That is a minister who ran under a Premier who, in public, said he wouldn’t touch the greenbelt, and then in private, to his buddies, said that he absolutely would.

This is a government that says one thing and then absolutely does another. This is a government that promised to fix the housing crisis but has the worst record in history in this province.

Certainly, Bill 185 is a sterling example of this government’s failure on every single major policy issue that matters to Ontarians.

Whether it is housing, whether it is health care, whether it is affordability—this government is keen to blame everything on everyone else except for themselves, and that is what I call arrogance.

There’s no mistaking it; if we want to address the issue of affordable housing, first we need to settle on a definition of affordable housing. For far too long, we haven’t been able to get a definition that makes sense from this government. They have also been persistent in perpetuating some sort of other phrase called “attainable housing,” for which they refuse to provide a definition.

I think I heard you say that in the definition you cited of affordable housing, it’s 30% of income—the definition that I’m aware of is 30% of average household income. I think that is a definition that I would support. That is actually something that I believe has a chance of making housing relevant and accessible to the people of Ontario.

As it relates to what that housing looks like, I think it needs to reflect a wide variety of kind of housing. Far too often, we talk about people’s ambition to own a home, and they deserve to do that. We need to have rental options, co-op options and affordable housing with wraparound community supports as well—

This government could make life affordable and they could actually look serious on the environment if they took the right steps. Instead, they’ve gone ahead, they’ve imposed their own carbon tax—emissions performance standards—have failed to have any sort of environmental plan of substance, and is happy to distract from things that could actually make a difference, such as waiving HST on home heating, which is something well within their capacity that could improve affordability in homes—

So, no, regrettably, I have not seen that element in the legislation, nor do I see a government that is serious in wanting to make any changes in that area.

I want to be clear: I do support increased density around major transit station areas, including in my riding. I’m on the record. My Twitter handle is @ShamjiAdil. Go check it out. It sounds like you’ve spent a lot of time there already. And to be clear—

Interjections.

Now, I will say that I believe the development that he’s referring to is one that was opposed by the city of Toronto, the Toronto District School Board, the Aga Khan Museum, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, and justifiably needed significant improvements before it could be supported. But where there are actual, sound—

It’s a quote.

Say that to the millions of Ontarians who work in cities across this province. Tell them where they want to raise their kids.

This is the out-of-touch prevailing attitude amongst decision-makers in this government. The housing sector has had enough.

So who does this bill let down? In short, everyone—all those currently without homes who can’t keep waiting, young people stuck living in their parents’ basements, the seniors who want to find an apartment or condo to downsize to, couples looking to start a life together. For more reasons than I can count, Bill 185 is a failure for the people of Ontario—a massive missed opportunity.

If this government had any hope of meeting its 1.5-million housing target, they lost it when they tabled this bill instead of a much, much more ambitious one.

Bill 185 plays it safe. It misses the mark. Playing it safe on housing is quite dangerous, and it is a letdown to the people of Ontario.

It’s a pleasure to rise in the House today to debate the issues that matter most to Ontarians.

You’d be forgiven for thinking that the issue that matters most to Ontarians is—

Interjections.

Interjections.

The scale of the suffering across our housing sector is enormous. We have people living on the street; leaving the province, with out-migration to the tune of 70,000 young people per year; others living under precarious and unsafe conditions; and more people delaying major milestones in their life—things like families having kids, young people moving out from their parents’ basements, or seniors downsizing into smaller homes. This catastrophe is happening in the midst of an out-of-control housing crisis. Home prices are at never-before-seen levels, rent is out of control, and the Landlord and Tenant Board has become virtually inaccessible—all of this within the backdrop of a government that cancelled rent control, that tried to pave over the greenbelt, that can’t make a single decision without subsequently walking it back because they never do their homework. Amidst that, one might expect that we would have a government that would try to finally take action, that would try to do something. But their record over the last six years has been abysmal.

Construction began on only 5,589 homes in Ontario last month—the lowest that it has been in over six years. Anthony Passarelli, CMHC’s lead economist for southern Ontario, said, “Over the rest of the year, we expect [housing starts] to continue to trend down in the province and particularly in the GTA.” So, of course, cue the excuses, right? Number one: It’s someone else’s fault—probably the federal government, because of high interest rates. But British Columbia is building two and a half times more homes per capita than we are and yet are subject to the same interest rates.

The government will say that they’re making progress despite the fact that they are falling well behind their target of 1.5 million homes per year and subsequently are being forced to change the goalposts to have a hope of being able to save face. They will try to argue that the government is on track, but they would have to build 38,000 homes per quarter to meet their annual housing target, and last quarter, which just ended a few months ago, they only built around 15,000—not even 50% of what they need.

