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

March 2, 2022

42nd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2022-Mar-02 (PDF)

L038 - Wed 2 Mar 2022 / Mer 2 mar 2022

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 2 March 2022 Mercredi 2 mars 2022

Orders of the Day

Legislative reform

Members’ Statements

Beach Metro News

Purim

Richard Kusmierczyk

Kinsmen Club of Peterborough

Personal protective equipment

Mois de la Francophonie

International Women’s Day

Invasion of Ukraine

Skilled trades

International Women’s Day

Report, Financial Accountability Officer

Visitors

Question Period

Health care funding

Government policies

Climate change

Manufacturing jobs

Health care funding / Financement des soins de santé

Invasion of Ukraine / Invasion de l’Ukraine

Workplace safety

Government spending

COVID-19 response

Government assets

Anti-racism activities

Assistance to businesses

Education funding

COVID-19 immunization

Land use planning

Introduction of Bills

Groves Memorial Community Hospital Act, 2022

Fairness in Petroleum Products Pricing Act, 2022 / Loi de 2022 sur l’équité en matière d’établissement du prix des produits pétroliers

Ministry of Community and Social Services Amendment Act (Social Assistance Research Commission), 2022 / Loi de 2022 modifiant la

Loi sur le ministère des Services sociaux et communautaires (Commission de recherche sur l’aide sociale)

Petitions

Anti-racism activities

Economic recovery

Mental health services

Economic recovery

Animal protection

Economic recovery

Employment standards

Economic recovery

Financial institutions

Orders of the Day

Fewer Fees, Better Services Act, 2022 / Loi de 2022 pour de meilleurs services et moins de frais

Private Members’ Public Business

Racial Equity in the Education System Act, 2022 / Loi de 2022 sur l’égalité raciale dans le système d’éducation

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Legislative reform

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 1, 2022, on the motion regarding amendments to the standing orders.

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: I appreciate the opportunity to finish debate on the standing order changes, Speaker. It’s been a very good debate. I’ve been enjoying not only my own speech—given that I’m the only one who’s actually been speaking, and I’ve had the opportunity to review it, and I thought it was a pretty darned good speech so far, colleagues. I’m almost hoping that I could get another hour to speak on it.

As we were debating Bill 84 yesterday, it dawned on me that I should maybe almost amend my own standing orders yet again because we heard yesterday, of course, that the opposition House leader and the Liberal House leader now think it’s also the government’s job to do their job. As you know, colleagues, Bill 84, which was another rare motion of confidence that is coming forward from the opposition, was expedited, as you probably know, so there will be no committee hearings on Bill 84, not at the request of the government but at the request of the NDP, the Liberals and the independents.

They, then, suggested of course yesterday that, “Oh, well, but if we can’t do our job, then surely you could do it for us.”

I’m not sure how I would word that change, Speaker. How much more can we do? How much more can the Conservatives do? Not only are we charged with rebuilding the economy, not only are we charged with getting Ontario back on track, now the opposition is asking to us to actually do their job as well. The standing order changes, of course, have made it easier for them to do their job. It is about us giving back to democracy, making this place better, giving them more tools to do their job, and now they actually want us to do their job. They want us to help them vote and they want us to actually send things to committee.

Now just to be clear on that issue, Speaker, it really only takes—Bill 84, in particular, when the vote came, was passed on division. So the opposition in its entirety passed it on division. They didn’t want a standing vote on Bill 84; it went on division. And then when it came to send it to committee, all you have to do is, a few of them have to stand up. So of the 50 opposition members, nobody stood up to suggest that it should go to committee. They didn’t say anything. They wanted it expedited as quickly as possible.

I’ve made all of these changes to improve committees, to add people to committees, to make committees more powerful, and the opposition, when it comes to something so important like Bill 84, have decided that they didn’t want to—you’ll see how it comes around, Speaker. They’ve talked about it in Bill 84 that they’re against the cuts—not even cuts—returning people’s money from val tags. You know, you go and stick that stupid sticker on the back of your car. In 2022, we’re still putting stickers on the backs of cars. But anyway, in giving the money back, they’re against it, but they’re going to vote in favour of it.

Having said all of that, this is a rare opportunity, yet again, Speaker, and it is probably another standing order change I should do. We have motions of non-confidence, but this is the first Parliament ever—and I would think that if you go back in the history of parliamentary democracy, or democracy in general, you will never find an instance where both opposition parties have brought forward motions of confidence in the government. It has never happened. First, it was the Liberals and the House unanimously voted to support this government. It wasn’t just a vote of support.

It was begging the government to continue until June 2, begging us to continue doing the work that we have done. Of course, we said, “Of course we’re going to continue.”

And now, through Bill 84—and I remind colleagues the NDP and the Liberals are the only ones who have ever put tolls on roads. We’re the only ones who have ever taken them off and put the money back in people’s pockets, Speaker.

But in Bill 84, what we’re going to have tomorrow is a vote of confidence in the government. What do I mean by that? It’s going to be a vote of confidence on whether cutting taxes and putting more money back in the pockets of people is good. We have said from the beginning that it is the right path to building jobs and economic growth. It will be a vote of confidence on whether our public infrastructure should be tolled—the NDP thought so when they had the one chance to be in government under Bob Rae, putting massive tolls on the 407. We said no.

The people of Durham and the people of Ontario should have confidence that we, in building our economy, will make sure that we don’t have to toll roads.

For the first time in their history, they are going to be voting with a Progressive Conservative government whose foundation is about better government, leaner government, more money in the pockets of the people—our foundation, everything, the core of what we believe in—they will be rising in their seats tomorrow. I’m glad that there will be a public vote in this place, back post-COVID measures. They are going to be rising on a vote of confidence so close to an election.

I bet you this House will be unanimous, with the exception of the leader of the Green Party who said he’s not supportive of the measures, but almost unanimous, with the Liberals, the NDP and most of the independents voting a vote of confidence in the government.

Given these results, I may actually have to bring back another standing order change that is specific to allowing the opposition NDP and Liberals to bring forward additional motions of confidence. We have opposition day motions, but perhaps I should set aside time for motions of confidence that the NDP and the Liberals can bring forward. It might be another standing order change that I bring forward, Speaker, but by and large I think you will find this package really meets the test of time and modernizes the standing orders.

I am very confident that if you support democratic institutions, if you support a stronger Parliament and giving the tools to the opposition to do their job, then you will support these standing order changes out in front of you today.

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: It is my pleasure to rise today in this House on behalf of the official opposition to respond to the government House leader’s motion regarding yet another set of standing order changes. I have to say at the outset, Speaker, that I’m not going to be nearly as entertaining as the government House leader because we are dealing with serious business here.

In a democratic system, there are really four key elements that have to be kept in mind. We need fair and free elections. We need the active participation of people and citizens in civic and public life. We need protection for the human rights of all citizens. And we need a rule of law in which the laws and the procedures that are passed apply equally to all citizens.

This is what we do in this chamber. We are charged with ensuring that the laws that we make, the laws that we pass, address the real issues and priorities that are facing the people in this province. The standing orders are the scaffolding that allows us to engage in that very vital obligation to make those laws and pass those laws and bring the concerns of the people that we represent to the floor of the Legislative Assembly.

The standing orders are essential to the functioning of the Legislature. They dictate how the business is conducted at Queen’s Park, how we consider bills, what are the rules of debate, how we elect the Speaker, when we are going to sit, what business we’re going to be dealing with, how we conduct question period. The standing orders have to reflect a balance between the government’s right to implement its agenda and the opposition’s responsibility to criticize what the government is doing, to scrutinize what the government is doing and to hold the government to account.

Most of all, Speaker, the obligation that we all are entrusted with as a result of our election to this place is to represent the views of the people who sent us here.

So any reform, any changes to the standing orders, given that they represent that fundamental underpinning of the democratic process that unfolds in the Legislative Assembly, must be undertaken with the interests of the Legislative Assembly as a whole. We have to put the best interests of every member in this place front and centre as we’re looking at changes to the standing orders, and that means the process by which standing order changes are made have to be as inclusive and democratic as possible.

That requires a process of consultation, a process of negotiation, a process of discussion—processes that have been completely absent from any of the changes that this government has brought forward to the standing orders.

I know that this government House leader reflects fondly on his time at the federal Parliament. I know he was defeated as a federal member of Parliament back in 2015, and one of his great projects, one of his legacies, I think, in the Ontario Legislature is the changes he has made to the standing orders to more closely reflect what happens with the federal standing orders. That is his prerogative.

He is the government House leader, and that has been, as he said in his opening comment, that the standing order changes that we have here today are the culmination of this four-year process that he has been engaged in to update, modernize and, as he says, improve the functions of this House to the benefit of the members—according to him, of course. He is the one who has decided what will benefit members, without any discussion or consultation with members across the way.

Now, I would draw the government House leader’s attention to the third edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice and what it says about the standing orders and standing order changes. The document says that the standing orders are “The permanent written rules with which the House regulates its proceedings,” and that the “‘standing’ nature of these rules means that they do not lapse at the end of a session or a Parliament. Rather, they remain in effect until the House itself”—the House itself—“decides to suspend, change or repeal them.”

It goes on to say that at the federal level there is a Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which—at the conclusion of the debate on this motion and the passage of this motion, the changes that have been put in place by the government House leader, we will have, now, the new Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs here at the provincial level.

But at the federal level, that Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has a permanent mandate that “includes the review of and report on the standing orders, procedure and practice in the House and its committees.” So, unlike what we see here happening in Ontario, where the government House leader takes it on himself to decide how the standing orders should be changed, at the federal level there is a committee process that involves members from all parties in reviewing and reporting on the standing orders.

The House of Commons Procedure and Practice document goes on to state that, “On some occasions, a special committee has been established with a mandate to suggest revisions to the rules and to report its recommendations to the House.” Speaker, we did not see a special committee established here in this Legislature to guide this four-year project that the government House leader has undertaken, but it would have been nice to have a special committee in place so that all members across party lines could have participated in the debate.

Then the document goes on to state that on many occasions, procedural changes have been the “result of a broad consensus among members of all parties and have been readily adopted without debate.” Now, Speaker, that is quite unlike what we have experienced here in the provincial Legislature.

There were a couple of standing order changes, I think it was the previous—this is the seventh set of standing order changes we are considering, so I think it was the sixth set of standing order changes which involved the elimination of deferral slips, for example.

It involved a couple of other minor changes: As I said, the elimination of deferral slips; a mechanism for committees to meet during an adjournment period; the government House leader having the ability to change the start time on Wednesday from 3 o’clock to 1 o’clock; and an amendment so that an opposition or independent Vice-Chair would be appointed to any committees chaired by the government. I have to say, Speaker, that those standing order changes were supported on this side of the House.

That was an example of some standing order changes that we were able to agree that, yes, those changes make sense, they improve the functioning of this Legislature and they should go ahead.

Unfortunately, Speaker, the other standing order changes that this government has passed, the other six sets of standing order changes—this is the seventh set of standing order changes—were not as straightforward as those four previous amendments. When you reflect on what had happened in this Legislature prior to this government taking office—I quoted earlier from the House of Commons Procedure and Practice about the standing nature of standing orders.

