Thank you to my colleague for his remarks this afternoon.

I just want to point out that in my riding of Perth–Wellington, there is more livestock than people—probably 10 to 1, if I was to guess. So we are massive, massive exporters of food across the world.

As some members know, I grew up on a dairy farm. Obviously, vets visited that farm often. I remember growing up with Jim the vet and others over the years—helping service our family farm, ensuring our animals were, as the member mentioned, healthy and safe.

I was wondering if you could talk a bit about the vet technicians. One of the first doors I knocked on when I was running turned out to be a vet technician’s, and they mentioned how they wanted to be able to help their community more. So I was wondering if the member could expand on that.

Just for the record, I’m a roast beef guy, so I’ll thank you for that.

My question is to the Minister of Energy. Speaker, the federal carbon tax—

Interjections.

The federal carbon tax makes life more expensive for the people of Ontario. After years of punishing energy costs that are sky high, the Prime Minister announced that he was pausing the carbon tax but only on home heating oil and only for three years.

Families and businesses in my riding of Perth–Wellington that grow the food, that build our province every single month are being punished by this carbon tax. They can’t afford the high taxes of the opposition and the NDP members. Our government understands this, that the carbon tax only takes money out of hard-working people’s pockets. That’s why we fought this ludicrous tax all the way to the Supreme Court, and we will continue to fight it, keep going forward.

Speaker, can the minister please tell this House why the federal government’s selective carbon tax exemption hurts Ontarians?

As families across Ontario continue to struggle with the rising cost of living, our government continues to do everything we can to make life more affordable. But the queen of the carbon tax, Bonnie Crombie, and the independent Liberals don’t seem to care about the harmful impacts the carbon tax has on the lives of our constituents. We need members on the opposite to work with us. In fact, the member from Kanata–Carleton is the caucus liaison to the Liberal Party of Canada and the federal Liberal caucus, but she refuses to call her federal Liberal colleagues to halt the carbon tax.

Thankfully, our government will continue to act to keep costs down for families in Ontario. Can the minister please share with this House what we are doing?

Good morning, and thank you to my colleague for his remarks this morning. He mentioned newcomers to our province. Even in my rural communities in rural southern Ontario, we’re seeing a lot of newcomers—which is wonderful—in our communities, contributing to our economy, coming to work in our province. Newcomers are essential, obviously, to ensuring Ontario continues to grow.

Does the member opposite believe opposing this bill means that the members who are supporting existing practices that keep newcomers from being able to work in the fields that they are trained in—does he believe this is the right decision on their part?

It is a pleasure to rise today to highlight some recent announcements I was able to make on behalf of the Minister of Health in my riding of Perth–Wellington. Last month I was pleased to announce not one but two local family health teams would be receiving funding to expand primary care in our rural communities.

The Minto–Mapleton Family Health Team will receive over $560,000 to hire two additional nurse practitioners, an RPN and a medical receptionist. This funding will ensure an additional 1,600 residents can access primary care closer to home.

The Listowel–Wingham family health team will receive over $822,000 to expand primary care to serve an additional 2,000 residents.

Speaker, it truly was a historic day for our rural public health care sector. The province-wide investment of $90 million represents the first expansion of primary care in Ontario’s history, ever. It is disappointing the previous Liberal government, supported by the NDP, had 15 years to expand primary care in rural Ontario, and they chose not to, Speaker. In fact, the current Liberal members and the current NDP members voted against our historic expansion.

Despite these obstacles the previous Liberal government put in place, we are rebuilding our public health care sector. We’re expanding medical school spots and nurse practitioner spots. We expanded the clinical extern program. Speaker, our government will continue to expand primary care.

My question is to the great Minister of Energy. The federal carbon tax is raising prices on everything, from energy bills, groceries, into everyday essentials. That’s why this Premier and our government fought this punitive tax all the way to the Supreme Court. Our government will always fight for the taxpayer in Ontario.

Last fall, the federal government chose to merely suspend the carbon tax on home heating oil, a source of higher emissions utilized only by 2.5% of Ontarians. But the tax on natural gas, which I use and 70% of Ontarians use, is going to go up. It’s unfair that the federal Liberals and provincial Liberals—who don’t call their colleagues in Ottawa—are ignoring the burden being placed on most Ontarians.

Can the minister please tell this House why the federal government’s selective exemption on the carbon tax is unfair?

