The bill enacts several measures related to the public awareness of extreme heat.

The bill proclaims the first week in June in each year as Extreme Heat Awareness Week. It also requires the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to publish information on a government website about extreme heat issues.

Finally, the bill requires information on extreme heat issues to be sent to taxpayers along with their municipal tax bill. The minister is required to mail that information to households in territories without municipal organization.

Today, as we celebrate Pride Month, I want to thank community groups across Waterloo region and Ontario who work every day to make life better for those facing barriers due to their gender and sexual orientation, and to create opportunities for allyship. Thank you to Spectrum; ACCKWA; tri-Pride; OK2BME; GSAs across the province; Sanguen, working for equitable health access; and so many others. Your work really matters.

Happy birthday, Kamil.

I’m inspired by the many trailblazers who began Pride gatherings after one of the largest mass arrests in Canadian history during a bathhouse raid. Pride is still a protest, and this protest is necessary, because in a world where the majority are heterosexual and cisgender, many assume everyone around them is also, to the detriment of queer folks.

Let’s remind everyone, today and every day, that queer people exist and deserve equal rights, because love is love.

I’m inspired by Spectrum’s calls to action, and I echo those calls. I commit to continuing my journey of allyship by seeking out queer media, by combatting systemic barriers at Queen’s Park and beyond, by looking at intersectionalities of queer and other oppressed identities, and by being open about my support of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community.

So, on behalf of—

Responses?

This petition is entitled “Transform Ontario’s Energy Sector.” I want to thank Cathy Orlando for collecting these and sending them to me. It discusses the heat we’ve seen in the past, 2023 being the hottest year on record, and those big wildfire seasons that we saw here at Queen’s Park and across the province, and that natural gas is a very potent greenhouse gas.

They also talk about the Ontario Energy Board response to Enbridge’s plan for a multi-billion dollar methane gas grid expansion—about not being responsive to the energy transition and increases the risk of stranded or underutilized assets. Their ask basically is to pause its expansion, wind down the use of these plants to just peaker plants, and accelerate the procurement of electricity from renewable sources.

I support this petition. I will affix my signature and provide it to—

I am pleased to speak today to celebrate Pride Month. Pride Month brings people together to celebrate the history, courage and diversity of two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex, queer and questioning communities. While progress has been made historically, 2SLGBTQ+ people still face heartbreaking inequities and exclusion today in Canada and around the world.

This past weekend, I had the opportunity to kick off Pride Month in beautiful Beaches–East York with East End Kids Pride at Dentonia Park. Thank you to 8-year-old Hazel for initiating this fun-packed rainbow day that embraced the power of love for all.

“Ally” is not a name we can call ourselves; it is about our actions and how we relay messages of inclusivity. It is our responsibility, as elected officials, to set a meaningful example of support for the future we want to build in Ontario and globally.

This month is about sharing love, boasting and boosting up 2SLGBTQ+ community members and spreading joy.

I encourage you all to attend an event that you normally might not and consider how you can show up for 2SLGBTQ folks in your life.

Happy Pride Month, everyone.

On behalf of the official opposition Ontario NDP, I’m proud to rise with the 2SLGBTQI communities in solidarity for June’s Pride Month. Pride Month is a chance for the two-spirited, queer and trans communities to reflect, to celebrate, and to continue the fight for justice.

The overall story of Pride in our province and nation is one of advocacy, progress and unrelenting resilience.

The first official Pride parade in Canada occurred in Toronto in 1981. Instead of a parade, it was more of a gay picnic on Toronto Island. It was then known as “Toronto gay pride day.” It started as a modest gathering of 1,500 brave individuals who showed up to demand respect and human dignity.

Over the years, this tiny, small Pride-based organization grew in size and significance.

Today, Pride is now one month long, and Pride Toronto’s marquee Sunday march is now the largest one in the world, outranking the heavyweights of São Paulo, Madrid and New York City.

