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

October 21, 2020

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2020-Oct-21 vol. A (PDF)

L197A - Wed 21 Oct 2020 / Mer 21 oct 2020

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 21 October 2020 Mercredi 21 octobre 2020

Orders of the Day

Better for People, Smarter for Business Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 pour mieux servir la population et faciliter les affaires

Members’ Statements

Municipal elections

School facilities

Insurance industry

Small business

COVID-19 response

Milan Kroupa

Extraordinary Education Centre

Sikh genocide

Food literacy

Skills training

Question Period

Long-term care

Long-term care

Long-term care

Federal-provincial fiscal policies

Municipal elections

Insurance rates

School facilities

Flu immunization

Municipal elections

Teachers

Child care

Long-term care

Health care funding

Small business

Protection for health care workers

Report, Integrity Commissioner of Ontario

Reports by Committees

Select Committee on Emergency Management Oversight

Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills

Introduction of Bills

Murray Whetung Community Service Award Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 sur les prix Murray Whetung pour services à la collectivité

Exalting Our Veterans Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 rendant hommage à nos anciens combattants

Petitions

Emergency services

Family law

Long-term care

Magna Carta Day

Long-term care

Municipal elections

Broadband infrastructure

Anti-vaping initiatives for youth

Personal protective equipment

Long-term care

Municipal elections

Orders of the Day

Better for People, Smarter for Business Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 pour mieux servir la population et faciliter les affaires

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Better for People, Smarter for Business Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 pour mieux servir la population et faciliter les affaires

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 8, 2020, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 213,

An Act to reduce burdens on people and businesses by enacting, amending and repealing various Acts and revoking a regulation / Projet de loi 213, Loi visant à alléger le fardeau administratif qui pèse sur la population et les entreprises en édictant, modifiant ou abrogeant diverses lois et en abrogeant un règlement.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Further debate?

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s always a pleasure, obviously, for any member of the Legislature, to join an important debate and bring the voices of the people of Waterloo to this Ontario Legislature.

I do want to start off by saying how strange these days are. Right now, my father is in a hospital, in Ottawa civic hospital. He suffered a stroke. He is undergoing surgery today, but no family is able to visit him. No family, no advocate, no one can assist him. And his MPP is hosting a social behind the Legislature today—an unmasked social, Mr. Speaker. So he is flaunting his ability as an individual to gather people together, ignoring health standards, ignoring the provincial medical officer of health, and yesterday, in this House, he challenged the Premier of this province to throw the book at him.

I’m telling you this story—and I’m going to be okay, because I’ll get angry in a few minutes; it’s okay. It demonstrates a disconnect that is happening in this province. This mantra, where we are all in this together, is clearly not true when my father’s MPP is hosting an unmasked social behind Queen’s Park and I as a family member cannot go see him.

I tell you this because there is a connection in this province between public health and the economy, Mr. Speaker. It may seem like an awkward transition, but if you think about it, because we have failed and fallen down on enforcing the medical health standards that the provincial medical officer of health, who we hear the Premier listens to—because there has been a lack of action on the compliance of those rules, we now have outbreaks in Ottawa, in Toronto and, I believe, in Peel. Imagine all of those family members who now cannot see their loved ones.

We brought a piece of legislation to the floor of this House, More Than a Visitor, because we should learn from what has already happened in Ontario, whereby when family members are discounted and prevented from seeing their family members who are in a health crisis, there is actually a negative effect to the overall health care system. This is very true of our congregate settings, our group homes and especially our long-term-care homes.

I feel if the tough talk from the Premier is real tough talk, then the member who is hosting the unmasked social out behind this House today should be fined. He should have to pay a price for breaking the law. I’m going to leave it at that.

The legislation that is actually before us today is Bill 213. It’s entitled Better for People, Smarter for Business Act. It should likely be called better for some people, smarter for business act, because it falls down on so many levels to actually support the economy. Now that we are very cognizant of the failing economy and the fact that we are losing small businesses—who we all agree in this House are the backbone of our economy. They employ almost 80% of the workers in Ontario, and so when we talk about saving small businesses, we are talking about saving jobs. We’re talking about retaining jobs. We’re talking about creating new jobs by supporting and saving those businesses.

We have always argued—I understand the government has a philosophical difference with the way that we would have supported small business. I’m going to talk about that because we actually have a Save Main Street plan that is endorsed by businesses across the province, because it is the help that they asked for when they came to committee in June, July, August and September.

This is the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs—this is the report. This is the proof of what they asked, 500 businesses. One day was 13 hours that we listened to businesses. They were emotional stories they were sharing of their lives because, for them, they have mortgaged their house, they have borrowed money from their family and friends and they have maxed out their credit cards. They have done everything that they can to be part of the economy and then also to be part of the recovery. You must understand that the economic recovery for the province of Ontario will not be successful if we lose business after business after business.

Yesterday, I asked a question of the finance minister. I did not get much of an answer, I must tell you. I mentioned the photographer who went along Queen Street last week. Two months ago, he took pictures and 20 businesses had failed, had closed; last week, it was 72. Queen Street is one of the most important main streets in the province. The creative economy is alive and well: the restaurants, the clothing, the fashion. It really is a hub for the economy of not just Toronto but for the entire province. The fact that 72 storefronts were boarded up and closed for business should give us pause.

What we have before us today—just as on Monday; it’s rare that you get to do two one-hour leads in one week. I wouldn’t mind that much if they actually did what they were supposed to do, if they actually said what their title was. Bill 213 tinkers around some regulations. It’s minor in many of its regulatory changes, Mr. Speaker, and it doesn’t do what the title says it does. I feel like that is incredibly disrespectful to the businesses and the people who came before us all summer.

I want to tell my friends on the other side of the House that this mantra that you are pro-business—that mantra is not flying anywhere soon. It’s a false narrative, because businesses, they received some minor support. They received some loans via provincial tax relief.

If the state shuts down your business and then you say, “You know what? We’re going to give you a break and you don’t have to pay your taxes for six months,” that’s like the bottom of the barrel. That is the low-hanging fruit, which the members on the standing committee on finance kept asking these businesses about: “Is there any low-hanging fruit?” This is not a time for low-hanging fruit; this is a time to be bold and courageous and recognize that direct financial support is actually an investment in the economy, to see them through.

The downtown BIAs of Ontario—I quote them often because for me, they said, “Just help us buy some time. See us through this challenging crisis, and we will support you in the end.”

I listened to the minister and his one-hour lead, and I had to read through some of the transcript, which was, quite honestly, a little bit painful for me, because he referenced the context we find ourselves in. I must tell you, that disconnect was so clear in his speech and the other two MPPs who spoke to Bill 213, because he said that the government recognizes the devastating impact of COVID-19.

Well, where does supporting Charles McVety fall into supporting economic recovery? Why do you have a poison pill in this piece of legislation? It’s a good question. Businesses are going to ask you that question, too. They’re going to ask you, “Why does Charles McVety get priority status during an economic crisis and a health crisis?” I’m hoping that the government can actually give us an answer on that.

Just to be specific, I’m specifically speaking to a couple of schedules in here, but I’ll start with

schedule 2, which amends private legislation to allow Canada Christian College, whose president is the well-known, well-documented and—quite proud of it—far-right conservative Charles McVety. This

schedule will grant degrees of bachelor of arts and bachelor of science in addition to his existing theological degrees.

It’s important to note that degree-granting authority is controlled in Ontario under

section 2 of the Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act, and an institution can only grant a degree with consent of the minister. So this is a Christian college looking to change its name so that it will be called a university. It will change the college’s name to Canada University and School of Graduate Theological Studies.

Now, Bill 213 also amend the private statutes of two other private Christian colleges. They are also looking to be called a university. At no point in the summer, through June and into the fall, did any business say, “You know, if you make these three Christian colleges universities, this is really going to help the economy.” And so, one has to question, what is the motivation? What is the intent here with this particular piece of legislation?

During the one-hour lead on Bill 213, the minister says that they’re not against regulation, but just unnecessary regulation, which is ironic because they’re pushing a lot of legislation to the regulatory base, so you actually are kind of creating more red tape. If you were on this side and if we were doing that, you would very quickly point out that you’re creating more red tape, which actually removes the eyes and the oversight of the legislators who are elected to this House. This is not in the best interests of creating better lives; I’d like to point that out.

But when the minister says they’re not against regulation, he forgets that there were nail salon operators and wellness operators who came before our committee in the summer and they actually asked for more safety regulations. Because it takes one bad actor; I think we can all agree on that. This was a nail salon in Kingston. There was a breakout of 30 COVID-19 cases because they were not following protocol, because there were no inspections in that salon. So the nail salon operators from across the province said, “We need more regulation.

We think it’s in our best interest if there is actually oversight,” if they’re inspected, if there’s some accountability from a business perspective. Of course, you wouldn’t find that anywhere in Bill 213. But I point this out, Mr. Speaker, because this is the connection where small businesses are saying, “You know what? We’re doing our job. We’re following the health and safety protocols. We’re making sure that our patrons are safe,” but when one bad actor doesn’t follow those rules, then they should be fined for that, right?

Because it’s the irresponsibility of one of those bad actors that actually has a full impact on all businesses. I raise that because Bill 213 doesn’t address that health and safety perspective that businesses, quite honestly, have been asking for.

What businesses also asked for during the summer was a safe school reopening strategy. They begged us. It became more and more intense as we got closer to September because businesses want to make sure that their employees can actually come to work because their children are at school. This symbiotic relationship between education and the economy was not listened to, I have to say. The government refused our motion to bring in a 15-student cap on classrooms and to fund that cost—because it would cost more.

But again, it would be an investment in keeping students safe, in keeping our education workers safe and therefore keeping employees at work. That was a direct ask of businesses in Ontario.

The other point that the minister said when he spoke about Bill 213 was that they want to prioritize the most important issues. Well, I have to say, the Business Corporations Act allows 25% of corporate board directors to not be a resident of Canada. So if you’re not a Canadian resident and you want to sit on a board of directors, now you can. I fail to see how this is actually going to stimulate the economy.

I’ve mentioned the Christian university request.

The other questionable part of this is

schedule 3, the Change of Name Act. This is interesting. It repeals

section 3 of the act, which allows a spouse to legally change their name to that of their partner using the simplified procedure prescribed by regulation. Now, spouses will be required to use the more cumbersome statutory procedure that non-spouses must use, including requirements to attach a police records check to the application and to disclose criminal records, debts, liens and bankruptcy. This is about changing a name when you get married. Why is this a priority in a pandemic? Even the most rational members of provincial Parliament on the Conservative side must question this. Who wrote this piece of legislation is also another good question.