Home heating is not a luxury; it is a necessity in Ontario. However, many Ontarians cannot afford to pick and choose what heating fuel they can use. Whether it’s home heating oil or natural gas or other forms of gas, like propane—and they were here last week; great propane members and businesses in my riding—Ontarians should not be unfairly forced to pay additional costs to stay warm during the winter months. And it’s unfortunate that the only party in this Legislature that is focused on providing real relief to Ontarians is this party on this side and the missing middle over there, Speaker.

While the Liberals and NDP are content with the carbon tax going up on April 1, as you can hear in this place, our government continues to keep costs down for the people of Ontario. Can the parliamentary assistant please share the steps our government is taking to provide more affordability for home heating as the federal carbon tax skyrockets?

It’s always wonderful to spend some quality time with my colleague from Guelph. I know we spend time together in our respective ridings because we share, obviously, some service managers in that. I’m always happy to spend time with Mr. Green.

The member from Ottawa South and the member from Thornhill, earlier, were mentioning that we are digging. We are digging; we are digging foundations for new homes in Ontario, I’m proud to say.

From day one, we’ve been focused on building more homes for the people across this province.

What you hear from the typical opposition parties is about more obstacles being put in the way of actually getting more homes built, more shovels in the ground—just like the members who usually sit around the member from Guelph. He is surrounded by independent Liberal caucus members who did just that—especially the member from Ottawa South, when he was part of the government. They put obstacles in the way of building more homes. At committee, we heard from a former minister in the Wynne government. The mayor of Vaughan said that the housing crisis began at the cabinet table when he sat it at. So this has been ongoing, and they have put obstacles in the way.

We’re seeing now that we’re actually getting more homes built across Ontario. Our housing supply action plans are working. We’re seeing rental-housing starts increase year over year; they are at the highest levels ever in the province of Ontario. And this is despite the high-interest-rate policies of the federal Liberal government, and the high-carbon-tax policies which are putting so many people out of the market for that new home.

What we’re going to do is return the dream of home ownership to the people of the province of Ontario by getting more shovels in the ground, reducing costs and removing obstacles.

Sorry, Stan.

Thank you to my colleague for her remarks. I officially welcome her to the House—I know I’ve welcomed you earlier, but officially now that I have the floor.

I know the official plan changes the member from Kitchener Centre referenced are being made after careful consultations with the affected municipalities. This is what they requested, and I know the member, from her time on Kitchener city council, will understand that process very well.

She spoke of agriculture. Obviously, as she knows, my riding has a lot of agriculture in it. I know she hasn’t had the opportunity yet to vote on a budget bill, but in the last budget, we invested a lot in agriculture and supporting our farmers. We have a Grow Ontario Strategy. Will she support us in calling on the federal government to remove the carbon tax, which the OFA calls for?

It’s lovely to rise this to rise this evening to address my colleague from London North Centre’s question. It’s also lovely to be able to address a question on housing in this House. Serving as PA to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, who is also the government House leader, means I don’t have a lot of opportunities to do that—which is fine.

The member opposite mentioned the attainable housing in the bill he referred to. I also have access to Hansard, and I looked up, colleagues, before coming to this place how many times the member opposite has mentioned “attainable housing.” He mentioned it once, on February 22, 2024. Someone who claims to be so worried about attainable housing mentioned it once in this place, Speaker.

Interjection: Once.

Speaker, this member is part of a party that nominated someone in one of the fastest-growing communities in this country to stop development. We’re not going to do that. We’re going to continue to get shovels in the ground and ensure that we continue to build homes across Ontario, but especially in our transit corridors—of which downtown Kitchener is one. We’re going to continue to get homes built.

This member opposite’s colleague who ran in the Kitchener by-election voted against a 1,174-unit development in downtown Kitchener. She opposed a 10-storey, 132-unit condo development, and she voted against 532 residential units in downtown Kitchener. That is not all, Speaker: She also voted against a 238-unit development in downtown Kitchener.

I could continue, but I also want to address the fact that the member for Ottawa South is here this evening, and they just elected a new leader, one of the biggest NIMBYs in all of Ontario, where we actually saw people leave the city she was the mayor of. It shrank, when every other city in this province grew.

Interjection.

I can only hope that the new Liberal leader will see the error of her ways, but I’m not going to hold my breath. She called, for example, a 17-storey unit, 148 units in total, “way too much density.” This was in 2022 that the Liberal leader said this. She has commented saying we don’t want a “wall of condos,” and she called a proposed 12-storey, 195-unit development an “abomination.”