Speaker, I would be remiss in my remarks today if I did not mention that my son celebrates his fifth birthday today. As a queer and non-binary parent, my family personally benefits from the hard work of those who came before me in this House, including the Rev. Dr. Cheri DiNovo, former New Democratic MPP from Parkdale–High Park. It was under her leadership that the Ontario NDP passed into law more 2SLGBTQI-positive legislation than any other party in Canadian history. This record of accomplishment includes Toby’s Act, which added trans rights to the Ontario Human Rights Code in 2012; the Affirming Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Act, which banned conversion therapy for 2SLGBTQI youth in 2015; Cy and Ruby’s Act, which established parent equality for parents in 2015, which meant that I did not have to adopt my own son when my wife gave birth to our baby, which would have been a very expensive, demeaning and laborious act; and of course, the Trans Day of Remembrance Act in 2017.

So many gains have been made, but progress, unfortunately, is slipping away, both here and around the world. It’s disheartening to see the rise of hate, religious fundamentalism and alt-right movements here in Canada and abroad.

Every Pride is different. This Pride is happening during a year when threats to the 2SLGBTQI communities continue to be on the rise.

Yesterday, I marked my second anniversary as MPP for Toronto Centre, and it was also roughly at that time that I was named the chair of the Ontario NDP queer caucus. During this time, with the steadfast support of our leader and our caucus, I have tabled 10 private member’s bills, including three that specifically address the direct health, well-being and safety needs of our community. These bills include the Keeping 2SLGBTQI+ Communities Safe Act, the Chosen Family Day Act, and the gender-affirming health care act, which, unfortunately, was wrong-headedly voted down this February.

Despite this setback, Pride reminds us that we have much more accomplishments ahead of us, because we have done this before. Pride reminds us that the Black, Indigenous, racialized, trans and two-spirited communities who have trail-blazed and who are a constant source of inspiration will continue to do that work, alongside everyone else in this House.

From the Stonewall riots to the very first Pride marches that rolled out, to the anti-viral drugs that we continue to fight for, progress has never been assured. It has always been hard-won. And we know that the fight is far from over.

All members of this House should be advocating for housing as a human right so everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, will have a safe home to call their own.

We must all stand with every student and educator in Ontario so that they know that they’re not alone when flying the rainbow flag or creating positive spaces in schools and libraries, even when others are trying to shut them down. We will stand with every resident in Ontario so that they know that they can be their true and authentic selves in their workplaces, in their schools and their place of worship. Only by working together can we truly create a province that embraces diversity, where we are all champions of human rights—and that we can celebrate every single family member, including my son.

I invite all members of this House and all members of the public to join us on the front lawn tomorrow at Queen’s Park. The Ontario Public Service Pride Network has been working hard to host a flag-raising. It will be their 10th Pride flag-raising at Queen’s Park. They will be hosting this event, with a 30-person choir as well as a lunch. I hope all members can join us.

Let’s show everyone in small towns and big cities across Ontario what this place stands for: that the Ontario Legislature is united in our advancement of 2SLGBTQI equality and human rights.

Happy Pride.

I’m proud to summarize this petition. The petition essentially calls on the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to halt any further development for Ontario Place, to engage in meaningful and transparent public consultation, to develop a comprehensive and sustainable plan for the revitalization of Ontario Place—one that prioritizes sustainability, accessibility and inclusivity—and to ensure that any future development of Ontario Place is carried out in a transparent and accountable manner with proper oversight, public input and adherence to the democratic process.

I will proudly affix my signature to this petition and send it back to the centre table with page Farhan.

I have a petition with over a hundred signatures from residents in my riding of Don Valley West who are against the government’s plan to undermine, downsize and relocate the Ontario Science Centre to Ontario Place. The petitioners indicate that this plan, initiated without public consultation, environmental assessment or a sound business rationale, will cause irreparable harm to our community. They’re concerned about the $500 million of public funds the government will spend on the parking lot. They are worried about our priority neighbourhoods that the OSC serves, and that this move risks the livelihoods of local residents.

They are asking the government to reconsider this decision and to reconsider moving the OSC from its current location—to leave it where it is; respect its cultural, educational and architectural value.

I fully support this petition. I will sign my name to it and give it to page Victoria.