Now, the spouse would also no longer have the right to elect to change their name but will have to apply, meaning that they will no longer have an automatic right to take their spouse’s name. Why put up a barrier? Why make more work? Why create more red tape, Mr. Speaker? You can see that we have lots of questions about this: What motivated it? Who—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: It’s blue tape.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s blue tape, yes.

Who asked for this? Who asked for more barriers and more red tape, or blue tape, around changing your name when you get married? I have to ask that.

Schedule 4 is the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act. It’s not that important. It allows the director to use discretion in determining methods of payment under a support order. So maybe those payments will go up. Maybe it will become more costly.

There are changes under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act. There’s the Forfeited Corporate Property Act. These are technical and housekeeping amendments, hardly a priority in an economy that is falling down.

Something on

schedule 7, under the Insurance Act—technical or housekeeping amendments: Do you know what businesses want in the province of Ontario? They want their insurance providers to be on their side. They don’t want them to increase their premiums. They don’t want them to deny liability for restaurants and bars. This has been an issue across the entire province. You have an amendment to the Insurance Act,

schedule 7 under Bill 213, and yet you have intentionally ignored what businesses have told you. Why? Who are you listening to? It actually adds insult to injury to have a

schedule here with minor amendments and then ignore what the vast majority of businesses have been telling us.

You’ve got the Marriage Act here; you’ve got the Mining Act, with no real huge changes.

The Ministry of the Environment Act: Some land transactions require purchasers to request information from the ministry. Currently such requests are made under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Listen, we’ve had to file our own FOIs just to find out what the government is doing. There is a fee. This

schedule would allow the minister to set fees for an alternative platform for handling such requests.

So you’re not so pleased that there are so many FOIs trying to figure out what you guys are doing. I mean, we still don’t have your mandate letters, which are being held up in court. We’re particularly interested in the mandate letter for the Minister of Long-Term Care, I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, because we want to find out at what point was there a decision that was made that investment into long-term care at the beginning of the pandemic did not happen. That’s what we want to find out. You know who else wants to find that out? The people of this province.

Interruption.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I think it’s very symbolic that there’s an ambulance siren going right now.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Going to pick up Randy.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Yes.

The Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Act, Niagara Parks Act, Northern Services Boards Act, Official Notices Publication Act—this changes the act’s name to the Ontario Gazette Act. Is this a priority? I would say no. Nobody even really cares about what official notices publications are named. It allows the Queen’s Printer instead of the LG in C to determine the form and style in which the Ontario Gazette shall be published. That’s so important, right? It defies logic.

The Ontario Highway Transport Board Act repeal—I’m going to let our transit critic have a go on that one because that is a little interesting.

It’s almost like the pandemic is not happening. It’s like the government has just continued with their agenda, pre-pandemic, and is actually using a time of crisis in the province to get some of their priorities done. But these are not the people’s priorities. I need you to understand that.

The Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act extends the LG’s authority to make regulations governing transitional matters with respect to changes to the act recently enacted. Nobody even understands what that means.

The Ontario Water Resources Act is very important, and I’m going to touch on that, I think, in a bit.

Schedule 19 and

schedule 20: Pension Benefits Act, Personal Property Security Act. The Planning Act, Private Career Colleges Act—I’m going to touch on that.

So there are 28 schedules in this piece, and, really,

schedule 25, which amends the private statute to change a private Christian college’s name from Redeemer University College to Redeemer University—at no point did any small business in the province of Ontario come in and say that this is a priority for them.

I want to be really clear: We will not be supporting this piece of legislation. It does not achieve what the title says it does, and it demonstrates and exposes, really, a true lack of understanding of what the people of this province are experiencing.

Bill 213 is not likely to change much on the ground. That needs to be said. Much of the bill is minor or technical, as if the government is trying to fill a quota of measures that could count as cutting red tape. Yet I’ve just identified a couple of schedules which actually create barriers and will make more administratively burdensome very basic requests, like changing your name if you get married.

This is part of this government’s—and I truly don’t understand it. They say that between Bill 215 and Bill 213, these are pillars of recovery, of support. Well, on Monday, I fairly clearly articulated what Bill 215 doesn’t do and how little it does with the four schedules that are contained in it. It didn’t even have to be a separate piece of legislation, but there is, I think, this focus on the appearance of making it look like the government is doing something to help the economy. But bringing forward pieces of legislation like this, particularly one that has a poison pill in it, makes no sense whatsoever.

Despite purporting to be smarter for business, the bill does not include a 75% rent subsidy, a utility freeze or other business support measures which businesses have repeatedly called for.

I said this on Monday when I was doing the lead on Bill 215, that if you had told me that we would be seven months into a health and economic crisis brought on by coronavirus and the government had still not put direct financial support in front of businesses to help them stay alive, and not just survive but potentially thrive, I would say have said that’s highly unlikely. I really did think you were going to spend the money that Justin Trudeau gave you, but you didn’t.

The Financial Accountability Officer, an independent officer of the Legislature, a non-partisan officer of the Legislature, has outlined in his last report how little this government has invested in businesses—3%. The other 97% is primarily federal money.

Now, the government says, “Well, we’re working collaboratively.” It took six months of pressure on the federal government to get them to change their commercial rent relief program. You’ll remember that this was a landlord-driven process, which was insulting to businesses across this country and in Ontario. Imagine having a landlord determine whether you can survive or not. The threshold for revenue loss was set at 70%, so if you’d lost 69% of your business, you didn’t qualify for commercial rent support.

What I would like you to understand is that people now have a clearer version of what your government hasn’t done for businesses, especially when it comes to commercial rent relief; and to add insult to injury, the end of October is fast approaching and November 1 is rent day. The federal program will not come out in time for November’s rent. So pushing to make it retroactive was really good, but in the meantime you let 50% of the businesses that applied for that commercial rent support fail. They were not able to access it. Their landlords would not accept it because they had to accept a 25% penalty.

The process was onerous, and quite honestly, some people just don’t trust government. You wonder why, don’t you, Mr. Speaker?

That 3% that you’ve invested is primarily loans and deferred payments. There was a six-month point of where you didn’t have to pay, but those loans and those debts are coming due, and guess what? We’re back in shutdown for businesses in Toronto, Ottawa and Peel. So those businesses can’t generate the kind of revenue they need to pay their taxes and, honestly, paying their taxes is probably the last thing on their list. They’re probably still fighting with their insurance companies because their insurance companies tried to increase their premiums.

Some commercial landlords increased their rent and add ancillary fees as well, which lends a whole new conversation around the Commercial Tenancies Act, which has not been updated really since 1990.

That power imbalance between business owners and commercial landlords is real. But is that in here? No, it’s not. What a missed opportunity to recognize the tension between commercial landlords and commercial businesses. You have to intentionally turn your back on businesses and ignore them and not include it in this piece of legislation.

The government also did not properly notify the public or consult on its plan to deregulate intercity bus service in Ontario. This is a consistent theme. I will give you credit for being consistent: You don’t consult; you don’t listen to people who actually have the experience. So, this is in keeping with your brand; nor do we have any idea what will replace the current system of intercity bus transit.

While the repeal of the Public Vehicles Act—also in this piece of legislation—and the dissolution of the Ontario transport board does not bode well for anyone hoping for a well-planned and coordinated and integrated province-wide intercity bus system, outside of a few well-served areas in the province, the existing system really can’t get much worse.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: It will with this.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Why bring forward a piece of legislation and not solve the problem, right? You would have a better understanding of the problem if you did the consultation—if you listened.

Bill 213 would provide a special benefit to the controversial Canada Christian College and its president, Charles McVety, a political ally of Doug Ford. I think that we all—you know, it’s self-described. They like each other a lot.

The reason that Charles McVety is so problematic for us and should be problematic for many of you is that he has a history of bigotry against LGBTQ people, Muslims and many other groups. This is well documented. This is not something that we had to go through and do extensive research; you just have to google Charles McVety, Mr. Speaker. Why does this individual at this time in the history of the province get special treatment? One has to wonder at this question.

Bill 213 would create new burdens for a handful of spouses or former spouses who wish to change their names. Again, why is this a priority?

The provision to give local host municipalities a veto over water-bottling permits is welcome, but it does not go far enough to protect already stressed watersheds shared by multiple municipalities. Any protections have already been undermined by the government’s new pro-sprawl growth plan, which forces municipalities to use inflated growth projections when calculating how much land to set aside for development, meaning more losses of prime farmland and scarce groundwater.

You know, there really was no way for you to not address the fact that large corporations were using municipal water sources to bottle water, making huge profits and even putting those municipalities’ water sources at risk.

We’re supportive of this; however, you will be hearing en masse from environmental and water keepers across this province who said that setting the threshold where you set it, which is fairly arbitrary, is not good enough. I have to question whether or not this piece of legislation will go to committee. The government has not en masse been doing that. This will be a very contentious part of the bill; interesting for us, but probably fairly aggravating for the government.

Public universities provide an important public benefit. One can make a case for the granting of the word “degree”—now this will be very interesting for the university sector to sort of take hold of. Stakeholder reaction has been muted. You know why it has been muted? Because nobody understands why you’re focusing on these particular schedules of this act.

I just have to go back to what businesses are actually looking for in the province of Ontario. I highlighted this comprehensively on Monday on Bill 215, that keeping businesses open, providing them with direct financial support, actually means keeping workers on the payroll. When we talk about supporting small businesses, we’re also very much talking about keeping people employed.

One of the things that we really pushed for in this House was a commercial eviction ban. That ends at the end of this month, and there is a disconnect now with the federal commercial rent abatement program. So come October 28, when the previous piece of legislation becomes null and void and evictions are now possible, and the fact that the federal government couldn’t get its act together in order to make sure that rent support was on the table for November’s rent, you are going to see more evictions. The photographer who took pictures of Queen Street is going to have more storefronts to photograph.

That’s a bad thing for all of us, it really is, to see these great businesses be evicted because they can’t pay their rent, be shut down because of health concerns and not be able to generate any revenue. What we had proposed would have actually prevented that, and I need to be very clear about that.

We would have also instituted a utility payment freeze for small and medium-sized businesses. We would have offered a stand-alone emergency 75% commercial rent subsidy. The province should be offering a monthly subsidy of up to $10,000 until the pandemic ends to ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises can continue to pay their staff. When employees are paid, when they are kept in employ, that money goes back out into the community and supports other businesses. It’s not rocket science.

Less than a third of the total available funds for the current rent abatement program have been spent. It’s also completely up to landlords in that model to determine the success of a business. Ontario businesses make up the majority of the recipients, receiving $497 million out of almost $1 billion, so almost $500 million was left on the table because of a flawed model.

We would also have acknowledged that there are some historic and systemic barriers for businesses. We would have created a designated emergency fund for small businesses and entrepreneurs who have faced historic barriers to accessing traditional capital sources to provide grants and low-interest loans through associations as proposed by the Canadian Black Chamber of Commerce.