Interjection.

It’s wonderful to rise this afternoon to ask a question to the member from Humber River–Black Creek. I know I’m new in this place, but that is the standing orders—so I ask my question to the member for Humber River–Black Creek.

This member is from Toronto. They have the benefit of natural gas in hookups to natural gas everywhere—now they want to take away that ability for rural Ontario, everyone. It’s shameful.

I want to ask the member—just yes or no—do you support natural gas expansion in rural and northern Ontario?

Thank you to the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler for her remarks this afternoon. I appreciate her taking us through how the OEB was set up—the acts, as the member for Simcoe–Grey mentioned, as well, that oversee the OEB. It’s been mentioned many times now how this would literally stop homes from being built—literally.

Interjections.

Can the member please elaborate on how this will help Kitchener South–Hespeler continue to get homes built in her community?

Thank you to my colleague across the way for his remarks. Building off of the member from Niagara West’s question, I know there is some confusion amongst the Liberal Party members, especially their leader, around answering tough questions. So yes or no to the member opposite: Do you support natural gas expansion in rural Ontario? Yes or no?

Thank you to the member from Ottawa Centre for his remarks this afternoon. He mentioned, who do we work for? Speaker, in this place, we’re members—the member opposite believes that we’re legislators, which we are. It’s a legislative assembly. They’re harping on the fact that, as a Legislature, we’re taking a policy decision to correct a mistake—very weird line of thought. But we’re legislators, everyone. So we can legislate, great, wow—so ironic.

But my question—he’s referring to the report. I appreciate he read the report. My question is—and I’m going to quote—do you support this finding? “I do not support a zero-year revenue horizon for assessing the economics of small volume gas expansion customers. I do not find the evidentiary record supports this conclusion.” This is from Commissioner Duff, in the report you’re quoting.

When will you allow natural gas expansion to places that don’t have it, to get it?

Thank you to my colleague for his remarks this afternoon. I know we both represent rural ridings in different parts of Ontario, obviously, and obviously natural gas expansion is key to the success of our local municipalities, agriculture producers and families. I was wondering if he could elaborate on why it is important the government bring this piece of legislation forward to ensure that those expansions can continue.

Thank you to the minister for his lovely remarks to kick off debate this afternoon. I just want to highlight to my colleagues in this place here that the NDP is again not standing up for young people who don’t have a home. They’re arguing for the current homeowners. They are not fighting for those who live in their parents’ basements or those who may have a child on the way who are looking to move into a bigger place—a townhouse, for example.

I know the minister alluded to it a bit in his remarks, but, obviously, I represent rural Ontario, and I was wondering if he could elaborate—I know Minister Calandra and myself and the associate minister are looking to keep costs down on homes. How much would this decision by the OEB cost rural Ontario?

I want to introduce Dave and Maria Hartney, who are in the gallery, from the beautiful riding of Perth–Wellington.

It’s wonderful to be here this afternoon with all of you to speak on another very important piece of legislation. I’m pleased to share the government’s time today, as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and speak to the Planning Statute Law Amendment Act, 2023. I’d like to spend some of my time discussing how this proposed legislation will better support our municipal partners in advancing local planning priorities while helping us address the province’s housing supply crisis.

Speaker, as all members of this House know, one of our most valued relationships is with our partners at the municipal level. They are and will continue to be an integral part of our efforts to build at least 1.5 million homes by 2031. As I’ve said in this House before, the province is on the right path to building more housing, but our municipal partners need our support, and they need us to take some additional steps.

Since being appointed to the ministry, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Associate Minister of Housing and I have been working very closely and meeting with colleagues at different levels of government to find ways to build housing even faster. We’ve been asking our municipal partners what they need to do to ensure we are maximizing opportunities to get shovels in the ground.

One of the ways is through municipal official plans. As you may know, Speaker, official plans set out where offices and shops can be located; where industry and development can thrive; where parks and schools should be located; where infrastructure like roads, water mains and sewers will be needed; and of particular interest to us today, where new housing can be built.

Official plans can help implement the provincial planning statement. This statement sets out the province’s priorities for land use planning, including direction that municipalities must follow when making decisions under the Planning Act for community development and growth. Land use planning helps set the goals for the community while keeping economic, social and environmental factors in mind. Planning helps balance the interests of property owners with the interests of the community as a whole, and municipalities work to reflect the interests of their communities in their official plans.

