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

October 6, 2021

42nd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2021-Oct-06 vol. A (PDF)

L003A - Wed 6 Oct 2021 / Mer 6 oct 2021

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 6 October 2021 Mercredi 6 octobre 2021

Orders of the Day

York Region Wastewater Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 sur les eaux usées dans la région de York

Members’ Statements

Women’s shelters

JVS Toronto

Education funding

Pathways Health Centre for Children

Animal protection

Optometry services / Services d’optométrie

Events in Haldimand–Norfolk

Tenant protection

Mental health and addiction services

Manufacturing jobs

Legislative pages

Report, Financial Accountability Officer

Members’ privileges

Question Period

Public safety

Optometry services

COVID-19 immunization

Green power generation

Child care

Optometry services

Electronic service delivery

School facilities

Optometry services

COVID-19 immunization

Public transit

School safety

Doctor shortage

COVID-19 immunization

Members’ anniversaries

Private members’ public business

Introduction of Bills

Stay Home If You Are Sick Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 permettant aux employés malades de rester chez eux

Non-Profit Sector Appreciation Week Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 sur la Semaine de reconnaissance du secteur sans but lucratif

Stopping Harassment and Abuse by Local Leaders Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 visant à mettre fin au harcèlement et aux abus commis par les dirigeants locaux

Petitions

Optometry services

Optometry services

Optometry services

Education funding

Optometry services

Optometry services

Optometry services

Optometry services

Optometry services

Optometry services

Orders of the Day

York Region Wastewater Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 sur les eaux usées dans la région de York

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

York Region Wastewater Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 sur les eaux usées dans la région de York

Ms. MacLeod, on behalf of Mr. Piccini, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 5,

An Act respecting York Region Wastewater / Projet de loi 5, Loi concernant les eaux usées dans la région de York.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I recognize the minister of heritage to lead it off.

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: It’s a pleasure to be actually speaking in the last bit of this Parliament and, of course, right after the throne speech.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill 5, York Region Wastewater Act. I’ll be sharing my time with the member from Barrie–Innisfil. In fact, she is such an expert on all such matters, I am going to cede my time right now to the member.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I will recognize the member for Barrie–Innisfil.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: I am pleased to have this opportunity to be able to speak to Bill 5, otherwise known as the York Region Wastewater Act, 2021, introduced by the youngest Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks in Ontario’s history, which is very exciting and which leads me to think about our future and all the decisions that we make in this Legislature and, very importantly, the substance of this bill.

Though it’s short, it’s a very mighty bill because it is reflective of what’s going to be happening in the next generation. As much as we’re enjoying all our waterways, our growth and affordable housing etc., all of these impacts have an impact on the next generation.

That brings me to what we’re talking about today, which is the York Region Wastewater Act, 2021, and what it will do, Speaker. I think that’s important to review. It’s going to help the regional municipality of York to find the right solutions to meet its waste water servicing needs that are necessary by its rapid growth and its population growth as well, and of course its economic activity. As we know, growth, our manufacturing might and also water play a huge role in economic activity.

I was introduced earlier this morning by the minister of tourism, culture and sport. You could just look to the work she’s doing in the tourism sector, but it’s important to note what contributes to the economic growth of the tourism sector. A lot of municipalities and areas of the province—for example, in my riding of Barrie–Innisfil—are very contingent around, for example, Lake Simcoe. So the very nature of being able to fish, swim and enjoy our local waterways is a huge economic driver locally.

In the summer, the minister of tourism, culture and sport actually had an opportunity to go kayaking on Lake Simcoe. We got to take these really great water bikes along it. That was just a small example of the economic activity that revolves around our waterways, but also growing cities.

As we know, York region is growing, all around Simcoe county is growing, and much of Ontario. But we have to do it in the smart, right way and obviously reflect on science.

That brings me, in the more general sense, to Bill 5, which we’re discussing today, which reflects on our government’s commitment to support Ontario’s communities, to meet their infrastructure needs and grow their economies while maintaining public health, providing strong protection for air, water and land. Because we know that any time we have any sort of water advisory, for example, or if there’s an E.coli warning etc., that’s less people who can go and enjoy the waterway.

They can swim; there are people who might be travelling to a community who, after swimming, may be enjoying a restaurant, may be buying souvenirs, may be doing other things—maybe staying at a local hotel, an Airbnb—and that revitalizes our economy. We also have to think about the other side of it, where people live. They also need to be able to find attainable and affordable housing as communities grow. We’ve often heard the “drive till you qualify” slogan, far too often. And so that is much a need.

That brings me to the York Region Wastewater Act, which aims at creating the kind of Ontario that all honourable members would like to see: a healthy, clean and prosperous Ontario with jobs, opportunity and the quality of life Ontarians deserve. I’d like to go into some detail about the proposed York Region Wastewater Act, 2021, and what it would accomplish if it is passed in this Legislature.

The regional municipality of York is one of Canada’s biggest municipalities and is the third-largest in Ontario. It is also the second-largest business centre in this province. It is also one of the fastest-growing large municipalities in Ontario, with its population expected to reach 1.5 million people in the next decade and more than two million by 2051.

To prepare for this forecasted growth, York region began planning in the late 1990s for new water infrastructure to meet the increasing future needs. At the time, the region proposed new infrastructure to connect to the existing York-Durham sewage system. The waste water would be treated at the existing Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant in Pickering. The Duffin Creek plant, which is also co-owned by the regional municipalities of York and Durham, treats 80% of York region’s waste water and discharges it into Lake Ontario.

In 2004, the Minister of the Environment required York region to undertake a full environmental assessment of the proposal, including an assessment of alternatives to the proposed infrastructure.

I just want to say a few words here about the importance of Ontario’s environmental assessment process. The Environmental Assessment Act, as many of us may recall from previous sessions, came into effect in 1976. That is a very long time ago, and so it did need some updating, which we were able to do on a practical level in this Legislature. Going back to 1976 and why it was important, with the provincial, municipal and some designated private sector undertakings, they all need to respect the Environmental Assessment Act, but we also have to make it in touch with the 21st century.

So this government embarked on making things a little more practical. For example, all of us who like the outdoors, we may love to use a bike lane to get to work; we may want to use it for recreational purposes with our family. But did you know that it took a very long time for these bike lanes to be built by municipalities because they required an environmental assessment just to paint that beautiful green line on the side that encourages people to share that part of the road?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Point of order.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): The government House leader for a point of order.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Just to welcome the Deputy Speaker to the chair on his first day. Congratulations, sir. Sorry for interrupting.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): That is not a point of order, but I greatly appreciate it and will do my best to uphold the traditions of the House, with the help of all of you. Thank you.

Please return to the member from Innisfil.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: Thank you, and congratulations again, Speaker. It’s wonderful to have you in the chair, especially on today’s bill that I get to speak about.

I was talking about environmental assessments and the history and the importance of it. I talked about the bike lanes and how many of us will want to get to work. But again, under the old rules, it would have taken us many years to have approved it. Now, again, it’s shortened. And it’s better for many things: It’s better for the environment; it’s better for the health of individuals. Again, we’re taking that whole encompassing approach.

There’s been a lot of science that has been done in terms of people being active and how it prolongs their life, gives them a healthy lifestyle, reduces the chances of diabetes etc.—a lot of things based on science. The environmental assessment process and much of what is done at the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks is based on science.

Ontario’s environmental assessment program, an important process, ensures impacts on the environment are considered before building infrastructure, or other projects in communities, and how it impacts other projects in communities, and of course, its impact on the environment. The environmental assessment process promotes good environmental planning by determining the benefits and potential effects of projects before they’re implemented, and can be an effective decision-making process that ensures public agencies and Indigenous communities are heard and that their concerns are addressed.

The environmental assessment program has served Ontario well through the current process for environmental assessments, and we can really see how the environmental assessment program has—not only has it served well through the current process for environmental assessments, but how we can improve it, and of course, how it improves our environment.

Improving the environmental assessment process is important for infrastructure projects that help Ontario communities, and is especially important as communities rebuild after COVID-19. We have been updating the almost 50-year-old environmental assessment program, and we made a series of amendments—I talked about them a little bit earlier—through the Ontario COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2020, to support strong environmental oversight while getting shovels in the ground faster on projects that matter most to communities.

Again, this is strengthening the integrity of the process, keeping the integrity of the environmental process intact, but of course taking into account modern-day engineering, modern-day science and how we can improve our processes within government to develop stronger and better communities.

Returning to the Upper York Sewage Solutions environmental assessment, York region, for history purposes, submitted its application to the Minister of the Environment for approval in 2014. The environmental assessment identified a preferred alternative that would involve a new waste water treatment plant, discharging treatment effluent into the East Holland River within the Lake Simcoe watershed.

The East Holland River is a really incredible place to see. We talk about “farmers feed cities,” and as we’re celebrating Agriculture Week, how important that element of our lives is. I spoke about economic activity in tourism, but how important economic activity is in our agriculture sector, every part, whether it’s the equipment they buy, the people they hire, the food they sell, the communities they touch and many of these farmers’ markets we love to go to, the tourism aspect of it. It really shows the greatness that is our province.

But the East Holland River is a really unique element. We receive much of our produce through the entire province of Ontario. Our vegetables, of course—the vegetable growers’ association is based out of the East Holland River. Much of it is coming from that part of the watershed. So as we’re celebrating the week to recognize our agricultural workers, I just want to also thank the farmers along the East Holland River for all their work, and of course, our fruit growers as well in that area who do so much.

Interjection.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: Thank you. It’s not just the food they produce. They always go above and beyond. It’s that call of community. I just want to dwell a little bit on the East Holland River aspect, because when I talk about how they go above the call of community, much of what the agricultural community has to do is based on—a lot of them have to base it on science, with climate change and crop seasons either being extended or shortened and long rainfall. They have to take that all into consideration.

Something that happened many years ago with the federal government announcing the Lake Simcoe Clean-up Fund is many agricultural workers, especially along the East Holland River—many of these farming families and communities stepped up to the plate. We talked a lot about that during COVID-19. But they were able to do that because of the Lake Simcoe Clean-up Fund.

Back in 2014, there were farmers who came together and they proposed a lot of projects to reduce the phosphorus runoff as a result of the East Holland River. Again, we knew the science. It was based on science. We knew how much phosphorus was coming off. We knew it was less than 3% at the time, but of course, it was still affecting the watershed and specifically in Lake Simcoe. So they applied to the federal government for the Lake Simcoe Clean-up Fund, and they were awarded $8.6 million to help clean up the watershed.

They stretched that $8.6 million, and as a result of these grassroots organizations being able to come together on different lake restoration projects, those communities organized, and they contributed nearly $60 million themselves to these restoration projects on the watershed. Some of them not only were the Holland Marsh Growers’ Association, but also included the Georgina Ladies of the Lake.