We want to build an economy that is inclusive, that is a shared economy, that everyone has the opportunity to find their potential and reach their potential. We heard very clearly at finance committee that there are huge barriers for marginalized and racialized folks accessing capital, and you can’t really deny it. They brought the evidence, they brought the resources and they made a case for it.

The other component of our Save Main Street is about keeping workers safe. I have to go back to the story that I started with today. Right now, hospitals in Ottawa, Toronto and Peel have new strategies around keeping people out of their hospitals because they’re trying to minimize the exposure to COVID-19, but the emotional labour costs of that to the health care system and to families—I just joined a group of thousands upon thousands of family members who aren’t able to access their loved ones in long-term care, in hospitals, in congregate settings, in group homes. One could argue—and health care professionals have—that this is detrimental to their health care outcomes as well.

We are very focused on keeping workers safe, and then we also to want create a safe reopening and remote set-up fund for small businesses. This brings me to the much-announced $300 million that the government has been talking about. We want to see where that $300 million is. I must ask you, Mr. Speaker, why is it so hard to locate it, if it’s real?

The businesses that have been reaching out to me in Waterloo have said, “Listen, where is this money? How do I access it? Where is the program to deliver it? What is the framework? How do I apply? What are the guidelines?” These are all reasonable questions that businesses have. The government can’t keep announcing $300 million and not get that money out the door.

The $9.3 billion is also very big number. The Financial Accountability Officer has said this is money that has not been put into play. We think there are some very good places to strategically invest those dollars. One of the key areas would be child care. We were very disturbed the last week before constit week when the member from London West asked a question about the regulatory changes pertaining to early learning and care, where the government is proposing to increase the size of infant and toddler rooms and preschoolers—so more young children in classrooms, which actually defies all the medical advice we’ve heard so far.

He stood up and said, “Well, it’s a very expensive system.” Again, it is the affordability piece for parents. If he was addressing that, that would be fantastic because affordability is a major barrier for child care, but so is finding a space, and cramming more children into more classrooms doesn’t address the core issue and certainly does not recognize that for every dollar you invest in early learning and care, there’s a return to the economy, a return on that investment to the tune of $7. You want to know why, Mr. Speaker; I know you do.

For every dollar that goes into that system, the productivity primarily of women in the province of Ontario, who make up 51% of the population, enables them to retrain, to educate and to go to work. So by women having access to safe, affordable and quality early learning and care, the return on investment to the economy, as I mentioned, is a 70% increase. Do we want women to be successful in the province of Ontario?

Interjection: Yes.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Yes, we do. Do we recognize that women have been disproportionately affected by this pandemic? They were the first to be fired, they were the last to be rehired, they’re often still caring for children at home because we had such a sloppy and messy return-to-school plan in the province of Ontario—and that’s me being kind when I say that. Also, they’re caring for elderly parents right now. So women, primarily, are holding the economy together. There will be no economic recovery without a she-covery.

This is something that we fundamentally believe and that we have embedded into our Save Main Street strategy: to make sure that women are included and to ensure that the economic recovery is inclusive of everyone.

The major obstacle for many women is just getting out there and finding some resources where their children can be kept safe—because if they’re worried about their children, then it compromises the kind of work they’re doing, which also makes a lot of sense.

We would bring a made-in-Ontario paid-sick-days-for-all plan. An outbreak of COVID-19 could devastate people’s health and their lives. We know this now; we’re seven months in. It can shut down the business that they work in. We know this; we’re seven months in. All working Ontarians, including those in low wage and precarious jobs, need guaranteed paid sick days so they can stay home when they’re ill and when they believe that they have been exposed to COVID-19.

Despite funding from the federal government—again, despite funding from the federal government to do this—the Ford government has not brought in a paid sick day policy. In fact, one of the first things that you did as a government was take away those two paid sick days that were brought in under the last government. You are walking back health and safety protocols that actually keep the economy moving. That is fairly unconscionable, I would say, in this time and in this place in the history of this province.

Recognizing that ensuring that sick people don’t have to go to work is actually in the interest of the economy, because then you are mitigating the spread of COVID-19. I know that it makes too much sense, but it has to be part of an economic recovery strategy for Ontario. It must be part of that.

The fact that the federal government has put the money on the table and you are actively not putting that money into play really calls into question what kind of understanding you have of what’s actually happening outside of this House. We need paid sick days in the province of Ontario. They are worth fighting for. In fact, they are key to our economic recovery.

I have addressed the she-covery.

Investing in child care spaces: Massively building not-for-profit quality child care would be a huge boon to the economy.

Creating a dedicated retraining fund: We are absolutely committed to recognizing that where we are right now provides some opportunities to retrain and rebuild. We would offer targeted support for those who were hurt worse by the crisis, including women and racialized Ontarians, with dedicated retraining funds and an office to advance women’s apprenticeships, as recommended by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. Even the stakeholders that you usually do listen to, you haven’t been listening to.

This leads to a confidence issue. We do not have confidence in where this government is going, and that really shouldn’t surprise anybody. As businesses face the daily grind of just trying to survive this pandemic, and as they continue to look to the government for real financial direct support—and the government offers them tax deferrals for six months and then asks them to pay up, given the fact that we’re in lockdown in three major areas of Ontario—this disconnect really undermines all confidence. It actually affects public and consumer confidence as well.

I have addressed the insurance gouging. It really adds insult to injury that there are changes to the Insurance Act in the piece of legislation, but nothing substantive to help businesses. Zero—nothing—is in there.

The restaurant sector that came to us at committee: When you open a restaurant, I think people understand this is a very risky venture. It takes a long time for restaurants to be profitable, but they employ a lot of people. They’re very good for the economy. They have been asking for months now for you to limit food delivery fees. In some large American corporations, they are charging up to 30% premiums on delivery fees. This is something that is—I would consider this really low-hanging fruit. You’ve been asking for low-hanging fruit. Stop that price gouging on food delivery. Help the restaurant sector out.

This is something that’s actually in your wheelhouse. Why would you bring forward a piece of legislation that doesn’t address this really predatory pricing? It has to be called that.

I know that you have all heard from restaurants in your ridings, who have said, “Listen I can’t make a go of this. If I’m dedicated now to just takeout and delivery, I’m getting hit twice.” Many bars and restaurants are struggling with delivery fees charged by third-party delivery operations. These predatory fees are as high as 30%. Please, on that side of the House: Can you get the government of the day to understand that this is something that can be done very quickly and be a tangible source of support for small businesses? I conclude on that piece by saying we are clearly not in this together.

I am going to end on a really disturbing note, Mr. Speaker, because not only does Bill 213 not address the economic reality that businesses are facing right now, but it gives special treatment to someone who many people in this province consider to be someone who spreads hate. As I said, it is very clear. Charles McVety is the president of Canada Christian College. He is a well-documented supporter, friend and ally of the Premier of Ontario. He is also notorious for his long-standing and ongoing Islamophobic, transphobic and homophobic bigotry.

We should know better right now in the province of Ontario, given the tension that has been growing from the Black Lives Matter movement, from civil liberties movements. We should be very cognizant that this is not a time in our history to be more divisive, to bring forward a piece of legislation that gives special treatment to someone who spreads hate. At the very base, that is where we should be.

On Monday, I talked about the K economy. We’re not in a W economy. We’re not in a V economy, with a very clear recovery trajectory. We are in an economy which is called the K economy, where the people who were always doing well, they’re doing well again. They’ve got stable jobs, they’ve got pensions, they’ve got benefits, they’ve got sick days and they can work very well from home.

The vast majority of the folks who are not doing well are in those service jobs, where working from home is not possible, where having technology accessible does not allow you to work from home. They are on the front lines. They’re the personal support workers. They’re the grocery workers. They’re cleaning buildings. Their option to work at home is not good, so therefore, they are more at risk of catching COVID-19. And they have always been regarded as precarious workers. They have been moving, like PSWs who, in order to make ends meet, go from long-term-care home to long-term-care home.

It took this government forever to end that. If you think that that’s not happening, it still is happening.

There is a story right now in Kitchener-Waterloo of the precariousness of staffing in our long-term-care facilities. The workers who work at Schlegel long-term-care home are out today in protest because they are deserving of more funding. They are understaffed, so the stress and tension in the workplace—it’s an unhealthy place not only for them as workers but for the people who they’re caring for.

This K economy is highlighting those who have and those who do not. To bring a piece of legislation in here to this place at this time where you are basically giving special treatment to someone who revels in this divisiveness is irresponsible to the health and well-being of this province and to this economy.

You don’t even have to go very far back to explore how damaging the words and the language and the actions of Mr. McVety are. In 2018, McVety led transphobic efforts to remove gender identity from the public school curriculum, which the government used as a wedge issue during the 2018 election—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Excuse me. I’m going to caution the member. You’re referencing a

schedule pertaining to a school. In my opinion, we are not debating the individual, and so I would ask that you contain your comments to what’s in the

schedule itself and not to the individual who may at this particular point in time be associated with that particular college. In my opinion, it’s a fine line, so I just ask that you consider what I’ve said.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, Charles McVety is the president of the Canada Christian College. He has lobbied for this change. The government of the day, the Premier of this province are listening to this individual and giving him special treatment. I don’t expect to have to debate you on this issue. I’m speaking the truth. I’m speaking about the public record of an individual who has a history of very damaging commentary, very damaging behaviour, which is a poor reflection on this particular schedule, that it has received such priority status for the PC government.

I feel very confident that by describing what kind of college, what kind of individual this is, what kind of lobbying efforts that Mr. McVety has gone about—the direction that he has moved in has actually created damage in our community, which is why I’m appealing to the government side of the House at this particular time in our history to not allow special treatment for this individual.

In fact, there’s a long-standing history of the Conservative government not going in this direction, not institutionalizing Islamophobia and homophobia and not recognizing the equality of women, for instance. In 1983, the Davis PC government took away Canada Christian College’s right to grant degrees. That’s the history. That’s the context of why this is so important. This was with the Degree Granting Act, which was enacted to crack down on private degree mills that promised BAs and bachelor of science degrees that were worthless as recognized credentials. The act controlled degree-granting authority and the use of the term “university.”

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I recognize the member from Barrie–Innisfil on a point of order.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: Thank you, Speaker. You’re doing a great job, but I just hate to point out that there are a lot of relevance issues here. The member opposite has gone off topic several times, and I’ve been polite and I’ve listened, but unfortunately, I think this is not subject to any part of this bill, so I just ask for relevance here.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I recognize that as a point of order. Again, if you want to talk about school, talk about school. But let’s not characterize—I have concerns about that.

