Madam Speaker, I think if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6.

Pursuant to the order of the House passed earlier today, I am now required to put the question.

Mr. Flack has moved third reading of Bill 150, An Act to enact the Official Plan Adjustments Act, 2023 and to amend the Planning Act with respect to remedies. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour of the motion, please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the motion passed.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

There being no private members’ public business designated for debate today, it is now time for the late show.

The member for Ottawa South.

Sure, go on.

Interjection: You have one minute.

Bill 141, the Defibrillator Registration and Public Access Act, received royal assent in June of 2020, and it will be four years this June, if nothing happens, that we’ve gone without this registry, which does two things: It lets people know where defibrillators are if there’s an emergency. It helps paramedic services know that. So you can imagine right now that if there’s somebody who has a cardiac arrest—and 7,000 people a year have a cardiac arrest in Ontario—if they have that somewhere in Ontario—and you can imagine if it was a relative of yours and they had a cardiac arrest and there was a defibrillator in the elementary school or in an office nearby, but nobody knew.

The other piece of the bill was—and the member from Nickel Belt and myself wrote the same bill as the member from Eglinton–Lawrence; we just travelled that bill, and I’ll explain how that happened in a little while. Inside that bill, it says if you have a defibrillator and it’s registered, then you have to maintain it. It’s not that much to maintain. It’s multiples of years to replace pads and batteries so that it works in case of a cardiac arrest, because if you find a defibrillator and you go to apply it and it doesn’t work, there’s going to be a bad result. So it’s a great bill; they were all great bills.

What happened is, the House leader at the time was a new House leader, and I spoke directly to the House leader and suggested that we debate the member from Eglinton–Lawrence’s bill, because they were all the same, and she had a slot. We could debate it, get it to second reading, and I said, “Let’s travel the bill,” and the House leader, to his credit at the time, said, “Yes, we’ll travel it. We’ll get it done.” It was travelled, and as I said, it passed third reading and received royal assent in June of 2020.

So it’s three and a half years since we debated second reading here—four years actually, so three and a half years this law has been on the books, a law that will save lives. Defibrillators do save lives, and we know that if we get to people within three minutes, they’re likely going to survive.

As I said in my question, the person sitting next to me in this chair is living proof that defibrillators work, and if they couldn’t find it or it didn’t work, he wouldn’t be here. That’s the purpose of the bill.

The reason that I’m annoyed at the answer that I got to the question is, two years ago this member talked about this bill and said we need to do something, two years ago this January, and nothing has happened, no regulations, nothing.

The government has an opportunity to enact a piece of legislation that will keep people safe, that will keep people alive, that will prevent families from having empty chairs. So what I would like to hear from the parliamentary assistant—and I very much appreciate the fact that you’re here—is that somebody is going to do something, that you’re going to get it done because it’s been three and a half years. As I said in my question, three minutes saves a life, but it’s three and a half years we’re waiting. Three minutes, three and a half years—and 7,000 people a year.

I really sincerely hope that the government is working on getting this thing done before we come back here. It can be done. It’s been three and a half years. It will almost be four if you don’t get it done. It’s a good thing; it’s an opportunity. We put forward this bill, and it’s been put forward in the past, and it didn’t get done. If I hear in the response from the other side, “Well, you guys never did it,” fine, okay, sure, but you’ve had an opportunity for three and a half years with a law that’s been on the books and an opportunity to do it, and irrespective of what happened 10 years ago or five years ago, you need to do it. It would be good for all Ontarians if this law became enacted as soon as possible.

Did you talk about Kaleed at all?

A lot.

Our MPP from Oshawa has made clear—she just had a wedding, and she gave out bottles of maple syrup. So there is another way. Gifting MZOs, which is gifting land in the province, is not the way to go.

An Ancaster councillor, Craig Cassar, said it best: “It’s entirely undemocratic for the province to accommodate for-profit interests that are in complete contradiction to the public’s interest.”

We also know that many of these changes came directly, word for word, from speculators.

So it is well and good that the government is reversing this, because certainly it was a messy business indeed.

Again, the fact that we are here in this House, just having rammed through legislation and rushed legislation, giving the power to issue MZOs to a minister—it’s in stark contrast to what happened with issuing these MZOs and what happens when you shortchange a process, when you cut the public out, and when you don’t fulfill your duty to consult Indigenous First Nations. There are consequences. I’m standing here, right now, as a consequence of this, while you’re rolling back and revoking this bill.

