I’ll be sharing my time with the members from Waterloo and Parkdale–High Park.

Speaker, I stand before you today with vigorous and urgent support of the legislation that stands before us. In fact, it is so urgent, what you will see today demonstrates what is possible when all of us stand united on an issue, and the issue today is one that is definitely warranted. It is us standing united against fraud, against those who take advantage of the most vulnerable amongst us.

I commend the government, because many times I’ve risen in this House, criticizing them on who they get their advice from—not today. Today, they have listened to the many people out there affected: consumers, lawyers fighting for those consumers, the police, countless Ontarians. You heard the facts: over 300,000 liens placed against properties, over a billion dollars tied up, creating nightmares—nightmares for families, nightmares for individuals. That is why we in the opposition will do everything we can to move this through as fast as possible, because people don’t have a single day more.

What we are looking at as we face this summer, day after day, with these bad actors going to people’s homes, taking advantage of our elderly, taking advantage of our parents, of our grandparents—in fact, it has been so heinous that when they find people that they can take advantage of, some of these bad actors will call their friends and other friends and other friends.

I have seen videos shown to me where individuals were mocking—were in the homes of people facing cognitive decline and mocking them in their living rooms as they took advantage of them. Unbelievable. What we are doing today is taking the money out of their hands, and that’s what we’re going to continue to do with this legislation.

Speaker, I’m going to share with you some excerpts from consumers, law enforcement, lawyers, legal aid clinics and many of those who have been in the trenches, either suffering fighting this or fighting on behalf of those affected. I again applaud the government because this is something that the New Democrats have been fighting for for years: consumer protection, fighting against scams, fighting against abuse.

I will be speaking to the consumer protection aspects of the bill, and before I get into NOSIs—these types of liens which, by the sound of the word, seem innocuous, and I tell you, it is nothing but damaging to families.

The other part of the bill does deal with the cooling-off period with regard to freehold homes. Again, I agree with the government in moving forward, because this was an amendment to the CPA we brought forth last fall. They did say at the time that the amendments we put forward were worth consideration, and today, they are taking our advice on this and I appreciate that.

Furthermore, with regard to the NOSIs themselves, I want to commend the member from London North Centre, the member from Waterloo, the member from Parkdale–High Park. I was proud to be co-sponsor in a bill that was tabled in March of this year calling just for this, the ban of notices of security interest in Ontario, both for the future and retroactively. That’s what we are doing, all of us together today, with great urgency.

I will now read to you a number of excerpts from those affected. I would like to begin with London Police Service:

“A London man is facing charges in relation to a lengthy investigation that was reported in the summer of 2023.

“In August of 2023, members of the London Police Service Financial Crime Unit were made aware of an alleged fraud that had taken place between July and December of 2021.

“Investigators learned an elderly victim was approached by a door-to-door salesperson and signed contracts to have various products installed inside the victim’s residence in the west end of the city. The items, including attic insulation, a water filter and water softener were sold through a signed contract to which the victim agreed to pay monthly bills for a lengthy period.

“After the products were installed, liens or ‘notice of security interest’ (NOSIs) were secured against the victim’s property without the victim’s knowledge.

“In March of 2022, the suspect male attended the victim’s address and advised the victim that he could assist with dealing with the aforementioned contracts and debts that were owed. The suspect provided advice in relation to how the victim could acquire a private mortgage to pay for the previous home renovations. The suspect filled out a mortgage application, which was signed by the victim, resulting in the issuance of a high-interest private mortgage in the name of the victim.”

And this is what the minister, in fact, and others here have alluded to. This is what law enforcement have been warning us, that these NOSIs were a gateway into schemes that would rob people of their homes.

“After the mortgage was obtained, the suspect convinced the victim that he could assist with additional renovations to the home at significant cost to the victim. It is further believed that the total amounts paid exceeded the cost of the work completed.

“Shortly after the payment was made relating to the renovations, the suspect male convinced the victim to apply for a reverse mortgage to pay back the private loan originally obtained. The reverse mortgage salesperson became concerned and contacted the London Police Service to investigate.”

Thank you, London police. Thank you for your advocacy and for standing up for people in the province of Ontario.

The name Adam Stover was mentioned, and he deserves a lot of praise. He was one of many officers in this province fighting, bringing this issue here to this House, talking to the politicians. In fact, he sat in my very office months ago himself. Here’s what he said, in excerpt:

“NOSIs have evolved into a tool used by organized crime in conjunction with predatory private lending to steal victims’ life savings and even homes....