This is the kind of bill that could have been forgiven if it was introduced in year one of their mandate, not year six. For all their talk about housing supply action plans, this bill is big on talk and so small on action. Two years after their own Housing Affordability Task Force report came out, they’re still consulting, essentially kicking the can down the road so they can say they’re doing something without actually doing literally anything. And when the Premier tweets about his government’s accomplishments, it’s telling that addressing the housing affordability crisis usually doesn’t make it on the list.

So let’s talk about this bill. I want to begin by explaining what has been neglected in this legislation.

There is nothing beyond a line in the preamble in Bill 185 that directs municipalities to actually plan for 1.5 million homes. I’ll say it again: This government is talking about but not planning for 1.5 million homes. It’s hoping for 1.5 million; it’s praying for 1.5 million, but there is absolutely nothing in this bill that requires municipalities to actually plan or build 1.5 million homes. That’s a bold goal—1.5 million homes by 2031. Mike Moffatt would say that number is already out of date and should be higher. Anyway, 1.5 million—that is a target that this government set, and that is a target that this bill abandons. It does not direct municipalities to plan for that. It does not fix zoning laws to make those homes possible. It does not legislate the necessary infrastructure to support those homes. For this reason alone, this legislation is unworthy to be presented before this House. But it’s worse: Bill 185 neglects the power, the responsibilities and the duty this government has when it comes to building homes.

The Premier and Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing are keen to blame their lack of progress on everyone and everything else, but they won’t make the major policy changes needed to drive real change. Their neglect amounts to an abdication of duty, and here’s how:

The government convened the Housing Affordability Task Force; they have since completely ignored it. Bill 185 does nothing different. The government benefited from mountains of consultation, but they are now killing time by doing more consultation instead of enacting the recommended policies.

Bill 185 overlooks the opportunity to end exclusionary zoning. It refuses to legalize fourplexes as-of-right province-wide. It does not directly strive for greater density around major transit areas. It does not make converting commercial real estate into residential real estate easier—something many stakeholders are begging this government to do. It does nothing to address the myriad of problems bogging down the Landlord and Tenant Board. It does nothing to address the many roadblocks standing in the way of getting more housing built, like angular planes, setbacks and minimum lot sizes. Does the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing even know what an angular plane is, or has he neglected to learn that too?

Bill 185 neglects those who have used the appeal system in good faith by entirely banning third-party appeals in one fell swoop, as opposed to reforming the system to proactively prevent abuses.

Furthermore, all the developers and home builders who have spent years working on housing projects and finding ways to make those projects pencil—Bill 185 neglects them all, by flip-flopping over and over again, going back and forth to no end on whether or not there will or will not be a five-year phase-in period on development charges.

The Premier and Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing have neglected to secure an environment of predictability and long-term stability in the housing sector. That is very clearly resulting in fewer housing starts.

Lastly, we are now seeing this government’s wilful neglect of our health care system—particularly rural hospitals like Durham hospital, resulting in developers cancelling their housing projects.

The extent of this government’s action has really been limited to simply printing novelty-sized cheques to give to municipalities, but this is not a substitute for real planning backed by actual laws and regulations, and the Minister of Housing knows it.

Also missing from the bill is a commitment to make municipalities whole after Bill 23 pulled the rug out from under them, particularly for infrastructure. Sure, the provincial budget has offered a paltry $1.6 billion as an olive branch, when the projected shortfall is significantly closer to $5 billion. Municipalities are now left on the hook while the Premier’s gravy train instead spends just over a billion dollars for the sole purposes of delivering beer in convenience stores just about one year early—priorities, right?

The final thing that’s missing from this bill and, frankly, from this government is common sense. They could have committed billions in infrastructure funding. This government could have committed a billion dollars for securing primary care, keeping hospitals open, expanding home care, or even building homes. Instead, they prioritized beer—$1 billion.

Anyway, to touch very concretely on the details of this bill—I’m going to touch on the four major areas, titled euphemistically as follows:

(1) Building homes at lower cost;

(2) Prioritizing infrastructure for ready-to-go housing projects;

(3) Improved consultation and greater certainty for more homes built faster;

(4) Building more types of homes for more people.

I’ll dive into each of these.

So let’s talk about building homes at a lower cost. This includes things that indicate just how out of touch this government is. For example, it removes minimum parking restrictions around MTSAs, which is a bare-minimum policy and one that doesn’t have much to give at all in places that are already highly car-centric, as developers will still build parking in these places. But that’s not actually the question that home builders and developers have been asking. The real question they have is, how much density can go around MTSAs? That answer is not in this bill.

The minister will say that he’s consulting—so let’s look at the draft PPS. But why is he still consulting two years after the Housing Affordability Task Force already answered the question? And to make things even more infuriating, the government has already been stalling on that by saying they’ve been consulting with municipalities.

