role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

September 7, 2022

43rd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2022-Sept-07 vol. A (PDF)

L016A - Wed 7 Sep 2022 / Mer 7 sep 2022

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 7 September 2022 Mercredi 7 septembre 2022

Orders of the Day

Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act, 2022 / Loi de 2022 pour des maires forts et pour la construction de logements

Members’ Statements

Ottawa Carleton plowing match

Education

Suicide prevention

Ojibway National Urban Park

Agawa Canyon Tour Train

Social assistance

Élection municipale / Décès de Marc Clermont et Raymond Fredette

Long-term care

Guide dogs

World of Jazz Festival

Introduction of Visitors

Question Period

Health care

Education

Hospital services

Housing

Health care

Crime prevention / Prévention du crime

Home care

Housing

Education

Government accountability

Transportation infrastructure

Labour dispute

Tenant protection

Farmers

Social assistance

Private members’ public business

Visitor

Notices of dissatisfaction

Deferred Votes

Highway construction

Introduction of Bills

Auditor General Amendment Act, 2022 / Loi de 2022 modifiant la

Loi sur le vérificateur général

Access to Sexual Assault Evidence Kits and Provision of Sexual Assault Education Act, 2022 / Loi de 2022 sur l’accès aux trousses médico-légales en cas d’agression sexuelle et la fourniture de formation sur les agressions sexuelles

Fixing Long-Term Care Amendment Act (Till Death Do Us Part), 2022 / Loi de 2022 modifiant la

Loi sur le redressement des soins de longue durée (Jusqu’à ce que la mort nous sépare)

Petitions

Dairy industry

Health care funding

Social assistance

Government’s record

Labour dispute

Employment supports

Health care

Agri-food industry

Health care

Infrastructure funding

Orders of the Day

Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act, 2022 / Loi de 2022 pour des maires forts et pour la construction de logements

Consideration of Bill Pr2

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Good morning. Let us pray.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act, 2022 / Loi de 2022 pour des maires forts et pour la construction de logements

Resuming the debate adjourned on September 6, 2022, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 3,

An Act to amend various statutes with respect to special powers and duties of heads of council / Projet de loi 3, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne les pouvoirs et fonctions spéciaux des présidents du conseil.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Further debate?

Mr. Joel Harden: Strong mayors—that’s what this bill is talking about this morning.

I want to mention, Speaker, though you, to the government, to my other colleagues in this chamber this morning, something that has been said at committee, I said it at committee; other people said it at committee—I’ll pull up my reading glasses here, because my 50-year-old eyes sometimes fail me: No one asked anybody in our city, in Ottawa, about this bill.

I just want to say rhetorically, off the top, for our collective benefit, would we ever think a piece of legislation is adequate for third reading in this place—a place built by our grandparents, by generations of people who wanted to build a better life for people in this province—if we didn’t actually take a piece of legislation that directly impacted a community for review first?

The mayor of Ottawa, Jim Watson, has said publicly that he found out about this bill in the media—in the media, Speaker.

I’ve asked business improvement associations at home; I’ve asked community groups at home; I’ve asked advocates of all different kinds at home, all of whom are concerned with issues I hear this government is concerned about: affordable housing; the need to make sure our transit systems work well; the need to make sure that, in particular, our neighbours who are suffering right now in mental health crisis and the opioid crisis—which is ripping a hole through many aspects of our community right now. I hear the government talk about these issues a lot; I commend them for doing so. They’re talking about this bill, in particular, around housing as being important.

But I would ask the government, through you, Speaker, would we ever want to introduce a piece of legislation that would impact a particular municipality or community without talking to them first? I would hope we could get across our party lines and agree that, no, of course we wouldn’t. But that is happening right now. We are at third reading. A bill is being pushed quickly through this chamber—within the rules, I’ll acknowledge, but very quickly compared to how previous Parliaments in this place have worked—and the community I represent has not been consulted.

What is the model for this bill? As I understand it from my friends in government, when I heard this bill being debated in committee with MPP Burch and others, the idea is the mayoralty model in Chicago, the strong-mayor model, which would basically empower a mayor to create their own staff infrastructure to be able to implement budgets. Decisions which have previously been collective hiring decisions—for the head of transit, for the head of auditing processes and budgets—would now solely rest within the mayor’s office.

If someone was contacted from Ottawa—the mayor, myself, any of our business or community leaders, labour organizations—if they were asked about this bill, the Chicago bill, which would rest these powers in the office of the mayor, I think the first thing we might have told the government is why this particular model did not work with our light rail transit system in our city, a $2-billion investment in a train that has not worked—not worked through our northern climate; wheels that appeared correct flattened over time; stations that smell of sewer gas; doors that jam and don’t open.

How did we get to this particular issue, and what’s the link to Bill 3 and this particular situation? Non-consultation. A sole-source contract with the Rideau Transit Group. I see a government member shaking their head. Perhaps in debate you can enlighten me as to how I’m wrong.

We worked with you. I say, from my perspective, standing here, from my community, as the MPP for Ottawa Centre, I encouraged you for two years to declare a public inquiry into this failed light rail transit system—failed and failing. After two years of advocacy, not just from me but from people back home, the government agreed to a public inquiry into the system, something we could not convince the mayor of our city to do. The mayor of our city would not declare a judicial inquiry into the light rail transit system despite repeated advocacy locally, but we got this government to agree to it.

I congratulated the government at the time for doing it, and we are going to see the fruits of that work relatively soon. But why did we have to do that in the first place? We had to do it in the first place—and this is what I’m learning through disclosure in that inquiry process—because some people, apparently very close to the current mayor’s office, were creating a transit system, the details of which were not disclosed to the public.

Let me tell you about the gravity of that situation. Councillor Catherine McKenney, who represents the Somerset ward—if you’ve been to our beautiful city of Ottawa, that is the downtown core of our city—asked to see a copy of the $5-million-a-month maintenance contract for our LRT system—just the maintenance contract.

Under the current public-private partnership agreement signed between the city of Ottawa, the province and the federal government and the Rideau Transit Group, the only way Councillor McKenney could review that contract was in the city solicitor’s office, with the city solicitor looking over her shoulder, without the right to take written notes, without the right to use any digital device to record what was being read.

That’s the level of non-transparency we got with stage 1 of the LRT in Ottawa, under a procurement model that, I’m going to tell you, Speaker, and tell my friends in government this morning, resembles very closely what you’re doing with this legislation and how you’ve proposed it and rolled it out.

We desperately need transit in our city. I’m going to talk about housing in my 20 minutes; I’m going to talk about adequate incomes, too; but we desperately need transit in our city that works. There was so much hope and promise when people saw the LRT coming. People in our city were excited to get out of their cars and get on the train. We have a fantastic—as you know, Speaker; I know you’ve been to our city many times—bus system, a dedicated bus-lane system that works well in our city. This was meant to complement that and to do our

part in climate action, but we have a system that time and again has often failed to operate.

Thanks to the inquiry we worked really hard for, we’re going to find out exactly what has gone wrong. Given what has been disclosed to date—and I hope the government will agree with me on this—the way in which this LRT system was rolled out was a major problem. Any time you have a non-transparent situation in which elected representatives cannot scrutinize a major infrastructure project to make sure it works correctly, you’re bound for trouble.

Let’s go back to the city of Chicago model that’s inspiring Bill 3. What are people in Chicago saying right now about their experience with this model? I’m hearing a lot of criticism. I’m hearing a lot of people who would actually much rather a collaborative approach to leadership, which is probably why, interestingly enough, our current mayor, Jim Watson, has asked all candidates presenting themselves for office for mayor of the city of Ottawa to promise not to use the powers presented in this bill—not to use veto powers, not to use single-capacity hiring contracts for key positions in our city, either financial or otherwise.

Why would the mayor do that? I think the mayor is doing that, quite frankly—and Mayor Watson has been outspoken on this himself. He and I haven’t always agreed on everything. That’s politics. That’s life. He’s saying very clearly that Ottawa, our city, is at a crossroads right now. We have to make huge investments in major infrastructure to make sure we actually have a city that we are proud of, that we leave to our children and our grandchildren, that will work for our small businesses, that will help people live good and dignified lives. He’s actually bypassing the government at this point.

He’s asking the people running for office—presumably because no one in the government has picked up the phone to call him about this—“Please don’t use this legislation.” So, colleagues, if you weren’t inspired to shop this piece of legislation by people in the city of Ottawa, I hope that alarming fact gives you pause for not wanting to rush this through.

Why don’t we take Bill 3—I’ll help you. I know how to do town halls. We have a fantastic community in Ottawa that loves to do community organizing. We’ll go across the city—urban, suburban, rural—and talk to people about whether this strong-mayor model will actually help the city, and, as I said off the top, what did our experience with light rail transit teach us about what happens when you have a process that is not transparent, that is not consultative enough?

Let’s talk about housing, because I know the government believes this piece of legislation is going to help build more housing. If you go across Ottawa Centre right now and look at the cranes that are up and look at the projects that are being built, they generally have one thing in common: They are beautiful, tall, glass buildings that are going to be great housing for people who want to downsize from a family home they might have had for 30 or 40 years, to live downtown, to live on transit. It sounds good, right?

It checks all the boxes—except we need to look at the price, except when you look at the price of some of the offerings by developers like Claridge or Minto or Trinity Group, highly successful developers who are working very quickly to get projects up and out to market. None of these projects have affordable housing components to them, and that is what we desperately need. In our city, we desperately need more affordable housing—just as I’ve heard the government say everywhere.

But, Speaker, I ask the government, through you, if it continues that kind of construction—because I don’t see anything in Bill 3 around inclusionary zoning to ensure that structures that get built—a percentage, as other jurisdictions have done—will be affordable.

What kind of housing are we going to see moved more expeditiously through the mayor’s office after Bill 3? I suspect it will be more of the same, which is great for my parents; it’s great for other people who have a family home that they want to—believe me, my partner and I would love to have our parents move to Ottawa to help us with the kids, have a condo downtown. Sure, it works for me, but will it work for my friend Candyrose?

Let me tell you about Candyrose, Speaker. Candyrose is someone I’ve known in Ottawa’s urban Indigenous community for a long time. She’s a fantastic person. She’s active in the arts in our city and has been part of many theatre performances, many different cultural outreach efforts to try to bring people who come to our city from many contexts of trauma into a new community so they can feel part of our city. That’s Candyrose’s contribution to our city.

Candyrose lives on the Ontario Disability Support Program. Her income is $841 a month. On that $841 a month, Candyrose has to find housing, has to feed herself, has to get around the city. I think we can all agree that that is an undignified situation—not solely responsible by this government, but generations of governments in this place that have set up a situation of legislated poverty.

What has Candyrose done? Just like thousands of social assistance recipients in our city, despite that challenging context, she goes out every day to contribute. It may not show up in gross domestic product, but every day Candyrose goes out there to contribute.

I’m not sure what other members in this House are experiencing, but I recently saw Candyrose at the Labour Day march. She walked up to me—and it had been about a year since I’d seen her in person, pandemic conditions being what they are. I think my friend Candyrose may have lost about 25% of her body weight, for real.

I was shocked at the optics of seeing my friend marching with me, talking to me about how much she’s suffering, how much more food costs, how difficult it is to live a dignified life, how she’s even potentially going to lose her own assisted housing through mental health supports, because she just can’t survive. Then I think about what Bill 3 would do for her.