“The removal of NOSIs eliminates the predators and saves likely over a billion dollars that is currently sitting on victims’ home titles waiting to be cashed in by predators by way of liquidation through the sale of the home and/or refinancing”—again, remortgaging-the-home schemes.

“The introduction of this legislation is a significant step. I look forward to all-party support”—and he has that—“to have this bill moved swiftly through the process. The expediting of this bill is imperative as, until that time comes, Ontarians will continue to be vulnerable to the current power of NOSIs and their predatory use.

“On behalf of the victims and those who speak on their behalf, we are hopeful that the removal of commercial NOSIs will put an end to this devastating fraud.”

Thank you to Detective Adam Stover and the Waterloo Regional Police Service.

Now I’m going to talk to you about a couple of consumers, many of the thousands affected across this province. Linda Palmieri, who stood with us here in the press galleries to talk about what has happened to her very own family: “In 2015,” she said, “my in-laws were manipulated into a small appliance sale; that they assumed was with a reputable company and told, under ‘government recommendation.’

“The sale from that initial contract in which a NOSI clause was included in the very fine print of the contract, put them onto a fraud list in which their names and identities were trafficked, swapped and sold to other fraudulent companies who over the span of six years repeatedly came back to their home and manipulated them into more fraudulent contract sales.” Seniors—seniors.

“They’ve had no recourse to fight it or have anyone protect them. Until now. While my in-laws do appreciate that the official opposition is finally addressing this urgent issue ... these are innocent”—this was at the time when we had tabled our bill; we are all united today—“proud people and there are thousands and thousands of them in Ontario and they need the government’s immediate help.

“End NOSIs now, retrofit the contracts and quickly, so that these companies do not rush the liens of the homes they have access to whilst the government spends precious time on passing this law. Please, we are counting on you.”

That’s what we are doing here today: moving it through.

“Please protect my in-laws and other victims of this crime and pass the legislation to ban NOSIs in Ontario for good and amend the legislation to wipe them from the books completely—and please pass it fast. Time is of the essence.”

Celia Bowker—she bought a home from a builder who originally signed a contract with a company and left her with no idea of the terms of the rental agreement. When it came to resell her home, monies were held back at the time of the closing, and to date, these monies—totalling $32,000—again are being held back due to vexatious NOSIs.

She says, “Thank you so much for your work on behalf of those of us who have been held hostage by this crooked company. I must add that the land registry’s office ... failed to check that supporting paperwork for liens was present or valid and that they failed to notify people when a lien was placed on their home. I see the LRO’s role in this problem has allowed the company to exploit people.”

One of the problems is that when these liens are passed, they’re not passed—anyway, they are fraudulent as they stand before us, but they’re not even happening with the knowledge of the victims. Victims don’t know.

I had a town hall that I did a couple of months ago. We talked about auto theft and we talked about NOSIs, and when I told people about NOSIs, the vast majority of the over 100 people that were there did not even know what they were. When they found out what they were, they wanted it dealt with immediately, and that’s what we’re doing today.

Now I want to talk to you about some of the legal aid clinics and legal aid services. We already heard about ACE, the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly. What they are is a specialty legal clinic established to provide a range of legal services to low-income seniors in Ontario, and they have been dealing for years with this issue. They came out, stood with us at our presser here, calling for the ban on NOSIs. They came out to our town hall to talk to people about how they could have them discharged and how to fight them.

They said, “On average, ACE receives more than 4,000 client intake inquiries a year. Many of these calls are reports of complaints due to unfair practices contrary to the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 ... many including door-to-door salespeople taking advantage of particularly vulnerable homeowners who have issues with vision, hearing, cognition and/or literacy, and/or for whom English is not their primary language.

“The Advocacy Centre for the Elderly ... welcomes and supports the introduction of” the bill, “An Act to provide for the development and implementation of a plan to establish a consumer watchdog organization,” which is something that we had tabled as well, and they are calling for the immediate passage of Bill 200, the Homeowner Protection Act, 2024—what we are debating today.