Well, in Ontario, in the 26 years from 1992 to 2018, there were five permanent amendments to the standing orders—over a period of a quarter of a century, five changes. And in the last four years here, we have seen, as I said, seven changes to the standing orders, all undertaken without any consultation or discussion in advance with the official opposition.

Many of those changes have focused on consolidating the power of the government to rush through its legislation in a fast-tracked fashion. That is a concern, Speaker, because when we see bills tabled—introduced on a Tuesday, for example, at 3 o’clock, under Introduction of bills in the afternoon routine. When we see a bill tabled at 3 o’clock and called for debate the next morning at 9 o’clock, it does not allow the opposition or the people of this province to have a say, to weigh in on what that legislation will mean for their ability to live their lives or do their business.

The changes that have been made to fast-track legislation are highly problematic, not just for democracy but for the ability of this Legislature to respond appropriately to the issues that people are facing. We have all lived through an unprecedented two-year global pandemic that has really, I think, raised the stakes in terms of our acknowledgement, our recognition of the very serious challenges that people are facing in this province and the obligation of all of us to come to this place and try to work together to address those challenges. And we did that, Speaker.

I don’t want to pretend that it did not happen. We did have examples, at the very beginning of this pandemic, when the government came to our side and said, “We want to do this and can we agree on a process to fast-track this legislation, because it is so urgently needed?” And we said, “Of course. Of course we will agree to fast-track that legislation,” because we understood the urgency of getting measures in place to provide the support that people needed. So it can be done, and we have evidence. We have experience seeing that happen. But it has not happened in any consultation on the standing order changes.

Oh, before I forget, I did want to say, Speaker, that I will be sharing my time with the member from Algoma–Manitoulin.

Now, something that the government House leader said yesterday during his leadoff debate on this latest package of standing order changes really caught my attention. He referred to the “draconian measures that we have virtually eliminated in this Parliament with respect to the time allocations that you would get.” I’m quoting here from the Hansard from his speech yesterday.

I thought to myself, “I’m pretty sure that this government has introduced quite a few time allocation motions to cut off debate and to fast-track legislation.” So I took a look at the record of this government in both the first and second sessions of the 42nd Parliament, and I’m just going to remind the government House leader of the bills that have been time-allocated since this government was elected in 2018.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Start with when I was appointed.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: The first bill, Bill 2, was time-allocated.

Bill 5 was time-allocated, and that, as everyone will recall, is the Better Local Government Act. That was the bill that the Premier introduced in order to get some payback on Toronto city councillors that he had a grudge against, and it was a bill to cut the size of Toronto city council in half. Interestingly enough, that was a bill that also did not go to committee.

Bill 36 was time-allocated.

Bill 4, the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, was time-allocated, and I think that bill is pretty self-explanatory and really reflects the anti-environment philosophy of this government. Bill 4, one of the very first bills they introduced, was to cancel cap-and-trade. I can’t remember if that was before or after they eliminated the position of the environmental commissioner, but it certainly set this government on a four-year path to take actions to undermine environmental protections in Ontario.

Bill 47 was time-allocated.

That was the Making Ontario Open for Business Act, and that, as everyone will recall, was the bill that eliminated the two paid sick days that workers in this province had fought so long and so hard to get in place—two paid sick days that would have made an incredible difference, a huge difference during the pandemic, so that people who were sick, who were experiencing symptoms of COVID, didn’t have to make that choice between staying home and risking a day’s pay, risking not being able to pay the rent, risking not being able to get the groceries because they didn’t have paid sick days from their employer.

That is also the bill, I will remind people, that cancelled the $15 minimum wage, which, four years later, this government brought forward. But we all know that had that minimum wage been in place in 2018, it would be much higher than $15 right now.

The Green Energy Repeal Act was time-allocated, another anti-environmental bill by this government.

The Access to Natural Gas Act was time-allocated—the government’s first budget bill, which people may also recall included $3.2 billion of cuts, putting our province in a much more vulnerable position when COVID hit so drastically.

The Labour Relations Amendment Act was time-allocated.

The Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act was time-allocated.

Bill 66, Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act, was time-allocated. People may recall that that was basically a deregulation bill that scrapped regulated protections for children, for consumers, for workers and the environment.

Bill 48, the Safe and Supportive Classrooms Act, was time-allocated.

Bill 74, The People’s Health Care Act, was time-allocated. That is the bill that really opened up Ontario’s health care system to the prospect of privatized health care, which we are seeing again with the government’s proposal to look at independent health facilities to offload some of the surgical backlog—which we know will actually not have an impact on the surgical backlog, because what it will do is siphon off health care workers from the public system into those private health facilities.

The government’s budget measures bill, Bill 100, was time-allocated.

Fixing the Hydro Mess Act: That was also time-allocated in 2019. That’s an interesting one, because we just heard from the Financial Accountability Officer how this government has completely failed to deliver on its promise to reduce hydro bills.

Bill 107, Getting Ontario Moving Act, was time-allocated.

Bill 115, Bringing Choice and Fairness to the People Act, was time-allocated.

Bill 117, OSPCA Amendment Act: time-allocated.

Bill 108, More Homes, More Choice Act, was time-allocated. I think that was one of the government’s first housing bills. What that bill actually did, as people will recall—not only did it offer deregulation for developers, but it also included weakened protections for wetlands and prime farmland. That is again a pattern that this government has continued in subsequent bills on the Bradford Bypass and the 413.

Bill 124 was time-allocated, and that, as everyone will remember, was the bill that introduced a 1% wage cap for public sector workers, including, most notably, nurses. The impacts, the consequences of that bill have certainly come back to haunt us as we see the chronic shortage of nurses in this province, which has been significantly worsened by the 1% wage cap.

Speaker, we are at a time in Ontario when inflation is running at over 5%. You don’t have to really understand math to get that a 1% wage increase, at a time when inflation is higher than 5%, is a wage cut. It’s a wage cut.

We have seen nurses and health care workers step up to the plate like never before. We have seen them take on huge personal risks for their own safety and the safety of their families in order to keep all of us safe. For that, they are being rewarded with words from this government about what heroes they are while they are facing a significant wage cut.

Bill 136, Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act: time-allocated.

Bill 138, Plan to Build Ontario Together Act: time-allocated.

Bill 132, Better for People, Smarter for Business Act: time-allocated.

Bill 116, Foundations for Promoting and Protecting Mental Health Act: time-allocated.

Bill 156, Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act: time-allocated.

Bill 161, Smarter and Stronger Justice Act: time-allocated—and to the government House leader, I would just point out that the bills that I am well into reading from this list—many of them, most of them, in fact, were time-allocated after he assumed the position of government House leader.

Bill 171, Building Transit Faster Act: time-allocated.

Bill 175, Connecting People to Home and Community Care Act: time-allocated.

Legislative Assembly Act: time-allocated.

Rebuilding Consumer Confidence Act: time-allocated.

Helping Tenants and Small Businesses Act: time-allocated.

Reopening Ontario act, a flexible response: Now, that’s an interesting one, Speaker, because not only was that time-allocated, but in the time allocation motion, the government can direct whether or not a bill goes to committee. With that particular bill, the government bypassed committee altogether and went straight to third reading. As members will recall, Bill 195 was the bill that gave this government an extraordinary overreach of power. It gave the government the ability to override collective agreements, which has really opened them up to a constitutional challenge, because of that overreach of power.

Bill 218, Supporting Ontario’s Recovery and Municipal Elections Act: That bill was time-allocated as well, and that is the bill that the government introduced to prevent itself from being sued by families who had lost loved ones in long-term-care homes. In my capacity as democratic reform critic, that’s also the bill that eliminated the ability of municipalities to conduct local elections by means of ranked ballots.

Actually, on the subject of ranked ballots, I have to say, it is interesting to have heard the Liberal leader commit that, if he becomes Premier, 2022 will be the last election under first-past-the-post. He has committed to running the next election, if he becomes Premier, as a ranked ballot election.

You know, ranked ballots work very well in municipal elections, where there is no party affiliation on the ballot. Ranked ballots also work very well at provincial and federal levels, where there is party affiliation. They work very well to help re-elect Liberals in perpetuity. We have seen this in other elections. We actually heard that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, when he was looking at electoral reform at the federal level, was considering ranked ballots.

He admitted that he wasn’t going to go there because he recognized that the people of Canada would see through this as a cynical ploy to enable Liberals to continually be elected. Because, let’s face it, Speaker: Liberals are often the more likely second choice for people who would rank either the PCs or the NDP first, and so in a ranked ballot election, Liberals would be favoured.

Speaker, that is one of the reasons why Fair Vote Canada and Fair Vote Ontario are so opposed to Liberal leader Steven Del Duca’s proposal to run the next election as a ranked ballot election in Ontario. It does nothing for democracy. It does everything for the Liberal Party. But that was just an aside, Speaker, and I’m going to go back to the time-allocated bills that this government says they have virtually eliminated in this place.

Bill 213, the Better For People, Smarter For Business Act: That is what we call the McVety bill. People will remember that that was the bill that allowed the notorious Islamophobe and bigot Charles McVety to achieve university status for the institution he heads up without going through the proper channels.

Then we have Bill 229, the Protect, Support and Recover from COVID-19 Act. That was the budget measures act. That was time-allocated—again, showing this government’s vendetta against environmental protections, that was the bill that eliminated the funding for conservation authorities to engage in flood protection and flood mitigation efforts.

Bill 257, the Supporting Broadband and Infrastructure Expansion Act: time-allocated. I have to give a shout-out to my colleague the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane for all the work that he has done on getting broadband to rural Ontario.

Finally, we closed the first session of the 42nd Parliament with another midnight sitting, just as we had opened it, with the debate on cutting Toronto city council in half. We closed the first session with a debate on Bill 307, another bill that was time-allocated, and in the time allocation motion it bypassed committee altogether and went straight to third reading. That was the bill that used the “notwithstanding” clause—the first time in Ontario—to silence critics of the government.

That was just in the first session of this Legislature, the number of time-allocated bills.

To the government’s credit, in this second session, which started in the fall, we have only seen one time-allocated bill, the York Region Wastewater Act. Again, this was an opportunity for the government to use a time allocation motion to bypass committee on a bill that there was significant public interest in, but the government used time allocation to go straight to third reading.

Speaker, I didn’t expect that I would end up taking as much time as I did on that, but I think it was important to challenge the government House leader’s comments about having virtually eliminated time allocation motions in this Legislature.

I want to now take a little bit of time to talk about the package of standing order amendments that we see before us today. It is an extensive package of amendments. Anybody who was here yesterday will have seen that it took 20 minutes—20 minutes—for the government House leader just to read the motion into the record, outlining all of the changes to the standing orders that he is proposing to make for, as I remind people, the seventh time in this Legislature.

So this package of amendments includes changes to 33 standing orders. In some cases, there are multiple clauses of a single standing order that are amended by this motion. We have 148 standing orders, so 33 out of 148 is a substantial number of changes that are being made. And I’m just going to talk about—I’m going to cluster the changes. I don’t want to go through each one of those standing orders and talk about the specific change, because they really do group into three main themes.

