I want to thank both the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Associate Minister of Housing for sharing their time with me today, as well as to thank them for their commitment and dedication to addressing the housing supply crisis in Ontario.

I am proud to be part of a government, under the leadership of Premier Ford, that takes the necessary action to ensure the growth of Ontario, and, in the case of this bill, make housing easier and within reach for all Ontarians.

That’s why it’s my pleasure to rise for the third reading of our government’s proposed More Homes Built Faster Act.

We can all agree that Ontario is the best place in the world to call home, yet finding the right home is all too challenging. We are dedicated to working with all levels of government to get 1.5 million homes built over the next 10 years. Today I’m honoured to speak to some of the details of how we plan to reach that goal. The proposed changes we are speaking to today advance our new, bold housing supply action plan. It includes numerous initiatives that would help to build more homes in Ontario.

The More Homes Built Faster Act expands on our track record of addressing the housing supply crisis. This is a cross-government initiative, and we’re counting on our partnerships with municipalities, the federal government and those in the housing industry to help us to achieve our goals.

An important element of our newest plan is our commitment to reducing delays and reducing the costs associated with building new housing of all kinds. Delays are contributing to the housing supply shortage, and delays in building housing drive up costs.

A recently released study by the Building Industry and Land Development Association, or BILD, reports that each month a permit is stuck in approvals, costs can increase significantly. They found that over the past two years, development application timelines in the greater Toronto area have gotten 40% longer. They found that, in a typical high-density project, each month of delays amounts to $2,600 to $3,300 in additional construction costs per residential unit. And those costs inevitably trickle down to consumers.

If we can both reduce delays and get the cost of building homes down, we can lower the price for the average homebuyer.

There are a variety of ways that these delays can occur. Opposition from some members of local municipal councils can create delays. It’s an important step in the process to consider all angles and vocalize opposition, as we know. But sadly, even appropriate zoning and development approvals can be hindered because of these disagreements; at times, projects can be abandoned altogether. Even if a project finally gets the go-ahead, significant delays have already occurred.

Other barriers include complex land use policies inhibiting land access in urban areas, coupled with lengthy planning approvals for new housing, on top of high development charges.

The same study by BILD that I mentioned earlier found that approval timelines for major municipalities in the GTA are among the worst in the country. The collective requirements for approvals can add, on average, from 27% to 51% more time on a new build. We need to do better, and this proposed legislation will help us do better.

We must significantly increase the speed at which new homes and units are built so that we can meet existing and future demands. This will also help to lower housing costs for Ontarians, because these barriers and delays, and the resulting high costs, are burdens that builders, renters and homeowners bear.

So we’re proposing to look at ways to improve and streamline how and when things like development charges are required for new builds. Our proposed changes would extend the deadline for replacing a development charge bylaw from every five years to every 10 years, and in doing so would reduce the administrative burden on municipalities. We would also phase in development charges over five years, which would make the increases more manageable for home builders by spreading it out.

On average, 25% of the cost of a new single-family home in the GTA is composed of government fees, taxes and charges. This can add as much as $250,000 to the cost. Municipal charges can account for more than half of that.

In five of our province’s most populous municipalities, BILD has found that development charge rates for a two-bedroom apartment unit exceed $70,000—that’s $70,000 for one unit. As I’ve mentioned, this cost can trickle down to the buyer or renter.

Development charges are just one of the three main charges that municipalities levy when new residential buildings are developed. The other charges are parkland dedication fees, which can be either money or land and are used to create parks, and the second is community benefit charges, which help build infrastructure for services that are needed for higher-density residential developments. If passed, our proposed changes would help spur much-needed residential development by revising the way these charges are levied for a range of housing types.

We know that over the last two years municipal fees and charges have increased as much as 36%. We’re proposing that specific housing options—namely, affordable housing units and inclusionary zoning units—will not be required to pay development charges, parkland dedication fees and community benefit charges. We are also proposing to relieve certain attainable housing projects and non-profit housing developments from all three charges.

Rental construction would have discounted development charges, with deeper discounts for family-sized units. This will help get shovels in the ground for much-needed rental units.

Changes like this would also make it easier for builders to predict the cost of construction.