“Older adult homeowners continue to be victimized by the unlawful and unscrupulous use of NOSIs. Unethical lenders and home service companies are aggressively pursuing older adult homeowners with lawsuits leveraged by the registration of grossly inflated NOSIs against titles to their homes. Day after day, ACE continues to hear from older adults harassed and threatened by these actions. In many cases, vulnerable older adult homeowners are not able to withstand the stress of harassment for these exaggerated and unlawful claims. Sometimes, they pay out the claims believing they have no other alternative. In other cases, they cannot pay out the claims and live in fear of the loss of their homes. The Homeowner Protection Act is urgently needed to protect the rights of vulnerable older adult homeowners. Vulnerable older adult homeowners immediately need the retroactive abolition of NOSIs that the Homeowner Protection Act would provide,” which is what we are doing today.

Jamie Hildebrand, executive director and staff lawyer at the Huron Perth Community Legal Clinic:

“The notice of security interest has been a tool deployed by predatory ‘lenders’ to wrongly exploit the vulnerable consumer.

“Our clients typically do not have the financial resources to fight these notices, as a lawsuit and a qualified lawyer are the only way to do so.

“These notices need to be abolished immediately, and in the interim anyone affected by such a notice should be informed by the province immediately at no cost.

“The cascade of unfortunate financial consequences of such a notice to a person of modest means is fast and furious, potentially rendering them homeless.”

We heard from the minister how, when this tool came into effect decades ago, there were 400 registered a year and now 58,000.

More, from other forms of legal aid, Pro Bono Ontario: “NOSIs are most often used as a method to extract unconscionable payments from vulnerable consumers in exchange for a discharge.

“Discovering a NOSI on title can generate significant stress.

“Consumers are left with either paying significant sums to obtain clear title or having to initiate court proceedings to enforce their rights under the Consumer Protection Act.”

We thank all of the legal aid clinics that have been fighting in the trenches to help those affected by these scams.

Here’s a name that people of this House know well, Tim Hudak—in fact, former Conservative leader, CEO of OREA at the time and, in fact, who was the minister that moved the old Consumer Protection Act. He came out swinging in saying we need a ban on NOSIs.

This is what OREA said and what he said: “Too many Ontarians, when selling their home, have been surprised by one or more NOSIs—fine print in contracts that include exorbitant buyout charges that must be paid out before the home can be sold. This only adds undue financial burden and stress to the largest transaction many Ontarians make in their lives”—and that is the purchase of a home.

“Banning NOSIs is just one more step in the right direction to protect consumers and deliver fairness in Ontario’s real estate landscape.”

As we said, most people don’t know they have these liens registered against their properties. When do they find out? When they’re remortgaging their home, when they’re selling their home, when they’re buying a home. That’s when it’s discovered, and that’s why OREA took a position on behalf of all realtors in Ontario who are fighting on behalf of their clients to ban NOSIs.

Now, I’m going to talk to you about a number of lawyers who have been fighting this, fighting for their clients.

Dave Deonarain, lawyer, had this to say when we tabled our bill at the time, Bill 169, which would do the very same, banning NOSIs retroactively and for the future: “Upon my review of Bill 169—I think the ban of NOSIs is essential to protect Ontarians and” this is the “only proper solution to address this total mess created by these HVAC companies. Nothing else will work to address the problem.

“I compliment the MPPs that have come up with such a strong strategy to finally deal with a situation that has caused so much financial damage to many Ontarians for far too long.

“Ultimately, to address the problem, an outright ban of future NOSIs and full removal of any NOSI from the title of any and all titles across Ontario will be exactly what is needed. There is no middle ground.”

Lawyer Mohsen Seddigh, a lawyer who has represented numerous consumers affected by NOSIs—and so he’s in fact advancing a class action in this respect and stated, “I applaud the political consensus that has emerged with respect to the scourge of NOSIs and their traumatic impact on the most vulnerable in our society, especially the elderly.”

Emma Michael, partner at Aion Law: “Between the exorbitant cost of buying the rental equipment out to remove a NOSI, which is almost always well above the value of the equipment, and the additional legal fees incurred on every real estate transaction involving a NOSI, property owners are taking the hit in favour of these companies.

“To address these issues for homeowners would be a step forward in protecting Canadians and their most treasured, largest and most treasured asset—their home.”

