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

April 1, 2021

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2021-Apr-01 vol. A (PDF)

L243A - Thu 1 Apr 2021 / Jeu 1er avr 2021

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 1 April 2021 Jeudi 1 er avril 2021

Orders of the Day

Protecting the People of Ontario Act (Budget Measures), 2021 / Loi de 2021 visant à protéger la population ontarienne (mesures budgétaires)

Supporting Broadband and Infrastructure Expansion Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 soutenant l’expansion de l’Internet et des infrastructures

Members’ Statements

Youth justice centres

Andries Viersen / Jake Oosterhoff

Small business

Long-term care

Hospital funding

Organ donation

Seniors’ services

COVID-19

Ken Maynard

Hospital funding

Wearing of ribbons

COVID-19 deaths

Question Period

COVID-19 response

COVID-19 response

Small business

Long-term care

Employment standards

COVID-19 response

Special-needs children

COVID-19 response

COVID-19 response

Broadband access

Autism treatment

COVID-19 immunization

COVID-19 response

Autism treatment

Front-line workers

Business of the House

Private members’ public business

Deferred Votes

Protecting the People of Ontario Act (Budget Measures), 2021 / Loi de 2021 visant à protéger la population ontarienne (mesures budgétaires)

Introduction of Bills

Intimate Partner Violence Disclosure Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 sur la divulgation de la violence entre partenaires intimes

Petitions

Optometry services

Services for persons with disabilities

Optometry services

Conservation authorities

Services for persons with disabilities

Services for persons with disabilities

Services for persons with disabilities

Services for persons with disabilities

Orders of the Day

Supporting Broadband and Infrastructure Expansion Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 soutenant l’expansion de l’Internet et des infrastructures

2021 Ontario budget

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Good morning. We’ll begin this morning with a moment of silence for inner thought and personal reflection.

Prières.

Orders of the Day

Protecting the People of Ontario Act (Budget Measures), 2021 / Loi de 2021 visant à protéger la population ontarienne (mesures budgétaires)

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 31, 2021, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 269,

An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact and amend various statutes / Projet de loi 269, Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre les mesures budgétaires et à édicter et à modifier diverses lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I understand that when we last debated Bill 269, the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane had the floor. I recognize him again to resume his remarks.

Mr. John Vanthof: Good morning. It’s always an honour to speak in the House, specifically. Often in the House we say, though, “Do you know what? We should be debating something else,” but there’s never a bad time to debate an issue. There are times when you would think we would debating other things, but regardless, today, we’re debating the budget bill.

I’ve been here for a while—some on the other side would say too long—but it has always been confusing to many and still, I think, certainly, to people who don’t follow the process, the difference—that there’s actually the motion and the bill, because there’s quite a bit of fanfare around the motion. It’s an important document. It lays out what the government is planning to do both short term, medium term and long term, and then you come to the bill.

I remember the first time that I looked at a motion and looked at the bill, and the two seemingly didn’t have much correlation to each other, because when you look at the motion, you expect: “Okay, so here’s the brochure, and the bill—here are the details on how to get it done.” If you’re going to buy a truck: “Here’s the brochure, and here’s the fine print.” That’s the way I’ve always thought. I’m not criticizing this government in particular—not at all—on this issue. This is the way I always thought it was, and it has never been that way.

As an example, the motion has a title like “protecting the people.” I understand the government wants to put their views in the best light possible. I don’t begrudge them that. So, when I go through the bill, you would look for there to be issues that directly protect the people. That’s how you would gauge.

If you go through the schedules,

schedule 1 makes changes to the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act—again, a worthwhile endeavour, something that they have been lobbying for, for a long time, specifically the caisses. On its own, is it a bad thing? Certainly not. Is it something that is protecting the people? Overall, perhaps, but now that we could potentially be going into another lockdown, I don’t know if that’s the priority for protecting the people right now.

Schedule 3: This

section makes changes to the Electricity Act so dividends from Hydro One can now go directly to the current electricity rebate program. Again, that is a bona fide thing to do. It is not the 12% electricity decrease that was promised by the government, but they didn’t talk about that in their budget either.

Schedule 4 makes changes to the Financial Professionals Title Protection Act, but again, not directly related to some of the things we’ve heard about in the budget motion. There are things we think are missing in the budget—let’s be clear. But today, we’re discussing the budget bill.

Schedule 5 makes changes to the Insurance Act. That one, if that had something to do with bringing the price of insurance down—and maybe it does, but it doesn’t describe it directly, again.

Schedule 6 enacts the Invest Ontario Act, again a worthy issue to discuss but not directly related—I’m not going to go through every

schedule here. The theme I’m trying to build here is that although they’re mated, shall I say, the budget motion and the budget bill, to the people at home they don’t seem to mesh, and it’s always been confusing to me. The thing I guess is the budget bill is part—the motion lays out what the government wants to do; the bill is a small part of it. I think that’s the part you have to understand. It’s a bit confusing.

You would think that the first things that the government would do would actually lay out how they’re going to achieve their glossy—the advertising part of the budget. Again, I’m not criticizing the government for doing that. I think any government wants to put their best foot forward. That’s the role of the government. It’s our job to hold the government to account, to make proposals that could help the people of Ontario.

As we’re going forward, as we see now we’re in a third wave, we continue to make a proposal, as an emergency measure, that people in Ontario who can’t stay home when they’re sick because they can’t afford to should have paid sick days. That’s something that is still not in the budget. The government will say, “Well, it’s already a federal program.” They know the federal program isn’t the equivalent of paid sick days, and we all know that one of the biggest modes of transmission of COVID-19 is in workplaces.

Agriculture is one of those; maybe not when I’m in the field on my tractor all by myself, but the beef that I raise and the milk that I used to produce, when those things are processed, often it’s in close conditions.

Something that I notice here—and I tell my friends this at home—and something that we don’t see at home: When I walk to my apartment—I live on Bay Street—I see all the people on bikes delivering food. Those people don’t have paid sick days, they don’t make big bucks and they can’t work from home. We are creating—I don’t know how to describe this. I wasn’t planning on talking about this, but I don’t know how to describe that class of the workforce, because precarious work just doesn’t describe it. I see some of those people; they are just trying to get through to the next day.

Those are the people that we have to watch out for. They don’t have a choice on working from home. That’s why we still continue to push for paid sick days, specifically in an emergency situation like we are in today.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Questions to the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: I wanted to ask the member—he spoke about many things that weren’t in the budget. But when they were in the budget, both in 2019 and in 2020, the member voted against those measures. They did the right thing once before, voting with this government, voting for the people of Ontario for a lot of supports, but what the member is really telling me today is it doesn’t matter what’s in the budget; he’ll just vote against it. That means investment in hospitals, supports for families, many other supports for businesses or front-line workers.

Why are you so opposed to helping so many of those people of Ontario who are really struggling right now? What we have put in this budget will be that little bit of hope and push that they really need to get through the day.

Mr. John Vanthof: I really appreciate the member’s question. There are things in the budget that we think could be improved and there are things in the budget that are totally missing, and that’s why we will vote against it.

The question I have for the member is, could she lay out one of the things in the budget bill that actually does those things for people? We’re talking about the budget bill. Please show me the

schedule in the budget bill that does those things. You’re talking about the brochure; I’m talking about the details. Where in the budget bill are those things located?

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: It’s always a pleasure to listen to my colleague from Timiskaming–Cochrane. He is straightforward and always factual.

Despite our role as the official opposition and our criticism of this government and my individual criticism of the Premier and his actions over the years, I want him to succeed. I need him to succeed. We all need him to succeed and we need this government to succeed in quelling transmission of the virus. We need them to protect workers. We need them to bolster our economy and our small businesses that have suffered so heavily. Unfortunately, today we know that we are on the verge of another lockdown.

My question to my colleague from Timiskaming: He referenced energy rates and insurance rates. I’m getting a lot of calls from commercial owners and business owners about commercial insurance rates. Does this bill do anything to lower commercial insurance rates? Does it do anything to lower hydro rates for small businesses in our communities?

Mr. John Vanthof: I would like to thank the member from Essex. I’d like to focus on one part of his question, and that is commercial insurance rates. I have spoken to two of the past three finance ministers on this issue because I have, specifically, small trucking companies, owner-operators, mom-and-pops, who are being put out of business because they cannot afford to insure their vehicles. They just cannot afford it. I know there are people on the government side who I’ve also spoken to and who have experience in the insurance industry, and I respect that.

The response is, “Well, there’s always facility,” but that just puts people out of business. I believe there’s a workforce on the other side talking about insurance rates and I hope they come up with a solution, because we are losing businesses as we speak.

The winter is kind of over down here, but we still have a lot of people who couldn’t get their yards plowed in northern Ontario this year, because a lot of companies who used to do snow plowing can’t, because of insurance rates. Again, that is something that impacts everyday people today.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Mississauga–Streetsville.

Mrs. Nina Tangri: Good morning. I think we can all agree the pandemic has been devastating to families and to many, many businesses, some who may not make it through this pandemic. Now, we’re on the verge of another lockdown perhaps, as the ICU rates are going up significantly, especially in younger people.

But just going back to businesses once again: I’d like to ask the member opposite, does he agree that our government is about to, should the budget pass, double the benefit for those business who have qualified before, so $10,000 to $20,000? Do you agree with that measure? Yes or no?

Mr. John Vanthof: I appreciate that question. There are many businesses in my riding that have applied and have received the initial payment and will receive the second one, and they needed it. But there are also many businesses in my riding and throughout Ontario that, because they weren’t cookie-cutter, are having an incredibly hard time getting access to that program, and I have made the finance minister aware of that. I have sent a couple of cases to his deputy. So, is that a worthwhile program? Yes. Should it be available to more businesses? Absolutely.