With our new legislation, we’re proposing ways to freeze these development-related fees. I’ll give you another example of just how we plan to do this. We are proposing changes to freeze parkland dedication bylaw rates earlier in the development process, at the time of the site plan or zoning application, instead of at the time the building permit is issued, which is later in the development process. For higher-density developments, we’re proposing to reduce maximum parkland dedication requirements. For sites that are larger than five hectares, the parkland rate would be no more than 15% of the land or its value. The maximum parkland rate for sites that are five hectares or less would be no more than 10%. This aims to reduce the amount of money it takes to build new condos and apartment buildings and would help make new housing options available to everyone.

Speaker, there is one more type of charge I’d like to address—and that’s our proposed changes to community benefit charges. I mentioned that affordable housing units would not be subject to community benefit charges. We are also adjusting the way maximum community benefit charges are determined, to encourage infill development. We believe that this change would also make it easier to build new housing.

Municipal fees and charges should be collected to build infrastructure, not earn interest. In 2021, the municipal sector self-reported development charge reserve balances province-wide of over $8 billion. With this legislation, we would require that municipalities use or allocate at least 60% of their development charge reserves for services like water, waste water and roads each year. We have put the same requirement in place for parkland dedication reserves as well.

Of course, we know that these fees are big revenue tools for municipalities. That is why we would supplement any shortfall municipalities may see through Ontario’s $1.6-billion portion of the federal Housing Accelerator Fund, because we understand that growing communities need housing today but they also need supporting infrastructure.

With this in mind, our plan would also help to create more consistency around land use planning and would help to decrease the number of disputes that often arise in municipal council meetings due to a lack of clarity. We’re proposing to reduce the number of approvals in the pipeline. We would do this by removing site plan control requirements for residential projects with fewer than 10 units.

Let me elaborate. Site plan control is a municipal planning tool used to evaluate things like landscaping or exterior design, as well as walkways and parking areas in new developments. It’s a tool that works in tandem with the provincial policy statement, official plan, zoning bylaws, community planning permit systems and building permits. By streamlining site plan reviews we can focus on health and safety issues, such as safe access to and from the site, rather than on unnecessary regulation of architectural or aesthetic landscaping design details.

I’d like to underline that we would still ensure that essential building permits, as well as building code and fire code requirements, continue to protect public safety.

Our plan requires bold changes, and it requires well-considered and sound policies. Our housing stock has already fallen behind, and it’s currently not on track to keep pace with population growth.

A recent study by Re/Max Canada found that our housing inventory is depleted, in part, thanks to our rapidly growing population.

As mentioned by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing earlier, Ontario is expected to grow by more than two million people by 2031, with approximately 1.5 million of those new residents in the greater Golden Horseshoe region.

In addition to working with our partner ministries, increasing housing supply across the province needs everyone together on the same side—all levels of government, working alongside industry and non-profits.

When we say we need the support of all of our partners, that includes the federal government as well. CMHC’s own data shows that Ontario is due $480 million in additional funding under the National Housing Strategy. We are counting on Ottawa to come to the table and to fix this shortfall. In the meantime, we’re taking bold action now to keep up with the demand.

As the Associate Minister of Housing mentioned, we are seeking input on how to integrate A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe with the provincial policy statement to create a new outcome-based, province-wide policy document for our municipalities.

Overall, there are six main themes that are shaping our proposed policy review through a housing supply lens. Number one is reviewing policies related to growth management and ensuring enough housing is built in the right places, including through increasing density in strategic areas. This review will also look at specific policies for large and fast-growing municipalities to leverage our government’s investment in infrastructure.

Second is developing a strong mix of housing in areas where urban growth is occurring, building up our attainable building supply.

Third is reviewing policies that relate to rural housing, boundary expansions, and considering changes that would allow for the faster conversion of appropriate employment areas into areas suitable for housing. This will be done through the review of land use planning policies.

Fourth is maintaining our province’s natural heritage, protecting environmental and natural resources and looking at agricultural policies.

Number five includes integrating schools into our urban communities as well as looking at the capacity and the current supply of our community infrastructure.

Last is ensuring our policies have a positive impact, are focused and are flexible enough to keep up with quickly changing demands as we grow as a province.