Matthew Langer, another lawyer, who has written blog articles on the subject of NOSIs, said: “More problematically than not knowing what HVAC stands for, thousands of Ontario consumers don’t know that they are renting HVAC equipment on lengthy agreements that have been found by Ontario courts in some instances to be unenforceable. These HVAC agreements can seem like small monthly payments, but there can be clauses ... that include a term ... of 10 years and allow for the HVAC companies and other affiliated financial companies to place liens on the” consumers’ homes.

“The amount of the lien can be variable as there is no clear formula in the HVAC rental agreement but it usually is equivalent to the full amount owing for the entire duration of HVAC agreement. If the Ontario consumer has more than one piece of HVAC equipment, they will have multiple liens on their property.”

And finally, I’m going to read from Greg Weedon. Here is a lawyer, here is a voice for a long time who has been fighting to end and ban NOSIs. I recognize him, and I thank him. He has sent multiple letters to both myself and to the members of provincial Parliament here at Queen’s Park. He has amassed 750 signatures from real estate lawyers and realtor registrants.

Here is an excerpt from their open letter submitted last month: “We are Ontario real estate agents, brokers and registrants writing on behalf of thousands of Ontario homeowners who are dealing with the very real threat of losing their homes....

“The registration of notices of security interest ... or lodgements against title ownership of vulnerable homeowners in Ontario, often in respect of unwanted and overpriced home services and equipment, has escalated to the point where it is openly and brazenly being abused.

“The victims of these predatory practices are elderly homeowners who are socially isolated with limited financial means, deliberately targeted due to their social and demographic profile. There is an enormous burden on homeowners since mortgage lenders and purchasers require NOSIs and lodgements to be removed from title before completing a transaction.

“The properties are effectively held hostage and the victims are forced or extorted to pay the amount the registrant claims to be owing, regardless of whether that sum is legitimate or not. This system is broken. There is no other adequate solution other than a complete prohibition of NOSIs for all residential ownership”—again, what we are doing here today together.

“We demand that this government not only prohibit NOSIs and lodgements going forward, but move to immediately delete, vacate and abolish NOSIs and lodgements from residential properties retroactively.”

Just yesterday, Mr. Weedon submitted another letter in support of taking swift action. He wrote:

“I write this letter to urge multi-party co-operation in passing Bill 200 prior to adjourning the Ontario Legislature in June. The consequences of announcing this bill and then waiting nearly five (5) months to enact same will be devastating. Lawyers are already witnessing these consequences at this given time. We understand that the parties are unified in efforts to protect homeowners and the elderly; we simply ask that these Ontarians are prioritized now.

“I write on behalf of fellow members of the Ontario real estate bar as experts in our field, and on behalf of hundreds of clients who continue to deal with a threat to their most important asset that they never saw coming. On behalf of these victims and the countless Ontarians set to benefit from this charge, a heartfelt thank you is in order.

“I have personally advocated for nearly 100 families impacted by these predatory schemes over the past 24 months. While we applaud the steps taken to resolve these issues, we cannot stress the urgency and importance of moving this bill through the legislative system without further delay. We have collectively witnessed thousands of distressed homeowners who have less than a week to clear thousands of dollars in NOSIs, failing which, these homeowners risk a failed refinancing or a lawsuit stemming from an aborted closing.

“The proposed legislation has caused uncertainty as to whether NOSIs need to be discharged and the degree of leverage these bad actors continue to maintain. These concerns are shared across the entire real estate legal bar. We personally have between 20 and 30 clients who are embroiled in expensive litigation proceedings pertaining to NOSIs; these homeowners have no practical means to refinance, sell or utilize the equity in their homes at this time.

“These homeowners remain a small sample size of those affected by the predatory scheme. These homeowners need urgent representation and demand timely action. We plead for the parties to work collaboratively and in unison to pass this bill and right the wrong that has plagued Ontarians for far too long.

“Thank you very much,

“Greg Weedon.”

So there you have it: the case put before us all by consumers, by the police, law enforcement agencies, lawyers, legal aid clinics. This matter is costing Ontarians over $1 billion of vexatious liens placed against properties, and they end today. They end today because we are working as one. I am proud to stand here as an MPP in this House today. I congratulate the minister. We have talked about this for some time now, and I know these liens bother him as much as they bother me, as much as they bother the official opposition, as much as they bother every member in this House.

Because of this, I am sharing my time and our lead with two members, and we will be putting forth no more speakers on this, in the urgency. But every member in the official opposition is standing united, standing with strength and is calling to an end and a ban on NOSIs today and forever.