And again, it’s not always ours to criticize. The fact that you’ve now opened it up to mom-and-pop tourism outfitters—we have been pushing for that since the pandemic started. We have pushed and pushed and pushed, but sadly—again, that is needed. But it was needed eight months ago, because I’ve lost several of those operators, a lot of those operators, because they’re mom-and-pop businesses. They work for themselves. They don’t have a pay schedule, and we’ve lost those people. We needed that program 10 months ago. We needed a targeted program for tourism’s mom-and-pop months ago.

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I’m glad to ask a question of my colleague from Timiskaming–Cochrane. I appreciate the way he laid out the difference between the budget motion and the budget bill. I think of it as when you go to a restaurant and you see the pretty picture on the menu, and what comes on the plate might leave something to be desired.

But I did want to echo what he said about no paid sick days. Those with no benefits, vulnerable workers—people need what they need to stay well, to protect their families, to be able to sleep at night without anxiety. What we didn’t see in the budget bill: We don’t see money for not-for-profits who do a lot of caring work and heavy lifting, for anti-poverty initiatives. It’s really missing the money for folks and families and people who are reliant on ODSP and OW.

The member mentioned that there is no expanded eligibility for those small business grants for the small businesses. I’ve got at least four from the last weeks that still don’t have the money from the first one. They’ve applied, they’ve been promised, and they’re waiting and they’re waiting. Come on, guys.

I guess my question to the member is, what kind of difference would those initiatives, were they in the budget bill, make to our communities?

Mr. John Vanthof: There was a lot in that question, but specifically on not-for-profits, food banks: We all focus on our own ridings, and they’ve got some big problems, and their use is going up incredibly.

For small business, when the pandemic first hit—and I’m not blaming anyone for this; no one could predict who was going to be hit the hardest and where the hurt was really going to hit, on the business side. I remember driving past one of my RV centres that sells trailers. I thought, “Oh, that poor guy just bought this place, and he’s going to get wiped out.” He has had the best year he has ever had, so you couldn’t predict that. But a couple of months in, when the border was closed, we could predict that those mom-and-pop tourist outfitters were going to lose everything, and the government did not react quick enough to help them.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): There’s time for a quick question.

Hon. Paul Calandra: A very quick question: I listened intently to what the member said. If I get it straight, there’s not enough in the budget bill for him to vote in favour of the budget bill, and the motion doesn’t go far enough either.

I challenge the member then here: We listened, obviously. The budget bill is not an omnibus bill; it’s a very clear set of intentions. Can the member then not vote in favour of the budget bill and against the budget motion, since they are two separate things? One is very strict and the other one is on a set of visions that you don’t agree with. Why not vote in—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Timiskaming–Cochrane to reply.

Mr. John Vanthof: That is a very interesting question. The government House leader, I appreciate, always asks very tough questions. He’s a very astute gentleman. The budget bill does push forward part of the budget motion. Does it push forward all of the budget motion? No. But for the official opposition to vote for a budget measure that is deficient in many areas just would not be sufficient for our people.

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

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: I’m always very humbled to be able to represent the residents of Barrie–Innisfil. They put me here because they were sick and tired of what was happening for 15 years of inaction, and they were tired of other parties propping up 15 years of inaction that punished people who were trying to hire more people, who were trying to boost our economy and strengthen the fabric of our communities; that took over people’s property rights and put things and projects where people didn’t want them and didn’t need them—literally, billboards put up and people screaming at the mattresses saying, “What about us? What about listening to the voice of the people and the little guy?”

In the last two years since this government got elected, it was heavy lifting, Speaker, but we did a lot, and this bill that we are discussing today will move the pendulum further. In 2019, we were able to help families and front-line workers, to build hospital capacity, schools and much more. In budget 2020, we built on that foundation and helped with the pandemic response. Now, we have budget 2021, Speaker, and with that, the momentum keeps going. I really hope the opposition changes their mind and stops going along with things that hinder our economy, hinder the people of Ontario, and actually votes for progress, for a change.

On that note, Speaker, I move that the question now be put.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m advised that there have been nine hours and 37 minutes of debate at this stage of the bill thus far, and the total number of members who have spoken on the bill is 22, so I will allow the question to be put.

Ms. Khanjin has moved that the question be now put. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote being required, this vote will be deferred until after question period today.

Vote deferred.

Supporting Broadband and Infrastructure Expansion Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 soutenant l’expansion de l’Internet et des infrastructures

Mr. Calandra, on behalf of Ms. Scott, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 257,

An Act to enact the Building Broadband Faster Act, 2021 and to make other amendments in respect of infrastructure and land use planning matters / Projet de loi 257, Loi édictant la Loi de 2021 sur la réalisation accélérée de projets d’Internet à haut débit et apportant d’autres modifications en ce qui concerne les infrastructures et des questions d’aménagement du territoire.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The government House leader.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I think I have spoken enough on this one. With that, I will yield the floor.

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I am pleased to have the opportunity again to stand in this House and get the official record of the official opposition on the official record for Bill 257. Speaker, this is the Supporting Broadband and Infrastructure Expansion Act that we had a lively debate about in second reading. We had a lively committee process. And Speaker, I know that you weren’t able to attend, but it is up on my YouTube, if you’d like to see the official opposition’s presentation for schedules 1 and 2. I think it’s very important that folks know where the NDP stand on broadband.

We have always stood up, not just in this House, but across our communities, for access to strong services, for broadband access for those in the rural, northern, remote, agricultural communities. To that point, we did introduce a few amendments and spoke at length and with passion, standing up for areas of the province that have always gotten the short end of the stick—and I would say that that stick is only because they grow them; it isn’t because any government that I have seen has given them what they need or are due.

Broadband expansion: We certainly want to see the last mile—the unserved, the underserved folks across the province in northern, rural, remote areas—actually have broadband. While we’ve heard that that is the government’s intention, I’ll believe it when I see it. That’s why we wanted it in writing in legislation. We put up a good fight, and the government defeated that. They say it’s for all Ontarians, not just rural. We’ll hear again about their intentions, I’m sure—but wishing it does not make it so. There’s a lot that will remain ahead of us.

So we voted on the record for those schedules. We want to see broadband.

What I’m going to take the bulk of the time today to discuss is

schedule 3. This should surprise no one. I represent Oshawa, but oftentimes the issues from across Durham region land in our inbox and folks reach out to our office.

A local issue in the broader Durham region is the wetland at Duffins Creek. There has been a lot of attention, a lot of conversation, and I’m not going to get into the weeds—get it—about the wetland and the importance of those weeds and phragmites and the wetland ecosystem that is so important in the province of Ontario, but globally speaking.

It’s interesting that here in Ontario we had a wetland on the chopping block when we also have such concerns about flooding, when we have such concerns about blue-green algae, when wetlands serve an unbelievable purpose. Maybe that’s the problem—because it’s such an unbelievable thing that they accomplish, maybe that’s why the government doesn’t believe it; I don’t know. If they did believe it, I can’t imagine that they would have let it be in the sights of developers.

You look at Ohio, for example—something worth everyone’s time. The H2Ohio initiative is creating wetlands, is strengthening wetlands, is investing truckloads of money, not truckloads of asphalt to pave one, but literally to create them and protect them.

It would be great if this government came forward with an “H2Ontario” program. I challenge them to do that.

Instead, we have a minister, the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, who is in charge of the flooding strategies in Ontario, and it was his signature on the permit to pave the wetland. I cannot reconcile those two things at all, and maybe he can’t, either. I can’t speak for him, but I was here when he said, if we don’t like

schedule 3—whatever the exact wording was—“Just pretend it’s not there.” That was the day that he physically, with great flourish, ripped out the

schedule from the bill. Unfortunately, that was not foreshadowing anything; that was not a sign of what was to come. At committee, we gave them the opportunity, and the government did not remove

schedule 3 from the bill. Had they done that, that would have been awesome, because a lot of folks are very concerned about

schedule 3.

I’d like to break it down for the folks at home. It’s fairly technical, so if I oversimplify, you’ll have to forgive me.

The government is going to, likely—I could be wrong about this; we’ll just see how debate goes. But from what we heard earlier in the debates and at committee, I imagine the government is going to stand and speak about MZOs, and either the value of MZOs—they’ll talk about certain local examples of MZOs, and they’ll talk about partnerships and municipalities and what have you about MZOs. This particular bill, in

schedule 3, is not about the merit of MZO use. It is about the fact that if an MZO—a minister’s zoning order—is indeed utilized by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, if he issues an MZO for whatever reason, at whoever’s behest,

schedule 3 makes it like a supercharged weapon, more than, I would argue, an MZO already can be, depending on the circumstances. Now the MZO doesn’t have to consider the provincial policy statement, the PPS.

The provincial policy statement, I’m going to share with folks, is basically the building code for the Planning Act. If you think of the building code, it ensures that your home is safe and sound and that you know what you’re getting and that you can sleep at night knowing that you’ve bought something that meets that standard. The PPS is essentially the building code for planning. It’s not just about the environment; it’s about all of the things. The most recent provincial policy statement came into effect May 1, 2020. That’s not a long time ago. That’s since we’ve had the folks across the way. The PPS reflects their druthers, so to speak. It’s recent.

The PPS, the three sections here:

“Building strong healthy communities....

“Ontario’s long-term prosperity, environmental health and social well-being depend on wisely managing change and promoting efficient land use and development patterns.” It goes on.

