I want to thank the government House leader for that response, but I would appreciate this morning, given the pressure I’m under as part of these negotiations at home, that we have a specific answer in this debate to the question; that is, when we put forward a plan for community safety in our city, to help some of our neighbours who are struggling—if anybody has been in our downtown or any downtown, you’ve seen them with mental health and addictions behaviours. We want to make sure that the best help is available to de-escalate people, reach people and get them on a pathway to treatment.

What we’ve seen in Toronto is that an unarmed crisis response unit of professionals is extremely successful. We would like to know, as we prepare to respond to the government, is the government prepared, in our community safety plan, to fund those unarmed professionals, to fund food security professionals? I see Rachael Wilson from the Ottawa Food Bank here in the gallery. There are many people who can be part of the strategy to make sure people get fed, people find affordable housing, and people get the help they need.

So the specific question to my friend opposite: Can the unarmed crisis response unit we’re getting ready be funded by the government in our proposal?

I just appreciate Diane, and I hope you all can do that, too.

I’m very proud to introduce a petition this afternoon brought forward by many neighbours, including Richard Oldfield from Bowmanville, who I was just having lunch with, as an active transportation advocate. It reads:

“I Support the Moving Ontarians Safely Act.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas we’re seeing an alarming rise in road accidents involving drivers who injure or kill a pedestrian, road worker,” first responder “or cyclist;

“Whereas currently, vulnerable road users in Ontario are not specifically protected by law. In fact, Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act allows drivers who seriously injure or kill a vulnerable road user to avoid meaningful consequences, often facing only minimal fines;

“Whereas this leaves the friends and families of victims unsatisfied with the lack of consequences and the government’s responses to traffic accidents that result in death or injury to their loved ones;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to:

“—reduce the number of traffic fatalities and injuries to vulnerable road users;

“—create meaningful consequences that ensure responsibility and accountability for drivers who share the road with pedestrians, cyclists, road construction workers, emergency responders and other vulnerable road users;

“—allow friends and family of vulnerable road users whose death or serious injury was caused by an offending driver to have their victim impact statement heard in person in court by the driver responsible; and

“—pass Bill 40, the Moving Ontarians Safely Act.”

Speaker, I am proud to sign this petition and send it with page Jessy to the Clerks’ table.

I have a petition here that comes from neighbours in Old Ottawa East and Ottawa Centre. It reads:

“A New Plan for the 417 Canal Bridge Replacement.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“After more than five years of work,” the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario “has a new ‘preferred option’ for replacing the deteriorated 417 bridge over the Rideau Canal that would require 90-week-long detours on Colonel By Drive and Queen Elizabeth Driveway traffic beneath the bridge;

“On the Old Ottawa East side, drivers, pedestrians and cyclists would have to take a detour using Main and Hawthorne and on the Glebe/Centretown side they’d have to take Elgin and Argyle;

“The consequence would be that Main-Hawthorne and Elgin-Argyle would have more traffic than they were designed for”—I should have said, ‘Be it resolved that;’ my apologies, Speaker—“resulting” in “lengthy delays and more dangerous conditions for pedestrians and cyclists. MTO has conducted” insufficient “traffic studies to assess the impact of their ‘preferred option;’”

Be it further resolved that “the MTO consultation on the bridge replacement has” not satisfied some of “the affected Ottawa downtown neighbourhoods. Notifications and consultations for the wider Ottawa population who may use these routes daily have been ... unsatisfactory. Information provided by MTO to other orders of government about community consultations” impacts organizations like “Parks Canada, the National Capital Commission and” the “city of Ottawa” municipal departments;”

Be it further resolved that “in 2019, MTO presented a plan for the bridge replacement that had no substantial detours. Three years later ... this new plan” is being presented with details in “the documentation posted online in November of 2022, claiming it was necessary to save the two buildings at and near the northwest corner of Hawthorne and Echo;”

Be it further resolved that “the bridge replacement project is not likely to happen for another four to five years but it is just at that time Old Ottawa East will be recovering from the massive Greenfield-Main-Hawthorne construction project;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct its Ministry of Transportation” of Ontario “to develop construction alternatives for the Rideau Canal bridge replacement project that do not include long-term traffic diversions on either Queen Elizabeth Driveway or Colonel By Drive, as well as to have open consultations with local communities and with other government agencies, already engaged in this process, prior to completing a transportation environmental study report for the ongoing environmental assessment process.”

I want to thank the neighbours in Old Ottawa East for this very detailed petition, and I will send it to the Clerks’ table with page Leo.

Either the member from Mississauga–Erin Mills or the member from Whitby can answer this question. I paid attention to what they had to say very seriously because, like everyone, I care about community safety.