Now I recognize the member from Timmins, I believe on a point of order?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: On a further point of order. Mr. Speaker, the member is referring to the ability that this legislation will give the college to grant degrees, and she’s pointing out that in fact it was a previous Conservative government that took that away, and that is very relevant. This is all about giving that particular college the ability to grant degrees as a university. It was a former Conservative government that took that away. Those two things are related and therefore should be in order.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I would agree with that comment: again, former government taking away, for whatever the reasons are; current government granting. But again, I have concerns about bringing up the character or the values of an individual which may or may not be applicable to your particular party.

So again, I’m just going to caution the member. In my opinion, it’s a very fine line. I’ll allow you to continue, but take into consideration the remarks that have been made.

The member from Waterloo, please continue.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Okay. This is a very strange place for me to be in, because I’m talking about the history of the college that the government wants to grant degrees to, and there is a long-standing history of this college being very problematic. These are not—the values of being homophobic and anti-Islamic, of not being inclusive: These are values that, by granting a degree to this college, you’re saying, “You know what? Now we’re okay. We’re okay now.” This is problematic, especially debating it with the Speaker.

I’m going to just go back to the history of the college. The college had previously come under fire after a series of scandals involving the college and its founder, who was TV preacher Elmer McVety, who is Charles’s father. The college was barred from granting degrees until 1999, when PC MPP and former pastor Mr. Klees sponsored a private member’s bill. The Harris PC government loosened, somewhat, the restrictions on university credentials by repealing the Degree Granting Act in 2001 and replacing it with the Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act, which established the Post-secondary Education Quality Assessment Board.

As the guardian of the integrity of Ontario’s university credentials, the Harris government had previously disbanded the Ontario Council on University Affairs in 1996, which evidently had earned a reputation as a strict—and to some overly strict—gatekeeper of Ontario’s university system and credential standards. Since then, private colleges have regularly pursued private legislation to enable them to grant non-theological degrees like BAs or to use the word “university” in their name.

While some private Christian colleges seem to have decent reputations, others, like Canada Christian College, have a history of being called into question, and it is well-documented. So the idea of granting a degree to this particular college is concerning for us. It’s also—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: It was for Bill Davis.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Yes, it was concerning for Bill Davis.

I want to remind members that the Ontario Human Rights Code, which we believe in upholding, prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as well as gender identity or expression. Yet you have a president of a Christian college who is looking to change the name of that college to a university and grant degrees, appealing to the government of the day to have this kind of leniency.

I call this into question, as did our anti-racism critic yesterday, the member from Kitchener Centre, because this is not—the time in our history right now, in the middle of a pandemic, in the middle of an economic crisis, why does this prove to be so important to the Ford government that you actually put it into a so-called economic recovery piece of legislation? It does not look good on the government. It has actually caused great angst in the community, which we are hearing about. The fact that it’s embedded in an omnibus piece of legislation like Bill 213, during this particular time in our history, is indeed very worrisome.

I’m just going to conclude. I’m very surprised that the Speaker has called into question my motives in bringing forward this piece of legislation.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you very much. I appreciate that, but I can also deem what you just said as a challenge to the Speaker, which I don’t appreciate. I’ll allow to you continue, but again, please, you’re walking a fine line here. Don’t call into my judgment in your debate. I have made my point, and now I’ll allow to you continue. Thank you.

Ms. Catherine Fife: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, Bill 213 does so little to actually address the economic recovery that is needed in the province of Ontario. It moves in a direction that we feel is harmful to the people of this province. It lends itself to a whole new description of who can qualify to grant a degree in the province of Ontario.

We will not be supporting this piece of legislation under any circumstance. We are going to continue to support our Save Main Street strategy, which speaks to the real priorities of businesses in Ontario. We’re going to be respectful of what we heard at finance committee in June, July, August and September. We’re going to continue to fight for a rent abatement program so that businesses can actually stay open and keep people employed.

We’re going to make sure that we hold the insurance sector to account for their failure to honour business interruption premiums during this pandemic and the fact that they continue to increase premiums to the tune of 30% on businesses that are already struggling. And we’re going to continue to address the ability of landlords just to throw businesses out of business, because we support an eviction ban on businesses. We have to have their backs. They had our backs during the hardest times of this pandemic.

The fact that the government has brought two fairly incompetent, sloppy, messy pieces of legislation like Bill 215 and 213 to the floor of this Legislature during this crisis is insulting to the people of this province. This is, as I said before, not a low-hanging-fruit moment. This is a time for the government to be courageous, to be respectful of the voices that came to speak to us during this crisis.

I will end with one of the things that one of the businesses said to us, actually, because it’s good. It’s from Mark Bingeman. This is a business owner in Waterloo region. He says, “The province needs to understand that how it has handled this situation has substantially inappropriately branded this industry,” being waterparks and theme parks, “as unsafe, which in the current environment has damaged the industry’s reputation with consumers.”

We continue to see this government make up the rules as they go along, flip-flop on what should be opened and what should not be opened, really fail on holding offenders to account from an accountability and compliance perspective with health and safety. That failure has negatively impacted businesses. I tell you, Bill 213 does not help businesses in this province. I will conclude with that, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you. It’s now time for questions and comments.

Ms. Donna Skelly: Good morning. I wanted to start by saying how frustrating it is to stand here in the House once again and listen to comments from our friends across the aisle, arguing one day that there isn’t enough in a bill, another day that there is too much in a bill, and talking about things that are missing or are in there.

Mr. Speaker, our government has put forward a number of measures to help small businesses, and businesses in general, in Ontario not only survive this global pandemic but also move beyond the pandemic and thrive beyond the pandemic. We’ve seen it so far in the results. As of September, almost 180,000 new jobs were created in the middle of a pandemic. One of the reasons is we’re tackling red tape.

My question, Mr. Speaker, to the member opposite from Waterloo is, do you understand the frustration within small business in Ontario when it comes to trying to navigate the levels of burdensome red tape that they are forced to navigate each and every day?

Ms. Catherine Fife: First of all, our job is to hold the government to account. This is not about being friends or not being friends. This is about bringing forward legislation which addresses the issues of the day.

Bill 213 does not address commercial rent relief. It does not address the price gouging of delivery fees for restaurants. It does not address the insurance sector or the ongoing high cost of actually being a business in Ontario.

All you’ve done is defer debt. Then you’ve actually embedded a poison pill in this piece of legislation, which no business in the province of Ontario, particularly down here in the Gay Village, would ever support.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I really appreciated the comments made by the honourable member. I think she made the point that this bill has very little to do with actually helping small business navigate through this particular really hard economic time that they’re undertaking.

So in this bill, the government has decided to deregulate the bus industry by eliminating the Ontario transportation board that is responsible for licensing. What that means is you can go out and buy a $20,000 bus, put it on Highway 11 and run in competition to a regulated bus that’s there now, diminishing the size of the pot when it comes to how many riders, and eventually ending up in a situation where we’re going to have less buses and less service because, in a lot of places in Ontario, the market isn’t large enough to support multiple operators.

So my question to the member is simply this: If they’re trying to help small business, why are they putting measures like this in place that will, in fact, shut down small businesses that are in the busing business?

Ms. Catherine Fife: Thank you very much to the member from Timmins.

We’ve been tracking the lack of transportation support in this Legislature for years now. When the previous government cancelled the Northlander, I remember one of the ministers saying, “Well, let them take the car.” When Greyhound had to cut and reduce some of their routes, people said, “Well, they’ll just figure it out.” The fact that you have put this piece of legislation in here without even consulting the transportation sector indicates that you’re not interested in actually finding a real solution. You have what you think you should be doing, and you don’t even care if it can be successful or not.

That’s just an irresponsible way to plan. Transit is a key economic driver, so the fact that you’ve missed the mark on transit once again is indeed alarming.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions?

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: This bill that we’re debating today proposes to develop an online service for property-related information requests to ensure that information to inform evidence-based environmental decisions related to property transactions is available to businesses and citizens in a timely manner.

Now, as a 35-year-old elder millennial, I’m a fan of moving things online and making things more efficient and accessible. So my question to the member is, is the NDP against having a more efficient and accountable way of reporting property information? Thank you.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s interesting that the member raises this particular issue because on cybersecurity, on the IT front, Ontario is indeed lagging behind modernization of those processes. She mentioned as a young millennial that the environment is concerning for—

Interjection.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Elder millennial; sorry.

This piece of legislation will facilitate sprawling development and will have significant implications on the suitability of water resources. So if in 2020 we don’t fully understand how important protecting source water protection is, then we really are in a lot of trouble in Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions?

Mr. Faisal Hassan: I want to thank and appreciate the member from Waterloo for articulating the 28 schedules of this bill, entitled Better for People, Smarter for Business Act. We know that in the middle of the pandemic, small and mid-sized businesses are struggling; also, as the member from Waterloo indicated, that 50% of these small businesses are not included and aren’t even eligible for rent relief.

My question to the member is that, I know that this bill doesn’t help small business, even though it is entitled “better for people and smarter for business.” It doesn’t help either. How can we support small businesses? I know that they need support. If you could explain and tell us the importance of saving our small businesses and mid-sized businesses.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I had the pleasure of actually launching the Save Main Street strategy with our leader in the member’s riding of York South–Weston maybe three weeks ago. It was actually in a dance studio.

So dance studios, if you’ve been paying attention, have seen a great instability and messaging in communication. They’ve asked for clarity from the government, and I’m very pleased that the minister has supported the fact that we thought it was unfair to qualify dance studios in the same category as drop-in fitness centres, for instance. There’s a role to play for safe protocols in both of those sectors.

To his point: Supporting small businesses means we help them with their rent, we help them with their utilities, we make sure that predatory insurance and fees aren’t part of that equation and we make sure that they know we have their back. I believe that the people of York South–Weston know that you have their back as well.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions?

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: Being the son-in-law of a small business owner for many years in the province here, this bill will streamline, harmonize and regulate regulations and connect us with other provinces in the country. Why are you so against harmonization and regulations?

Ms. Catherine Fife: Listen, I also know small businesses and a lot of small business owners, primarily because we have a strong network of female entrepreneurs in Waterloo. If this bill actually did that, we would support it.

At the same time, you’ve called this bill the Better for People, Smarter for Business Act. It really should be called “better for some people,” because you’ve missed the mark on addressing the core issues that we heard from the finance committee during the summer.

I would tell you that streamlining resources, ensuring that businesses have clear guidelines and communication around clarity, around opening or not opening—these are important things. They’re not here in this piece of legislation. You’ve missed the mark again on supporting businesses and promoting economic recovery.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions?

Mr. Chris Glover: Four years ago, West Queen West in my riding was rated as the hippest street in the world. Yesterday, a photographer took pictures of 72 closed storefronts on West Queen West. That’s the legacy of this government, which has refused to fix MPAC assessments, to regulate insurance rates for restaurants, to provide rent support, to provide tax forgiveness, to regulate delivery fees. They’ve refused to support those businesses.