Another section:

“Wise Use and Management of Resources

“Ontario’s long-term prosperity, environmental health, and social well-being depend on conserving biodiversity, protecting ... the Great Lakes, and protecting natural heritage, water, agricultural, mineral and cultural heritage and archaeological resources for their economic, environmental and social benefits.” Ain’t nothing wrong with any of that.

“3.0 Protecting Public Health and Safety

“Ontario’s long-term prosperity, environmental health and social well-being depend on reducing the potential for public cost or risk to Ontario’s residents from natural or human-made hazards.”

Okay, the PPS, we can all—I thought—get on board with that, and we have for a very long time. It’s the foundation of planning. So what we have here—and I’m going to raise some issues that came up in committee, Speaker. If I have time, I’ll speak a little bit more about how the committee process unfolded.

Ecojustice is representing Ontario Nature and Environmental Defence in a lawsuit against—wait for it—this government about the Duffins Creek situation, about their issuing of an MZO. They are arguing that that was unlawful because it basically went against the provincial policy statement. The provincial policy statement, or PPS, says, “Protect and don’t do harm and factor things in,” and they’re saying that the MZO issued at Duffins Creek violated that.

The folks from Ecojustice said, “The judicial review challenges the minister’s issuance of an MZO in contravention of the requirements of the Planning Act in the Lower Duffins Creek provincially significant wetland,” like I said.

Here’s how they explain

schedule 3: “Schedule 3 of Bill 257 would purport to legitimate past unlawful decisions of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, including those raised in the above ongoing litigation. It does so by attempting to legitimize the unlawful approval of past MZOs under the Planning Act where those MZOs were not consistent with the PPS.

“By altering the rules to shield the minister’s exercise of discretion to order an MZO after the fact,

schedule 3 of Bill 257 operates to restrict access to the courts in respect of any past unlawful decisions of the minister.”

They go on to say, “Schedule 3 of Bill 257 would replace the rule of law with the rule of the minister. It would also purport to legislate the outcome of an ongoing court case. Access to the courts is, under the rule of law, one of the foundational pillars protecting the rights and freedoms of our citizens.” They provided us with a lot of good understanding.

I wonder what has driven this government to put this

schedule in, because we heard from folks—and I’ll raise some of their concerns. AMO, the OFA: They called for the government to withdraw

schedule 3. Everybody wants a planning—I’ll say “regime”; a planning situation that they can count on. Everybody wants to know what the rules are. This particular

schedule says, “Okay, you know what? Yeah, it was a protected, provincially significant wetland. We can’t change the classification”—or maybe that’s too cumbersome. I don’t know. That was the original plan, it seems like. They weren’t able to change that it was protected, “So let’s just say we don’t have to protect it anymore. Yeah, okay, it’s still provincially significant, but meh. So what?” The PPS doesn’t apply if the minister uses an MZO. It doesn’t have to. And those parts are deemed never to have applied. That is retroactive.

The thing is, we talk about changing the rules mid-game. What we have here is changing the rules after the game has been played. This is a clear example of mixing our systems. We have the legislative side of things—we’re part of that—and the judicial side of things. We’re not supposed to be a part of that, Speaker. Here, this is where the lawyers have laid out that it’s very concerning that changing the law could change the outcome of a court case that we’re in the middle of. That’s not okay. That’s not okay at all.

Speaker, another piece to this that the Ecojustice folks have said is that, “Bill 257 has other constitutionality problems too. It attempts to undermine both statutory and constitutional consultation duties owed to First Nations. These duties are confirmed in the PPS and Planning Act.” I’d say that the government is on shaky ground, except that they’ve got the pen and they’re able to change the laws. It was shocking when we first read this, but then hearing from folks at committee and really understanding just how shocking it is, the potential here is not a small thing. There is a really big potential for harm to be done across the province, long-term harm.

I’m not going to belabour the point about the importance of wetlands. We all took biology in school. We should have the basics. We’ve heard it over and over again. People came and spoke eloquently at committee. We heard from Environmental Defence, from Ontario Nature, that the value on the environmental side is massive.

Speaking to the constitutionality that Ecojustice raised, I wanted to share some words from Chief Kelly LaRocca of the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation when she came before committee. She said, on behalf of the Williams Treaties First Nations, “These concerted attacks on long-standing planning principles transgress our rights as a First Nation and the rights of communities throughout Ontario.

Schedule 3 of this proposed legislation shows that the province has chosen to yet again contravene its duty to uphold the honour of the crown through meaningful consultations with First Nations....

Schedule 3 would directly affect an MZO that impacts lands that fall within our traditional and treaty territories.... The Williams Treaties First Nations have and continue to exercise our constitutionally recognized treaty harvesting rights within the lands and waters of the Duffins Creek watershed. Despite these impacts, MSIFN and the Williams Treaties First Nations were not consulted prior to the tabling of this legislation. Through its actions, the ... government has made it unequivocally clear to us that it has no interest in respecting its constitutional duties as found in

section 35. Instead, it views our concerns as something which can be disregarded and bypassed by legislation hidden in a broadband expansion bill.” We heard that a fair bit at committee, Speaker.

It was interesting; actually, I think it was the committee member from Peterborough South who had an involved conversation back and forth. One of the things that he said was that the duty to consult could be simplified and was sort of suggesting ways it might be simplified. That is not—not—for him or this government or anybody else connected to colonial power to decide, what should or shouldn’t be involved in the consultation process. It was offensive and highly problematic, if indicative of the values of this government, frankly.

Anyway, I’m going to go on and let the words be from the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation: “Schedule 3 is a severe overreach of government powers, and a desperate attempt to avoid accountability after violating existing provincial policies. The retroactive nature of the proposed legislation is not designed to satisfy the needs of Ontarians, but instead, to allow the government to skirt responsibility for issuing an illegal MZO, which was contrary to a provincial policy statement.”

People came to committee and they showed up for the environment, for the province, for families, for the well-being of future generations. The Haudenosaunee Development Institute also presented at committee—a really excellent, full, comprehensive submission, but I’m just going to pull some highlights now. They represent the interests of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council in land planning processes and the development of lands within Haudenosaunee’s jurisdiction. They called for this government to strike

schedule 3: “Schedule 3 of Bill 257 poses a serious threat to Haudenosaunee rights and sovereignty and must be struck in its entirety from Bill 257.” They said, “As noted by the Supreme Court of Canada, the government ‘may not simply adopt an unstructured discretionary administrative regime which risks infringing [A]boriginal rights in a substantial number of applications in the absence of some explicit guidance.’”

But here we are, right? Here we are fighting after the fact for this government to withdraw

schedule 3 because it’s wrong on every level. I get it: It’s a shield for the minister, for the government for the judicial review or lawsuit they’re facing. This would make it all like, “Shh, it never happened.” That’s a massive power.

When you turn on your tap, you expect the water to be safe, clean, inspected and all that stuff, right? When you buy a house, you expect it not to be on a flood plain—all of those things that have to do with a provincial policy statement, like I said, the building code of planning, the fundamentals. But now, if the minister says, “We want to fast-track a development. But don’t worry, we’re not going to consult. We don’t have to abide by the terms of the provincial policy statement. We don’t have to factor in flood mitigation. We don’t have to—shh, just get ’er done,” well, guess what? We’re going to be on shaky ground—or wet ground.

Speaker, we had two young people come before the committee, the last presentation of the day, Devin and Ally. They’ve been very active. I’m quite impressed by an 18- and now 19-year-old who—and not to diminish them based on their age, but they laid out that they’re juggling a lot and they are doing a lot, and it really matters. I’m not going to try to quote Devin right now, but they had made it clear that they are glad to do the work of advocacy, but they don’t think that they should have to.

We have a government that’s supposed to be a leadership body, that’s supposed to make decisions in the best interests of the province, and they put clearly on the record that that is not what they think is happening.

Mr. Wayne Gates: They were attacked.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: They had a very challenging time at committee. I’m hearing someone say that they were attacked. I will say that they defended themselves really, really, really well. They were an inspiration. The government was going pretty full force at them, I think, to take up the time, really. But anyway, the government can tell their side of that story.

It was a weird thing to watch. Here were these people who came before committee, not even young people, just people who came to committee to share their views, and ended up in a back and forth with “Whose life was tougher” and “Who has a longer resumé?” It was very strange. Anyway, I’m really impressed by them.

Speaker, they continue to do that work on behalf of their generation and neighbours. They laid out a lot of things that they would like to see from the government in terms of that green leadership, that environmental leadership.

Some of the things that I had referenced earlier: The Ontario Federation of Agriculture, as of March 29, put out a statement, and I’ll share it with the government. I know they’ve heard it, but I want the members in the House here today who weren’t at committee to know that the farmers, the municipalities have come out and said, “Don’t do this.”

“The OFA is unable to support amendments to the Planning Act that would give the minister or any other planning authority the ability to make planning decisions which are not consistent with the provincial policy statement.”

OFA believes “the PPS does not go far enough in protecting our finite agricultural lands.” OFA recommends “strengthening of the PPS in order to require fixed urban settlement boundaries and policies requiring mandatory intensification within the existing built urban areas as well as mandatory ‘greenfield’ density requirements.”

OFA has concerns that giving “the minister the ability to issue MZOs that are not consistent with the PPS is short-sighted.” I’m going to say that again for effect: short-sighted. And it could “foster bad planning that will cause either individuals or government to incur the cost of dealing with poor outcomes later.”

But you guys need a shield for the minister right now, so come heck or high water—and there will be high water.

Speaker, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario talks about the MZO as a tool. They talk about it as a tool and kind of explain when it has been used historically, but they also note here that it excludes public consultation and is unappealable. So even on a good day, an MZO is hidden behind closed doors, away from the public—already a problem.

