I’d like to thank the member from Barrie–Innisfil for her comments. This government has established so much of their own red tape, we may as well call it blue tape at this point. We brought forward so many positive pieces of legislation from the side of the official opposition which this government is just ideologically choosing to ignore. We’ve talked about continuing the Passport Program past the age of 18, removing that arbitrary red tape; removing the restriction on who someone on ODSP lives with. We’ve talked about so many different things.

We’ve also talked about the importance of the government actually building the affordable and supportive housing that is necessary, yet this government would simply be happy to tie this province up in red tape. They have removed the ability for municipalities to levy development charges. They’ve stripped $5 billion away from municipalities at a time when everyone needs to create housing, yet they have given that to wealthy developers. That is the biggest definition of red tape—or blue tape—that this government has done.

Speaker, I don’t think it’s appropriate for the member for Brantford–Brant to pat themselves on the back for a paltry 5% increase after a 22.5% decrease back in the 1990s.

What is also surprising really is the overt admission by this government they didn’t do their job as the official opposition, but they haven’t really concerned themselves about social assistance. As soon as they formed government, they cut that paltry 3% into 1.5%, waited a number of years for 5%.

Let’s talk about their cuts to minimum wage. They do not care for people who are on the margins, who are being deliberately marginalized by government decisions. In fact, they are upholding that by keeping people below the poverty line. They are kicking downwards to people who can least afford it. They could stand up for renters, they could stand up for students, they could stand up for seniors, but they choose not to again and again and again. There are so many gaps that this government has left, and it’s disappointing. The finances are clear. Poverty has a cost. If they increase social assistance rates—

There are a number of different ways to achieve these same ends without subjecting animals or breeding animals to be treated in this manner. They could be pursuing scent trails. There are a number of different folks from the Animal Alliance of Canada who are suggesting that dogs track through scent. They don’t need to track an animal. That animal does not need to be ripped apart for them to be trained as a hunting animal. It seems incongruous that these animals are simply being ripped apart for really no purpose.

If hunting is involved, then that person is hunting for a purpose: They’re hunting for food. They’re hunting for their culture. It makes no sense that we still have these areas where rabbits, foxes and coyotes are simply mauled for the purpose of what one would call sport.

The FAO has pointed out that this government was sitting on $20 billion in their contingency fund, a slush fund. They’re hiding that so it’s not subject to public scrutiny. And for the estimates process, which normally is 15 hours where the official opposition gets to scrutinize all of the government’s expenditures, this government gave 20 minutes, because they wanted to hide all of the horrible, nefarious things they’re doing with all of the province’s money. It’s a party with the public purse. They just don’t want to know where it’s going. That’s why it’s all pushed aside into the slush fund so they don’t let people know, because accountability and transparency are not this Conservative government’s values.

It is deeply concerning that we have this situation in the richest province, in Ontario. It’s deeply concerning that this government will not address the root causes of poverty and make sure that people are above the poverty line.

It’s an honour for me to rise today as the MPP for London North Centre and add the voices of the great people of my riding.

When we take a look at Bill 91, which we have up here for third reading, we see a number of different changes that this government is making. But what is concerning is that this government, in its ideological war against red tape, has done a lot of tinkering around the edges without addressing the actual needs of Ontarians right now. In fact, in many cases, they are ignoring as well as creating their own red tape—or blue tape, as it were.

This omnibus bill opens up so many laws across Ontario, and it does next to nothing to address the challenges that we face in terms of housing. It does nothing to stop the sprawl that we see, the carving up and the auctioning off of the greenbelt that this government is so fond of doing. We see the people are still going to continue to struggle with the ever-increasing cost of living. We see that people who are on social assistance are deliberately being relegated to below-poverty living standards and assistance levels. And we see that there is very little in terms of the investments that this government would claim in terms of rural communities for broadband infrastructure.

The schedules that I’m going to focus the majority of my comments on today will be schedules 7,14, 29, 30 and 33.

First things first, I did want to briefly mention schedule 3, the Building Broadband Faster Act, which will permit the Minister of Infrastructure to make regulations governing the application. I want to also point out that the Financial Accountability Officer of Ontario in 2021-22 pointed out the vast amounts of money that this government chose not to invest in rural communities in terms of broadband infrastructure.

We know that Internet service is vital. It’s vital to education. It’s vital to our growing economy. It’s vital to the agriculture community. It is vital across the board. Internet service is almost like oxygen these days. When you’re being deprived of it, it is something that we rely upon in so many ways.