Maybe the government would tell me, “What it would do, Joel, is centralize in the office of the mayor immediate payments to people like Candyrose.” It’s kind of the philosopher-king approach to politics: We rest all hope in the office of one person to break up NIMBYism, to break up political gridlocks, and the money will flow straight from the office of the mayor to people like Candyrose, people who are suffering in our city right now. But I suspect that’s not going to happen.

What I think would make it more likely to happen is if I could work with this government to set up actual community conversations back home about this bill, so they could hear directly from Candyrose—not through me—and directly from people who are suffering right now on our streets.

If anybody in this chamber went to the AMO conference recently, you would have walked in our streets and you would have seen people living out in the open and suffering.

At the moment, in the city of Ottawa, we spend $25 million on police calls with respect to homelessness issues—$25 million. And our budget for affordable housing in the city of Ottawa is just over $15 million.

If you talk to any police officer in our city, they will tell you the same thing: There’s one reality for people who are housed, there’s one reality for people who can safely work during the pandemic from home, and there’s another reality for people who live with any kind of trauma, who’ve had any manner of bad luck, who find themselves on the streets with limited to no support.

And here’s the big irony—and former Senator Hugh Segal has spoken about this very eloquently: The big irony is that it costs Ontario a lot more for these folks to suffer in front of our eyes than it would for us to marshal the courage to go in the direction of Scandinavian countries that have said, “There will be a minimum income in this country. We are not prepared to watch people suffer any longer.” Do you know the great thing, Speaker? Every time we have tried it in this great country in which we both live, it has worked.

Almost 50 years ago, in the town of Dauphin, Manitoba, an experiment called Mincome was tried, where every family in that province was guaranteed an income, in those days, of $19,000 a year. There’s a terrific book—I’m not allowed to use props, so I’ll just talk about it—called Utopia for Realists, written by Rutger Bregman, a major intellectual coming out of the Netherlands. Mr. Bregman has documented, from Professor Forget, who has looked at the boxes of documents from that experiment, that spousal abuse dropped, hospital visits dropped, birth rates increased, prosperity reigned. It was more affordable for the province of Manitoba to guarantee a basic income than to watch people suffer.

Feed Ontario, the organization that comes here to lobby us on behalf of food banks in the province, has told us that the cost of poverty in Ontario is $33 billion a year. That’s approaching what we spend on education in the province—if you look at costs to the health care system, the costs to policing and incarceration.

So what I would ask us to consider with this bill, if you were take it on the road—take me up on my offer. Bring it back home. Let me help you. I’m here to help, not just to criticize. Take it on the road.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Joel.

Mr. Joel Harden: I mean it, to my neighbour from up the Ottawa Valley there. Let me work with you, my friend.

Take this bill on the road through the community, and they will tell you why a mayor-driven model is not going to build you more homes. It’s not going to help feed people who are suffering, help them recover and get a decent life. It’s not going to help a small business that is going to close right now.

I think of a place like the Ottawa Bike Café on Sparks Street, which is a fantastic enterprise. If you’re ever in our city, I encourage you to patronize it. Just like every Sparks Street business right now, they have been hammered by the pandemic, because they’re in the red zone. As we figured out, from a security perspective, what to do going forward after the convoy, we forced a lot of these businesses to close, or we forced them to open up, because they needed the revenue, without a lot of traffic, because now we have federal government workers who used to work in that area of the city working from home.

I think about the owners of that place, Jason and Maria, and I think about what their future is going to be. What is Bill 3 going to do for them?

If the government would allow us to take this bill on the road and not rush it through this House, I think they would hear from those voices directly, not just the carping socialist on Wednesday morning.

So where are we at, Speaker? We’re in a situation where my friends in government are telling us that the only way to build housing in the province of Ontario is to put more power in the office of the mayor. The mayor of our city, who was not consulted on this piece of legislation, is telling this government, “Put on the brakes. You never talked to me about this.” But we’re marching forward nonetheless.

But the good news is this: I’ve worked with these folks before to get a public inquiry declared into our LRT system. I’m happy to work with them again to make sure this bill actually does what it’s intended to do. Because we have elections coming up province-wide for municipal elected officials, every single one of those aspiring municipal elected officials are going to have to try to prove to our neighbours how they’re going to help people get housed, how they’re going to help small businesses be successful, how they’re going to help deal with our mental health crisis everywhere in our city. They share an ambition for urgent change.

I’ve often found, as I’ve listened to my friends in government talk about legislation over the last four years, that we share a commonality of urgency. They want to get things done, to time-allocate, to move fast. If I was in government, I would probably be sitting at the table and saying the same thing—“Enough talk. Enough studying things to death.” I like that.

What I absolutely don’t like and what I would never consider adequate for me, for people working with me, is to march ahead with proposals that have never been presented to those they will directly impact first. I can’t do that; that’s a red line.

So let’s back up a bit. Let’s think about how we can build housing, how we can make municipal decisions co-operatively. Let’s involve all stakeholders at the table, and let’s actually build the Ontario that we’ve dreamed about. We never do that. We hit each other with partisan gloves in this place all the time. We never stop for a second to think about what we agree on and how we can build the Ontario we dream about. Bill 3, in my opinion, is falling short on that right now, and we need a piece of legislation that will make that happen.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Question?

Mrs. Robin Martin: Thank you to the member opposite for his contribution to the debate.

We understand that something like two million to six million people will be coming to Ontario over the next little while. The reality is, one third of Ontario’s growth over that decade is expected to come to Toronto and Ottawa. We’re really counting on the mayors to cut through red tape and to get housing built faster so that more families can realize the dream of attainable home ownership.

The Liberals and the NDP had 15 years to plan for growth and build the housing that we require—unfortunately, with the support of the NDP, they stood idly by, allowing the problem to get out of hand.

Now our government is working diligently with our large municipal partners to try to make this housing get built as quickly as possible.

Does the opposition not recognize that the province has a role to play in ensuring that we plan for growth?

Mr. Joel Harden: Well, to respond to my friend there, I would just say that working diligently, to me, implies actually talking to somebody and sharing a collaborative project. It’s not diligent to put down a piece of legislation that you never told another person about and to say you’re working fast.

Straight talk, Speaker: I’ve heard this record from the government for a long time. “Fifteen years—terrible. Everything is awful. We’re going to solve things.” I’m going to urge us, in this debate, this back-and-forth and throughout the session, to climb out of that communication silo, if we can—those notes we’re given in this place. Let’s actually talk about real issues.

How are we actually going to help people like Candyrose who are living in poverty right now? How are we going to make our transit system work? Who are the people we’re going to empower at a local level so this bill could actually work, and why not open it up to real consultation? That’s what I’m asking my friend to consider.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Question?

Mr. Wayne Gates: Bill 3, Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act—it’s interesting that you did mention the mayor not being consulted.

Well, they did ask—not this government, but the local media asked the three biggest mayors in Niagara what they thought of the bill. They do not support Bill 3, Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act. Niagara Falls mayor Jim Diodati said no. St. Catharines mayor Walter Sendzik said no. Welland mayor Frank Campion said no. They do not support the bill.

Why do you think the Conservative government is bullying your mayor with no consultation and forcing this bill on the citizens of Ottawa?

Mr. Joel Harden: Thank you to my friend from Niagara Falls.

I don’t know the answer to that question. I hope it comes up in the debate on this bill. I’ve yet to see it.

What I’ve seen my friends in government do as they prepare for debate is basically state the gravity of the problems—and on that there can be some agreement. People need housing. People need opportunities.

As I said before, I don’t disagree with the urgency thing either, the need to move quickly, to move beyond analysis paralysis. I can find some agreement on that too. But why take a piece of legislation through three readings as quickly as we’ve seen here in this House and do it to the detriment? Why I mentioned the LRT story is because that’s what we did with the LRT and now we’re fixing a mess. Do we really want to create more messes?

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Question?

Hon. Doug Downey: My question to the member is—I know you want the albatross around your neck of the 15 years gone, but we can’t do anything about that. That is just fact and history. We know the job is not getting done. We need to build more homes. Notwithstanding our 100,000 record-breaking starts last year, we need to get the job done. If not the mayors, who will then have accountability? Would you rather the province do it? If it’s not one of those two groups, who do you expect to get this job done?

Mr. Joel Harden: It’s a fair question.

Let me just say, by way of humour, there are plenty of albatrosses for all of us that will hang around our necks in this place. We’ll deal with that over the next four years.

Call me naive, Speaker, but I actually have worked with members of this government on things in the past. We’ll fight 90% of the time, but we might agree on 10%. On issues like housing, income, jobs and climate change, my socialist heart wants to believe that things can be collaborative; this bill is not. Yes, we need the province to act, but it needs to be done collaboratively with the city. We can’t force-feed change.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): The member from Sudbury.

Mr. Jamie West: Thank you to the member for Ottawa Centre. He took his reading glasses out at the beginning and then didn’t read a single word. I always find that interesting.

Early on, the member talked about the mayor from Ottawa not being aware of this bill and finding out in the media. He also talked about the upcoming elections.

We just went through an election, so congratulations to all colleagues who have joined us here.

All of us have knocked on many doors. I didn’t hear a single word about this. It wasn’t even on the radar.

You talked about your friend Candyrose.

I just wonder, as municipal councillors and mayors are out knocking on doors, or as we politicians are out knocking on doors, what are things that we have actually heard about that we really should be here in the summertime debating and speaking about instead of this bill, which nobody called for?

Mr. Joel Harden: To my friend from Sudbury, I will say this: I heard a lot about housing—and the government is talking about that, thinking this bill accomplishes that. I heard a lot about decent income and the mental health crisis. I heard a lot about the crisis in our hospitals and our schools.

If I was in their position, I might be thinking, “I’m tired of obstacle after obstacle, a person saying ‘I can’t do things.’ I’m going to defy the public service advice I’m getting and the opposition advice I’m getting, and I’m just going to do it.” The danger of that, as I’ve tried to explain with the LRT situation, is that you can make a bigger mess than you started off with. Nobody wants to use the money given to us by the people of Ontario to waste it, regardless of our political perspectives.

Again, last call through you, Speaker: Work with me. Take this to the city of Ottawa. Take it across Ontario. Let’s make this law work.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Member from Carleton.

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: There’s growth happening all across Ontario, and most of that growth is anticipated to be happening in Ottawa and in Toronto. For years we failed to plan for that, even though arguably it could be seen coming. That was a failure from the 15 years of Liberal government, bolstered by the NDP.

Now, of course, we have a shortage of housing. There is no disagreement on any side of this House that we need more homes—and that’s homes of all different types.

It’s interesting listening to the member rely on what Mayor Watson has said and his opinions on this bill, even though everyone knows Mayor Watson is not seeking re-election. So his opinion, arguably, is irrelevant.

Madam Speaker, my question to the member is, why does the opposition oppose giving municipalities the tools they need in order to cut red tape and plan for the efficient building of new housing? And why are they relying on the opinion of someone who is not seeking re-election?

Mr. Joel Harden: I’ll say to my friend from Carleton, I’m not only relying on the current mayor. I think it’s significant because that’s the current office-holder. There is not one enthusiastic supporter of this bill running for the office of mayor in our city right now—some have said they might want to use it. Wouldn’t that give the member pause to think this isn’t going to work?