This is now quoting from AMO: “With this proposed amendment, Ontarians can no longer be assured of an outcome that reflects the balance of priorities that the PPS would require, and it may make some members of the public question the reasons behind declaring provincial interests in the statement in the first place. As a result, we would recommend that the province reconsider this

schedule and choose to lead the planning process through example to ensure confidence in our planning system is maintained broadly.” And the government said—oh, right, they said nothing. But they didn’t do it, and they had that chance.

Speaker, all of this has been on the record time and time again. I made it clear in the Legislature. My colleagues eloquently spoke about this from the conservation standpoint, from the municipal affairs and housing standpoint.

In committee, we put it there again. We had folks come from all across Ontario, all ages. What I didn’t read here today were all of the individual submissions. There were folks who are just folks who have been following along, which is encouraging but also worrying. They’re tuning in, they’re seeing this, and they were very concerned—just folks who know that this is an unbelievable overreach.

Speaker, I’m going to leave it there. I’m going to just leave this with a quote from Devin and Ally. In the letters they have written, they said, “On behalf of the future generations of Ontario, we ask that you change your ways before it is too late.... Become leaders of sustainable change rather than leaders of concrete and sprawl. Time is running out. In order to ensure a livable future for ourselves, and generations to come, we need your government to start prioritizing the environment and protecting Ontario’s green spaces. After all, it’s yours to discover, not yours to destroy.”

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

Mr. John Fraser: I was listening to the member from Oshawa about those young people who came to the meeting. To say it’s unfortunate would be a little bit of an understatement. I don’t think that’s what we would expect if our children came here.

Look, Bill 257 has got something really good in it: expansion of broadband. It’s a really good thing. It’s about creating wealth for everybody, giving everybody access to education, access to the highways of business everywhere. It’s not just in rural communities. There’s an issue around access to that highway here in Toronto and in Ottawa. So it’s a good thing.

But it’s been coupled with a measure that’s about creating wealth for a few.

It’s what, in business, they call a poison pill—we call it a poison pill in here—which is kind of a clever thing to make it unattractive to vote for the bill with something good in it. That’s kind of clever and fun in here, and we do that partisan stuff. That’s not what people expect. I would expect the government to take the second piece out,

schedule 3, and debate that alone. That would be a little bit more courageous, because there hasn’t been a lot of talk about

schedule 3 on the other side. I’m sure there’s probably no more than a couple hundred words.

As a matter of fact, the Minister of Natural Resources suggested to this side, “If you don’t like it, just take it out of the bill.” Well, that’s what we’ve been asking for. It shouldn’t be there. It doesn’t need to be there. It’s a poison pill. It’s a poison pill for families. It’s a poison pill for communities. It’s a poison pill for wetlands. It’s a poison pill for the environment. It’s a poison pill for the future. It’s a poison pill for our municipalities.

Here’s the thing—the member from Oshawa hit the nail on the head today and in committee. Strip all of that stuff away about what we’re going to effect by letting

schedule 3 pass: It’s about power. It gives the minister absolute power to allow building anything, anywhere—no rules, no right of appeal, retroactively. There is no check on that power.

Twenty years from now, that bill might be here. We won’t be here. But maybe we’ll be in our communities, and the minister of the day, who we don’t know, somewhere in the future—I wish it was like Terminator where you can see who he is if he came back. The risk there is, they’re going to do something. They’re going to build something. They’re going to build a highway. They’re going to build a warehouse. They’re going to pave over some wetland or an important part of your community or mess up a floodplain, and you’re not going to be happy. None of us—whatever side, any of us.

It’s not just about giving power to the minister. It’s the flip side. You’re taking power away from yourselves, from all of us, from families in your community, from municipalities, from the courts. You’re taking power away. There is no check and balance. That’s why we’re all here. We’re part of that check and balance. The courts are part of that check and balance. The provincial policy statement is part of that check and balance. If we keep doing this kind of thing willy-nilly everywhere, there will be no check and balance, and things that we don’t want to happen now and in the future are going to happen, I guarantee you.

I’m not going to belabour the point, but I’m going to say one last thing. You’ve heard me say that it’s a poison pill for families, for the environment, for wetlands, for municipalities, for the courts; a poison pill for the opposition. It’s not just the opposition. It’s a poison pill for you, because you know what’s been said and what I’m saying right now is true, and you have to vote for it. I’ve been on that side. I know the pressure. I know your team tells you, “You’ve got to do this, guys. We’ve got to do this. You’ve got to do this.” You can’t give in to that pressure, because it’s not right.

It’s a poison pill. It’s a poison pill for members of the government, for backbench MPPs, for ministers. It’s a poison pill.

I urge you to vote against Bill 257. Reintroduce it without

schedule 3. Introduce

schedule 3 and let’s have a debate where you’ll actually talk about it, because your silence is not something that the people who elected you expect on this.

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

Further debate?

Mr. Parm Gill: I want to thank my colleagues on the other side for really enlightening us this morning in terms of what this bill does and doesn’t do. That was very much appreciated.

It is always a pleasure to rise in this House any time I get an opportunity to represent my constituents in the great riding of Milton, and especially to speak to this important piece of legislation that we’re debating this morning. I will start with speaking to the portion of the legislation that deals with the MZOs, but first I would like to start by clearing up some confusion that the members opposite appear to have with MZOs. Every single MZO issued on non-provincially owned lands has been at the request of the local municipality, full stop.

Let’s just make that clear, to start with: Municipalities are in the driver’s seat, not us. Our government does not consider municipalities to be donors or insiders; we consider them as our partners, which is why we work with them to accelerate local priority projects.

For example, in the Leader of the Opposition’s riding in the city of Hamilton, the city of Hamilton requested an MZO to help speed up the approval process for 15 new affordable housing units, because having good quality and stable housing for our most vulnerable is a priority for their community. You can’t blame them.

Last summer, in the former Liberal Premier’s riding in the city of Toronto, the city of Toronto also requested an MZO to help expand Sunnybrook Hospital, to create more capacity during a once-in-a-century pandemic, and the city of Toronto’s widely successful CaféTO program was done through an MZO to provide an economic boost to our restaurant sector.

Some of the other projects our MZOs are helping to accelerate are 3,700 long-term care beds, hundreds of affordable houses and supportive housing units, a new hospice facility and a made-in-Ontario PPE facility. These are government priorities, and they are local priorities.

These MZOs are playing a key role in the province’s economic recovery, but don’t take my word for it; take it from a recent third-party study that was conducted by Deloitte, which found that some projects we helped with an MZO are contributing up to $3.1 billion to Ontario’s GDP and are helping to create up to 26,000 full-time jobs.

Let me be clear: MZOs are not new. In fact they’ve been used since 1972. The previous Liberal government issued 19 MZOs. In addition, it was the previous Liberal government that exempted MZOs from appeals under the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. Let me also clarify some misconceptions over the process of issuing an MZO. A municipal request for an MZO simply starts the process for us, and we then do our due diligence.

For example, we have been clear that we will not permit development in the greenbelt, period. That’s why the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing denied nine MZO requests from municipalities that would have permitted development inside the greenbelt: because our government is committed to protecting the greenbelt for future generations, unlike the previous Liberal government that carved up the greenbelt 17 different times to help their friends, to help the insiders when it was convenient for them. We’ve been clear that we will not permit development on the greenbelt, full stop.

Earlier this year, we made good on our budget commitment to expand the greenbelt by launching a 60-day public consultation. This consultation asks Ontario for feedback on expanding the size and quality of our protected lands. This includes the Paris Galt moraine, which is an area home to critical groundwater resources. We’re also looking at expanding, protecting and further enhancing urban river valleys into high-density urban areas, including Toronto’s Don River. This consultation is setting the foundation for its largest expansion since the greenbelt was created back in 2005. And I hope that the members in the opposition will join us on this significant environmental protection journey.

We have also been clear that we are expanding the greenbelt and will not develop or remove any part of it, unlike the previous Liberal government, as I pointed out, who carved up the greenbelt 17 times and removed 370 acres of the greenbelt lands under their leadership. This bill in front of you today explicitly does not apply to lands in the greenbelt.

Our proposed changes will ensure that there are no unnecessary delays or barriers to accelerate local priority projects. Our government has always been clear that we are committed to working with our municipal partners to advance their local priorities.

That brings me to the second portion of this bill.

Since we first took office, our government has invested $143 billion in Ontario’s infrastructure. This includes investments in broadband connectivity, transit, highways, schools and hospitals.

Although broadband delivery is the federal government’s responsibility, we simply cannot wait any longer for them to take action. We’ve stepped up to the plate with our 2019 broadband and cellular action plan that includes a historic investment of nearly $1 billion over six years and is already improving connectivity across our great province. This investment also includes doubling our funding to $300 million for our Improving Connectivity for Ontario program, also known as ICON, which we launched last summer.

We’ve partnered with the Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus to fund the Eastern Ontario Regional Network’s Cell Gap Project to improve cellular service in eastern Ontario. When the project is complete, residents in eastern Ontario will get near-complete cellular voice coverage and increased access to mobile broadband in areas where they work, live or travel.

We’re also helping to bring high-speed broadband to homes and businesses in southwestern Ontario by investing in the Southwestern Integrated Fibre Technology project, also known as SWIFT. Construction is under way in some of those communities already, and residents are starting to receive improved broadband service.

We’re also investing in various projects throughout northern Ontario to bring high-speed broadband to residents in towns and First Nations communities.

Now, more than ever, we need to build better infrastructure faster, laying the foundation for growth, renewal and long-term economic recovery. We need an Ontario-made plan to build infrastructure cost-effectively, to create good jobs and to connect communities to what matters most.