The first set of changes deals with meetings of the House. These changes, curiously enough, take place the day after this motion is passed, which we expect will be next week, so these changes will come into effect immediately after the vote on this motion. There is a new standing order that will change the parliamentary calendar in an election year—which, of course, we are in right now—so that the last day of the winter-spring meeting period becomes the fifth Wednesday preceding the first Thursday in June.

The current standing orders say that the last day of the session is the first Thursday in June, which this year is—I’m not sure what day that is, but it moves it up to the fifth Wednesday preceding the first Thursday in June, which will be May 4. I think we all have May 4 circled on our calendars, because we know that that is the day that the Legislature must dissolve and the election writ must be issued, and that’s because we have fixed election days and that is under the Election Act.

Now, that may make sense to some people on first glance. If the Legislature is dissolved, why would we have the standing order say or pretend that the Legislature is going to continue to sit until the first Thursday in June? But there’s an implication to this change, Speaker, that is important to keep in mind, because there are other standing orders dealing with the government’s ability to call night sittings and there is another standing order dealing with the opposition’s ability to bring forward opposition day motions.

So the standing orders say that the government can call night sittings in the last 18 days of a session. By changing this session end date, it changes the day at which the government can call night sittings, and it further enables the government to use those night sittings to push through any legislation that it wants to. So with this change, night sittings could be called as early as Monday, March 28. And the current standing orders say that no opposition day motions can be brought forward in the last eight sessional days, so what this means is that the official opposition will not be able to bring forward opposition day motions as of Thursday, April 14.

It’s a subtle change, Speaker, that people may not immediately see the connection to how this helps the government push forward legislation more quickly. But, clearly, it will have an impact because the government will be able to—when you have a night sitting, you can reach the time allocation mark, you can reach the closure mark in a single day on a bill. You could have a bill introduced on a Monday. If there’s a night sitting on the Tuesday, it could be debated morning, afternoon and evening—done—and the vote next day; it happens. Speaker, that is a real problem for people in this province, when legislation moves forward as quickly as that.

Another change that is being put in place, dealing with meetings of the House, allows the government to begin the legislative day at 9 a.m. on a Monday. Normally, on Mondays we start immediately with members’ statements at 10:15. We don’t have a morning session of the House. Now, the government can add that extra hour and 15 minutes of debate time, once again to give it more opportunity to push through its legislative agenda.

The government has also made a change to the afternoon routine proceedings, dealing with the introduction of bills. Now, Speaker, as you will know, being in the chair, in the afternoon when Introduction of bills is called, members on this side of the House and members on that side of the House can all rise and hope to be recognized, hope to catch your eye, when we have bills to introduce. Sometimes, an opposition member may be introduced first, before the government minister has had a chance to rise.

I think that this must have rankled with the government House leader, so there is now a new process under Introduction of bills where there’s going to be a separation between—Introduction of government bills will be one proceeding, and then Introduction of bills will be another proceeding during which members on this side of the House or government members can rise to table legislation.

The next set of changes that I’m going to discuss concern private members’ public business. Now, these changes take effect eight sessional days after the motion is passed. These are extensive changes that are proposed to be made to standing order 101. Under the current standing order 101, we can begin debating private members’ public business as early as the first sessional day after the delivery of the throne speech and the start of a new session. The changes that are being proposed in standing order 101 would delay the start of private members’ public business by 12 sessional days.

It is important to keep in mind that what this change does is it eliminates 12 sessional days when private members can be in that calendar rotation to get a ballot slot to bring forward their private members’ bills. It will reduce the number of ballot slots, depending on when the House returns following prorogation. We just went through a prorogation, Speaker. This session that we’re currently in followed a prorogation that happened in the fall. If this rule had been in place when we returned after that prorogation in October, the first ballot date would not have come until November 2.

So all of those members who had opportunities to bring forward private members’ bills that responded to the issues that they were hearing from constituents that they represent—all of those private members’ bills—we wouldn’t have had the opportunity to debate and consider those bills. The whole calendar would have been pushed back.

Another thing to consider about this change: If a throne speech took place on a Thursday prior to constituency week, it would be a full month before a private members’ public business ballot item was considered in the House. Speaker, private members do not have a lot of opportunity to engage with other members in this place on legislative issues that are critical to their ridings or to the people of this province. To remove that ability of private members to bring forward legislative issues, to limit the number of opportunities, is directly counter to what this government House leader says that he’s all about.

He talks a good game about wanting to elevate the status of private members in this Legislature, but changes like this do not do that. They actually take away the ability of private members to bring forward issues of legislative significance.

Other changes that are made in standing order 101 concern ballot date swaps. There is a draw, and members’ names are selected randomly for a ballot date slot, as you know, Speaker, as a veteran in this place who has been through this process many times. Members have the opportunity to exchange ballot dates. Always, there is a good reason to exchange ballot dates. With a particular legislative item, there may be certain things that are happening in this province that make that bill more appropriately brought forward at an earlier time or a later time.

So the ability for members to exchange ballot dates is also important when you want to elevate the status of individual members in this Legislature.

The current rules in place allow members to switch ballot dates up until the Thursday prior to their ballot date. The new proposal is that the deadline for ballot date swaps is eight sessional days before the earliest of the two ballot dates that are being traded. What this means for members who have ballot dates in the second week of the fall and winter meeting periods is those members would have to make their trades in June for a September ballot date or in December for a February ballot date.

Speaker, when we want members to be able to be as responsive as possible to the needs and the priorities of the people we represent, you shouldn’t be tying members’ hands like that. You shouldn’t be locking members into determining their ballot date in June for a debate that’s not going to happen until September.

On this, Speaker, I do have to comment that it’s interesting that this government believes that eight sessional days’ notice is needed when, on several occasions, most notably last week, we have seen them give members in this place, the official opposition and the independent members, less than 24 hours after a bill is tabled before they bring that bill forward for debate and consideration in this Legislature. I think I mentioned earlier, we saw that last week with Bill 84. It was introduced at 2 o’clock on a Tuesday. A ministry briefing was held at 4 o’clock on that same day.

It’s an omnibus bill, so there was a lot to digest in that bill. Many of the members on our side were not able attend that ministry briefing, and yet the next morning, 9 o’clock, that bill is up for debate in this place. And the government thinks that that’s appropriate for government bills and yet wants to restrict private members’ ability to determine the date when private members’ bills will be brought forward.

Thirdly, there is a change to the designation deadline or the date by which members have to indicate which bill they’re going to bring forward for their ballot date, because many members have multiple PMBs on the order paper. They may have a PMB and motions on the order paper, and the current rules give members the ability to select which of their bills on the order paper to bring forward for their ballot date debate. Once again, this new rule would require eight sessional days’ notice for a member to designate the bill or motion that they plan to bring forward for their ballot date.

Again, Speaker, I have to say that this takes away the ability of members to be as responsive and nimble and flexible as possible in addressing the concerns and priorities of the people we represent.

Now, the third set of changes that I’m going to go over concern committees. This is also very interesting. These changes take effect on dissolution of the 42nd Parliament. As a parting gift, this government House leader is leaving the next government—the NDP government—this reorganized committee structure that is proposed by multiple changes to the standing orders dealing with committees.

What these changes do, Speaker, is really make a major reorganization of the committee structure in this place. Currently, we have nine committees in this Legislature; that is reduced to eight. With those eight committees, there is one new committee added. Two of the current committees are merged and one of our current committees is renamed.

The Standing Committee on Estimates is eliminated and a new estimates process, which borrows from the House of Commons model—which, as I have observed earlier, seems to be the driving purpose of this government House leader, to model the Legislative Assembly standing orders as closely as possible to the House of Commons standing orders. The Standing Committee on Estimates is eliminated and instead estimates are distributed among six policy field standing committees.

Now, one of the concerns that we have with that process is that, as we all know, the membership of committees mirrors the membership of this Legislature. In a majority government, government members have a majority on all of those policy field committees that will now be considering estimates. That means that each committee will decide how long the estimates from any specific ministry will be considered. And that means when the government has a majority of the members on those policy field committees, they can significantly reduce the amount of time that is given to the examination of estimates.

Currently, each recognized party has up to 15 hours per round that can be used to review up to two ministries. Under the new rules, as I said, the majority of the members on the policy field committees will have the final say over the length of time for a ministry review.

Certainly, we have found the estimates process to be incredibly useful to the opposition’s responsibility to scrutinize the operations of government, when we’re able to call ministers and ministry officials before the estimates committee and ask very pointed questions that the people of this province expect us to ask, because that is part of the official opposition’s role. So we have a concern about the impact on the estimates process that is contemplated by this change.

Another change that is proposed is to merge the Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills with the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly, and that those two committees will come together to form a new Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which, again, is a standing committee that is in place federally and will now be in place in Ontario.

The Standing Committee on General Government is renamed the Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy, and the number of policy field committees is expanded from the three that we currently have, which are general government, justice policy and social policy. General government will become heritage, infrastructure and culture; there is justice policy, social policy, finance and economic affairs, the new Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the Standing Committee on the Interior. They will become the six new standing committees.

I have to say, Speaker, that clearly, this government House leader spent a lot of time on masterminding this complete reorganization of committees. It would have been nice, in his new role as Minister of Long-Term Care, if he were as committed to the long-term care file as he has obviously shown himself to be to the overhauling of the standing orders.

But, Speaker, now that I have flagged some of the concerns that we have with the standing order changes that are proposed, I would like to move an amendment—or actually move several amendments.

I move that the motion be amended by:

“

(1) Adding the following amendment to standing order 3:

“‘The definition of a ‘substantive motion’ in standing order 3 is amended by inserting ‘eight (8) sessional days’ after ‘require’ in the second-last sentence.’

“

(2) Deleting the amendment to standing order 63(

d) and substituting the following:

“‘(

d) The time for the consideration of the estimates of each ministry or office shall be determined by the members of the committee who selected such estimates for consideration, with a maximum of 15 hours allocated to the consideration of the estimates of that ministry or office.’

“

(3) Adding the following amendment to standing order 73:

“Standing order 73 is deleted and the following substituted:

“‘73(

a) Eight (8) sessional days’ notice is required for motions for second reading of government bills and hoist motions.

“‘(

b) One (1) sessional day’s notice shall be required for motions of third reading of government bills and for a reasoned amendment to a motion for second or third reading of a government bill.’

“

(4) Deleting the amendment to standing order 101(

a) and substituting the following:

“‘Standing order 101(

a) is amended by adding at the beginning “Except on the 12 sessional days immediately following the speech from the throne to open the first session of a Parliament or four sessional days immediately after any speeches from the throne following a prorogation of the House,”

“

(5) Deleting the amendment to standing order 101(

c) and substituting the following:

“‘Standing order 101(

c) is deleted and the following substituted:

“‘Subject to clause (e), members may exchange places in the order of precedence on the ballot list by providing to the Clerk of the House written notice of their arrangement to this effect, such written notice to be duly signed by the House leaders of the affected members and to be provided four (4) sessional days prior to the earlier of the two dates on the order of precedence determined in clause (b).’