This is where life gets really bizarre. In related announcements, the government just said they will allow mass-timber construction for up to 18 storeys, but the development community is not clamouring for that. They’re clamouring for clarity on restrictions that make it difficult to build that tall in the first place, such as clarity around angular planes. Similarly, there’s a promise of consulting with fire safety stakeholders about single-exit stairs in small residential buildings, but this was something that Bill 109, two years ago, under the last Minister of Housing, had promised to do. So why are we still consulting?

The next major area of this legislation is prioritizing infrastructure for ready-to-go housing projects. This is where I really begin to feel bad for builders, developers and municipalities. The lack of foresight, planning, coordination and courage of this government has led to an environment in which no one can plan and, therefore, no one can build. First, development charges were off the table, throwing municipalities province-wide into chaos, causing property taxes to skyrocket and resulting in developers planning their construction accordingly—now an unexpected walk-back.

Interest rates are affecting housing, admittedly, from coast to coast, but it’s telling that new construction is falling the fastest and hardest in Ontario compared to places like BC and Nova Scotia. As a result of all of these walk-backs, there is now a complete and utter lack of confidence in this government. When hundreds of millions of dollars are on the table, people don’t know what they can expect next month, let alone next year, in terms of policy continuity and clarity of direction. No one can make investment decisions in such an environment, and certainly not municipalities planning for infrastructure.

The next section of this bill is improved consultation and greater certainty for more homes built faster. I’ll say, where do I even start here? As I’ve already said, they’ve been consulting for the past two years and seem caught up in this as a way of delaying.

I’ll also say that included in this section, the bill institutes a near-universal ban on third-party appeals that is simply heavy-handed. There’s no mistake that the current system of appeals is problematic, between long waits at the Ontario Land Tribunal—because it’s underfunded and the significant number of political appointees, it has become a process creating more barriers to reasonable housing than are necessary. But a blanket ban that ignores the root causes? Clearly a more nuanced and calculated approach is necessary, which the Housing Affordability Task Force called for. But where a scalpel was required to address this issue, this government came with a machete.

I’ll skip ahead a few moments just to touch on why this bill will not make a dent in the housing crisis. It won’t get us close to 1.5 million homes, because it has nothing that will make a material difference to our housing efforts. We needed a major home run on housing, and all we got was a swing and a miss.

I’ve been talking to stakeholders, and they were ready for a big housing bill from this government. A new minister, a fire under his feet—the housing sector had its hopes up. But the lack of audacity from Bill 185 has resulted in some of the most profound disappointment I have ever seen from stakeholders since my time in office.

We have government MPPs getting up on stage at conferences, touting their out-of-touch vision for housing in Ontario. The Associate Minister of Housing was recently caught stating that he just wants “everyone to be able to have a detached house with a yard” and that “no one wants to bring up a child in downtown Toronto.” Well, say that—

The bill amends the Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act, 2004. The amendments prohibit nurse practitioners from accepting certain private payments or benefits for providing services to an insured person that would normally be provided as insured services in specified settings. Payments or benefits for these services may still be accepted from specified public sources or in accordance with the regulations.

The penalties for contraventions of the act are increased, and a new regulation-making power permits regulations providing for and governing reimbursements of payments or benefits made for these services within six months after the day this act receives royal assent.

It recognizes the fact that we are in a drug-poisoning epidemic across the province and that consumption and treatment sites and safe consumption, supervised consumption sites have been an essential method of keeping people alive.

The members who have signed this—representing many nurses and people who have been impacted by the drug-poisoning crisis—call for immediate funding to reopen consumption and treatment sites, supervised consumption sites in Windsor, Sudbury, Timmins and in any community that requires it to stop the deaths.

I support this petition and am pleased to submit it to page Jessica.

My question is for the Premier. Mr. Speaker, $1 billion of taxpayer money is currently on its way to the Premier’s wealthy, well-connected friends at the Beer Store and LCBO. This isn’t about convenience. This is about favouring insiders, furthering political agendas and justifying an early election.

Meanwhile, due to this government’s historic underfunding and stunning incompetence, the township of Durham has the latest rural hospital to find itself on the chopping block. This is the same playbook that shuttered Minden hospital’s emergency department and which now threatens the collapse of Bracebridge’s hospital.

First, the Premier and Minister of Health neglect the needs of rural and northern hospitals. And staffing is foremost amongst those needs. Yet, the Premier and Minister of Health have deliberately chosen to underpay health care workers, drag them through court, let temporary staffing agencies run wild, and ignore the issues of burnout, mental health and workplace safety.

When hospitals like the one in Durham no longer have enough staff to function, what does this government do? They give a billion dollars to the Beer Store and LCBO. That was easy.

Mr. Speaker, why is the Premier paying off big beer rather than doing anything to—

At a time when more health care workers are leaving the profession than ever before, this government is telling us that things have never been better. The amount of people without a family doctor has increased by more than 800,000 since this government took office, and they want to talk about beer.