Our proposed legislation comes at a time when the COVID-19 pandemic has shined a light on the digital divide. There are as many as 700,000 households across our province that lack access to reliable broadband. That means there are hundreds of thousands of people who are struggling to work remotely during COVID-19 or learn as we shift to more online learning. This also means there are hundreds of thousands of people struggling to connect with their loved ones over FaceTime or Zoom calls.

Speaker, as the member for Milton, my constituents and local businesses are also calling for better and more reliable access to broadband to better connect one another across this province and abroad. I’m sure everyone in this House knows that my riding of Milton is defined as being within the GTA. But we still have significant sections that do not have reliable Internet, and many homes don’t have access to Internet at all.

We on this side of the House are taking action to fix that. In the coming weeks, thanks to investments from our government, Miltonians in some northern rural parts of my riding of Milton will be getting online. They will now be able to stream their child’s classes. They will now be able to FaceTime with loved ones. They will now be able to bring their businesses online, Mr. Speaker.

This past year has taught us how important reliable high-speed Internet is. As I outlined during the debate on the budget yesterday, Miltonians and many others in this province have known how important the service is for years. With this bill, we are well on our way to providing reliable service to those who have been forgotten by previous governments, mainly a decade and a half of a Liberal government.

I stand here also as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and I understand how important having reliable access to broadband is to Ontario’s 444 municipalities in our great province. Earlier this year, I took

part in the annual ROMA conference, which represents the interests of 405 small and rural municipalities. There were over 300 municipal delegations, and our government heard loud and clear that municipalities need faster and more reliable access to Internet.

I’ve also heard from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, Mr. Speaker. They are pleased that our government is taking action to provide more reliable high-speed access to broadband across Ontario. This is and has been one of their top priorities as well. In today’s 21st-century digital world, we need to ensure people have access to reliable Internet, so people don’t fall behind and can adjust to new, modern ways to work from home, to learn from home, and to connect and reach out to one another as smoothly and as effectively as possible.

This is why this bill in front of us today is so critical, because we are proposing to take bold action through these legislative changes to help connect communities to reliable high-speed Internet sooner by accelerating the development of provincially significant broadband infrastructure, Mr. Speaker. This would include the ability to ensure municipalities and utility companies provide timely access to their infrastructure, such as municipal rights-of-way and hydro utility poles.

The legislation would also, if passed, allow the government to help reduce the time it takes to prepare electricity infrastructure, such as hydro utility poles, for new wireline attachments on provincially significant projects.

I hope that the members opposite will join us on this side of the House in supporting this important piece of legislation that will benefit many, many Ontarians who feel they have been left behind, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate? The member from Mushkegowuk–James Bay.

M. Guy Bourgouin: Merci, monsieur le Président, et bon matin.

It’s always an honour to rise in this House to speak on behalf of the people in the community of Mushkegowuk–James Bay. Speaker, usually when it comes to government legislation, and most particularly about this Conservative government, we say that the devil is in the details. We say that a piece of legislation may seem rather simple or transparent and straightforward, until we consider the small elements and the wording and sections.

In the case of Bill 257, we don’t need to go to the details. In Bill 257, the devil is literally everywhere, but particularly in

schedule 3.

As a member of the general government committee, I had the opportunity to participate in the hearings last week and in the clause-by-clause debate just a couple of days ago. I was particularly shocked by the fact that the government members of the committee had zero interest and zero concern about the dangers of

schedule 3.

Schedule 3 is the devil in plain daylight. It is completely unrelated to the rest of the bill and it shows the true colours of the members of this Conservative government.

Participants at committee hearings last week were all clear about

schedule 3. It is an affront to the environmental challenges that members of the government seem to deny. It is an affront to the constitutional duty to consult with Indigenous people. It is an affront to the territorial claims and the environmental stewardship of Indigenous people. It is an affront to the future of young Ontarians and of our children.

Schedule 3 is an affront to the legislative competence of the provincial Legislature. It disregards independent judicial powers and it challenges the rule of law.

As Ecojustice put it last Friday, “Schedule 3 of Bill 257 would replace the rule of law with the rule of the minister.... It would represent a rejection of fundamental constitutional conventions that are core to the democratic institutions of Ontario and Canada.”

The Conservative members of the general government committee had time to reflect on

schedule 3 and multiple occasions to withdraw the

schedule during clause-by-clause a couple of days ago. The government members deflected each question about the constitutional, environmental and ethical problems underlying the schedule. They’ve even defended the Premier’s outrageous call for “more MZOs.” The government members asked whether my colleagues and I are against economic development, as if challenging the rule of law, the independence of judicial power, and bypassing the constitutional duty to consult with Indigenous peoples had anything to do with whether we want an Amazon warehouse built on a wetland.

Speaker, I have read, spoken to and listened to a lot of people about

schedule 3 of this bill. It simply should not be there.

I remind the members on the other side of the aisle that you have a duty to represent your constituents. As a member of the government party, you have a duty to listen to and represent the voices of all Ontarians. I truly hope that the members of the government side will remember the principles of representation, that they are elected officials of the Legislative Assembly, not the dictators of Ontario’s future.

Mais, si vous me le permettez, monsieur le Président, j’aimerais vous parler de deux autres annexes du projet de loi 257. Je vais parler des deux annexes qui adressent l’intention du gouvernement de mettre en place un programme pour élargir l’accès à l’Internet haute vitesse en Ontario.

En tant que député de Mushkegowuk–Baie James, un des deux comtés du Grand Nord, je pourrais vous parler pendant des heures par rapport à l’accès aux réseaux de télécommunication. D’ailleurs, 15 % des résidents du Nord—120 000 personnes—n’ont pas accès à l’Internet haute vitesse. Encore plus troublant, alors que l’Ontario est placé troisième au Canada par rapport à la vitesse recommandée par le CRTC, en ville on est placé dans le septième rang parmi les provinces quand on parle d’accès à la vitesse du CRTC en milieu rural—

Le Président (L’hon. Ted Arnott): Merci beaucoup.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Youth justice centres

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I recognize the member for London–Fanshawe.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I have to take my mask off for you to recognize me, Speaker.

I’d like to bring attention to this government’s mishandling of the youth justice centre closure in my city of London. Within six short hours on March 1, the staff and youth at King Street Detention centre were told the program was closed, everyone was without a job and all the youth were to be transferred to Hamilton. These vulnerable youth have been ripped away from their families and support networks and robbed of the opportunity to integrate back into their home communities.

I spoke to a former worker, and he told me that when he went in to work on March 1 at 3 p.m., he had no clue that it would be his last day. Imagine that: losing your job in the middle of a pandemic and while working with a vulnerable population. He and his colleagues feel disrespected by this decision. There was no direction or support from the ministry. Everyone I’ve talked to has had the same question: Why was this done without a transition time for the youth, the staff and the communities of London and Hamilton?

This wasn’t an isolated incident: 26 centres across Ontario have been abruptly closed. I applaud the Ontario Ombudsman’s decision to investigate these closures and I look forward to reading his report. This could have been done so much differently to respect both the children and the workers in those communities.

Andries Viersen / Jake Oosterhoff

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I rise today to pay tribute to the lives and faithfulness of two remarkable men: my pake, Andy Viersen, and my opa, Jake Oosterhoff.

My pake, Andries Viersen, was born in the hamlet of Anjum, Friesland, in the Netherlands and immigrated to Smithers, BC, at the age of 22. He met and married the love of his life, my beppe, Fettje, in 1955. They were blessed with 10 children in Smithers, BC, and Neerlandia, Alberta. A lumberjack, bush clearer, community builder, farmer and avid political watcher, my pake was first and foremost a man of God whose deep faith defined him. He went to rest with his Saviour after a short illness on December 6, 2020.

My opa, Jake Oosterhoff, was born in Laaghalerveen, Drenthe, and emigrated to Chatham, Ontario, at the age of 15, where he met and married the love of his life, my oma, Nel, in 1959. Together, they raised eight children. A lifelong farmer, in later years opa could be found biking all over the Niagara region or volunteering with oma for the church, Meals on Wheels or local causes. Opa joined his beloved Saviour on January 30, 2021.

My grandfathers were truly remarkable men whose families were part of the underground resistance in the Netherlands, immigrated to Canada with pennies to their name after the Second World War, and worked hard to build up successful businesses and raise families in this new country of Canada they loved so much.

Despite their success and accomplishments, they were both humble and godly men who would be the first to confess that they were not their own, but belonged, body and soul, both in life and in death, to their faithful Saviour, Jesus Christ.

I join their many children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren in giving thanks for the lives of Andy Viersen and Jake Oosterhoff.

Small business

Mr. Wayne Gates: I rise to speak to the Ontario small business grant. Quite frankly, it’s been a great disappointment for many of the businesses in Niagara.

After waiting 11 months to provide any form of support for small businesses affected by COVID-19, this government introduced the small business grant. It came as welcome news to many local businesses in Niagara. However, many of them quickly learned they couldn’t even apply. Some found problems with the application process and had difficulty getting information when they had questions on that process.

My office worked hard to help those businesses. However, now we have numerous businesses in Niagara that have been approved for the grant they applied for six weeks ago, but haven’t received any money—businesses like Chip n Charlie’s, Reg’s Candy Kitchen and the Fort Erie golf course, all locally owned businesses with local customers. They need the grant to survive; it’s money that these businesses desperately need. They faced a second province-wide lockdown, shut their doors at no fault of their own to keep our communities safe.

My office has worked to get information for these businesses to provide them with actual timelines, and they have heard nothing from this government—numerous emails to the minister’s office left unanswered, week after week after week. To not get back to MPP’s offices when local businesses have questions is shameful.