It really shows you, again, as we’re talking about the history of the Holland River, how much those families really came out and stepped up to plate and helped: for example, the Carron Farms president—back in 2014, of course, he was president—Jason Verkaik and his families. There are approximately 115 Holland Marsh families that contributed and helped be part of these cleanup efforts and were really happy to see those funds, and of course, it’s their way of contributing to that community.

Again, the economic activity, as cities grow—I talked about how York region is growing. We also need to feed those cities with growth. We have to be mindful of our waterways. All of this is economically driven and based on science.

Of course, with climate change, as water levels are also changing, we have to take our crop growers and our farmers into consideration as they grapple through those challenges. They have to pivot and make their decisions as well.

It was really incredible to see how this group was able to step up and reduce a lot of the phosphorus back in 2014. Today, as we reflect on the science of Lake Simcoe, we’ve seen that little efforts like that contributed to big results in terms of phosphorous loads and reducing it. So there’s a little about the Holland River and I’ll certainly come back to other accomplishments through those types of projects later on in my speech.

Again, as I was just talking about the environmental assessment with York region and how the environmental assessment identified a preferred alternative that would involve a new waste water treatment plant—discharge treatment effluent into the East Holland River within the Lake Simcoe watershed.

As they were discussing this environmental assessment, and we had all these projects that were done before to reduce phosphorus, one thing that also came to mind is, when I first got elected, I was able to sit down with our conservation authority. There are two in the area that I so humbly represent. One of them is the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. At the time, our CEO was Mike Walters; it’s now Rob Baldwin. Congratulations, Rob, for taking the torch. But Mike was really great. He used to sit down with me and he would talk about the accomplishments they made through the watershed and the projects they had on the go.

There was one project they’ve had on the books for decades. I remember looking at him—wouldn’t this be a huge game-changer? It was a phosphorous treatment plant along the East Holland River, and the potential it would have. I started asking questions. How come we haven’t funded this? What do we have to overcome etc.?

It’s great to see that governments are stepping up now and there is hope on the horizon in the sense of we may have a phosphorous treatment plant in that area if the federal government follows through with their promise of funding to the tune of about $60 million for this treatment plant, and, of course, York region also stepping up with the money that is needed for that solution. We know any time the federal government does infrastructure projects, the province is oftentimes involved as well.

That was obviously a big game-changer, which brings me to—if we talk about the proposal they had, which is the proposal for a new waste water treatment facility, the location of this would have been the town of East Gwillimbury. It would have a sewage treatment capacity of approximately 40 million litres a day. If we talk about this capacity of 40 million litres a day, we have to think about, again: What are the consequences to the watershed? Is there any new-based science? What about these projects that have been on the books that we’ve known could be a huge net positive to the whole region?

How do they take into account some of these newer projects that are coming up for consideration? When we talked about 40 million litres a day—that’s a lot of sewage treatment capacity. Certainly, it would help with the growth that I talked about earlier. But the facility that we talked about for the town of East Gwillimbury is referred to as a water reclamation centre. That’s the official term.

It would be the first waste water treatment plant in Canada using four levels of treatment, including micro-filtration and reverse osmosis water treatment technology for waste water. We don’t really have the technology in Canada. Certainly, there are many other countries and other places that have used it, but our waterways are very unique in the sense of the places that use reverse osmosis often use it for sea water, to convert salt water to be drinkable water, for instance. And so, we have to take into consideration our rivers, our lakes in Ontario and how this new technology would apply to them, for instance. But that is the proposal before us.

The effluent that I had talked about, from the water reclamation centre, would be discharged into the Holland River, which ultimately drains into Lake Simcoe. I had talked about some of the history of the Holland River and how that community really rallied together. There’s a substantial amount of funding that went in, and certainly I don’t think anyone would want to lose the great gains that had been made thanks to the East Holland River farming community, everything they’ve done to reduce phosphorus, everything they’ve done to really improve their practices.

Ultimately, if it does drain into Lake Simcoe, we have to take into consideration the science that has been done around Lake Simcoe for its restoration. It’s a bit of a balancing act, and of course new science and technologies are coming out every day. As we learn more about this reverse-osmosis process, we have to think about how it impacts our local fisheries, our waterways and the entire community.

Certainly, if we look at saltwater species, they are very different from cold-water species in a lake or shallow-water species in a lake. I know a little too much sometimes about our fisheries and Lake Simcoe, but we’ve been really fortunate to restore many of the fisheries that we’ve lost in the past because of either high chloride levels, high water levels or high phosphorus levels—really a slew of different contaminants in the water that had resulted in a very low cisco population, our whitefish population.

To think this was the place where people used to come from all around to come fish and enjoy the recreation, and now, finally, we’re at a point, in 2021, where we have restored much of that population and things are vibrant again and people are coming. It’s one of the most fished lakes in Ontario where you can see in the wintertime so many people enjoying that part. So it all plays into this. It is a bit of that balancing act concerning the science. A lot of things that happened have been done for the lake. We have to think about weighing everything that’s new that’s coming out.

The project that we’re discussing, the water reclamation centre, also called phosphorus offsetting programs, which I touched base on a little bit. Why is it called phosphorus offsetting programs? It’s important when we talk about phosphorus to think about the implementation of policies around phosphorus and how it’s going not only to be taken into consideration in this water treatment plant but also our stormwater management.

Of course, retrofitting our stormwater management ponds is very important, and it’s not only important throughout the province but, as I mentioned, very important in the Lake Simcoe watershed. If this water reclamation centre is approved, it would be discharging into the East Holland River, which, again, ultimately drains into Lake Simcoe.

It’s important to note the amount of science and money that has been allocated into not only the Lake Simcoe watershed but specifically into stormwater management. This summer, Speaker—I just wanted to highlight—I had an opportunity to join my fellow colleague the Attorney General and MPP for Barrie–Springwater–Oro-Medonte and my federal counterpart, the member of Parliament for Barrie–Innisfil, where we were able to announce some federal funding.

It was a stream that was joint money between the province and the federal government, also known as the COVID-19 resilience infrastructure stream of the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program—it’s a bit of a mouthful.

The importance of this announcement we did this summer built on all the previous work, like I talked about the Holland Marsh growers and all they have done for Lake Simcoe, and so many groups—Ladies of the Lake, which I will go into later—but now, again, two levels of government, with the help of the municipality for nominating some of these projects showing the importance to continue to improve Lake Simcoe’s health.

One thing that we did announce to improve stormwater management was the Kidd’s Creek stormwater pond upgrades, which will upgrade the Sunnidale stormwater pond. Now, this is significant. For anyone who has gone to Kempenfelt Bay and enjoyed a stroll along Lake Simcoe, you would have encountered Kidd’s Creek. It’s large; it flows throughout our municipality. But it has some issues in terms of—it is a stormwater pond, and as most of us know, in our own backyards, if we have a stormwater pond, it is a huge place for phosphorus to gather.

So it obviously gets treated, and then as it flows into the rest of, whether it’s a wetland etc. and gets treated, the quality of that water is better off as a result. That investment was so important, and that was very, very recent, and, of course, builds on other projects that I will get to later.

In the same announcement, we were able to connect the downtown core of our municipality of Barrie to the waterfront—again, talking about the economic activity and the importance of connecting people to nature, to water, but also to our business community. We were able to announce several other projects that do that, including, as I was saying—we talk about the health of individuals. They like to swim. They like the recreational trails.

Well, part of the spending that we were able to contribute to as a province, with my colleague, was the rehabilitation of a multi-use trail along the lake so that we can, of course, increase the commuter trail that we have all the way to the Kiwanis Pavilion in downtown Barrie. That’s connecting people to the water, it’s telling them the importance of it—but, also, it’s that economic activity. Like we were saying, York region is growing. All areas around the York region area are growing, as well. We can’t forget that. They have to absorb their own growth.

With that comes the need and demand for more recreation, more things for people to do. It’s great if you’re able to afford a house, but then you’re always looking for that next step of, “How do I live in my community? How do I enjoy it?”—that quality of life I talked about earlier. So this really builds on that.

When we look at this project that we’re discussing here, again, it’s that balance of, how do we manage and implement stormwater management issues when it comes to retrofitting existing stormwater ponds, like we’ve been able to fund with the Kidd’s Creek project, and manage the phosphorus loads?

So here we are, and of course the issue at hand is that many years have passed since the York region environmental assessment began. I imagine there’s great frustration there. It’s interesting to note the history there. We know it started many years ago. We also know the Wynne-Del Duca Liberals refused to make decisions. So this is something that we inherited. This was on the books for a little while. Certainly, different considerations were made at that time; nevertheless, no decision was made. Instead, it was delayed and it was delayed.

To no surprise, their decision-making was based on political maps of this province rather than what I have talked about, which is—we talk about growth, we talk about the science and the importance of the fabric of our communities, not to mention the previous investments that were done in cleaning up certain waterways. Again, those projects like the Kidd’s Creek stormwater pond were all based in science—why we picked that stormwater pond over any other. So we are at this juxtaposition now where the Wynne-Del Duca Liberals decided not to do anything about it.

We are a government that came in and said we want to do something about things but we don’t want to do it willy-nilly. We don’t want to just make decisions based on a political map, like maybe the previous government was going to do and had done many a time, and certainly history will reflect that. Under our government, with our Premier, we’re really committed to making informed decisions, and certainly this pandemic has proven that. We talk about informed decisions on this watershed, on the York region area and all the surrounding communities.

We need to be informed on the decisions we make, because as I said earlier, the decisions we make today are going to affect tomorrow and the next generation.

We have to make sure that everything we have now, every science, every evidence, whether it’s engineering technology, whether it’s water treatment technology—we need to make sure that we uncover every basis of science, every piece of evidence we possibly can now to make these decisions, because it’s not just going to be us who are going to be seeing the building of it; it’s going to be the next generation that’s going to be enjoying that water or drinking that water. So it’s a very weighted decision, very important.

We’re not in the position, of course, to be making this based on a political map of winners and losers, and the us versus them politics, which is all too well known in some other political parties.

Again, on this side, in this government, we believe in making informed decisions to unify our communities and to think about what’s best for many generations. So taking into account the informed decisions we have to make, we have to take into account financial issues, environmental and social factors, and getting this done right instead of delaying and thinking of votes like the Liberals were doing.

Science is the best practice and is really at the core of every decision this government makes. We believe more information from technical and other experts is needed to better understand the significant environmental, social and financial implications of any waste water servicing solution for York region, for the very reason that we want to get moving. We need to understand the long-term environmental effects, especially on shallow lakes like Lake Simcoe.

What do I mean by a shallow lake? Well, I was talking about how with Lake Simcoe we were able to restore the cold-water fishery. The cold-water fishery actually only sits on the deepest level, the deepest part of the lake. That’s the only way you can get colder water, because of course—it’s grade 3 science—if you have shallow water, it’s going to be hotter, right?