I’m just going to talk about some of the stakeholders and some of the consequences of what you’ve done by rushing MZOs.

Let’s start with everybody’s favourite, if you will—an article from Colin D’Mello that says, “Ford Government Forced to Fix Rushed Zoning Order That Put Tower on Flight Path.” Well, how is that for a headline, Speaker?

“The Ford government was forced to scale back” an MZO “after the developer was given permission to build a skyscraper right in the middle of the flight path of Pearson International Airport ... after a rushed process....

“The gaffe is likely to draw more scrutiny to the province’s use of ... MZOs a controversial tool that allows the province to overrule and replace ... decisions made by local councils....

“Sources with knowledge of the provincial process told Global News the request for one building included in the zoning order—a 50-storey tower—come from the developer and was turned around by the Ford government in less than two weeks.

“The order to allow the building near Toronto Pearson airport came through the Premier’s Office and was given to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing....”

They turned this MZO around in two weeks, put a tower in a flight path of Pearson airport—if that is not evidence of a rushed process that needs to be reversed, I don’t know what is.

Also, consequences in Hamilton: We know this government is under RCMP investigation, I would say justifiably. But Hamilton city council moved a motion to request the RCMP to investigate the province’s changes to the official plan and urban boundary. Hamilton city council is requesting that the RCMP investigate not only the province’s greenbelt land removal, but also its decision to expand the city’s urban boundary and make other surprise changes to its official plan.

As reported by CBC, Hamilton and the province “copied a developer’s exact request into the official plan so he could move forward with building condos in Ancaster. The developer’s representative had attended Premier Doug Ford’s daughter’s stag and doe in the summer of 2022.” Again, it’s a consequence of a process that is rushed.

That you are still continuing on with your Ontario Place shenanigans has consequences.

I never in a million years thought that I would get elected to this esteemed House to represent the people of Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas and I would be talking about a developer and an MPP having couple massages in Vegas. I never thought that we would hear planning decisions made on massage tables in Vegas. It’s funny, but it is not funny. It’s a sad state of affairs.

Finally, what I want to say is that these things have consequences, and there are questions that remain. I mean, the minister—we want to know, was he going to abandon his plan to make lower-tier mayors responsible for his decisions? Will the minister confirm that no further changes to these official plans will be imposed? Will the minister promise not to slow down or complicate housing plans by allowing sprawl developers to appeal official plans themselves? And will the minister promise to maintain and respect the settlement boundary system and the ban on avoidable boundary expansions from now on? These are the questions that remain.

While this bill is here because of the community that saw through the actions of this government and rose up, and while it is important that we are reversing this here, I hope that we all understand the importance of good planning, the importance of democratic processes and the importance of why we’re here as legislators, which is to do the right thing the first time, and not spend time reversing decisions that shouldn’t have ever been made in the first place.

And with that, Madam Speaker, I cede my time. Thank you.

Again.

I also want to go back to saying that the reason we are here debating this bill that is going to revoke/reverse the things this government did when it came to forced urban boundary expansions on municipalities across the province—the reason we are here: We are sharing this victory with all of the people that came together, the grassroots organizations that worked together to push back on this government. They attended rallies, they took signs, they signed petitions, so they were united in demanding that this government—you know, they were asked to protect the greenbelt in perpetuity, and then they understood that the second part of the greenbelt scandal, greenbelt scandal 2.0, if you will, was this forced urban boundary expansion and the issuing of MZOs all across the province. This is the second piece of a land grab scandal that has seized this House, that seized the government for at least the better part of a year.

It’s also the reason that we have, for the first time in the province of Ontario, a government that is under criminal investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It’s stunning. I just want to make sure that we understand how serious this is because the division—the special prosecutor that is looking into the actions of this government is the sensitive and international investigations unit. This unit looks into high-risk matters that cause significant threats to Canada’s political, economic and social integrity of its institutions across Canada and internationally. Those are some serious matters.

So I would like to think, as I have been saying, that the government, the minister and the Premier understand where we are in the province; that this is a government that has learned the error of their ways, has learned that we are in a situation like this because of acts of this government that disrespected the laws, that disrespected the will of the people of the province of Ontario. But as we see with the bill that was just passed, it would be apparent that they have not learned the lesson.