The official plan process is complex and nuanced and requires balance—a balancing act between long-range and big-picture planning, between long-term infrastructure goals and short-term development pressures and between opposing land uses that need to be managed so they can successfully co-exist. All of this and more brings us to why we are here today.

Our government recognizes that municipalities are in the best position to understand the unique needs and the concerns of their communities. Our proposed legislation would wind back provincial changes to the official plans and the official plan amendments made by the ministry in November 2022 and April 2023, except where these are needed to align with legislation or regulations such as the protections for the greenbelt.

Speaker, it’s my privilege to talk about these exceptions. The provincial modifications we wish to keep were made to protect the greenbelt or protect public health and safety. We also want to retain the modifications that bring official plan boundaries into conformity with existing provincial legislation and regulations.

Let’s look at the modifications we’ve made to ensure municipally approved official plans reflect the policies and mapping supporting the greenbelt. In some cases, the municipality-adopted urban boundary in the official plan may have encroached into the greenbelt when this type of urban expansion doesn’t align with the greenbelt plan. As you are aware, Speaker, we also have before the House—which we also passed recently—legislation to enhance greenbelt protections. We work through the official plans to identify and then address inconsistencies within the greenbelt, and these are some of the modifications we’re proposing to retain in the official plans of the city of Hamilton, the county of Wellington and the regions of Niagara, Peel and York.

Another set of modifications we propose to keep relates to Indigenous communities and their interests. These modifications would strengthen the approach municipalities take in working with Indigenous communities. They would also help to ensure that obligations are met; for example, ensuring that where a marked or unmarked cemetery or burial place is found, Indigenous communities with a known interest in the area are notified. To align with Indigenous interests, we are proposing to keep these provincial changes in the municipally approved official plans for the cities of Hamilton, Belleville and the county of Wellington.

Another set of modifications we propose to maintain relate to incompatible and sensitive land uses. A stark example of an incompatible land use would be a heavy industry facility next to a long-term-care home. In that example, an official plan would need to reconsider not only the long-term-care home but also the industrial plant. The plant, which might be a major employer and a significant contributor to the community’s prosperity, would likely find its operations hampered because of its proximity to a long-term-care home. And the residents of a long-term-care home would find their quality of life negatively affected by the plant.

These examples show us where official plans have an important role to play, in this case, to ensure that land is used in a way that works for everyone. To this end, the provincial modifications would have added language to some official plans to clarify that the municipality would need to follow provincial guidelines so that we don’t end up with long-term-care homes next to heavy industry, to continue with that example, and if it proves impossible, the official plan includes language to ensure measures are taken to mitigate any potential adverse effects.

To align with these sensitive land uses, we are proposing to keep these types of modifications to the municipally approved plans of the cities of Hamilton, Peterborough, the regions of North York and Niagara.

As we’ve seen that provincial modifications were made to address health and safety as it pertains to sensitive land uses, other modifications were made to address safe drinking water. Municipally approved official plans must include provisions for wellhead protection areas, and this requirement is in alignment with the Clean Water Act.

Many municipalities across Ontario rely on wells to supply safe drinking water to their residents, and we must guard against the risk of pollutants seeping into the ground and contaminating well water. That’s the purpose of wellhead protection areas. These are the areas around a well where landowners and the municipality must manage any activities that could become sources of contamination, and these wellhead protection areas must be identified in official plans. To that end, we’re proposing to keep modifications like this to the municipally approved official plans of the cities of Barrie, Belleville, Peterborough and the regions of Peel and York.

Recognizing the province’s investments in infrastructure and the need to plan and protect for new infrastructure corridors, we are maintaining a set of modifications related to infrastructure and planned corridors. These corridors are reserved for large linear infrastructure projects such as new highways or hydro transmission lines. Once potential future corridors are identified by the province, they need to be included in official plans. As a result, we’re proposing to keep modifications that protect the Highway 413 corridor and the northwest GTA transmission corridor. These affect the official plans of Halton and Peel regions.

As I have said, reversing the provincial official plan decisions that were made would better reflect the local priorities and support the needs of local communities, needs and priorities that are consistently evolving, which means that the plans that shape them must evolve as well.

We recognize that in some cases the province may have modified and approved an official plan more than a year ago. And a lot can happen in that time. Plans might need to be adjusted to account for local priorities and planning for 2051 and potentially to support our province-wide target of building at least 1.5 million new homes by 2031, and that is why we’re also looking for feedback on potential changes that were originally made by the province that the municipality would like to keep.