I want to bring to the floor of the House a matter we’re dealing with in Ottawa Centre this week. We’ve had notice that people who do not like queer or transgender neighbours are coming to Broadview Avenue, the site of three public schools, and they’re going to protest and attempt to harass children on their way to school. So we have been working proactively with the police in our community and neighbours who are disgusted with this kind of behaviour.

What I don’t see in the bill proposed, and I hope to see it, are proactive resources that can make sure, as the member for Toronto Centre said, that our police are not responding a great deal to situations where mental health workers could help. They could respond to actual incidents of unsafety, and we could have them there in significant numbers.

Can the members enlighten me: How does this bill make sure people in a community like mine will be safe when they need to be safe?

I want to continue with that train of thought. I’m wondering if any one of us would appreciate any government, anywhere coming to us, as elected representatives, and saying, “Do you know what? If you support this bill, I’ll give you potable water. If you support this bill, I’ll build a school in your community.” Sadly, when I talk to Indigenous neighbours, these are not imagined circumstances. They only get to talk about core services for their communities if they co-operate with a development project which is prefabricated and already mostly designed. I’m wondering if the member for Toronto Centre could enlighten the House about how you actually build in a collaborative way as opposed to a forced-fed way. Are we not setting ourselves up for disaster if we do what the members are proposing we do in this bill?

I’m just wondering if the member for Peterborough–Kawartha can explain a little bit further about that ethical, green way of doing things, because as I read the bill, what I don’t see in the bill is a commitment to free, prior and informed consent from Indigenous neighbours in this province. What I fear is what the member was talking about earlier, about these five- or six-year delays towards getting a mining project open. You’re going to make that even worse if you’re being led by a Premier talking about hopping on bulldozers, if you’re saying, “This is what we are going to do,” instead of inviting our neighbours up north, who know the land, who want to be consulted on their land about the impact of the projects. I’m wondering if the member can explain to this House this green and ethical way of does things if this government won’t even show up in the territory being impacted to talk honestly about the projects they’re proposing.

I mean it, to my neighbour from up the Ottawa Valley there. Let me work with you, my friend.

Take this bill on the road through the community, and they will tell you why a mayor-driven model is not going to build you more homes. It’s not going to help feed people who are suffering, help them recover and get a decent life. It’s not going to help a small business that is going to close right now.

I think of a place like the Ottawa Bike Café on Sparks Street, which is a fantastic enterprise. If you’re ever in our city, I encourage you to patronize it. Just like every Sparks Street business right now, they have been hammered by the pandemic, because they’re in the red zone. As we figured out, from a security perspective, what to do going forward after the convoy, we forced a lot of these businesses to close, or we forced them to open up, because they needed the revenue, without a lot of traffic, because now we have federal government workers who used to work in that area of the city working from home. I think about the owners of that place, Jason and Maria, and I think about what their future is going to be. What is Bill 3 going to do for them?

If the government would allow us to take this bill on the road and not rush it through this House, I think they would hear from those voices directly, not just the carping socialist on Wednesday morning.

So where are we at, Speaker? We’re in a situation where my friends in government are telling us that the only way to build housing in the province of Ontario is to put more power in the office of the mayor. The mayor of our city, who was not consulted on this piece of legislation, is telling this government, “Put on the brakes. You never talked to me about this.” But we’re marching forward nonetheless.

But the good news is this: I’ve worked with these folks before to get a public inquiry declared into our LRT system. I’m happy to work with them again to make sure this bill actually does what it’s intended to do. Because we have elections coming up province-wide for municipal elected officials, every single one of those aspiring municipal elected officials are going to have to try to prove to our neighbours how they’re going to help people get housed, how they’re going to help small businesses be successful, how they’re going to help deal with our mental health crisis everywhere in our city. They share an ambition for urgent change.

I’ve often found, as I’ve listened to my friends in government talk about legislation over the last four years, that we share a commonality of urgency. They want to get things done, to time-allocate, to move fast. If I was in government, I would probably be sitting at the table and saying the same thing—“Enough talk. Enough studying things to death.” I like that.

What I absolutely don’t like and what I would never consider adequate for me, for people working with me, is to march ahead with proposals that have never been presented to those they will directly impact first. I can’t do that; that’s a red line.

So let’s back up a bit. Let’s think about how we can build housing, how we can make municipal decisions co-operatively. Let’s involve all stakeholders at the table, and let’s actually build the Ontario that we’ve dreamed about. We never do that. We hit each other with partisan gloves in this place all the time. We never stop for a second to think about what we agree on and how we can build the Ontario we dream about. Bill 3, in my opinion, is falling short on that right now, and we need a piece of legislation that will make that happen.