I call on this government: Take some time to respond to your emails. Allow us to help small businesses in our communities that so desperately need assistance. You promised them the money. Now, actually follow through.

Long-term care

Mr. Billy Pang: The number of people in Markham–Unionville who need long-term care is expected to rise over the next decade. That’s why, earlier this month, I was thrilled when our government made an historic investment in 80 new long-term-care projects across Ontario, including one in my riding of Markham–Unionville. The Mon Sheong Markham project is being allocated 160 new spaces in creating a net new home through the construction of a new building as part of a campus of care.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the Mon Sheong Foundation, all care homes and health care workers across Ontario for continuing to provide dedicated care to our seniors throughout the pandemic.

Mr. Speaker, protecting our loved ones and ensuring they receive the care they deserve is at the centre of everything we do. The investment of $933 million to 80 new long-term-care projects is on top of the $1.75 billion already earmarked for our government’s commitment to deliver 30,000 new long-term-care spaces in 10 years. With this new allocation, Ontario now has 20,161 new spaces and 15,918 redevelopment spaces in the development pipeline, bringing our government closer to our goal of building new long-term-care spaces for our beloved seniors.

As Ontario continues to tackle COVID-19, our government will continue to take steps forward to creating a 21st-century long-term-care sector and provide the highest quality of care for our most vulnerable people where and when they need it.

Hospital funding

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: I applaud the outstanding work of my community in securing the funding for a new hospital in Windsor-Essex that was mentioned in this year’s budget. My MPP colleagues Percy Hatfield, Taras Natyshak and I, along with hospital CEO David Musyj, the board, local mayors, city council, town councils and community members worked collaboratively across party lines for many years to secure this funding for our community and will continue to do so to ensure the hospital project moves forward.

While this funding is welcome news, the budget omissions show that this government doesn’t prioritize helping the majority of Ontarians recover from this pandemic. Nearly $800 million in funding cut from education leaves our students and education workers at risk. No increase for ODSP or OW will mean many families in my riding will continue to live in deep poverty, without access to affordable housing. There are 5,400 people on the wait-list for housing in Windsor.

Workers will still have to choose between staying home if sick with COVID-19 or being able to pay rent or buy groceries, because this government won’t support a provincial paid sick days plan. The restrictive business grant means local small businesses will continue to struggle or permanently close. Casino workers and front-line health care heroes have been left out too.

MPPs don’t vote on a budget based on one issue alone. This was an opportunity to address the struggles of families in my riding, yet the government’s budget falls much too short and fails far too many. I will continue to advocate for my constituents on the issues important to them, like those I just raised, while working collaboratively with this government, local politicians and community members to move the hospital project forward. Speaker, I hope the government will do the same.

Organ donation

Mr. Stephen Blais: It’s an absolute honour to rise today, on the first day of BeADonor Month, to raise awareness about the importance of organ and tissue donation.

In Ontario today, there are over 1,600 people waiting for a life-saving transplant, one of whom will die every three days. In my riding of Orléans, there are 18 people on the waiting list for this life-saving transplant, and yet, only 35% of eligible Ontarians have registered to consent to be a donor.

The Trillium Gift of Life Network is doing an amazing job at promoting and supporting organ and issue donations across the province. They also work tirelessly to improve the system so that more lives can be saved. Today, I want to do my part to raise awareness and challenge my colleagues here in the Legislature and my constituents back at home to take two minutes to register to be a donor, at beadonor.ca.

This last year has challenged us in ways many thought were impossible. We’ve demonstrated how much we care for each other. We’ve come together to protect our collective health by staying home and wearing a mask. Now it’s time for us to do that again, show our care for our neighbours and register to be an organ and tissue donor at beadonor.ca.

Seniors’ services

Ms. Lindsey Park: The Oshawa Senior Community Centres, Bowmanville Older Adults Association and seniors centres across the province have been playing an essential role in the lives of our seniors during this pandemic. During this time—over more than a year now—many have provided virtual programming and activities to help keep seniors connected during the pandemic.

On March 8, I announced locally an investment of $250,000 from our government for 2020-21 as part of our government’s funding for seniors active living centres. The executive director of the OSCC, Sandy Black, shared with me the importance of this continued funding for their centre and shared with me a testimony from one of the family members of a participant, who said, “Your program has been such a great help to us for the last two years and especially throughout this hard time with COVID. Father misses your program, your team, and his friends at the centre so much.

We have our good and bad days but for sure look forward to the daily calls with the group at 11 a.m. I notice such a difference in his outlook when he gets off the phone calls.... Thank you so much ... for all of the thoughtful one on one calls, newsletters, gifts, group calls, and tablets. He is enjoying all so much.”

I want to thank the OSCC for helping our seniors stay safe and connected during this pandemic.

COVID-19

Mr. Michael Mantha: There’s nothing like a call from a family member that brings the pandemic and the crisis that we’re in home to you. Last week, my son called me and said, “Dad, I got a COVID-positive test.” He informed me that he was doing fine; he had a little bit of tenderness under his eyes, but he was relatively good. We’ve been in contact with him, watching him and just making sure that he’s okay.

Last night he called me and he says, “Dad, I’m really feeling bad.” I said, “Ah, April Fool’s on you.” It wasn’t an April Fool’s. He was telling me how his chest was hurting and how it was difficult for him to get oriented in getting up in the morning and that things were really starting to hurt. That really brings it home to you. When you can’t go out and help your boy, it’s tough. His mom called him as well, and she wants to go out and help him, but she can’t. The best advice that I gave him, and we both agreed over the call, is to tell your mom to stay at home. We’ll see how you get through this.

It really brings it home because you always think it’s going to be somebody else. I don’t have grandparents, and I don’t have people in a long-term-care home, but you finally see what others are experiencing.

I want to tell my boy, “You’re going to be fine. We’re going to get through this. Your Easter eggs are going to be waiting for you when we can get together at home, and Dad’s going to have a huge hug for you, boy.”

Ken Maynard

Mr. Michael Parsa: I’m rising in the Legislature today to pay tribute to Mr. Ken Maynard of the Rotary Club of Woodbridge, located in the riding of Ontario’s Associate Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. Tragically, Mr. Maynard recently passed away on his 87th birthday.

In 1955, immediately following Hurricane Hazel, the Rotary Club of Woodbridge was first chartered. Following this, Ken became a member of the club in 1962, to be more active within the community. Ken’s family arrived in Woodbridge in the 1850s when Woodbridge was just known as a cottage destination for those living in Toronto.

Speaker, I also want to add that Ken’s family also has a connection to this Legislature. His father-in-law was a Conservative MPP from 1945 to 1948, representing the riding of York South.

Ken’s knowledge around the history of Woodbridge left many people speechless. If you ask anyone who knew him, they would tell you exactly the same thing.

In 2013, Ken was awarded the Lieutenant Governor’s lifetime award for contributions to heritage. He lived life believing in service above all.

In his 59 years of Rotary service, Ken never missed a meeting. Even while on vacation—which only happened once a year, to attend the Rotary International Convention—he made sure to attend the local meetings of the host city.

On behalf of the government and all Rotarians, we remember the legacy that Ken Maynard left behind. Our province and our entire world is a better place because of him.

Hospital funding

Mr. Kaleed Rasheed: I’m so pleased that the Premier and the Minister of Finance included Trillium Health Partners Mississauga site rebuild in this year’s budget. This is great news for the people of Mississauga and especially the residents of Mississauga East–Cooksville. All five of my children were born at Trillium Health Partners in Mississauga. This world-class health care facility has provided constant and exemplary service to not only my family but the families of Mississauga. Under the leadership of CEO Michelle DiEmanuele and her exceptional team, it continues to serve the people of Peel region and Mississauga throughout the pandemic and beyond.

Our government is investing in expansion projects in the region of Peel through collaboration with Trillium Health Partners. These investments will support historic hospital expansion and construction projects. This expansion not only creates an in-patient care tower at the Queensway site in Etobicoke but also completely rebuilds the Mississauga Hospital to increase capacity and address growth needs.

I’m very glad that, with the support of our government, the people and growing families of Mississauga, especially Mississauga East–Cooksville and Peel region, can count on continued excellence and service from Trillium Health Partners.

Wearing of ribbons

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Orléans has expressed an interest in raising a point of order.

Mr. Stephen Blais: I’m seeking unanimous consent for members to be permitted to wear the green ribbon today in recognition of organ donation month.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Orléans is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to permit the members to wear a green ribbon today. Agreed? Agreed.

COVID-19 deaths

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’ve been advised the Leader of the Opposition has a point of order as well.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I seek unanimous consent for the House to observe a moment of silence to pay tribute to the 86 Ontarians who have succumbed to COVID-19 in the past week—perhaps 23 more as of today.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Leader of the Opposition is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to observe a moment’s silence to pay tribute to the 86 Ontarians who have succumbed to COVID-19 in the past week. Agreed? Agreed.

Members, please rise.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. Members will please take their seats.

Question Period

COVID-19 response

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My first question today is for the Premier. Today there are 430 people in Ontario’s hospitals in ICUs; 43 more were admitted yesterday. This is the highest number so far through the entire pandemic of patients in the ICUs from COVID-19.

The Premier was warned that this was going to happen, that the numbers were going to rise, but he chose not to take the advice of the public health experts, of the doctors, of the nurses, of the front-line health care workers. The question simply is, why?

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

Hon. Christine Elliott: Since the beginning of this pandemic, our government has taken focused action to respond to this unprecedented public health crisis.

