Thank you for the question. I can’t really answer why. I wish that the government had addressed price gouging, because it really is such a central area where people are being ripped off. I don’t think that it’s an easy thing to fix, because those corporations are extremely powerful, but it is the place of government to be protecting all of the people of Ontario from that kind of price-fixing.

Thank you very much for your question.

Yes—but still gets overwhelmed by these long forms and all these things that you have to fill out. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if you called and a human answered the phone, and it was for a government service, and you actually could speak to someone?

That is something I’ve put out there as something for the government to think about, that when we’re actually implementing things, to be thinking about the human side: How do people find solutions? What’s the easiest for them without people feeling overwhelmed? Because the other thing I’ve seen in this particular home is that people often just kind of shrug their hands and say, “Oh, well. I can’t do anything about it,” when, in fact, there probably is something they could do but they don’t know where to reach out for that.

I do have concerns about shifting everything into regulations, and my example for that is ODSP, where there are 800 regulations. There’s a regulation in there that says if you live with somebody else, your money will be clawed back. In other words, the money that is there is not to support you with your disability. As soon as you live with somebody else, you start to lose that support.

Now, I think if the people of Ontario actually knew that that was in the regulations, they would reject it, because I think it’s a human rights violation. The problem is, you put so many things into regulations, there’s not the kind of scrutiny that needs to be there, and it does put an enormous amount of power into the minister and the ministry. Again, it doesn’t have that level of scrutiny.

Again, to mention the ODSP situation, no other person is denied the ability to pool their resources with someone else, but if you’re poor and you’re disabled, you are not allowed to pool your resources with somebody else. That just shouldn’t be. So that’s fair warning that things happen in regulations that don’t come under scrutiny but have a very, very serious impact on people’s lives.

I’m quite interested and, frankly, very happy to see changes to time-share contracts. I’m of an age when people were really excited about time-shares. It seemed like this great deal, and you were going to be able to go and visit these places. Of course, much later, in the fine print, it said you’re obliged to keep them for 50 years and your children will inherit the debt—you’re going to have to keep paying and paying forever.

I see that there are some ways of ending those contracts, but I also see that there’s a termination fee and other requirements, and I’m just hoping that when this gets to committee, that could be looked at more closely, to look at the specifics. I have been looking at time-share contracts, and it seems to me that, first of all, they’re hard to get out of, but that the termination fees could be very, very high and disproportionate to what actually should be there. So it’s my hope that that comes up in committee.

The thing—and it has been mentioned before—that does worry me is that there are no provisions in here for price gouging, where collusion is taking place in industries. We know that in the grocery industry there are very few players, and they have made a practice of colluding with each other, and they’ve been caught once or twice. I remember when we got these little $25 gift certificates to make up for everything that we’d overpaid in bread. I also remember when people on ODSP and people in food banks were saying, “Would you mind donating those $25 vouchers, because people really need help.” It’s another reminder of how many people are struggling—that was quite a few years ago, as well—but it’s also a reminder of how common it is for collusion to take place when there’s really minimal competition amongst those industries.

Finally, the concern about new homes and the lack of proper oversight by Tarion—and I think we’ve been hearing these concerns for quite a few years. We’ve all been hearing horror stories about people losing buckets and buckets of money and never actually getting the home that they’d been promised—or they get the home and it’s so poorly built that they can’t live in it. So I do think that Tarion needs to be looked at vary critically, to make sure that it’s not industry insiders who are populating that organization. It needs to be people who don’t have any kind of vested interest—they’re not friends here, friends there. It needs to be a group of people who can think like consumers, who can think like first-time homebuyers, and can protect people from some pretty awful things that we’ve seen going on over the last few years.

I want to thank everyone for the opportunity to speak to this bill. I’m happy to take any questions.

I am rising today to speak to Bill 142, Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act, and I have to say there are certainly things in this act that I really applaud and find interesting.

For example, it adds language barriers as a reason a person may not be able to understand a consumer contract and therefore could get out of that contract. I think that’s a very important provision. Also, it’s an unconscionable act to enter into a contract with a consumer “if the person doing so knows or ought to know that there is no reasonable probability that the consumer will be able to pay the total amount owing under the contract.” That really stands out to me as an important change.