In Q1, the FAO pointed out that there was the $92 million below spending. In Q2, there was $110 million below spending. In Q3, there was a $207-million decrease in broadband infrastructure spending. And in Q4, there was a $197-million decrease in expenditures on broadband. It’s very concerning that this government says one thing and clearly is doing another one when it comes to supporting our rural communities.

Now in terms of schedule 7, schedule 7 will open up the Condominium Act and it does make some changes that are necessary. It will allow for virtual board meetings and owner meetings. But there are so many things that this government could have done and should have done and quite frankly must do to make sure that people are protected and safe in the biggest expenditure of their lives, which is to purchase a forever home.

I’d like to point to the Auditor General’s audit. There were so many concerns that the Auditor General had brought forward and there were amendments in 2015 that have not yet been proclaimed into force. The Auditor General found that so many of the inspections were mostly reactive and that many condo directors on the boards had not completed training. There were condo owners who faced so many difficulties and barriers when it comes to accessing condo corporation information. They’re not on a level playing field with condo boards in front of the tribunal. So the Auditor General concluded that the existing model for the condo sector does not provide effective consumer protection and does not address the risks that exist for condo owners and buyers.

Further to that, the CAO was asked questions, and it was also recommended that consumer advocates be present upon CAO board composition, and I think it should be agreed upon across the aisle in this House that the condo authority and tribunal should serve condo owners, not lawyers, not consultants, not managers and not developers. Access to justice is a huge concern for everyone across this province and too often within this system those with deep pockets access justice much quicker than people who possibly need it the most.

It is also very curious, Speaker, that, through their fees, a condo owner could actually be paying for a lawyer to be speaking against themselves. They’re actually paying for representation to take away their interests.

We’ve made many recommendations as the official opposition. I want to also bring forward the voice of Charlene, a resident in London North Centre. She was a member of her condo board, and they had major renovations in her condo development. The board president fired the person who was doing the construction work, and they fired them unilaterally. The board president did not consult with the board whatsoever, and then that board president hired their own cousin to replace the person who was fired and it ended up in a multi-million-dollar lawsuit, and then the condo owners were slapped with a special assessment. It was $1,500 a month for six months for all condo residents to pay for that development. It was an unusually high rate that was being charged further for the renovations.

There was a great deal of news coverage. We saw the condo owners see their rates go up 500 times the rate of inflation. Another resident spoke out saying that her monthly condo fees are now $600—50% more than her monthly mortgage. This was back in 2017, but the issues persist to this day.

As well, the official opposition brought forward legislation to help protect people in condos. It was legislation that would expand the jurisdiction of the Condominium Authority Tribunal so that condo residents have a place to turn for issues like unfair condo fees or negligent building maintenance. That could have been included in Bill 91 if this government really wanted to address issues that face Ontarians instead of simply tinkering around the edges.

Now next I’d like to take a look at schedule 29. Within schedule 29—there’s so many pieces within this legislation. As I said, it’s shocking the government has opened up so much and yet, ironically, done so little. We also see different changes, with schedule 23, to the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act, which many environmental people are enormously concerned about. But we see changes to the Private Career Colleges Act. It’s allowing these organizations to change the term “private career college” to “career college.” What was unclear during committee hearings was what the process would be for these private, for-profit organizations to notify prospective students that this was indeed the type of institution that they would be spending a great deal of money upon. There was also very little sense of what enforcement would be for those bad actors who might mislead or might misrepresent; that’s a great concern. Education is one of the biggest expenditures that young people have to make. It’s really shocking.

Through many consultations that I was also able to take part in as a member of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, we got to travel to many different regions in this province, and I’d like to also add the words from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, who were incredibly concerned about the level of spending that this government and this province makes on services. Ontario is the richest province in Canada, and yet we spend the least amount on services. In fact, as AMO has pointed out, we spend $2,000 less per resident than other provinces. That’s $2,000 less—not to be first, but simply to not be last, we’d have to increase expenditures. It’s deeply, deeply disturbing.

The Association of Municipalities of Ontario also called for dramatic increases in social assistance rates. It’s truly disturbing—and I will focus my comments on this in the short while—that this government has placed people below the poverty line. We know that there were drastic cuts to social assistance in the 1990s. I think it was 22.5% during the Harris government. As drastic as those cuts were, people are far worse off now than they were back then because of the cost of living, because of inflation.