“

(6) Deleting the amendment to standing order 101(

e) and substituting the following:

“Standing order 101(

e) is deleted and the following substituted:

“‘To be considered in private members’ time, the order for second reading, or notice of a motion, must appear on the Orders and Notices paper eight (8) sessional days in advance of the date that is determined by the ballot conducted under clause (b).’”

I will provide some copies of that motion to the page.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): The member from London West has moved the motion be amended by:

“

(1) Adding the following amendment to standing order 3—

Interjection: Dispense.

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

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): “

(1) Adding the following amendment to standing order 3:

“‘The definition of a ‘substantive motion’ in standing order 3 is amended by inserting ‘eight (8) sessional days’ after ‘require’ in the second-last sentence.’

“

(2) Deleting the amendment to standing order 63(

d) and substituting the following:

“‘(

d) The time for the consideration of the estimates of each ministry or office shall be determined by the members of the committee who selected such estimates for consideration, with a maximum of 15 hours allocated to the consideration of the estimates of that ministry or office.’

“

(3) Adding the following amendment to standing order 73:

“Standing order 73 is deleted and the following substituted:

“‘73(

a) Eight (8) sessional days’ notice is required for motions for second reading of government bills and hoist motions.

“‘(

b) One (1) sessional day’s notice shall be required for motions of third reading of government bills and for a reasoned amendment to a motion for second or third reading of a government bill.’

“

(4) Deleting the amendment to standing order 101(

a) and substituting the following:

“‘Standing order 101(

a) is amended by adding at the beginning “Except on the 12 sessional days immediately following the speech from the throne to open the first session of a Parliament or four sessional days immediately after any speeches from the throne following a prorogation of the House,”

“

(5) Deleting the amendment to standing order 101(

c) and substituting the following:

“‘Standing order 101(

c) is deleted and the following substituted:

“‘Subject to clause (e), members may exchange places in the order of precedence on the ballot list by providing to the Clerk of the House written notice of their arrangement to this effect, such written notice to be duly signed by the House leaders of the affected members and to be provided four (4) sessional days prior to the earlier of the two dates on the order of precedence determined in clause (b).’

“

(6) Deleting the amendment to standing order 101(

e) and substituting the following:

“Standing order 101(

e) is deleted and the following substituted:

“‘To be considered in private members’ time, the order for second reading, or notice of a motion, must appear on the Orders and Notices paper eight (8) sessional days in advance of the date that is determined by the ballot conducted under clause (b).’”

I return the floor to the member from London West.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: As I had indicated earlier, I will be sharing my time with the member for Algoma–Manitoulin, and I am going to do that now.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): I recognize the member from Algoma–Manitoulin.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Speaker, it’s nice to be back after a couple of days of illness, and it’s great to be here. Actually, yesterday, I thought it was the best thing since sliced bread that the House leader was proposing, but I’m glad I was here for the member for London West’s comments.

You can’t blame us for being suspicious when this government is changing the rules to the table. So on that note, I move that the amendment be amended by:

Deleting the number “15” in paragraph 2 and replacing it with the number “12”.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): The member for Algoma–Manitoulin has moved that the amendment be amended by:

Deleting the number “15” in paragraph 2 and replacing it with the number “12”.

I return to the member from Algoma–Manitoulin.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Speaker, very shortly: What you see from this government is restriction on debate, restriction on stakeholder involvement and everything—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): Thank you.

Further debate?

Hon. Steve Clark: It’s a pleasure for me to speak this morning in the House on the standing order changes. I don’t agree with the New Democrats’ assessment of the work that the government House leader has done. I support the changes that he has made, and I want to take a few moments before members’ statements to outline some of them.

First of all, I want to congratulate my member of Parliament, Michael Barrett, for the great riding of Leeds–Grenville–Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes. He was named this week as shadow Minister of Health for the official opposition, and because he was shadow Minister of Health, he became the Vice-Chair of the health committee. So I want to thank him for that. I want to congratulate him on the great work he’s done.

Basically, what I’ve just finished saying verifies what the House leader has put in changes: It makes a lot of sense that when the shadow Minister of Health gets appointed, they become the Vice-Chair of that committee. So I like the changes the government House leader is making, so that people can be more expert in terms of the committees they’re at.

I came here, Speaker, in—I was elected on March 4, 2010, in a by-election. I sat right in that corner; I think the member for Thunder Bay–Atikokan sits in the chair I was in. And actually, Speaker, my seatmate was your predecessor, Bill Murdoch. Although Bill was a student of the standing orders, I’m not sure he practised all the standing orders. I think there wasn’t a standing order that he didn’t try to bend or break, but he did teach me a lot. Later on, I was a seatmate with the member for Sarnia–Lambton. He taught me a lot as well.

That was the 39th Parliament. In the 40th Parliament, we had a minority Parliament, and one of the things that the Legislative Assembly committee did—and if Trevor Day were here, he would nod at me, because I spent the summer with him and the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport. We sat all summer in that minority Parliament and reviewed the standing orders. The whole summer, the committee on the Legislative Assembly met and talked about standing orders, and many of those standing orders are the subject of the government House leader’s changes.

But what did the Liberal government of the day do? Absolutely nothing. We spent the whole summer. The three parties sat down and we talked about changes that needed to be made. I can remember vividly a very robust conversation about broadcasts, about the fact many other Legislative Assemblies in our country, many state Legislatures televised all their committees, so that if you were in a committee debating a bill, it would be publicized. We only had capabilities in the Amethyst Room to do that. There was a lot of debate at the time. The Liberal government of the day did nothing.

There was a lot of talk, a lot of consensus at the committee among the three parties—absolutely nothing was actually accomplished by the Liberal government of the day. There was a lot of talk; there was no action.

So some of the things that the government House leader is trying to mirror are issues around ensuring that committees specialize in a certain ministry or a certain case. I was looking today—first of all, I’m going to digress. I’m going to talk about these devices, and the fact that we’re now able to use devices as part of a standing order change.

I was reviewing today two of my predecessors. When I first became a mayor in 1982, we had two MPPs who covered the riding I represent now in Leeds–Grenville. We had Norm Sterling, who was elected in 1977, and we had Bob Runciman, who was elected in 1981. When you go back on the OLA website and you see their first year in Parliament—Mr. Sterling’s first Parliament was the 31st Parliament. He was on committees like the committee on company law, the committee on procedural affairs, the committee on the administration of justice. He was a lawyer. He then, in that same term, became parliamentary secretary for justice.

So you can see some of these committees that were set up at the time were specialized in a—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): I apologize for having to interrupt the member, but it is now time for members’ statements.

Debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Beach Metro News

Ms. Rima Berns-McGown: I want to congratulate Beach Metro News on its 50th anniversary. Beach Metro News is a little local paper that is a fixture of my community. It’s a free paper delivered to our doors, paid for by the advertising of local small businesses, and it punches well above its weight. Times are tough for print journalism, but Beach Metro continues to thrive, and in the close to 30 years that I’ve lived there, I’ve always been thrilled to see it arrive.

Yes, it features photos of local celebrities and events, but it does a good deal more than that. It goes out of its way to hire young, racialized reporters via grants to support local journalism and it gives them hard stories to write about—contentious issues like housing, climate and Metrolinx’s destruction of Small’s Creek.

Beach Metro did a fabulous job of covering all the tensions and pain that small businesses and precariously employed BEY residents experienced during COVID: the evictions, closures, lockdowns, grief and loss, but also the extraordinary compassion, kindness and volunteering of all our neighbours.

Sometimes the news can feel like an onslaught of bitterness, nastiness and horror. We in BEY are so lucky to have a ray of local sunshine as well as insight. Thank you so much to Alan Shackleton and all the staff at Beach Metro news. May you have a fabulous 50th birthday celebration. You have earned it. Thank you from all of us in Beaches–East York

Purim

Mrs. Robin Martin: Purim, which occurs on March 16 and 17 this year, is an ancient Jewish holiday that commemorates the saving of the Jewish people from the wrath of a Persian official who was planning to kill all the Jews in the empire. The story on which it is based is recounted in the Book of Esther. The evil plans, however, were foiled by Mordecai and Esther, his cousin and adopted daughter, who had become the queen of Persia.

This day of deliverance for the Jewish people is commemorated with a day of feasting and rejoicing. Jews around the world celebrate Purim by exchanging gifts of food and drink, donating to the poor, eating a celebratory meal and public readings from the scroll of Esther, usually in a synagogue. Other Purim customs include wearing masks and costumes, and there are often public celebrations and parades.

I have had the opportunity and privilege to attend Purim celebrations in my community, including at Shaarei Shomayim synagogue, and have enjoyed the celebration and festive atmosphere. Purim is a great holiday for families and is especially embraced by the young and the young at heart. I had the privilege of enjoying Purim with the former rabbi of Shaarei Shomayim, Rabbi Strauchler, and his young family, along with all of the other congregants. For me, my favourite part of the event is always the costumes.

I want to say a happy Purim to everybody. Enjoy and celebrate as we all get together this year.

Richard Kusmierczyk

Mr. Percy Hatfield: More than 100 years ago, a song became an anthem for trade union activists. That song, of course, was Solidarity Forever.

In the early 1980s in Poland, a group of workers formed the Solidarity movement. They became the first free and independent trade union in the Soviet bloc and eventually led Poland towards democracy.

One of the leaders of that Solidarity movement lives in my riding. Richard Kusmierczyk was the union chair for 7,000 factory workers when the communist dictatorship in Poland declared martial law in early December 1981. Civil liberties were suspended. Thousands of tanks and armed soldiers poured into the streets. The police came to Richard’s door and hauled him off to jail for two weeks. His family didn’t know if he was dead or alive.

Thousands of Solidarity members were rounded up, and during the subsequent years of martial law, many were killed. Richard Kusmierczyk was declared an enemy of the state. In 1983, he brought his family to Canada and settled in Windsor. Two weeks ago, he was in Ottawa at the Polish embassy and awarded Poland’s Cross of Freedom and Solidarity. Richard was recognized for his leadership within the Solidarity movement. His son Irek is the federal Liberal member for my riding.

On behalf of all of us here in Ontario’s provincial Parliament, I congratulate Richard Kusmierczyk on his award. We thank him for his leadership.

Speaker, “Solidarity forever / For the union makes us strong.”

Kinsmen Club of Peterborough

Mr. Dave Smith: Throughout COVID, there were many adjustments made, and our service clubs were no exception. Because of those adjustments, they continued to serve.

One in particular in my riding is the Kinsmen Club of Peterborough. The Kinsmen’s motto is “to serve our community’s greatest needs,” and they are living up to that motto.

Every Saturday night at 7 p.m. from October to May, the Kinsmen put on a TV bingo show on Global Oshawa, Global Peterborough and Global Kingston. A core of volunteers from Manitouwadge to Brockville and just about every community in between distribute bingo cards to convenience stores, gas stations and grocery stores. Then on Saturday nights, with the help of CHEX TV in Peterborough, a group of 10 volunteers put on the bingo show. It’s been a staple now for almost three decades.