You know, it’s been said many times, and I’m of this sentiment: The Premier said he was sorry, and I agree with people across Ontario who say he was sorry that he got caught and it only just looks like this. All the evidence, all the bills that keep coming forward confirm this is not truly sorry; this is “Sorry, but if I hadn’t got caught, where would we be?” If he hadn’t got caught, where would we be? If we hadn’t had an Integrity Commissioner’s report, where would we be? If we hadn’t had an Auditor General’s report, where would we be? If we hadn’t had excellent investigative journalism, where would we be?

If we hadn’t had the Leader of the Opposition, Marit Stiles, who wrote to the Auditor General, who wrote to the Integrity Commissioner, who filed FOIs, all of this would have remained hidden. The government would be going on as business as usual, working not for the people of the province of Ontario, but working for their developer insiders, donors to the party, friends and family, guests of the Ford government, friends of the Ford government. That’s what we would still be doing. And I submit that the bill that we’ve just passed, the Ontario Place bill, that’s the same behaviour. That’s the same behaviour. And the truth will out, as they say in Shakespeare. I believe that is the case.

Let me speak to this bill, Bill 150. This is the Planning Statute Law Amendment Act. Really, what this does is it reverses the harmful, unilaterally imposed urban boundary expansions that this government forced on municipalities in the past year. We have been saying this is the right thing to do, to reverse it, but we were also saying it was the wrong thing to do in the first place, that you’ve done this. But it did take an Auditor General’s report, an Integrity Commissioner’s report and, as I said, an RCMP investigation and extraordinary advocacy from the public to get the government to begin reversing its preferential treatment of favoured speculators.

And even after these extraordinary reversals that we’re seeing here in these two bills, this bill still does not reverse many other planning policies that continue to make rich speculators richer and that harm the public interest and that still fail to deliver the housing that Ontarians need. Despite what the government does, despite what the minister of housing says, this does not come close to delivering the housing need in the province of Ontario. You’ve set us back, so far back when people are in such, such desperate need.

It’s interesting; I would say that we were clear. Experts have been clear, and we’ve been saying that this government didn’t need the greenbelt and they didn’t need this forced urban boundary expansions to build the housing that we need. The government’s own affordable housing task force said clearly shortage of land is not the cause of the housing crisis.

So really, honestly, again, why did this government waste a yearplus with greenbelt grabs and forced urban boundary expansions instead of implementing policies that might actually get homes built? Why didn’t you introduce inclusionary zoning? Why instead of investing in a luxury spa—sprawl, pardon me; I almost said “spa” again. We’ve been saying “spa” a lot, but I meant to say “luxury sprawl.” Instead of investing in that, why didn’t you invest in non-market housing that we’ve talked about? The solutions are there: co-op housing—

Interjection: Supportive housing.

Really, I can only conclude, if the government agrees that it was a mistake to give preferential treatment to speculator friends with the greenbelt grab and the forced urban boundary expansion—it agrees, obviously, that it was a mistake to give many of those speculators arbitrary MZOs who are now under investigation by the auditor. My question is, if they see this as a mistake, if they agree that it was wrong to give preferential treatment, if they agree with the Auditor General’s investigating these MZOs and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing clearly saying they will be looking at all of those MZOs that were issued, why are you giving a new minister the unilateral power—one minister, one person, the power to issue MZOs without public scrutiny? That’s the mess you got into in the first place, but you’re doing it again. It defies logic.

So let’s just take a leap of faith now and say that the government has seen the error of their ways and that they’re reversing these MZOs and these forced urban boundaries because they see that that was not the direction to go in. But then, the question is, if you see that we don’t need the greenbelt land—you’re putting those back—and we don’t need those forced urban boundaries, do you now agree with your own housing task force recommendation that we don’t need these lands to build housing? Is this signalling that you now do not agree that we need to encroach on farmland, that we need to lose more prime agricultural farmland, that we need to build on heritage natural spaces to build the housing we need? I can only assume that’s what that means.

Going forward, we will be keeping an eye on you to see what changes you continue to make. As I said when we discussed the greenbelt reversal bill, there still is a provision in that bill that allows for the government to remove lands from the greenbelt. The minister was very clear and the assistant minister for housing was very clear to say that they reserve the right to use greenbelt land to build infrastructure. So this greenbelt land is not protected in perpetuity. This bill reverses some of the harmful decisions, but you’ve left loopholes in there that will allow the greenbelt and farmland and urban boundaries to be expanded at the signing of the pen of a minister.