But what is interesting for me—now, I spend a lot of time in a particular seniors residence, a commercially owned seniors residence—I went through the bill, just doing a search looking for the word “seniors” and it actually doesn’t appear anywhere in the bill. Now, maybe that’s fine. We refer to vulnerable people getting taken in by unscrupulous actors, so perhaps it’s fine that it doesn’t mention seniors, but I really worry about seniors.

For example, I’ve seen, in this particular commercial residence, that the contract is not being met in terms of the food service that’s offered and promised. There are supposed to be three highly nutritious meals a day and yet often they are being served hot dogs and wieners, frozen hamburgers—a lot of things that really don’t qualify as nutritious food. So what does a senior do in that circumstance? Who do they go to? They can complain to the home, but things just don’t change. That is something I worry about.

Also, what I’ve seen are increases in rent by 7.5%. Over a couple of years, two rent increases, the cost has gone from $5,000 to $6,000. That’s a very significant increase and, again, I worry: Where does a senior go to complain? There is the seniors’ bill of rights; there’s a phone number you can call, but you will sit on hold forever and you’ll wait forever for somebody to call you back.

In this instance, I’m actually thinking back to the idea of having a seniors’ advocate. I also know that when people reach a certain age, they’re no longer confident about picking up the phone and making a lot of different phone calls to try and figure out who on earth is available to advocate on their behalf. This also brings me back to the idea of the consumer watchdog, so that people are not flipping through their phone books or going to their friends and saying, “Do you have any idea how to address this problem?” If there’s one place they can go and know that they can get good advice, I think that’s very valuable. Knowing that there are all kinds of particulars in the bill, these clauses and so on that might be get-out-of-jail-free clauses—they’re not accessible. They’re not easily accessible to people, so there needs to be a central place.

I want to add to that a comment that, again, when we’re thinking about seniors, what we have seen is the transition of almost every single government service into an online platform. Again, I know many seniors, including my mother who is 96, who is fluent on the computer—

Interjections.

Thank you to the member from Nickel Belt for your comments.

I have a lot of seniors who have problems with furnaces, water heaters and so on—contracts that are quite old, that are costing them lots and lots of money, and they don’t know how to get out of those contracts. Can you explain to me whether the bill addresses that? Does it go backwards? Is it going to help people who have been stuck with this now for 10 years?

I would like to thank Dr. Sally Palmer for her tireless advocacy for people on OW and ODSP.

“To Raise Social Assistance Rates.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Ontario’s social assistance rates are well below Canada’s official Market Basket Measure poverty line and far from adequate to cover the rising costs of food and rent: $733 for individuals on OW and $1,227 for ODSP;

“Whereas an open letter to the Premier and two cabinet ministers, signed by over 230 organizations, recommends that social assistance rates be doubled for both Ontario Works (OW) and the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP);

“Whereas the recent small increase of 5% for ODSP still leaves these citizens below the poverty line, both they and those receiving the frozen OW rates are struggling to survive at this time of alarming inflation;

“Whereas the government of Canada recognized in its CERB program that a ‘basic income’ of $2,000 per month was the standard support required by individuals who lost their employment during the pandemic;

“We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly to double social assistance rates for OW and ODSP.”

I fully support this petition. I will sign it and give it to Ananya.

I address this to either member who has spoken. I have heard this bill referred to as “the bill stop the Conservative government from doing what they tried to get away with,” and I must say I agree with that description, but I have a very serious question. Across my riding I’m seeing communities struggling to get housing built because it’s too expensive to bring in materials and workers, so commercial builders are not going to do any building in these communities. What I want to know—certainly they’re not going to be able to meet any arbitrary targets that the government is setting—what is this government doing to address the high need for non-market housing in every single community in my riding of Thunder Bay–Superior North?

Today marks a very important anniversary: 110 years ago on October 31, Sir William Meredith presented a report to the Ontario Legislature that resulted in the creation of the workers’ compensation system, the first piece of social legislation in the province.

I would like to introduce my very good friends Bonnie Satten and Charlie Faust, who are visiting from Thunder Bay. Welcome to your House.