That doesn’t cut it for patients in Durham whose emergency department now operates on banker’s hours, who will have to be driven out of their community, often in dangerous winter conditions and away from loved ones, just to get a hospital bed. Soon, diagnostic services will dry up, and doctors are already leaving.

But it doesn’t end there. Developers were planning two residential communities in Durham that would have totalled 500 homes. When news broke out that the community could soon be without a hospital, those developers pulled out. The Minister of Health’s failures are now turning into the Minister of Housing’s failures.

Mr. Speaker, how does the Premier expect to meet his housing targets if he can’t even ensure that health care needs are met in every community across Ontario?

Interjections.

Point of order.

I have got to be honest with you, all I can see is a whole bunch of superficial commitments, none of which actually address the things that workers are coming to me and telling me that they actually want to see to improve their retention, for example in health care, in the construction trades and places like that.

To your question: I didn’t see it in my review. Did you? I don’t think any of us did, and yet again it is just the latest in a series of examples of press releases that are put out by the government professing to change the world and commit to all sorts of things. When the rubber hits the pavement, they’re never able to deliver and, frankly, never willing to deliver.

I want to be really clear: This is not about standing with the government, standing with the opposition or anything like that. Let’s get beyond the rhetoric. This is about standing with workers. When I stand here and I point out the many shortcomings, it is with a view towards helping all members in this House on all sides make this legislation actually work for as many people as possible.

I want the constituents in Windsor–Tecumseh to have a large, well-functioning, modern, up-to-date hospital, and I want that hospital to have the skilled trades workers in order to be able to do that. I have the same problem in my riding. We need desperately to upgrade our hospital. We need the funding for that. But this bill, I regret to say, isn’t going to be enough to get your constituents and my constituents what they want and need.

So in answer to your question: No, I do not see anything in this legislation that addresses—

It’s an honour to rise in the House today to discuss the latest iteration of the government’s Working for Workers Act. I think it is particularly timely that we’re having this conversation. I would like to point out that this week we are celebrating Personal Support Worker Week, a profession that has been very much on the front lines in health care, home care and community care that far too often is forgotten, that for far too long has not been treated with the dignity nor given the support that it deserves. I think back to the challenges that our community and our province faced during the pandemic. Our personal support workers rose to that challenge—those personal support workers who deserve our genuine respect, our gratitude and our support in all of its forms.

As we think about how we can work for workers, I want to encourage all members in the House to think about how we can work for those personal support workers, because as I look at the measures that have been proposed in this legislation, at face value there certainly are good things. But to me, what is most conspicuous are the many things that have been left out and, even more conspicuous, the many actions that have been taken by this government that actually work against workers. In the midst of Personal Support Worker Week, I reflect on a few of those, the first being lack of real wage increases. We know there have been proposed increases, but they only apply for front-line care. If you’re a PSW who drives from home to home, then your wage plummets. We have a lack of wage parity amongst the home care, community care and acute care sector.

If we were working for workers, those things would be in this legislation. If we were working for workers, this government wouldn’t have voted down the opportunity to ensure that PSWs and DSWs get WSIB coverage if they work in a retirement home. Let’s get moving and “get it done” for all workers instead of just looking at it in a superficial manner.

We can take a step back from just PSWs. When I reflect on the record of this government—when I think about Bill 124 and the impact that it has had on education workers and on health care workers; when I think about Bill 28, this government’s attempt at overriding collective bargaining rights of education workers; when I think of the fact that this government does not have, or even speak about, a health care worker retention plan; when I think about the data that was released just last week that said we’re short more than 50,000 nurses and PSWs, and that PSWs have an attrition rate from their profession of 25% per year, and then the Minister of Health has the audacity to say she’s not concerned about it—that makes me think, despite what we have on this piece of paper, that we categorically do not have a government that is working for workers.

But let’s dive into what is on this piece of paper, because that’s what I’m here to do. That’s what we’re all here to do today. It’s superficial, it’s vague, too much is left to the regulations and too little of it can be enforced.

Looking to schedule 1, for example, building opportunities in the skilled trades: There is a requirement for satisfying prescribed academic standards in the skilled trades, and that requirement is removed. It allows alternative criteria to take its place. Madam Speaker, what are those alternative criteria? I don’t know. I don’t think there’s anyone in this House who knows. As is often the case with this government, the specifics are left to be prescribed in the regulations.

For as much as we’ve heard a variety of campaign slogans by government members on the other side—“For the People”; “Get it Done”—I am convinced, at this point in my short political career, that their next campaign slogan should very much be “Prescribed in the Regulations,” because everything is left to the regulations and almost always, nothing is in the legislation. This bill is no different.

I am the critic for housing. I know how badly we need to make the skilled trades accessible. We need to jump-start the sector. We need to create that pipeline of skilled workers, whether they’re ironworkers, electricians, masons, carpenters, bricklayers, journeymen, plumbers and more to build the homes that Ontario needs. But don’t you think that the next generation, the workers who will be working with them, deserve to know what this government means by “alternative criteria” in terms of qualifications before voting for this bill? I’d certainly like to know, and I think they would, too.