I’m really proud to welcome my family again to Queen’s Park: my wife Aleksandra, my son Aleksandar and my son Ilija. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

I’m very proud to welcome to Queen’s Park my incredible constituency assistant, Alida Troini and her dear mother, Febbronia Troini, today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

I’m proud to welcome students and an educator from Nile Academy in my community of Humber River–Black Creek. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Before I begin my brief 10 minutes, a fact came to mind, and that was that a fabulous committee Clerk here at Queen’s Park, the committee Clerk for public accounts, where I serve, actually had her first day at the table this week. And so I want to congratulate her on her fabulous work here at Queen’s Park and in committee and congratulate her on her first day at the table.

Today, we’re talking about transit, and I see that it’s a late Thursday afternoon, which is kind of the Friday at Queen’s Park, and temperatures are starting to rise, especially in the last conversation that was there. I think people would be happy to go back to their communities and see their families, especially the ones that have to travel quite a distance. I’m lucky and blessed to be here in Toronto myself and so I get to see my family every night and I know that’s not a reality for many of you and I sympathize always.

I do want to say, before any of you get mad, especially the new ones, and before you point a finger at what we do and don’t support, understand what an omnibus bill is. When a government puts forth legislation, especially in a majority government, they get to pass literally everything and anything. All of it begins with them and ends with them. They pass it or they fail and then it’s up to them. And so what they generally do—to the new members, with respect—is of course they construct omnibus bills which will have things in there which we can support as an opposition and which we may not want to support or can’t support. Perhaps it’s because of battling ideologies or many different reasons, and that’s just the reality of it.

So I get it. There’s a level of theatre in question period when one of the ministers gets up and spins and says what they want to say. But to get frustrated about the fact that we’re not going to support all your bills here, knowing that they’re always going to pass? Come on. Let’s be a little more cordial with each other.

And yes, is it a joke that I point out that there are 59 VPs at Metrolinx? Yes, I was surprised at the top-heavy nature of Metrolinx, to know that there’s literally that many VPs. We have a major project that’s happening through my community. It links my community, a little bit of York Centre—the minister’s community—and a lot of the Premier’s community, my neighbouring riding. It was scheduled to have its construction done by end of year. Let’s see if that happens. That’s certainly not the case for another project that’s happening in Toronto right now that we hear about with a lot of frustration.

There have been challenges. There are great people working at Metrolinx on the front lines; sometimes we’ll talk to them. I’ve dealt with Metrolinx many times over the years, in many different capacities. But we’ve had some serious issues there.

Let’s talk about a collapse of a garage. Thank God, no one died. There was literally an abutting multi-residential complex right beside Finch, where a garage collapsed, and we still don’t, in general, know answers as to what happened.

There was recently a daycare flooding that affected hundreds of children who have been displaced, and I know the phone calls we were getting at that time were about constant service and other disruptions.

Right now, I’m fighting the telecom companies. Of course, now, if you happen to get Rogers in my community and you call and there’s poor service, they blame the construction on Finch. It seems like everybody is blaming that for everything, and in part, can I blame them?

We talk about accessibility. There are places where they have to create new stops as a result of the construction, and it’s like you’re wading through pools of water, on a rainy day, to get to a stop; it’s like you’ve got to climb a barbed wire fence, sometimes, to get there and wait in traffic.

We’ve had accidents, injuries—not just vehicular, but pedestrian—along the line.

Sometimes you’ll get up and there will be one of those safety cones placed along Finch, blocking, yet again, traffic. Why? Because now I’m on the phone with Metrolinx—“What’s going on?” “I don’t know. In two months, there’s going to be some sort of disruption. They’ve had to call for some utility to be moved.” And then guess what? “There’s something happening. They don’t know when it’s coming—it’s in two weeks; it could be a month. Let’s just block the traffic indefinitely.”

People are frustrated. There have been business losses, accidents—you name it. So can we be frustrated about it? Of course. Are the people frustrated about it? Of course.

Today, we’re debating Bill 131—amazing title, as always—Transportation for the Future Act, and really, what it is? It’s two schedules. Schedule 1 makes me think of the lack of consultation that this government seems to do. Do they do no consultation? No, they do. It’s just a question of who they’re willing to talk to. They talk to people, it seems, I think they’re willing to get a yes from, or someone who is going to be friendly to them in terms of what they’re proposing.