To the member: What would the NDP do to support small businesses?

Ms. Catherine Fife: The photographer who I referenced earlier in my one-hour lead is physically documenting, as evidence, what’s happening in Ontario. I would encourage the government to pay attention.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): The time for debate this morning has now ended.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Municipal elections

Mr. Ian Arthur: Unfortunately, today I have to rise to condemn this government’s latest attack on democracy in Ontario. Citizens’ assemblies and citizens’ referendums are one of the oldest forms of direct democracy in the world. They began in Athens. On important issues, the citizens were allowed to raise their hands in support of an issue or not. Those were the first referendums.

For this government to remove the ability of municipalities to decide on their representation in a democratic manner of their choosing is an attack on local representation. In Kingston, a citizens’ referendum on ranked ballots was held in 2018 and it passed with 63% of the vote; 63% of Kingstonians supported moving to that method of electing officials. The people of Kingston spoke in the most direct form of democracy that is possible, and they wanted ranked ballots. Overriding the result of this clear mandate is an affront to democracy in the most literal sense possible.

The idea of this legislation maintaining predictability during the pandemic is faulty logic. No municipality that agreed to ranked ballot elections is having an election in the near future. Claiming an attack on democracy as part of the response to the pandemic is reprehensible. It distracts and diminishes from those who actually suffer. Rather, this is a self-serving attack on our democracy.

School facilities

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Mr. Speaker, I’m thrilled to announce that last night, CTV News broke, on CTV News at Six, their evening news, that Riverside South, which is a fast-growing community in my riding, is going to be getting its first-ever public high school.

Interjections.

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Thank you very much.

There are a lot of people who helped out with this. I definitely want to thank the Minister of Education for taking my relentless and endless calls on this for the past two years.

I want to thank Premier Ford, because I actually remember speaking about the need for a public high school in Riverside South with the Premier last year in Ottawa during Christmas Cheer, and the Premier said, “Goldie, if you want it, you’re going to get it.”

I also want to thank the community as well, and especially Laurie Rogers and her three daughters, Jillian, Chelsea and Rachel, for helping me gather over 2,500 signatures for a petition that we submitted at Queen’s Park last year.

Mr. Speaker, this is excellent news for the community. And one thing I just wanted to point out is that, even though the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board wanted a school that had space for 1,300 students, the Minister of Education actually approved funding for over 1,500 students, recognizing the growing need in Riverside South.

Thank you, everyone. Thank you so much to everyone for working on this, and the minister and the Premier for approving this. Congratulations to everyone in Riverside South.

Insurance industry

Mr. Gilles Bisson: This government likes to pretend that it is the government on the side of small business. But more and more, as we look at what this pandemic is doing to the businesses in our communities, we are finding out that’s less and less the case.

Here’s the latest example: Small contractors who have equipment, that hire themselves out to do excavation or snow removal or whatever it might be, are now being refused liability insurance to work on municipal properties, on school boards and other public properties, because the insurance companies have decided, “Unless you’re one of the big guys making more than $750,000, we’re not going to insure you.” So that means all those little businesses in our ridings across Ontario who rely on this particular style of work to keep themselves employed are no longer able to do so.

I look across the way, and I say to the Minister of Finance: I’ll be giving you this letter. This government has a responsibility to stand up for small businesses and go after these insurance companies and tell them enough is enough. We need to allow those businesses to get liability insurance in order to continue what they’ve got to do. If insurance companies aren’t prepared to do it, the provincial government should stand in as the regulator and force them to do it, because this is highly unfair, and this is yet again big business getting what it wants and small business getting it in the ear.

Small business

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: On October 6, Lisa Chung, the owner of Kuo Hua Trading Company, a local Taiwanese grocer in my riding, Markham–Thornhill, generously donated 60,000 masks to school boards across Ontario. I want to thank Mrs. Chung and especially thank the Minister of Education and Catherine Hsu of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Toronto for coming to Markham–Thornhill to accept this wonderful donation. This small act is truly an example of the Ontario spirit and how hard-working small business owners are doing their part to help fight COVID-19.

Ontario’s small business owners are the lifeblood of this province. They are our job creators and entrepreneurs, employing millions of hard-working Ontarians right across the province. We also know that weathering the COVID-19 pandemic has not been easy for the small business community. Mr. Speaker, with York region recently joining Toronto, Peel and Ottawa in a modified stage 2, I want to take this opportunity, particularly during Small Business Week, to encourage Ontarians to show the Ontario spirit and shop local.

COVID-19 response

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: They say hindsight is 20/20. From that vantage point, you see everything, because once a thing has happened, it’s easy looking back to see what you could have done differently, what you could have done better. There is hindsight in this pandemic. We have the hindsight of the first wave, and we were even warned by medical experts that a second wave may hit harder and even when it would likely happen.

We saw which communities, which neighbourhoods were hardest hit during the first wave: racially marginalized communities, communities full of essential workers—many working multiple jobs, packed on public transit, many living with large families in small apartments—communities like mine, communities like the Premier’s and many more. COVID-19 has hit us all differently.

Again, we are calling on this government to invest the funds where they are needed the most. We need targeted resources. Help us strengthen our front lines. We need more mobile testing and not just one-offs, many more dates and many more locations. We need better contact tracing. Establish and fund community liaisons and get them on the ground, so the specific needs of different neighbourhoods are understood and met, and information is able to reach everyone in multiple languages. Help establish options for individuals to temporarily isolate, so if they catch the virus, they won’t have to spread it to their closest loved ones—the greatest fear that many have. The list goes on.

Let’s listen to the needs of our communities directly. We must do the right thing and target help where it’s needed the most. No more excuses. The people are counting on us. Let’s get it done.

Milan Kroupa

Mr. Jim Wilson: Speaker, I rise today to salute Mr. Milan Kroupa. Milan fled Czechoslovakia in 1968 and settled here in Ontario. When he was 35 years old, he established a cleaning business that is now a multi-million-dollar family enterprise with a national footprint stretching from Halifax to Calgary.

Mr. Kroupa has had a lifetime interest in aviation. In 2004, he purchased the Edenvale Aerodrome in my riding in the township of Clearview. Since acquiring the facility, Milan has restored the airfield and the buildings and he’s massively expanded the hangar space. It now attracts aviators and their planes from around the region and across the country. It has also become home to the assets of the Canadian Air and Space Museum, including a full-sized replica of the famous Avro Arrow.

I was pleased to participate when Mr. Kroupa was recently awarded the prestigious Royal Canadian Air Force Association NORAD Trophy, recognizing his significant contributions to the preservation and perpetuation of Canada’s rich aviation history, values and traditions.

Milan is a passionate and visionary citizen who has taken an abandoned Second World War training base and bunker and turned it into a world-class aeronautics attraction. I ask members to join me in recognizing Milan Kroupa for his commitment to Simcoe-Grey, to Ontario and to Canada. His hard work and dedication is certainly an inspiration for all of us, Mr. Speaker.

Extraordinary Education Centre

Mr. Vincent Ke: As we celebrate Small Business Week in Ontario, I’d like to take this opportunity to shine the spotlight on the small businesses and entrepreneurs in my riding of Don Valley North.

There is a small business in my riding called Extraordinary Education Centre. Since 2012, this small private school has worked hard to earn a solid reputation in the community. Due to the pandemic, the school had to close down all in-person lessons before March break, but in order for the business to survive, they created a new business model by offering their classes online. It was risky, yet necessary.

As they prepared to accommodate students in their newly envisioned virtual environment, the risk paid off. In fact, they broadened their client base because the whole world’s classrooms also went online at the same time and for the same reason. They set a great example of how small businesses can pivot, identify challenges and create opportunities at the same time.

Today, I salute all small businesses in Ontario for their exceptional efforts in challenging circumstances, as they continue to make progress, rebound and recover.

Sikh genocide

Mr. Gurratan Singh: One of the most vivid memories I have from my youth is seeing a picture of a victim of the Sikh genocide. Someone risked their life to smuggle out a photograph from India of someone who was tortured and killed by the Indian government. What strikes me the most to this very day is not just his lifeless eyes, his broken limbs or the burn mark of iron across his stomach; it’s a child in the photograph standing in the crowd, crying, standing in disbelief and, more than anything, probably asking, “Why? Why is the Indian government killing Sikhs?”

This genocide still impacts Sikhs across the world and those here in Canada. This November will mark 36 years since the start of the Sikh genocide. That’s why I’m asking all members of this House to come together and pass Sikh Genocide Awareness Week before this painful anniversary so that Sikhs across Ontario can come together to heal, to learn, to reflect and to seek justice together.

Farmers are the backbone of our society. They feed cities, and right now, farmers are under attack in India. Folks in my riding are concerned about new laws that are being passed by the Indian government that are going to hurt farmers in Punjab and Haryana and others across India. That’s why I’m asking all members of this House to come together to stand with farmers against these unjust laws by the Indian government, so farmers in India can live with the respect and dignity that they deserve.

Food literacy

Mr. Daryl Kramp: I would just like to at this time express my appreciation to all those in the chamber who attended last night for the second reading of my private member’s bill, Bill 216, the Food Literacy for Students Act, 2020.

Our party, the Conservative Party, has long sought to have food literacy taught in schools. The current consumer and commercial relations minister spoke at length about food literacy here in the chamber right back to 2013, and so did the current Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs at that time. Their words, available in Hansard, could have been written today. They’re still on target and current. Of course, I would like to thank the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education and the busy—very busy, I might add—Minister of Education himself for their support and guidance.

Thank you to the Ford government members who spoke in favour, and also to the members of the opposition and the independent member who spoke for it.

It was a pleasure to hear, I might add, mostly positive words aimed from all sides at this bill, whose intent is strictly non-partisan. Their words on the bill were respectful, colourful at times, slightly partisan at others, but acceptable, anecdotal in places and mostly positive. Thank you to this Legislature and its members.

Skills training

Mr. Lorne Coe: As our economy reopens, people in the region of Durham need help finding jobs, and I and MPPs Park, Bethlenfalvy and Phillips want to make sure that within the region everyone has the opportunity to upgrade their skills, gain practical hands-on experience and find good jobs.

To that end, we recently announced an investment of $122,000 to Durham College’s Centre for Professional and Part-time Learning, which will help prepare unemployed youth in Whitby and Durham region for success in entry-level jobs within the construction industry. These individuals who previously had a poor employment outlook will now be prepared to take their first step into a career that offers strong job prospects, mobility, good earning potential and a solid career progression in the longer term.

By providing opportunities for Durham residents to upgrade their skills and train for new jobs, we’re making it easier today and in the future to build rewarding and life-changing careers.

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

Question Period

Long-term care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My first question this morning is for the Premier. Over the last year, seniors in long-term care and the families that love them have been forced to endure horror after horror inside a broken long-term-care system largely controlled by for-profit corporations.