We had a Liberal government that did nothing on social assistance rates for 15 years. We saw some election promises in 2018, but, really, people have been left to languish.

Now this government has made changes with a 5% increase, which amounts to $58 per month. They’ve indexed it to inflation, but they have indexed people into legislated poverty. It’s concerning that they’re content with people still being below that poverty line for years to come. It’s also concerning that, while this government pats itself on the back for this paltry, meagre 5% increase, when they first assumed power, they slashed a planned 3% increase—which was, again, peanuts—to 1.5%. And now that they are giving 5% a number of years later, suddenly they can throw a party and congratulate themselves. It’s deeply concerning.

Now schedule 30, as has been effectively presented by the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane, is something that is eminently supportable. It is something that will protect farmers from non-payment, and it is something that the official opposition absolutely supports. In fact, it is so supportable, it is surprising that this change didn’t warrant its own legislation. It’s kind of a dog’s breakfast when you look at all of the different things that have been pushed into this bill—some of which are excellent, but others are just nowhere near enough.

The OFA is very much in support of this change. But what I did want to also point out from my time on the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs was that farmers across this province are also calling for increases to the Risk Management Program. We heard that in so many different locations. They were calling for an increase in the Risk Management Program by $100 million. This government could have made that change. They could have made that change within this legislation, and yet they chose not to. I’m quite surprised.

As well, I think that the agricultural community in this province is also calling for removal of the cap on the Risk Management Program. That was something that the Liberal government had instituted, and it’s something that this government could change. It’s something that this government could fix. Yet, unfortunately, they have chosen not to.

As I turn my comments towards section 33, section 33 is a change which will set out requirements. They will relate to the provision of direct funding to and for the benefit of eligible adults with developmental disabilities. As a former educator, the individuals who have developmental disabilities are supported within the education system. They’re supported by learning-support teachers, by social workers. Oftentimes, they’re supported by educators, educational assistants, and they help them navigate the often labyrinthian paperwork, the applications process when it comes to Passport funding and all of the different things to make sure that students are getting supports.

What is very curious and what has been introduced to this government, time and time again, has been that individuals, once they turn 18, have to reapply for Passport funding. Speaker, that makes no sense. Individuals who are diagnosed with a developmental disability do not age out of that disability. Why is it, then, that we are forcing parents to reapply for something that should simply continue?

The NDP has brought forward legislation to make sure that that is a seamless bridge, to make sure that people are not facing red tape that is government-created. Make no mistake, it is very shocking that that still exists to this day. Everybody knows how flawed that is, and yet there has been no effort to change it.

What we’ve also heard at the finance committee is the need to double social assistance rates. When people have the funding to be able to afford housing—because housing is health care—when they have the funding to be able to afford healthy food, then they end up being less of a burden on the system. It’s a shame to think of people being a burden on the system because the system is there to catch people. It’s there to make sure that people are protected and people are safe.

But unfortunately, the way in which the government has ignored its responsibilities for many, many years when it comes to people on social assistance has meant that people are falling through the cracks. People are falling into homelessness. People are suffering with mental health exceptionalities. People are absolutely not able to rebuild their lives, and that is on this government.

We heard at the finance committee from a number of folks, one of whom I would like to quote today. It was Mr. Redins. He pointed out the arbitrary, insulting and anachronistic red tape surrounding the living arrangements of people who are on the Ontario Disability Support Program. Mr. Redins indicated that people’s finances are evaluated based upon their living status and whom they choose to have a relationship with. That is incredibly bizarre.

What Mr. Redins pointed out was that if he were to be in a relationship with another individual who had a greater salary, earns more, then his evaluation for the level of support this province will provide will be impacted as a result. What that means to say is that any relationship that someone on the Ontario Disability Support Program finds themselves within, that person is financially responsible for them and to them. How does that make any sense? The consequence of that is that many people on the Ontario Disability Support Program might choose not to be in relationships. The government, through their red tape, has impacted who these people can love and choose to co-habit with. What kind of province are we living in that that is anywhere near acceptable?

We also heard from a huge amount of delegations who talked about the importance of doubling ODSP and OW rates. This government will pat themselves on the back for the paltry 5% increase, and they will talk about the earnings exemption that they have allowed, but that doesn’t answer all of the people who are disabled and are unable to work, who are physically unable to work. It is a neoliberal sort of judgment that people are taking advantage of the system, that people just need to pull their socks up and work harder. That is not true for so many people, and it’s insulting, it’s demeaning, it’s degrading and it is dehumanizing.