We know we must be nimble in our approach and create a stable foundation that will allow for growth as it happens. These proposed approaches to breaking down barriers, streamlining processes and cutting costs would further our goal of making housing more attainable for all Ontarians.

As I wrap up, let me take the chance to put this debate into perspective. Our province has a serious housing supply shortage. It is making life unaffordable and unsustainable for too many Ontarians. This is not disputed. It’s often spoken about as a big-city problem, and, indeed, it is a serious crisis here in the greater Toronto area and other major urbanized parts of the province. But the housing supply crisis is also an issue in rural and northern parts of the province. In my community of Thunder Bay–Atikokan, for instance, the demand for attainable and safe housing is serious and growing and needs to be addressed now.

I’m proud that our government is keeping its word to Ontarians and putting the housing supply crisis front and centre. I am proud that we have had the opportunity in recent weeks to introduce several pieces of legislation that will directly address that crisis, and I’m particularly proud of the bill that we are debating today. It is a sweeping, transformative and bold set of proposals that are evidence-based and that will have a direct impact on the housing supply crisis. We are leading innovations that would help to create more housing in Ontario and make it easier for our municipal partners to keep up with ever-growing and changing demands.

Supply and demand are key to reducing costs for housing for all Ontarians. Our proposed changes would help renters cross over and become homeowners by helping to increase the number of homes available to all people.

Everyone in Ontario should be able to find a home that is right for them.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s nice to see you in the chair.

Thank you to the minister, the associate minister and the parliamentary assistant for the great things—I don’t think they feel like they’re working; it’s their passion, commitment and devotion not only for this bill, but bringing more housing.

I think this bill will revolutionize—from day one, in 2019, until now, these three bills will actually revolutionize the process. We’ve heard about a lot of radical talk—here, actually, we are radicalizing the process. I think that this is going to be a paradigm shift, when it comes to the housing supply action plan in Ontario, after 15 years of stagnation from the other side.

There are a lot of DC exemptions. I learned today—I came and asked you this morning. It is so exciting for the residents, for the average resident who is going to benefit. Could you elaborate on that, please?

Questions?

The member opposite knows that there’s nothing in Bill 23, which we’re debating today, that deals with that issue.

There are a number of issues, a number of proposals that I highlighted in my speech today that the government is working on, and one of them is consultation. We’ve been encouraging Ontarians to weigh in on our proposals.

At the end of the day, the member acknowledges that 1.5 million homes that we need to build in the next 10 years. She said it, right here on the record. She has said it before. She said it in committee.

Everybody can do the math. Last year was the best year we’ve had in 30 years—100,000 starts. With 100,000 over the next 10 years, we’re going to be far short—500,000 homes short. If you then look at the amount of new Canadians who are going to be moving into our province, we’re going to be even further behind.

So the status quo isn’t working. We need to have bills like Bill 23 move forward so that we can get shovels in the ground faster and we can accelerate the amount of new housing construction. We can’t wait another minute.

We need to have more housing built. We need it to get into the ground faster. The costs of delay in the greater Golden Horseshoe put an additional up to $116,900 on the price of a home.

The development charge exemption—the discussion to either freeze, reduce or exempt the type of housing was a conversation the Premier and I had with big-city mayors and regional chairs in January. We said, “There’s a lot of housing that you need—affordable housing, transitional housing, supportive housing, attainable housing—and you need to incent that type of construction.” Our regime does exactly that with those discounts, with those exemptions and with those reductions.

Great question.

My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

I was in committee, and we had hundreds of written submissions, and many people speaking at the hearings in Markham and Brampton and the two in Toronto, and many people who weren’t able to. The overwhelming theme—there were many, but an overwhelming theme that I heard was the concern that this government is opening up the greenbelt and doubling down on sprawl when there are alternatives.

What is especially concerning is that the government is choosing to open up the greenbelt in areas where there are nine developers who own land there, who gave over $520,000 to the PC Party since 2014. It really smells fishy; an investigation is needed. What is so frustrating is that the Housing Affordability Task Force that this government began made it clear that access to land is not stopping us from achieving our 1.5-million-homes target goal, which is something that we support, that all parties support.