At every turn, the Premier has promised, “I’m holding these people accountable.” The Premier has promised that over and over again. “I’m holding these people accountable,” he has said. Yesterday, he actually exempted these for-profit chains from legal liability, and also exempted himself. Families are looking for accountability and justice, and they are looking for accountability and justice—rightfully so. They deserve accountability and justice. So my question to the Premier is, why is his first instinct to ensure he won’t be legally responsible?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Attorney General to reply.

Hon. Doug Downey: I welcome the chance to give some context and to clarify, because I don’t think that the member opposite has actually read the bill. Because what the bill does not do: The bill does not protect bad actors; the bill does not prohibit anything to do with failure to provide necessities of life or deliberate failure for standard of care or fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation or assault or battery—any number of things that are being alleged out there in the public sphere.

What the bill does do is protect those who in good faith are making best efforts to do their job. What we’re talking about are the PSWs on the front line. We’re talking about the paramedics; we’re talking about the hockey coaches, the charities, the non-profits, the volunteers. We are talking about the people who are contributing to our community and keeping our loved ones safe, Mr. Speaker.

We will let the bad actors pay their price, but we are protecting those who are acting in good faith.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: As a lawyer, the member opposite should know better. It’s shameful that he would suggest that they are not doing exactly what it is that they are doing.

Families who have lost loved ones in long-term care, who learned that their mother or father choked to death from being force-fed, or left in a bed with soiled diapers for days on end—in fact, for a week. It’s not acceptable.

Those folks have turned to the courts, as we all know. They have turned to the courts to get answers, to get accountability, to get justice for their loved ones. So why is the Premier promising that they can get that justice, that accountability, but not delivering on that promise? The Premier, instead, is changing the law to protect for-profit homes and himself by denying families the accountability, their day in court—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Education, come to order.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: He’s denying their—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. I apologize to the Leader of the Opposition for interrupting her. The Minister of Education will come to order.

Start the clock. Leader of the Opposition, place your question.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s a sad day in Ontario when the government prevents people from getting their day in court. Why is this the Premier’s top priority?

Hon. Doug Downey: If the Leader of the Opposition doesn’t like my legal opinion, she can perhaps talk to the Attorney General of BC, who brought in very similar legislation. The NDP government brought in very similar legislation, Mr. Speaker.

We are not protecting bad actors; bad actors, beware. Bad actors need to be on guard because they are still in breach and they are still in danger. We are protecting the front-line workers. We are protecting the hockey coaches, the dance instructors, those who are putting themselves out there for our communities to make our places better to live in, and we are all doing this together. This is the spirit of Ontario. We are hanging together and we are going to make sure that we get through COVID as a team.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, I think it’s shameful that the government is trying to shield their bad actions with calling out folks like hockey coaches or sports coaches or PSWs. That is absolutely shameful, to try to shield themselves with these folks who do their best to make our communities great places.

We know that several families have already filed statements of claim against for-profit facilities, detailing horrific levels of neglect and carelessness. We know that these for-profit chains have been actually frantically working the backrooms to protect their interest. We remember an executive at the for-profit chain Sienna who mocked the concerns of families at Woodbridge Vista Care and referred to their concerns as “bloodsucking” lawsuits. That’s what has been said.

Now we can see that these are the folks that the Premier is getting prepared to protect, to defend. Why is he rewriting the law to protect himself and the for-profit chains that are making millions in profit and not ensuring justice for families? Why?

Hon. Doug Downey: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is doing a disservice to the front-line workers and the volunteers and the charities and the non-profits in this province.

What we are doing is making space in the system so those bad actors can be held to account. We do not want people who are doing their honest best in good faith to be put in harm’s way when they’re, every day, going into those facilities as PSWs; they’re going into their communities to do the work at food banks, through charities, through non-profits.

The critic for health asked me to do this. The member from Humber River–Black Creek asked me to do this. I have several letters from the opposition and from Liberal members who have said our communities need this kind of protection, and we are delivering.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I remind all members that props are not to be used in the House during question period or any other time.

Leader of the Opposition.

Long-term care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier, but I have to say, what PSWs needed was more staff on the front lines of COVID-19. That’s what they needed, not a government that’s protecting the for-profit chains that are cutting their hours and keeping them in low-paid, part-time work. That’s what they needed.

Last April, families of residents at Camilla Care filed a statement of claim—and we all know this—including sworn affidavits detailing residents not being cleaned after soiling themselves and being denied testing when exhibiting signs of COVID-19. One of the plaintiffs, Innis Ingram, who folks might remember, was so desperate that he actually chained himself to a tree to try to get the kind of resources and supports that his mother needed.

I have to say, sadly, he lost his mother about a week ago, so my condolences go out to Innis.

He believed that a lawsuit was the only way that he could get accountability, that people would be held to account—a lawsuit. And now the Premier is changing the law to prevent Innis from getting the justice he deserves. Why?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Attorney General.

Hon. Doug Downey: Mr. Speaker, if we want justice to be served, then justice has to be delivered and the system has to be able to accommodate those hearings.

Interjection.

Hon. Doug Downey: Yes. Sorry, Mr. Speaker; I was watching for your cue. We need to make sure that those people get their day in court, for those bad actors, for those people who are doing things beyond a gross negligence level. We need to make sure that there is room in the system so that those pieces can get heard, not the people who are on the front lines, who are putting themselves out there; not the grocery clerks who, through honest effort and honest belief, were doing the right things or taking public health advice. They were putting themselves out there. They’re on the front lines.

Those people should not be put in jeopardy, nor should they gum up our system so that the bad actors can’t get heard.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, to have the Attorney General suggest that people attempting to get justice is gumming up our justice system is shameful. It’s disgraceful. The bottom line is, you can’t change the law to try to deny people justice—or you shouldn’t. That’s not democratic.

At Pickering’s Orchard Villa, the Canadian Armed Forces found horrifying scenes of cockroaches and patients left in beds with soiled diapers. Sylvia Lyon decided to take Orchard Villa to court after her mother died. This is what she said at the time, and the government should listen to this:

“My mother ... was a good, decent individual.... We entrusted her care to the owners of Orchard Villa.” They “received over $11 million in funding each and every year from the ... government. Yet each year the care provided was less and less.”

“Those that are responsible for this state of affairs must ... be held accountable.”

I agree with Sylvia. So why is the Premier changing the law to protect Orchard Villa when he failed to protect Sylvia and failed to protect her mother?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I remind members to make their comments through the Chair.

Attorney General to reply.

Hon. Doug Downey: The question that the Leader of the Opposition needs to ask herself is very simple: Were those people following public health advice? Were they taking advice? Were they implementing the advice? Were they doing it in good faith? Were they making an honest effort? Were all those things true?

Should the PSWs, should the health care workers, should the grocery store clerks, should the hockey coaches who are putting themselves out there, the dance instructors who are working with our kids so that they can get physical exercise, so that there are mental health components—this feeds all the way through. Should those people who are making an honest effort, in good faith, be thrown into harm’s way?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Leader of the Opposition.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I would submit to the member opposite that those are questions for the courts to decide. Those are questions for the courts to decide, not for the government to protect its own friends and for-profit corporations. That’s what’s happening here.

Families have heard hollow promises from this Premier over and over again, yet at every stage, even while the Premier talked about change, he has been working with connected Conservative lobbyists in the back rooms to ensure that for-profit companies making millions in long-term care—making millions from long-term care, I should say—will be protected and that there will be no accountability for residents and their families.

Why is the Premier rewriting the law to protect for-profit corporations making millions in profits, and not the seniors who lost their lives in long-term care and not their family members who have experienced such horrors over these last several months?

Hon. Doug Downey: We finally found common ground. I totally agree. These are issues the courts should decide. But to stand here and prejudge is a little sanctimonious. It is for the courts to decide if people were acting with honest belief, if it was good faith, if they were doing everything they thought they could do, if they took public health advice. They implemented public health advice. They put themselves out there in their communities. Should they have a level of protection? Yes, the courts should decide that.

But to stand here and rhyme off case after case after case without really having much depth of what people did or tried to do or where they took their public health advice is a little bit rich.

Long-term care

Ms. Jennifer K. French: My question is to the Premier. My colleagues and I have had the honour of working with Cathy Parkes, a daughter who tragically lost her father, Paul, to the devastating COVID-19 outbreak at the Orchard Villa long-term-care home in Pickering earlier this year.

Upon hearing the news of this government’s decision to protect the very people who put her father’s life in jeopardy, Cathy told us this: “My family and others like us have been through a living hell in the past six months. We watched our loved ones suffer and die while our hands were tied and the only people who could help didn’t move fast enough. This tragedy will be etched in history as a time when those in power failed to protect our vulnerable citizens and this new step shows the corruption of power at its absolute worst.”

What does the government have to say to Cathy and her family?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Attorney General.

Hon. Doug Downey: Mr. Speaker, I do want to start by saying that we acknowledge that there are tragic circumstances and that people absolutely are struggling through COVID-19. I can tell you that we are doing everything possible, as a government, to help our communities through this period.

I was quickly checking my various letters from the opposition asking me to bring in this legislation. I don’t see one from the member who asked the question, but several of her colleagues have expressed concern for people in their communities who want to contribute to their communities, who want to come forward and want to feel security if they make an honest effort and they do it in good faith and get public health advice and implement that advice—that they have a level of protection that they can engage in their communities, and that we can reach out and help in every way possible.

There are tragedies, and my heart goes out to them. We need to make sure that we’re putting our resources where they can help the most.

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Again to the Premier: I will submit that I have been standing alongside the families, as all of my colleagues have, in our communities, demanding justice and trying to get them the support they need during this difficult time. Across Ontario, those families who have lost loved ones to COVID-19 in long-term care are seeking justice.

We have heard countless reports from families, residents, PSWs and even the Armed Forces, who all detailed the horrific conditions that allowed this outbreak to claim over 1,900 lives in the first wave. First, this government hid from accountability by refusing an independent public judicial inquiry. Now they’re making laws to evade responsibility and duck liability.

Speaker, private for-profit homes like Southbridge’s Orchard Villa long-term care, with a long record of orders, complaints, and non-compliance, should not be allowed to operate with impunity.

Why is the government trying to stand in the way of Ontarians like Cathy from holding these homes accountable?

Hon. Doug Downey: We’re doing exactly that. We’re making the system so that those who are the bad actors, those who are part of the failure to provide necessities of life, those individuals or companies or non-profits or any group who are not acting in good faith and are not providing a level of service that is appropriate—they are in harm’s way, and we will let them stay in harm’s way.

But who we will not let go into harm’s way are our volunteers in our communities and our front-line workers who are acting with an honest belief, acting in good faith, and taking public health advice and implementing that advice. We will not throw them in front of the bus.