We’re also interested in what projects might already be under way, and we have given impacted municipalities until Dec 7, 2023, to provide these updates to the official plans. Municipal staff can also reach out to the staff from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to provide additional information.

Speaker, I should also add, the immunity provisions in the legislation would apply not just to the provincial government but also to our municipal partners. These strengthened immunity provisions will mitigate any legal risk that may arise as a result of this legislation.

As the Associate Minister of Housing has said earlier this afternoon, the proposed bill has generally been well received by the impacted communities. By focusing on items that we all agree on, we’re able to leverage the municipal official plans to help meet our shared priorities. This collaboration will address changes to accommodate circumstances or projects that are already under way or to maintain changes that the province made.

Speaker, we must not lose sight of the impetus for our proposed legislation. Ultimately, we want more homes in Ontario—a lot more homes—and not just homes in downtown Toronto but homes across communities in Ontario, whether it’s in my riding of Perth–Wellington or in the riding of Ajax or in Ottawa. We want to achieve our goal of building at least 1.5 million new homes by 2031 by supporting our municipal partners. And this is not just an aspiration; this is a practical objective we’re already delivering results on.

Over the past three years, housing starts have been robust and, despite a recent slowdown, this has continued well into 2023. From January to October of this year—the latest figures that are available—Ontario saw almost 75,000 housing starts. That’s essentially unchanged when compared to the same period in 2022. And for rental accommodations, 2023 saw an increase in rental starts of almost 41% compared to the same period in 2022. In 2022, Ontario saw nearly 15,000 rental starts, which was an all-time high. And I’m pleased to report that in 2023 we had already surpassed that figure at the end of October of this year.

Speaker, as I’ve said, all levels of government need to work together to address the housing crisis. Our proposed Planning Statute Law Amendment Act, 2023, is another way that we are collaborating and engaging with municipal partners to support their communities as they develop and grow. We are committed to increasing the housing supply in Ontario. Our call to action is to get shovels in the ground across this province, from Windsor to Mississauga to Kingston, Speaker. We need all hands on deck, but we need to move forward in a way that is reasonable, responsible and strikes the optimal balance between local interests and provincial priorities.

I know when the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing came into his role, he reached out to our municipal partners on the housing task force recommendations. Our government has already implemented full or partial recommendations—23 of the 74—and we continue to work on those that are remaining with our municipal partners. I know my local municipalities appreciate the opportunity to provide that feedback, to share with the minister what they believe could be the next steps in our housing supply action plan, which I know the minister has mentioned is coming in the new year—something to look forward to in 2024.

As we continue to move forward, to get more homes built across our province, Speaker, it is about ensuring that the dream of home ownership is there for the next generation and for future generations that come to Ontario—no matter where they come from, whether it’s another province or another country in the world. We will ensure that our communities remain vibrant places to live, work and raise a family. This is why I urge all members of this House to support this bill.

The Minister of Children and Community Services says he will talk to my fiancée about that. I’m sure she’s going to text me after this.

But it demonstrates lots of young families coming to Ontario. Ontario is growing. It’s one of the fastest subnational regions in North America now for growth. Half a million people have moved to this province in 2022 alone. Recent projections show that as many as four million additional people will move to Ontario by 2031.

Speaker, our government’s open-for-business approach has re-energized Ontario’s economy and is drawing even more people to our province, and that is a good thing. Since 2018, the year our government came to power, Ontario has created over 700,000 new jobs. That’s why our housing goals match the economic aspirations of the province. That is why job one for us is building at least 1.5 million homes by 2031.

As the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing said when we first introduced the proposed Greenbelt Statute Law Amendment Act, if our proposed legislation is passed, we will deliver on our commitment to fully restore the 15 sites removed or redesignated from the greenbelt lands in late 2022, and we will have delivered on ensuring that any future changes to the greenbelt boundaries could be made only through an open, public and transparent legislative process in this place. We will have followed through on maintaining the lands added to the greenbelt in 2022, and we will have delivered on restoring previous protections to the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve.

The proposed Greenbelt Statute Law Amendment Act addresses a process that was open to error and resets the clock on greenbelt protections in Ontario. While we work with our municipalities to get more homes built across Ontario, while the NDP and Liberals may put up roadblocks to that, we will continue to get more homes built, ensuring that we support our communities, ensuring that we continue to foster economic growth in Ontario, the good work under the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, ensuring that we build schools, roads, hospitals.