But it’s interesting if you look at the history of Lake Simcoe. I was looking up a few things from our Indigenous partners and how much they relied, in the history of the lake, for their food supply, of course, living on Snake Island, for example. A group that comes to mind is the Chippewas of Georgina Island. It was interesting that there was a time at one point where the Lake Simcoe levels were so low—talking about a shallow lake—that it actually enabled residents to cross in wagons or walk in ankle-deep water to the mainland.

However, for those who know their history, when the Trent-Severn Waterway was completed, the water table increased several feet in the 1920s to early 1930s, and of course that community on Georgina Island did have to adjust, because it drowned all the wild rice that they were growing. Again, they depended on those low water levels. But just to show you exactly how low those water levels used to be way back in the 1920s and 1930s.

So, this particular community can no longer walk to the mainland unless it’s the winter. Once the ice freezes, we’re lucky that oftentimes we have long ice-fishing seasons around the lake and they are able to access that mainland. But, interesting to note, when we talk about a shallow lake, it’s not just now that it’s a shallow lake, but historically it’s always been a shallow lake.

A lot of science has come out now as well through the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan that was established back in 2008, which is a guiding document for that particular watershed and to help the restoration of Lake Simcoe. Part of that is two different committees that were established: the Lake Simcoe Science Committee and the Lake Simcoe Coordinating Committee.

This past summer, I was able to attend a town hall, a science town hall, to talk about the science of Lake Simcoe and what has happened over the past 10 years. What we learned through that, and what I learned through that, is that although great improvements have been made—again, cold-water fisheries coming back, the oxygen levels that we need in waterways being restored, which is very important for fish. That’s all great work, but our lake is still shallow, obviously, in some pockets.

When we have large rainfalls, that changes the composition of the lake. With large rainfalls, that’s going to increase the water level. You would think that that would be a good thing, because then we would have more water in the lake, a shallow lake, and would improve it. Actually, it doesn’t, because what ends up happening with the extra rainfall we experience is that it also adds other sediment to the lake, the worst sediment being chloride, which all of us know in the wintertime as salt.

As much as when you’re in the—not part of the snowbelt, which is Barrie, Ontario. We’re not the buckle, but we’re part of the belt. You need to be able to have safe roads, so oftentimes lots of salt is applied. Where does that salt go? It’s going to get washed away. We get rain and it’s going to get washed away. So now you have a composition of large water levels because of rain, extra chloride because of salt on the roads, and that’s all going into our lakes. Again, that was the science table.

They were able to monitor the different seasonality of it and they know that the conditions of the lake—obviously, there’s more water levels as we get into the wintertime, rainfall etc., and that actually makes impacts on the typical chemical compounds in the lake versus the summer, where the water levels are lower.

Again, when we’re talking about the effects, long-term environmental effects, on lakes and shallow lakes like Lake Simcoe, all of this science has to be taken into consideration, especially when we’re dealing with issues like, today, another waste water treatment plant and the science behind the positives of technology—reverse osmosis—but also looking at the history of science improvements that have been made to date around the entire watershed, the whole area, and not making errors in scientific judgment for future generations.

Again, we need to collect all the information because a lack of current information from technical experts is holding up this current process. We don’t have that technical information from experts on exactly the impact of said water treatment plant on the entire watershed. Specifically, at this point in time, the EA that’s being reviewed would be the East Holland River option, which flows into Lake Simcoe. That really does need to be taken into consideration because there is way too much stuff that we have done to make these decisions lately.

We have to consider everything that we currently have. The great thing about the 21st century is there is a lot of science out there. There are different individuals who have published different articles etc. on observations they’ve made. For example, I talked about Peter Dillon, who is the chair of the Lake Simcoe Science Committee. He’s been chair since 2008 and he’s great. I’ve had many conversations with him. I want to take this opportunity to thank him for all his work and his continued work.

He has published in many scientific journals and all of them look at not just Lake Simcoe but the entire impacts of other watersheds and the impact of climate change etc. We’re really lucky to have him on the science committee with all his work and recommendations as to how we continue to improve the lake.

There’s one article, I remember, when I first met him. He’s like, “You need to read this and the impacts.” He does a lot of work with the International Joint Commission. He also does a lot of work with—we reference it here and in the news a lot—the IPCC reports. He brought up a very interesting topic, which is impacts of climate change on a regional scale and how it would influence local hydrological and water quality. He does a lot of modelling—as we’ve learned through COVID, lots of modelling exists. But he did a lot of climate modelling in terms of what is the impact of climate change on different watersheds, and specifically, the

article that he wrote is about Lake Simcoe.

For anyone who is interested, it’s the Impacts of Climate Change on Hydrology and Water Quality. The secondary title of his paper is Future Proofing Management Strategies in the Lake Simcoe Watershed. He published this with other scientists looking at that impact. He talks about that very thing I was mentioning which is the different water levels of the lake and how that impacts the health. When you are putting more effluent into a lake, that obviously contributes to water levels and we have to take that into consideration.

He talks about that in his paper and he says how we have to consider management strategies that are being applied to Lake Simcoe, especially when we talk about high loads—he talks about TP but he also talks about phosphorus. Of course, if we’re increasing those factors—he gets into a little bit more than science, which I won’t bore you with—but those loads and those tributaries need to be taken into consideration. He does a lot of analysis on the West Holland River and he compares it to the Black River as well, which is really interesting.

He does talk about, as a result of, say, we have high levels of different contaminants etc., how that does impact our runoff, but it also impacts the fisheries. He talked about that need for balance, which was really, really interesting. Again, I want to thank him for his work.

You have a compilation of scientists coming together. They did this work and there’s so much emerging work being done. It’s no wonder that more emerging work is being done because, through this government, we’ve also funded much of this work.

Another announcement I wanted to talk about is: I was joined two summers ago by Minister Dunlop, another neighbour, near Simcoe county. We were able to announce funding for several projects. Many of those projects are science- and engineering-based as well. We were able to award a significant amount of funding for projects: for example, the St. Lawrence River Institute nutrient model for Lake Simcoe. This project was receiving $77,000 and change over two years. Basically, what they’re doing is a web-based tool that uses satellite imagery to predict areas with high amounts of phosphorus in the watershed.

This model will inform target best-management practices to help reduce phosphorus in the lake. This is something that we announced way back, Mr. Speaker, on July 17, 2020. It’s not that long ago. Again, it built on the previous science that had already been done, but we’re always learning more and we need new data.

The satellite imagery project came to light because we actually didn’t know—we don’t have a sense of the impacts. Again, the information from the study will also be very important for the science that we need to take into consideration when making these decisions on what we’re dealing with today for an environmental assessment to deal with additional effluent in a waterway.

It’s not just this project. I was talking about how we funded other ones. In addition to funding the St. Lawrence River Institute, we also gave the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority funding for three different projects. We’re really blessed that in the watershed, the Lake Simcoe conservation authority, in addition to its base-level funding, gets additional funds to do many of these restoration science projects and whatnot that have to do the with Lake Simcoe Protection Act.

One of the things they’re going to be embarking on is a Lake Simcoe conservation authority mapping project. This one is over two years, and it’s going to use aerial photos to identify and track changes in land use in the watershed over time, with a specific focus on changes in watershed impervious areas such as paved roads and parking lots. This information will enhance stormwater management planning and help reduce phosphorus and other contaminants from entering the lake. Again, going back to stormwater management—really, really critical.

We are getting this information—this project was funded in 2002. Things are taking a little bit slower because of COVID to complete, but nevertheless, they’re committed to these projects. The information coming out of that will also be very important science and evidence to help the evidence-based decision-making for this environmental assessment that we’re discussing today.

There’s another project the Lake Simcoe conservation authority got funding for the same day, when I was able to still make the announcement, which is that the Lake Simcoe conservation authority is also doing inspection and maintenance. This project is again over two years. It will allow them to train inspectors in inspection and maintenance of stormwater facilities in the watershed. Stormwater facilities that are being regularly inspected and properly maintained will help prevent more phosphorus and other pollutants from entering the lake. That maintenance and that inspection are very, very key.

As we get them to fund inspection and maintenance, we’ll also get more evidence-based science out of that over the next two years, which will help us be more informed. And this is just a small piece of the pie. There are certainly more evidence-based decisions and more information that our government will be looking at in order to make this decision, but that’s just to name one other.

Lastly, the third project the Lake Simcoe conservation authority received funding for just in 2020 is water quality and phosphorus monitoring and research—again, very important. They’re getting about $370,000 over three years for that project, and it’s to monitor the water quality in Lake Simcoe by measuring the amount of phosphorus entering the lake. This research will investigate the relationship between phosphorus loads and dissolved oxygen. Deep water dissolved oxygen is a key indicator of the lake’s quality. I mentioned that earlier.

We know that there is a relationship there. We knew that because in the 10-year report that was done for the Lake Simcoe Protection Act, it did show that as we had increasing oxygenation levels, we had increased fishery, which is great, but now we need to understand more of that relationship, so that’s what the study is doing.

Again, it’s more science that we’ll be able to add to. If there is additional effluent being put into the lake, how does it impact the oxygenation levels? How does it impact the different fisheries, the cold-water fishery? How does it impact the food web that we often talk about and that they talked about at the science round table for the Lake Simcoe consultation we had this summer? How does that all impact, right? We need to understand that. I know myself, being the MPP for Barrie–Innisfil, and my fellow watershed colleagues, the MPP for Barrie–Springwater–Oro-Medonte and the Minister of Transportation and member for Bradford-East Gwillimbury, obviously take all this into consideration.

Again, the minister and I talked about—in Simcoe North, we’ve got the entire area, so obviously we attended some of these round tables and listened to these scientists, and we know that that stuff is going to be emerging. It’s very exciting, but we need to take into account this emerging data, this emerging science that’s going to come out in our decision-making. Certainly that’s not the only information we’d be looking at and waiting for, but I thought it was very important to note in terms of when it comes to making decisions based on experts.

As I said, the lack of current information from technical experts—it’s very low, so it is holding up this particular process, because we want to make it based on science and not, of course, based on political boundaries.

That brings me to: What do all Ontarians expect, including Simcoe residents? Well, they need to be confident, especially here in Lake Simcoe, with everything that we’ve dedicated to the water and the amount of funding that’s been put in place—we need to be confident that our water resources are protected, now and into the future, by very good decision-making based on the best and most up-to-date information, understanding what we can’t take for granted.

And of course, we can’t take our Great Lakes for granted. Much work has also been done in our Great Lakes, but I wanted to focus on the watershed that would be impacted by the effluent that we’re discussing today.

We talked about getting the best evidence-based decision-making—very important. But that is also why, earlier this year, our government did introduce the York Region Wastewater Act, 2021. At the time, it was Bill 306, and that was introduced on June 3 of this year by the previous Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. I want to thank him for introducing that, because it certainly made a difference in the area I represent, that that was introduced.

At the time, Bill 306, if passed, would have put on hold the upper York sewage solution environmental assessment to allow for expert research and assessments needed to make a science- and data-based decision. The pause, as I mentioned, would have provided time for the ministry to appoint an advisory panel to look at the issues and requirements surrounding the provisions of the waste water services in York region. The bill, Bill 306, unfortunately did not receive second reading.