Why are you giving this greenbelt land away to developers who are big PC Party donors, Minister Clark?

My understanding is that your government never consulted with AMO on the bill.

Mr. Rice, a developer, bought land on the greenbelt in the middle of September for $80 million that is now probably going to be worth a billion dollars. I don’t know who gave them a heads-up on this particular bill.

What I want to ask you is, how will this bill help the Niagara region, where I’m from, take on the financial hardship it will likely face from Bill 23 and the reduction in development fees? The region is responsible for policing, corrections officers—we have a jail in our area—ambulance services, where we have backloads at our hospital, our long-term care—and we know about the 5,000 people who died in long-term care—retirement, water and waste water. How are they going to provide those types of incredible services with less development fees?

I’m sure the member from Brantford–Brant will get an opportunity to ask a question to the minister here shortly, but I wanted to pick up where the minister left off, talking about development charges.

One of the things we’ve heard, that we’ve seen in the news is, “Oh, my gosh, the sky is falling. Municipalities aren’t going to have the revenue they used to have if they’re out there building affordable housing and/or purpose-built rentals.” I’ve had some conversations with municipalities, and I’d like to remind them that they’re sitting on about $8 billion of reserves when it comes to development charges—I know in my region of Waterloo alone, if you take all the municipalities, it’s hundreds of millions.

So I’m wondering if the minister could touch on what some of the discounts look like for building affordable housing and how municipalities are going to be able to leverage some of the reserves they already have.

The member from Kitchener–Conestoga.

I guess it goes back—Speaker, through you to the member—to whether you support keeping the status quo.

If you’re like the member opposite, you might very well think that housing prices are fine in Niagara region. I suggest that there are many, many people who live in Niagara who feel that housing costs are too high—finding out that there’s not enough supply, there’s not enough opportunity to have a house that meets their needs and their budget.

If you agree with that last premise, which I happen to agree with, you need to lower those baseline costs. You need to deal with those fees and charges.

The status quo is not working. I just talked about our best year in 30 years. It’s still not enough to meet the growing demand of Ontario. We’re going to have two million people who are going to come to our province by 2031. We need to act today.

Again, you have to look at whether you’re going to favour the status quo or whether you’re going to put a system in place that incents the type of building you need.

If the member opposite’s municipality needs purpose-built rental, family-sized rental, there’s an opportunity to discount development charges to incent that type of development.

Municipalities were pretty clear—it wasn’t just things that they needed to do; it was things that the province needed to put in place. We needed to make sure they had the tools to get shovels in the ground faster.

This development charge piece is geared exactly for the question that the member has asked.

A point of order, Speaker.

I’m proud to be here speaking to Bill 23. Bill 23—I have it right here—is An Act to amend various statutes, to revoke various regulations and to enact the Supporting Growth and Housing in York and Durham Regions Act, 2022. It is a massive bill. You must have spent months writing it. It is a sweeping bill. It affects the City of Toronto Act, the Conservation Authorities Act, the Development Charges Act, the Municipal Act, the New Home Construction Licensing Act, the Ontario Heritage Act, the Ontario Land Tribunal Act and the Planning Act, and then it has a new act, the Supporting Growth and Housing in York and Durham Regions Act. It is huge.

My overall assessment of this bill is that it is a pro-sprawl bill that threatens affordability, public services, democracy and farmland.

When I read this bill—and I’ve gone through committee now; I’ve read the written submissions that people submitted. The overall impression I get from the experts who spoke is that this bill will not solve our housing affordability crisis. There is nothing in Bill 23 that will lower the price of buying a home. There is nothing in Bill 23 that will lower the cost of finding a place to rent. In fact, it will make renting more expensive. There is no evidence in this bill that it will be easier for people to find a home and pay off their own mortgage instead of paying off an investor’s mortgage. None of that is in there.

It is also clear that this government does not need to harm democracy, pave over farmland, cut public services, put municipalities in a very difficult financial situation and make life worse for renters in order to meet our housing supply targets. There are other avenues and other ways to go.

I want to talk a little bit about what I learned in committee. I’m going to provide some overall comments, and then I’m going to get into some of the specifics, some written statements, and some presentations that experts gave.

