part.” I think that would work out really well.

Then, the other thing that has been suggested by the NDP which I think, “You know what? I didn’t think of it. I wish I did”—I would have probably done a video on it, because I have a lot of trucks. I live in a border town. I know you’ve been to my town quite a few times. I’ve seen you down there. You guys enjoyed it. Actually, I think you guys were there just a little while ago. I waited by the phone for days thinking you’d call me to go out for dinner. Nobody called me. Go for a glass of wine, go for things, take you on a tour—nothing. None of that happened, unfortunately. I was ready, though. I just want my colleagues to know, if you come to Niagara, I’m more than willing to take you out and show you a good time. I’ll leave it at that. I’m not going any further than that, Madam Speaker.

But I want to say, another thing that I think we could do collectively is take the tolls on trucks going down the 407. Let the trucks use the 407 to clear up the congestion. Because I heard how everybody cares about the environment, although you never talk about the greenbelt and some of the stuff you did there, so I thought that would be a very good idea. I’m hoping that you guys decide to reduce the congestion and take care of it.

On schedule 1, Environmental Assessment Act—and we had a lot of conversation about the 413. Madam Speaker, did you hear that mentioned a few times today from some of my colleagues? Well, the problem with the 413 is you’re going to save 30 seconds. That’s what you’re going to save. We can argue whether it’s 30 seconds or 30 minutes, but it’s 30 seconds. It might be a minute if you drive slower.

But here’s the problem with the 413. And it’s a problem that we faced during COVID. How many remember COVID when we had the COVID outbreak, and because we didn’t have any PPE, we didn’t have any resources and gloves and aprons because we were relying on places like China? Even our biggest trading partner, the United States, wouldn’t give us PPE. Do you remember that, Madam Speaker? Remember those times?

Well, here’s what’s happening with the 413. Never mind about the assessment that they don’t want to do—and they’re arguing with the federal government. It would take me another 20 minutes to have that debate. But what I do know is, we’re losing 319 acres of prime farmland every single day in the province of Ontario and a lot of it, quite frankly, is around the 413, up in that area.

I come from an area with a lot of agriculture. There was a big article in the paper that climate change is going to have a big effect on the fruits and vegetables in the Niagara region. But what I want to say to my colleagues—I know some are listening; I know my buddy in the corner always listens. Some others are talking. But I want to say what’s important and why I want to raise this is that if we cannot feed ourselves, if we’ve got to rely on China, Mexico, Jamaica and some of these other countries and we can’t feed ourselves and they get into the same problem we’re getting in with climate change, they are going to take care of their own. They’re going to feed their own and, quite frankly, they should, just like we should.

So I’m saying to your government, take another look at the 413. Do not destroy any more farmland—not just for ourselves, because a lot of us, as I look around this chamber, are older, like myself, but we need it for our kids and our grandkids to make sure they’re going to be able to have food, nutritious food. I think it’s important. That’s in the schedule, and I’m trying to make sure that—because I’ve got a speech, by the way. I’ve got a speech here, but I might not get to it because I’m trying to stay on my notes. I don’t think my speech probably was completely on the issue.

I want to talk about the carbon tax just for a minute. I’m going to read this in my notes. The Ontario NDP—now, I want my colleagues to listen to this because I know the other 60 people that are elected are just glued to their TV right now at 20 minutes to 6 or whatever time it is. The Ontario NDP has never supported a provincial carbon tax on regular consumers, but we have supported a cap-and-trade system focused on making large emitters pay. The only reason—this is important for my colleagues, and you guys should go back to your ridings and when you knock on the door, this is what I’d like you to say to them, because now you know the real story around the NDP, that we actually want the emitters to pay.

The only reason Ontario has a carbon tax is because the Ford government cancelled the cap-and-trade system whose costs were much lower than the federal carbon tax that replaced it, and you guys didn’t replace it with anything, and then the federal Liberals put it onto the province. If you just would have done the cap-and-trade instead of forcing consumers to pay, you would have had the big corporations that are destroying our environment paying instead of everybody else.

I think that’s important, and this is all accurate, by the way.

Interjection.

Thank you so much for that question. Removing tolls on roads that don’t have tolls is not going to result in people having more money to pay the bills, to buy food at the supermarket and to pay their rent at the start of the month. It’s just not going to.

We’ve got a provincial budget coming up shortly. My hope is that in this provincial budget we see some real investments in public services, we see some real measures to address the affordability crisis, because what I’m seeing in the Get It Done bill is not going to cut it, is not going to make things more affordable.

There are better things that we can do. There are better things we can invest in to help people get from A to B at an affordable price and spend time with their families or doing what they want to do in their spare time, in their free time—investing in transit, doing smart urban planning so people live near where they work and play so that they don’t have to spend an hour and a half in a car in the first place, really thinking about where we’re going to put our employment hubs so that we’re thinking it through and people don’t just have to come to downtown Toronto for that job. There’s a lot we can do. I don’t think Highway 413 is the answer.

Thank you to the member from University–Rosedale for her eloquence. I want to compare and contrast something. I think of traffic gridlock in my communities of Leamington and Chatham-Kent. It happens twice a year. They’re both celebratory: Hogs for Hospice in Leamington and probably our holiday parades.

The traffic gridlock in Toronto and in your community, your home community, is the real deal and it’s infuriating. It diminishes family time—time with family and friends and being at home and being productive. So does the member from University–Rosedale not believe that genuine investments in Highway 413, in the Ontario Line, in the Scarborough subway extension—will they not reduce gridlock, contribute to better family time, better productivity and be more welcoming to people from all over that are coming to make Toronto and Ontario their home?

I appreciate the remarks from my colleague the member for University–Rosedale. She talked a bit about the cost-of-living pressures that people in her community and across the province are experiencing. She talked about the tolls, for example, on Highway 417. Now, this bill prohibits tolls on provincial highways that don’t have tolls. So I wondered what her opinion is on whether that provision to remove tolls from highways that don’t have tolls is going to really help Ontarians deal with the affordability crisis that we are seeing in this province.