The urban boundary expansion has been called “greenbelt scam 2.0,” because as we know, this unilateral grab of greenbelt lands was not put in the public sphere; people weren’t given the opportunity to consult on it. And then, when it came to forced urban boundary expansions—let’s be clear: This is a government that bigfooted municipalities and regions all across the province. These are municipalities and regions that put forward official plans, and this government just overrode them, just unilaterally decided—“Thank you, councillors; thank you, local planners; thank you, local citizens, for all the effort you put into coming up with your reasoned, well-thought-out official plans, the ways that you were going to build your own communities. Thanks anyway, but we’re just going to take all of these and we’re going to override them. We’re going to rewrite them in the minister’s office.” That is an incredible, incredible, heavy-handed action on the part of this government. The regions that had this happen to them—they were mentioned before, but this government ignored councils in Waterloo, Barrie, Wellington. There were also significant changes made to Hamilton.

I want to talk a little bit about what happened in Hamilton. In Hamilton, on the same day that the government opened up greenbelt lands for development, the government also forced the expansion of Hamilton’s urban boundaries by 2,200 hectares of land—again, overriding city council and overriding the will of the people of the city of Hamilton. And I need to be clear: This is almost three times as much land with an urban boundary expansion as was lost during the greenbelt grab. Again, the people of Hamilton, who had been advocating for a frozen urban boundary, spoke up. I will say that, in Hamilton, we had a referendum, and something—90% of the people, I think; there was an extraordinary number of people who filled out their referendum and returned it to council. Of that, it was an overwhelming majority—I think it was perhaps 90% of the people who said they wanted a firm urban boundary; they didn’t want to expand. That was the will of the people of Hamilton. It was the decision of Hamilton city council, and it was the decision of Hamilton’s city planners. Despite this being submitted to the province, the previous minister, Mr. Clark, overrode it, just like that. He threatened that he would in an op-ed—an extraordinary, unusual op-ed that he wrote to the city of Hamilton in the Hamilton Spectator, saying that he would overturn it, and sure enough, he did.

This is a government that not only overrode democratically elected councils, but they abdicated their duty to consult with First Nations.

We know that so many of these deals happened in the back rooms. We also know that the vast majority of the developers that benefited from the urban boundary expansion were the same speculators that benefited from the greenbelt grab.

So we have, again, the Integrity Commissioner and the Auditor General to thank for some of the records that show what happened behind the scenes.

I think it needs to be made clear that in the Integrity Commissioner’s report, developers from Hamilton were invited by this government to a meeting where they were shown the changes that were going to be made to Hamilton’s official plan; they were shown before Hamilton city councillors were, before Hamilton planners were. These developers were in a meeting and said, “Are you comfortable with the changes we’re going to make to the official plan?” These are developers and lobbyists. It turns out that they are one of the same developers that bought tickets for Doug Ford’s stag and doe. This is no way to conduct business. It’s shocking that insider developers would be given a heads-up on the changes that were going to be made to Hamilton’s official plan before Hamilton was. And if that isn’t evidence of preferential treatment, if that isn’t evidence of insider dealing, I don’t know what is.

I want to go on to say that there was a court challenge, as there always is with this government, and records were revealed. In these records that came directly from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, these records revealed—they were internal documents that showed that this government knew the decisions they were making around urban boundary expansions were not needed. The documents said clearly that in many municipalities, including in Hamilton, the Hamilton frozen boundary expansion would have been sufficient to build the houses that we need. It showed that there was no understanding of the cost that would be incurred by municipalities like Hamilton—which actually means Hamilton taxpayers. They didn’t take into consideration the cost that would be downloaded to taxpayers when this forced urban boundary expansion required the city of Hamilton to build infrastructure—roads, schools, fire stations, fire hydrants, sewer, waste water. All those costs are not on the developers; they’re on the city of Hamilton, also known as the taxpayers. The ministry’s own documents revealed that they didn’t know what those costs were going to be, and they still went ahead.

The ministry’s own internal documents said that they knew that this would impact prime agricultural land, which we all know—farms feed cities. We’re losing agricultural land at an unsustainable pace—that wasn’t a concern—and that the environmental impacts would be significant, but they weren’t taken into consideration. This is the information that the ministry used to make their decision when they went ahead with these forced urban boundaries. It’s unbelievable that that would be okay, that that’s part of the decision.