Today, on ODSP, a single person receives a maximum of $1,069 a month, and that includes the $479 shelter allowance and $672 for basic needs. That’s $14,028 annually, and it’s 30% below the poverty line in Toronto alone. Those statistics are from 2022. The 5% increase, $58.45, a month is still far too low for most people to survive today.

In my area of London, we’ve seen the vast increases in rent, and it’s just shocking to think that those numbers in isolation, when we look at them—$497 for shelter. Who across this province can find shelter for $497? I would love to know. I know that in all major cities across this province, that is nowhere near enough. You simply can’t even find a bedroom in shared accommodations for that amount.

Now, additionally, there are many things that this government could have done and should have done if they had listened to all the people who presented at finance committee. Nina Deeb also brought some incredibly important, actionable items that this government chose to ignore. She brought forward concerns, because so much of this government legislation would see the transfer of public tax money into private, for-profit hands. That is Bill 23. We see that this government is effectively subsidizing major developers across this province by removing development charges. There’s this pretend game that’s somehow going to create affordable housing, yet there’s no distinct tie or limitation between Bill 23 and the direct creation or provision of affordable housing.

Ms. Deeb also brought forward concerns about the 407. We saw that that privatization of that public resource has resulted in one of the worst fiscal mistakes that a government that prides itself upon fiscal responsibility could ever have made.

Now, that was in the past. More recently throughout the pandemic, this government could have collected $1 billion from the international conglomerate operators, owners of the 407, yet they chose not to. They forgave $1 billion, and for what purpose? Who did that benefit? That $1 billion could have been spent in affordable housing. It could have been spent in supportive housing. It could have been spent in mental health, in health care, in education—in so many places, but this government chose not to. Instead, they continue with their gravy train to line the pockets of people who don’t need more money.

Now, Ms. Deeb also pointed out some of the issues with the non-resident speculation tax. We saw an increase to that to 25%, which is something that is supportable. However, there are exemptions under the NRST which are huge, gaping loopholes that have not been plugged. In fact, if someone were to purchase a development with over six units, they’re not subject to the NRST. So if they were buying any apartment building, they will not pay that 25% tax, which is a huge loophole. You could drive a truck through that loophole, and this government has chosen not to do it.

What’s also deeply concerning is that, when we consider the provision of rental stock in this province, this government moved backwards when it came to rent control. Their answer to the affordability crisis was to get rid of rent control. They will pat themselves on the back because there were new developments in 2018 and that was because it was a gaping loophole where you allowed people to exploit renters. Buildings first occupied after November 2018 are not subject to rent control, so people who had finished their lease after one year were saddled with enormous, enormous increases in their rental price. They did not know—they were not informed that there had been this change and it has hit so many people incredibly hard, and it will keep hitting them because, as you know, you spend a year in a location, the rental prices go up in the market and they’re stuck. They’re also concerned about what’s going to happen the next year, the year after that and the year after that.

And yet, this government has the opportunity to pass NDP legislation that would re-establish rent control on those buildings, that would create a public rent registry so that landlords—these faceless corporate landlords—aren’t exploiting people, but yet this government chooses not to. They choose not to stand up for renters. We see ironically titled legislation, but we don’t see the actual protections that people require within this province when it comes to the place that they call home.

Additionally, just overall with finance committee, what is also concerning is that this government, through their own projections, through their own numbers and as reported by the Financial Accountability Officer, will be $1 billion short in education for 2024-25. They will be $6 billion short over the next six years. Ontario, despite being the richest province, would have to increase post-secondary expenditures by 43%—and that’s not to be first; that’s simply to not be last place. That’s to be second-last place. This government does not stand up for students and it’s deeply, deeply concerning. The funding that Ontario provides to post-secondary education only covers about a third of the operating costs. There’s so many things that this government could have done in Bill 91. There’s so much red tape that this government has, themselves, created.

For the next while with my comments, I’d like to focus on schedule 14, which does open up the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act. What is deeply concerning about this is that this is a change that came about in 1997. Now, when we take a look at different developments in animal agriculture, we have standards. We have ethical concerns that the animal agriculture industry has been very responsive to. It actually has an economic benefit as well.