I’ve got this petition to raise social assistance rates. It talks about how the rates for Ontario Works have been frozen since 2018 and the small increases to the Ontario Disability Support Program have left recipients struggling well below the poverty line. So it advocates for the doubling of the rates for both OW and also ODSP.

Meegwetch. I will pass it on to Sophia.

Again, this petition advocates for the doubling of rates for both OW and ODSP.

Meegwetch. I’ll pass it on to Farah.

Thank you very much. Petitions?

The member for London North Centre.

Petitions?

The petition I have to read today is entitled “Health Care: Not for Sale.” This petition outlines the very dangerous trend that this government is going on, in terms of the privatization of our public health care system in Ontario. It’s very concerning, because it is going to not only bankrupt our system, but it will take nurses, doctors and PSWs out of public hospitals—

It makes recommendations, such as licensing tens of thousands of internationally educated nurses. It talks about respecting doctors, nurses, PSWs with better working conditions, and making sure that there are incentives for nurses and doctors to live and work in northern Ontario, and making sure that there are enough nurses on every shift on every ward.

I fully support this petition. I fully support publicly delivered as well as publicly funded health care. I’ll send it with page Hosanna to the Clerks.

I have a petition asking for an increase to OW and ODSP. We know that so many Ontarians are struggling. It’s an affordability crisis—there are a million crises out there—and people are living below the poverty line.

We know that when the CERB program was in place, it provided a basic income of $2,000 per month, and that seemed to go a long way.

We could do much more.

I am submitting this petition today with page Paige—how do you like that; I love it—with my name attached.

This petition is entitled “Justice for Sexual Assault Survivors (Bill 189: Lydia’s Law).” Essentially, this petition is calling on the government to call Lydia’s Law to justice committee so that we can actually find out why 1,326 sexual assault cases were thrown out of court in 2022. If the government does call the bill to justice committee, it would compel the Attorney General to table a report to all of us indicating why these cases are being thrown out.

It’s a good bill. It’s a good first step to finding justice for survivors of sexual assault. I fully support it, because it’s my bill. It should be called. And we should fix the justice system.

I would like to thank the thousands of people from Durham who have signed this petition called “Save Durham Hospital.” The petition is quite clear: The good people of Durham need their hospital. They go through a number of reasons why this particular hospital is very important to them. They talk about the emergency department, the diagnostics, the in-patient health care, the beds being moved out, the emergency room going from 24 hours a day to 10 hours a day, and they basically ask for the Durham hospital to stay open.

I fully support the good people of Durham. I will affix my name to it and ask page Ishan to bring it to the Clerk.

I support this petition. I will affix my name to it and ask page Farhan to bring it to the Clerk.

Basically, what the petition is about is that there is a growing body of evidence that shows that vaping has some serious health effects, especially on children, and there is a lot of marketing being done by the vaping companies to get children addicted to vaping. With some of the products—one time, and the child is addicted to nicotine.

They would like to change the age that vaping products can be sold—like it is in other provinces—to 21 or even 25 years of age. And they want to make sure that vaping products do not have flavouring, which is one of the ways that the marketing companies get to children, by making vaping very tasty.

I support this petition. I will affix my name to it and ask page Victoria to bring it to the Clerk.

I think with the statements made this morning about it being Pride Month, it’s important to read a petition called “Protect 2SLGBTQI+ Communities and Drag Artists.”

The petition basically speaks about hate crimes increasing across Ontario, and that drag artists have been specifically targeted by these demonstrations. It’s about supporting these artists and the small businesses supporting them, as well, by ensuring they feel safe where they are.

What they’re asking for is that they pass the protecting 2SLGBTQI+ communities act so that safety zones can deter bigoted harassment, and also tform an advisory community to protect 2SLGBTQI+ communities from hate crimes.

I support this petition. I’ll affix my signature and provide it to page Ishan for the table.

I would like to thank Ashleigh Minaker and Brady McKay, both from Worthington in my riding, for this petition. The petition is called “911 Everywhere in Ontario.”

As you know, Speaker, if something goes wrong—I don’t wish any harm upon you—you dial 911, and the police, the fire service or the ambulance will come and help you. Those services are available in northern Ontario, but 911 is not. You have to memorize a 1-800 number. That 1-800 number changes regularly. I have three of them just for my riding, and northern Ontario has many more.