Again, was this about housing? I would just say that no one actually is buying the line that it was about housing—and the line is the point that I want to say, because Ryan Amato was quoted in these documents telling bureaucrats and telling assistant ministers, “Hold the line. It’s all about housing.” And that came when the heat was on. So they even said it was a line: “Hold the line. It’s all about housing.” That was their cover story. Ford’s hand-picked adviser was saying, “Hold the line.”

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing’s own documents showed that the 77 individual changes that were proposed to Hamilton’s municipal plans were requested by unnamed parties, third parties. We don’t know who made these requests, so it’s like the province is governed by Mr. X and unnamed third parties who had direct influence in changing how land was used in the province and in Hamilton. So, absolutely, this was another sketchy backroom deal that benefited well-connected speculators and, as we say, has done nothing to build homes for our community of Hamilton.

I would just want to make sure that you are aware that Hamilton is meeting the housing targets that we agreed on with the province—actually, we’re exceeding those within our existing urban boundaries. It’s proof positive that these lands, this greenbelt grab and this forced urban boundary expansion that made people rich was not needed to build the housing we need.

I also want to talk a little bit about the MZOs. Again, this extraordinary number of MZOs that have been issued in this province is like an albatross around the neck of this government. We know what you’ve been up to, because of the extraordinary number of MZOs that have been issued.

This is an insane fact: Guests at Doug Ford’s daughter’s wedding received 18 MZOs—more MZOs than the Liberal government issued in their time in office.

Interjection: And we thought they did a lot.

Again.

As I rise today, I just have to remark on what we just witnessed in this House, which was a shocking abuse of power.

This government passed a bill, the Ontario Place act. They shut out debate at second reading. They passed what’s called a time allocation motion to short-circuit debate at second reading. They did not send it to committee for people to talk about this important bill that will impact Ontario Place and has given the government extraordinary powers to protect themselves and to issue MZOs. Then they short-circuited third reading debate. We were not allowed to debate this at third reading. These are key components of our Westminster parliamentary democracy—key—and we just witnessed this government abuse that.

I would say, you know, there’s a famous philosopher—his name is John Stuart Mill. He wrote on things that this government—it might fit with their philosophy on government. John Stuart Mill talked about the tyranny of the majority, and that’s what we’ve witnessed here. This government has the majority and they used it to further their own ends, and they shut out the people of the province of Ontario when it came to what they’re doing at Ontario Place.

My question would be, Madam Speaker, why have they done this? To build a luxury spa for a foreign company—it’s a remarkable question. Why would they use this extraordinary use of power and short-circuit democracy for a luxury spa for a for-profit, private company? That’s the question. You know, eventually, all things come to light—the light of day, as we see with this legislation. The question is, what has Premier Ford signed Ontarians up for? Why are we not allowed to debate this bill? Why can we not see the details of the 99-year lease given on behalf of us? What we just witnessed here is nothing short, as I said, of another nail in the coffin of what we used to think was a democratic province in Ontario, and it really has been shameful, shameful behaviour here today in this Legislature.

I also want to respond to the member from Perth–Wellington, who said they’re going to codify in law these changes that they’re making to the greenbelt. But follow with me: We are here debating a bill that is putting in place restoring a bill that this government already overturned. It’s a bill that they passed; they overturned the bill, and now we have a bill before us to do that. So it doesn’t matter what you codify in law. You said your government has said they won’t open the greenbelt, but you did do it and here we are with a bill before us that’s simply trying to overdo what you’ve done, which is to overturn a previously existing bill.

It used to be, again, in the province of Ontario, that statutes and laws warranted a certain amount of respect. They’re weren’t just obstacles, as this government likes to say, the laws of the province of Ontario. Things that were debated and voted in this esteemed House are not just things you can overturn. They’re not just obstacles for this government to get its way. They used to command a certain amount of respect, but unfortunately I don’t see that here. So the idea that we’re passing a new statute to reverse the repeal of another statute—the irony is unbelievable in this House. I’m sorry to say, Madam Speaker, it is, to me, really disappointing and—what is the word I want to say?—a disappointing and disgraceful moment here in this House.

Further debate?

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.

Further debate? Further debate?