Now, when it’s time for an animal to be slaughtered, to be processed, we have various standards and parameters to ensure that it’s done in a humane way. We know that we depend upon animals for food; that is a simple fact. However, the causing of distress, of harm is something that we want to make sure is minimized as much as possible.

I want to think of the work of Temple Grandin, who has been an excellent advocate and academic, who has considered this at great length, whether it comes to the design of stalls for pigs or when it comes to the manner in which animals meet their final end.

What’s also an economic benefit to this is that, as it turns out, when an animal is in distress at the time at which their life is taken, it actually has an impact on the quality of the meat. I know that is very surprising, but there are certain hormones that are released and it can actually have an economic impact. So it’s in everyone’s best interest to make sure that when these animals do meet their end, it’s done in a way that is as humane as possible.

What we also see from this government is that they introduced the PAWS Act, the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act. It came into force on January 1, 2020. It requires compliance with standards of care and prohibits causing animals distress, to help ensure animals in the province are protected and treated in a humane manner. Yet, with Bill 91, it seems this government is talking out of one side of its mouth and then talking out of the other.

In 1997, the fish and wildlife act was updated; this was during the Harris government. It was updated to be the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act. I did a deep dive looking through hours and hours of debate through Hansard in 1997 just to see what people’s concerns were and what their thoughts were. It was truly inspiring to see how many people supported this legislation across the floor. It had unanimous support, Speaker. It was a change and a development that was eminently supportable.

What it did was it then took away the ability to create new dog training and trialling areas and it also created the inability for people to transfer those licences. So there were no new licences created and there was no transfer.

What was really quite interesting is history repeating itself in looking through this legislation because, in the interim period, Minister Snobelen took over that file after having been the education minister. It was said that he was transferred over to that ministry because of the chaos he deliberately engineered within the education system. I think you will remember, Speaker, that he was caught on a hot mike saying that it was his intent to deliberately underfund the education system, thus creating a crisis and allowing for privatization. That was Bill 160, I believe, at the time.

But here today, we’re going to be discussing their bill from 1997, which was Bill 139. It was the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, under the name of Minister Snobelen. At that time as well it had been said that this minister had created a crisis within the education system—he cut and underfunded education, attacked classrooms, removed administrators from the same bargaining unit as educators, setting them up in an adversarial relationship—really creating as much discord as possible. But fortunately, through technology, he was caught with his machinations and this really dubious, deceitful plot, but he then went over to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. But they had already suffered a 40% cut. They had lost, I think, 2,000 ministry workers at that time. Minister Snobelen came in, and already a crisis had been under way.

Now, when it comes to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act that we see being updated within Bill 91, the changes that Minister Snobelen indicated—the minister said, “Meetings were held in the fall of 1996 with more than 20 major client groups. They represented a wide variety of interests, including recreational hunting and fishing, commercial fish and wildlife industries, animal welfare, agriculture, naturalists, zoos, and tourist operators.” So it showed that at that time, this change that removed the ability for new licences for training and trialling of dogs was something that was widely consulted. That’s something that doesn’t happen now, Speaker. We see so much legislation that is time-allocated and so much legislation that is also pushed through this House at breakneck speed, skipping the committee process entirely because this government is not fond of transparency or accountability.

We also heard from other members from the opposition at that time. I believe it was the MPP for Algoma–Manitoulin who said that this legislation, this change, was about “15 to 20 years in the making, under a Conservative government, then a Liberal government and then an NDP government,” and indicating that they’re very happy to see it before them so they can discuss it. Other members said that it brings the Fish and Game Act up to the modern day: “It is renewing an act that protects our wildlife in Ontario and brings it up to the standards and quality that we would consider today.”

So many people spoke to this legislation, Speaker. They spoke about how all three parties accepted it. In fact, I don’t think I could find a single dissenting voice who was opposed to this change, to change the fish and wildlife act into the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act. So many people were supportive of removing the ability to have these training and trialling areas.

There was also—and this was a government member who pointed to a letter signed by the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, the Animal Alliance of Canada, the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters, the World Wildlife Fund and the Bear Alliance. Now, the MPP from Halton North said it was “certainly a diverse group of clientele”—I completely agree—“all supporting the bill and all asking for its timely passage.”

Speaker, it’s surprising to me that, through Bill 91, we see these changes from 1997, which were called modern at the time, going backwards. How is it even possible that this government is contradicting their own government when it comes to animal welfare?