What would a strong mayor actually do? If I was the mayor of the city of Ottawa right now and I looked at how I’m spending money—and we’re spending $25 million on police-related calls for homelessness, and $17 million on affordable housing. What would a strong mayor do?

Mr. Dave Smith: Build more houses.

Mr. Joel Harden: Perhaps. But how?

We would build more housing through non-market housing—repurposing federal office buildings that are currently vacant because people aren’t working in them, and creating housing out of them.

That’s the kind of mayor we need. That’s the kind of leadership we need.

Folks in Ottawa are ready to work with you.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): We have time for a short question and short response.

The member for Algoma–Manitoulin.

Mr. Michael Mantha: I asked this question yesterday, and I wanted to hear a perspective from the member for Ottawa Centre.

There is a group of individuals we’re not talking about—that is not being raised on the floor: our public servants. Public servants go to work with the hearts and minds of their communities, going in each and every day, making the best decisions for their community. This bill will politicize their actions. It will politicize public servants.

I’ve yet to hear from this government about the engagement that they’ve done with public servants.

To the member for Ottawa Centre, do you think it would have been very key to talk to our public servants?

Mr. Joel Harden: Absolutely. But let me say—not to trouble my friend from Manitoulin—I understand urgency. I hope I made that clear in my remarks this morning. The government feels an urgency to act. I get that. But what will always blow up in one’s face, through my experience, is urgency that doesn’t have a plan. Hope is not a plan.

One needs to have mapped out the next steps of how we make affordable housing happen in Ottawa, how we help small businesses, how we help people who are suffering in the mental health crisis, how we fix our hospitals and schools.

One needs a plan, and hope is not a plan. Railroading is not a plan.

Mr. Todd J. McCarthy: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Point of order?

Mr. Todd J. McCarthy: Madam Speaker, respectfully, I ask that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent that, notwithstanding standing order 9(a), the afternoon routine commence at 2 p.m. on Thursday, September 8, 2022.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): The member for Durham is seeking unanimous consent for the House to return at 2 p.m. tomorrow, Wednesday morning, September 7—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thursday.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Oh, okay. Thursday morning.

Mr. Todd J. McCarthy: To clarify, Madam Speaker, I suggest respectfully, notwithstanding standing order 9(a), that the afternoon routine commence at 2 p.m. on Thursday, September 8, 2022. If you seek consent for that proposal, I submit that you will find it.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Agreed? Thank you.

Further debate?

Mr. Mike Schreiner: Madam Speaker, it’s great to see you in the chair this morning.

I’m honoured to rise to speak on Bill 3 today.

Regardless of what you think about whether we should concentrate more power in a mayor’s office or not, this bill will not solve the housing crisis. I share the concerns of people from across the political spectrum about the disturbing trend we’ve seen of concentrating power in the Prime Minister’s office, in Premiers’ offices across the country—and now, this government is suggesting, in the mayor’s office. I believe democracy is weakened when you concentrate power in a single office, and I contend that concentrating power in the mayor’s office will not solve the housing crisis. But don’t take my word for it.

Take the government’s own housing task force’s word for it. I did not agree with everything this task force put forward, but they put forward 55 recommendations to help solve the housing crisis, and not one of those recommendations was to concentrate power in the mayor’s office.

As a matter of fact, the most important solution the government’s own hand-picked task force put forward was to end exclusionary zoning, and the province has the power to do that. So if the Premier and the minister wanted to act urgently to address the housing crisis and increase supply and get rid of red tape, they would get rid of exclusionary zoning and bring in across the province as-of-right zoning to build duplexes, triplexes and quadplexes. That is the fastest way to increase supply without paving over the farmland that feeds us and the wetlands that protect us.

The province also has the power to reform the Ontario Land Tribunal, which has become a huge hindrance and a huge cost to municipalities and to citizens due to the appeals process that is happening on a number of developments.

The government could, in the trend that started in the 1990s when the province got out of investing in deeply affordable and permanent supportive housing, reverse that trend and invest in housing that’s affordable for people.

They could address the rampant speculation that’s happening in the housing market by bringing in a speculation tax, something Bill Davis did back in the 1980s.

They could bring in inclusionary zoning rules.

They could bring in a province-wide, yes-in-my-backyard campaign.

The province has multiple tools to address this challenge, the housing affordability crisis, and yet the government has refused to implement those tools.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Question?

Mr. Ross Romano: Thank you to the member for your comments. I’ve sat in this House for the previous four years and had the privilege of sitting with the honourable member across the way, and I’ve found that there are times where there is a very reasonable approach being taken.

As I’m looking and listening and thinking about the crisis that we’re in and hearing about all these potential options that you’ve suggested, I’m curious about how any of those are actually going to solve the crisis we currently find ourselves in—a crisis which requires us to build 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years. If you look at the CMHC reports, we’re looking at another three million homes by 2030, just to reach affordability—and I know how important it is to this member to find affordability.

My question is, why will you not support this measure as a means of achieving those goals?

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I appreciate the member’s question.

Respectfully, to the member across the aisle, it’s because nothing in this bill is actually going to deliver the solutions we need to increase housing supply. As a matter of fact, you could even have a strong mayor who would oppose housing development and support NIMBYism.

I want to quote from the government’s own hand-picked housing task force—and again, I did not agree with all 55 recommendations: “We heard from planners, municipal councillors, and developers that ‘as of right’ zoning—the ability to bypass long, drawn-out consultations and zoning bylaw amendments—is the most effective tool in the provincial tool kit. We agree.” That’s what their task force said.

I don’t understand why the government isn’t implementing the provincial tools they have that were recommended by their own task force.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Member from Sudbury.

Mr. Jamie West: Thank you to the member from Guelph. I think he got through about eight of the 55 recommendations—including the fact that the NDP, when they were in government, started building really affordable housing, and the importance of it. I know that he was limited on time in his debate.

Are there any other recommendations that you would like to share?

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I appreciate the member’s question.

One that I want to highlight a bit more—and I put forward a number of solutions. I can tell you, sometimes the government says, “The opposition only opposes.” Well, I gave you a whole list of solutions. And I would encourage you to look at your own housing task force. But one that I think is really important is that—in the 1990s, both the federal and provincial governments got out of housing. They stopped investing in housing. Most of the deeply affordable housing built in this country was built in the 1970s and 1980s.

I would encourage both the federal and provincial governments to get back to investing in deeply affordable and permanent supportive housing so that we build housing that low-income people can actually afford to live in.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): The member for Kitchener–Conestoga.

Mr. Mike Harris: I love hearing from the member for Guelph. We just about share a riding boundary—we’re separated by the Speaker, actually, for about a kilometre or two in between our ridings. I know he knows a lot about what happens in Waterloo region. He’s very in tune with what’s happening in southwestern Ontario.

We constantly see development stagnated in Waterloo region. We have developments that are 10 or 12 years on the books, and they’re often being blocked by certain members of our either local or regional councils. It is unfortunate, because these are not just monstrous single-family homes or estate lots; these are affordable houses as well.

This bill gives a mayor tools to be able to move those developments forward. Why won’t he support that?

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I appreciate the member opposite—and, yes, we are virtually neighbours.

I’m going to take some time to give an example in Kitchener—not your Kitchener riding, but another Kitchener riding.

I want to begin by saying that there is nothing in this bill that says more housing will be built. That is why using planning tools like as-of-right zoning is so important. An example of that is a home I toured in Kitchener. Because they have brought in as-of-right zoning, somebody took a single-family bungalow, built two apartments out of it and a tiny home. Now there is housing for three families on the same footprint.

Those are the kinds of solutions—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further debate?

Mr. John Yakabuski: It is a pleasure to join the debate here on Bill 3.

It’s always interesting listening to my friend from Ottawa Centre. I always find him interesting to listen to, but I don’t think we would make good roommates. There could be some discussions that would never end. However, I appreciate the fact that he holds a different viewpoint than myself from time to time. I do believe at some point there’s going to actually be an issue that we absolutely agree on; we just haven’t found it yet—well, maybe there is one, about how beautiful the Ottawa valley is. I think we’ll all agree on that one.

Speaker, I want to tell you—not tell you; you know—that from day one our government has been seized on the importance and our absolute commitment to build more housing here in the province of Ontario. I don’t think there’s anybody here who wouldn’t have heard in their campaign about the reality of the lack of housing here in Ontario and the lack of housing with the population that we have and the population that we expect to have—1.5 million homes over 10 years to service basically six million increased population. Put those numbers into perspective, and you have to ask yourself how we are going to get this done if we don’t have a number of tools in the tool box.

The opposition goes on and on and on because they haven’t got a lot to criticize the bill on, so they talk about what is not in the bill. I’ve been here long enough to know that when you bring in a piece of legislation that is not specific, they’ll go apoplectic and talk about the omnibus bill, and why you’re trying to sneak something in on this bill that some people might like, but you want the poison pill that exists on this side of the bill—so they preach incessantly against bills that cover too many topics and cover too many issues.

But now, on this one, they want to talk about all the things that are not in the bill. They’re right; the bill doesn’t talk about the bold climate change action we’re doing with regard to EV vehicles in the province of Ontario, critical minerals, electric arc furnaces in our steel mills, which are going to take the equivalent of 600,000 cars off the road. Of course, that’s not in the bill. This bill is one of the tools that we’ve instituted and brought forward, as government, to follow through on that commitment to build, build, build here in Ontario.

The Premier, right upfront—“We’re going to build Ontario.” You heard that every single day during the campaign. So when they say that we didn’t campaign on this—it is 28 days, and 24 hours in a day, and presumably there has to be some time for sleeping and driving and moving. You can’t try—

Mr. Mike Harris: You slept.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I did; I took a nap.

You can’t cover every single thought that comes into your head, but what you do is put on the table the big picture of where you see Ontario.

Ontario’s housing situation—let’s face it—is problematic, and it’s because of NIMBYism and people like the folks in the NDP, who have stood against every single initiative that we’ve put forward, such as the More Homes, More Choice Act and the More Homes for Everyone Act. They say we need to build housing, but when some group or some special interest they want to represent says, “We don’t want that housing there,” well, then they’re coming to the Legislature telling us what a terrible idea it is to approve that. “It’s a terrible idea to build that. You can’t do that there, and you can’t do it now.”

The NDP is like a braid in the hair—they’re twisting themselves and twisting themselves—or a pretzel, but only a half-baked pretzel, because they’re not really sure where they are on the issue of housing.

They say, “Build, build, build. We need affordable housing.”

Do you know what drives up the price of anything?

Mr. Dave Smith: Lack of supply.

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s economics 101—supply and demand. If you have 100 widgets and 200 people wanting to buy a widget, the price of those widgets is going to go up. If you have 100 widgets and only 50 people wanting to buy a widget, the price of those widgets is going to go down. Notwithstanding the realities of commodities and everything else, labour costs, and costs of approvals and engineering—we understand all that. Those things, in general terms, continue to go up. But supply and demand is still the number one rule when it comes to the price. If I’ve got something and you want it bad enough, you’re going to have to pay. That’s the way the world works.

They talk about how nobody can afford a home, and they’re not entirely wrong. It’s pretty scary.

