I want to provide an opportunity for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to correct their record. Yesterday, the minister insisted that Mr. Massoudi had never been registered to lobby the government. The lobbyist register tells a very different story. It shows that the firm Mr. Massoudi owns, Atlas Strategic Advisors, was indeed registered and lobbying the government on behalf of numerous clients between 2022 and 2023.

So let’s give the minister another opportunity—one more chance, Speaker. Why was Mr. Massoudi given a contract to write speeches for the Premier at the same time that he was actively lobbying this government?

Thank you to the member across for his comments. I wanted to just dig a little bit deeper. I think it’s important for to us recognize that there is a description of the annexed area that’s described in the bill, in the schedule, but we have learned that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing can oftentimes prescribe a different outcome.

I just want to make sure that the area described, the annexed area in the bill, in the schedule, is going to be exactly what is going to be prescribed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing afterwards.

Withdraw. Thank you, Speaker.

Allow me to reframe this debate for you since we’re talking about the strong mayor. I want to share with you a recent experience that the cities have. You can call it any city.

What happens when your strong mayor refuses to take basic steps to march in the Pride parade to support the 2SLGBTQ community? What happens when your strong mayor has a history of police having to investigate domestic violence, including pressing charges? What happens when your strong mayor was documented handing out $20 bills in social housing to win favour? What happens when your mayor is the kind of person who says, “If you are not doing needles and you are not gay, you won’t get AIDS probably”? What happens when your strong mayor always votes against funding HIV/AIDS programs? What happens when your strong mayor rips out bike lanes and blames cyclists for cars hitting them? What happens when your strong mayor promotes digging a private toll tunnel under the Toronto Gardiner Expressway to avoid hitting cyclists?

What happens when your strong mayor charges into his own deputy mayor during a city council meeting, causing her to live with chronic pain until the day she died? What happens when your strong mayor tries to buy and privatize the abutting public parkland next to his house to enlarge his backyard? What happens when your strong mayor tries to take over the waterfront by dropping a mega mall and Ferris wheel without support from the local residents or city council? What happens when your mayor says a home for the developmentally disabled youth in Etobicoke had ruined the community? What happens when your mayor calls women reporters “bitches”?

This Premier wants to impose a strong-mayor system in Toronto to support his provincial priorities—

This Premier wants to impose a strong-mayor system in Toronto to support his provincial priorities, yet we have no idea what the provincial priorities are. The mandate letters aren’t even made public, and you expect us to just accept this carte blanche. But given our recent experience in Toronto, I would say no thanks.

Speaker, mayors are human, and everyone makes mistakes. I know that we can expand ourselves and go beyond that. But some are corrupt and some are incompetent.

City councils as a whole are far more accountable because we can allow the checks and balances to take place. There will be far more accountability with a strong local government when we deliver good and open government for the residents of Toronto and for Ottawa. A strong-mayor system opens the door for corruption and costly mistakes. These are not my words or my assumption; this was already said by the integrity commissioner. That is a price that I don’t think Torontonians are ready to make. It’s certainly a price that’s too expensive; we can’t afford it.

Recently, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing mocked me for promoting a red-light development system to stop development. What he conveniently omitted was that it was a red-light system to hinder bad development and a green-light system to advance good development. He forgot to say that.

He conveniently forgot to tell the whole story, which was widely reported in the Toronto media at that time. But the Toronto city planners will remember this story because in 2019, after this government first took office, the minister unilaterally tore up the city of Toronto’s downtown secondary plan. We had been working on this document for a number of years and it was going to guide our urban growth for the next 25 years.

The planning document was clearly studied and consultations took place with residents and home builders alike. This government’s 224 changes, surgical changes to Toronto’s downtown secondary plan, included eliminating and reducing infrastructure such as daycares and other community facilities as a condition of development. With a stroke of their pen, they enriched developer donors without binding them to building sustainable, responsible buildings in complete neighbourhoods—what every urbanist is asking for.