Many communities in my region of northwestern Ontario cannot afford to build housing. It’s far too expensive to bring in the workers, bring in the materials. I know that those communities have been waiting for the announcement, from the building homes faster, about the rural and northern program part. You mentioned that today; the associate minister mentioned that today.

When will the details of that program be announced? We need dollar amounts, application details and so on.

Yes, I have a question. There are certain areas where there is an enormous amount of red tape. For example, ODSP: 800 regulations. But there are other areas where there needs to be enforcement where perhaps there isn’t enough regulation or inspection taking place. I wonder if you could speak to the situation in seniors’ housing and long-term care and actually the lack of necessary following of the rules and follow-up with inspections.

This petition is entitled “Stop Ford’s Health Care Privatization Plan.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Ontarians should get health care based on need—not the size of your wallet;

“Whereas Premier Doug Ford and Health Minister Sylvia Jones say they’re planning to privatize parts of health care;

“Whereas privatization will bleed nurses, doctors and PSWs out of our public hospitals, making the health care crisis worse;

“Whereas privatization always ends with patients getting a bill;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately stop all plans to further privatize Ontario’s health care system, and fix the crisis in health care by:

“—repealing Bill 124 and recruiting, retaining and respecting doctors, nurses and PSWs with better pay and better working conditions;

“—licensing tens of thousands of internationally educated nurses and other health care professionals already in Ontario, who wait years and pay thousands to have their credentials certified;

“—making education and training free or low-cost for nurses, doctors and other health care professionals;

“—incentivizing doctors and nurses to choose to live and work in northern Ontario;

“—funding hospitals to have enough nurses on every shift, on every ward.”

I fully support this petition, and will sign it and give it to Margo.

I want to thank Dr. Sally Palmer for her tireless advocacy on behalf of people living on ODSP and OW. The petition is entitled, “To Raise Social Assistance Rates.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Ontario’s social assistance rates are well below Canada’s official Market Basket Measure poverty line and far from adequate to cover the rising costs of food and rent: $733 for individuals on OW and $1,308 for ODSP;

“Whereas an open letter to the Premier and two cabinet ministers, signed by over 230 organizations, recommends that social assistance rates be doubled for both Ontario Works (OW) and the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP);

“Whereas small increases to ODSP have still left these citizens below the poverty line. Both they and those receiving the frozen OW rates are struggling to survive at this time of alarming inflation;

“Whereas the government of Canada recognized in its CERB program that a ‘basic income’ of $2,000 per month was the standard support required by individuals who lost their employment during the pandemic;

“We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly to double social assistance rates for OW and ODSP.”

I support this petition very much. I will sign it and hand it over to Ananya.

I want to thank the member, our NDP member, for bringing forward this motion to create and fund a public housing agency called Homes Ontario to finance and build 250,000 affordable and non-market homes on public land over 10 years.

It’s really important to recognize that in many municipalities in my region of northwestern Ontario—I warrant this applies in eastern Ontario as well—it is not profitable to build housing. It’s extremely expensive to build housing because of the distances. You might be able to build in Thunder Bay, but you cannot build in the communities along the north shore, nor can you afford to build in the communities on Highway 11, because the cost of transporting the materials, of bringing in the workers, is so high it’s prohibitive, and they’re not getting housing. That’s merely a thing of ignorance, I think, that’s not there, that’s not recognized, that it’s not going to happen without support.

Now, we’re supposed to have a Building Faster Fund, and a portion of that fund was supposed to be allocated to single- and lower-tier municipalities that have not been assigned a housing target, including small rural and northern communities, in order to address their unique needs following municipal consultations. Unfortunately, we’re still waiting. Where is that fund? How much is it going to be? What’s the criteria? What are the deadlines? Municipalities are desperately waiting for that.

But in the meantime, Ontario has announced the Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund. And guess what? No increases: It was reduced in 2020. It’s at the same amount now. But interestingly, eight years ago, the Conservative government was complaining about how unfair it was that this fund had been cut. So not only did they not increase it, they cut it, and then it’s at the same amount, and it’s simply not enough for municipalities to do anything. They just cannot do the work that they want to do. I have municipalities coming to me saying they want to build housing for seniors, supportive housing. There is no money for that. If they could, they could move seniors into those supportive places. There would be more housing available in the communities. They know jobs are coming to those communities; there’s nowhere to put them. There’s nowhere to put health care professionals. We’ve been hearing this for a very long time.

