As with many members who rise for their first opportunity to address this House for their inaugural speeches, I enjoy being here. I enjoy the fact that they take that opportunity to talk about themselves, to talk about their riding, where they came from and what got them here.

I really enjoyed you expressing and showing your vulnerability because that takes courage. It shows a human aspect of things that we want to see changed in here.

I remember in 2011, when I was first elected, there were many of us members who were in here who said, “Holy jeez, we’ve got to change decorum in here.” That will change decorum in here—putting that vulnerability and making yourself relatable to constituents. You carry yourself with a lot of weight, and you show presence in this House, and I think that will work well for you, and I look forward to being in this House with you many, many times when you’re going to be putting questions to this government and holding them accountable.

My question to you is, what more can your constituents expect from you? I know why I’m here. I’m here because the people of Algoma–Manitoulin want me here and elect me here, and I respond to them. What do you offer, and what can your constituents expect from you going forward?

My question is to the Premier. It has been months since I approached the government about the serious doctor shortage communities are facing in Algoma–Manitoulin. In Thessalon, the hospital has been trying to recruit permanent physicians since last year. I raised this with the Minister of Health during the last session and presented her with a plan from Huron Shores Family Health Team to create an integrated care model to help recruit and retain new physicians in the area.

I ask the Premier: When will this government start working with northern communities to end physician shortages?

Where is the Premier’s plan to train, recruit and retain physicians in northern Ontario?

I want to thank the member from Humber River–Black Creek for his comments on this particular bill.

There has been a pattern that we’ve been seeing that has been rising from this government for the last—it’s continuing in this term, but it was evidently there in the last term, and that’s keeping the public out in the dark. The consultation we see where we have a lot of legislation that is going through committee is not going out to the public—we are not engaging with them. They are not being invited—sorry. They are being invited, but the windows are very limited; they’re very short. It’s very difficult for people to engage as far as this process.

This is one of the things I heard, while I was at AMO for the last three days, from some of the mayors: “Where does this come from? Why wasn’t there any engagement with us? What does it mean for me? What does it mean for the mayor of Sudbury or London or North Bay?” This is a piece of legislation that could potentially impact them.

In the member’s opinion, why wasn’t this broadly consulted with mayors across this province?

It should have been health care.

It’s my first opportunity to rise in the House and speak on behalf of the good people of Algoma–Manitoulin, and I wanted to go through a process that I go through every single time when a new bill is introduced here in the House. I have to thank the previous member, Gilles Bisson from Timmins, who actually guided me in doing this exercise because it sets the tone for the legislation that we’re going to be discussing.

The bill we’re talking about today is Bill 3, An Act to amend various statutes with respect to special powers and duties of heads of council. It’s introduced by the honourable Minister Clark, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Okay? I want to go through this, and I’ll ask, Speaker, for a little bit of leniency here. I want to read it.

Schedule 1 says the “City of Toronto Act.” It says:

“The schedule amends the City of Toronto Act, 2006 by adding a new part V1.1 which sets out the special powers and duties of the head of council. The following powers and duties are assigned to the head of council under this part:

“1. Powers respecting the chief administrative officer, as described in section 226.3.

“2. Powers respecting the organizational structure of the city and employment matters, as described in section 226.4.

“3. Powers respecting local boards, as described in section 226.5.

“4. Powers respecting committees, as described in section 226.6.

“5. Powers respecting meetings, as described in section 226.8.

“6. Veto powers, as described in section 226.9.

“7. Duties and powers respecting budgets, as described in section 226.14.

“The new part contains various other related provisions, including rules respecting delegation, immunity and transition. Authority is provided to the Lieutenant Governor in Council to prescribe provincial priorities and to the minister to make other regulations.”

That’s schedule 1.

“Schedule 2

“Municipal Act, 2001

“The schedule amends the Municipal Act, 2001 by adding a new part ... which sets out the special powers and duties of the head of council in designated municipalities. In those designated municipalities, the following powers and duties are assigned to the head of council:

“1. Powers respecting the chief administrative officer, as described in section 284.5.

“2. Powers respecting the organizational structure of the municipality and employment matters, as described in section 284.6.

“3. Powers respecting local boards, as described in section 284.7.

“4. Powers respecting committees, as described in section 284.8.

“5. Powers respecting meetings, as described in section 284.10.

“6. Veto powers, as described in section 284.11.

“7. Duties and powers respecting budgets, as described in section 284.16.

“The new part contains various other related provisions, including rules respecting delegation, immunity and transition. Authority is provided to the Lieutenant Governor in Council to prescribe provincial priorities and to the minister to make other regulations.”

That’s schedule 2.

“Schedule 3.... The schedule amends the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. New section 5.3 sets out the duties of the head of council when they have a pecuniary interest in a matter and a power or duty under Part VI.1 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 or Part VI.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001 respecting that matter. Various other consequential amendments are made.”

All right, we’ve gone through that exercise. I’m going to ask everyone here in this House if you can tell me how many times that I said “housing,” outside of identifying the role of the minister and his ministry, versus “powers”?

Speaker, you have a guess? Give me a guess.