It is important that we protect our communities and those who contribute to our communities, and that’s exactly what we’re doing.

Federal-provincial fiscal policies

Mr. Daryl Kramp: Today, I would like to direct my question to the government House leader.

When I woke up this morning, I turned the TV on since I normally watch the 6 o’clock news, and sure enough—I was rather shocked, of course, in one way, when we learned that there is going to be a confidence vote this afternoon in the federal Legislature that could plunge this country into a general election.

Yet, two weeks ago, the Ontario Liberal leader, Steven Del Duca, said that calling a snap election in the middle of the course of a pandemic would be bad for the people of Ontario. We agreed then and we agree now, absolutely.

But, Mr. Speaker, Ontario, as we all know, is involved in a number of joint initiatives and ventures with the federal government, including support for small businesses and families. Would the government House leader now please indicate how a federal election would impact the ongoing partnership we have between the federal government and the provincial government, and if these pandemic supports that we have right now could be adversely affected?

Hon. Paul Calandra: I want to thank the member for that question. It’s a very, very important question. Obviously, as the member noted today, the federal House is going to be seized with a confidence motion that could plunge the country into an election. He’s quite correct. There are a number of initiatives that we are working on together that an election would obviously put a pause on, Mr. Speaker, so I do encourage my friends at the federal level, all parties, to work together the way this House has been working together for months.

In fact, just two weeks ago, the leader of the Liberal Party, Mr. Steven Del Duca, took the unprecedented step of bringing forward Ontario’s and Canada’s first-ever motion of confidence in a government, which I am proud to say passed unanimously. All members of this Legislature—the official opposition, the Liberals—all voted in favour of this government continuing to do the good work that it has done over the last two years. I would hope that my friends at the federal level would take their lead from us so that we continue working together for the benefit of all Ontarians.

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

Mr. Daryl Kramp: Given the critical importance that an election poses to all these joint support programs that we’re able to participate in in order to help and guide the people of Ontario and this country out of this dastardly pandemic circumstance, co-operation is absolutely needed. But, of course, should we have an election, many, many things then fall by the wayside.

I wonder if the government House leader could expand upon some of the possible impacts of this federal election, should it be called.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Again, I thank the honourable member. Of course, Mr. Speaker, across various ministries in the government there are a number of initiatives that we are working together on, whether it’s the Minister of Education who has been working to protect students, the Minister of Finance who has been working very closely with his counterpart in Ottawa to ensure that protections for small businesses are expanded, or the Minister of Health or the Minister of Long-Term Care; across government, there are a number of initiatives that we have been working on together that would all be put in jeopardy if an election was held today.

The member is quite right: A week ago, the leader of the Liberal Party said, “Right now, we’re in an unprecedented crisis” due to the COVID pandemic. “We need political leaders to actually show up for work, roll up their sleeves and do the job that they were elected to do and not worry about their own crass interests....” That’s what led to a motion of confidence in this government with unanimous support across all party lines. That’s the type of spirit we would hope we could see by our federal cousins in Ottawa, Mr. Speaker.

At the same time, I would remind all members, I know there was an issue at the Liberal nomination meeting in Halton, where the public health measures were not followed, Mr. Speaker—

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

Municipal elections

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Premier. Speaker, last year the Premier and his government claimed that they would respect mayors and municipal councillors, after attacking local democracy when they first got to office. A year ago, the Minister of Municipal Affairs said, “Our government stands firm in its commitment to partnering with municipalities without pursuing a top-down approach.” Yesterday we saw that commitment dissolve into mush when the Premier slipped a provision into a bill that would take away the option of ranked balloting from municipalities.

Can the Premier tell us which municipalities asked for this assault on their local decision-making?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The parliamentary assistant, the member for Milton.

Mr. Parm Gill: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to say it’s my first opportunity to rise, and it’s an honour as a PA to be able to answer a question in this House.

I want to thank the member opposite for that question, Mr. Speaker. I can assure this House that we’re committed to enhancing consistencies in election processes. Our government believes that it is important that the way people vote in a federal and a provincial election is the same way that they vote in a municipal election. That’s why, earlier this year, we responded to a request from the Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario and made changes to create a single voters list for both municipal and provincial elections, reducing the need to make corrections on election day, shortening wait times and saving municipalities money.

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Clearly, not a single municipality asked for this change to be made. In London, where a historic and successful election was held with ranked ballots in 2018, councillors have denounced this interference. In the words of Councillor Morgan, “Allowing local communities to choose the way they elect their governments is a good thing for local democracy.”

A Kingston referendum saw 63% support for ranked ballots in the 2022 municipal election. A Cambridge referendum was supported by 56%. The city of Toronto voted overwhelmingly in favour of ranked ballots for the 2026 election; in fact, one of the only objections came from the Premier’s nephew.

We are in a pandemic, Speaker. Can the Premier explain why he felt it was so urgent to undermine local democracy yet again and meddle in municipal politics?

Mr. Parm Gill: We know that these changes would better respect taxpayers’ dollars: 443 out of the 444 municipalities voted using the first-past-the-post system in the 2018 election. The city of London was the only municipality in Ontario to have used the ranked ballot in Ontario, and their municipal election cost taxpayers an additional $515,000. That is 40% more than what it cost them in the previous election. And guess what, Mr. Speaker? They got the exact same—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. The member for Timmins, come to order. The Minister of Education, come to order. The Minister of Labour, come to order.

The member for Milton, please wind up.

Mr. Parm Gill: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying, London got the exact same election result that they would have under the first-past-the-post system used by the rest of Ontario. So the only thing this would do is bring consistency and save municipalities money.

Insurance rates

Mr. Jim Wilson: Speaker, I rise this morning to ask the Minister of Finance about the insanity that has become rampant in Ontario’s commercial insurance industry. I hear regularly from constituents about out-of-control premium increases being demanded by insurance companies and, in some instances, the outright refusal to renew contracts with condominium corporations that have had few or no claims.

In the case of the Green Briar community in Alliston, they saw modest annual rate increases in the period leading up to 2018. Then out of nowhere, and with no claims, they were shocked to learn of their premium doubling to almost $16,000 in 2019. Incredibly, it doubled again in 2020 to almost $30,000. Now, as a new year approaches, Green Briar is looking at another potential doubling to $60,000, and that’s if they can get the insurance at all. The story at the neighbouring Briar Hill condominium corporation is similar.

Most of these people are retired seniors, many on fixed incomes. In light of the near-criminal behaviour of commercial insurance companies, isn’t it time that the Ontario government regulate this industry?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Simcoe–Grey for raising this important matter.

Since we have been elected, as this Legislature knows, we’ve been keeping a close watch on all aspects of insurance, whether it’s automotive or the sort of insurance that the member is talking about today. Certainly, since the beginning of this pandemic, our message has been clear to the insurance industry, which is that they need to understand their customers today will be their customers tomorrow. Ontarians expect no less than fair treatment from them.

We are aware, in particular, of the difficult matters with regard to the condominium corporation insurance, and I’d be happy to get more details from the member specifically about those issues. I have been actively meeting with affected consumers, with the insurance industry and with Bryan Davies, who is the chair of FSRA, which is the regulator. The government will continue to work and look for solutions, particularly as they relate to the issues related to COVID-19, but to make sure that there is open insurance for Ontarians in all situations.

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: Back to the Minister: I’ve written the minister three times in the last year, and I haven’t received a response. My constituents are extremely frustrated. The industry says it’s “studying the problem.” They make up the excuse that it’s due to COVID-19 claims. Well, they haven’t had COVID-19 claims yet. They also say it’s due to severe weather events. Well, I grew up knowing about Hurricane Hazel of 1954, and I don’t think we’ve had anything like Hurricane Hazel since 1954, so I don’t really accept their severe weather excuses.

I suggest the government get on the ball with respect to this issue. It’s across the province. It’s not just Green Briar or Briar Hill in my riding. It’s not just the seniors who are affected. It’s condominium corporations. It’s turning into a crisis. People can’t get insurance. They need insurance, and the excuses from the industry are unacceptable.

So, again, I ask the minister, what is the government going to do to protect these seniors and to protect these condominium corporations?

Hon. Rod Phillips: Let me say—and I’ll take as a given if we did not reply to those letters to the member, I’ll take that up immediately when I get back. That’s not acceptable, so my apologies for that.

With regards to the issue, the initiatives that my colleague the Attorney General introduced are going to be helpful in terms of the civil liability components of this. It is one of the factors, but only one of the factors, that’s affecting the insurance industry. As I have said, we are working with the industry. We are working with the affected parties. We are working with FSRA, which is the regulator. As the member knows, elements of conduct currently are regulated by the government, not elements of price, which are more specifically what he’s referring to. But we’ll continue to work with all the affected parties to make sure that insurance is available.

I should note that there are 200 property and casualty insurers, which would be the kind of insurers that would deal with this sort of matter, and 19,000 insurance brokers. One of the things that a competitive market allows is for individuals, corporations, seniors, businesses to make sure that they’re getting the best deal they can have from a broadly based market.

School facilities

Mrs. Robin Martin: My question is to Minister of Education. After the Liberals’ disastrous record of 600 school closures and an enormous repair backlog, our government is investing in our students and their learning environments. Yesterday, I was pleased to join the minister and the Premier to announce funding for Loretto Abbey Catholic Secondary School in my riding of Eglinton–Lawrence as part of our government’s historic investment in new schools, additions and child care spaces across the province.

Can the minister please outline what this funding will achieve, how it will help our students and, more importantly, will he commit to continuing to reverse the disastrous legacy of cuts and closures that mark the Liberals’ time in office?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: I want to thank the member for Eglinton–Lawrence for being an unapologetic defender for public education in the city of Toronto and across this province, and for standing strongly to deliver a historic investment in a historic school older than Confederation, Loretto Abbey, a project that literally will help ensure a future generation of women continue to make a difference in our country.

Under the former government, for 15 consecutive years, the Liberals closed the most schools in provincial history. In sharp contrast, in the midst of a pandemic, the Premier of this province has allocated and invested $1 billion, an historic investment, to build 50 new schools, to renovate 23 major school projects and to expand 1,700-plus affordable child care spaces for working parents. This is an investment in our future, in our children, and we will continue to do whatever it takes to ensure our learning facilities are at the highest standard and state of the art.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary, the member for Carleton.

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: My question is to the Minister of Education. Since 2018, I have been fighting to reverse the damaging impact of school closures and lack of investment in new schools across my riding of Carleton, because that was the legacy of the previous Liberal government. Shutting down Munster Elementary School was their legacy.

Minister, I have been working hard to secure funding for new schools in my riding. Yesterday, I was thrilled to announce the approval of over $42 million dollars for a brand new, and the first, secondary school in Riverside South. My question to the—

Interjections.