I just want to refer to something that apparently puts the fear of God into members on the other side of the floor, and that is to talk about co-operatives. Some 45 years—

Interjection.

Some 45 years ago in Thunder Bay, a need was recognized for affordable housing. Decent affordable housing was in short supply. As they noted, this was the case in 2002. Guess what? It’s still the case in 2023. This has been incredibly successful. It is still beautiful. This is 45 years ago. There’s a five-year waiting list to get into this co-op. We have a second co-op in the neighbourhood. People love living there. They have real communities. It’s a successful model. Frankly I’m surprised that people on the other side of the House have no concept of how successful those models can be.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

I would like to begin by thanking the member from Whitby, who brought this bill forward. I think it’s very important that we will be taking an additional moment of silence next week before the Legislature breaks up.

I also want to say how important it’s been to have this debate, because it’s an opportunity to learn. We’ve heard from many people who have had, I will say, much more direct experience than I have had, and I’m learning from this, and I appreciate that opportunity, so I thank the member also for providing that opportunity.

My uncle, who would have been 98 if he were still alive, served in the Second World War, but when he came back, he wouldn’t talk about it at all. We heard the member from Guelph make a similar reference earlier.

I know that my mother missed him enormously, that that was one of the effects of people going away to war, the people left behind. He came back alive, but she has never stopped talking about how much she missed having her older brother with her in a formative time in her life. And she still talks about how much she misses him and how important he was. I learned nothing, really, about his experience and just learned a little bit from her.

So then I think about the importance of the teaching that happens in schools. And I will say, I did not learn that much in my time in school—not enough that it really made a deep impression on me. But, over time, I have come to understand and respect and feel the need and the importance of honouring the people who have gone to war on our behalf.

And I think also of how important the work is that is being done in schools, and I do see it happening in schools. I know of school classes that write letters to veterans, for example. It is a way, again, to bring some reality to a day that perhaps the children don’t have direct experience of. Now, there are many refugee children in our schools, and they do have direct experience.

In my role as MPP, I have had the opportunity to meet veterans and also to meet Indigenous veterans throughout the community. Those Indigenous veterans are still very much leaders in their communities, and I want to thank them for their service—something that wasn’t really acknowledged at the time. They were left out of the benefits that were provided to other veterans when they came back. So I must say, I’m even more grateful for the work that those veterans are doing in their communities because they continue to serve in spite of not having received the kind of acknowledgement that they should have.

I also want to acknowledge that there have been recent deaths, and there was a recent death in the last few years of somebody who grew up in Thunder Bay. His name is Anthony Joseph Boneca. He was a reservist from the Lake Superior Scottish Regiment, which is based in Thunder Bay. At the age of 21, he was killed in a fire fight in Afghanistan. I know that people in the community mourned his loss deeply, and I also know that, in a sad way, his death brought home the work of people who go to fight on our behalf and made it real.

I’ve also walked into Superior View high school—I was actually there to look at their tech school, what’s going on there. I walked into a room and discovered photographs all around the room of young men just barely older than these high school students, and these were all men from Thunder Bay and the region who signed up. It was, again, a very moving moment to look at those pictures and realize that many of them did not come home—but that they were there for the students also, to make that connection, and make that connection real, so that they could understand on a deeper level the ceremonies that we attend, but to take it beyond the ceremony to some understanding.

I will just close by acknowledging the work of the Legions. I think we have at least four in Thunder Bay, and those Legions are places where men and women work together. They provide a safe social space, they do charity work, they do fundraising, they have a good time, but it’s all volunteer work and it also creates the safe space for people to be veterans.

I must say, it was another lesson for me—walking in with my ball cap on and learning that’s disrespectful. Being asked to take off that cap is always a reminder of the seriousness of where we are.