We are going to continue to do that. We’re going to continue to reinforce our government’s commitment to transparent processes and working with our municipal partners to achieve great things for this province and for this country. And with that, I’ll give two minutes of my life back to my colleagues.

It’s a pleasure to rise this afternoon to speak on Bill 136, Greenbelt Statute Amendment Act, 2023. It’s a pleasure to speak here, this afternoon, for third reading of our government’s proposed bill before this House.

I want to lead off with an overview of the bill, but I know my colleague across the way mentioned—just for the record, I know this was a debate at committee on Friday; thank you to the committee members for working with us on a Friday.

And before I forget, as I mentioned at committee, my thoughts and prayers are with the member’s family, during this difficult time, on the passing of her aunt.

At committee, we debated about the amendments you mentioned earlier. This bill, actually, ensures that the greenbelt is protected in whole and that those two additional amendments, which were in the original Greenbelt Act, are not required. It would actually create duplication and red tape. We are ensuring the greenbelt is protected and whole—to be clear, for the record. Just to read that into the record here, this afternoon—they would not be necessary.

The proposed Greenbelt Statute Law Amendment Act, 2023, would amend the Greenbelt Act, 2005, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001, and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Act. If passed, the bill would enact the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Act, 2023—that is, our proposed legislation would effectively restore the protections that were previously provided by an earlier act dealing with the agricultural preserve.

There are many pieces to this proposed legislation, so I will highlight the major actions and what they would do.

I’ll speak on how we are proposing to put the lands back into the Greenbelt. I’ll talk about the lands that we’ve recently added to the greenbelt and look at our proposals to strengthen the protection of the greenbelt. We’re proposing to return 15 sites, totalling 7,400 acres—or, for those who prefer metric, 2,995 hectares—of land that were redesigned or taken out of the greenbelt in Oak Ridges moraine areas in late 2022. The lands in question, which we propose to return to the greenbelt, are in the cities of Hamilton, Markham, Pickering, Richmond Hill, Vaughan, the towns of Ajax, Grimsby, Whitchurch-Stouffville, the township of King and the municipality of Clarington. As I mentioned, we are also proposing to reverse the redesignation of land in Grimsby, which is the protected countryside of the greenbelt, and the land in King township, which is the Oak Ridges moraine area.

We’re also proposing to update the land use schedules of the greenbelt plan. This would help us restore the same protections to the lands that they had before the change in late 2022.

I should mention that some of the lands we are restoring or redesignating also come under the policies of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Act. For the lands that also fall under the policies of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, we’re also proposing to reverse the redesignation made in 2022. A redesignation changes the uses that are allowed on a parcel of land, and in this case, we would be restoring the designation of those lands to “countryside” from “settlement area.” This would have the effect of limiting the uses of these lands and giving them the protection that they had prior to the changes in 2022.

We’re also proposing to restore protections previously provided by the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Act, 2005. This would mean reinstating the easements and covenants provided for the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve. These easements and covenants restrict development by limiting the land to agricultural uses, restoring them to what they were before the changes in late 2022, and would recognize the importance of the agricultural lands in this area. It would also ensure their sustainable use for present and future generations.

Speaker, as my colleagues have mentioned in this place on many occasions around this legislation, on parliamentary conventions and procedures, this legislation, if passed, would codify the greenbelt into legislation.

Interjection.

If a future government—I know we have a new Liberal leader—no offence, Speaker. I know you’re in the Chair right now. We have a new Liberal leader who has said that she’s open to opening the greenbelt. That is her prerogative, and if they ever—hopefully many, many years from now—form government, they may choose to open the greenbelt, but they will have to answer to the people of Ontario if they do that. And to do that, they would have to bring forward legislation to change the greenbelt and the Oak Ridges moraine and the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve as well.

This legislation would enshrine the boundaries of the greenbelt and the Oak Ridges moraine areas in legislation. It would also remove the regulatory authority to change these boundaries in the future. Just like the very bill we’re debating today, any changes to the boundaries of the greenbelt area or the Oak Ridges moraine area would need to be debated and passed in this House. All the same due diligence needed for regulation would continue, such as including consultations on any boundary changes on the Regulatory Registry and the Environmental Registry of Ontario, also known as ERO, most commonly.

We’re also proposing the additional protection of the boundaries through the legislation because Ontarians have made it clear that they want an enhanced level of protection across these lands while still making sure lands are available for important infrastructure, as was intended when the original Greenbelt Act was passed in this place in 2005.