We have four children. One of our daughters just bought a home—they live up in the Northwest Territories. They paid—I have to be careful here—way more than 10 times what my wife and I paid for our first home. In fact, the last truck I bought cost me twice as much as our first home—maybe not quite, but close. So we know that those prices are terribly high, and that’s in the Northwest Territories. Just think about what they are here in Ontario.

So the average person is struggling to be able to afford to buy a home or build a home.

But if there’s more supply of built homes, then there’s more supply of homes.

The NDP keeps talking about what’s not in the bill. We put together the entire suite of bills, the entire package of bills aimed at increasing housing supply, and that’s what you’ve got to look at. And we’re not done, because we are absolutely committed to taking the necessary steps to increase the housing supply. If we increase the housing supply, it’s going to mean more homes for you, and more homes for you, and more homes for you, and more homes for everyone. Well, look at that. My goodness gracious, it’s right in one of our bills—More Homes for Everyone Act.

So, yes, there are homes that gazillionaires are going to be buying. We understand that. It won’t be me. But we’re going to make sure that there are homes for everyone, and that’s why we want to remove the barriers to building homes.

I know my friends in the opposition feel trapped, for example, about their opposition to the Bradford Bypass and the 413. They know the people need it. They know the people want it. But they feel their constituencies don’t want it, so they’re going to argue against it. They have to argue against some of things that we propose, because otherwise they’d be admitting they were wrong all along, which is not a bad thing; sometimes you just have to do it. And they’ve been wrong on housing, because they have tried to stand in the way of what we’ve been doing.

In Bill 3, essentially what we’re trying to do, as the minister said—and I have to shout out to my friend Minister Clark. Talk about somebody who is laser-focused on getting the job done—he has taken a great deal of criticism over four years because of that laser focus, but he has withstood the salvos of the opposition and those opponents out there because he understands what the problem is. The first thing you’ve got to do if you’re going to fix something is, you’ve got to know what the problem is. Well, Mr. Clark knows what the problem is, and he’s staying focused on it, because Ontario needs him to be focused.

So when the opposition criticizes him, one of the tools—how many times, even characterizing him in ways that are not even kind, on the issue of MZOs, ministerial zoning orders. But he has made it clear that we have a goal: 1.5 million homes within 10 years.

We need our municipalities to be partners with us, and that’s where the strong-mayors act really comes in. Oh, yes, there are mayors and former mayors—let’s talk about the reality of politics, folks. Someone who is not going to be mayor after October but was never a mayor under the strong-mayors legislation—what do you think they’re going to say? “No, it’s a bad idea. I wasn’t a strong mayor. I don’t want him to be a strong mayor. No strong mayor for me.”

And then you get mayors in the past who actually wanted to be a strong mayor, like Mayor David Miller from Toronto.

Dalton McGuinty, I say to my friends in the Liberal Party, actually proposed bringing in strong-mayor legislation, because he believed that a city like Toronto—at that time it was the City of Toronto Act he wanted to make changes to—absolutely needed a strong mayor.

And to his credit, even though he is running for re-election, John Tory has been lukewarm, but he has at least said that this is not a bad idea; there is merit to the strong mayor.

My friend from Niagara Falls is talking about the regional mayors over there. Of course, they’re running for re-election. They don’t want this to be an issue in the election, so they want to neutralize it. “Let’s just go back to what it was before, and we’ll run on whether or not the garbage is being picked up on time or something like that.” Great.

But let’s understand the reality of politics and how it gets played, not just in here, but everywhere. Particularly now, with the municipal election cycle in full swing, everybody is making sure that they do what they think is going to benefit them the most in the upcoming campaign.

Speaker, I really want to talk about what is in the bill. Of course, these folks on the other side are—quite frankly, I don’t know if I can say it, but they’re inventing voodoo circumstances or bogeymen or something that are in the bill or that the bill is going to lead to, which don’t exist. They’re creating this idea that the mayor is going to be some kind of a dictator, that council is going to be rendered irrelevant, but it’s not so. The mayor will be a strong mayor, and he or she will have limited new powers to get through the gridlock at city hall.

We’re building 413 and the Bradford Bypass, and I know, deep down, a lot of you support it; I really believe you do. We’re going to do that to tackle gridlock, which is taking days, weeks, months of people’s lives, if you travel long enough in those areas. We’re going to save you two hours—56 minutes twice a day. It’s almost two hours a day. I’d like to find somebody to tell me in this world we live in today—being polite, you say it moves too fast; being maybe less polite, you say it’s crazy. But who wouldn’t like to get two hours back to spend with their family or their loved ones, or just relaxing?

Does anybody here find it relaxing to be stuck in gridlock? Let me know.

I know that my friend from Ottawa Centre likes to read books. Maybe we could write one together on gridlock and my lost two hours today, and my lost two hours yesterday, and my lost two hours tomorrow. Some would just say I’m lost, but that’s another story entirely as well.

Who would not want to get that time back? I’d love to have it back.

We have gridlock at city hall. A strong mayor, supporting the housing priorities of this government, will be able to get through some of that gridlock that we’re experiencing at city hall which is preventing us from getting things done in a timely fashion.

The clock is ticking, folks. We don’t have the luxury of time. We don’t have the luxury of spinning our wheels and saying, “Well, we didn’t get anywhere today on that one, but maybe we’ll try again.”

As Premier Ford said in the campaign, we need to get it done, and we’re going to get it done. One of the tools in the tool box is the strong-mayors act.

What’s so problematic about the mayor being able to veto a bylaw by council? If it was only that, I might have concerns myself, but there’s a safeguard in there; there’s protection: If the other members of council don’t agree, they require only two thirds—not unanimous, two thirds. Two thirds of the members of council can reverse or nullify the veto of the mayor.

I would put it to you that if something the mayor wants to do is so egregious, is so wrong—if I am a member of council, I would like to believe that I am convincing enough that I can get two thirds of my colleagues to say, as my mother-in-law would say, “Not so fast.” Then the mayor has the opportunity to revise his or her position, the bylaw itself might go through some iterations where some changes get made, but council would still function as the body it was designed to be. That is what gets you through gridlock.

What we’ve seen at city hall is a polarization, where the two sides are opposing one another. Essentially, there’s some equality there in the numbers, and then neither wants to give an inch, because if you start to go, then all of a sudden you think you’re going to lose the battle to those other folks.

This would actually encourage people to come up with a workable solution. This would actually encourage people, because they have a strong mayor, a person who was elected a leader, to give some direction and to focus on the goal of getting housing built in the respective cities, Ottawa or Toronto.

I think the clock is malfunctioning, Speaker.

I want to refer to a column that was written by Martin Regg Cohn. Martin Regg Cohn would be widely known as the loudest supporter of Premier Ford in the history of journalism—not. But what did Martin Regg Cohn write about the strong mayor? He wrote things like, “We need a strong mayor.”

Using the reference in the city of Toronto, Mayor Tory received over 500,000 votes directly from the people of Toronto. Councillors received somewhere between a high of maybe around 25,000 and, in some cases, only about 5,000 votes. So the people got to vote directly for their choice for mayor. It’s important to have that reflected in some of the powers—and I don’t have time. Maybe I can get another 20 minutes to go through some of the other things that are in the bill that are so important.

I really believe that the folks in the opposition might take a look at this and actually change their mind and realize that if they want more housing, if the NDP are actually being straight about their desire to get more housing built in the province of Ontario, they will support the suite of bills that we have before them. The strong-mayors act is one of them.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Joel Harden: What a treat to hear my friend from up the Ottawa River this morning. It’s nice to be accused of being a half-baked pretzel.

What I’d inspire the member to think about is—we can all hold forth in this place as much as we want about housing, but you’re missing an adjective that I’d like the member to reflect upon. We need affordable housing. And how will we have affordable housing? That’s the question. I almost want to have the member’s mother-in-law come in here and say, “Not so fast. You’re proposing a piece of legislation you haven’t talked to the people in Ottawa about.” Member, not so fast. How are you going to build affordable housing, member? That’s the question.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Well, I thank the member for Ottawa Centre. We’ll have to see about that meeting with my mother-in-law. I’ll say to that meeting, not so fast. Anyway, I always appreciate his questions. I understand his passion, and I respect him for that. But at the same time, he doesn’t understand how we’re actually going to get it done. We’re going to get more housing built—more affordable housing, more housing for everyone—by eliminating the unnecessary red tape, eliminating the obstacles, the barriers that keep us from doing things in a timely fashion.

We don’t have 30 years to build 1.5 million homes. It doesn’t matter whether they’re affordable or not. If we don’t get them built, they don’t exist. We have to get them built, and we’ve got to move some things out of the way to ensure that we don’t lose sight of that goal. We can’t get caught up on NIMBYism or BANANAism or whatever. We need to make sure we get the homes built, and we’re going to get it done.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): The member for Peterborough–Kawartha.

Mr. Dave Smith: I heard the speech from the opposition.

One of the things about my community of Peterborough is that it has been a test community for all of Canada for a long time, more than 50 years. We’re a microcosm of what goes on. In our city, we had a number of developments that were put forward that were blocked by council because of NIMBYism. They went to LPAT and, lo and behold, the developers were given approval. They added three and a half years to it. I’m being told by developers that it takes 12 years to get something done. We know we’ve got 1.5 million people coming in in 10 years, so we cannot have status quo.

How is this bill going to speed up that process so that it doesn’t take us 12 years to start the construction on the 1.5 million houses we must have over the next 10 years?

Mr. John Yakabuski: I want to thank the member from the test community of Peterborough for his question.

Getting things built is the key. I didn’t reference it in my speech, but I know sometimes that my friends from the NDP—when you mention the word “developers,” I see smoke coming out of their ears because they get so upset with the word. They attach the word “developers” with some kind of evil. But it’s developers who are going to build those homes.

We have to work with developers. We have to work with builders. We have to work with planners. We have to work with municipalities. We have to work with the people. Everybody has a role to play in ensuring that when we hit the 10-year mark, we actually have 1.5 million—maybe even more. If we’re going to accommodate the growth in this province, if we’re going to be able to accommodate the needed people to keep this economy rolling along like it is, keeping us the engine of Canada, we’re going to need those houses built for those folks.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Member from Niagara Falls.

Mr. Wayne Gates: I always like listening to my buddy over there. But I’ll correct him on one thing: I actually have a very good rapport with developers—and not all NDP don’t talk to developers.

You made a statement around your bill with mayors. We’ve got a problem in Niagara that—I don’t believe we have anybody who supports your bill. If it was a good bill and they’re out campaigning, I would think they’d be out there saying, “Hey, we need this bill done.” I’m not getting that. They’re not calling me.

But what I do know is, Niagara Falls, which you guys know—a lot of you guys visited my riding during the campaign, because it’s so lovely down there. Mayor Jim Diodati said no to the bill. The Welland mayor said no to the bill. You said, “Well, they’re running campaigns.” I have a mayor in St. Catharines—a very talented, very young mayor. I’m actually disappointed he’s not running again. He’s not running for the position, but he was very clear, on his way out—he’s saying he doesn’t support the bill.

The mayor from Ottawa doesn’t support the bill.

My question is pretty easy, I know, for you, but some of your members might not know the answer. Can you give me a list of all the mayors who were consulted on this bill before it was brought to this House?

Mr. John Yakabuski: I thank the member for Niagara Falls for his question and for delineating the relationship he has with the folks in his riding. I’m happy to hear that.