This brings me to why we’re here today: reintroducing of the York Region Wastewater Act, 2021, now known as Bill 5, by the new Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks so that we can have this debated, have this passed, hopefully, in this House to truly take into consideration these decisions—decisions that can’t be made lightly, that have to take into account everything that has been done.

For me, this issue is very important and near and dear to my heart, because I am obviously a resident of Barrie–Innisfil, the watershed that is being taken into consideration for this act, but also I’m the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. It was really wonderful when I was appointed as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.

I thought to myself, “Great!” All this work that we’ve done in the watershed in terms of the Lake Simcoe Clean-up Fund, which I was able to work for the government—which dedicated millions of dollars at a time for cleaning up Lake Simcoe. As a result, now I’m in a role where I get to review a 10-year report that talks about all these projects that had contributed to the health of Lake Simcoe. I get to be a part of this journey to build on many of those successes.

Along this journey, I learned the great history that is Lake Simcoe for my previous work. I thought it was interesting, because before, when I was able to contribute to things like the Lake Simcoe Clean-up Fund, we talked about the rich history of Lake Simcoe. Not only does it play a vital role in clean water and the economy, but it actually played a really important role in safeguarding Canada. Few may know this, but Lake Simcoe played a huge, vital role in safeguarding Canada during the War of 1812. We have to commend this beautiful lake that I get to surround myself with. It did help stymie the invasion by our now-American neighbours.

The other interesting point—many people would have learned about this in history class, and that was John Franklin. We know the great exploration that he did in the arctic, but this explorer, John Franklin, actually had to pass through Lake Simcoe on his journey to arctic exploration—so again, that really rich history of Lake Simcoe.

We all know it as Lake Simcoe, those who live on the watershed now. But also, it was known by the Indigenous populations. The Huron called it “beautiful lake” and the Ojibwe called it “round lake.” Certainly, as the representative for the area, I still would very much love to keep this as a beautiful lake. I would say I’ve canoed in the area, I’ve kayaked, I swam, and it’s certainly a round lake still. So that’s always good.

I talked earlier about the economic impacts, but I failed to talk about the percentages and the actual dollar figures. The recreation activity alone from Lake Simcoe generates approximately $200 million per year in the local economy, and 80% of that is connected to the ice fishery, which I mentioned.

The ice fishery is an interesting thing. Now there’s a lot of fishing happening, but at one point—in Innisfil, we have a community called Belle Ewart. Belle Ewart, back in the 1900s—I don’t know the exact date—that’s where everyone used to get their ice. What they used to do—because, what does a shallow lake do in the wintertime? Well, if it’s shallow, it’s going to freeze faster. When you freeze things, you get ice. So we had these huge ice blocks that were created from the lake, and they would be shipped all across Ontario. That was a huge industry for Belle Ewart and Innisfil for many years.

Of course, as technology evolved and we got away from putting everything on a train, buggies etc., the need for those types of ice—the invention of the refrigerator, the most obvious—that particular industry fizzled out. But new industry came, such as fishing, which I mentioned contributes 80% to the local economy. It’s very, very exciting.

For me, growing up in the area, it was really important to continue this history—but also the importance to keep Lake Simcoe beautiful and clean. Every year, there are different challenges.

When I first came to Barrie—I emigrated from Moscow in Russia—in the early 1990s, at the time, there was this whole big issue of zebra mussels in the lake. Now we’ve gone from zebra mussels, which we’ve tried to contain a little bit around the lake, and now we’re still dealing with phosphorus loads. The most recent issues we are grappling with for the lake is invasive species and of course the chloride levels from the salt.

So, again, historically—and we’re talking about things based on science, of having to take into account all the evidence. Well, even history shows us the evolution of the science, where the zebra mussels were an issue in the 1990s, and now we’re coming to a point in the 21st century where we’ve got chloride issues and phosphorus issues. So interesting things and observations—again, I’m not a scientist, but just observations I’ve made as a resident of that watershed and just living there for many years.

That brought me to, when I did get elected—before I even knew I was going to be the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, it was very, very important for me to continue that commitment to keep Lake Simcoe clean. Like I said, I was involved in some of the policy-making for the Lake Simcoe Clean-Up Fund, and I got to work for a local member of Parliament who was involved with that. I saw that whole potential that could be made—and not losing that momentum.

It would really be a shame if we did all this effort, all these investments, took into account all the science and invested all this time to keep this beautiful lake clean, only for new science or extra effluent or things that we don’t know, not knowing other evidence from experts, to quash all of that development.

So it’s really exciting. I think we could do a lot of work together with experts who would be able to build on the accomplishments of the 10-year report for Lake Simcoe, to build on the production in phosphorus levels we’ve been able to do, and to build on a lot of the projects that have been done and the community advocacy that has been done.

I talked about the Lake Simcoe conservation authority, which has done a lot to improve the lake’s health, but we also can’t forget our other partners, like Ducks Unlimited. They have been a great partner throughout the years, not only just on this watershed but throughout the province. They do incredible work around wetlands. They’re really, really great.

Interjection.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: Yes, we should applaud our Ducks Unlimited friends. That’s true.

Thanks to this government, we were also able to fund a Ducks Unlimited project—to the tune of $581,000. This was awarded through an Ontario Trillium Foundation grant—so coming back full circle to the beginning of my speech, when I talked about tourism, culture and sport. I was fortunate to be introduced today by the minister of tourism, culture and sport.

Through the Ontario Trillium Foundation, which is under that ministry, we were also able—and this gets missed sometimes—we funded a great environmental project, as well, which contributes to the economy, which, again, contributes to tourism, because we want clean waterways, and that helps the economic investment that is a result. Through this Trillium Foundation grant that Ducks Unlimited received, they are now able to do things like create green infrastructure like wetlands and really take into account good community planning practices.

That takes me to the Planning Act and planning practices. It’s a bit of a dense policy area. Of course, as our municipalities tend to grow, we also have to take the Planning Act into consideration. The Planning Act has to, of course, interact with so many other things. In our watershed, for example, it has to interact with the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. Again, much of that plan is still upheld today, and we’re constantly making improvements on it. But all those things have to be taken into consideration, with science, when we make these types of decisions when it comes to approving new projects, increasing projects etc.

We have to take into account a lot of the community members who spent so much time and effort, whether it’s fundraising, whether it’s contributing to the science or whether it’s helping with local stewardship programs to help clean up the lake.

For instance, a group that comes to mind is the Youth for Lake Simcoe. They’ve done cleanups throughout the year. It’s incredible. I’ve joined Zoe and that group for many years. But not just them: I spoke about Ladies of the Lake earlier. They’ve done a lot of work, but so have many groups around the lake, really, who have rallied together to improve its health. Their work cannot be forgotten, can’t be taken lightly.

I think we need to build on that work that they’ve done, the work of our 10-year Lake Simcoe report, which is based in science, and of course, think about the more than 450,000 people who live in the Lake Simcoe watershed as of 2017. Of course, that population as well is expected to grow—significant growth in that area by 2041, similar to York region.

Lake Simcoe in itself, like other watersheds, endures a tremendous amount of—there are a lot of environmental pressures, most notably the high levels of phosphorus that I talked about earlier and the chloride populations I had also spoken about. We’ve got to think about the collective actions around this lake. For the past 30 years, we’ve seen significant signs of improvements, which I’ve talked about in terms of the cold-water fishery, but also the amount of algae. This is a huge topic, not only around Lake Simcoe but our Great Lakes as well.

That’s measured by chlorophyll A, for the scientists who are watching this speech. We’re lucky that the amount of algae has actually decreased in the lake, leading to improved water quality. The one thing you don’t want to do is reverse those efforts when we have been able to decrease the amount of algae. We don’t want something coming in to reverse those great strides. And they weren’t taken lightly: There are a lot of, again, science experts who were behind the projects that led to the reduction of the algae, but also a lot of taxpayer dollars.

I think, as we got elected as a government to bring back respect to taxpayer dollars, we don’t want to just throw out these huge amounts of investments that have been done over the past many, many years.

The other thing we’ve seen is also—we talked about shoreline erosion, and that’s constantly an issue. Shoreline erosion has been slightly improved. Of course, more things need to be done with the Lake Simcoe Protection Act and working with our Lake Simcoe conservation authority partners, but we’ve been able to really do well with the planting of shrubs and trees etc., which help with shoreline restoration, but also some of the other infrastructure projects that have also helped with shoreline restoration which have been really, really critical. Why is that important to the health of the lake?

Well, it’s everything that seeps into the lake, right? Your shoreline is kind of your last wall of buffers when things are going into the lake, so it’s certainly very important.

So I commend all the work that has been done. I was very lucky to be part of it. Like I said, many of these actions were done through that protection plan, but we need to continue this collaboration. We need to continue this work. A lot of the work is with our partners, our Indigenous partners and their communities, our municipalities, agriculture, commercial sectors, residents and local conservation authorities.

Over these past few years, I have been able to do large consultations about the Lake Simcoe watershed with our business communities and how the business community is impacted by the water levels and how the water has to be good, because if your job or if your small business or what you’re proposing—we have a splash park right on Kempenfelt Bay. Well, if the water quality is not good in that splash park, no one can go in and play there, and that affects them on a monetary scale, but also you’re seeing the erosion of the health of Lake Simcoe.

Again, all these things need to be taken into consideration. There’s a lot of science that we have been able to build on when it comes to the Lake Simcoe watershed, but certainly when it comes to new technologies—for example, waste treatment technologies—we also need to consider the impacts of those new technologies, the science of those new technologies and their impacts on everything that we have accomplished to date with Lake Simcoe protection.

It’s important that we consider the region of York’s solution and how it’s going to contribute to phosphorus monitoring and how it’s going to impact the research already done for Lake Simcoe and some of the projects that have been successful. I’ve named some of them, but one I did forget to mention was the funding of a testing prize called the George Barley Water Prize. That was really interesting. It is so people can test their own water. It’s getting more people involved in the science of Lake Simcoe so that they understand it, but we’re also improving the water quality, which is very, very key to all watersheds—and again, not taking these decisions lightly.

I want to conclude by encouraging my honourable colleagues to support the York Region Wastewater Act and to think about all the great science and history that we have learned, from my particular speech, the impacts it’s going to make on decision-making and how we want to rely on and enable experts. For example, this act, for those who have read it, will enable the province to enlist experts from a number of disciplines to help refine the work already done by the regional municipality of York and determine the best possible solutions for the waste water solution in that region.

This process has been going on for many years and we want to ensure that it is completed with the benefit of the latest science and the best information.