Today, it’s my pleasure and privilege to rise for the third reading of our government’s proposed Planning Statute Law Amendment Act, 2023. I’ll be sharing the government’s lead-off time today with the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Speaker, it would be helpful to look at the bigger picture in which this legislation has been brought forward. When our government took office in 2018, it very quickly became apparent that Ontario is facing a severe housing shortage. This isn’t something unique to Ontario. Indeed, the rest of Canada and many other G7 economies are facing similar challenges. Ontario remains the engine of the Canadian economy. It is our economic brand for people all over the world.

Speaker, many of us in this House have stories of family members coming to Ontario to build a better life. I think of my parents and their forefathers; my mother was from the Ottawa Valley, just like the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke—one of the founding fathers, actually, of the city of Pembroke. And why they came was for opportunity. My father—on his side of the family—came from England to build a better life right here in Toronto. An important part of that dream was to own their own farm, own their own home, own a place where they could raise their family. And with a decent job and watching the pennies, it was attainable for most people.

But today, things are much different. The math simply doesn’t work for first-time homebuyers.

I have an example to share. I’m one of four boys. Each of us was able to buy our own house at a very young age and make the down payments, get into the mortgage world, and make payments and build equity in our home, knowing it would go up in value over time. Unfortunately, every one of our daughters and sons in our family has not been able to get that job done yet. It’s wrong. We need to change it, and that’s what this government is faced with doing and will continue to do in a very prudent way.

People with good jobs are being priced out of the market. Even families with two good incomes find it impossible to get onto the housing ladder and to make it work. At the same time, rental accommodation is desperately scarce. Even though we’ve seen new rental starts and builds year over year up 43.5%—or nearly 15,000 new units—rental accommodation still is desperately scarce.

Affordable rental apartments were a rite of passage for young people just starting out and making their way in the world, in Ontario and Canada, for newcomers adjusting to life in Canada, or for seniors who want to downsize and stay in the community they raised their families and want to continue to live in. But the construction of new rentals has virtually ground to a halt up until the last year. People avoided investment in rentals because it just wasn’t profitable. The result is a generation of young adults being forced to live in their parents’ basements or people making do with less as their rent costs more.

Speaker, we know that demand on our existing housing supply will only intensify. More than 500,000 people moved to the province in 2022 alone. In my adult lifetime, I’ve seen the population of this province more than double. Recent projections show that as many as four million additional people will move to Ontario by 2031, making this province nearly 20 million people in total. In 2022, Ontario’s population was just over 15 million people, and by 2046, that figure is expected to be north of 21 million souls; that’s almost 44% growth. In fact, some of my colleagues in the GTHA will say that in the next 10 years the GTHA itself will be the size of Ontario today. In a little more than two decades from now, we have an opportunity to change our housing market conditions as they sit.

There’s a very good reason why people are moving to Ontario in droves, by the millions: It’s opportunity, it’s promise, and it’s about building a better life, just like the generations before us who built Ontario and who built Canada.

Our government’s open-for-business approach is attracting investment and spurring job creation. Businesses of all sizes are setting up shop. Last year, 18,000 businesses opened right here in Ontario, representing 41% of the Canadian total. Good things happen in Ontario. Since we took office in 2018, over 700,000 jobs have been created; where many were lost, we see job growth continuing on the rise.

We want the province to thrive, to be a place where people can come to build a better life and raise a family. To match this bold growth, we need a bold plan to build more housing. That’s why our government is determined to work with our partners to build at least 1.5 million homes by 2031.

Speaker, this picture I paint, one of severe housing shortage coupled with a strong economy and growing population, illustrates why our government has placed building more homes front and centre. Since taking office, our government has brought forward four housing supply action plans. The plans have helped get shovels in the ground faster to build the full range of housing to meet the needs of all Ontarians—this includes affordable, community, market and rental, high-rise, low-rise and long-term-care housing. We’ve made good progress, with housing starts returning to levels not seen since the 1980s.

The severity of the housing challenge Ontario faces was the driver behind our government’s original plans to open up more land for housing development. One of the ways we sought to do this was by expanding some urban boundaries through the official plan process. But as has been acknowledged publicly, these decisions may not have been made in the way that supported our goal of building 1.5 million homes while balancing the needs and priorities of local communities and instilling public trust.

That is why our government introduced Bill 150, the Planning Statute Law Amendment Act, 2023. This proposed legislation would reverse provincial changes made in November 2022 and April 2023 to official plans and the official plan amendments in 12 municipalities. Those are the cities of Barrie, Belleville, Guelph, Hamilton, Ottawa, Peterborough, and Wellington county, and the regional municipalities of Halton, Niagara, Peel, Waterloo and York. The reversal includes changes to urban boundaries while maintaining protections for the greenbelt. This really is a reset for the government to work with our municipal partners so that we can remain focused on working together.