There are three ceremonies that take place in Thunder Bay. One at the Waverley monument, and it’s a beautiful ceremony; there’s one at Fort William Gardens, also a beautiful ceremony; and one in Fort William reserve, on Anemki Wajiw, which is the name of the mountain, and that is also a very special ceremony. In each case, there are pipes and drummers, and there will be a trumpet playing.

I appreciate everything that people do. Without the Legions, we would not have these ceremonies; they organize everything, so I want to pay tribute to them, as well.

Thank you again to the member. I know that we all support this bill and thank you.

This petition is entitled “Expand Ontario Seniors Dental Plan.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas seniors have to access the Ontario seniors dental plan through local public health units;

“Whereas the number of dentists registered with public health units to be covered under the Ontario seniors dental plan is low in northern Ontario;

“Whereas the small number of dentists registered with the Ontario seniors dental plan limits the capacity of public health units to serve their patients in northern Ontario; and

“Whereas the income threshold for seniors to be eligible for the Ontario seniors dental plan is unreasonably low—an annual net income of $22,200 or less for a single senior; a combined annual net income of $37,100 or less for a couple—thus creating a huge barrier for low-income seniors to access dental care;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“—to invest into community health centres, aboriginal health access centres, and public health units to build and expand dental suites and to hire more dentists; and

“—to facilitate the implementation of the federal dental care plan, which covers all seniors with income lower than $75,000, when it becomes law.”

I endorse this petition, and I will sign it and give it to Danté.

I think we can all agree that home care done well is what seniors want, and we certainly support that. But home care done well is not by any means going to come out of this bill. We have seen the effects of privatized long-term care brought in first by the Mike Harris government and entrenched further with this government, and with this plan we see up to 30% of tax dollars going into shareholder profits from that large amount of money.

My question is, why should taxpayers be paying for shareholders profits when that money could be going to support pay for PSWs and quality care for our seniors?

The petition is entitled “Let’s Fix the Northern Health Travel Grant.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas people in the north are not getting the same access to health care because of the high cost of travel and accommodations;

“Whereas by refusing to raise the Northern Health Travel Grant (NHTG) rates, the Ford government is putting a massive burden on northern Ontarians who are already struggling with inflation and price gouging;

“Whereas gas prices continue to rise above $2 a litre in many parts of northern Ontario;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to strike a committee with a mandate to fix and improve the NHTG;

“This NHTG advisory committee would bring together health care providers in the north, as well as recipients of the ... grant to make recommendations to the Minister of Health that would improve access to health care in northern Ontario through reimbursement of travel costs.”

I agree with this petition, will affix my signature and hand it to Sachkaur.

My question is to the Premier. I am very concerned about this government’s plan to further privatize home and community care services. In Thunder Bay and across the province we have seen the devastating consequences of turning over critical services to private corporations: missed appointments, staffing shortages and, ultimately, worse outcomes for Ontarians.

To the Premier: Will you ensure there is publicly available home and community care for all Ontarians?

To the Premier: Will you listen to home and community care workers and clients and stop the privatization of essential services for seniors and people with disabilities?

To the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, through you, Speaker: There have been a record number of wildfires in the province this year—738—and none have been more affected than the forest rangers who put their lives and health on the line for us by fighting these fires. They need to be reclassified so they will be recognized, compensated, and receive the same WSIB protection as all other firefighters.

Will the minister commit to the reclassification of these wildfire workers today?

Last week, the Auditor General’s office confirmed that they are investigating minister’s zoning orders.

MZOs create a two-tier planning system where favoured developers can skip the planning rules that apply to everyone else.

A couple of years ago, in this House, the member for Waterloo asked the Premier about a large number of MZOs that went to his friend Shakir Rehmatullah, who has received more MZOs than any other landowner.

The Integrity Commissioner is now investigating whether MZOs are being improperly issued to favoured developers, overruling responsible municipal planning.

Will the Premier stop overruling critical wetland and farmland protections to benefit his friends?

Without building a single new home or business, an MZO increases the value of a property instantly by generating enormous speculative profits for the owner.

The NDP looked at every MZO this government has issued—more than 100—and in most cases, we were able to find a personal, political or donor tie to the Premier or the PC Party.

Does the Premier finally understand why Ontarians have lost trust in this government?