We’ll support you, yes. We’ve got your back. Thank you.

What I would also like to see, if we’re talking about increasing density, is to move forward with allowing increased density along transit corridors, those apartment buildings along transit corridors that would provide more affordable options for people, especially if we mandate that a percentage of those units are more family-friendly in size, because we’re not going to solve the housing crisis by building 500-square-foot units or 4,000-square-foot mansions on sprawl. We need a mix, and what’s missing are those family-friendly-sized apartments, those 1,200-to-1,600-square-foot apartments, those starter homes. I would like to see that.

And then the other change that is in the bill is the decision by this government to consult on changing the building code to allow three-to-six-storey homes to have only one stairwell instead of two. I think consultation on this is a good idea. The reason why I think this is a good idea is because, if we are going to move ahead with moving to just one stairwell, we need to make sure these homes are safe, and that means doing proper consultation with fire marshals and fire departments, looking at the evidence to ensure that if there is a fire in these buildings, people can get out quickly.

The reason why I say that is because we have had residents in our riding who have died in fires. We had one on Shaw Street, and an individual on the top floor did not get out in time. It was awful. And then we had William Cachia, who lived in a rooming house in the Danforth area. There was a fire in the early morning in a rooming house. He didn’t get out on time and he died.

It is often lower-income people living in poorly maintained homes who are the people who died in fires—it is. And, tragically, these buildings, both of them, did not have working fire alarms—they didn’t. But I also think that we need to build in redundancy when we’re ensuring that people are safe, because there are always going to be some places that don’t have working fire alarms because the building isn’t properly maintained. So I like the idea of this government doing consultation on this to make sure we get it right.

I want to spend a few minutes talking about the provincial policy statement. The provincial policy statement is not directly included in this bill, but it’s complementary. There’s a reason why you introduced it on the same day. Unfortunately, unlike some of the grab bag of some good things in this bill, I’m very worried about what’s in the provincial policy statement.

For those that are listening: The provincial policy statement is a short document that provides guidance to how planning happens in Ontario. It provides direction to municipalities. It provides a summary of where we build and how we build. It’s a short document and it’s a very important document. When I read this document, the take-home message I get is that the provincial policy statement is green-lighting more single-family homes on farmland—very expensive sprawl. I have some concerns with that because that kind of development is very expensive and we know that this government’s own Housing Affordability Task Force told this government that we can build the homes that we need, we can meet our 1.5-million home target, by building in areas that are already zoned for development. We know that.

So when I read the provincial policy statement, what I see is that it wipes out settlement area boundaries and municipal comprehensive review processes that prevent unnecessary low-density sprawl on farmland. So now what can happen is the developer—let’s say they bought land just outside the municipal boundary, and they bought it cheap because it was farmland and it was just zoned for farmland, okay? They got it for a steal. Well, now, what they can do is they can go to the municipality and say, “I want you to rezone this land to allow for development.”

Now, typically, the process of expanding settlement boundaries could only happen after careful review. Municipalities needed to explain that it was necessary, and it could only happen every five years or so. It was a very careful, well-thought-out process. Now it can happen at any time. If a developer wants their land rezoned, they just have to go to the council and get it approved. That is quite a problem.

I was just on a briefing call and Environmental Defence’s Phil Pothen was on this call, and he said, “This is a breeding ground for corruption. I’m very worried about this—I’m very worried about it.” So that’s one thing I have concerns about.

The other thing is about the appeal process. How this government wants to change it is—let’s say a developer says, “All right, I want you to rezone my land,” and if the municipality says yes, then no one can appeal it. But if the municipality says no, then the developer can appeal. If the municipality approves sprawl, you can’t appeal, and if the municipality denies the sprawl, then the developer can appeal. You’re basically saying, “We want sprawl and we’re going to change the rules around the land tribunal so that it can only say yes to sprawl, it can’t say no.” I have some concerns about that.

I also have some concerns around the provincial policy statement’s decision to get rid of minimum density requirements. It’s crazy. I can’t believe it. It’s 2024, and we’re getting rid of minimum density requirements. So now there is no requirement to meet density in any area; it’s advisory—we recommend it—but it’s not required. I think it’s bananas. I can’t believe that’s there. My hope is that those members in the Conservative Party who know that this is a really crazy idea will speak to their colleagues and we’ll get that changed in a future bill. I’m hopeful.

Member for Waterloo, are you hopeful?

I’m proud to stand in here in support of this very practical motion to provide additional administrative support for doctors so they can focus their time and their talent and their skills on providing patient care. We estimate an investment in administrative support could enable doctors to take on approximately two million more patients. It is a very practical solution that we are presenting today.

In my riding, we have a primary care provider and family doctor shortage.

I recently met with staff and patients from the Taddle Creek Family Health Team. They represent over 25,000 people; they have over 25,000 patients. The doctors told me that they spend easily 20 hours a week on administration, faxing forms, filling in paperwork, referring patients to multiple specialists as there is no centralized wait-list.

The Taddle Creek executive member was telling me that they have many vacant positions that they cannot fill—nurses, pharmacists, social workers. They also told me that people are leaving because they are not paid enough and they can get higher-paying jobs elsewhere. They have made a request to this government to raise wages for staff to comparable wages in the hospital sector, and it was rejected, and as a result, doctors and staff are leaving. This is the family health team that just had one doctor go to a private executive health clinic where it now costs $5,000 a year to access that medical clinic and get basic primary care. That is a shame, and that should not be happening in Ontario today.

When people are left without a family doctor, their health is at risk. Some people will get sicker. Some people will end up in the emergency room. Some people will needlessly die. I do not think this is right.

I believe this government is driving our primary health care system into the ground.

Our health care system depends on people having a primary care provider—it is the backbone—who can perform physicals, prescribe medication, do referrals and consistently manage non-urgent and preventive care.

Residents should not have to go down to the emergency room to get a prescription for antibiotics because there is nowhere else for them to go. That is happening in University–Rosedale today. It is a shame.

We are calling on this government to fix the family doctor shortage and the primary care crisis because everyone in Ontario should have access to good primary care that works for them, regardless of their age or ethnicity, or where they live, or their income.

We have presented a practical solution today to provide additional administrative support to doctors so they can expand the number of patients they can see and do the job that they do well to more people.

I am urging this government to support our motion today and fix our primary care provider shortage.