Speaker, I’ve talked mostly about what our proposed legislation would do to reverse actions taken since 2022. Back on that date, lands were also added to the greenbelt, as I mentioned earlier. Lands on the Paris-Galt moraine were added, and 13 urban river valleys were added as well, or expanded. The lands that are designated as urban river valleys provided a corridor of protection for natural heritage, like wooded areas and waterways, that run through urban areas as well. These corridors connect the greenbelt to the Great Lakes, inland lakes and areas beyond the greenbelt’s boundaries.

Speaker, in addition to protecting natural features and water features, urban valleys protect recreation, tourism and cultural opportunities in all natural settings. While some privately owned lands may be included in urban river valleys, the policies of urban river valleys apply only to publicly owned lands, and they rely on municipal official plan policies for their implementation. In these official plans, urban river valley lands are mostly designated as parks, open spaces, recreational areas and areas for conservation protection and/or environmental protection.

Speaker, taking together all of these reversals and additions, we’re adding 9,400 acres—or, again, for those metric individuals watching this afternoon, 3,800 hectares—to the greenbelt.

Let me tell the House a little bit about the Paris-Galt moraine. The moraine extends from Caledon to the Paris-Brantford area and is home to critical groundwater resources. It’s about 130 kilometres long and spans as wide as 11 kilometres at certain points. We’ve added land in the Paris-Galt moraine to the greenbelt area, and we’ve designated it as a protected countryside with a natural heritage system.

Speaker, the future of the greenbelt is bright. As the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing stated earlier this year, our government will soon be proceeding with the planned 10-year review of the greenbelt. This review will be led by impartial, non-partisan experts in conservation, agriculture and the environment, and it will include engagement with Indigenous communities and municipalities. Once the experts have finalized their recommendations, they will be provided to the Auditor General and the Commissioner of the Environment for consultation. This is to ensure that the review process is fair and guided by recent recommendations to improve the process.

Speaker, the greater Golden Horseshoe is one of the fastest-growing regions in North America. I know as I was sitting here listening to the debate this afternoon from my colleagues, the member from Essex was so kind as to give me a Christmas card. Within that Christmas card, he wrote a lovely note congratulating me on recently—well, not recently—getting engaged this year. Then, he said, “I hope you have a marriage happy and long and that you have lots of children.” Well, that’s not up to me, Speaker; it’s up to me and my partner. I don’t know how Meghan feels about that, but it demonstrates that our—

Interjection.

Thank you, Speaker. It’s nice to see you in the Chair this evening.

It’s wonderful to rise to speak to third reading of the Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act.

Each and every day, members of our government caucus come to work for the people of Ontario. Consumer protection and small business promotion are the very principles that allow our economy to continue to work for everyday Ontarians.

Today, as we move forward on debate on our government’s updated Consumer Protection Act, I will note that it is disappointing that it took so long for us to get to this moment in updating our Consumer Protection Act, as has been mentioned by the minister in his hour-long remarks.

Again, I commend the minister and my colleague from across the way for their hour-long remarks.

I will let my colleagues know that I will not be doing an hour deputation, because it’s not allowed in the standing orders now, and I would not have enough material, to be honest.

Interjection.

As I mentioned, it was disappointing. As was mentioned earlier, the proclamation of the act was in 2005, but, as was noted by the minister, it was introduced and passed by a Progressive Conservative government in 2002.

Interjections.

Speaker, when it was passed and then proclaimed subsequently in 2005—the world has changed a lot since 2005. I know that some staff who serve some of our government members were born in this century. I was talking with them recently, and they don’t know what MSN was. That made me feel really old.

In 2005, as was mentioned by the minister, the iPhone did not exist. Twitter—or, now, X—did not exist. Facebook was merely on Harvard campus and some other university campuses, I believe, at the time. Instagram, obviously, did not exist. The world was a happier place. It was a nicer time.

Interjection.

Online shopping wasn’t commonplace, either. Obviously, when we think of online shopping now, we think of Amazon, but even more, since the pandemic and the movement to more online transactions—even small businesses in my riding now are shipping around Ontario, Canada and North America through online mechanisms. A great example, not in my riding, but close to my heart: My sister is a small business owner, and she ships her products online, across North America. So I know it has become more commonplace.