It has been said before that whoever is righteous has regard for the life of a beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel. Various stakeholders have spoken out against these changes. This government was not clear in asking for public input. They certainly have not travelled this bill. I wanted to add the voice of Liz White, who is the director of the Animal Alliance of Canada. Liz states, “Compounds”—which are these large fenced areas where animals are trained to track and attack animals. Liz states, “Compounds are cruel. They confine wild animals, including coyotes, foxes, rabbits and hares, and allow dogs to chase, harass, capture and even tear these animals apart. Depending on the size of the compound, up to 50 dogs can be used to hunt down hares, cottontails and red foxes and 66 dogs to hunt fox and coyotes.”

Liz points out the question: Is this fair sport? Hares and cottontails cannot defend themselves. They do not have that—it’s not possible for them. They are subject to what is a cruel and miserable death. Foxes are also smaller than hunting dogs, so they’re vulnerable for that reason. And coyotes would be the only animal that is being attacked and tracked in these areas. They might be close to the same size and weight, and they will defend themselves, but they have no chance against a pack of dogs—numbers. How is it fair that these animals, in the name of sport, are being trapped in an area? How is that fair indeed? We heard people speaking at committee about how there could be man-made brush piles or culverts where these animals could hide, but how long are they hiding for, Speaker? These are in fenced areas. They are never going to escape until they are dead, and they’re going to meet a really unpleasant, horrible end to their life.

What is also interesting is that we heard from stakeholders who are only interested in gathering more licences and transferring licences. This government has said, “Well, there’s only a 90-day period for people to apply for new licences.” We know that people are chomping at the bit and are ready to apply.

We also heard from someone who operates one of these facilities, and they said they’ve made an escape pod that is below the surface. When asked about whether this was a safe location for a coyote or a fox who’s trying to escape being mauled, it was said that dogs would not follow coyotes into one of these pods because there’s an alligator at the other end. Now, what is concerning about that is he said “may not follow them.” It wasn’t a solid assurance that this animal was safe in there. I don’t know that that would be authentic, to think that one coyote being chased by a large pack of dogs would be safe at all.

What’s also surprising is that the dogs who are being trained in these areas also are subject to injury. There are a number of very grisly pictures that animal advocates have circulated online showing the really horrible situation that hunting dogs also face because they’re attacking coyotes who are simply fighting for their life.

There was a rally recently in front of Owen Sound city hall, and members there said it quite well. They said, “You can’t justify the cruelty.” These are animals that are being held captive. This is not about hunting. This is something quite different. They call what they’re doing a sport, but is it a sport to kill something?

At the time of Bill 139, the update of the fish and wildlife act into the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, there were about 50 or 60 training and trialling areas across the province, and now there are about 24 facilities remaining in Ontario.

Camille Labchuk, who is the executive director for Animal Justice, says, “Penned dog hunting is cruel and vicious, which is why no other province allows hunters to chase and kill terrified, caged animals with dogs.” It’s been called a “blood sport.” What is also concerning is the interesting take Camille takes upon this. They say, “Penned hunting is a sport in itself,” a lot like “dog fighting; people are not training their dogs, but rather baiting them and watching wild animals get ripped apart.” That’s horrifying to think, that a government that would pass the PAWS Act would also allow for this sort of thing to happen. It does not make sense.

There are also some developments that would change this. Dogs are necessary within the hunting community. However, they often track by scent, so there are opportunities for these places to not use defenceless cottontails, hares and foxes and not to use coyotes, but simply to have them track a scent trail. There are many opportunities for this, yet this government is moving backwards. For every single person who has an animal, I urge them to think carefully about what this legislation opens up. This is not dog training in terms of people jumping through hoops or going up ladders. No, this is something quite different.

Additionally, I think what is surprising as an overall concern is that this undermines what are principles of fairness. To trap an animal and to call this a sport, to trap an animal and to call this fair chase: That is not what it is at all. That is like putting two people in a boxing ring and tying one person’s hand around their back. It is simply not fair. Or keeping someone there to fight a number of fighters—how is this right? This should make everyone concerned across this House. There’s a reason the Conservative government, in 1997, passed this legislation. Why on earth are we going backwards?

Some words I wanted to share with this government is that you have an opportunity here when it comes to animal welfare. You’ve made noises with the PAWS Act that this is something you support and this is something you stand for, and yet we have legislation here which is completely contradictory to that. I urge this government to remove that schedule from this bill, to listen to the people across Ontario.