I recently called on the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to consider returning to a one-year teaching degree for seasoned skilled trades workers looking to become vocational instructors. It’s a good way to catalyze and accelerate a skilled pipeline of workers. I see nothing like that in this bill. Instead of making it easier for seasoned professionals to become instructors, instead of making it easier to teach the next generation of skilled trades workers, this government is just moving the goal posts for qualifying to be one.

Now, I want to move to something that I have personal experience with which is in schedule 2, the amendment that removes sick notes. I’ll be honest with you, of course, it’s a good move, but I can’t believe that we’re still talking about this. When the government first announced this a few weeks ago, I was asked by media what I thought about it. The truth is, I was confused. I was confused that we’re still having a conversation about this because the reality is that sick notes were banned before this government was elected. And as with so many other walk-backs and reversals, the Premier came in and removed the ban on sick notes. As though that wasn’t bad enough, when COVID-19 happened, he came in and he reversed that again. Then, he reversed it again; that’s a fourth time. Here is one last reversal, hopefully the last time we ever have to talk about removing sick notes.

The reality is that I was working in the emergency department last week. Let me paint a picture for you. There were 50 patients waiting to be seen. Our on-call doctor had been brought in. I picked up the chart, and it was a patient here for a doctor’s note.

Is it a good thing that we’re removing this requirement? Of course it is. But six years into this government’s mandate, why is it still here? Why is it only coming up now? It should have been gone long ago. In fact, it was gone before this government came into power.

Whether it is the greenbelt, whether it is urban boundary changes, whether it is development charges, whether it’s Bill 28, Bill 124, it seems as though every single thing that this government does is characterized by a lack of doing any homework, a lack of consultation—except for the Housing Affordability Task Force. There, all this government does is consultation. But everything else, no consultation, no action, no homework and walk-back after reversal after mistake.

Of course, looking at this legislation, there are some measures that can be applauded. I’m glad to see the definition of workplace harassment and sexual harassment get expanded to include virtual forms of harassment. I would have preferred it if the legislation that was supposed to be debated on Wednesday was actually debated, as opposed to getting fast-tracked into committee, where I have no doubt no further action will be taken.

But there is something here: legislating clean bathrooms. Who could possibly argue against that? The only thing that I can argue is that enforcement must be more of a priority when this government drafts legislation, especially when it actually has ideas that many of us can get on board with.

As I have reviewed this legislation, as I have reflected upon it and its potential to improve the work environment for workers, I have to say, of course, at face value, there are decent things in it, but it leaves a lot to be desired and was a wasted opportunity by this government.

I may need more than one page for this one.

In April, the residents of Durham were notified that their in-patient beds at Durham hospital would be eliminated, in the wake of their 24/7 emergency department being reduced to essentially bankers’ hours. So they’ve put together this petition that has amassed over 3,700 signatures in less than 48 hours.

It calls for the following things: Number one, it orders the South Bruce Grey Health Centre to stop any and all action against the Durham hospital immediately and reverse their decisions. It asks for them to release any and all business analyses, financial projections and health care staffing data that have been used to justify the changes to the clinical services being provided at Durham hospital. And then, finally, it calls on the government to fully and urgently implement all recommendations from Auditor General of Ontario reports on hospitals in northern Ontario and on emergency departments.

I fully and wholeheartedly agree with and endorse this petition, and I’m thrilled to pass it over to page Soyul.

This morning, I’d like to welcome Kevin Eccles, the mayor of the municipality of West Grey; Dawn McNab; Kris Kennedy; Dennis Graham; Lucretia Schafer; and the over 60 people who are here and belong to the coalition to save Durham hospital.

In Don Valley East, thousands of people do not have a family doctor. Meanwhile, my riding has hundreds of foreign-trained doctors who can’t get credentialed in Ontario—doctors who are forced to sit on the sidelines when they should be on the front lines.

Our local hospital, Michael Garron Hospital, is bursting above capacity. We have insufficient acute care beds to meet our current needs, let alone the projected needs, as my riding sees unprecedented development around the intersection of two new public transit lines. We’re in desperate need of funding for expansions and upgrades, and we’re not getting it.

But if the situation is dire in Don Valley East, it’s worse in northern and rural Ontario. Even fewer have access to primary care, and hospitals are collapsing one by one: Minden, Muskoka, Strathroy Middlesex and now Durham hospital.

It started with sporadic ER closures then more regular ones. Now, their emergency room is only open 12 hours a day. This is because this government has ushered in the worst health care worker shortage in our province’s history, and last week, the Minister of Health had the audacity to say she’s not concerned about it.