Ontario is the only province that doesn’t have 911 everywhere. Every other province has made arrangements with Bell so that 911 is available everywhere.

Everybody who has signed the petition—and there are quite a few people from Worthington who have done so—would like to have 911, and so would I. I will affix my name to the petition and ask Jasnoor to bring it to the Clerk.

Il y a des centaines et des centaines d’étudiants qui ont signé la pétition. Je les appuie, et je vais demander à Sophia de l’amener à la table des greffiers.

Basically, the thousands and thousands of people who have signed this petition have seen a privatization of our health care system. They want health care to be based on your needs, not on your ability to pay. They also saw that through nursing agencies, a lot of hospital staff are leaving the hospitals to go into agencies that are making hundreds of millions of dollars in profit off the backs of those nurses who are burnt out in the existing system. They basically want the government to bring forward innovation, but not privatization.

I support this petition. I will affix my name to it and ask page Jasnoor to bring it to the Clerk.

Resuming the debate adjourned on June 3, 2024, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 185, An Act to amend various Acts / Projet de loi 185, Loi modifiant diverses lois.

Further debate?

I’m proud to submit this petition on behalf of the Elementary Teachers of Toronto. Their petition, as summarized, is calling on the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to:

—immediately reverse the cuts to our schools;

—fix the inadequate education funding formula;

—provide schools with the funding to ensure the supports necessary to address the impacts of the pandemic on our students; and

—make the needed investments to provide smaller class sizes; increased levels of staffing to support our students’ special education, mental health, English-language learner and wraparound supports; and make sure that buildings are safe and healthy.

I will proudly affix my signature to this petition and send it back to the table with page Sophia.

I’m very pleased to be standing here today to debate Bill 185 at third reading.

I’d like to just give a little bit of a summary of how I’m going to use my hour today. I’m going to talk a little bit about what came up in committee. I’m going to go through the amendments that were introduced and discuss why we introduced them. I’m going to go through sections of the bill to identify some of the positive things in this bill, because there are some things in this bill that are positive. I’m going to read out some of the very strong submissions that we received from so many stakeholders across Ontario. And then I’m going to conclude with some of the solutions that we have been calling for that are not in this bill.

Whenever I look at a government bill, I look at it from a certain lens. I ask myself, is this bill and are these measures going to make housing more affordable for people to rent and own in Ontario? That’s the first way I look at this bill. The second way I look at it is, I ask myself, is this bill going to ensure that we have the good-quality public services we need in towns and cities across Ontario, so we can have a good quality of life? The third way I look at this bill is, I ask myself, is this bill going to build the wide mix and range of housing we need to address our housing supply and our housing affordability shortages, and is it being done in a sustainable and responsible way? Are we needlessly building on farmland and green space, or are we building in parts of Ontario where we can increase density, so that we can balance the many needs that we have and the many issues that we have in Ontario?

This is a popular bill. We got a lot of submissions. We had a lot of people who wanted to speak in committee. Unfortunately, we had to turn some people away. I think it is always unfortunate when not everyone who wants to speak to a bill is given the opportunity to do that—because especially when it comes to housing, these bills affect everyone in Ontario. If it takes us an extra day or two or a week to hear what people and organizations have to say, I think we should give them the time to do it.

Thank you to the many stakeholders who spoke and gave written submissions. I want to name a few: AMO, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario; BILD; Bonnefield; the Canadian Environmental Law Association; Canadians for Properly Built Homes; the city of Mississauga; the city of Toronto; CUPE Ontario; the Escarpment Corridor Alliance; the Federation of Citizens’ Associations of Ottawa; the Federation of Rental-housing Providers of Ontario; the Georgian Bay Association; Gravel Watch Ontario; the Greater Ottawa Home Builders’ Association; the Greenbelt Foundation; the Green Space Alliance; No Demovictions, which is a new group that is being started up in Ontario; the Ontario Association of Architects; the Ontario Federation of Agriculture; the Ontario Long Term Care Home Association; the Reform Gravel Mining Coalition; and many more.