I think it’s also important that we note that this is not just happening in Ontario. This is happening across Canada. We’ve seen a rise in case numbers because of the variants of concern. It’s happening across the world.

We’ve been dealing with this every step along the way. We have been listening to our health experts—Dr. Williams; the Public Health Measures Table; the Ontario Hospital Association, with whom we’re in very close contact; the CEOs of the hospitals. We are in contact with them. And we have been building capacity since this pandemic began—over 3,100 new beds, the size of six community hospitals. We’ve been building our intensive care capacity, as well. We’ve put $5 billion into our hospitals since the beginning of this pandemic.

We will do more. We will do whatever we need to do to protect the health and safety of all Ontarians.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the doctors—the very people the minister is talking about—warned the government that the variants of concern were going to be problematic, that they were going to spread very, very quickly, that we couldn’t let them get out of control, that they would cause a third wave. But the government didn’t take the action necessary to slow that process down, to prevent that from happening—quite the opposite, as a matter of fact. The government did exactly the opposite of what was being recommended back in February.

And so what do we see today? There are 430 people in ICUs in Ontario. And 23 more people lost their lives to COVID-19, just since yesterday. These are avoidable deaths.

The government could have avoided the announcement that’s coming today in terms of another lockdown had they only acted in the way that they should have with the advice they were given by the experts. They chose not to take that advice. They chose not to take the necessary action.

Why did the Premier and his government decide to walk us right into another lockdown with eyes wide open?

Hon. Christine Elliott: In fact, we have taken steps every step along the way, based on the scientific advice and the recommendations of our health advisers—Dr. Williams and his team, Ontario Health, working with the local public health measures tables and other groups.

We have not hesitated, when we’ve needed to, to take action, which we did just this past week when we moved London-Middlesex into red. We have also put on the emergency brake, as we’ve had to in Sudbury and in other locations.

So if it’s necessary in order to stop the spread of COVID-19 and these variants, we have taken steps based on the medical advice that we’ve received every step along the way, and we will continue to do that.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, there is a tragic, tragic human cost to the decisions that this government has made: 430 people struggling in the ICUs; 23 more people lost their lives just since yesterday to COVID-19. There are over 250,000 Ontarians waiting for surgeries and procedures that have been put off because of the pressure that’s currently on the hospitals.

They were warned by doctors, by experts, by their own science table back in February that this very thing that’s happening now would happen if they didn’t take the necessary action.

Why has the government led us here? Why have we ended up in this tragic, tragic place?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Any loss of life due to COVID-19 is tragic.

We have taken numerous steps along the way to build up our hospital capacity to make sure that any Ontarian who needs to be in hospital is going to be able to receive the care that they need. We have invested millions of dollars in building capacity. We have also invested in building up our health human resources to be able to care for people.

More than that, we’ve been moving actively into vaccinations, which, of course, is our best case for dealing with COVID-19 and these variants of concern. We’ve actually completed over 2,276,000 vaccinations.

The news that we’ve received today is that we are receiving the AstraZeneca vaccines. We should receive them today. They will be shipped tomorrow. They will be available to be put into people’s arms as of Saturday in communities across Ontario, in at least three pharmacies in each public health unit as well as in primary care offices.

We are moving quickly in order to deal with these variants of concern, but also providing the capacity we need in our hospitals. I’m not sure what else the leader of the official opposition expects we should be doing in this circumstance.

COVID-19 response

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. It is very clear now that the Premier ignored the advice that was provided back in February, rolled the dice on the vaccines and led us to exactly where we are today. In fact, the Minister of Health is again repeating that their whole plan is to let people get sick; just let them get sick, because there’s hospital capacity.

Well, here’s what the ICU doctors across Ontario are saying, over 150 of whom sent a letter to the Premier, to the Minister of Health and to the chief medical officer just today: “Even if we had unlimited ICU capacity, allowing these” COVID-19 variants “to spread exponentially is unethical.” Why did the government let this happen?

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

Hon. Christine Elliott: Our primary goal since the beginning of this pandemic was to safeguard the health and safety of every Ontarian, wherever it is that they live in the province. We have taken steps in order to do that by, first of all, building up our capacity in our health systems, by making sure that we make the investments necessary to build that capacity in our intensive care units. We’ve also bought 10,000 ventilators, because we know many patients have to be vented. We’ve created over 3,100 new beds. We’ve also enabled the Cortellucci Vaughan Hospital to open as quickly as possible to carry some of the overflow from some of the other hospitals.

We’re ready to create field hospitals. One in Sunnybrook is ready to go, with over 80 spaces for patients. We have another hospital that we will be mobilizing in Hamilton as well. We are creating spaces that we have available, and we’ve asked hospitals to participate in that. We’re also building up the health human resources in order to be able to deal with that, in addition to our vaccination efforts.

We are moving on all fronts to protect the health and safety of all Ontarians.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, it is horrifying that the Minister of Health is acknowledging that the government’s plan is just to let people get sick and see what happens. This should not have been the case here in Ontario.

Here’s why these 153 doctors are raising the alarm bells in the province. Here’s why they said that the decisions the government is making are unethical. I’m going to read the quote from that same letter: “Four in 10 patients who come to the ICU with COVID will die.” Four in 10: I guess that’s one of the odds that the government’s okay with. “More than half of patients requiring mechanical ventilation due to COVID will die.”

Why does the Premier, why does the health minister, why do these folks, why does the government think that this is okay?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I’d like to say to the Leader of the Opposition, through you, Mr. Speaker, that what I find shocking and horrifying are the words that you’re trying to put into my mouth. Any suggestion that we are prepared to let people get sick and not worry is absolutely incorrect.

We are here to protect the health and safety of all Ontarians, and we are taking every step that we can. We are in daily contact with the Ontario Hospital Association, with the critical care command centre as well. While the situation in Ontario’s hospitals is concerning, it is under control. We are working with them constantly to build capacity and to make sure that people, if they need ventilators, if they need extra care—that we are there to protect them and to provide for them.

That has been our goal since the beginning and will always be our goal: to protect the health and safety of every single Ontarian.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier was warned by the experts that their framework was not going to work. That’s what they were told by the experts. In fact, they’re being told the same thing again, but they are not listening and they are not acting.

Here’s what the ICU doctors say: “We cannot rely on the public health measures framework. It did not contain the less infectious, less deadly original variant in wave 2 and it will not be enough to protect us ... in wave 3.”

Speaker, how can it be that with the advice of the experts, with the warning bells that they’ve been ringing, we still ended up here again?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Well, I can tell the leader of the official opposition that we have been relying on the recommendations of the medical experts since the beginning. Somehow the leader of the official opposition seems to be suggesting that we’re just making this up as we go along—not at all. We have been listening to the medical experts at every step along the way: Dr.

Williams, the doctors on the preventative health measures table, Public Health Ontario, Ontario Health, the Ontario Hospital Association, the heads of the hospitals, and the doctors who are the local medical health experts in all the 34 public health unit regions. We have been constantly listening to them, consulting with them, and listening to the recommendations and abiding by their recommendations. That has been the case every step along the way since the beginning of this pandemic and will continue to be our response. We will continue to listen to them and act on their recommendations, as we always have.

Small business

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Premier. In the last year, Ontario lost over 74,000 businesses. That’s tens of thousands of families who lost their livelihoods. That’s thousands of main streets that have lost their hearts. This government promised support that never came. Many businesses are still ineligible for support while others, like Davenport business owner Brandon Celi, have been waiting for 34 days for his grant.

Speaker, on the eve of another shutdown, one in six businesses are considering closing their doors for good. If this government isn’t going to actually step up with the supports that businesses and workers need, this third shutdown will close thousands of businesses forever in the province of Ontario.

Premier, how can you stand by while businesses close? At the very least, will you expand the eligibility criteria for the small business grant so that they have a fighting chance to get through this third wave?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To respond, the Minister of Finance and President of the Treasury Board.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Mr. Speaker, last week I tabled budget 2021: protecting everyone’s health and protecting jobs and our economy in this province. Within that, I announced that we would double the amount that small businesses—over 100,000 businesses. That’s 100,000 businesses who have successfully applied.

But we also continued that by expanding eligibility to the tourism, to the hospitality, to the accommodation-type sectors who have been hardest hit in this province, to the tune of another $100-million new grant program, plus a $100-million recovery program for the tourism sector. The business education property tax is in place, the electricity supports are in place and the property tax supports. So Mr. Speaker, this government is protecting the small businesses of Ontario and will continue to do that.

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

Ms. Catherine Fife: In that same budget, you left out thousands of businesses. You did not change the criteria so that they can apply for the small business grant. You doubled down on a flawed plan for small businesses.

This government seems to be going out of their way to make life harder for business owners across the province. Restaurant owners just shelled out thousands of dollars, frantically getting organized to open their patios this week. Salons, gyms, personal care businesses were staffing up, buying new safety equipment and booking appointments. But today, once again, they’re left scrambling to shut things back down again. The only answer from this government when it comes to support, other than a broken grant program that most businesses don’t qualify for, is that they’re out of luck; they’re on their own.

Speaker, again to the Premier: What does he have to say to the thousands of business owners who won’t get a cent of support from this government during this shutdown? How do you expect them to survive? It’s a very simple question.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Thank you again to the member opposite for that question. Of course, I wouldn’t want to be the member opposite telling all the restaurants in this great province who have benefited from the small business grant program. I wouldn’t want to tell all the hairdressers and barbers and all the personal service shops that have benefited from the small business program.

Mr. Speaker, over 100,000 businesses have successfully applied, and we’ve expanded it. I’ll say that again: We’ve expanded the program so that tourism, travel agents, accommodation, small parks and camps can benefit, because they’ve been hardest hit. They’ve been able to operate, they haven’t been locked down, but they have no revenue.