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Thank you.

My question to the minister is simple. Will the minister commit to continue working on rebuilding an education system that was shamefully left in shambles by the previous Liberal government, and can he provide more details on the new school coming to Riverside South?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: I am very grateful for the advocacy and the leadership of the member for Carleton, who has worked so hard to ensure the people of Riverside South and Carleton—after a decade of advocacy and being ignored by the former Liberal government, finally, a government and a Premier are delivering for this fast-growing suburban community, delivering a school, a $42-million investment, a 1,500-sized new high school that includes child care for working parents.

Flu immunization

Mr. Ian Arthur: My question is to the Acting Premier. The government recently announced its so-called Keeping Ontarians Safe plan and its six pillars, the first of which was the largest flu immunization campaign in the province’s history, which unfortunately has already stumbled. Folks in every part of the province are being turned away because pharmacies don’t have enough vaccines to meet the needs of taxpayers.

How did the government go so terribly wrong on their first pillar? How can they ask Ontarians to do their part and get the vaccines and then force pharmacies to turn them away because of inadequate government preparations?

Hon. Christine Elliott: The member is absolutely right in the comment that this is an essential part of our Keeping Ontarians Safe plan—to have the most effective flu campaign in Ontario’s history, to get as many vaccinations as possible. In fact, we ordered over 700,000 more doses this year than last year, and we have already shipped over 3.4 million doses of the flu vaccine across Ontario, compared to last year at this time, when we had shipped over 2.7 million. So we’re already ahead of where we were last year.

I would remind the member that this is something that happens every year, because the shipments come in at different times from global manufacturers. There is no shortage of the flu vaccine. It is coming in on a regular basis. We will receive shipments shortly.

I’m pleased that so many Ontarians are taking this seriously and want to have the flu vaccine.

Please rest assured, everyone in Ontario, that if you want the flu vaccine, if you want the flu shot, there will be one ready for you.

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

Mr. Ian Arthur: Speaker, in any other year, this rollout might have been acceptable, but it’s not acceptable when this is the first pillar of the plan against the second wave of COVID-19.

A constituent in Kingston and the Islands, Bruce Bursey, is in need of a high-dose vaccine but has been told he will have to wait well into November to get one—but it’s not just him, and it’s not just in Kingston. Flu season is here in Ontario but the vaccines we need to slow it simply aren’t.

Will the government acknowledge that the rushed-out use of an existing plan for its first pillar is because they simply didn’t have a second wave strategy in place at the time? And will the government acknowledge that they’ve already let Ontarians down on that first pillar and immediately move to acquire the vaccines and distribute them so that we can keep Ontarians safe?

Hon. Christine Elliott: What I will say to the member is, we have a very well-developed plan that was developed months ago to distribute the flu vaccine. We ordered 700,000 more doses this year than last year. They are being distributed according to the schedules that have been arranged with the global manufacturers and with the assistance of the federal government. We have no delays in shipment. They are proceeding as they were meant to be proceeded with. This happens every year, where, in some locations—there are short-term situations where they may not have enough flu vaccines in a particular pharmacy. I would suggest that your constituent may be able to find it somewhere else.

But in any event, every pharmacy that is carrying a flu vaccine will have enough to make sure that every Ontarian who wants to have the flu shot will have the flu shot.

Municipal elections

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, your government introduced Bill 218 under the cover of a COVID-19 response bill, yet it would bar local municipal governments from using ranked ballots in their local elections. This omnibus legislation comes at a time when municipalities across Ontario are moving towards ranked ballots, and the Premier himself was chosen as his party’s leader under this system.

My question is, who did the Premier consult with? Who asked for this provision? Why is it so urgent that it merits inclusion in a COVID-19 response bill? Did anyone actually ask for this to be done, or is the Premier steamrolling once again over the independence of Ontario’s local municipalities?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The parliamentary assistant to reply.

Mr. Parm Gill: I find it a bit ironic, coming from the Liberal member. May I remind the member about the promise that their federal leader made in terms of election reform?

Mr. Speaker, our proposed changes would bring predictability to municipal elections at a time when Ontarians are focused on their health and safety, and make the electoral process consistent across municipal, provincial and federal elections. A consistent municipal election process would also ensure municipalities avoid unnecessary higher costs associated with ranked ballots.

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

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: Speaker, this is not about unnecessary higher costs. Introducing this unrelated measure during a health crisis is unconscionable. It goes against the spirit of democracy.

Let me tell you the benefits of ranked ballots. Ranked ballots produce fairer elections. The results reflect public opinions. They allow for a diversity of voices to be represented in politics. They make democracy better. In the first municipality to use ranked ballots in Canada, London elected its first Black woman as city councillor, Arielle Kayabaga. The system is having great success.

The procedural fairness of ranked ballots tends to work against groups like this government, which benefitted from and perhaps prefer the status quo. This government won a majority in an election with first-past-the-post with just 40% of the popular vote.

How can the Premier justify overturning democratically elected and deliberated decisions in Toronto, in Kingston, in Cambridge, in the city of London? Why—

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

Mr. Parm Gill: I’d like to remind the member opposite that the first-past-the-post system is a system that is used federally. It is a system that is used provincially. I am proud to be in this Legislature. Using this system, I don’t think anybody can deny the representation in this Legislature is very, very diverse.

The member pointed out in terms of London being the first city to use it. I would like to remind everyone in this Legislature of the cost associated with the system that was only used by the city of London. It cost the taxpayers of London an additional $515,000. That’s 40% higher, Mr. Speaker. Ultimately, they would have gotten the exact same result using the first-past-the-post system, so it would not have made a difference.

We’re bringing consistency right across this province.

Teachers

Ms. Donna Skelly: My question is for the Minister of Education. For nearly a decade, Ontario has hired educators based on seniority, and it has not served our students well. In fact, it has undermined the quality of teaching throughout Ontario.

Regulation 274 was first brought in by the former Liberal government, and it was and continues to be supported by the current opposition. Even the former Premier who brought in this regulation is on the record saying it was “overcorrection.”

Can the Minister of Education please share with us why this egregious regulation needed to be removed?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Thank you for the question. This regressive regulation, brought in by the former Liberal government, has been relegated to history, where it belongs. After a decade of ensuring that seniority in this province was being given preference in hiring, it is this government and this Premier who took the decisive step to ensure that hiring and promotions revert to a system of meritocracy. I think that is profoundly in the interests of students and in the interests of parents.

The question for the members opposite, for my colleagues the Liberal Party and New Democrats, is: Will you stand with parents, with students in saying that this regulation should never have seen the light of day, that we have to defend the interests of students who demand quality learning, now in this pandemic and every day thereafter?

We believe, now more than ever, while children are facing the difficulty, the learning loss and the struggle of the pandemic, that we have to do everything we can to give our principals the speed and the latitude to hire quickly and hire the very best person for the job.

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

Ms. Donna Skelly: Minister, it’s clear that an education system built around quality, diversity and innovation is one that benefits everyone involved. It’s also clear that, currently, our education system does not adequately reflect our province’s rich diversity, in part due to previous hiring practices. Ontario is a beautiful mosaic of cultures and peoples, and this should be represented in our educational system.

Speaker, can the minister please share with us how the revocation of regulation 274 will better reflect our communities in our educational system?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: I think the member raises a very important point, which we have seen in boards across the province. Earlier, one of the remarks was that the status quo is indefensible, the concept that we should not sit here and defend a system that is not ensuring that merited people of diversity are in our schools.

In Peel, where I commissioned and called for a review, the report was quite clear: In schools with 50% racialized students, we have less than 25% of racialized educators. How is that acceptable to any one of us? It is 2020. We need to ensure that our educators reflect the communities in which they serve. Principals, school board associations, parents, students themselves have called for it.

The only audience, the only constituency calling for the status quo are our union partners, respectfully, and the members of the Liberal Party. I think that is absolutely inconsistent with the interests of quality, with the interests of our students. You can count on the Premier to continue to ensure that we drive the reforms that ensure more equity, more diversity and more mobility for the next generation of educators in this province.

Child care

Ms. Doly Begum: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is Child Care Worker and Early Childhood Educator Appreciation Day. A way we can show our appreciation for early childhood educators, and the kids and the families they serve, is by supporting the child care centres with stable, sustainable funding. Because whether it’s ECEs or parents who will be counting on daycare spaces to be there when they go back to work, or as they are going back to work, Ontarians need to know that affordable, high-quality, not-for-profit, public daycare spaces will be there when they need them. But closures and low enrolment are taking their toll on centres, families, child care workers and our economy.

Can the Premier tell families how many child care centres in Ontario are currently open, and how many are closed?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Education.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: As of last week in this province, 95% of child care operators are opened, helping and supporting working parents in the province of Ontario. Ninety-five per cent are open in this province because they have the guidance supported by the Chief Medical Officer of Health. They have the funding supported by the province and the feds, providing an historic investment.

And not only that, in the midst of this pandemic, the federal minister, Minister Ahmed Hussen, and I announced a one-year extension to provide stability of the federal-provincial early child care agreement to ensure the sector knows with absolute clarity we will be there for them, as we have from the very early days of this pandemic, ensuring that they have the operating support while they had fewer children within their care.

We are doing everything possible, recognizing, as the member has acknowledged, the importance of child care to get women and men back into the labour market. We are firmly committed to helping child care operators reopen and stay open to support our economic recovery.

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

Ms. Doly Begum: Any working family with young kids knows how essential daycare is to ensuring parents can work and kids can get high-quality, affordable care. That is why New Democrats have fought for licensed, high-quality, affordable, not-for-profit child care for decades. This pandemic has thrown this into sharp relief. It’s not just parents who know this is more essential now than ever. In September, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce highlighted the fact that a recovery will require ensuring child care can “weather the pandemic.”

So I ask again: How many spaces—not centres—have closed since the pandemic, because we’re hearing otherwise, and what will the minister do to reopen them?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Well, Mr. Speaker, as the member will acknowledge, the supply and demand of our child care sector is an important element that needs to be acknowledged. If there are fewer parents requesting the service, therefore there will be fewer children within child care centres. And while we accept that parents, especially while they work from home, may have different arrangements and requirements for the care of their children, child care centres overwhelmingly—the critical mass, the vast majority; north of 94%, roughly 95%—have reopened. And why is it that they have done so?

Because the government has provided them with funding each and every step of this pandemic. We just announced an additional $230-million infusion to our child care operators.

When it comes to the affordability of child care for the end user, for the parent, we introduced in this House a child care tax credit, because after 15 years in respect to the former government, we had the most expensive child care in Ontario. Yet the opposition, when having an opportunity to support 200,000 working parents, voted no. I would hope that they will continue to reflect in the forthcoming budget about how we can make child care more affordable and more accessible fo