Speaker, let’s look more closely at how the proposed legislation would work. The reversal of the official plan decisions made by the province would be retroactive to the original date they were made, either on November 4, 2022, or April 11, 2023. Construction that has already received a building permit since that time would be able to continue. Applications already in progress seeking planning permissions—for example, zoning bylaw amendments or plans of subdivision—would continue to be processed. These in-process applications would need to conform to the municipality’s official plan, approved under the Planning Statute Law Amendment Act, 2023.

As we have discussed, the proposed legislation would reverse changes to urban boundaries while maintaining protections for the greenbelt. However, through the legislation, we are proposing to maintain a limited number of provincial changes to the official plans. These instances include changes the province made to protect the greenbelt, to protect public health and safety, and to align with existing provincial legislation and regulations. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing will be further exploring these retained modifications in his remarks, in a few minutes.

We recognize that, in some cases, more than a year has passed since the plans were first approved. That is why we have a 45-day engagement with municipalities. This ends on December 7, 2023. We anticipate that the impacted municipalities, as well as affected lower-tier municipalities, will submit comments and provide information on proposed updates.

We wrote to the affected municipalities on November 2,and asked them to submit comments and information on the projects that are in progress. We also wanted them to bring forward requests for provincial modifications that they would like to see maintained from the original decision. More specifically, we asked for information on projects where construction has already begun based on the official plan or official plan amendment decisions—particularly those projects that are directly enabled by the provincial changes that were made to the plan, and we asked for more information related to these changes that the municipality would like made to that official plan, based on the modifications the province had previously made and which the municipality supports.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs will then assess the items brought forward by municipalities in a consistent way, based on criteria. For example, the ministry may consider items such as whether the change is consistent with provincial policies—for example, increasing housing supply or boosting density around transit—or whether the change might resolve the conflict with provincial legislation or regulations, or if the change might be needed to address a public health and safety concern, or changes may be needed to address a provincial priority project—for example, a long-term-care home or a transit-oriented community. If the proposed change meets the criteria to be included in the official plan, the province will consult with the municipality and explore the most effective way to implement it.

People are understandably passionate about the communities they serve, and we acknowledge that time and attention lately have been focused on ensuring we’re living up to the standards that people expect of all of us.

Our approach, which I believe is more productive, is not to focus on those things we disagree on, but rather to focus on the things we agree on with respect to official plans.

I’m happy to report that this bill has generally been received by the different parties we work with in a positive way.

Shortly after we announced we would be reversing the official plan decisions, we received a thoughtful and constructive letter from Colin Best, president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. Mr. Best outlined the association’s thoughts on how the municipalities and the province could work best together. Mr. Best said, “We commend the government for making efforts to ensure that these changes are made in consultation with municipalities and that considerations are being made to ensure that no unintended consequences arise from the proposed reversal.”

The 45-day consultation window I mentioned earlier will ensure affected municipalities have their say as we finalize the official plans. We will evaluate the feedback from the consultation to determine the appropriate next steps, potentially, including further legislation or other actions.

Also, Niagara region chair Jim Bradley was quoted in the media, saying, “I want to commend Minister Calandra and the provincial government for making that decision and reviewing the official plans, not just ours but numerous municipalities right across the province.” Those comments show that we are on the right track with this legislation and with the general reset that we have been working to achieve.

Speaker, the proposed Planning Statute Law Amendment Act, 2023, would introduce immunity provisions to help mitigate legal risk for municipalities and the province resulting from this legislation. The proposed immunity provisions would apply to all matters related to modifications under the act affecting 12 municipalities’ official plan matters.

Bill 150 would also amend the Planning Act to introduce immunity provisions related to the making, amending or revoking of ministerial zoning orders.

Bill 150, the Planning Statute Law Amendment Act, 2023, is about working effectively with our municipal partners. It’s about rebuilding trust so we can continue to focus on building more homes right across Ontario. Our government wants to ensure that people have ready access to a home that suits them, day in and day out. Whether that’s home ownership or a rental apartment, this is another step on the important pathway to helping Ontarians realize their dream of affordable, accessible housing.

Thank you for your attention, Speaker.

With that, I would hand it over to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.