I want to thank the thousands of Londoners who attended Earthfest on the weekend and who lined up at my table to sign this petition to protect the greenbelt and repeal Bills 23 and 39.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Bills 23 and 39 are the Ford government’s latest attempt to remove protected land from the greenbelt, allowing wealthy developers to profit over bulldozing over 7,000 acres of farmland;

“Whereas green spaces and farmland are what we rely on to grow our food, support natural habitats, prevent flooding, and mitigate from future climate disasters with Ontario losing 319.6 acres of farmland daily to development;

“Whereas the government’s Housing Affordability Task Force found there are plenty of places to build homes without destroying the greenbelt, showcasing that Bill 23 was never about housing but about making the rich richer;

“Whereas the power of conservation authorities will be taken away, weakening environmental protections, and preventing future development;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately repeal Bills 23 and 39, stop all plans to further remove protected land from the greenbelt and protect existing farmland in the province by passing the NDP’s Protecting Agricultural Land Act.”

I fully support this petition. I’ll affix my name and send it to the table with page Senna.

My question is to the Premier. A staff report went to the London city councillors last week warning that Bill 23 will cause a $100-million revenue loss over the next five years, likely resulting in property tax increases. City staff cautioned that Bill 23 will reduce parks and green spaces, limit the city’s ability to invest in low-income housing and cause needed infrastructure improvements to be deferred. It will make it challenging for London to deliver on its approved target of 47,000 new housing units.

Speaker, why is this government creating a huge revenue hole for cities like London and making it more difficult to increase housing supply?

The Upper Thames River Conservation Authority states that Bill 23 will “open up significant holes in the delivery of our natural hazard roles, rendering them ineffective,” and “will negatively impact our ability to protect people and property from natural hazards.”

Speaker, why is this government gutting protections for the wetlands that protect cities like London from flooding risk?

Thank you to the Minister of Finance for his comments. One of the changes that is proposed in this bill that has raised alarms with many people in this province are the changes to conservation authorities. People rightly point out that what has been of greatest concern around this government’s approach to conservation authorities is the development of warehouses on wetlands. The question that critics have raised is whether this bill is actually about building housing, or is it about allowing more warehouses on protected wetlands. Can the minister tell us exactly how limiting the ability of conservation authorities to protect sensitive wetland areas is going to help spur new housing in the province?

Interjection.