The overall impression I got from the huge amount of information that we received is that—I was struck by the enormity of this bill and its consequences, as well as the consequences that we don’t know yet. We had municipalities, including AMO, the big city mayors, the city of Toronto and the Town of the Blue Mountains, who came and spoke—those who were allowed; AMO wasn’t—who were absolutely alarmed at the impact of cutting developer fees. Ambulance services, roads, transit and daycare subsidies are all impacted.

Regional municipalities, upper-tier municipalities were alarmed that they are losing their power to decide where new homes and new workplaces go, and the densities at which they are built. Regional municipalities are alarmed that this government is cutting down all the planning responsibility that is needed to make sure that we don’t build absolutely unsustainable and expensive suburban sprawl, and we build right, which is to build in the huge amount of land in the GTHA and beyond that is already zoned for development. It’s already ready to go. They were very alarmed about that.

We had renters and housing advocates, including ACORN; the Canadian Centre for Housing Rights; Leilani Farha, a former UN special rapporteur; ACTO, who were alarmed at Bill 23’s threat to housing affordability. They spoke about this bill’s impact on inclusionary zoning laws in the city of Toronto, which would require developers to build their fair share of affordable housing units. And they were alarmed at this bill’s impact on renters who live in purpose-built rentals, very concerned that the likelihood of them being evicted because their building is going to be turned into a luxury condo—they will be evicted, and they will have to pay higher rent. It’s devastating.

We had environmentalists and conservation authorities—from Conservation Ontario, which represents all the conservation authorities across Ontario, to Environmental Defence, to CELA—and they were also alarmed at how Bill 23 bans conservation authorities from doing their job and working with municipalities to protect our natural environment, and to ensure our natural environment protects us from extreme weather events, from flooding. They were astonished.

Then we had the Toronto Atmospheric Fund come in and wave the red flag and say, “Hey, government, do you know that you’re gutting our ability to implement green building standards in the city of Toronto, which is a growing and thriving building sector? Hold on a minute here.” They actually couldn’t believe that you are sabotaging a municipal industry, an environmental movement, to green our building stock—the leading cause of greenhouse gas emissions in Ontario. Bill 23 eviscerates it.

Citizens were also alarmed. Many citizen groups reached out, and they were absolutely alarmed that Bill 23 is curbing our democratic rights. This is a trend this government has had since 2018. I remember the shock I felt when I saw this government decide, in the middle of the city of Toronto’s election—and London’s and Kingston’s, because they affected them too. They made the decision to slash the number of city councillors who represent us at the city of Toronto in half, in the middle of an election—unbelievable. And then we see, this year, there are more efforts to curtail the right of citizens to have a say over their planning processes. There are many people in Toronto and across Ontario who subscribe to the “yes in my backyard” mentality; poll after poll after poll shows that. They want more housing in their backyard. This is really not about that. They were dismayed about that as well.

What I was also struck by, in the committee process, was the genuine reluctance from the government to hear people express concerns that were different from their own—which is the whole point of being in government. The government is meant to be a leader, to listen, to consult and to make decisions that benefit Ontarians—not just to talk to your donors and do their bidding.

We had an overwhelming number of people subscribe, in the very short window you gave people to subscribe—because the government always does that. You get about three days to sign up. We had so many people apply to speak.

I introduced motions and the Liberals introduced motions saying, “Hold on, government. Why are we ramming this through so quickly? Let’s travel this bill. Let’s take it around Ontario to fix the entirety of Ontario. Let’s make sure we come up with a bill that addresses our housing crisis and our housing affordability crisis. Let’s make it work, because there are some good things in this bill.” No, you weren’t interested in that. “No thanks. Not interested in hearing.” It’s a shame.

On one of the days of hearings, John Sewell, a former mayor of Toronto—I believe he was a mayor of the city of Toronto for 12 years, at a time when the number of homes being built were at record heights, very high. So this argument that Toronto is anti-development is—

I rise this morning to recognize the amazing Burlington Symphony Orchestra. On November 12, I was honoured to attend the 50th anniversary of the Burlington Symphony Orchestra at the Burlington Performing Arts Centre. The performance was an incredible replica of the orchestra’s inaugural concert that took place on November 29, 1973. The orchestra performed Beethoven’s Overture to Prometheus—the first piece ever performed by the BSO—and included a stunning violin concerto beautifully executed by Ian Ye, along with Bruckner’s Symphony No. 4.