Our goal is one that I believe is shared by everyone in this Ontario Legislature, because we need to have better waste water services as part of a healthier and more prosperous Ontario. We need to think about the families in York region; we need to think about the families that I represent in Simcoe county. As we continue to grow with a healthy mind, with science in mind—that we don’t make these decisions lightly, because the next generation is counting on it.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): Questions and responses?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I’m pleased to have the opportunity, in the wake of the member’s lead, to ask the PA for the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks—she called the proposed stormwater treatment and phosphorus reclamation plant a game-changer and said that hopefully we will have one. I’m inclined to agree, recognizing that the feds and the region are putting up the funding.

Just for your own benefit, Speaker, the feds in November committed half the cost of the phosphorus reclamation plant, which would cover $16 million. The other half of the cost, borne by York region that they said they would pay for, is based on the Upper York Sewage Solutions project going forward—which, with this bill, is in effect illegal. Will this government and this member commit to picking up the tab that can’t be paid now by York region? I understand that interested communities have passed resolutions asking, so I will too: Will this government pay half the cost of the proposed game-changing phosphorus reclamation plant on the Holland River?

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: Thank you for the question. I did mention that in my speech. As a local MPP, as the representative for the area of Barrie–Innisfil, I know the impact that this phosphorus treatment plant is going to have on our local watershed. As a local MPP, it’s my job to advocate for improvements to my area and anything that’s going to not only improve the economy but the health of our region. As a local MPP, I can commit to continuing to advocate for that, as I have done, but I am not the Minister of Finance and I do not hold the purse strings of the treasury, so I’ll have to leave that to other colleagues.

What I will say is that this government has made tremendous improvements when it comes to water quality. We’ve made tremendous improvements to Lake Simcoe and there are funds and money that have been attached to those improvements. I’m very thankful to my colleagues who have been able to help me with funding on that, but certainly there’s more work to do.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): Questions?

Mr. Mike Harris: Thank you to the member from Barrie–Innisfil. I’m glad she touched on all of the aquatic species. Any time I get to stand up in this Legislature and talk about fish, it’s a good day.

I wanted to just quickly look back. I’m going to have a chance to take

part in debate a little later this afternoon on this bill, and I’ll touch a little bit more on it in my remarks, but I wanted to talk a little bit about what has happened in Waterloo region and what the member might think this could—pausing this and taking a more fulsome look at things.

We built a new water treatment plant along the Grand River not too long ago. There was a lot of study, a lot of due diligence that went into it, and we’ve now seen a resurgence in many fish species in the river that were, quite frankly, almost not there anymore. Pausing this, being able to take a look, taking a more fulsome approach, not using data from 10 or 15 years ago: What will that mean for aquatic species going forward in Duffins Creek and into Lake Simcoe?

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: Thank you for that question. Certainly you’ve seen the outcomes in your own region, in Waterloo, and the improvements that have been made there to the fishery. But that’s why it’s so important, why we need to take this bill into consideration and improve it, so we have that time to ask experts to analyze the impacts of the fishery on the waterways that are going to be impacted by this environmental assessment that would approve a new water treatment plant, and how that’s going to have long-term effects on different fisheries.

We know we have the evidence-based science on how the populations of different fisheries—I was talking about the white cisco, for example, and the goby fish, and how they’ve improved with time, but now if there’s a new factor in play, certainly we have to analyze that science, and that’s why this bill is so important today.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): I recognize the member from Kiiwetinoong.

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: There was some talk about 1812. Do you know what helped protect Canada in the War of 1812? First Nations people. There would be no Canada if we didn’t help them out, and one of the things that comes to mind is Indigenous rights. I’m talking about free, prior, informed consent, which allows Indigenous people like myself to give or withhold a project that may affect them or is within territories.

My question to the member across the way is: What work has been done with the Mississaugas of Scugog Island and the Chippewas of Georgina Island? Meegwetch.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: Thank you for mentioning that. I did go over some of the history of the lake, and I would be remiss not to repeat myself, to talk about the importance of the Indigenous people on the lake.

You talked about the War of 1812. According to a paper that was done with the history of the Chippewas of Georgina Island, they were also very important in that fight, of course. Certainly one could read much history on that. That’s why it’s so important, not only when we talk about working with all community members—in my speech I also talked about the importance of working with our Indigenous communities. I know I’ve spoken to leaders like Donna Big Canoe, who has done such great work on Lake Simcoe, and the great fishery projects that they also contribute to, and so I look forward to continuing that work with her.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): Further questions?

Mrs. Robin Martin: Thank you to the member from Barrie–Innisfil for her really exciting speech. I was very excited. Honestly, I’m a daughter of an engineer, and so all of this talk about waste water infrastructure and stuff like that—I just get really excited about that. It’s a big project.

I was also really excited, and this is probably because I come from Saskatchewan originally, by all the discussion about the Holland Marsh and the East Holland River. I’ve of course gone there many times. Every time I see it, I get excited because of the dark, beautiful soil—I think because that’s not the soil that I was used to seeing when I was little. It’s such beautiful soil, and it’s so important for fruits and vegetables and everything in our region.

Can you just give us a little more information about the possible impacts of this on the East Holland River and why that’s important?

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: We’re very blessed with the great, dark muck soil that is at the Holland Marsh and Holland River. Again, it’s a significant economic contributor through the amount of food they produce for all of us to eat. But also, there are the other investments that they’ve made through the Holland Marsh. They’ve constantly made improvements to the amount of phosphorus entering the Holland River. We don’t want to remove any of that progress that has been done.

This act is so important, because when it comes to these new engineering technologies, we need to take into consideration the impacts they have on things like the Holland River and specifically that phosphorus level. Because the farmers there certainly will not be very happy if you have taken away the great efforts that they have done to keep that river in better shape.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): Further questions?

Mr. Paul Miller: I’ve had many decades of experience with landfills and discharges in Hamilton. We have Randle Reef. We just had sewergate. We’ve had a lot of discharges going into Lake Ontario over the years that have had to be dealt with and are still being dealt with.

My question to you is: I don’t see anything in your documentation about future industrial discharges that will accompany urban sprawl as York region grows. These industrial discharges will go into Lake Simcoe and Lake Ontario. They don’t even know today—there are hundreds of chemicals that go into these lakes that they don’t even know what effect they have on human life.

I don’t see any of that study in there. Maybe that would be an important thing to share with the people of York region and the rest of Ontario, because I think you’re headed for things that are—you’re talking very rosy about these things, but there are a lot of other things that go on with discharge that people might not be aware of. So hopefully you can answer that.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: That’s very important, actually. The part of the information that I mentioned in my speech—it’s very key to build on the fact that, yes, we’ve used new technologies and we’ve used science to be able to make improvements on stormwater ponds or discharge, but we can’t forget that there are new things coming out every day, which is why this bill is here before us. We can’t make the decision lightly. We need to take into consideration the science, the impacts of discharge.

It’s this very government that actually took action to improve our Spills Action Centre resources. There is now a special advisory committee that was formed to look over sewage and water spills. The previous government—I can’t even name the countless amount of sewage spills that had been underreported under their reign, and we’ve had sewer water going into our waterways, not only the one I represent but all across Ontario. Now this government’s action—we actually have more monitoring on those types of things, and of course funding assigned to a special advisory panel that monitors all these spills that happen.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): I recognize the member for Whitby.

Mr. Lorne Coe: Can the member from Barrie–Innisfil tell us a little bit about the role of the—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): Sorry, we’re at the end of time. I apologize.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): We will now transition to members’ statements.

Members’ Statements

Women’s shelters

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): I recognize the member for Eglinton–Lawrence.

Mrs. Robin Martin: Thank you, Speaker. I have the pleasure of rising today to speak about a great organization in my riding of Eglinton–Lawrence that has been—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): Excuse me. We made a rookie error. I recognize the member for Niagara Centre—and I apologize.

Mr. Jeff Burch: No problem. We could have kept going, Speaker. But congratulations on your appointment.

I rise today to talk about a crisis facing abused women in my riding. Women’s Place of South Niagara is being forced to close Serenity Place, which, since 1996, has been a safe haven for women and children fleeing domestic violence in the city of Welland.

Chronic underfunding by the provincial government has forced Women’s Place to fundraise to be able to stay open over the years. Each year, the agency must raise approximately $550,000 to maintain programs and keep the lights on, but the COVID-19 lockdowns made that nearly impossible. So at a time when this service is needed the most, the agency has to make the difficult decision to consolidate operations at Nova House in Niagara Falls and close the 10-bed shelter at Serenity Place in Welland.

Jennifer Gauthier, executive director of Women’s Place of South Niagara, tells me that the decision to close the Welland shelter was not taken lightly. Not only have domestic violence rates increased during the pandemic, but the severity of the injuries suffered by victims has also escalated.

Mr. Speaker, it’s time this government pulled its head out of the sand and addressed the crisis faced by women’s shelters across the province. They need a multi-year commitment to increased funding so they can continue their important work, supporting women in crisis, in these especially desperate times.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): Thank you. Now I look to the member for Eglinton–Lawrence.

JVS Toronto

Mrs. Robin Martin: Thank you, Speaker. I apologize for that earlier.

I have the pleasure of rising today to speak about a great organization in my riding of Eglinton-Lawrence that’s been helping people of Toronto and York find employment for decades. Last night, I had the honour of attending the JVS Toronto’s 74th annual AGM as they prepare themselves for the future. It’s been a very difficult year, and their new mantra is, “The world has changed. Our vision has not.”

JVS was founded in 1947 with the goal of helping victims of the Holocaust and veterans of the Second World War find employment as they moved beyond the horrors of war to rebuild their lives here in Ontario. As JVS experienced success in helping the Jewish community, it expanded its outreach to serve the broader community in finding work. JVS holds its four values in particular as important: excellence, collaboration, integrity and respect. These values are, of course, worth celebrating, and they lead to great things for people—values not only important in finding work but in helping people reach their full potential.

I want to congratulate all the award winners recognized last night and the board members, staff, volunteers and clients of JVS, and particularly the retiring president and CEO Kim Coulter for her 31 years of service to JVS.

Civic-minded institutions like JVS are the cornerstones of communities here in Ontario, like my own of Eglinton–Lawrence. I am very, very proud of all the work they’re doing and happy to congratulate them on all of their efforts. Keep up the great work.

Education funding

Ms. Jennifer K. French: After this long summer recess, this PC government restarted the Legislature with a lacklustre speech from the throne that, among other things, failed to mention “back to school.” It failed to mention education entirely. Yesterday was World Teachers’ Day, and we were all again reminded that this government has yet to prioritize public education during this pandemic.

Since the beginning, we should have seen what has been begged for by education workers, parents, families, students and the opposition: smaller class sizes, air quality standards and reporting, fewer kids on buses, staffing supports and testing kits. However, since the beginning, what we have seen is this government turning its back on students.

I fervently believe in public education. Full disclosure: I was an elementary school teacher for a long time, so I fundamentally believe in investing in the futures of kids. I believe in strong public services. I don’t believe in disassembling a world-class education system while folks are distracted by a pandemic, to stealthily scrap it and sell it for parts, which appears to be the goal of this Premier and government, frankly.