This bill, like every bill that this government brings forward—its genesis is based on where we know Ontario needs to be, where Ontario needs to go, and building more homes to accommodate the people, as I began to say in the last response, to be able to support the people who are going to provide the economic activity of the future, to fill the vacant jobs. We have about 400,000 jobs today already that aren’t being filled. We have to be able to fill them, and we have to be able to build those homes so the people will have them.

I am quite comfortable that our government did what it always—we know we did. Most of the homes that are going to be built are going to be in Ottawa and Toronto. We know that—the biggest number. We reached out to the people and said, “What can we do to help remove the gridlock in these two cities?” For a start—a strong mayor. A strong mayor will help us get those homes built. That’s what we need to do.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Member from Newmarket–Aurora.

M me Dawn Gallagher Murphy: Our government was re-elected with a strong mandate to help more Ontarians find a home that meets their needs and their budget.

During the election, when I was knocking on doors, many of my residents were saying that their sons, their daughters, who are still living at home in their thirties, need to buy a home. They feel that it is out of reach for them.

When we look at the majority that our government received from the voters, not only in my riding but across this province, the people did vote for our plan to build 1.5 million new homes over the next 10 years.

My question is, how will these changes in the strong-mayors act build off the previous success that our government has had in addressing the housing supply crisis?

Mr. John Yakabuski: I want to thank the member from Newmarket–Aurora. I appreciate her input on this. She has basically said what we’ve heard from so many corners of the province. You heard it in your riding, as well.

As I said—and what the minister has said repeatedly, because we have to reinforce this so people understand—it’s the combination of the steps that we have taken and are taking. The More Homes for Everyone Act, the More Homes, More Choice Act, and the combination of changes with regard to zoning—all of these kinds of things that we are doing as a government, when you put them all together, are creating the environment that is necessary so that we can meet those goals of building those homes over the next 10 years, so that people like your children will be able to afford a home. If there is more supply, the prices will be more commensurate with people’s incomes of the day.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Quick question, quick response.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: I heard the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke saying that we’re doing something wrong by asking questions about what is not in the bill. Then he talked about NIMBYism. He actually said that we’re NIMBYs over here.

So a little bit of history here: I remember a Premier—Premier Ford—who said that when it came to children with developmental disabilities in his community, he didn’t know they were going to go outside, and he was going to buy their home and throw them out of his neighbourhood. He said that poor people should not be living in affordable homes—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Response?

Mr. John Yakabuski: I never said the opposition was wrong. They have their views, and we have ours.

The people of Ontario absolutely supported our view on June 2. We talked about building more homes, and we are going to build more homes, with or without you.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Ottawa Carleton plowing match

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Two weeks ago I toured the Ottawa Carleton plowing match, hosted by Dave and Bonnie Ostrom on their farm in Ashton, along with Bill Tupper and Rich MacDonald and many more from the Ottawa Carleton Plowmen’s Association.

Plowing matches have been a part of Carleton’s agricultural history for well over a century. They’re a great opportunity for farmers to put on display their plowing skills and teach the importance of soil conservation.

It was a pleasure to once again attend the VIP plowing match, and although I didn’t win, hopefully in future years my furrows will be straight enough to win first prize at the Ottawa Carleton plowing match.

In just a couple of weeks, Kemptville will be hosting the International Plowing Match and rural expo. It is the biggest plowing match of its kind in North America, and it’s a wonderful celebration of agriculture and rural living.

I am proud to be part of a government that supports our agricultural industry—especially when the pandemic first hit us. In fact, back in March, the Richmond Agricultural Society received a grant of $55,500 from the Ontario Trillium Foundation to ensure that they were able to pay the utilities, rent, salaries, insurance and more, as well as renovate and remodel their fairground office.

I encourage all MPPs to attend the International Plowing Match in support of Ontario’s agricultural sector this month. I’ll be cheering for all contestants, especially those from Carleton. I know you’ll do us all proud.

Education

Mr. Chris Glover: It’s the first day back to school, and this morning I was standing in front of Jean Lumb Public School and Bishop Macdonell Catholic school in CityPlace, welcoming students and parents. It was so nice to see the smiles on the children’s faces.

I want to thank principals Judith Kramer and Jaime DiGirolamo and all of the staff at those schools and all the schools across Spadina–Fort York for all of the work you’ve done over the summer to get our schools ready for our students.

Parents, I encourage you to get involved in your school council. I was the co-chair of Dewson Street Junior Public School when my kids were there. Together, we organized fun fairs, arts and music and tech activities for the kids. We helped with sports teams, and we advocated for the funding that our schools need.

I was speaking with a teacher this morning who says he’s really looking forward to the extracurriculars, but they need some funding. They need funding for sports uniforms, for equipment, for transportation, and for supply teachers to take over when the teachers go out to coach a team.

The CCPA shows that when you take inflation into account, school funding in Ontario has fallen an average of $800 per student per year during this government’s first term in office. In order for students to have the kind of school year they need, we need the government to restore that funding that has been lost, and we need them to make a fair deal with education workers.

I urge the provincial government to work with the teachers and parents to ensure that our students have a great and full school year.

Suicide prevention

Ms. Natalie Pierre: This Saturday, September 10, is World Suicide Prevention Day. Bringing much-needed attention to an issue that claims the lives of more than 4,000 Canadians each year, the intention of World Suicide Prevention Day is to destigmatize conversations about mental health.

Today in Canada, 10 people will end their lives and up to 200 others will attempt suicide. For each death by suicide, it is estimated that 100 people are deeply affected by their loss. Today in Canada, 10 deaths by suicide will leave up to 1,000 people in a state of bereavement. In 2017, I was one of those people—twice.

If you or someone you know is in crisis, call 911 or visit an emergency department. For non-emergencies, call 211 to connect with local services. You can also visit Ontario.ca/mentalhealth to learn about the free virtual call and walk-in resources that are available to all Ontarians.

For Indigenous people across Canada, the Hope for Wellness helpline is a mental health counselling and crisis intervention service.

We must educate all Canadians on the risk factors and warning signs of suicide, just as we have done with physical illnesses like cancer and heart disease.

There is no health without mental health.

Ojibway National Urban Park

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: I rise today to speak about the proposed Ojibway National Urban Park in my riding of Windsor West.

The people of my community want to protect local endangered species and natural heritage areas, aid flood mitigation efforts, create publicly accessible green space, and encourage ecotourism in Windsor-Essex.

Tomorrow, motion 1 will be up for debate which, if passed, would begin the process of negotiation leading to the transfer of ownership of the Ojibway Prairie Provincial Nature Reserve to Parks Canada, a necessary process in the creation of Ojibway National Urban Park, something my community wants to happen.

Windsor Port Authority has signed an MOU to transfer lands to Parks Canada, and the city of Windsor is in the process of transferring municipally owned land as well. The land for the proposed urban park is home to hundreds of endangered species that rely on migration through surrounding local parks for survival. It serves not only as a home and larger ecosystem to these species, but it also provides mitigation of flooding due to climate change in natural heritage areas that our community and visitors can enjoy.

Ojibway National Urban Park has broad support at all levels of government—including a bill by my federal colleague Brian Masse, which passed second reading in the House of Commons and is supported by MPs across party lines.

There’s significant support from local Indigenous and environmental groups, including Caldwell First Nation, Walpole Island First Nation, and the Wildlands League.

I ask that all members of this House support motion 1, respect the wishes of the people in my community, truly work towards reconciliation by honouring the wishes of Caldwell First Nation, and protect green spaces in Windsor-Essex.

Agawa Canyon Tour Train

Mr. Ross Romano: The Agawa Canyon Tour Train is a world-class attraction in my riding of Sault Ste. Marie. This one-day, 228-mile scenic rail adventure begins in the beautiful Paper Mill District of the Soo. Made possible in part through a $5-million investment through the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund, a charming new train station was designed and built to mimic the surrounding sandstone buildings of the historic St. Mary’s Paper Co., which was previously the Sault Ste. Marie Pulp and Paper Co. Adding to this great tourist destination, the station hosts an outfitter store, a craft brewery and a restaurant.

But back to the Agawa Canyon Tour Train, Mr. Speaker: The train leaves the station bright and early and heads north for a four-hour, 114-mile excursion showcasing the rugged beauty that is exclusive to the eastern shores of Lake Superior. The northern Ontario wilderness begins to unfold, with mixed forests of the Canadian Shield popping with autumn colours, and the beauty of many northern lakes and rivers. These are the same rugged landscapes and majestic views that inspired the Group of Seven to create some of Canada’s most notable artwork.

The Agawa Canyon Tour Train begins to descend into the canyon at mile 102. The rail line hugs the top of the canyon wall, and you descend 500 feet over the next 10 miles to the floor of the Agawa Canyon. Upon arrival at the park, riders have the opportunity to have a picnic or climb some steps to watch the panoramic views on the lookout trail and randomly be able to go through all these different trails—through Black Beaver Falls and Bridal Veil Falls.

It is an incredible, incredible excursion, and I encourage everyone to come out and enjoy the fall colours on the tour train. All aboard, Mr. Speaker.

Social assistance

Mr. Joel Harden: As members of this House may know, myself and four other colleagues embarked on what we call the “social assistance diet” for the next two weeks. I want to say from the top of my remarks this morning to this House that it is not about us; it is an expression of frustration from me and my colleagues, from watching our neighbours suffer for four years. There hasn’t been a day in this place, I’m told, when someone hasn’t stood up and talked about how people are suffering in our communities before our very eyes.

When I heard the Premier say this week that a 5% increase is fantastic and unprecedented and adequate—I ask any one of us to follow what we’re doing, to join us in what we’re doing, and ask if $57 extra a month is actually going to help someone living in legislated poverty.

I’m going to ask us also to consider, as we do this two-week journey together, that there are countries in this world that actually say there’s a minimum level of income, and those countries that have basic income in their communities have healthier communities. They spend less on health care and correctional and police services. People have a dignified opportunity to live and be their fullest self.

That’s what we’re asking for in this place. We’re asking for an awareness that compassion is not only an ethical consideration; it’s an economic consideration, it’s a respect consideration.

I will not go into this House for one more day without making at least an attempt to walk a mile in someone else’s shoes. I welcome the Premier and the minister responsible to do it with us.

Élection municipale / Décès de Marc Clermont et Raymond Fredette

M. Stéphane Sarrazin: Merci de m’offrir l’opportunité de vous adresser ici en Chambre. J’espère que tous les gens ont bien profité du long week-end de la fête du Travail. Pour plusieurs élèves, aussi, un bon retour en classe et un retour à la normale.

On a commencé à voir aussi beaucoup d’enseignes de candidats pour les élections municipales à travers la province. J’aimerais féliciter les candidats d’avoir posé leurs candidatures. On sait tous que c’est important d’avoir des gens pour représenter les citoyens, et le gouvernement municipal est celui le plus proche des gens. Je profite de l’occasion pour leur souhaiter une bonne campagne électorale, et bonne chance à tous les candidats et candidates le 24 octobre prochain.

Sur une autre note, nous avons perdu quelques collègues qui ont été impliqués dans le secteur municipal récemment. Je voudrais souhaiter mes condoléances à la famille et les amis de M. Marc Clermont, qui est décédé le jeudi 1 er septembre à l’âge de 56 ans. Marc était directeur des travaux publics des comtés unis de Prescott et Russell durant les 27 dernières années. Il avait plus de 30 ans d’expérience dans le domaine municipal. C’était non seulement un collègue mais aussi un ami.