Prior to COVID, about 6,500 bingo cards were sold each week, but last year, TV bingo exploded, with close to 30,000 bingo cards being sold each week by Christmas. Not only did this simple TV broadcast provide a needed distraction from the frustrations of COVID-19 for so many, but it also meant that the Kinsmen clubs could serve their communities’ greatest needs that much more.

In Peterborough, $50,000 from bingo went to the CMHA to help purchase one of the mobile mental health and addiction buses, and $15,000 went to the Kawartha Food Share. In Lindsay, donations of $20,000 to A Place Called Home and $10,000 to Kawartha Lakes Food Source were made.

Who would have thought that playing something as simple as bingo during COVID-19 would have so much of a positive effect on our communities?

Personal protective equipment

Mr. Michael Mantha: They have arrived. These are FN95 masks that have been produced by First Nation partnerships with Dent-X Canada. I have them here available, and I want to get a page to provide this gift to the House leader for the governing party. I have some for everyone else here in the House. I’ve provided some for the Clerks; I gave some to the Speaker; I gave some to the pages.

These masks are produced in two communities in my riding: Sagamok First Nation and Wiikwemkoong First Nation. Both Ogimaa Ozawamimke and Chief Peltier are sitting in Vaughan today, strategizing about how they can approach this government about a procurement agreement to purchase some of these Ontario-made masks, instead of getting these masks produced from other jurisdictions. We have them available here in Ontario. You should be looking at what we have here in Ontario and making sure that they are provided with the security that they need in order to continue maintaining their jobs and employment.

In Wiikwemkoong, they have over 30 employees. In Sagamok, they have over 30 employees. They are looking at developing a recycling plant as well, which will create another 40 jobs. This is a good-news story.

If anybody wants to have a contact in regard to ordering your own mask, get a hold of me. Matthew Owl, who is the president of First Nations Procurement Inc., is looking forward to receiving your call and your orders.

Mois de la Francophonie

M. John Fraser: Mars est le Mois de la Francophonie. Les Franco-Ontariens se battent depuis longtemps pour ce qu’ils méritent. Je suis très fier d’avoir travaillé à leurs côtés au gouvernement et dans cette Chambre pour poursuivre ce combat.

Je suis très fier de voir le drapeau franco-ontarien ici dans cette Chambre. Mes collègues et la députée d’Ottawa–Vanier ont travaillé fort pour s’assurer qu’il soit représenté ici à Queen’s Park. Ce drapeau nous rappelle le travail qui a été fait et tout le travail qu’il nous reste à faire.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to ask the members to please keep the volume of their private conversations to a minimum, please. Could we please be quiet?

International Women’s Day

Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos: International Women’s Day is next week, on March 8. It’s an opportunity to acknowledge and celebrate women across Ontario for the incredible contributions women have made, are making and will continue to make in our communities.

Women have made many great strides to achieve equality in society, but more must be done to ensure women are protected from harassment, discrimination and violence. February 22 was Human Trafficking Awareness Day, and as we have learned, human trafficking is happening right here in our own backyards. About 66% of human trafficking cases in Canada occur in Ontario. To combat this, Ontario is investing $307 million in its anti-human trafficking strategy. We’re also increasing community-based services by $96 million to support victims and survivors. This includes $46 million for new community programs and Indigenous services and supports.

During the pandemic, we saw that cases of domestic violence, sexual assault and human trafficking increased. As we look forward to celebrating International Women’s Day, let’s recognize the community organizations across Ontario who provide supports to victims of sexual violence. In my own community, I want to thank organizations such as Halton Women’s Place, the Women’s Centre of Halton, SAVIS of Halton and Nina’s Place for their critical work.

Let’s continue to work together to end violence against women everywhere.

Invasion of Ukraine

Mr. Paul Miller: The world is watching and finally paying attention. In 2008, the Russian military invaded the sovereign country of Georgia in the Caucasus region of Europe. The world paid some heed, but little was done beyond condemnation and sanctions. This event was, in fact, the first war to be fought on European soil in the 21st century. Few people back then thought much more of the conflict other than just a border skirmish between a distant and little-thought region. While the world focused on the battles in Iraq and Afghanistan, nearly 92,000 people in Georgia were violently displaced, with roughly 20,000 people, mostly ethnic Georgians, remaining displaced nearly 10 years later.

In 2014, on another important date on the historical calendar in Eastern Europe—this was the year in which the sovereign nation of Ukraine was first violated by Russian troops and tanks. At that time, the United Nations General Assembly condemned the annexation of Crimea. They reaffirmed the condemnation in 2016 and opposed “the imposition of the legal system of the Russian federation and the negative impact on the human rights situation in Crimea.” Again, the world paid little attention to this act of war.

Now, with Russian tanks and troops currently pushing in on the capital of Ukraine, the international community is finally waking up. At a rally this weekend, amongst a sea of blue and yellow, I saw the flags of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovakia and many other countries, all in front of Hamilton city hall—hundreds of people.

We need to do everything we can to support the free and brave people of Ukraine. The government and all Canadians need to stand in solidarity and show the dictator and the oligarchs of Russia that their acts of aggression will no longer be tolerated. War crimes are being committed as we speak, and it is absolutely outrageous.

Skilled trades

Mr. John Yakabuski: After 15 years of the Liberals taking Ontario in the wrong direction, from day one our government made a commitment that we would increase opportunities and remove barriers in the skilled trades. Under the Liberal government, apprenticeship registrations fell by over 40%, which has led to a massive shortage of skilled labour here in Ontario. You can’t build the Ontario of the future—you can’t build the homes, the schools and the hospitals that people need, and the transportation routes that allow the efficient movement of people and goods—without the skilled tradespeople to build them.

As we move beyond the pandemic, Ontario is on the cusp of significant growth. I want to commend Minister McNaughton for launching the crown agency to improve training and simplify services for tradespeople, Skilled Trades Ontario, and also for streamlining the process that will allow tradespeople from other provinces to get their credentials approved for work here in Ontario.

My son is a skilled tradesperson, a Red Seal carpenter who gets up each and every day looking forward to get to work. It’s a career that is challenging and rewarding at the same time.

Our government is sending out a clear message: We want people to embark on a skilled trades career and we want them to do it right here in Ontario. Ontario is the place to be, a great place to live, work and raise your family, led by a government that values the important work you do and will always have your back.

International Women’s Day

Ms. Sara Singh: March 8 is International Women’s Day. It’s a day for us to celebrate and acknowledge the contributions of women across our country. I want to take a moment today to celebrate some phenomenal local leaders in the city of Brampton.

Women like Kathy McDonald, our local school board trustee for wards 3 and 4, who has been a fighter against anti-Black racism and oppression in education; our local city councillor for wards 1 and 5, Rowena Santos, who is the first Filipina woman elected to city council in Brampton; Dr.

Kathleen Armitage, who was the Citizen of the Year in Brampton in 1993 and has been a long-time advocate for health care and health care services in our community; Doris Nketia, the executive director of Families of Virtue, who has been servicing our Knightsbridge community and making sure that young people have all the resources they need to be successful; and, of course, I can’t forget my mom and my grandma. Thank you so much for always inspiring and encouraging us to dream big and believe that women everywhere could accomplish anything.

This year’s theme for International Women’s Day is breaking barriers. Let’s keep fighting for a gender-equal world, where we can ensure that supports and programs for women and girls are invested in and that we fight to end gender-based violence. Let’s continue to inspire the next generation to #BreakTheBias and to be the best that they can.

Happy International Women’s Day, everyone.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): That concludes our members’ statements. I hesitated to interrupt the members who were giving their statements, but for the third time I’m going to ask the members to keep the volume of their private conversations to a minimum so that we can hear whoever has the floor.

Report, Financial Accountability Officer

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I beg to inform the House that the following document has been tabled: a report entitled Expenditure Monitor 2021-22: Q3 from the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario.

Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m very pleased to inform the House that page Pania Ghaneian, from the riding of Barrie–Innisfil, is one of today’s page captains, and we have with us today at Queen’s Park her mother, Mojgan Ahmadi Nadooshan, and her father, Hamid Ghaneian.

We are also joined by the parents of our other page captain, Morgan Scholz, from the riding of Dufferin–Caledon, her mother, Rachel Scholz, and her father, Hubert Scholz. Welcome to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. We are delighted to have you here.

Question Period

Health care funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My first question this morning is for the Premier. Patients in Ontario are suffering. They’re suffering in pain. Their health outcomes are deteriorating. Their quality of life is deteriorating. They can’t get the health care they need and wonder why it is that their government doesn’t seem to care.

The surgical and diagnostic backlog, as we all know, has ballooned. The Ontario Medical Association says 21 million surgeries and procedures are backlogged. People are waiting. The FAO estimated last year, in May, that it would take three and a half years to take that backlog away—to clear it—and that was before Omicron hit.

Why did this Premier fail to plan for and continues to fail to invest in addressing the backlog, even though he knows that the system has reached an unbelievable crisis and it’s going to take years to fix?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply, the Deputy Premier and Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: I want to assure the people of Ontario that our government has planned for and has made those investments in dealing with the number of people who, unfortunately, have had to wait for orthopaedic procedures, in some cases, cardiac surgeries in others.

What we have done is we’ve invested $5.1 billion into the hospital services system since the beginning of the pandemic, opening up another 3,100 beds, first to deal with COVID patients, but now to deal with the patients who have been waiting for those surgeries.

We’ve also invested $500 million into allowing hospitals to operate on weekends and in the evenings so that people can have their surgeries done faster. I can advise that the actual number of people who are waiting for surgeries in the province of Ontario is 58,000. We have done extensive work in the ministry to determine this number; it’s 58,000. Thanks to the significant investments that we’ve made, we are working on having those surgeries done faster for the people of Ontario who have been waiting so long to have them.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It appears that what the minister is saying is that there’s nothing to see here, that it’s all taken care of—that, in fact, there is no problem whatsoever.

But here’s what the experts are saying, Speaker. The experts are saying this: We all know—yesterday I mentioned it—the Ontario Medical Association is saying it’s going to take two and a half years to catch up on knee replacements alone, 16 months for heart bypass surgeries—16 months, Speaker—12 months for MRIs.

Doctors are also speaking out. Dr. David Gomez, a trauma surgeon at Toronto’s St. Michael’s Hospital said, “This is a catastrophic problem the health care system will face for at least the next five years.”

Why is the government just writing off peoples’ lives, writing off their well-being and letting them suffer for up to five years with pain, anxiety and lack of health care?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Our government is certainly very cognizant of the time that many people have had to wait for these surgeries. That’s why we are making these significant investments: $500 million in order to allow hospitals to operate on weekends and during the evenings. We’re also making significant investments for MRI and CT imaging: another $70 million to add 107,596 additional MRI hours and even more CT hours to the system.