As a response to this ripping up of our secondary plan, downtown councillors, with the support of our city planners, created a “red light, green light” system to evaluate which development proposals got prioritized, which ones were going to be advanced. We were determined to make sure that even if you tore up, even if this House tore up our secondary plan, we were going to do everything we could to hang on to it because we worked so darn hard at it.

In Ontario, land use planning has always been an important part of the work expected from the local representative. In 2012, I worked with city council to free Toronto from the Ontario Municipal Board in getting the Liberal government to reform and modernize the quasi-judicial, unelected, unaccountable board.

The very next year, after this government was elected, they tossed all those consultations and all that work out the window, into the garbage bin, and then they brought back the OMB, bigger, stronger and uglier than ever before, with a brand new name: the Ontario Land Tribunal.

This government does not stand for good planning or even good development. They don’t even hide the fact that they reward their wealthy developers and land speculator donors. This government prints MZOs like it’s money for rich donors, paves over wetlands for developers, and illegally tears down heritage buildings, like the foundry buildings in the west Donlands, for mystery buyers. They stopped the construction of North York housing for the homeless. The government doesn’t care about housing, but only about those who are enriched and who can keep them in power.

If the Premier truly cared about housing—I want to make this case—he would:

—meet with the co-op housing federation’s requests for seed grant funding;

—empower cities to investigate rule-breaking Airbnbs so that we can actually get our bylaws back under order. We could put 6,500 family homes right into the market today with a stroke of your pen;

—investigate and crack down on money laundering in the housing sector and land speculation;

—introduce rent control and vacancy decontrol legislation to rein in spiraling rental costs;

—fund the construction of new affordable housing so that the most precariously housed among us will be stabilized;

—create incentives to build the right kind of housing, not small bachelors for speculators but the right kind of housing that’s large, family sized, with three, four, five bedrooms. This House would even invest in creating rent-to-own programs for communities like mine in Regent Park, and family-sized and rent-geared-to-income units; and

—mandate universal design and accessible housing standards so that people who use mobility devices will have access to every single unit without being asked to languish on a wait-list.

If this government truly supported housing, you would actually support Mayor Tory’s HousingTO, a $24-billion plan to build 40,000 homes over the next 10 years, which requires a financial commitment from three orders of government, approximately $7.1 billion each—that’s billion with a B.

If this government actually wants to build housing, then you need to spend the money that you’ve been hoarding and not the millions that you sprinkle around, that you re-announce and re-announce and re-announce. We’ve all heard those stories before and we’ve seen those press releases at the city of Toronto.

In fact, every three to six months, city council will reiterate its request to this government for the outstanding $7 billion of capital and operating funding that we need in order for the mayor to meet his housing targets.

If this government was serious about housing, then they would issue the city-initiated MZO that the city council has been asking for for two years at 175 Cummer Avenue in North York, but instead the MPP and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has put the brakes on that, asking for more consultation. So we now have 69 units of new, prefabricated housing that could be homes, sitting in a parking lot while people are sleeping in encampments, while we carry out bogus consultation.

Residents know that talk is cheap. This government talks a good deal about housing, but when it comes to building housing and paying the bill for housing, to get shovels in the ground, very little is taking place. Residents are expected to pay their rent on time; we expect the government to pay their bills on time.

For all those reasons—and I could go on, but I’m not going to because I’m getting a little worked up. And to be quite honest, so are the residents of Toronto and so are the members of city council and so is our planning department, because we have all worked so hard to build one of the most globally competitive and dynamic cities in Canada, if not around the world, where we’re world leaders on innovation, green tech and sustainable technology. We are a major employment cluster, a major producer of the GDP, yet we get treated like this. Torontonians deserve better. City council deserves better.

We are looking for a partnership in this government to build housing for Ontarians. This bill doesn’t do any of that, and that is why I cannot support it.

It’s an honour to rise in this House to speak on behalf of the great people of Toronto Centre and specifically to this bill, Bill 3, which will give the mayors of Toronto and Ottawa more political power than the 48 other municipal councillors combined in the two cities.