People care about what is in this bill—many people did. I was very impressed by the intelligence and the thought and the care that were given to us in committee, as well as the written submissions that were given to us. I read many of them, and they were very thoughtful. So thank you for that. Much of the feedback that stakeholders gave us informed the amendments that we introduced in committee in order to fix this bill.

Like I said, there are some things in this bill that we like. It is clear that the government heard from municipalities that were pretty angry that their ability to raise revenue to pay for infrastructure was curtailed with Bill 23 and Bill 109—and that there were some improvements in this bill.

But then there are a whole lot of things that we would have liked to have seen in this bill that weren’t there, and then there are a whole bunch of things in this bill that I wish weren’t there at all.

I’m going to start off by going through some of the amendments. Our goal was to improve this bill. We had a few. We can’t help ourselves. We start off by saying we’ll just do a few, and then as time goes on we realize we have 20 or 30. So be patient with me.

The first amendment that we introduced was to the City of Toronto Act. It was a bill that would enshrine the right for municipalities to protect and compensate tenants and preserve the stock of available residential units in cases where a purpose-built rental is demolished and replaced with—almost always—a condo. You would think that this is a one-off issue, but unfortunately, it is concerningly becoming very common. We expect that the number of purpose-built rentals that are demolished will increase as we move to increased density in towns and cities. The reason why this is a problem is because when you’re looking at purpose-built rentals in our city, it’s the kind of housing stock that we need to preserve. We need to preserve it, and the reason is that we know we have a shortage of purpose-built rentals and almost overwhelmingly the number of affordable purpose-built rentals that exist in our city are in these big purpose-built rental buildings. These are rent-controlled buildings where the rent—if it’s a long-term tenant, they might be paying anything from $1,100 to $1,600, which is much more affordable than what you get in a new purpose-built rental that isn’t protected by rent control.

Unfortunately, with Bill 23, the Ontario government gave themselves the power—they must have listened to some people and not others—to step in and eliminate or reduce the power that municipalities have to protect tenants. People were terrified that that was going to happen.

The reason why we introduced this amendment is to say, “Municipalities need to have the power to protect the affordable rental housing stock we’ve got so that we can build and not gentrify at the same time, so that we can build and also help the tenants who already live in towns and cities in Ontario, including Toronto”—because we can do both.

It is a shame that the government chose to not move forward with this amendment, and I urge this government to seriously consider this issue. It is a big issue. Thousands of tenants are affected by this.

The second amendment that we introduced was to make changes to the Development Charges Act. The government has rolled back some of the worst elements of Bill 23 and Bill 109. They’ve turned around and said, “Municipalities do need the power to require developers to pay their fair share for new infrastructure that is needed when people move into an area.”

We asked the government to listen to what AMO was saying and many advocates were saying and to require developers, when they’re building new units, to also pay for the necessary affordable housing and shelter that is needed in towns and cities, as well. It’s called housing services. The reason this is so important is that, with Bill 23, municipalities were banned from collecting development fees to be used for affordable housing and homelessness at a time when we have, I would say, the worst homelessness crisis that we’ve had in Ontario for decades.

The city of Toronto outlined this in their submission, and AMO also recommended that this right be reinstated. They did some calculations for us, and they calculated that municipalities are on track to be out of pocket $2 billion—$2 billion of money that should be going to maintain affordable housing and for shelters, both temporary and permanent. That affects 47,000 units. So why on earth would the government want to make it even harder for municipalities to address the homelessness problem and the affordable housing problem we have in municipalities? I don’t know. We introduced this amendment to restore the right that municipalities have to collect that fee, and the government voted that down, which I think is a problem.