We had only two people who deputed about this at committee, and it was the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and the Ontario Sporting Dog Association. There was no opportunity provided for people who support animal rights to have their voices heard. They have since called out this government. And I’m sure, across the way, all MPPs have received these emails from people who are deeply concerned about animal rights. It is up to us, as individuals, as sentient beings on this planet, to not simply look after ourselves but to think of those who don’t have that voice, to raise our voice for those who are vulnerable—no matter where you are in this life with your success, to reach backwards to bring other people forward. Animals do not have that voice, except for us.

We live in a province where animals are treated not as creatures who have feelings, not as creatures who can suffer pain, but as property. Speaker, that is shocking to think that, despite all of our thoughts and our evolution, we still treat animals like property, like they only exist as a thing.

Now, I did want to mention some concerning words that I heard from this government that they were asked about this change in Bill 91. What was surprising to me was that the minister said this is about animals that are bred for this purpose. Let that sink in for a minute. It’s completely ignoring the fact that these animals are going to meet a really grisly, awful death in a place which is unfair, but that’s okay. The government is saying that’s okay because they were created just for that purpose, just to be slaughtered. How does that make any sense? What does that make your heart feel? For anyone who is an animal lover across there, think about that for a moment. Think about any animal that you’ve ever loved. Can you imagine someone breeding it for the purpose of being mauled in an unfair place?

So just to give the direct quote from the Ontario Sporting Dog Association that stated, “And I can assure you there’s not very many dogs going into a 10-inch culvert when there’s an alligator at the other end.” It doesn’t say there are no dogs; it just says there are not very many. What happens if there’s 50 of them? What’s not very many of 50 when there’s one fox or one coyote trying to hide and trying to save its own life? That is deeply, deeply disturbing.

Within this bill, we see that this government has opened up so many laws across Ontario, and yet they’ve simply tinkered around the edges. They’ve ignored what is happening across this province. Right now, we have huge issues with our health care system. On the finance committee, we heard about the importance of stopping the costly, wasteful, ideological appeal to the ruling for Bill 124. We’ve seen this government throwing public money again and again and again, losing court battles. They never get tired of losing in the eyes of the law, yet they’re happy to have this party with the public purse, simply just going wild, because that suits their ideology.

What is shocking is we look at the health care system in terms of so many people are unable to get the support that they need because there simply aren’t the nurses. Late-career nurses have simply left. They didn’t want to be treated—I think the word that was used at committee was that they felt humiliated by this government. Nurses who are now entering the field are being placed in positions of responsibility that quite frankly they’re not ready for. It’s because so many late-career nurses have left the field.

We’ve been calling again and again for a program to recruit, retain and return nurses; to remove the appeal to Bill 124; pay nurses what they’re worth and have a robust health care human resources strategy to address this issue. But more broadly, again, this is like Bill 160 and Minister Snobelen all over again. This is a deliberately manufactured, engineered crisis in order to undermine our publicly funded and publicly delivered health care system so that the only alternative that is possible is the for-profit industry. It’s history repeating itself all over again.

This government is allowing the creation of these private, for-profit clinics which is going to absolutely be the end of medicare as we know it. This government has an opportunity to listen to people, to listen to the concerns that Ontarians have raised. Yet they bulldoze forward with these ideological plans.

When it comes to different things that this government could fix, we have heard various concerns about Bill 23, about how that’s going to rip $5 billion away from municipalities. It’s going to be money that’s going to go directly into the pocket of private, for-profit developers, who are not going to create affordable housing.

On this side of the House, the NDP has been and always will be the party of housing. Despite all of its flaws, the Bob Rae government in the 1990s created the biggest amount of social and affordable housing, much of which still exists to this day—thankfully. We saw different ministers in the Liberal government try to change some housing developments. It wasn’t always successful, but sometimes it was.

Within Bill 23, it’s concerning that there is also an opportunity for these private, for-profit companies to snatch up rental housing and redevelop it into luxury condos, which is not what people in Ontario need. What people in Ontario need is a government that doesn’t simply sit back on the sidelines and wait for someone else to do the heavy lifting. We need a government that actually builds that housing themselves, that puts on its big boy pants and actually does the work. It’s just unbelievable to think that so much of what this government does is cross their fingers and hope for the best, and tell everyone that this is going to happen—but there’s no way that they have made sure it’s going to happen through serious and thoughtful legislation.