It should be no surprise to those in the House that, given my history of championing local government, urbanism and my love for the city of Toronto, I have many thoughts to share about this bill. I want to start by calling a spade a spade. This bill has nothing to do with housing and everything to do with a revenge plot. The Premier has clearly not gotten over his anger at Torontonians for refusing to make him their mayor in 2014. The counsel I would suggest that the Premier seek to process his residual anger is that from a therapist and not legislative counsel. This bill again demonstrates the Premier’s disregard for Toronto’s democracy and Toronto’s city council. It’s simply a power grab.

We can have a conversation about the merits of a strong-mayor system—that I would welcome—but that is not what the government is proposing through Bill 3. But the Premier doesn’t want to hear from Torontonians; or, even worse, he’ll do exactly the opposite of what they want. Case in point: After a multi-year consultation with Toronto residents, in 2016 Toronto city council adopted an independent report to amend the ward boundary review to achieve voter parity. Even the Ontario Municipal Board sided with city council. In 2018, the Premier ignored Toronto residents to collapse our democratically determined districts into double-sized mega wards. Now a city of nearly three million residents has 25 councillors, which is nearly the same number of councillors as the city of Ottawa, which only has one million residents.

Toronto is the fourth-largest government in North America, with an annual operating budget of $15 billion, the most diverse city on the planet, where nearly three million residents speak over 200 languages, and the Premier wants to centralize power into the hands of one man.

The Premier is not interested in making life better for people in Toronto; he is, however, interested in perpetuating a political system that only allows people who are almost always rich, almost always white, almost always male and almost always incumbents to run and win political office. When 52% of Torontonians belong to a visible minority group and yet only 20% of city councillors do, there is something tragically wrong with that. I’m going to dig into this flaw a little bit further in the legislation, as someone who has had the experience of running both in a municipal city election as well as now running for a political party in the provincial system.

Running for municipal office, as many of the colleagues here will know, is an individual endeavour. It is not going to be accessible to all residents. There are many systemic barriers to overcome, and this discourages diverse voices who deserve to see themselves represented from running because they are not able to. As a councillor, you have to build an organization team from scratch. You have to network and strategize your path to victory almost by yourself. And then you better have the financial means to be able to put your life on hold for the next five to eight months, let alone to fundraise for a political campaign.

Nothing about the demands I describe are structurally favourable for the leaders our city truly and honestly needs. Our city is full of these leaders who are Black, Indigenous, women, people of colour, queer, two-spirited, trans, low income, people living with disabilities and working-class people. They should have a chance to run for political office. A strong-mayor system will actually deter that.

If we were discussing a bill that actually did anything to strengthen Toronto’s democracy, it would actually allow cities to implement ranked ballots, repeal Bill 5 and empower Toronto’s democratically elected government to have a say in the size of their council and the size of their municipal wards. It should enact proportional representation provincially so that cities could also have predictability and long-term plans that persist through changes in government through their provincial counterparts. It should also limit this government’s ability to enact MZOs that undermine public faith in the planning process.

But if this government was actually proposing a bill to get more housing built, I can offer you some advice on that. After all, I was appointed by Mayor Tory and I served eight years on the planning and growth management committee and another additional four—eight altogether—on the planning and housing committee, when I only resigned on May 3 to run in the provincial election.

During those eight years on the planning and growth management and planning and housing committees, I sat directly across from Toronto’s chief planner, the housing secretariat, the director of urban design, the general manager of heritage planning, the director of transportation planning, the director of strategic initiatives, policy and planning, and others. This was led by our chief planner with our professional planning division of 477 full-time employees, staff who oversaw one of the fastest-growing cities in the world.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing likes to patronize Toronto from his town seat in Brockville. He often boasts that Toronto’s mired in red tape and repeatedly insults city council for their inefficiency. The minister seems to conveniently ignore that in the first quarter of 2022, Toronto had 252 cranes working on construction projects, far outdistancing even the second-place city in the crane index, Los Angeles, which had 51. Seattle was next with 37 cranes; Calgary had 31; and Washington, DC, had 26. Toronto has led in the crane index count every year since 2015.