We are working. We’re making the investments. We’re investing in the space in hospitals, in the equipment that people need, in the health human resources so that people can get the work done that they need to have done. And it’s not going to take five years to do it.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, what’s happening here in Ontario is downright cruel. But it wouldn’t have to be this way if we had a government that believed in good, quality public health care, and we see that’s not the case. We watched in long-term care, as that was evidenced with the virus.

The minister has to stop making excuses for the failures of her government. Dr. Gomez said, “Many, many Ontarians are not going to get their surgeries. There’s going to be a significant impact to people’s lives, but also to their mobility, fertility and quality of life.”

Ontarians don’t have five years to wait to get knee surgery to walk to work, to enjoy life again, or the fertility attention that they need to grow their family and their future. When is this Premier going to stop making excuses, show some care and compassion, prioritize the health and well-being of Ontarians and plan and make the investments necessary to clear the backlog?

Hon. Christine Elliott: The health and well-being of the people of Ontario has always been our government’s top priority, especially during the last two years of dealing with this pandemic. I’d like to remind the member opposite that we have increased health care spending from $59.3 billion in 2019-20 to an expected $64.1 billion in 2021-22. That is a significant investment in health care. We’ve invested the $5 billion in increasing hospital capacity. We also will be investing $22 billion in the next 10 years in hospital infrastructure projects. That will lead to $30 billion in capital investments.

We’re building for the future as well as taking care of the situation as it exists now. We are putting in the money and making the investments that we need to make to make sure that we are helping the people who need our help with these procedures and surgeries that they have been waiting a long time for. We’re going to make it happen. And again, it’s not going to take five years.

Government policies

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier, but I have to say, people in Ontario have learned to listen to the experts, to listen to the people on the front lines, not the claims of this government.

My next question, however, is on a different topic. As we all know, people are feeling the pinch of the rising cost of living, no one more so than people who rent in Ontario. Rents have skyrocketed in our province. Ontarians pay some of the highest rental costs for their accommodations, for their homes, in the entire country—a one-bedroom apartment in Oshawa, $1,800; $2,000 in Toronto; a two-bedroom in Mississauga, almost $2,200.

Why did the Premier create this problem by ripping up rent controls as one of his first actions when he became Premier of this province?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To respond, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Steve Clark: The Leader of Opposition has got this all wrong again. When we made that decision, as part of our fall economic statement in 2018, New Democrats said that that wouldn’t spur on new rental housing construction. They were wrong, Speaker—so, so very wrong. Today, we’re now seeing a high in purpose-built rental construction, the likes that we haven’t seen since the early 1990s.

We’re building upon our policies. We’re working very diligently on a consultation right now with municipalities, with the industry and with the public. We want to build upon the success. We know because of some of the reports out there, the Scotiabank report that shows that, when it comes to the G7, Canada is last. We need to build all types of housing. We need to build more purpose-built rental housing, more missing middle, more single-family. We’re not going to go back to the days of no under New Democrats. Our government is going to continue to say yes to build housing.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: If people can’t afford to live in the homes that this minister is claiming are being built, what use are they, Speaker—if people can’t afford them?

But on another affordability issue, here’s what the Premier huffed and puffed about in terms of gas-price gouging not so long ago. He said, “The gas companies—I’m putting you on notice. You’re gonna start gouging the people of Ontario? It’s not gonna happen.” That’s what this Premier said.

Last night, gas prices rose overnight by 4 cents a litre. By tomorrow, they’re going to be going up another 11 cents. Now, imagine if you’re a PSW providing home care and you have to drive to each and every patient in your car, how much that’s costing you. Drivers are paying $30 more a month. People can’t afford it.

The Premier said he’d take on the big oil companies. He hasn’t done so. He said he would take on overnight gouging. He hasn’t done so. The oil companies are flush with money. They have billions of dollars in cash, and the drivers have record bills.

So my question to the Premier is, why hasn’t he stopped these big oil companies from gouging Ontarians drivers like he promised he would do? Why is he saying no?

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

Hon. Doug Ford: I can’t believe what I just heard from the other side of the aisle. This is a government—on the other side of the aisle—and I’m going to quote the member from Etobicoke Centre. They wanted an additional 35 cents. The leader wanted the largest carbon tax increase in the world, in the absolute world. It’s increased gas prices by 11 cents.

Mr. Speaker, again, you can’t talk out of both sides of your mouth here—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’d ask the Premier to take his seat. Stop the clock.

I ask the Premier to withdraw his unparliamentary comment—

Hon. Doug Ford: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): —and conclude his answer.

Hon. Doug Ford: We’re putting money back into people’s pockets. We’re putting $120—the licence plate sticker fee—that they aren’t in favour of. They would never give back to the people of Ontario. We’re making sure that we’re cutting tolls on the 412 and 418; the leader of the Liberal Party said that would never happen, ever. We’re making sure we put minimum wage at $15 an hour, make it affordable for people to live. We’re a government that has cut taxes, not increased taxes.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Actions are greater than words. The Premier didn’t take on the gas companies like he said he was going to do. He did nothing on rents, except make sure that they were skyrocketing and got rid of rent control. He even raised hydro rates each and every year since he became the Premier of this province.

He stuck Ontarians with a high-cost and low-wage life here in this province, and it doesn’t have to be this way, Speaker. When will this Premier realize that Ontarians need someone who will actually fix the crisis in affordability, instead of making it worse, as this government has done? When will he step aside and let us do that job?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. The government side will come to order. The government House leader will come to order.

I’ll remind the House one more time, in case people have forgotten: We don’t want to make reference to the absence of other members because, from time to time, each of us might have reason to be away.

Start the clock. The Premier can respond.

Hon. Doug Ford: Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind the people of Ontario, when we cut the gas tax by 4.5%—the only province to do that—the NDP and the Liberals voted against it. They voted for the carbon tax of 11 cents more.

Again, the member from Ottawa Centre wants it to increase 35 cents a litre. The Leader of the Opposition wants it to be the highest carbon tax anywhere in the world. They believe in gouging the taxpayers. We believe in putting money back into the taxpayers’ pockets because they can spend it a lot wiser than we can.

When it came to the 412 and 418, the leader of the Liberals, Mr. Del Duca, said, “We’ll never get rid of the tolls.” That’s their mentality—

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

The next question.

Climate change

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question to the Premier. A shocking new report this week from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirmed that we are unprepared for the impacts of climate change itself. Ontario can’t afford to dither, hoping to fix climate-related problems like flooding, droughts, fires or threats to food security after they arrive. We need to prepare now. But this Premier has spent more money fighting federal climate action in court than he has spent on preparing Ontario for climate change. This year’s budget for climate change and resilience is only $15.8 million.

Why won’t this Premier make the necessary investments to make Ontario more resilient to the impacts of climate change?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.

Hon. David Piccini: I appreciate the question from the member opposite—the first time since January 12, 2021. This government is taking action on climate change. We were the first province in Canada to make gas cleaner by increasing the renewable content in gasoline. That’s the equivalent of taking over 300,000 cars off the road. We’re partnering with industry, like Algoma and Dofasco: six megatonnes of greenhouse gas reductions. That’s through the electrification of the arc furnace, making Ontario a global leader in clean steel production. That’s the equivalent of 1.3 million cars off the road, or 245 million barbecue tanks, propane tanks, full of greenhouse gas emissions.

We’re taking real action. We’ve put forward real ideas. All we’re hearing is rhetoric on the other side.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Not a particularly useful answer.

Again, back to the Premier: Instead of fast-tracking developments on wetlands and flood plains, the Premier could restore the powers of conservation authorities to protect people and property from floods. Instead of putting food security at risk by paving over prime farmland with costly sprawl-enabling highways that benefit his friends, he could work with municipalities to encourage sustainable, transit-friendly growth within existing communities. Instead of cancelling programs to make homes energy-efficient, he could restore and expand them. Instead of ripping out electric vehicle chargers at GO stations, he could help local transit systems go all-electric.

Why has the Premier declared and carried on war against the environment instead of preparing Ontario for the impacts of climate change? Why?

Hon. David Piccini: You know, Speaker, I just gave tangible, massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions under the leadership of this Premier—that’s the difference. We’re going to work with municipalities, and we’re going to work with industry. All that member opposite has is a higher carbon tax. He wants to tax people to death. All they offer Ontarians is misery and poverty. That’s all they offer them.

We’ve got a plan to build Ontario. We’ve got a plan to build a greener Ontario: the largest investment in transit; working with industry to be a leader in clean steel production. All they offer is negativity, rhetoric and misery. Ontarians can see right through that.

Manufacturing jobs

Mr. Will Bouma: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. And if I could just say, Mr. Speaker, the incredible work that the minister has been doing across the province to activate our job creators—I just wanted to say on behalf of the people in Brantford–Brant, thank you.

Regional economic development has been a priority for this government since we were elected in 2018. Under the previous Liberal government, supported by the NDP, rural and northern Ontario businesses were abandoned and left to fend for themselves. Can the minister please inform this House how our government is leveling the playing field for our rural and northern businesses?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: We heard from the business community and we put our plan in action. First, we focused on every area that a government has some control over, like WSIB, taxes and red tape. As a result, we lowered the cost of doing business in Ontario by $7 billion every year.

Then we put business supports in place, like the $100-million Regional Development Program. This has given our manufacturing sector the certainty they needed to reinvest in Ontario.

In St. Catharines, we saw Quick Plug invest $3.2 million in an expansion to make peat moss plugs for greenhouses and hydroponics. This is an important addition to our agricultural sector, but, in addition to that, they added 30 jobs. Our government invested $480,000 through our southwestern development fund. Speaker, this is one of the thousands of Ontario business success stories, showing that Ontario is getting stronger.

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

Mr. Will Bouma: Thank you, Minister. It is so great to hear that our government will continue to be there for our rural and northern businesses. We know that companies all across Ontario are ready to invest in the critical technologies needed to transform our automotive and manufacturing sectors. Now more than ever, especially as we recover from COVID, Ontarians need our government to support local manufacturers across the province, allowing companies to create good, local jobs.

Speaker, there is more to be done. Can the minister please tell this House what private sector investments is the ministry making and how will they create the conditions for long-term, regional economic growth?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: As a result of lowering the cost of doing business in Ontario by $7 billion every year, we’ve seen our manufacturing sector take off. We were just in Welland and saw Valbruna, a manufacturer of specialty steel products, invest $50 million in a new electric arc furnace. This will improve efficiency and productivity and reduce their environmental footprint. They will be the first in Canada to produce high nickel alloys and other clean specialty steels, and they are uniquely capable of producing stainless steel. Indeed, they’re the only source in all of Canada for stainless steel.

Our government invested $4.4 million through the southwestern development fund. This fund supports regional priorities and challenges, and boosts the province’s economic recovery. Speaker, this is yet another of the thousands of Ontario business success stories, showing that Ontario is getting stronger.

Health care funding / Financement des soins de santé

M. Guy Bourgouin: Ma question est pour le premier ministre.

We have heard repeatedly that this government would invest in health care. From what I’m hearing in my riding, investments have not been made. In fact, cuts have forced non-emergency transfers, which used to be done by paramedics, to be downloaded to private transportation, now handled by hospitals, which obviously have little operating budget for this.