Rest assured, you’re a majority government, you have a lot of power; it is not an equal conversation for you and municipalities and many people. And I can tell you, because I talk to, probably, some of the same stakeholders you do, not always what they say to you is what they’re saying to us. Many stakeholders are walking on eggshells; it’s like they’re walking on a thin layer of ice, because they know that the province is like their parents and that they always have to be very delicate in terms of when they deal with you.

With regard to schedule 1, there is a potential effect on collective agreements. So did this government reach out to our public workers in transit, in the TTC? I was told no.

Did you reach out to management? I’m not sure. I suspect you would have. And guess what? Management have a lot of answers, but a lot of times their information are data points on a map, on an Excel spreadsheet.

Do you know who the workers are? The people we were calling heroes throughout the pandemic; the ones who were getting us from point A to point B, when most people were indoors. They are literally out there driving the routes; they understand the situation, and they understand the issues of the fact that inter-regional transit between borders—like Steeles.

My community and the Premier’s community have Steeles as a border. So you’ll bet that there are members of our constituencies who are interested in fare integration, service integration, but they want it to be sensible and something that’s going to work for all regions. And there are potential impacts, because when the government introduces a bill and the opposition has all of one day to research what they have a ministry and an army behind—one of the things that was pointed out is that if this isn’t done right, some integration could result in lesser service. You might have a particular route, let’s say, TTC-operated, and if it’s not done right and perhaps another provider outside of Toronto is now, thanks to this government, picking up passengers—who knows—in Toronto, that might tell Toronto management, “We don’t have many riders on this particular line anymore. Let’s cut this service.” And that could have effects too. So you need to really do the math if you’re going to do this.

Schedule 2 is very aspirational, but it’s evidence, again, of downloading, because, ultimately, here’s a government that will do anything to save a developer a service charge or a development fee or any responsibility to a municipality when they’re building. And then, what they’re doing here is saying, “You know what? We’re going to download now the entire creation, potentially, of GO stops”—now they’re calling it a revenue tool—“to municipalities.” But is that going to happen? Are developers, who really don’t want to pay for these things, going to now fund entire GO stops? I don’t know. It seems very hopeful on their part. But I get it. People are demanding transit and you want to take action, so you put down a bill that’s got a fancy title. It’s going to pass. If you have a majority government and you all decide to vote on it, which is what I anticipate, we’ll see what happens.

And the last thing I do want to talk about are these delays. We have these major, major projects that are so frustrating for communities, and especially the delays that tend to happen. And you know what? On these projects, you’ve got project managers, and if they’re paid by the year and projects go on indefinitely and on and on and on—and we have major projects right now that are like huge money holes. And I’m not even talking about the hole that the former Premier, Mike Harris, filled in on Eglinton, where we had a subway that was being built at the time and they thought it would be smart to waste countless millions of dollars backfilling a project with concrete so that you can’t even do it for the future. God knows what probably had to have been spent to clean up the mess that was made decades ago to build that.

So, do the official opposition have hesitation when it comes to this government in particular when they’re talking about transit and infrastructure and whatnot? Of course. Because, look, many of the projects begun by the Liberal government before, certainly with their flaws, have just seen the flaws continue with this government. We’re hopeful, because your success is the success of the province of Ontario. But if you want to be successful, consult everyone. Reach out and let’s have conversations.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your presentation. It’s always a pleasure to chat with the member when I see him here at Queen’s Park. I know he works hard.

This is a government that is unashamed about their work in reducing developer responsibilities and developer charges when they do construct and build. Now, we see in schedule 2, in essence, a form of developer charge. How do you balance the decision-making around this bill in light of so much of your efforts and work to do the opposite of what schedule 2 seems to be suggesting?

A number of individuals are visiting us today, including Sammi Ho from Friends of Ruby; Candice Cosbert from Nellie’s women shelter; and Bee Lee Soh and Daniela Mergarten from the Toronto Alliance to End Homelessness. From Dixon Hall, we have Faisal Ikram, Janet Lambert, Matt Song and Robert MacFarlane. Finally, we have, from the Fred Victor Centre, Eiman Elwidaa. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

I am proud to welcome the students from Palmerston Avenue Junior Public School, and a very special welcome to Aydin Bari, son of my dear and old friend Eban Bari. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

I’m proud to welcome Society of United Professionals president Michelle Johnston. Welcome to Queen’s Park.