My question is for the Premier. The RCMP has announced a criminal investigation into the $8.3-billion greenbelt land giveaway. Yesterday, the Minister of Municipal Affairs announced he would reverse the controversial changes to urban boundaries that were imposed by his predecessor. The minister admitted that there was too much involvement from the previous minister’s office in these decisions and that they failed to meet the standard of public trust.

Mr. Speaker, given the criminal investigation into the greenbelt and the similarities with the decisions on the urban boundary expansions, will the Premier take responsibility for leading the government under a shroud of secrecy, leading to criminal investigations, or will he continue to throw his ministers under the bus and back it up again?

The government delayed the approval of Ottawa’s official plan by a year, dragging it out throughout the election, and it seems that they spent that time fundraising on changes, or potential changes, to the plan that could be seen if they won re-election. Not only did they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar; they took a giant bite out of the cookie and are trying to put it back in without anyone noticing.

Mr. Speaker, given the criminal investigation into the greenbelt and the similarities with the decisions on the urban boundaries, will the Premier invite the RCMP to expand their investigation to include these urban boundary decisions as well?

It was ruled out of scope, not late. It was ruled out of scope, Madam Speaker, for the bill. So, if tracking the supposed results stemming from a piece of legislation is out of scope, then I don’t know what we’re doing. If we’re not going to track the results of what we do, what are we doing at all? It was ruled out of order because even the government knows that this is not a housing bill. It was ruled out of scope because it doesn’t address housing and the amendment was about housing. So even the government knows that this isn’t a housing bill. It’s a municipal governance bill, and one that doesn’t address the most important governance issues facing Ontario municipalities.

Given that this bill is about the city of Toronto and the city of Ottawa, the first thing they should do is to approve Ottawa’s official plan: to bring new lands into the urban boundary, to change policies around intensification and density around transit, to address the missing middle, and to help Ottawa build more and better 15-minute communities for all the residents of the nation’s capital.

I know that the mayor was caught off guard. We were at the Navan Fair a day later, and he told me that he had yet to be called about this bill.

Certainly, if you’re going to make change and work collaboratively with municipalities in Ontario, the easiest thing you can do is pick up the phone and have a chat before you go to a microphone.

Members of this chamber might be forgiven—and their laughter demonstrates it—for not paying day-to-day attention to the planning decisions and debates at Ottawa city council; I can forgive you for not paying that close attention. So let’s make sure we know what we’re talking about.

Last fall, after literally years of work, after countless public delegations, negotiations with the home-building industry, consultations with community associations and other stakeholders, after extensive discussions and debates, Ottawa city council came to consensus—without a veto, without a carrot and a stick—and approved a new official plan. That was October 27, 2021, almost a year ago. Within this official plan, there are proposed plans for urban expansion to help create more neighbourhoods by partnering with the Algonquins of Ontario, an important part of Ottawa’s efforts towards reconciliation. In addition to adding these development lands, the official plan includes a direction to achieve the majority of growth through intensification and growing the city around rapid transit systems. It recognizes the city’s climate change master plan and seeks to reduce Ottawa’s greenhouse gas emissions by 100% by 2050. It includes higher density around higher-order public transit. The city, through the official plan, is embracing the idea of 15-minute neighbourhoods, not just in the downtown or inside the urban core, but in the suburbs as well. New communities in Orléans and Barrhaven and Kanata and Findlay Creek are now more dense than inner urban areas like the Glebe and Old Ottawa South.

Ottawa has the vision to address major issues facing us as a society. Creating livable communities with active transportation is a step towards dealing with Ontario’s affordability crisis. It’s a step towards the climate crisis. It’s a step towards addressing the physical fitness crisis. And it’s a step being held back by this government. The plan laid out in Ottawa’s official plan clearly provides the solution to tackling some of Ontario’s most serious social problems. It’s a plan that will spur growth and move housing forward—housing of all types—not just in Orléans, but across the city of Ottawa. And it’s stalled by this government. When council approved the plan last fall, the law said that the minister had 120 days to approve it. That would have left the decision until about March. Ottawa’s official plan continues to sit on the minister’s desk, collecting dust, waiting for approval. So, despite this minister and this government claiming that red tape is their enemy and that cutting it is imperative to solving the housing crisis, they’ve wrapped Ottawa’s aggressive housing goals in an enormous ball of red tape, and that ball of red tape is the minister’s signature.

If this government is serious about addressing Ontario’s and Ottawa’s housing crisis, the minister should first approve Ottawa’s official plan to get housing built, to bring in new lands for new communities, to address density and intensification around transit infrastructure.

As I’ve said, this is not a housing bill or a housing plan; this is a municipal governance bill.

I pointed out the important work that the city of Ottawa has done to measure its progress on so many critical elements of change.

I found it interesting that, in committee, an amendment to allow for the measurement of new housing built as a result of this bill was ruled out of order. It was ruled out of scope for the bill.

It’s interesting that in a bill that is about the expansion of housing, the words “home,” “house,” “zoning,” “land use,” “affordability, “planning,” “development” and “density” do not appear once in the bill, nor were these powers requested by either municipality.

Something that the city of Ottawa and other municipalities—I think Brampton—and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario have asked for is a process to remove bad actors from municipalities across Ontario, to remove city councillors who abuse their colleagues, who abuse staff sexually, emotionally and psychologically. So I’m wondering why the minister chose not to include those powers in this bill which is about increasing municipal powers.

The bill amends the Municipal Act, 2001, and the City of Toronto Act, 2006. It requires that codes of conduct for municipal councillors and members of local boards include requirements for those councillors and members to comply with workplace violence and harassment policies, and creates an integrity commissioner and judicial process to remove them from office for egregious acts of sexual, emotional and psychological misconduct.

Madame Collard moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 6, An Act to establish an advisory committee for foreign credentials / Projet de loi 6, Loi créant un comité consultatif pour les titres de compétence acquis à l’étranger.