Meeting provincial growth targets has not been a challenge for the planning and housing committee; nor has it been a challenge for city council. I was constantly, and we were constantly, reminded of this by Toronto’s chief planner, whom I had the distinct honour of working with. Toronto’s chief planner, Gregg Lintern, wrote in his recent Development Pipeline 2021 report:

“The city continues to be an exceptionally attractive” place “for development in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). There are more residential units and more non-residential GFA proposed in the current Development Pipeline than in any other Pipeline over the last five years. Given the scale of this proposed development, comprehensive planning frameworks that link infrastructure” to comprehensive planning that allows us to manage the city’s growth is what we need to determine how we improve the quality of life. The pandemic has not deterred development activity in Toronto.

The city of Toronto’s population growth is firmly on track with the forecast supporting A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. As the city’s urban growth centres develop, they are progressing towards or exceeding the province’s density targets set out in the 2020 growth plan as amended by this House.

In Toronto, our professional city planners know this government’s strong mayors bill posing as a housing bill is an absolute farce. Councillors and city planners representing avenues, urban growth centres, especially in midtown, North York and downtown have individually approved more housing than all the MPPs in this House combined together—mathematical fact.

Here’s the receipt from the 2021 housing report from our chief planner: In total, over 503,000 residential units were proposed in projects with development activity from 2016 to 2020. Of this, only 93,000 were actually built. There are more than 162 residential units that have been approved but not built. Again, 246,000 units still under active review, which means that there are about 409,000 residential units that are either under review or active, indicating a continuation of strong development activity in Toronto. In the coming years, what we will see is that the residential units, if all realized over time, will increase the total number of dwellings in the city by over one third.

The next point I have to share with this chamber, Speaker, is that having a strong-mayor system sounds vaguely like a positive thing. What this bill’s title and framing are is fundamentally misleading and unfair. So allow me to frame it more simply based on the recent experience that we’ve had in the city.

What happens when your strong mayor refuses to take basic steps—

Good morning to the members. It’s an honour today to rise to speak to Bill 2, the Plan to Build Act.

I want to start my remarks by sharing my first impressions. I want you all to know—and I think you do know—that I’m new to Queen’s Park, having come here from city hall after serving 12 years as a city councillor. So I have a little bit of experience in working with budgets.

As someone who is elected to hold government accountable for my constituents, I want to share with you some of my observations. I need to see the numbers—I think we all need to see numbers when it comes to budgetary decisions, but it’s really hard to find out exactly what’s in there. Given the very limited documents that we have available to us as MPPs, this is certainly something that I think could use some improvement.

Just to give you an example of how things could work in another government, the city of Toronto is the fourth-largest government in North America. The various city departments draw up their respective budgets based on city council decisions, often established based on motions established the year before. Therefore, municipal priorities are established by the city council, including the mayor, and then costed by staff. The budgets are then launched at the budget committee, and the financial planning staff and senior departments each present their budget request to the budget committee, the executive committee and, ultimately, the city council, for a final decision. During this time, members of the public can review the budget’s department spending, line by line, briefing notes and analysts’ notes. Budget town halls are held by city councillors, where we and the CFO or a financial planning staff representative will then go and present this information to the public, and the public can ask questions and dive deeper into some of their priorities.

Toronto residents are also available to submit their communication and their budget deputations in person to the committee, including to the mayor, who chairs his very powerful executive committee—each member hand-chosen and selected by the mayor and appointed by him.

The entire process from the city of Toronto’s budget is launched from—and it takes about six to eight weeks, from the beginning of the year. Therefore, we adopt the 2022 operating budgets, the tax-supported budgets and the capital budgets for a city of three million people by, roughly, February, which is in line with general accounting principles. Since the spending has already begun in January, we try to make that decision on the budget final deliberations as quickly as possible. Therefore, we don’t delay; we get it done. The problem with having a budget adopted so late in the year, when the spending has already begun, is that programs and services are already rolling out.

At Queen’s Park, we’re debating a budget that few have actually read. Having spoken to a number of media reporters and asking them how they review the line-by-line spending, how they are able to do that review and account—they tell me that it’s difficult because they don’t have access to the information either. This could change, and I hope that it can, and it should.