It’s heartening to see that our government continues to work for Ontarians and update the Consumer Protection Act. That’s why our government is updating the Consumer Protection Act through the bill called Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act. It takes concrete steps to ensure that there are reliable consumer protection standards that reflect the needs of Ontarians today, and that there are enforcement mechanisms to protect the integrity of our marketplace.

Speaker, we’re prohibiting unfair business practices such as taking advantage of consumers’ inability to understand language in a contract. We’re limiting when a business can make one-sided contract amendments, renewals and extensions without the express consent of a consumer. We’re prohibiting businesses from creating unnecessary barriers when consumers are trying to cancel a subscription or membership-based contract. We’re providing fair exit options to consumers and families who find themselves locked indefinitely into a time-share contract, as well as homeowners tied to long-term leases for appliances. And we’re giving stronger enforcement powers to better enable the Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery to hold bad actors to account, including by doubling fines.

As the minister mentioned earlier, the vast majority of our businesses and small businesses in Ontario operate very well, with upstanding standards. However, obviously there are still bad actors. It’s good to see that we will continue to ensure that those bad actors are punished with higher fines.

Ontarians deserve a business climate where they can trust that their best interests are being looked after and that they’re being protected from unfair manipulation, and these changes are particularly important in the housing sector, helping Ontarians participate in the housing market in good faith.

Speaker, if you’ll indulge me, I’ll quote from Tim Hudak, president and CEO of the Ontario Real Estate Association, when he was referring to the bill before us, Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act, 2023:

“The Ontario Real Estate Association is a strong proponent of measures to improve consumer protection so people have peace of mind when acquiring home services or products. Ontario realtors commend the Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery for updating protections on contract disclosure or leases to better safeguard consumers in the modern marketplace and enhancing the ability of businesses to meet their obligations. We look forward to seeing the positive effect this will have for future homebuyers across the province.”

Interjection.

Speaker, we have an understanding in this country that if you work hard and you pull up your bootstraps, you can afford that house; you can afford that Canadian dream or the Ontario dream. But without an updated Consumer Protection Act—since 2005—Ontarians are falling behind and have been at the risk of unfair manipulation and bad actors in the marketplace. Now that our government is taking action on this important piece of legislation to protect consumers and better support businesses, we can once again have faith in the idea that hard work will reward Ontarians without risking them being taken advantage of.

This legislation also takes important steps to support businesses and help them succeed in an ever-changing marketplace. Each member in this place comes from a different and unique community, each of which relies on its small businesses for economic growth and development. Whether it’s here in downtown Toronto, in northern Ontario, in my riding of Perth–Wellington or anywhere in between, I think we can all agree that our small businesses are the primary representation of the capitalist and free enterprise society that we live in and that will keep our economy growing and allow our communities and families to thrive.

I know I mentioned earlier a quote from Mr. Hudak. As a young, first-time homeowner, I know there’s a lot of stress in that process; there’s a lot of questions. For most in Ontario, it will be the largest purchase you ever make in your life. I know there are challenges, and there are bad actors, to be frank, in that sector, Speaker. I know our government continues to take steps, some outlined in this bill, to ensure that we protect first-time homebuyers and protect our seniors as well. I think of the liens and NOSI consultations the minister is undertaking—the seniors in my riding of Perth–Wellington and those liens they may not even know they have agreed to—and ensuring that those aren’t on title, ensuring that that headache is not there as well for the people who inherit the property when they pass on. Knowing that experience as well when my grandparents passed away and seeing—even if there are no challenges around consumer protection, still it is a process for anyone obviously going through that, dealing with bank accounts and property. So ensuring that these NOSIs and liens are not unduly placed on a title of a property will ensure that this difficult time for those families is not made even more difficult by those extra challenges and those bad actors trying to take advantage of our seniors.

Speaker, I know our government will take steps to ensure that consumers and a fair marketplace is upheld across Ontario, ensuring that we continue to support the many businesses in Ontario and in my riding of Perth–Wellington.

While I have the floor, Speaker, I also want to briefly thank Jamie from the Huron Perth Community Legal Clinic for his submissions to the committee. I know I always appreciate meeting with Jamie, and his thoughts and our discussions.

I would like to believe that consumer protection, especially in the context of this legislation and within the larger free-enterprise society we have in Ontario, is something that we can all come together and agree to support.

Speaker, I am heartened to hear the support from the opposition, and I hope we see that this evening, once we get to the vote on—I’m doing wishful thinking that we’ll vote on this right away. Maybe we’ll get unanimous consent to do that.

With that, I conclude my remarks.

Report continues in volume B.