This bill is about powers. That’s what it’s about, and it certainly is scary. Again, I have always committed to bringing a different lens to the floor of this Legislature and I always want to bring a lens from northern Ontario and how this is potentially going to impact mayors across northern Ontario, because they have not been consulted. They don’t know exactly what this means. And they are quite concerned in regard to, when you see language contained within this that says—excuse me, where’s my notes? I had notes. I have my notes. My notes are somewhere around here.

Anyway, in no uncertain terms, it’s going to be up to the government to designate—they’re designating Toronto. They’ve already identified that they’re going to be designating Ottawa. And then it’s pretty much in their decision-making as to who else is going to be designated.

What does that mean? Because there are a lot of them, particularly in my riding, saying we need housing. We want to move ahead with housing. However, we’ve got some huge concerns. How do we proceed if we want to do this? How do we attract those developers to coming into our community? Because our communities are growing, as well, maybe not to the tune of—and I’ll use an example. I had a discussion with one of my colleagues a little bit earlier. If you are looking at a housing development project—in one that I’m actually working on right now, we’re looking at about 25 to 40 houses in Espanola. Well, for many of you in the larger centres, my goodness, that’s like a blink of an eye. But for me, that’s huge.

What does this mean for them? How is this potentially going to impact their ability, and are they going to be the one that is going to be designated? How would they find out? This is one of the questions that keeps coming up from people.

Why wasn’t this part of your campaign? Why is this coming up now? Why is this a priority of this government?

I’ve always said that I want to bring the voices of individuals from Algoma–Manitoulin to the floor of the Legislature. I just got this email from Marlene. I won’t give you her last name. Marlene is at every one of my constituency clinics that I have in a particular community in my riding. This is her message she just sent to me this morning. She said, “So pleased to hear you are not letting up on the crisis with health care with the Ford government. Dissappointed”—oh, by the way, she is a card-carrying Conservative; I just wanted to let you know that. But I just love this lady. Anyway, she’s “disappointed, like so many others, that he is not overly concerned by his financing. And now the Minister of Health talking about possible more privatization? No thank you. We should know by now that doesn’t work except for the profiteers. I believe that is what is wrong with the PSW program. ParaMed and others being paid should be local hospitals, especially smaller places here in”—I’m not going to tell you. “PSWs need a living wage rather than monies going to ParaMed, and it would help the hospital finances as well, as they know local problems and caregivers. Why is Premier Ford using a personal agenda to increase mayors of larger centres’ control? Get on with health care, not your previous Toronto council concerns. It’s ridiculous.”

Thank you, Marlene.

It’s right on point, as far as what we have been raising in this House. Yes, housing is important. But housing is important to everybody in Ontario, not just in two communities. We need to do it in a way that does not infringe on the democratic process that we have by granting immunity—or what was the word that was used in here? Yes, “immunity” and “veto powers.”

We can do a lot better than this, and we need to do a lot more work as far as consulting with people here across this province. Our mayors are asking for it. Our councillors are asking for it. Our communities are asking for it. Ontarians are asking for it.

To my colleague across the way: I would never put words in your mouth, so I would expect the same courtesy from you—by not putting words in my mouth. I did not express myself in any way saying I was supportive of one thing or another. What I did actually say is that there are real concerns out there from many municipal leaders who have not been involved in the decision-making or the drafting of this legislation and the impacts of it. What does it mean?

Let’s set aside “good” or “bad” on this legislation. Why wasn’t there greater consultation on this? Why weren’t communities like Espanola, Chapleau and Wawa, who are desperately looking for housing in their communities—their communities are booming as well, as far as new mines that are opening up, new employment opportunities. There are a lot of migrant individuals who are moving to those communities because there are cultural centres there that are supportive of their wants and their needs. So why did we limit it to just the two? Why wasn’t there greater consultation that was done broadly across the province?

When you’re looking at this legislation, the answer is yes. You look at the track record in the 42nd government: Can the Speaker tell me one time that a piece of legislation didn’t go forward by this government and the likelihood—I always enjoy when the government members stand up and they’re talking about their piece of legislation and say, “If this piece of legislation goes forward.” They’ve got a majority; everything’s going to go by. They’re going to make sure everything goes by. They have the powers on committee. They have the power of a majority government. The answer is, yes, they have that ability.

Our role is one which is going to be significant in this House: to bring up these shortfalls, bring up the cracks that are within the legislation. It’s a role that we’re going to take very seriously. Yes, we will be opposing often. Get used to it.

The aspiration of owning a home, as for your son, is a dream for them. My kids—we’ve had this conversation numerous times. You come out of school, and you’re faced with anywhere between $80,000 to $160,000 in debt from your schooling. You come out, and you get your first job. You want your vehicle, so you get a vehicle because you have to get to and from work. Then, you go to the bank and the bank tells you, “Oh, sure, we’re going to approve you for a mortgage.” The maximum amount is maybe $160,000. It’s impossible to find a home at that rate. So their dream, their aspiration, their want, their idea of owning a home is almost impossible. They can’t reach it.

There’s more we could do. There’s a lot more we could have done, first, by engaging. This is a wholesome discussion. I want to go back to what I opened up with: This is one of those bills that should have gone out to communities so that we have greater engagement and have a wholesome discussion, because some of the best legislation is because we’ve reached out to communities, organizations—took the time through committee to have that wholesome discussion.

Report continues in volume B.