Ontarians need to have access to the detailed budget and any relevant data and information. This will empower our stakeholders and citizens to make informed decisions to better grow their businesses, to better understand particular issues, and to hold government to account. A much more detailed copy of the Ontario budget should be made available and accessible to everyone. The Ontario budget should inspire and invite universal participation, where everyone should be encouraged that they have a place here in Ontario and that they can also participate in important decision-making processes. We are sitting here; they are not. We’re making decisions about their lives with very little input.

After all, a government budget is the apex of every single policy tool. You can have all the strategies and the plans you want, but without a line item and discretionary spending, it just won’t happen. It cannot be operationalized.

As members here in this House, we can have the opportunity to make lives significantly better, or significantly worse, just by adopting a budget. So if we were to invert that process and bring residents in closer to help us design a better budget that better reflects their priorities and needs, we think that everybody would be better off. I hope we can do that together. It will allow us to create an open and accessible budget process in Ontario that can better create business, drive innovation and help us design citizen-centred services.

It’s extremely valuable to all of us and to our constituents to understand how government money is being spent. I know that fiscal responsibility and accountability are important values to all my colleagues here in this House.

I think we can do better. I hope we can do better. I look forward to learning with you how we can improve this process here at Queen’s Park.

I understand that I can now use my laptop in this chamber because of specific and long-overdue changes to the standing orders. I think we can do the same thing with how we modernize our budget process so that financial spending information is made available to all residents. After all, our residents, the citizens, the constituents of Ontario, are our best assets. They will help us live up to the potential and the inspiration of what we consider the concept of Ontario.

I know that the government was elected by a majority in the first-past-the-post system, and I want to honour that. But I also want to remind all of us that 43% of voter turnout—having less than 18% of eligible voters vote for the PCs—doesn’t give you a bulldozing mandate when it comes to the budget. We are here to work together, and I’m going to continue to echo this theme throughout my four years here at Queen’s Park.

What are the challenges of the day? I know we’re going to spend a lot of time talking about health care because, in this budget, we need to find the solutions to our health care crisis. As my colleague the member for Waterloo has said, health care spending has increased only by 5.2% in this quarter, when inflation was 8.1%. This means, according to Statistics Canada reporting of inflation at 7.6% in July, this effectively makes that budget spending a cut. So we are not investing actively in the health care system by adopting this budget as it is today without any significant amendments; we are making a cut, especially when health care investments are needed the most.

My constituent J wrote to me: “Health care workers are overworked. My dad is in hospital with lymphoma. While his condition is getting worse, nurses and doctors have been too busy to follow up with me when I ask about my dad.

“How much more suffering must my family and I endure before things can change for the better?”

I don’t see the answers to what J is asking for in this budget. In fact, what we’re hearing this week is that the government is considering privatized health care delivery. Privatization will not solve our health care crisis. Rumblings of privatization and the planning of privatization have my constituents worried.

My constituent Lee, a nurse who immigrated to Canada from the United States, wrote to me describing what he is seeing: “My clinic is the great equalizer—you receive the same level of care no matter your socio-economic status, language, race, religion, sex, creed, title” and so forth. Furthermore, he adds that competition between health care providers for the same pot of limited government dollars will create inefficiencies and increase the cost of health care delivery.

My constituent points to recent data that came out from the University Health Network, which the Toronto Star reported on earlier. The UHN’s spending on temporary nurses increased in the last fiscal year to $6.7 million. Compare that to the year before: It was $776,000 only, which means that our publicly funded hospitals are already in the business of privatization, because we are systematically starving them of the funds they need to do their work.

Inflation and privatization are burning through our hospital and health care budgets, and they’re doing so at both ends. This is a crisis that needs our attention.

To end this crisis in the hospitals, we need to do some things. We need to scrap Bill 124 immediately. We need to pay nurses, health care workers and PSWs more. We need to accredit tens of thousands of internationally educated health care professionals, and we need to start a hiring and training blitz immediately, right now.

The Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario has called for this government to hire 30,000 more nurses. They are the experts, and that should be our goal as well.

I want to now focus my concerns on how this budget has no measures to enhance gender-affirming health care. As the 2SLGBTQIA+ critic, my office reached out to stakeholders in trans and gender-diverse communities for their thoughts and lived experiences.

Fae Johnstone, the executive director of Wisdom2Action, told me, “Gender-affirming health care literally saves lives, but trans and gender-diverse people in Ontario are facing huge—and growing—barriers to access. Our gender-affirming health services have been neglected by government for decades, even as increasing social acceptance results in more coming out and seeking these medically necessary services. Our communities have been hit hard by COVID, with increased isolation and access to safer spaces reduced by the pandemic, all of which has been exacerbated by rising anti-trans hate. Now is the time to invest in gender-affirming care, particularly youth. If we can” do this “now, we can save lives. If we keep on with the status quo, we will be complicit in the continued suffering of trans and gender-diverse” people.

I know this government likes to talk about innovation. This is one area of the health care sector that you can innovate.

Hannah Hodson, another advocate for trans health, told my office, “Happiness comes from living honestly and feeling comfortable in who you are. Gender-affirming care is simply allowing people to see themselves in the mirror. It is about becoming who you really are. I was born appearing as a cis straight white man. I had won the lottery. I wouldn’t have transitioned on a whim and subjected myself to abuse and harassment just for fun, or because it was a trend. These services are essential for people to live their honest and true lives.”

Speaker, gender-affirming health care is life-saving health care. But it is a complicated and nuanced kind of health care that needs medical professionals with the capacity to respond to the needs of their patients. Ontario’s ability to deliver gender-affirming, high-quality health care is at odds with the health care crisis.

Trans activist Susan Gapka described this to me, and I share this with you: “Now, wait times for referrals and access to trans-affirming care and surgeries has dramatically increased, causing distress to those requiring these essential services. People desperately need equitable access to” life-affirming health care.

Speaker, in the near future, I will be re-tabling my predecessor’s bill, the gender-affirming health care act. It calls for an advisory committee made up of people with lived experiences into the barriers that are being faced by trans Ontarians as they try to access gender-affirming health care. Some of those barriers that they face are poverty, disability and perhaps being a sex worker.

Later this year, at the Trans Day of Remembrance, I hope every single one of us will remember when we go out to participate in these events that it’s too simple to simply raise the flag and say a few nice words. That is too ceremonial. It’s too perfunctory. What we need to do is confirm to this community that we actually understand what their needs are and that we are willing to be real allies, and that’s going beyond the events and going beyond the symbolic gesture of raising a flag.

On a similar note around emerging health care trends, we need to talk about monkeypox. I know from Hansard that this is the first time the word “monkeypox” is being mentioned in this House. So let’s have that conversation right now.

While monkeypox has been recently reported for its transmission through sex, it is not exclusively transmitted through sex. It can be spread through droplets, skin-to-skin contact and contaminated objects. I am worried about this monkeypox virus for my constituents. We live in a dense city. Many of us come from urban centres, and so many of my constituents have roommates. Sharing towels, sheets, utensils and clothes can also spread monkeypox.

We have to be honest that many men who have sex with men also have sex with women.

We know that the isolation with monkeypox can be several weeks long. As this budget confirms, this government will only be extending its three-paid-sick-days program until March 2023. Those three days were never enough to cover the spread of COVID-19, and they certainly aren’t enough to cover the spread of monkeypox.

Discussing the monkeypox quarantine period, Dr. Darrell Tan from a local hospital in my riding said this to the CBC: “Many folks during that long period, if they’re forced to isolate, are not going to be able to go to work, are not going to be able to pay their bills, pay the rent, put food on the table.”

We all have a duty of care to protect the health of Ontarians. Three days doesn’t come close to empowering our communities to fend off this emerging infectious disease.

My constituent Peter Kelly, who recently contracted monkeypox, told the CBC that the pain of having monkeypox was so bad: “You can’t control it. It feels like razor blades in a way, shocking you constantly.”