I am hearing from the education world that children as young as kindergarten are fighting, running out of school, self-harming and struggling desperately. Times are brutal. Our classrooms and our students need care and investment. More and more teachers and education workers are frantically trying to leave the profession. We don’t have enough EAs or custodians. Teachers are trying to take early retirement. Perhaps if this government didn’t attack and neglect them, they might feel that they could continue.

This government’s aggressive agenda of cuts and privatization makes me sick. So my message to this Premier is, end the attacks and support public education.

Pathways Health Centre for Children

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’m pleased to rise today to announce another critical investment in Sarnia–Lambton by the government of Ontario. As part of the 2021 provincial budget, our government announced the historic investment of $240 million over four years in Ontario’s children treatment centres and preschool speech and language programs. As a result, I’m pleased to announce that Pathways Health Centre for Children, our local children’s treatment centre, will receive an increase in annualized funding of over $1.1 million, or a 24% increase, to help them deliver important services and support children and youth in our community.

Already, Pathways provides a range of essential rehabilitation services to over 3,400 children and youth annually. This $1.1-million investment will help them to build service capacity and increase access to preschool speech and language services and community and school-based rehabilitation services.

Mr. Speaker, we know that early intervention leads to better long-term outcomes for children and youth. By improving access to assessments and early intervention services, children will begin receiving services and working towards goals sooner. This investment in Pathways Health Centre for Children is an investment in children and young people of Sarnia–Lambton.

Together with our partners at Pathways, this provincial government is working so every young person has the best opportunity to achieve their life’s goals and be set up for success.

Animal protection

Mr. Chris Glover: At this time of year, millions of birds are migrating across the Great Lakes to winter in Ontario and millions more are migrating south. But many do not make it. Windows that reflect the sky and clouds can appear invisible to a moving bird, so they continue to fly at high speeds until they smack into the glass and fall to the ground.

The bird photographer Priya Ramsingh writes that if you “walk around one of the city’s large towers” during the migratory season, “you’ll find the bodies of dead birds” with “their feet curled up in the air.” These are brilliantly coloured birds, including electric blue indigo buntings, “warblers with yellow, green and blue wing markings, and scarlet tanagers with regal, red feather plumage.”

FLAP Canada states that over 25 million birds die through collisions with windows in Canada each year. Thankfully, we have a way to dramatically reduce bird collisions with windows. Nearly 19,000 people have signed a petition asking to prevent further damage to bird populations, including petitions by BirdSafe and FLAP Canada.

This week, I am introducing a motion to adopt the Canadian Standards Association’s 2019 bird-friendly design standard into the Ontario building code for all new construction in the province of Ontario. This is a proactive and inexpensive measure that will protect Ontario’s biodiversity for years to come.

Optometry services / Services d’optométrie

Mr. Stephen Blais: For months, optometrists in Ontario have been trying to have discussions with the government about the challenges in the OHIP funding model. Despite months of warnings that they would withdraw their service, the government chose not to engage with optometrists to resolve their concerns. OHIP-covered eye exams ended over a month ago, and the Ontario government continues to be absent from meaningful discussions with the Ontario Association of Optometrists.

Eyesight is not a luxury, Mr. Speaker. Imagine you’re the mom of two school-aged children who wrote to me. Both children need eye tests to perform their best at school and to participate in the extracurricular activities that they’ve been missing for so long. Their eye tests were cancelled.

Les examens de la vue couverts par l’assurance-santé ont pris fin il y a plus d’un mois, et le gouvernement de l’Ontario continue d’être absent de toute négociation significative avec l’Association ontarienne des optométristes.

Imaginez que vous êtes gestionnaire d’une résidence pour les personnes âgées, comme David, dans ma circonscription, qui ne peut pas voir bien d’un de ses yeux—une condition facilement corrigée par des lunettes correctives; mais il ne peut pas obtenir un rendez-vous avec un optométriste.

On a besoin d’une solution maintenant, monsieur le Président.

It’s time that the government sit down with optometrists and work out a deal so that they can once again provide world-class eye care to Ontarians.

Events in Haldimand–Norfolk

Mr. Toby Barrett: As you know, Haldimand–Norfolk boasts an abundance of fairs and festivals unique to our varied and rich farm heritage. These fairs, festivals and parades cap off the planting season, the harvest seasons and signify a celebration of sorts after months and months of hard work.

Dunnville hosts the Mudcat Festival and its summer fair as well. Port Rowan has Bayfest. There’s the Langton Fair, Houghton County Fair, the Simcoe Heritage Friendship Festival, Donnybrook in Charlotteville, Fall Fest in Delhi, and then the quaint town of Waterford is well known for its Pumpkinfest.

While some of these festivals have been sidelined during the pandemic, I was pleased last week that the show was on once again in Caledonia for their fall fair. A great time was had by all, I can attest. Next year will be their 150th fair.

And just yesterday, the famous Norfolk County Fair and Horse Show kicked off their 181st year. The fair has in place many safety precautions. We’re still able to take in the traditional events, the livestock shows. Entertainment coming up includes Tim Hicks and the James Barker Band.

As the area MPP, I’m so heartened; a tremendous amount of work goes forward from our volunteers, and kudos to all for soldiering through these time-tested traditions.

Tenant protection

Mr. Paul Miller: Speaker, it’s too bad we are not allowed to have visitors in the gallery these days. I’m sure that Mike Wood, the founder and main advocate for Hamilton Tenants in Unity, would be sitting in our gallery, listening intently as the problems he and our office are witnessing—with residential tenants who are being harassed, shamed, scared and bullied throughout Hamilton. Local media headlines such as “Exterior Door Removed by Landlord” or “On-site Laundry Machines Increased to $20 for a Wash and Dry” may seem strange and unlike anything people from more affluent communities are accustomed to hearing, but my office hears these strange complaints from tenants every day.

What do you tell a person in her early seventies who is in tears and has been informed that she has to leave her $700-a-month apartment for renovations and she will be evicted and removed by a sheriff if she doesn’t? How do you explain to her that Landlord and Tenant Board hearings are only being conducted virtually and that she’ll have to buy, pay for and learn to use a smart phone in the next few weeks or miss out on her chance to defend her home from outside investors who see no value in her living peacefully on Melvin Avenue and do not concern themselves that without this apartment she’s bound for a life on the streets?

Currently, the Landlord and Tenant Board system is broken and the people of Hamilton know it. They see the bullying and harassment from investment-class landlords and nameless numbered companies every day. They see the ever-increasing misery of the overheated housing market. What they don’t see is a government that is doing anything about it while they leave the fighting to hometown advocates like Mike and his ilk.

Being forced out of your home at any age is a great mental and emotional burden, especially when there is nowhere to go that is even slightly close to being within your budget.

We need to stop the profiteering and start listening to what our community needs: safe, secure and affordable housing.

Mental health and addiction services

Mr. Lorne Coe: The Ontario government has provided up to $696 million this year to help cover historic working funds deficits, with a focus on small, medium, as well as specialty and rehabilitation hospitals. I’m pleased that this includes over $9 million for Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences in Whitby in support of their world-class programs and services. Overall, Ontario Shores has been the recipient of approximately $16 million over the past three years from the government.

Clearly, the government is determined to build a comprehensive and connected mental health and addictions system that benefits Durham region residents and people in other parts of the province.

Speaker, at the end of the day, our government remains absolutely committed to supporting hospitals like Ontario Shores and others in Durham region so that they can continue to care for hard-working families today and in the future.

Manufacturing jobs

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: As the representative for Barrie–Innisfil, I also represent a part of the manufacturing might that is Ontario. In Barrie–Innisfil, we have incredible companies that have been not only employing more people, helping the province’s economic recovery, but they’re ready to take on more.

I wanted to announce that our government has contributed to the Skills Development Fund and the Second Career program so people can take advantage of these opportunities to have high-paid skilled trade jobs. But there are businesses in Barrie that are still looking for individuals, and our government has also invested in these manufacturing companies.

Jomi, for example, have a multi-year relationship with Tesla and Lucid Motors and they plan to expand into the US market. They’ve created 20 jobs and retained 23 jobs, thanks to this government’s investment, but they can take on more people and are ready to do so.

Tempo Plastics also received additional funding from our government. Not only are they employing 144 individuals, but they also have an ability to take on more.

Innovative Automation and Steve Loftus in Barrie received investment from this government to allow for their automation sector to grow globally, and they can take on more individuals as they continue to innovate.

Matsu Manufacturing in Barrie were also able to receive funding from this government to create 24 new jobs, and certainly they can take on more.

SBS-Drivetec in Barrie have been able to double their production capacity and optimize efficiency, thanks to this government.

Lastly, TNR doors is ready to expand. They have many employees now, but if you’re looking, check them out.

There is so much manufacturing growth in Barrie, and we’re very excited for economic recovery.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): That concludes our members’ statements for this morning.

Legislative pages

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I would like to bring to the attention of the House that on Monday, October 18, a limited number of legislative pages will return to their duties in the chamber this fall. As we welcome them back to the legislative building, their health and safety, as well as everyone who has direct contact with them, is our top priority. That’s why, during this trial period, we have only accepted applications from grade 8 students who have received both doses of the COVID-19 vaccine, as well as ensuring that anyone who works directly with the page program is also fully vaccinated.

We will continue to monitor the COVID-19 pandemic, as we all will, and our response to it, ensuring that all occupants of the precinct are protected.

Report, Financial Accountability Officer

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I beg to inform the House that the following document has been tabled: a report entitled Federal and Provincial COVID-19 Response Measures: 2021 Update, from the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario.

The member for Ottawa South has informed me that he has a point of order he wishes to raise.

Mr. John Fraser: Speaker, a point of order: I seek unanimous consent to move a motion without notice calling on the government of Ontario to immediately make COVID-19 vaccinations mandatory for all front-line health care and education workers in the province, including hospital workers, PSWs and home and community care staff.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Ottawa South is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion without notice with respect to private members’ public business. Agreed? I heard a no.

Members’ privileges

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I will ask for the House’s attention. On June 14, 2021, the member for London West, Ms. Sattler, and the member for York Centre, Mr. Baber, rose on questions of privilege respecting the ability of members to rise on points of order to seek the unanimous consent of the House regarding the business of the day. The member for London West subsequently provided a written submission in support of her questions, and gave an additional oral submission to the House yesterday. I am now prepared to rule on the questions raised by the members.

Let us first revisit the events of June 14, which was the last day the House sat before the summer recess. At various times during that day’s proceedings, members rose on supposed points of order, each time seeking the unanimous consent of the House to give immediate consideration to a private member’s bill or motion, or to move a substantive motion without notice.

Made over and over again, the requests cumulatively made it difficult for the House to conduct its scheduled business. As Speaker, I eventually found these requests to be disorderly and came to the view that they were being used for a dilatory purpose not provided for in the standing orders or in the assembly’s practices. As a practical and reasonable response, I made the decision to ask the House if there was unanimous consent to consider any business other than the bill that had been called for debate. When that request was not granted, I chose to move on from any further unanimous consent requests and resumed the business at hand.