Now it has suddenly been announced that all of Durham hospital’s in-patient beds will be removed in a couple of weeks—no warning, no consultation and no conversation. Today, the mayor of the municipality of West Grey and over 60 Durham residents have travelled to Queen’s Park to express their opposition to this decision, which will compromise diagnostic testing, cause doctors to leave and put patient care at risk.

Mr. Speaker, the people of northern and rural Ontario and across our province deserve a government that will protect their health care system and give them answers. Fully fund health care and stop the closures.

It gives me great pleasure to welcome two very bright young stars, both students from McMaster, Hayley Kupinsky and Ori Epstein. I must admit, I learned today that Ori will be attending law school at McGill next year, and I want to congratulate him as well.

That answer had nothing about PSWs, nothing about nurses and nothing about the shortage of physicians in our province.

This government has allowed our health care system to fall into such dire straits that a little transparency would threaten our economic prosperity. This government is terrified that public sector workers will have more bargaining power than they will. They’re terrified that even the private sector, flourishing under their protection, could soon be holding them over a barrel, demanding higher rates.

Why? Because this government’s mismanagement has resulted in the highest demand for health care workers in our province’s history. If it sounds familiar, that’s because it’s the same trademark mismanagement that’s got the demand for housing—pardon the pun—through the roof. This government can’t make progress on housing, and they can’t make progress on health care. All they can do is hide from the damage they’ve done and try to save their own skin.

Mr. Speaker, will the Premier give Ontarians a straight answer and tell them how many front-line physicians, nurses and PSWs our health care system is missing?

For the Premier, Mr. Speaker: The Premier campaigned on being transparent, ethical and accountable, yet six years after assuming power, his government has left nothing but a series of scandals in its wake, punctuated by backtracks and broken promises. Five ministers have resigned. Others have been banished from caucus. There’s an RCMP criminal investigation with a special prosecutor and judicial appointments for like-minded friends, with even a special office in Ottawa for a failed political candidate. Clearly, the gravy train is rolling full steam ahead with a new station in Ottawa.

So you’ll forgive me for being skeptical of the Premier’s taxpayer-funded self-promotional ads saying that everything in Ontario is okay. With shuttered emergency rooms and an unprecedented health care staffing crisis, he refuses to give details about our health care worker shortage, citing the risk of economic damage.

Will the Premier break his cone of silence and let his Minister of Health tell Ontarians how bad they have let our health care worker shortage really get?

Good afternoon, Madam Speaker. I’ll begin by making a confession: It was hard to keep my lunch down while listening to the comments from the member for Hastings–Lennox and Addington. He completely ignored the substance of this legislation, and it was rich hearing those comments from a government that has been forced to walk back nearly every major piece of policy that it has put forward, whether it’s the greenbelt, development charges, urban boundary expansion—and all of that within the context of a government that is so preoccupied with talking about the gravy train that it has become the gravy train, and even that in the midst of an RCMP criminal investigation so dire that it has required the appointment of a special prosecutor.

But now I’d like to talk about something that can actually bring a smile to our faces, and that is Bill 184. I want to acknowledge that Bill 184 is an ambitious and important piece of legislation, and for that I want to acknowledge the hard-working, dynamic and relentless member for Scarborough–Guildwood, who is bringing this forward to represent not just her constituents but hard-working Ontarians province-wide, and even—nay, especially—in rural, remote and northern areas.

I want to touch on a few things that this bill will accomplish, if passed. It enhances integration between bike-share services and public transit, and it does so through fare integration, so that people can take advantage of options that are cheaper, healthier and more environmentally friendly. Along the way, it does this and promotes the uptake of public transit by making it easier for people to get to and from bus and train stations, because that is often the biggest barrier to uptake for public transit.

The bill also does a fabulous job of beginning to address the affordability crisis in housing in Ontario. Specifically, it ensures that at least 20% of housing units on provincial land sold to developers are mandated to be affordable. This is crucial because, historically, valuable land that is near transit lines, such as the space near 8 Dawes Road in Beaches–East York, steps from the Danforth GO and Main subway stations, has been sold under this government without any requirements for affordable housing. This kind of lack of oversight has previously allowed private interests to maximize profits while leaving some of our most vulnerable people in this province behind.

If passed, this bill would ensure that, moving forward, developments—such as those at the West Don Lands, East Harbour, Thorncliffe Park and along the new Ontario Line—incorporate essential affordable housing that benefits all Ontarians and all those people living in those communities. We are in the midst of an affordability crisis, Madam Speaker, and this legislation is a critical step to showing that finally someone in this province is ready to take this seriously.

The bill also seeks to establish mandatory, enhanced maintenance standards for Highways 11, 17 and 69. This will ensure rigorous snow and ice removal within hours of weather events as well as timely pothole repairs. These will not only ensure that we maintain our infrastructure but guarantee the safety and efficiency of our transportation systems.