The Burlington Symphony Orchestra is a community-based volunteer orchestra that gives musicians a place to share their passion for orchestral music and strengthens community engagement through outreach programs such as the youth artist competition.

The Burlington orchestra started off as the McMaster Symphony Orchestra, a campus community orchestra.

The orchestra maintains its original objectives from 1973, which are: to perform symphonic music of high quality; to stimulate excellence in instrumental performance; and to support, improve and expand musical opportunities for the Hamilton and Burlington regions.

The Burlington Symphony Orchestra fills an important cultural role within our city, and I am happy to have been able to experience the talent of the incredible youth our community produces.

Congratulations to the Burlington Symphony Orchestra on 50 years.

Over two millennia ago, the Greek philosopher Socrates was quoted as saying, “The really wise man is the man who realizes how little he knows” and “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Even though he said these things millennia ago, this is wisdom that can guide all of us.

November 17 was World Philosophy Day. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, UNESCO, created an international day in 2005 to highlight the importance of philosophy, stating that “philosophy is a discipline that encourages critical and independent thought and is capable of working towards a better understanding of the world and promoting tolerance and peace.” The day is celebrated on the third Thursday of every November and provides a unique occasion to mark the enduring value of philosophy and human thought, our institutions and our own lives.

Within Ontario, world-class post-secondary institutions continue to advance our understanding of logic, epistemology, culture, the human condition, ethics and reality. And the spirit of philosophy is alive and well all across the province.

We’re better equipped to make decisions that affect our lives and help others when we think critically and meaningfully about what we seek to do.

Another quote: “We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.” This quote is commonly attributed to Aristotle but actually is from the American writer Will Durant. And what did they both have in common? Both were philosophers.

I hope everyone takes this opportunity to mark World Philosophy Day by cracking open a new book about challenges and thinking.

Sorry to the member from University–Rosedale.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

Amir didn’t want to die, yet he had no choice but to begin the process of getting approved for medically assisted suicide because he’s living in poverty on ODSP and was about to lose the rooming house he lived in. He is a disabled man, living with excruciating, untreatable back pain, but the stress of becoming homeless was too much to bear.

Tracy found herself in a similar situation, with disability support being too low to survive on. Once an able-bodied chef, she faced the debilitating impact of long COVID that made it impossible for her to continue to work. Seeking MAID was an exclusive financial consideration for her.

There are many others like Amir and Tracy. A disability may be present at birth, could be caused by an accident, or developed over time—the point is, it could be anyone. And if you find yourself in that situation, the system you face is one where you are provided so little. The rates are so low that it becomes impossible to survive. You’re constantly worried about where your next meal will come from, how much longer you can keep a roof over your head. You become so desperate that you begin to consider medically assisted suicide. That’s how it is right now.

What does this say about ODSP, when death is the preferred choice?

We have to fix this. The NDP keeps proposing solutions, but you keep voting them down. Please, I ask you: Work with us so people don’t have to die and instead can live with dignity.

Way back in the fall of 2019, the Ontario Legislature hosted a special day for my Peterborough Lakers senior lacrosse team as a tribute for their third straight Canadian national lacrosse championship.

All of Peterborough was anxiously waiting for the 2020 season to begin. The Lakers were once again the odds-on favourite to repeat as the MSL champions and represent the east at the Mann Cup.

Of course, all of us know what happened in 2020 when the season was cancelled.

Then, in 2021, with COVID rearing its ugly head once again, the season was cancelled.

But this past summer, we were able to have a lacrosse season here in Ontario and out west. After a two-year hiatus because of COVID, Peterborough was in a position for an unprecedented four-peat. All that stood in the way of my Lakers was the Langley Thunder. It was a hard-fought seven-game series at the Peterborough Memorial Centre, with my Lakers once again capturing a fourth consecutive Mann Cup, an unprecedented second four-peat. No other city in Canada has ever won the Mann Cup four times in a row, and we have done it twice, ensuring that the Peterborough Century 21 Lakers are the centre of the lacrosse universe.