Let me remind members that, among other responsibilities, the Speaker has an obligation to ensure the House is able to conduct the business that is before it—more on that later.

In the course of the day’s events, the members for London West and York Centre both raised concerns framed as issues of parliamentary privilege. While they raised objections related to the procedures and practices of the House, as well as the role and response of the Speaker to the events of June 14, they did not establish that any parliamentary privilege had been breached.

Let me remind members that there are a number of specific parliamentary privileges which, as standing order 23(

a) indicates, may be categorized as either a member’s individual privilege or a collective privilege of the House “conferred by the Legislative Assembly Act and other statutes, or by practice, precedent, usage and custom.”

The matters brought before the House by the two members would have been more appropriately raised as points of order, and I will respond to them now as such.

It perhaps bears explaining what a point of order actually is. A point of order, according to the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, on pages 636 to 638, “is an intervention by a member who believes that the rules or customary procedures of the House have been incorrectly applied or overlooked during proceedings....

“When recognized on a point of order, a member should state only which standing order or practice the member considers to have been breached; if this is not done, the Speaker may request that the member do so.”

Standing order 14 provides that when raising points of order, members are to make their points tersely, and without interruption by other members.

The Speaker’s responsibilities include the preservation of order and decorum in the House and ruling on points of order. The latter involves interpreting the rules and practices of procedure to address issues as they arise out of the proceedings. The Speaker may rule either immediately after a point of order is raised or after taking the necessary time to consider the standing orders and precedents.

While the Speaker should hear a valid point of order when one is raised, the Chair retains the discretion not to entertain a member who persists with points of order. This discretion is supported by various procedural authorities. Erskine May, at paragraph 21.49 of the 26th edition, says, “Speakers have exercised discretion over the taking of points of order.”

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at page 637, says, “Points of order are often used by members in an attempt to gain the floor to participate in debate; in such cases, the Speaker will not allow the member intervening to continue.”

Finally, Australia’s House of Representatives Practice, at page 193 of the seventh edition, says that when “points of order which are inordinately long, frivolous or of dubious validity” are raised, “the Chair would normally intervene.”

What is a valid point of order? The question is sometimes muddled because of the occasional but long-standing practice of using points of order to gain the floor for purposes not actually related to matters of order.

Speakers have not objected to allowing members, from time to time, to use points of order, for example, to apologize, to ask for a moment of silence, to seek unanimous consent to expedite the business of the House or waive notice, to vote on a motion without debate, to wish a member a happy birthday or announce the birth of a child, or on occasion to immediately pass a bill. While this has been a somewhat common practice, it is one that is typically used sparingly, and has mostly been used when there is known agreement among the parties to proceed with the request.

In her written submission, the member for London West noted that the successive requests for unanimous consent that were made on June 14 were similar to requests that had been made on many occasions in this Parliament, requests that at the time had been deemed acceptable. In her submissions made yesterday, the member made the point that conducting business by unanimous consent is very often helpful to the House and, indeed, it occurs frequently enough in this House that it could be said to have entered the realm of established practice. And I agree.

The member also said that historically there have been few limitations on the subject matter or nature of unanimous consent asked for. I also agree with this assertion, but this is the point where the distinction can be made between what has become an accepted practice in the House and where what happened on June 14 deviated from that practice. The sheer extent and volume of those requests on June 14 was a striking and obvious change from the typical use of unanimous consent.

In other words, it is not the case that when members simply utter the phrase “point of order,” the Speaker is then somehow obligated each and every time, without limit, to give members the floor and interrupt whatever other business is properly before the House. Indeed, previous Speakers have intervened to deal with the kind of dilatory measures that occurred on June 14.

For instance, on April 2, 1997, at pages 7,523-24 of the debates, the House found itself in a very similar circumstance to the one that we’re contemplating today. After members raised several lengthy points of order and requests for unanimous consent in succession, Speaker Stockwell decided to disallow further interventions so that the House could move on to the next proceeding, providing the following explanation: “I don’t ever want to cut a member off from a point of order because I think it’s very, very important that they have the right to stand on those points of order, but it’s also very important that we are allowed to continue the business of the day.”

A few days later, on April 6, 1997, at page 8,386 of the debates, Speaker Stockwell elaborated on the role of the Speaker: “I believe that a modern definition of Speaker requires that decisions are taken which are also in the best interests of the institution of Parliament. On occasion, in particular when faced with extraordinary circumstances, Speakers may have to intervene in a way which seeks to enable the parliamentary process to accomplish the business at hand.”

Our precedents are supported by similar decisions made in the House of Commons. In a ruling from May 27, 2019, at page 28,059 of the debates, Speaker Regan explained that the use of unanimous consent to expedite the business of the House “confers on the Chair a certain discretion to determine to what extent a motion needs to be read, particularly when they are unusually lengthy”—like this ruling—“or when multiple motions are presented one after the other. On February 6, 2004, Speaker Milliken had stated at page 245 of the debates:

‘I want to say right off that if every member had the right to stand up and ask for consent to move motions and then stood here and read motions all day, no business would be conducted in the House. In my view members do not have such a right. They are asking for consent and if consent is not going to be given, then we cannot have interminable requests for unanimous consent.’”

Speaker Regan continued that “requests for unanimous consent are not to be used as a method to thwart the rules of the House or as a dilatory tactic. Therefore, to uphold the integrity of the process, the Chair will continue to invoke its authority, particularly when it becomes clear that the motions are deliberately too lengthy, when they are continuously attempted in a repetitive way or when they stray into the realm of debate.”

Applying these authorities to what happened on June 14, the requests may have been individually acceptable, but the volume and disruptive effect of these requests made it a matter of order requiring intervention by the Chair pursuant to standing order 14(a). Parenthetically, it’s worth being mindful of the fact that the business before the House could just as easily be an opposition day or private members’ public business, and to consider the impact of repeated and dilatory points of order in that context.

The member for London West and the member for York Centre questioned the Speaker’s decision to test the House by asking if there was unanimous consent to consider matters other than the business currently before it. Again, this was a prerogative of the Speaker, and is.

Erskine May explains at paragraph 21.49 of the 26th edition that “cases may arise upon which the rules of the House are indistinct or obsolete or do not apply directly to the point at issue. The Speaker will then usually give a ruling to cover the new circumstances, on occasion referring the matter to the judgment of the House.”

Beauchesne’s Parliamentary Rules and Forms of the House of Commons of Canada, sixth edition, at page 98 states: “Sometimes, instead of expressing an opinion on one side or the other, the Speaker may ask instructions from the House....”

One example from our own practice occurred on March 2, 2006, at pages 2,364-65 of the debates. A member raised a point of order regarding the division procedure provided by a time allocation motion, arguing that it was out of order, and proposed an alternative way of proceeding. While the member himself did not test unanimous consent, the Speaker took it upon himself to test the House to see if there was unanimous consent to address the issue raised by the point of order, and in that case there was.

Finally, I will address the question raised by the member for York Centre, in which he asserted that “there’s nothing in the rules that precludes a member from rising on a motion without notice, whether it’s brought under a point of order or not.”

In response, I will direct the member’s attention to the definition of substantive motions contained in standing order 3, which states: “Such motions require notice and must be submitted to the Speaker in writing when moved, before being put to the House for debate.”

As well, standing order 101 establishes the requirements for filing notice of and moving a private member’s motion.

So in short, points of order will normally be heard and legitimate points of order will be acknowledged and recognized. But if they are repeated over and over and they are intended to obstruct the business of the House, we may have to move on.

I will conclude by stating that the House has exclusive control of its own proceedings, and it has a long history of adapting in the face of changing circumstances and challenges so that it can continue to carry out its functions.

I will continue to endeavour to maintain an appropriate balance between individual members’ ability to gain the floor and the orderly progress of the business before the House.

I thank the members for their submissions.

It is now time for oral questions.

Question Period

Public safety

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My first question this morning is for the Premier.

Speaker, our health care heroes, our small businesses that are trying to stay afloat, and parents who are trying to drop their kids off at school continue to have to walk a gauntlet of hateful anti-vaxxer harassment.

My question to the Premier is simple: Will he stop saying no and pass safety zone legislation today to protect them?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply, the Solicitor General.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Thank you for the member opposite’s question. I think we all appreciate and understand that we are disappointed when people choose to protest in front of our health care facilities. But, to be clear, that is not happening a lot in the province of Ontario. And currently in the province of Ontario, police have the ability to intervene when appropriate. Those instances include, of course, harassment and intimidation.

I’m watching this very closely to make sure that we don’t have situations where health care workers and individuals who are accessing our health care system are being put at risk because of protesters. But right now in the province of Ontario, currently there are opportunities and abilities for the police to intervene when appropriate.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the Premier has been dragged kicking and screaming to, for example, call in the military to help in long-term care. He was dragged kicking and screaming to implement vaccine certificates. He is now not doing what he should be doing when it comes to safety zone legislation, and we watched as he was dragged kicking and screaming to agree to rapid testing in hot spots and schools several weeks after schools were already back.

My question, again, is to the Premier. Will he finally take decisive action, stop saying no, do the right thing and pass safety zone legislation today?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I think it’s important for the member opposite and others in the assembly to appreciate and understand what tools we have already in the province of Ontario and the police have. Under the Criminal Code, police officers have an extensive number of tools in their authority. Some examples include mischief, interruption of lawful use of enjoyment of property, trespass, breach of the peace, assault, criminal negligence and causing a disturbance.

I know that when we see individuals protesting, we want them to come here to Queen’s Park, here to the Legislature. But it’s also important to understand that health care workers are protected under existing legislation and existing tools that the police across Ontario have. I know that our health care leadership wants to keep their staff and the visitors to their hospitals safe and will continue to do that using the existing tools we have.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ontarians are fed up with the Premier’s hesitation to take on the anti-vaxxers, and they’re tired of hearing him apologize to them while he does nothing to protect our health care heroes and cancer patients trying to get into our hospitals; our parents, who are simply trying to drop off their kids at school and they’re being screamed at by these folks; small businesses and their customers—small businesses who are trying to stay afloat and customers who are trying to support those small businesses who are being targeted and harassed by these unruly mobs of people.

The Premier needs to do the right thing here, Speaker. He needs to do the right thing and pass the safety zone legislation we tabled the other day so that Ontarians can go about all of the activities—Ontarians who have done the right thing, who have been vaccinated, who are trying to ensure that we fight successfully against COVID-19. They’re the ones that need this Premier’s attention. They’re the ones that he shouldn’t be saying no to. Will he say yes and pass safety zone legislation?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Listen, I appreciate that the member opposite is attempting to make this a larger issue than it is. I will reinforce and remind people that currently in the province of Ontario, intimidation is not allowed. We have the tools. The police in our jurisdictions have the—

Interjection.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: —to enforce, to ensure that our health care workers are safe.