The result: I have a senior in my riding, Madame Ouimette, who had to wait three days to get a non-emergency transfer. She was in the hospital, in pain, waiting for her transfer to get hip surgery.

Speaker, why are northerners, like Madame Ouimette, who have to wait and suffer, not seeing the result of your so-called investments?

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

Hon. Christine Elliott: I thank the member very much for the question.

First of all, we understand that culturally appropriate care is essential in supporting improved health outcomes, especially for Indigenous peoples in the north, as well as for all northerners. We want to make sure that everyone has the care that they need. That’s why we have programmed and worked with Nishnawbe Aski Nation, NAN, on Operation Remote Immunity, working with Ornge. That Ornge assistance has continued throughout.

It’s very important to make sure that everyone in Ontario, regardless of where they live, has access to the health services that they need. We know that many people in northern Ontario may need to be transported, either to Thunder Bay or sometimes further south. NAN is there to support that and will continue to be.

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

M. Guy Bourgouin: Je reviens sur le point que le gouvernement doit arrêter avec ses coupures dans le domaine de la santé. M me Ouimette est un exemple parfait de victime de ces coupures. Non seulement a-t-elle attendu trois jours pour son transfert, mais même arrivée à Timmins, elle a été laissée seule dans le corridor, sans supervision, sans réponse, sans médicament.

Monsieur le Président, quand est-ce que ce gouvernement va arrêter de faire des coupures dans le système de santé et assurer le bien-être des patients? Assez, c’est assez.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Again, to the member opposite, our government has increased health care spending, as I’ve indicated previously, from $59 billion before the pandemic to $64 billion now. That also includes the creation of Ontario Health with the local Ontario health units to support patients wherever they are in the province and to make sure that people have that care wherever they need it within our health care system. That’s why we created Ontario Health: in order to make sure that people, whether they need home care, whether they need surgical care or long-term care, will get the assistance that they need, when they need it.

We are continuing with the creation of our local Ontario health units. We’ve got about 95% of the Ontario population covered now. But we’re going to continue with the creation of the units and make sure that they have the supports that they need to provide safe and culturally appropriate health care services, but also to deal with the social determinants of health, which many governments have talked about but have not actually done anything about. We’re going to do it with those local Ontario health units.

Invasion of Ukraine / Invasion de l’Ukraine

M lle Amanda Simard: As we speak, Ukrainians are continuing to fight bravely and relentlessly against an unprovoked full-scale invasion by Russia. The Ukrainian forces and the civilians who have joined them are outmanned and outgunned, but they keep fighting. Their resilience is inspiring and remarkable.

Yes, Ukrainians are fighting for their freedom, but they’re also fighting for us, for democracy. It is critical that we, our government and the international community do everything possible to ensure Putin does not win. Here at the provincial level, we’re limited in things we can do within our jurisdiction, but it’s important that anything we can do, we must do.

I want to sincerely thank the government for pledging $300,000 and taking Russian vodka off the shelves at our LCBOs. Some of these measures are symbolic, but they’re important. But things are escalating quickly and dramatically. Will the government take other measures to support our efforts in Ukraine?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: I appreciate the question from the honourable member, as we’ve been working across party lines on this. Let me thank all members of the House on that.

She did highlight some of the measures that the government took immediately. I know that the Minister of Citizenship and Multiculturalism did convene a round table with a number of members with respect to what kind of supports we can provide. One of the things we did hear, of course, was that we should be in a better position to bring more Ukrainian refugees to Canada, and specifically to Ontario. I know the Premier was very quick to announce that, and the Minister of Labour is working on that.

But the other issue that we heard and have been hearing frequently is assistance in terms of lethal weaponry being sent to support the brave Ukrainian forces on the ground who have been doing an incredible job in the support of Ukraine and in the support of democracy. I know that the federal government has acted on that as well.

We’re obviously not in a position, as the member has highlighted, to do that, but where we are in a position to help, we will help. Again, I thank all members. It’s a very important issue, and I thank all members for the unity that we’ve all expressed on that.

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

M lle Amanda Simard: The Putin regime is targeting and killing civilians: bombing apartments, bombing kindergartens, shooting ambulances and much, much more, with absolutely no regard for international law, let alone human life.

Il est essentiel que nous, notre gouvernement et la communauté internationale, fassions tout notre possible pour que Poutine ne gagne pas. Ici au niveau provincial, nous sommes limités dans les choses que nous pouvons faire dans notre juridiction, mais il est important que, tout ce que nous pouvons faire, nous devons le faire.

J’apprécie la réponse du ministre concernant les réfugiés. Je tiens à remercier sincèrement encore une fois le gouvernement d’avoir promis 300 000 $ et d’avoir retiré la vodka russe des étagères de nos LCBO. Ce sont des importantes étapes—parfois symboliques, mais très importantes.

Comme nous pouvons le constater, la situation s’aggrave rapidement et de façon dramatique. Le gouvernement de l’Ontario va-t-il prendre d’autres mesures en plus de ce qu’on a discuté pour appuyer nos efforts en Ukraine, et est-il en discussion avec les organismes pour ajouter de l’aide pour l’aide humanitaire?

L’hon. Paul Calandra: Je remercie ma collègue pour cette question. Comme j’ai déjà dit, le ministre de la citoyenneté et du multiculturalisme, avec le ministre du Travail et le premier ministre ont annoncé immédiatement, oui, des aides financières pour la communauté. Mais, en même temps, nous avons dit que c’est très important que nous soyons prêts à inviter des réfugiés de l’Ukraine ici en Ontario. Nous allons continuer de travailler avec le gouvernement fédéral.

Vraiment, merci à tous mes collègues de chaque côté de cette Chambre. Nous avons travaillé ensemble. Nous avons travaillé avec la communauté dans toutes les régions et dans toutes nos circonscriptions, pour écouter la communauté et pour assurer que nous parlons ensemble contre les actions de la Russie en Ukraine.

Workplace safety

Ms. Christine Hogarth: My question is to the Minister of Labour, Training and Skills Development. Mr. Speaker, our government strongly believes that all workers deserve to come home safe after a hard day’s work. There are currently over 500 field inspectors, the highest number in Ontario’s history, who visit workplaces across the province every day and help businesses comply with health and safety regulations.

While the majority of businesses do everything they can to keep their workers safe, there are still some bad actors out there who pay fines and, unfortunately, continue to put workers at risk.

Will the minister tell us what his ministry is proposing to place stronger workplace protections for our everyday workers?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: I want to thank the member for this very important question. Our government has worked and continues to work for Ontario workers. We’re leaving no stone unturned to ensure their health and safety. They are our government’s top priority. That’s why I was pleased to announce stronger workplace protections in Bill 88. Our Working for Workers 2 continues our promise to all workers and their families that we have their backs.

Our bill, if passed, would increase health and safety fines for businesses that put workers at risk to the highest in Canada. If convicted, these lawbreakers, would face new maximum charges of up to $1.5 million for a worker being severely injured or killed on the job. Our message to those who treat injuries as a cost of doing business here in Ontario: No more.

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

Ms. Christine Hogarth: Thank you very much, Minister.

Mr. Speaker, the COVID-19 pandemic has affected us all, but it has also highlighted the impact of the ongoing public health concerns. Between March 2020 and January 2021, there were just under 25,000 opioid-related deaths in Ontario. These include deaths that occurred in the workplace. As the ongoing public health crisis of opioid overdoses and deaths in Ontario continues, additional action is needed to save lives.

Will the minister please tell us what our government is doing to address this public health crisis in the workplace?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: Again, to the member, thank you for this very important question.

Speaker, first, I want to offer my condolences to the families of all of those who have died of an opioid overdose. One life lost is obviously one too many.

Yesterday, Speaker, I joined my colleague, the Associate Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, to announce legislation that would require life-saving naloxone kits in any workplace where there is a risk of an opioid overdose. Our new policy is the very first in all of Canada and it will be matched with support from our government to train workers and help employers get the kits that they need. We have to be ambitious in fighting this epidemic, because everyone should come home safe after a hard day’s work.

Government spending

Ms. Marit Stiles: This question is for the Premier. The independent Financial Accountability Office released its review of quarterly spending today and has found that, once again, the government is withholding money it promised to spend. This time, it’s an astonishing $5.5 billion that’s being held back by this government.

Ontario is only just starting to reopen after another devastating wave, a very painful lockdown, and the cost of everything from rent to groceries to gas are all soaring. If there has ever been a time we needed this government to step in and shore up our health care, our housing, our public infrastructure, it’s now.

Speaker, through you to the Premier: Why is this government putting Ontario’s recovery at risk by withholding billions of dollars it promised to spend?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply, the President of the Treasury Board.

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: We want to take an opportunity to thank the FAO for his report and all the work that he has been doing.

As the member opposite will know, the FAO’s methodology does not take into consideration the full impact of the government’s investments, as it excludes consolidated entities as school boards, hospitals and agencies.

What I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, is on February 14, the Minister of Finance tabled the Q3 financial reports in which this government invested an additional $2.3 billion into this province. That included $1.3 billion in additional funding to support our hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic. That included over $300 million for the Ontario Business Costs Rebate Program and over $293 million for the Ontario small business relief grant.

Our government will continue to support the people of this province.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: The minister doesn’t even sound convinced, and those words are cold comfort, I’ll tell you, for those waiting right now for backlogged surgeries, who believed this Premier’s promise to clear them. Instead, they find out today that this government held back $1.3 billion in health care spending.

But it gets even worse: Ontarians have been subjected to a flashy new taxpayer-funded ad campaign trumpeting this government’s claims at success, like building bridges and highways and other infrastructure, but we know today from the FAO that they spent just 15% of their promised infrastructure spending. It’s smoke and mirrors.

Is this government’s plan to put people back to work limited to advertising or will they actually spend the money they promised to get our economy moving again?

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: There’s no government in the history of this province that has spent more to keep its residents safe than this government. As our public accounts showed last year, over $19 billion was spent to support the people of this province. As I mentioned earlier, the Minister of Finance, in his Q3 report in which we are being transparent with the public on all the spending that we are doing as a government, we committed to an additional $2.3 billion in spending. That’s supporting hospitals that need it during the COVID-19 pandemic.

That includes supporting Ontario’s small businesses across this province. That includes making sure that our long-term-care homes have money for prevention and containment of COVID-19. It also means that we’re investing in additional funds to support electricity cost relief for eligible businesses and residents—

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

The next question.

COVID-19 response

Mr. Roman Baber: To the Minister of Health: For two years, our pandemic policy was based on gauging and preserving Ontario’s hospital capacity. We were told that we must go into lockdown, keep kids out of school, close businesses, delay surgeries and disrupt normal life because COVID will overwhelm our hospitals. The most important metric was the effect of COVID on our hospitals.

For two years, this government and this minister were not telling Ontarians the actual toll of COVID on our hospitals. Instead, they were inflating COVID hospitalizations by combining patients hospitalized as a result of COVID with patients tested for COVID but hospitalized for a whole other reason. Finally, in late December, the minister acknowledged the distinction. It turns out that about half the patients straining our hospitals were actually there because of COVID, but the number given to us was double. The minister was knowingly inflating the numbers used to lock down and hurt 15 million Ontarians.