Now, I have spent many years travelling and working in the north. I have seen the consequences of inadequate highway maintenance. When snow and ice is not removed in time, it puts people at risk in the following ways: It increases the risk of accidents; it slows emergency response times; it prevents people from accessing vital services, such as hospitals and fire departments; and when the road conditions are poor, it cripples transportation and, in particular, trucks that are vital for delivering things important for our economy.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, Bill 184 addresses critical gaps in our transportation and housing policies. It ensures that our infrastructure serves the economic and social well-being of our province. It secures the livelihood of our communities and it maintains the integrity of our environment.

I urge all members of this House to support this legislation for the future of our great province of Ontario. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity—

Interjections.

I certainly share that sentiment, that we don’t deserve the love and kindness that our dogs give us, which is evidently always unconditional.

Yes, I do agree with the increased fines and the steps that have been taken to better delineate offences directed towards animal cruelty. I just want to give this legislation the best chance at success, at succeeding in its overall goal and premise. If we actually want to protect dogs, we need to have the framework in place to ensure that there is adequate enforcement and the right inspection framework in place, and I’m worried that I’m not quite seeing that yet.

I thank all in the House for giving me this opportunity to share my perspective on Bill 159, the Preventing Unethical Puppy Sales Act. Over the course of my few minutes together with all of you, I plan on doing a few things: discussing some of the dogs in my life, who underscore the importance of passing this legislation; describing the context and landscape within which puppies are bred currently in the province of Ontario; outlining some of the things that this bill does, some of which are good; and then also highlighting some of the shortcomings which need to be addressed if this bill is to ultimately pass.

I want to begin by dedicating these remarks in particular to two dogs—one, to Stewie, a stunning black Labrador, who was the ultimate gentleman, who ultimately passed earlier this week, on Monday, at the age of 14. Even to the very end, he won over our hearts by still doing a dance for his families. His long life and his beautiful temperament, in my opinion, are a testament to the loving care that he got from his parents. I believe that this bill aspires to deliver that same loving care to every dog in this province.

Another dog that recently passed away is Lexi, a most loving, gorgeous goldendoodle. She passed away just a few weeks ago from an aggressive form of cancer. She left us too soon. She was a true friend of everyone: to my own dog and to the many people in our neighbourhood, who will miss her and, again, are reminded through her beautiful temperament of the importance of a caring and loving environment for dogs around us.

There are many more dogs in my life, in my neighbourhood, in community, in Don Valley East. I want to make, finally, one special mention of my own pup, Petunia, a four-year-old half golden retriever, half cocker spaniel, who is convinced that she’s a sea otter because she loves to swim so much, and only wants to eat all day. Her full name is Petunia Wigglebottom, and she very much lives up to her name.

In reflecting on all of these dogs, it reminds me of the unconditional love that we feel from them. It is a reminder that for as much as they very much look after us, we need to look after them and we need to protect them. That protection begins very much at birth.

When I picked up Petunia, when we first got her four years ago and I held her in my hands, I could feel how vulnerable she was, how much she needed that protection. When I did the research to find a respectable, reputable breeder, I asked questions and I called, because there are many breeders out there that engage in unscrupulous practices. I wanted to know: What were the conditions in which she was raised? Who were the parents? Were they related to each other? These are, regrettably, questions that need to be asked, and far too often, there are breeders out there that can’t share the answers, that won’t share the answers. And so, urgent and pressing action is absolutely necessary.

Furthermore, in my own political work, I have encountered unspeakable cruelty to dogs. I’ve had people—and I won’t repeat the stories—who have done unimaginable things, just out of a perverse sense of pleasure and some desire to assert dominance over these innocent creatures.

I’ve also worked in northern and rural communities where breeding was so uncontrolled that there were packs of animals that ran around, and when I would go running, I’d have to carry some stones lest one of these unattached dogs run after or try to bite me. There were even, in some of these communities, one or two days a year where all of those unattached dogs were culled to prevent packs from forming. All of these things underscore the critical importance to take issue on this matter.

So as I review Bill 159, I must admit there are some things in this bill that are good. The bill defines a puppy mill for the first time. That is a good thing. It sets standards for record-keeping—again, something that is valuable and much needed—and it identifies a number of offences and implements fines. I appreciate all of those efforts.

There are, however, important things that are left out. For example, I find the definition of a puppy mill a bit ambiguous, missing out on important things such as the real standards for how much space or the specific steps that must be taken in order to ensure that that living environment for those pups is healthy and safe. I acknowledge that, in some cases, standards have been identified. But in order to ensure whether those standards are being met, there need to be inspections so that enforcement can take place. And what that enforcement actually looks like, how those inspections will actually take place is not clearly defined in this legislation.