Mes condoléances aussi à la famille de M. Raymond Fredette, de la municipalité d’Alfred et Plantagenet, qui nous a quitté le 30 août à l’âge de 80 ans. M. Fredette a été au service des résidents de la municipalité d’Alfred et Plantagenet. Il a servi pendant plusieurs années en tant que conseiller municipal.

En terminant, j’aimerais remercier tous ces gens qui ont travaillé et ceux qui travaillent encore pour nos citoyens.

Long-term care

Mr. John Fraser: More than a week ago, Bill 7 rocketed through this Legislature without any attempt at consultation or public input.

At the same time, I listened to the Premier muse about $1,800 a day not being right, not being fair.

Respectfully, to the Premier: Saying that you think something is not right and not fair when you have the power to change things doesn’t amount to very much.

The threat of the huge hospital bill that coerced Deanna Henry of Ottawa to go to a place where she didn’t want to go, a place where she didn’t feel safe, is just not right.

What the Premier needs to do is make his words match his actions, or make his actions match his words.

Motion number 14 is on the order paper, and it calls on the government, essentially, to ensure that no patient waiting for transfer would be charged more than their co-pay in Ontario’s long-term-care homes. The Premier has the power to do this. It’s the fair and reasonable thing to do. It’s the right thing to do. I call on this government to do this.

Speaker, displaying empathy and telling people you feel for them, but not taking the action necessary to mitigate their pain, their suffering—that’s just not right.

Guide dogs

Mr. Dave Smith: I want to talk about something that’s close to my heart and the hearts of many in my community. September is Guide Dog Awareness Month. A guide dog is not just an animal. They’re also the eyes for someone who has a visual impairment. They enable safe movement throughout our communities, from crossing the street to buying groceries or even walking the kids to school.

I want to recognize a constituent of mine who I also consider a friend. Jason King works tirelessly as a member of the Council for Persons with Disabilities to educate others. He runs the program called Time in My Shoes. Jason and his guide dog, Zauny—yes, that’s from the Blue Jays—visited my office last year and put my staff through the TIMS program. We briefly experienced what it was like to navigate our world without eyesight, hearing or speech. To paraphrase Jason, it’s an eye-opener to see the world from the perspective of a blind man and his guide dog.

Guide Dog Awareness Month is more than just a reminder; it’s a call to action for all of us to learn more, to listen with compassion, and to build a more accessible and inclusive Ontario for generations to come.

World of Jazz Festival

Mr. Graham McGregor: After navigating two long years of COVID restrictions on festivals and events, the World of Jazz Festival celebrates its sixth annual festival with a triumphant return to downtown Brampton on September 10 and 11. This two-day music festival will play host to more than 100 musicians, 17 ensembles and eight venues, featuring some of Canada’s finest jazz musicians as well as local Brampton musicians, students and emerging artists. The festival hosts restaurant and community performances, a late-night jam session, a family fun zone, and food vendors. It wraps up on September 11 with two stages hosting non-stop, free music from 1 p.m. to 8 p.m. at Gage Park.

The festival overcame the obstacles of COVID-19 and was able to pivot to both live and virtual performances over the last two years without cancelling.

The World of Jazz Festival is hosted by B-Jazzed, a not-for-profit organization in the city of Brampton curating performances, education, and philanthropy of jazz music and its musicians. Annually, B-Jazzed curates over 100 performances, compensating nearly 300 musicians, with over 70% of those residing in Brampton. They’ve created a scene and an ecosystem for music and musicians that has simply never existed before in Brampton, and their visibility in our community has allowed their stylistic programming vision to expand beyond the jazz genre, hence the World of Jazz title.

The World of Jazz received a Reconnect Ontario grant in 2022, and I thank the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport for this honour.

Please visit worldofjazz.ca for the schedule—September 10 and 11. I know the minister of women’s economic and social development will be there. I’ll be there as well. Come on down to Brampton. Let’s have a good time.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Today in the Speaker’s gallery, we have with us a group of delegates from across Canada taking

part in the Parliamentary Visitor Services Association conference. Visitor Services supports the work that we do not only in making our Legislatures more open and accessible to the public, but by educating them about the important role Parliament plays in our democracy. Please welcome our guests today as they would welcome us in all of their Parliaments.

I’d also like to introduce some special guests who are here in the visitors’ gallery. This year’s cohort of the Ontario Legislative Internship Programme, or OLIP, as we know it: Lucas Fisher, Sharon Lee, Alia Mufti, Teah U-Ming, Leah Wilson, Karissa Singh, Sky Shi, Esma Boztas and Sophie Williams. They are joined by Dr. C—the OLIP academic director, Dr. Peter Constantinou—and program manager, Munnka Vajpai.

We in the Speaker’s office strongly support the OLIP program. For members who may not know, OLIP is a 10-month, non-partisan opportunity for recent university grads to gain practical experience in the daily workings of the Ontario Legislature. The interns complete two placements over the course of their time at Queen’s Park, one with a government member and one with an opposition member. It is non-partisan. I would encourage all members to apply to have one of these enthusiastic, dependable, brilliant and hard-working interns in their office this year.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

M me France Gélinas: It gives me great pleasure to introduce nurse Angela Preocanin—she is the Ontario Nurses’ Association First Vice-President—as well as Erica Woods, also from ONA. Welcome to Queen’s Park, ladies.

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: Today I want to welcome my new executive assistant, Cassandra Bianchi, to the House.

Miss Monique Taylor: I’d like to welcome Michau van Speyk back to the Legislature from the Ontario Autism Coalition.

Mr. Billy Pang: I’d like to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Victor Hu from Markham–Unionville, our page Evan Hu’s parents.

Mr. John Vanthof: On behalf of the official opposition, I would like to welcome beef farmers of Ontario from across Ontario. I hope everyone will join them on the front lawn this morning for some of the best beef this country has to offer.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I would like to join the member opposite in welcoming the Beef Farmers of Ontario. Again, this is an exciting day because I think this is the first true advocacy day that we’ve hosted at Queen’s Park since March 2020.

Specifically, I would like to welcome Craig McLaughlin; Jason Leblond; Charlene Yungblut; Thomas Brandstetter; Jack Chaffe, president of BFO, and his son Evan; Richard Horne, executive director; Jason Reid; Rob Lipsett; Darby Wheeler; Barb’s husband, Don Badour; Don Hargrave; Darrell Russett; Joe Dickenson; and David Millsap.

Again, I would like to remind everyone that they’re hosting lunch right after question period today, so please go to the front lawn and enjoy amazing, good-quality beef grown here at home in Ontario.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I’m pleased to welcome Bruce Chapman, former president of the Police Association of Ontario, and Timea Nagy, bestselling author, survivor and CEO of Timea’s Cause, a human-trafficking organization. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Mike Harris: I believe I see Alex Corelli over in the members’ gallery today, so we’ll make sure we embarrass him. Welcome to the Ontario Legislature.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: It’s my pleasure to welcome Ali Demircan, who is a survivor of the Danforth shooting and part of Danforth Families. Please welcome him.

Ms. Natalie Pierre: I’d like to welcome a new member of my constituency office team, Caroline Kotler, for her first time at Queen’s Park today. Welcome.

Mr. Dave Smith: They’re not here, but I know they’re watching on TV, so I want to wish a happy 56th anniversary to my parents, Ron and Wilma Smith.

Mr. Anthony Leardi: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature today the president of the Amherstburg Taxpayers Association, Mr. Bob Rozankovic.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Toronto Centre has informed me that they have a point of order.

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: Thank you very much, Speaker. On my point of order, I seek unanimous consent that, notwithstanding any standing order or special order of the House, the order for second reading of Bill 18,

An Act to proclaim Consent Awareness Week—a timely and urgent bill that makes the third week of September Consent Awareness Week—shall be immediately called and the Speaker shall immediately put the question on the motion for second reading without debate and amendment; and

That the bill should be ordered for third reading; and

That the order for third reading shall be immediately called and the Speaker shall immediately put the question on the motion for third reading without debate or amendment.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): MPP Wong-Tam is seeking the unanimous consent of the House that, notwithstanding any standing order or special order of the House, the order for second reading of Bill 18,

An Act to proclaim Consent Awareness Week, shall be immediately called and the Speaker shall immediately put the question on the motion for second reading without debate and amendment; and

That the bill should be ordered for third reading; and

That the order for third reading shall be immediately called and the Speaker shall immediately put the question on the motion for third reading without debate or amendment. Agreed? I heard a no.

It is now time for oral questions.

Question Period

Health care

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Santé.

Over the last month, seniors, their families, physicians, nurses and health experts have all warned that government Bill 7 will do nothing to stop emergency room closures, nothing to hire or retrain more nurses or to end the crisis in our health care system. An opinion poll in today’s Globe and Mail confirms that a majority of Ontario families agree.

Why is the government plowing ahead with this dangerous plan?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Thank you, Speaker. Through you, I have to say—and I’m going to quote Anthony Dale, the CEO of the Ontario Hospital Association: “Ontario’s hospitals are rapidly becoming the health care provider of last resort for thousands of people who actually need access to home care, long-term care and other services.”

In our budget that we just passed, a billion dollars was set aside for community home care services in the province of Ontario. We are building the capacity to ensure that people are able to be in their homes in community, whether that is in their own homes with appropriate home care support or, in fact, with long-term-care-home facilities. We have invested so much, as a province, to make sure that the capacity is there, the staffing is there, the oversight is there. We’ve done that work.

Now we have to make sure that those individuals who are languishing in alternate-level-of-care beds in our hospitals are actually in community, where they deserve to be.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question.

M me France Gélinas: The private, for-profit home care providers cannot retain and recruit a stable workforce. They cannot do the work right now.

Patients are already feeling this pressure from hospitals. Vulnerable people are being told their best option is to move into an expensive retirement home or a long-term-care home that they don’t want to go to.

The government should be supporting people in their own homes. That’s what they want. They should be fixing our home care system, which was privatized by the previous Conservative government, by strengthening the home and community care system.

Why is the government pushing frail, elderly people into long-term-care homes against their will and without their consent?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: What we are building is a system that allows people to be in the appropriate place for their level of care.

I have to remind the member opposite that in March 2019 you said, “One out of every seven hospital beds is used by somebody that we call ALC, alternate level of care. It’s a fancy word that means that you really would like to be supported at home, you really would like to be supported someplace else....” What has changed, respectfully, from March 2019 to today? We have built the capacity in our long-term-care homes. We’ve built the capacity within community. So why does the member now change her tune and suggest that alternate-level-of-care patients need to be in hospitals when where they really want to be is in community?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The final supplementary.

M me France Gélinas: Our home care system fails more people than it helps every single day.

The crisis in the health care system will not be solved by pushing our elderly away from their families into for-profit, long-term-care homes that nobody wants to live in.

The health care system needs permanent solutions to recruit and retain valued health care workers, like permanent paid sick days, like repealing Bill 124, like giving nurses a chance to negotiate a fair wage after two and a half years of hell.