I’d like to give a special shout-out to Megan Dykeman, the MLA from Langley, BC, for being a good sport and wearing one of our Lakers jerseys in the BC Legislature after losing the bet with me.

I look forward to hosting another Lakers day here at Queen’s Park, where all of you will be welcome to come get your picture taken with the Mann Cup and meet some of the players on the world’s greatest lacrosse team.

I want to welcome the OPSEU/SEFPO members joining us today at Queen’s Park for their mental health and addictions lobby day.

There is a mental health and addiction epidemic across Ontario. OPSEU/SEFPO members and Ontarians in general are concerned about the lack of access to mental health and addiction services. Many Ontarians can’t access mental health or addictions care until they reach a crisis point. All roads continue to lead to the emergency room or death.

While emergency rooms consistently face crisis levels and aren’t equipped to provide appropriate mental health or addictions care, people have no option but to go to the ER when they need urgent mental health care. Many people are discharged without access to care because it either doesn’t exist or it isn’t covered by OHIP.

Hospitals are facing understaffing, unprecedented high volumes and wait times, and some have had to close their ERs temporarily.

The Conservative government chips away at our mental health system, purposely weakening it to push their pro-privatization agenda.

Many Ontarians can’t afford to pay for therapy. Wait-lists for publicly funded mental health or addiction care are months to years long, and services are limited. Community service agencies are worn thin due to persistent underfunding.

Mental health care is health care. Ontarians need and deserve access to publicly funded psychotherapy and counselling. People with substance-misuse struggles should be able to access treatment as soon as they ask for support.

The government must make major investments into the publicly funded, publicly delivered health care Ontarians need. It’s time to fix the broken mental health and addictions system to have true universal health care in Ontario, because lives depend on it.

It is an honour to rise on behalf of my constituents of Scarborough–Guildwood. It is with concern that I rise today to acknowledge an issue which has been deepening all across the province. For months now, alarming stories and scenes from hospitals and emergency rooms have caused Ontarians to turn their attention to our health care system. Even just last week, we had mothers with babies on the grounds of Queen’s Park. With increasing urgency, questions are being asked about how it is being funded and staffed.

With winter setting in and hospitals facing a perfect storm of COVID-19, flu and other respiratory illnesses, stories like that of Jasmine—a mother whose four-year-old child with Down syndrome spent close to 40 hours waiting in an ER for a bed, waiting in the hallway, where she lay on two chairs pushed together to form a makeshift bed—show how our health care system is worsening.

In my own community of Scarborough–Guildwood, residents have reported packed hallways, difficulties being seen by a doctor, and a number of cases being turned away at triage, with a few urgent cases being transferred.

This is unacceptable. Responsibility for what is happening lies squarely with the Premier and his government.

Whether it is Jasmine’s family or my residents in Scarborough–Guildwood, these vulnerable Ontarians need the help and support of their government. What their stories tell us is that the government has a duty to do what it should have done at the start of the pandemic: increase supports to meet these unprecedented needs; fast-track provincial supports for hospitals and health networks, like a new hospital for Scarborough–Guildwood; and repeal Bill 124 to address the urgent staffing shortages.

The people of Ontario must not be made to wait any longer, especially if they are four years old and having pneumonia and are sitting in a hallway for 40 hours.

At a time when inflation has reached the highest levels in four decades, we know families are feeling the pressure from rising prices on everything from gas to groceries.

During these challenging economic times, it is the government’s responsibility to continue to bring forth legislation that will support the people of Ontario by putting more money back into their pockets.

Speaker, that is why the government of Ontario is set to extend the provincial gas tax cut for another year.

The provincial gas tax was reduced by 5.7 cents per litre in the summer and was set to expire on December 31. Extending the gas tax cut for another year provides businesses and drivers with some relief. The gas tax cut reduces the cost of fuel by 5.3 cents per litre, which means the average household will save an estimated total of $195 between July 1, 2022, and December 31, 2023.

In times like these, we continue to do everything in our power to support the hard-working people and families of Ontario. This is yet another example of the provincial government’s ongoing commitment to keeping costs down for families and businesses, such as permanently removing tolls on Highways 412 and 418 and eliminating the licence plate sticker renewal fees.