Now, even assuming that this bill had everything necessary in terms of standards and definitions to protect animals, I have not yet seen any funding that is attached to this that could allow the inspections, and specifically, the increased inspections that are necessary to ensure some of the good things in this bill are actually operationalized. I understand, acknowledge and respect that there will be inspectors, and this is a good thing. I question, for example, what will be the mechanism for triggering inspections? Will they investigate proactively? Currently, we know that there is an inspection process in place and far too many puppy mills are operating without being inspected. So, will it be proactive or, conversely, will it be complaints-based?

I certainly worry about a complaints-based inspection process because that certainly hasn’t worked well in the current environment. Think, for example, about patients in health care who are reporting unfair or inappropriate billing. Far too many patients that are experiencing that don’t know how to make a complaint to OHIP, and far too many of those complaints are not actually acted upon. And we have also seen, within this process within long-term care, even where there may be proactive long-term-care inspections, those, regrettably, have failed miserably in protecting the residents of long-term-care homes and many long-term-care residences. So, of course I support the idea of inspections, but I am not convinced nor confident that this legislation enacts a robust and well-funded process.

In summary, I want to reflect on the fact that there is a lot that could be done. This legislation does move the needle in the right direction. But in my opinion, that needle could swing so much further, could offer so many more opportunities for protection, for inspection, for enforcement.

Finally, in my last moments, I want to reflect on one last dog, a beautiful small black Cavalier King Charles spaniel who goes by the name of Huey. He has been a little bit medically vulnerable, but through the tireless and most thoughtful care of his owner, Lauren, is able to live an incredible and fulfilling life. Let us give that opportunity to all dogs in the province of Ontario, especially those most vulnerable pups as they are first getting their start in life.

In summary, this bill does some of the right things, but could go much further, and I look forward to working with all members of this House to make it as strong as we can.

Today I rise to express the disappointment of my constituents in Don Valley East about this government’s unacceptable lack of progress on public transit.

Mr. Speaker, the still-under-construction Eglinton Crosstown will serve my riding from six stations. My constituents see this construction and feel all of its problems and delays. This government has shared no details about the progress and its estimated completion date. My constituents deserve answers about the status of the line, the problems it faces, what’s left to be done and when the government expects it to be open. And they want to know why half of all Metrolinx employees are on the sunshine list, despite the complete lack of accountability and progress.

Also in my riding are two stations on the Ontario Line. Metrolinx has promised consultation about the transit-oriented communities being built around them. However, they’ve been less than forthcoming about what sort of community benefits will be made available, how businesses will be protected, and they have yet to see any real evidence of employment opportunities apart from job fairs advertising entry-level and junior positions.

It’s important to have housing, especially near the Eglinton Crosstown and the Ontario Line. But under the chaotic and unpredictable housing environment created by this government, my constituents are seeing rampant demovictions, unacceptable above-guideline rent increases, and appalling wait times for the Landlord and Tenant Board.

We need to make sure all the infrastructure that makes communities feel like home—schools, parks, libraries and more—are an integral part of that development.

The government must take action and provide the people of Don Valley East information about the progress of both the Eglinton Crosstown and the Ontario Line.

Thank you very much for the question. Regrettably, we do not see anything that addressed the root causes of the housing crisis in our midst right now. We do not see anything that will increase affordability for our constituents across the province, nothing to increase supportive housing for people across the province.

While there is a pillar of this plan that purports to build more kinds of housing, the foundation for that simply isn’t there. It’s merely words and lacking in any sort of substance whatsoever.

We’ve already seen—as we face in our health care sector. We have a shortage of health care workers. We have hospitals that are now being forced to go into the business of development, and we have now a government that wants colleges and universities to go into that business as well. If they want and feel equipped for that, that’s one thing, but the reality is that we have an underfunded post-secondary sector right now that is barely keeping afloat, and making this an option for them when they can barely keep afloat is really not fair and will be a drop in the bucket for a major crisis.

Interjections.

Interjection.

In any case, I welcome the opportunity to work with the other members. Evidently, there’s a proposal that needs a bit more review, and I absolutely will advocate for my constituents. That being said, there are many reasonable recommendations coming out of the Housing Affordability Task Force report that I have zero qualms in defending in this chamber to my constituents, because I know that when build more housing we are building it for our friends, for our neighbours and for our families.

I’ve been very clear, as I mentioned in my remarks, that one of the really important things that we could be doing is, when provincial lands are sold off for development, that a commitment to 20% and 30% be set aside for affordable housing, once we have clarity on what that definition is. Only if we can do that, ensuring that we have that kind of affordable and supportive housing in place, can we ensure that we get to the root cause of the housing crisis here and help those amongst us who are the most vulnerable here in the province of Ontario.

I would implore the Minister of Housing to do something like that, but I suspect he’ll remain with his ideological blinders and all of Ontario will suffer as a result.

It saddens me to hear the minister say that, because I have never made a statement to that effect. I have made statements to the effect that we need—

Interjections.