Will the government stop pushing risky plans that are opposed by the majority of Ontarians and commit to solutions that actually address the crisis in our health care system?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’ll remind members to seek to elevate their language.

The Minister of Colleges and Universities.

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Every measure we put in place, the opposition votes against it—doom and gloom every single day.

But what we’re seeing is a record number of applications to be nurses in colleges and universities across Ontario—25,000 applications right here, post-secondary education in Ontario. And why is that? That’s because of the investments we’re making in long-term care and the Ministry of Health—58,000 new and upgraded beds in long-term care; $40-billion capital investments over 52 projects that will add 3,000 new beds over the next 10 years; new hospitals in Brampton, in Windsor, in Niagara Falls.

Students want to become nurses, and the post-secondary education opportunities right here in Ontario are driving those students to those opportunities.

Education

Ms. Marit Stiles: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, the Minister of Education claimed that he wanted to avoid disruptions this school year. Does the Premier understand that his government has responsibility for avoiding disruptions?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Education.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Mr. Speaker, what we accept is matter of fact: that over 30 years in this province, irrespective of the Premier and the party in this chair, unions in this province—teacher unions and education unions—have striked and withdrawn services throughout those 30 years. That is the truth in the constant of a life of a child in this province, and parents are sick of this experience, tired of this experience every three years. It’s about time someone stood up for them and gave them a voice in this discussion.

Parents know that this government and our Premier will stand up for kids so they have stability, normalcy, and the enjoyable experience that they deserve in this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, that’s simply not accurate. As kids return to class this week, it’s very important to remember that this government’s track record when it comes to peace and stability in our schools is lacking. Parents remember this government’s attempt to eliminate 10,000 teachers. They remember the mandatory online learning schemes, and last year’s $900-million funding cut. Students in this province deserve better.

Will the Premier commit today to working respectfully with education workers and not causing the disruption we all want to avoid?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Mr. Speaker, when an education union in the province of Ontario decides to hold a strike vote before the crown, the government, even had the benefit of tabling our first ask, I would submit that is disrespectful to the people of this province who demand stability for children. And it’s about time the government and someone speaks the truth to this power. We need kids to be in school.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. Opposition, come to order.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: I know it perhaps brings a great level of discord to the opposition to hear that. But the fact is, parents want their kids in school, our government wants kids in school, and we’re going to stand up to keep them in school right to June.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Final supplementary.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members will take their seats.

Restart the clock.

Final supplementary.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Education workers in this province have moved heaven and earth throughout the pandemic to make sure our kids could keep learning, and they did it in the most trying conditions the teachers and education workers have faced in our lifetimes. They deserve our thanks—not threats and not funding cuts.

Will the Premier—and I ask again, please—commit to recognizing the incredibly important job our educators do and work with them, not against them, to improve our schools?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Well, in fact, I do agree with the member that these workers play critical roles in schools, and I join her in expressing gratitude to them this week, especially as kids get back to school.

Mr. Speaker, since 2002, we have literally 40,000 more workers in the province—and there are not more students in the province over that period of time. There are literally 10,000 more early childhood educators. There are 19,000 more education workers. There are 17,000 more teachers and 440 more principals and VPs. All this could only be achieved by increasing investment.

This September, for this school year, kids are going back to a more normal, stable and enjoyable school year, with 650 million more dollars of publicly funded investment to ensure education quality is retained for these children. We want it to be positive, and we want them to be safe. That’s why we put in place an investment that is historic—another 5,000 more staff, additional investments for custodians and cleaning and ventilation, to help make sure these kids are safe and get back on track in the province of Ontario.

Hospital services

Ms. Chandra Pasma: This weekend, four hospitals in eastern Ontario were forced to close their emergency departments. Patients in Kemptville, Carleton Place, Alexandria and Almonte were all forced to drive 30 to 45 minutes further than usual to reach the nearest emergency room while experiencing a health emergency.

Does the Premier believe that a 45-minute drive for patients in an emergency is good health care?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Deputy Premier and Minister of Health.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: As I’ve said many times, it is deeply disturbing when an emergency department has to close temporarily, whether that is for four hours, a shift or, indeed, over the weekend. But we work very closely with our partners, both in the hospital sector and Ontario Health, to make sure that, as much as possible, we ensure things like locums happen, where physicians can backfill those positions as available. We’ve done that work.

We will continue to ensure that, as these emergency department closures happen because of a temporary shortage in staff, we’ll work with the local hospitals, because we know that it is disturbing and frustrating for people not to have their local emergency department open when and where they need it.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Chandra Pasma: The patients from three of the closed emergency departments were diverted to the Queensway Carleton Hospital in Ottawa. The Queensway Carleton is already short-staffed and already experiencing incredibly long wait times, so these closures resulted in serious strain for the Queensway Carleton this weekend, including almost as many patients in the ER admitted and waiting for a bed as there are stretchers in the ER.

Will the Premier address the crisis in emergency care before someone dies because of it?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I’d like to take this opportunity to highlight some of the investments that we have done specifically related to emergency departments.

Speaker, $90 million in the emergency department Pay-for-Results Program provides funding incentives for 74 high-volume emergency departments to make improvements in areas such as length of stay.

We have, in the province of Ontario, 49 municipalities using a 911 model of care pilot, which allows for palliative and mental health and addictions patients to be treated or referred to or cared for in community, instead of immediately—and only having the option of taking them to an emergency department.

These innovative solutions—we’re working with partners to make sure that the pilots we are doing are working, and are expanding them. That was why we were able to—during the Association of Municipalities of Ontario—announce that we’re going to continue expanding these successful models that communities want, patients expect. It is making a difference in reducing wait times and delays in our emergency departments.

Housing

Mrs. Robin Martin: Many young people in my riding are asking themselves if they will ever be able to afford a home. The high cost of housing is too far out of reach for what they can afford.

For decades, the housing supply has not kept up with the ever-increasing demand. Even for fast-growing major urban centres like Toronto, there appear to be very limited options available.

Under the leadership of this government, housing starts have started to increase, but they’re still not where they need to be.

Speaker, through you to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing: What is our government doing to help increase housing supply across the province?

Hon. Steve Clark: I want to thank the member for Eglinton–Lawrence for that fantastic question.

I’m proud of what our government has been able to accomplish over the last four years, under the leadership of Premier Ford. Together, we’ve introduced the province’s first-ever housing supply action plan, which really laid the foundation for the high housing starts we’re seeing over the past year.

As the member knows, last year, we had the highest number of housing starts—over 100,000—that we’ve seen in over 30 years. But we recognize and I think we can all agree that that’s not enough in terms of meeting our goal that we promised Ontarians during the election that just passed—that we would build 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years.

Together, with our all-hands-on-deck approach, we want to ensure that home ownership is in reach of more Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question.

Mrs. Robin Martin: There is a consensus, I think, that housing supply is a problem. Even the opposition is now discussing the need to build more homes faster.

The people of my riding are worried that housing prices will rise and affordability will worsen without an increase in housing supply to match this demand.

With threats of economic slowdown and rising interest rates, home prices have started to cool off. This could make it even more challenging for builders to bring new housing supply options online.

Speaker, what additional measures is the government taking to ensure that we build on our progress and bring more housing options online for the people of my riding and for all Ontarians?

Hon. Steve Clark: I want to again thank the member for her ongoing advocacy on the housing supply issue.

As I said, this past election, we committed to introducing a housing supply action plan every year during our mandate. We’ve been clear that these plans will be based on the province’s Housing Affordability Task Force, which made recommendations around increasing density and bringing more missing middle housing online.

We also know that the availability of labour and skilled trades is critical to increasing housing supply. That’s why our Minister of Labour is investing in skilled trades and is out there every single day encouraging more Ontarians to consider being involved in the building trades.

We’re also having an ongoing conversation with the federal government. We need them to work with us to deal with this ongoing labour shortage.

Our government—and I want to stress this—is committed to our plan to build 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years. We’re going to get it done.

Health care

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Premier.

Amanda Molnar’s 20-year-old son is blind and non-verbal and has complex medical needs. He has had serious pneumonia three times since June. About a week ago, Amanda had to call an ambulance for him and was told that a backlog at the ER would mean at least a 15-hour wait at the hospital.

Does the Premier believe that a 15-hour wait for emergency health care is acceptable?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Health.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Does the member opposite believe that some of the innovations that we’re doing, like the 911 redirect, are making a difference in their communities? In London-Middlesex—I will highlight that they are one of the pilot projects and, in fact, their satisfaction rate is upwards of 84%. People are not having to go to emergency departments as a result of some of the changes that we are able to make—working with our community paramedics and our emergency department physicians to ensure that there are options other than only and exclusively an emergency department. We’re doing that work.

I would love for the member opposite to have some conversations with paramedics, with the organizations that are doing these innovative pieces—and saying, “Do you see value in expanding them beyond the current 49 pilots?” I see the value. We have made those changes and we’re expanding those programs, because we see it making a difference in the lives of patients.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Speaker, Amanda’s satisfaction rate is not high. If her son went to the ER by ambulance, he would be attended by paramedics during the 15-hour wait, but Amanda would not be able to be with him to help him communicate. If Amanda drove him by car to the ER, she could wait with him, but forcing him to sit up for 15 hours in his wheelchair would make it even harder for him to breathe. With no good options, Amanda made the difficult decision not to go to the ER.

Does the Premier believe that his government’s failure to deal with ER wait times is risking the health of patients like Amanda’s son?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I continue to believe that when we encourage the innovation, when we talk to the patients and the partners on the ground—whether they are community paramedics, primary care physicians, nurses, doctors or hospital CEOs—we come up with solutions that are actually making a difference for individuals like your constituent. We are doing that work. We’re expanding the models that are working, and we’re ensuring that people get the appropriate care. It can’t always and doesn’t always need to be a direct route from home to paramedics and into emergency departments, which has always been the way.

We’re not going to keep doing the status quo and expect a different result. We’re having this innovation, we’re seeing results, and we’re continuing to expand it across Ontario.

Crime prevention / Prévention du crime

Mr. Vincent Ke: My question is to the Solicitor General.

My constituents in Don Valley North are concerned about the increase in auto theft and carjacking in our local community. We have all heard the news about Mitch Marner, star hockey player for the Toronto Maple Leafs, being the victim of a carjacking back in May, but it is happening to people all over Ontario, no matter who they may be. Over 5,300 vehicles have been stolen in Toronto so far this year. This figure represents an increase of 50% from last year.

My constituents know our government is fighting crime and supporting our front-line police officers.

Could the Solicitor General please explain to this House how our government is taking action on carjackings and auto theft?

Hon. Michael S. Kerzner: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to say again, our hearts go out to the families in the James Smith Cree Nation whose lives were changed tragically in a flash. We mourn with those who mourn.

Public safety remains our inherent right—to live in our community safely, and to walk our streets and to play in our parks and to go to school and to work safely together.

To the member’s question—and I thank him for it: Having your vehicle stolen at gunpoint is a traumatic event.

To be clear, many of these thefts are, in fact, related to gun and gang crimes. That’s why our government, together with our federal partners, has invested over $200 million to fight gang violence fuelled by smuggled guns.

Mr. Speaker, we also provided additional funding to the Toronto Police Service for more than $72 million through the Community Safety and Policing Grant program.