I get it. I’m no happier than anyone else when I see protests happening in front of our schools or our hospitals, but we also have to appreciate that people have the right to share their opinion. I would prefer that they do it in the centre of government, here at Queen’s Park. Having said that, when there is intimidation and harassment in front of our hospitals, then the police have the ability to act, and I know that our hospital leadership will ensure that their staff remain safe.

Optometry services

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Premier—but I think it’s clear this government can do something about the problem that we see happening to too many people going about their business in Ontario.

My question is about the 35 days that it has been now since seniors and kids in our province have been able to access eye care. There are children who are literally now in school having trouble seeing the blackboard. There are seniors who are unable to renew their driver’s licence—which then, of course, makes them less mobile, less independent—because they can’t get their glasses prescription renewed, because the service isn’t being funded by the government. I spoke to a mom named Beverly Murray last week whose teenage daughter is literally suffering from eye pain and migraines, and she cannot get her daughter an appointment to have her vision and her eyes looked after by their optometrist.

My question to the Premier is: Why is he saying no? Why is he saying no and refusing to get us a fair deal and fund the optometry services that our kids and our seniors so desperately need and deserve?

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

Hon. Christine Elliott: Through you, Speaker, I would like to advise the leader of the official opposition that OHIP-funded services continue to be funded by the province of Ontario; however, many optometrists in the province, at the urging of the association, have chosen not to provide those services. We’re very disappointed with that.

We have been engaging in discussions with them and we’re ready to continue those discussions. The problem is due to the fact that the Ontario Association of Optometrists refuses to go back to the independent mediator and adhere to their conditions in order for the mediation to resume. We are ready, willing and able to go back to the table to discuss. But this is not something that the OAO is interested in doing, and it’s especially concerning that they continue to tell the public that they are waiting for us to return to the mediation table when, in fact, that is not the case.

We, as the government, are ready to go back and resume those discussions, but the Ontario Association of Optometrists is not.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, I have to say that it’s really interesting to see what’s happened here in Ontario. The first thing that happened was the Liberals delisting eye care services; allowing of course seniors and kids, but then seriously underfunding those services for many, many years. And now this Premier is making it much, much worse by refusing to come to the table and negotiate a fair deal and refusing to properly fund eye care. Granted, the Liberals refused to do it for years and years as well, but the problem has become worse under this government. That is no way, Speaker, to govern.

That is no way to govern. This government needs to get serious about cutting a deal, a deal that is fair.

My question to the Premier is, why does he continue to say yes to his buddies, to his developer buddies, to the big box stores, but say no when it comes to providing the necessary eye and vision care for our kids and our seniors?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I really appreciate the opportunity to set the members of the opposition—to understand what the situation actually is, as well as the members of the public. The situation is such that the optometrists have refused to come back to mediation. They’re choosing to demand an outcome before we even get into negotiations.

However, I also appreciate the chance to advise of what has actually happened: The government is making a payment of $39 million into the accounts of optometrists who have provided those services to cover what’s happened in the past, and I totally agree that the optometrists were not treated fairly by the previous government. But we’re paying the $39 million, recognizing the same rate as what physicians would have received from 2011 to when their deal expired, to now. That’s how we calculated that $39 million.

We’ve also offered an immediate OHIP-fee increase of 8.48% retroactive to April 1, 2021, and to engage in further negotiations with the optometrists about their overhead costs, because we have a responsibility to do that as we attempt to achieve—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you.

And the final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the government has a duty and a responsibility to negotiate, not dictate. They haven’t figured that out yet, but that’s their responsibility. This Premier is easily saying yes to his buddies, but he said no to students, teachers and parents last spring. He said no last summer to long-term care residents and their families who needed the government’s help. And now we’re seeing it again, as he says no to our kids and our seniors who need to have vision care and deserve to have vision care here in our province.

My question to the Premier is: Will he finally say yes, get back to the table, put proper funding in place and commit to negotiating a fair deal, so that our kids and our seniors can get what they need in terms of their vision care?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’ll ask the members to take their seats.

Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: The short answer to your question is yes. We are ready, willing and able to go back into mediation, but you can’t negotiate when you’re the only party at the table. We have said that we are ready to proceed with the optometrists. We’re ready to proceed to rectify their very relevant concerns to deal with the back-pay issue, to deal with an increase going forward, to deal with their overhead and to have an ongoing monthly discussion with them, which is something that is not done with every health care group.

We want to remedy their complaints. We want to reach a deal with them, but they need to come back to the table. We are ready to go to the table. We have agreed to the mediator’s request, but the Ontario Association of Optometrists has not. They’re not our conditions; they’re the mediator’s conditions. We’re asking them to please come back to the table, so we actually can negotiate, but you can’t do that by yourself.

COVID-19 immunization

Ms. Sara Singh: Good morning, Speaker. My question is to the Premier. Medical exemptions for not getting the COVID-19 vaccine are very rare. Dr. Moore has said that about one to five out of 100,000 Ontarians would be eligible for a medical exemption to the vaccine, yet somehow two members of the PC government caucus both claim to have medical exemptions. It’s statistically curious that two out of 70 members somehow have these medical exemptions. Dr. Moore says it’s supposed to be very rare, and that these exemptions will need a review province-wide.

The question to the Premier: Can the Premier help explain this statistical anomaly in his own caucus?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: I’m not entirely certain what this has to do with government business, but I’ll say this, Mr. Speaker: The Premier took immediate action to ensure that all members of this caucus were vaccinated and to ensure that those who had not received their two doses presented a medical exemption. Of course, those exemptions are provided by medical professionals, and we have to assume that the medical professional providing this exemption has done so based on the guidance and recommendations of the Chief Medical Officer of Health.

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

Ms. Sara Singh: Ontarians should be getting vaccinated unless it’s absolutely cleared with a medical exemption, and, as Dr. Moore has stated, these exemptions are exceptionally rare.

As we’ve all come to learn, one of the PC members, the former parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General, revealed to her House leader that she hadn’t in fact been vaccinated, as she previously let on, and misrepresented her vaccine status. Will the Premier be demanding that these exemptions be reviewed, or will he once again just be taking his members’ claims at face value?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply, the Premier.

Hon. Doug Ford: Thanks to Ontarians and the front-line health care workers, we have vaccinated over 22 million people in Ontario. We’re one of the world leaders, with 87% of eligible Ontarians vaccinated and 82% fully vaccinated.

But I find it pretty rich when the leader of the NDP should recognize that, considering her own position evolves day to day—depending on which way the wind blows, that’s the decision of the NDP leader. And I find it ironic that the Liberal party, with only seven caucus members, still can’t figure out who’s vaccinated or not.

We were very transparent on the people who had a medical exemption. We don’t get involved in people’s personal medical records, but we were very transparent.

Again, I find it very rich that the NDP—depends on the day—can’t tell us who’s vaccinated and who’s not.

Green power generation

Ms. Donna Skelly: My question is for the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. Firstly, I would like to congratulate the member for Northumberland–Peterborough South on his new appointment. The people of Ontario are very fortunate to have such a hard-working member at the helm of a very important government portfolio, and I look forward to seeing all of the continued work that you will be undertaking on behalf of the government for the people of Ontario.

Our government is continuing to lead the country in driving down harmful emissions by expanding the availability and use of clean fuels. One such clean fuel that our government sees potential in is hydrogen.

Could the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks share some details of the government’s low-carbon hydrogen strategy?

Hon. David Piccini: Thank you to the tremendous member from Flamborough–Glanbrook for that excellent question. She’s right; Ontario leads Canada in driving down GHG emissions and building a more sustainable future. We’re doing that thanks to the leadership of this government in expanding renewables in clean fuels. That’s the equivalent of taking the emissions of over 300,000 cars off the road. We’re doing it through building subways and GO service lines like we’ve never seen before in Ontario. When families are spending less time in gridlock, they’re spending more time with their loved ones.

Finally, thanks to the leadership of the Premier and the Minister of Economic Development, we’ve seen a historic renaissance in manufacturing: $6 billion in investments. Ontario is an EV powerhouse thanks to their work.

One of the things I’m most excited about is hydrogen. It presents incredible potential. Ontario is, again, among the leaders in Canada in establishing a hydrogen strategy working group. Work is under way to finalize this strategy, and with it, I’m confident that Ontario will be among the first movers in this space, leveraging our clean energy advantage and continuing to be a leader in Canada.

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

Ms. Donna Skelly: Thank you, Minister, for that explanation. Hydrogen appears to be key to the government’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but is something many Ontarians are simply unfamiliar with. Could the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks please share with me some of the interesting applications for hydrogen that our government is exploring?

Hon. David Piccini: Thank you again to the member for that great question. There are countless ways low-carbon hydrogen can be used in one’s day-to-day life. In communities, it can be blended into natural gas pipelines to heat our homes and our businesses. In industry, it can be used as a replacement for fossil fuels that are used in high-temperature applications, like in the production of steel and cement. Imagine a building sector where these materials could be produced with minimal carbon emissions. And did you know that 80% of Ontario’s 2018 greenhouse gas emissions came from transportation? Enter buses and trucks fuelled by low-carbon hydrogen.

I’d like to give a special shout-out to the incredible folks that I visited at Cummins in Mississauga, leaders in the exciting work they’re doing for fuel cell technology.

Our government will continue to fight climate change and build an Ontario where green, clean solutions thrive and prosper.

Child care

Ms. Jessica Bell: My question is to the Minister of Education. Eight provinces have signed on to the federal government’s promise to roll out $10-a-day child care, but Ontario hasn’t, even though many parents in Ontario pay some of the highest child care fees in Canada—upwards of $20,000 a year. Child care has become so expensive that parents, mostly women, are giving up their careers or going part-time because they can’t make it work. Women’s participation in the workforce has dropped to a 30-year low. If this government is committed to equality for women and a strong economic recovery, then families need access to high-quality, affordable child care.

So this is my question: When is this government going to sign on and provide $10-a-day child care to help the parents and children who live in Ontario?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: I appreciate the question from the member opposite. I think what the member opposite and I could agree on is, under the former Liberal government, for 15 years, child care rose to the second-highest in Canada, after the New Democratic province of BC, I should note—a 40% increase in child care fees. That is simply unacceptable to the Premier and our government, making it inexcusably high for average families and middle-class people.

It’s why the first act the government took in our first budget was to introduce the Ontario Child Care Tax Credit, to put money directly into the pockets of moms and dads and recognizing they are best positioned to make decisions with respect to their child’s care.

During the pandemic, we enhanced that in the last budget. Yes, we are negotiating in good faith with the federal government to get a good deal—not any deal, a good deal for the people of Ontario that recognizes our unique advantages. We’re one of the only provinces that funds all-day kindergarten. So yes, we are working with the federal government, the Prime Minister’s office, with Minister Ahmed Husse