The Decent Work and Health Network has commented to the media that their doctors anticipate up to 10% of monkeypox patients will need emergency room care, because that is how powerful this infection is. Does anyone think our hospitals are ready and staffed to manage a new wave of an infectious disease?

For now, monkeypox is mostly infecting gay and bisexual men.

The clock is ticking, and the rates of infection are growing. We have the time to take hold and reverse that trend, but we can’t do it with an inadequate sick pay program that is only three days.

I wonder if the government’s response would be different if most people getting monkeypox were not men having sex with men.

This budget doesn’t reverse the cuts to public health care. And this government has made it clear from the beginning of their first term—this is now your fifth year in government—that funding for health care is the price of modern living. We all agree to that. We cannot defer health care spending, because it is going to be much more expensive down the road when we are in a deeper crisis than we are in today.

I want to turn my comments now to social assistance and what Ontarians need from this budget.

As I discussed in my inaugural remarks in this chamber only yesterday, social assistance was there for me when I needed it, when I came out of the closet, and when I was trying to finish high school. Getting student welfare enabled me to recover from what was a traumatic life experience. That safety net no longer exists, and I think we need to think long and hard on how we’re going to address that. When it’s so fractured and beyond a state of repair, it is so difficult to build those institutions up. But worse than that, the potential of Ontarians and Canadians who want to give back to their country and help build this great province and give back to our communities—they won’t be able to do so because they won’t be able to get up when they’ve been knocked down.

My office was reached out to by Ivan Brochu, a tenant activist in Toronto who lives on ODSP, who says this about the Premier’s 5% increase and what his actual needs are: “A 5% increase completely ignores the reality that is ODSP hasn’t seen a raise since 2018 and most recipients live halfway below the livable income cut-off. Nothing less than doubling ODSP recognizes the dire situation” that people are currently living with.

Yesterday, Cally, another constituent, reached out to me to share her story. I’m going to share this with you today: “I am a newly diagnosed diabetic who now has a blood glucose meter. I only get enough lancets and test strips for 100 tests and I have to pay extra for the needles for my injector pen I need once a week. I have to cover the rest of the strips and lancets! This eats into what I have left for food. My extra $58 per month will now have to go mainly towards test stuff and needles. This should be covered by ODSP. I am so angry. Today I spent $64 I don’t have at the pharmacy!”

Speaker, this Legislature has the opportunity to end legislated poverty, and to do that we need to double the ODSP.

Speaking of legislated poverty, we need to be able to see more measures in the budget to also end evictions.

My riding is home to an organization called the Toronto Rent Bank. With my support as a councillor, during the pandemic they began providing tenant grants to avoid evictions. This is good. It actually keeps people housed. It also diverts people away from social assistance. The Toronto Rent Bank has helped over 1,700 tenants in Toronto avoid eviction.

I hear this feedback, and this is what I’m going to share with you today: “Thanks to Toronto Rent Bank I was able to make it through the worst of the lockdowns and stay in my apartment. Their service is an invaluable part of keeping communities intact.”

With skyrocketing inflation, tenants need support from more than the city; they need real help from the government and from the province—tangible support to keep people in homes and out of encampments. Instead of helping, this government is burning and hurting Ontarians, especially renters, by allowing rents to be raised by a historic 2.5% this year, and this is despite all the different challenges that we’ve now seen in the tenant and landlord tribunal. We need to be able to do more and act faster.

With skyrocketing inflation, vacancy control is the least expensive way that this government can curb the cost of living.

I want to be able to bring our attention to the fact that there are many people who are being hurt, and this budget is not necessarily helping.

Ontario’s tribunal backlogs need investments so that they can function at the level that Ontarians rightfully expect from their government and courts. The wait times for cases before the Landlord and Tenant Board, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, the Social Benefits Tribunal and the family courts are creating avoidable costs for our constituents and businesses. I hear about how legal firms are increasingly worried that they cannot take on more cases, which means people will not have access to justice, something that I believe this government should care about. I want to be able to see those investments in legal aid and so much more.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for the time and opportunity to address this House today. I look forward to any questions.