Monsieur le Président, je suis fier de soutenir nos policiers, agents correctionnels et pompiers tous les jours, et tous ceux qui assurent la sécurité de l’Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Vincent Ke: Back to the Solicitor General: Our government campaigned on a promise to improve public safety in this province.

Toronto police officers have stated that when it comes to auto thefts, “there’s definitely greater sophistication, and it leads us to believe organized crime is involved. We can attribute a big chunk of these robberies to the same persons or groups of people.”

Speaker, as a member of this government, I am proud to stand here today and know that our government is getting it done by tackling gun and gang violence across Ontario and kicking criminals off the streets.

Could the Solicitor General please share more about our government’s strategy to tackle the problem of car thefts?

Hon. Michael S. Kerzner: I thank the member from Don Valley North.

Our government is ensuring that our front-line officers have the technology they need to fight crime in our modern environment. We’re investing over $60 million for police services across the province to purchase the latest technology needed to identify stolen vehicles, outstanding warrants, and to track down Amber Alert targets faster. This technology will allow police officers to be alerted to stolen vehicles within their view faster than they could run the plates themselves.

Monsieur le Président, je suis fier de soutenir nos policiers et agents correctionnels et pompiers tous les jours, et tous ceux qui assurent la sécurité de l’Ontario.

Home care

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Premier.

When Michal Kaliszan, a resident of Waterloo region, was diagnosed with spinal muscular atrophy, doctors told him he had the life expectancy of 16 years, but he’s now 39 years old. Michal has beaten the odds, thanks to round-the-clock care from his parents. But with no family left to care for him and the lightning-fast passage of Bill 7, Michal says, without funding for a comprehensive home care program, the province will likely place him in a long-term-care home, which he says will be his “death sentence.” He is desperately trying to preserve his autonomy and his self-determination. This is a serious gap in our health care system.

Can the government explain why they think it’s appropriate for a 39-year-old man to be forced to live in a facility that primarily serves seniors?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Health.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I have to say, well done to Michal and his family for beating the odds. It is an amazing story of resiliency.

But I have to ask, have you told Michal that you voted against a billion-dollar investment in home care—a billion dollars that we’re putting into community care?

We’re making sure that individuals like Michal who want to live in their home with support have that option available to them.

With the greatest of respect, when you vote against those kinds of investments, it sends a very different message to your constituents—that you do not believe in community care, that you do not believe that we need, as a province, to expand home care services in the province of Ontario. Clearly, we do.

Our government has made that commitment. We’ve made that investment.

Why isn’t the member opposite lauding that and talking about how that is going to make a difference in the lives of her constituents, including—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. I’ll remind members to make their comments through the Chair.

Supplementary question?

Ms. Catherine Fife: Well, that is as low as it gets in this place.

Michal’s mother is now in palliative care, and he says the GoFundMe program to raise money for his home care is “the only way that I can help my mom find peace as she’s more worried about me than her own death.”

Michal is semi-independent. He can work and has a life that is not defined by his disability. The care he receives should be reflective of that. But with no serious investment in a comprehensive home care program—because the gap is there, and the minister knows that—institutional care is looking more and more like the warehousing of vulnerable people like Michal. That is the system that you are overseeing, Minister.

Does this minister believe that this is the right care at the right time at the right place, like the long-term-care minister said yesterday—because Michal doesn’t, and neither do we.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I want to highlight what this actually means in terms of an investment: 739,000 nursing visits; 157,000 nursing shift hours; 117,000 therapy visits, including physiotherapy, occupational therapy and speech-language pathology; 2,118,000 hours of personal support services; and 236,000 other types of home care visits. This is real, Speaker. This makes a huge difference to individuals who want to stay safely in their own homes with some support. This is the support that we need in our sector.

This is how we are going to get a health care system that ensures that no matter where you are—in hospital, in long-term care, in your own home, in palliative care—we will have the supports available to support you through that journey.

Housing

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: My question is to Minister Clark.

I would first like to correct the record from yesterday. The claim that my amendments to Bill 3 were five hours late is completely false. The minister, as a seasoned veteran at Queen’s Park, should know that there is no hard deadline at committee. Please correct accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, on to my question: For a bill entitled Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act, I find it unusual that the text of the bill fails to mention housing even once. The aforementioned proposed amendments I provided that focused on housing were deemed out of scope and principle at committee, yet the government continues to insist this bill is going to aid our housing crisis.

Can the minister please provide a concrete example of how this bill will be putting shovels in the ground and be specific about what types of housing will be built as a result?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I will remind members to refer to each other by either their riding name or their ministerial title, as may be the case.

The Associate Minister of Housing.

Hon. Michael Parsa: I thank the honourable member for the question.

Speaker, 34 out of 35—that’s where Canada ranks when it comes to getting approvals to build more homes. The opposition might be okay with that. They were okay with it for 15 years. They let the people of this province down—we’re not. We campaigned on building 1.5 million homes so that we don’t let down the people of this province. They have continuously said no to housing. They have supported them.

We have said to every single Ontarian that we will do whatever it takes—we will use every tool and work with our municipal partners and our federal partners to make sure that we do not carry on the tradition of the previous government to let Ontarians down. We will build 1.5 million homes. We will work with every partner to make sure that happens, with or without their support.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question?

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: If no specifics about the houses the government aims to build can be provided, I wonder why the bill was titled “building homes” to begin with. We need measurable goals to ensure that housing is actually built.

My first amendment asked that the amount of new housing built within each city every year is proportionally sufficient to meet the goal of building 1.5 million new units of housing in Ontario by 2031. It also included the need for a progress report by the head of council to assess how well they have met that goal, including reasoning for why they have or have not met it and a plan for subsequent years. This amendment was deemed out of scope and principle.

Will the government be tracking and regularly reporting back about the building of new home units in these cities, in alignment with the 1.5 million homes? And if so, what system will you use?

Hon. Michael Parsa: Again, I thank the member for the question.

One third of Ontario’s population in the next 10 years is going to be in Ottawa and in Toronto—so you absolutely are correct.

We are going to do everything we can to make sure that we increase the supply, because there’s a challenge here that some of my colleagues in the chamber don’t seem to understand—that we don’t have the supply to meet the demand. We haven’t—because they failed the people of Ontario. We’re not going to continue on that path.

We told Ontarians; I told Ontarians; every single person in this caucus, when we were campaigning, told the people of this province, “We’re not going to let you down.” We’re going to make sure we build homes. We’ll work with municipal partners, we’ll work with all our community partners to make sure that we not only build homes, but we build all types of homes for all Ontarians.

Mr. Speaker, 15 million people are depending on us. The next generation is looking at us to not let them down—and unlike them, we’re not going to do it.

Education

Mr. Anthony Leardi: Mr. Speaker, there is no substitute for in-person learning, and this week thousands and thousands of students across Ontario are going back to school happy, because they’re going back to normal.

Over a decade of Liberal government ignored rural Ontario. They closed over 600 schools, including schools in Essex county—and I can name a few, including Harrow High School and Western Secondary School.

School infrastructure should be updated continuously so that our students have top-quality facilities and an experience that prepares them for the jobs of tomorrow. Parents in Essex county want good, modern schools for their children.

So my question to the Minister of Education is this: What is the minister doing to make sure that kids in Essex county and across Ontario get good, modern schools?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: I appreciate the question, and I want to thank the member from Essex.

Indeed, the people of Essex are very happy this morning because, under the member’s leadership—a $26-million investment—the North Star High School finally opened, under our government. We’re so excited for the 800 students who are going to benefit from this modern, state-of-the-art school.

Mr. Speaker, there are 200 school construction projects that have been approved since 2018.

We’re getting shovels in the ground. We’re moving mountains to ensure the next generation of kids have modern schools to learn—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. The member for Essex.

Mr. Anthony Leardi: Mr. Speaker, I know the students at North Star High School are very happy. I thank the minister for that remarkable investment in my hometown.

But schools also need staff. They need teachers and assistants and custodians. And after two difficult years with COVID-19, more mental health supports are needed by our students. They need it the most. Some test scores are down. Various topics have suffered, especially math, due to the disruptions.

I know this minister is on the side of students and parents.

Specifically, what investments is the government making to make sure that the students in Essex county and across Ontario have a successful academic year?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: We are very much committed to ensuring that these kids are set up for success, which is why there’s a $683-million investment—more dollars—this school year as part of a $26-billion investment, the highest investment in public education ever recorded in Ontario history. We’re doing this because we want these kids to catch up.

With respect to staffing, we join others in celebrating the staff within our schools, and we’re proud that since—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: —we actually have more funding per pupil, more funding for school boards, and more funding for staff. That includes 40,000 more—as I mentioned in the earlier question, there are 10,000 more designated early childhood educators, there are 19,000 additional education workers and 17,000 more teachers. This investment is making a difference to improve education quality—and in greater Essex specifically, $28 million more on the public side, $17 million on the Catholic side.

When compared to the former Liberals, we are investing and getting the job done for students right across our province.

Government accountability

Mr. Joel Harden: My question is for the Premier.

A public inquiry into the use of the federal Emergencies Act during recent convoy protests starts within weeks—the occupation that hit our city last February and March and that also impacted the good people of Windsor.

The deadline has passed to seek standing in this inquiry, and Ontario is not participating. Simple question: Why?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To respond, the government House leader.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, we certainly appreciate the work that is being done by the federal government after the use of a federal emergency power. We were very clear right from the onset, when the Premier instituted an emergency in the province of Ontario, that we wanted to see order restored in both Ottawa and in Windsor. We certainly trust the federal government and federal representatives to undertake a review of a federal authority that was brought into use for the first time by the federal cabinet.

Mr. Joel Harden: That’s an interesting response.

Back to the Premier: Our downtown streets, as the government knows, were choked with diesel fumes and trucks and horns blaring for weeks, and it took three weeks for this government to do anything declared by this federal Emergencies Act.

I know that participating in this inquiry requires disclosure of documents. Is that why the government is a no-show? Three other provinces are participating. Does it have something to hide, and is it prepared to tell the people of Ottawa and Windsor why it is refusing to participate in this disclosure process? Why are you not showing up?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I remind members to make their comments through the Chair.

The government House leader.

Hon. Paul Calandra: In fact, unlike the federal process at the time—the Select Committee on Emergency Management Oversight was actually presenting at that time. The member will know that I actually presented in front of him and his colleagues at the Select Committee on Emergency Management Oversight during that time, at which time I was very supportive—indicating that the Premier was very supportive in ensuring that the Ottawa and Windsor situations were handled.

Of course, what he is talking about is the federal government’s enacting of a federal emergency. It is the federal Parliament and the House of Commons that are undertaking a review of the federal act, and it is incumbent—and I certainly trust that the federal government and our federal representatives across all three parties will undertake a thorough review on behalf of the people of Canada.

Transportation infrastructure

Mr. Graham McGregor: Later today, members of this House will be voting on my private member’s motion that calls on this government to accelerate the development of Highway 413.

It’s no secret that previous Liberal governments delayed, dithered and abdicated responsibility instead of building critical infrastructure when they had the chance.

I speak with people in my riding of Brampton North daily, and one of the top concerns I hear is that gridlock is becoming unbearable for drivers.

Speaker, through you to the Minister of Transportation: Can she please reassure the members of this House that this government will get it done and build Highway 413?

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: I thank the member from Brampton North for the question and also congratulate him on his excellent remarks last night in support of his privat