We also introduced these amendments to a section of the act that dealt with the decision to reverse one of the most politically motivated and most unusual bills I’ve seen in a while, which is to, without any notice or consultation at all, get rid of the Peel regional government, which is really quite draconian. In this bill, they’ve made a decision to reverse that, so they’re going with the Peel dissolution act—dissolutioning the Hazel McCallion Act, 2023, schedule 7. Overall, the decision to repeal the Hazel McCallion Act makes a lot of sense. No one asked for the region of Peel to be eliminated, and it was projected to have a significant impact on the quality of services that the residents of Caledon and Peel and Mississauga would be provided with. We had a lot of concerns about that, and we are pleased to see a reversal—a partial reversal. We did introduce some amendments to shine some light and bring some transparency to that process, and the reason why is because the transition committee that is responsible for looking at how the services were going to be divvied up in these three regions gave Peel region a bill of $4 million. This is work that the Ontario government directed them to do, and then this transition committee turned around and said, “Actually, it’s not the Ontario government that is going to pay this bill. It’s going to be Peel region and Peel taxpayers who are going to pay this bill.” Obviously, that’s just downright crazy. So, in our amendment, we said that what we want to see is some transparency. We want to see this government provide an assessment of the financial impact of its recommendations and to make the financial impact public so people knew how much this transition and this reversal of this transition and then this partial movement forward is actually going to cost. The government rejected that, which I think is unfortunate.

The second amendment we introduced is to say that the province is asking for this work to be done—this transition. They’re appointing the board. They’re controlling the process. That means the provincial government should actually pay for the costs of this transition board, and not the taxpayers of Peel. We introduced that amendment, as well, and the government voted that down.

This was an interesting one. The government, in a last-minute flurry, made some additional changes to the lands tribunal. The lands tribunal, the Ontario Municipal Board, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal—it’s a beast that has known many different names, but now it’s called the lands tribunal. The lands tribunal is one of the most powerful tribunals Ontario has ever seen, and it has been changed and altered and manipulated more times than I can remember. Every time there is a bill, there are some changes to the lands tribunal.

I thought the changes that were in Bill 185 that affect the lands tribunal were particularly concerning. In the bill, the government said, “From now on, we’re no longer going to allow third-party appeals to the lands tribunal,” which means that if a citizens’ group has some concerns about a quarry or a dump and the decision has been made by the municipality, that individual is no longer able to go to the lands tribunal to say, “We need a sober second thought. We need an adjudicator to look at this decision carefully.” It is an issue that I think has become very politicized.

Many organizations wrote to us about the need to continue to allow third-party appeals at the lands tribunal, including the Canadian Environmental Law Association. The reason why they recommended that third-party appeals be allowed is because they’ve represented many citizens who have been concerned about the environmental impact of developments, quarries, dumps in the area. They’ve taken it to the land tribunal to say, “We also need to factor in how this is going to affect water quality, soil health, planning.” So they were very clear. They wanted to make sure that third-party appeals were retained. They also brought an interesting point forward in their submission. They said this is also important because it’s about access to justice: “Land use planning decisions often disproportionately impact low-income, underserved and under-resourced communities, and have direct adverse impacts on the environment and the health and safety of the public.” So in order to ensure that we are making equitable planning decisions, there is a benefit in allowing third-party appeals.

We hear a lot from this government that the lands tribunal is becoming politicized, and people are saying no to developments and they’re taking it to the lands tribunal. That does happen, but the lands tribunal, as it’s currently structured right now—adjudicators already have the authority to throw out frivolous appeals. They already have the authority to throw out appeals that have limited chance of success. So when we’re talking about slowing necessary development down, the lands tribunal already has the powers it needs to have to make sure that process is not abused.

What I found concerning about the government’s amendment in committee is—they must have been lobbied real hard by some folks, because the government said, “We’re going to keep the third-party appeal ban, but we’re going to allow some groups to appeal”—not everyone else, but some groups. Airports—that’s legit. Big industry are allowed to appeal. Big manufacturing facilities are allowed to appeal. And developers are allowed to appeal. I have some concerns with this because it seems like the lands tribunal is being manipulated to suit the government’s own agenda. There are over 14 million people in Ontario today. The vast majority of them are no longer allowed to appeal to the lands tribunal. But some select entities that must have lobbied you really hard in the last few weeks—at the last minute, you introduced an amendment to allow them to appeal. I think that’s very concerning, and I don’t think that’s how the lands tribunal should operate. I don’t think the appeals process should be open to some but not open to everybody else. I’ve got a lot of concerns about that.