This government could also make sure that they are standing up for tenants by reinstating rent control, by plugging the hole of vacancy decontrol. Right now in this province, there is an incentive for unethical corporate landlords to kick good people out so they can jack up the rent because the government lets them do that. The last Liberal government got rid of vacancy control and it’s an unwritten incentive that landlords will look and they will see, “Oh, I can charge this much? This is how much profit I can get?” So of course they want to make more money because there is no control for those tenants.

Right now on Webster Street—I believe it’s 1270 and 1280 Webster Street—there are so many tenants who are now facing a huge concern: Seniors who are hoping to spend the next 10 years, 20 years in the place that they have called home are now concerned about living in their car. They’re now concerned about being homeless. They’re now concerned that they’re going to be living on the street because this landlord is renovicting them—units which don’t need to be renovated, but the landlord is claiming that they must do this. This government has their ironically titled pieces of legislation that purport to support tenants, but actually do nothing. There’s one that is actually going to increase fines, which are never going to be levied. We know that once a tenant is out of a unit through renoviction, there is a 1% chance that they will get back in.

Landlords will also claim that they’re going to be moving a family member into the unit. Now, what tenant has the wherewithal to go and check a family tree? What, do they do a blood test to make sure somebody is indeed related? It’s ridiculous. But the avenue that the tenants have is the Landlord and Tenant Board, which we know that this government has not fixed since they formed government in 2018. It has been flawed since then and it has been a miscarriage of justice for tenants, for landlords, for everyone. The Landlord and Tenant Board is a hot mess right now.

As well, this government could truly address the issues that face Ontarians by doubling social assistance rates, by making sure that people are above the poverty line now and for years to come. Index it above the poverty line. Don’t pat yourself on the back when only half of the work is done. You’ve indexed it, so why is it below the poverty line? It makes absolutely no sense.

Return respect to municipalities by stopping what you’ve done with Bill 23. Make sure that municipalities are made whole. You’ve stripped $5 billion from them. You’re also allowing incursions into our prime agricultural land. We’re losing 319.6 acres per day, last I checked—probably more at this stage—and yet this government is bulldozing forward. Listen to municipalities; listen to their plans for growing inwards and upwards. There are plenty of places to build within this province. You do not need to pave over vital farmland. We heard again and again and again across this province that people are concerned. You cannot recreate farmland. Once it’s gone, it is gone forever. So this government needs to have some sober second thought, to sit back and to think.

But I ask you, in terms of dog training and trialling, is it necessary for animals to meet their end in the most grisly way possible? Is that okay with all of the members across? There are opportunities for these dog training and trialling areas to train dogs through scent without sacrificing other animals, without having a grisly, unfair blood sport. This could be changed by this government. But this government, will they listen? I’m not sure.

We see the same patterns, although in different ways, from 1997: the attacks on the education system, the attacks on people who are on social assistance, the deliberate creation of crises. That’s coming through again. It’s just happening in a different form.

It’s like this government has not changed its playbook whatsoever. They want to cut, undermine and deliberately fracture our social services so that they are on life support. They undermine workers. They undermine the people in caring positions who are doing phenomenal work.

Recently, I had the opportunity to meet with some front-line harm reduction workers, and so many of them are afraid of becoming homeless themselves because their job pays so little. They are caring for people who are homeless and they themselves, because of the low rates of pay, because of the lack of pension, are struggling. Their heart may be tied to this profession and they may love this as their life’s goal—to really stand up for folks who don’t have a voice, to make sure they are doing their very best for those people who are vulnerable—and yet they’re concerned that they can’t do so because they might be at risk themselves.

To this government, I will leave you with one quote, and I want you to think about all the people who are on social assistance; all of the seniors who are struggling, who are facing homelessness because of unethical landlords. I want you to think of all of the animals who will be affected by this. What I say to you is this: “Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute.” It’s up to you.

Only this government could open up almost all of the laws in Ontario and fail to address the challenges that so many Ontarians face. It’s deeply ironic, Speaker, that the minister, the parliamentary assistant and this government have the audacity to speak of modernity and outdated legislation and then go backwards on animal welfare.

In 1997, under the Harris government, this House was united in support of Bill 139, which stopped training and trialing areas from getting new licences or transferring licences. A letter from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, the Animal Alliance of Canada, Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters, World Wildlife Fund and the Bear Alliance all supported this Bill 139.

Will this government listen to the people of Ontario, remove schedule 14 and listen to all stakeholders before moving backwards on animal welfare?