Question: Why did it take two years for the minister to differentiate the numbers, and will the minister apologize to all Ontarians?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The House will come to order.

The government House leader to reply.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Well, Speaker, everything in that question was wrong. So what I’ll do is, I’ll take the opportunity to explain what we actually have done.

He was right in the sense that when we took office, there was so little investment done to prepare Ontario for something like COVID that we had to move very, very quickly. That’s why, even before a pandemic hit, we started investing in Ontario health teams. We started investing in hospitals. We started investing in long-term care. All of these things had to happen because, as we’ve said constantly, this province was brought to its knees and had to have the longest and largest lockdowns because 800 people were in ICUs.

Why, Mr. Speaker? Because the previous Liberal government refused to make those important investments in health care. They refused to make the investments in health human resources. This government knew that that could not be the case. That’s why we’re investing in 3,100 additional beds, a massive investment to bring on new nurses, a massive investment in long-term care, new hospitals in Niagara, new hospitals in Mississauga and new hospitals in smaller communities. We understand that health care leads to economic growth, and that’s what we’re—

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

The supplementary question.

Mr. Roman Baber: Speaker, it’s regretful that the Minister of Health did not have the courage to answer one of most important policy questions. Why did the government mislead Ontarians about the number of patients—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. The member will withdraw his unparliamentary comment.

Mr. Roman Baber: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): And conclude his question.

Mr. Roman Baber: The 3,100 beds that the government House leader speaks of are the same 3,100 beds we’ve had here in the first wave and the second wave and the third wave, but they’re triple-counting them. Most importantly, we’d like to understand, why weren’t the numbers given to Ontarians as they were? Why did it take two years on the single most important metric that was used to lock down Ontarians, close schools, close places of worship, close businesses? Why did it take two years to tell us that the burden of COVID that we thought we were dealing with was not the burden that we were dealing with?

Could the Minister of Health please tell us why it took her two years to differentiate between “with COVID” and “from COVID” and apologize to all Ontarians?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Again, I’m not sure that anybody understood that question, but what I will tell you is this, Mr. Speaker: It’s because of the work of this Minister of Health that we are adding health human resource capacity. It’s because of the work of this Minister of Health that Ontario has done better than almost any other jurisdiction in the world in fighting COVID.

We have almost 90% of our population that has received two doses—I think it’s actually three doses; we are doing better than almost any other jurisdiction—over 31 million. Ontarians have been vaccinated in this province, Mr. Speaker. We have kept people safe, and because of the fact that the previous Liberal government under Del Duca, Wynne and all of that crew refused to make important investments, not only in our large urban areas but in smaller communities across this province, we are forced to do that.

We like to do that because we understand how important health care is to a vibrant economy, and that is why we are making the investments that the previous Liberal government didn’t do. Thanks to this Minister of Health, those investments are happening now, and in the future we will have the health care—

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

The next question?

Government assets

Mrs. Robin Martin: My question is for the Minister of Government and Consumer Services. Speaker, on this side of the House, we understand that in order to improve the quality of life for all Ontarians, we must use every tool at our disposal. While real estate is one of our greatest resources, historically, past governments haven’t always gotten the greatest possible value from our properties, especially not under the Liberals.

Speaker, through you, could the minister tell us what our government is doing to ensure that Ontarians are able to reap the greatest benefits from the many valuable public real estate assets at our disposal?

Hon. Ross Romano: Thank you to the great member from Eglinton–Lawrence for her question. Unlike the Wynne-Del Duca Liberal-led government of the past that mismanaged our properties and squandered our tax dollars, this government is finding innovative ways to generate additional value for the people of this province. Through the Ontario centre of realty excellence, CORE, we are going to unlock value and bring additional revenue into our coffers from a pool of approximately 20,000 real estate assets that are currently held by public entities within the province of Ontario.

This means that we’re going to be able to invest this money back into programs that matter most for Ontarians, like health care and education.

Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but CORE is going to help us to sell unused properties, reducing operating costs for the government and, most importantly, putting money directly back into the pockets of Ontarians and workers to help make life more affordable.

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

Mrs. Robin Martin: I want to thank the minister for his answer. This new proposed initiative certainly presents a fantastic opportunity for our province’s not-so-distant future. Many Ontarians, including my constituents, want to learn more about how this will benefit them and what will happen to government properties in their community.

Through you, Speaker: Could the minister please explain how our government is able to leverage our public real estate assets toward helping Ontarians, strengthening our communities and protecting our most vulnerable?

Hon. Ross Romano: Thank you, again, to the member for her question.

This is really a game-changer for Ontario’s realty market. When we look at the centre of realty excellence, we’re presenting Ontarians with an exciting opportunity for our government to not only save the people of this province money but also to revitalize our individual communities and expand access to critical services.

Properties that are underused or sit empty in our communities will be transformed to meet our government’s vital priorities, such as building more affordable housing or creating more long-term-care beds. Mr. Speaker, this is a win-win for the people of this province, who are going to see savings while taking advantage of new supports that are happening right in their very own neighbourhoods. This is all thanks to CORE.

I’m proud that this is just one of the ways that we’re building a stronger Ontario, Mr. Speaker. We’re doing this by having one lens on realty for the first time ever in the province of Ontario, one eye seeing all of our realty initiatives and being able to monitor those moving forward.

Anti-racism activities

Ms. Laura Mae Lindo: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, CBC asked the director of education of the Waterloo Catholic District School Board about an incident where police were called to de-escalate a Black four-year-old child. Stating that all ministry-approved policies were followed, the director explained that she “would take umbrage to the allegation that there is systemic racism in our board.”

The Minister of Education committed to an internal review, yet has not spoken about the pattern of racism in Peel, York, Windsor, Toronto, Simcoe—the list goes on.

Speaker, these incidents are not isolated. Educational experts understand how racism operates, and they are calling on this government to do better. Through you to the Premier: Will the Premier commit today to implementing an independent equity audit across all Ontario schools?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To respond, the Minister of Education.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: I want to thank the member opposite for the question. I think we would both agree that there is no scenario in this province where a four-year-old child should have police called on them—absolutely unacceptable. I appreciate the member opposite’s advocacy on this issue. As noted by the Parents of Black Children, who commented following the ministry’s decision last Friday to call a third-party review, deploying a Ministry of Education review of the handling of that board. The Parents of Black Children said, “We are pleased that the ministry has heeded the calls of the community to conduct a third-party investigation.”

We are committed to fighting racism in schools, in Peel specifically. As the member noted, we were the first government in the history of this province to call in a supervisor because of anti-Black racism—the first in this country. I accept there’s more to do. We appreciate the member’s bill specifically to help combat racism in schools, and I am prepared to work with her and all members to fight the scourge of racism and hate that’s happening in our schools, in our society.

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

Ms. Laura Mae Lindo: Back to the Premier: Education is a continuum, and recognizing the patterns of racism in the different boards is important as we try to address this. Reports of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and the harsher discipline of Black, brown and Indigenous students continue to push them out of school. What happens in K-to-12 is reflected on college and university campuses. When people speak out, the punishment is severe. York University professor Dr. Aimé Avolonto is a perfect example.

After raising issues of racism in his home faculty, he’s now had to spend five years navigating never-ending investigations. The Racial Equity in the Education System Act provides us with the tools to build anti-racist educational systems that aren’t scared to address the patterns of racism.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, and back to the Premier, will this government commit today to making Bill 67 law?

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

Hon. Parm Gill: I want to thank the member opposite for that question. I think we all agree in this House that racism over the last couple of years, especially during the pandemic, has been on the rise. Since taking a role in my ministry this last June, I’ve been working with all of our stakeholders, all of the community leaders and organizations, to find ways to address them.

Our government is absolutely committed to working with every single Ontarian, Mr. Speaker, on this important issue. We’re committed to making the necessary resources available, and investments, and we have been, to the tune of over $30 million, including the doubling of our Anti-Racism and Anti-Hate Grant Program from $1.6 million to $3.2 million. Recently, we announced another $25-million historic investment when it comes to protecting our places of worship and other cultural organizations.

We know our work isn’t done; there’s more to do. We’re committed to doing it until this issue is absolutely addressed.

Assistance to businesses

M me Lucille Collard: Mr. Speaker, I didn’t think I would have to rise again this week in this House to ask the same question that I asked twice last week. The government has had weeks to prepare a financial support package for Ottawa. Where is it?

I’ve been talking daily with BIAs during the occupation and again last night to talk about the lasting effects of the loss of revenues. The BIA in our downtown core in Ottawa noted that “from a landlord perspective, our level of non-payment of rent is dangerously high. I have a large concern if the money does not flow quickly, we will end up with landlords defaulting as well.”

So I’m asking the government, will the government commit to matching the money given by the federal government to these struggling businesses?

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

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Thank you for that important question from the member opposite. There’s no question that our government recognizes that the health measures have come at a cost, and particularly for businesses in the Ottawa region that have faced unique circumstances with the occupation in that city.

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the member opposite that we have been there for not only businesses in Ottawa, we’ve been there for businesses right across this province, not the least of which were highlighted by the President of the Treasury Board: over $3 billion of supports for small business grants to over 100,000 businesses, including the third round highlighted by the President of the Treasury Board, including the property tax and the electricity relief, including the deferral of $7.5 billion of provincially administered taxes. I’ll have more to say in the supplementary.

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

M me Lucille Collard: Mr. Speaker, I can’t believe that there are no announcements for financial support. Business is struggling. Ottawa is the second-biggest city in Ontario. Ottawa workers are Ontario workers, and the government should be supporting all Ontarians, not only in the areas in which the government wishes to win seats. Some 1,000 businesses in my riding could not operate and that took away the paycheques of thousands of workers. It has already been too long for workers who are barely getting by.

Would the Minister of Finance please tell me when Ottawa will receive desperately needed financial support from this government?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: It’s a very important question from the member opposite—and as I look straight across here, I see a number of members from the Ottawa region, and we have many on our side of the aisle here as well. It’s a very important question.

As I mentioned in the scrum yesterday, we’ve been having conversations with those BIAs, with the people affected in the region. We’re working with many counterparts, and I’ll have some more to say in the coming days, as I said yesterday.

And it hasn’t been years, by the way; you mentioned years. You meant in the past few weeks.

But we recognize the struggle of many businesses in Ontario, not least of which is Ottawa, given the unique situation there. We’ll continue to work with businesses right across this province, because, you know what? We’re getting stronger every day. This province is getting stronger. We’re building back this province. We look forward to the economic recovery that all families, workers and businesses will look forward to in this province.

Education funding

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is for the Premier. Sherwood Secondary School in my riding of Hamilton Mountain is home to over 1,200 students, countless education staff and is the centre of the Sherwood Heights community. Sherwood is one of two secondary schools to offer an excellent French immersion program. Eight elementary schools feed into Sherwood for this program alone. Sherwood is at risk of clo