Mr. Speaker, we are helping those in need. We’ll continue to help those in need. Do you know why? Because small businesses are the economic engine of this province, and beyond that, the small businesses of this province are often the identity of our community. That’s why this Premier and this government will continue to stand up for small businesses right across the province.

Long-term care

Mr. Rick Nicholls: My question is to the Minister of Long-Term Care.

Speaker, for the past decade, our long-term-care sector has been sadly neglected. Many of our homes were built to now outdated standards. The previous Liberal government built 611 spaces from 2011 to 2018. That is an abysmal 0.8%—translated, that’s eight-tenths of 1%—increase while the population of those 75 and over grew by over 20%. More than 40,000 people across the province were on the wait-list for long-term care as of December 2020. The investments the previous government made were simply not enough.

We need to build modernized spaces in our long-term-care homes—something the Liberals failed to do.

Would the Minister of Long-Term Care please tell this House what this government is doing to fix these capacity issues?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you to the member from Chatham-Kent–Leamington for the question and for his good work on behalf of his constituents.

The member is right when he identifies the neglect of the long-term-care sector under the previous government, from 2011 to 2018.

It’s our government that is working around the clock to rebuild and repair the long-term-care sector.

On March 18, I was pleased to announce 80 new long-term-care projects across the province, which will lead to an additional 7,510 new and 4,197 upgraded long-term-care spaces. This is the single largest allocation in Ontario’s history. Our government is investing $933 million in these projects on top of the $1.75 billion already dedicated to the delivery of 30,000 new spaces over 10 years. Combined with the previous allocations, this brings us up to 20,161 new and 15,918 upgraded spaces in progress.

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

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Thank you, Minister, for your highly informative response. This is great news for all seniors across our province.

I know that my constituents will be happy to hear about all the great work our government is doing to modernize the long-term-care sector, including our progress on the long-standing staffing issues, crowding issues, capacity issues and issues with the wait-list. This work will address many of the challenges our province faced entering the pandemic and that were only made worse by it.

While this great news for the whole province is wonderful, my constituents would like to know what progress is being made for them, specifically. Would the minister please tell the House what this progress does for my constituents in Chatham-Kent?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you again to the member from Chatham-Kent–Leamington.

In Chatham-Kent–Leamington, Arch long-term care is being allocated 40 new spaces and 120 upgraded spaces. The project will result in a 160-bed home through the construction of a new building in Leamington.

In this tranche of allocations alone, our government will create more long-term-care spaces than the previous government did.

After decades of neglect, it’s a Conservative government that will repair and rebuild long-term care.

Our government is addressing staffing. Our government is upgrading older spaces to modern design standards. And our government is building new spaces that have been needed for many, many years.

It is a Conservative government that is repairing, rebuilding and advancing long-term care for Ontarians.

Employment standards

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Premier. On the verge of another province-wide lockdown, everyday Ontarians are once again wondering how this government managed to mess up so badly.

At the same time, everyone except for the Premier and his cabinet seems to understand exactly why we are in this position once again: The government refused to give workers the support they needed to stay safe and the support they needed to stay home if they were sick or if they needed a COVID-19 test.

When is the government finally going to listen to the health experts, the business leaders, the workers, the mayors and councils, the boards of health—literally everyone who isn’t a Conservative MPP—and give people the paid time off they need to stay home so we can finally end this pandemic?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply on behalf of the government? The government House leader.

Hon. Paul Calandra: I’ve answered this on a number of occasions and I’ll do it again: I will continue to stand up for those workers who are getting 20 sick days right now through a plan that this Premier, Premier Ford, negotiated with the federal government. I simply will not, and I know nobody on this side will, support the NDP plan to reduce those sick days from 20 down to 14. It is irresponsible. We will not do it. We will hold firm on giving the workers of this province access to 20 paid sick days.

Only the NDP are suggesting that we should reduce it from 20 down to 14. We won’t do it. We’ll continue to stand up for workers.

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: It’s not only the NDP. Dr. Peter Jüni from the science advisory table just today has reiterated the need for paid sick days at a provincial level in this province.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Made in Ontario.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Yes. Without a provincial program of paid sick days, without paid time off to get vaccinated, without any help from this government, workers won’t have any other choice but to keep going in to work, where they will keep getting sick.

How many more times are we going to do this? Is the government going to wait for a fourth or a fifth lockdown before they finally recognize the urgent need for paid sick days for Ontario workers?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members will please take their seats.

Government House leader.

Hon. Paul Calandra: We did recognize and we have recognized how important workers are to the province of Ontario. It is because of the hard work of people across this province that we have had the resources we have needed to invest in health care, to invest in long-term care, to have a return to school that has been so successful. It is these workers that we will rely on to rebuild an economy that will be even stronger than it was before the pandemic.

That is why it was this Premier and this government that were so forceful in ensuring that there were 20 sick days available to the people and the workers of the province of Ontario. That was negotiated by this Premier and all Premiers so that there could be a program across the country for our workers.

The NDP are asking us to reduce that to 14 days. We simply will not do that. We will stand firm: 20 sick days for the people of the province of Ontario and for all the Canadian workers.

COVID-19 response

Mr. John Fraser: Today, there are 430 COVID patients in the ICU, the highest level in this pandemic, and that number is rising. Today, we’ll likely hear that there will be a third lockdown in this province, to begin on Saturday.

For weeks, the Ontario science table has been warning the Premier about the risks of the new variants and the third wave. Dr. Peter Jüni described the situation as “completely out of control.” Yet the Premier’s priority last week was to get on the radio in Windsor and go to Brampton and ask people to vote for his candidates.

Ontarians deserve a Premier who is giving his undivided attention and focus to this pandemic and the public health measures, not a Premier who is content with business as usual. Through you, Mr. Speaker: Can the Premier explain to Ontarians why he’s taken so long to take the advice of his advisers and to do what’s necessary to protect them?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply? Government House leader.

Hon. Paul Calandra: It’s just the opposite: In fact, since day one, this Premier and this government have been working hard to keep the people of the province of Ontario safe.

When it comes to the third wave, I’ll remind the honourable gentleman that it was this government and this Premier that were begging the federal government to close the airports so that we could control the variants of concern, which were out of control. It was the federal Liberal government that refused to do it, and this government was forced to act unilaterally.

The reason why we have the toughest—the toughest—public health measures in this country is because, for 15 long years, the Liberals did nothing to improve ICU capacity. They did nothing to improve critical care capacity. They did nothing for long-term care. They did nothing for a strategy for workers and our PSWs. We have had to catch up every step of the way.

It is because of the hard work of this Premier, this Minister of Health, the long-term care minister, the Minister of Finance and all of our caucus members that we have been able to lead the country, Mr. Speaker. The job is not done, and we will not let up until we see the back of this pandemic once and for all.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Order.

Restart the clock. The supplementary question.

Mr. John Fraser: I’d like to remind the House leader the contact rate is 1.1%, so the Premier and his House leader need to stop blaming other people for a problem that’s of their own making. We’re always two weeks behind, right? And what’s evident now is that the Premier and his cabinet banked on the vaccine rollout to prevent the third wave. Yet since day one, this government has struggled to get vaccines into the right arms and the right places in Ontario—quickly. That’s this government’s job, and they need to step up.

Now, when the pandemic is once again raging, when we’re facing our biggest battle against COVID, with new variants—okay, the head of the task force leaves, with no one to replace him. As the House leader said, the job is not done. So through you, Mr. Speaker, can the Premier explain or tell us who is now going to head the task force as we head into our biggest battle with COVID-19?

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

Hon. Christine Elliott: I’m really proud to say that Dr. Homer Tien is going to be the head of the task force, going forward, the head of Ornge who has done such a remarkable job with Operation Remote Immunity, dealing with our fly-in communities and making sure that our First Nations partners are receiving the vaccine. Dr. Tien has done a remarkable job with Ornge and with Operation Remote Immunity, and I have no doubt that he is going to do a remarkable job as the new head of the task force.

Special-needs children

Mr. Rick Nicholls: My question is to the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services. Now, this past year has been difficult for everyone. Ontarians have stepped up, made sacrifices and worked hard to curb the spread of COVID-19. But doing so has challenged families across the province, especially those caring for children with special needs. Even before COVID-19, families in some regions faced challenges to accessing care for their children, such as outdated facilities or clinical services that were scattered and disjointed. This difficulty has only been exacerbated by the pandemic.

Speaker, would the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services explain what our government is doing to address these challenges that families of children with special needs are facing?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The parliamentary assistant and member for Ottawa West–Nepean.

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: Thank you to the member from Chatham-Kent–Leamington for this important question. Speaker, supporting children with special needs and their families is a top priority for our government. For these families, having a safe, accessible and modern facility to access services and treatment is crucial. In many regions, service is limited by aging and inaccessible buildings. In my own riding of Ottawa West–Nepean, my constituents have dealt with the added difficulty of accessing clinical services from locations scattered across Ottawa.

That’s why I am extremely happy to say that last week our government announced that we are supporting the construction of new purpose-built facilities at the Children’s Treatment Centre of Chatham-Kent and at CHEO in Ottawa. I know that the member from Chatham-Kent–Leamington has been a strong advocate for this new facility in his community.

Speaker, I will have more to say in the supplementary.

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

Mr. Rick Nicholls: I am very glad to hear that our government has announced these new capital projects, including a major investment in my own riding of Chatham-Kent–Leamington to establish a modern purpose-built and accessible 55,000-square-foot facility. When completed, this new CTC will serve nearly 30,000 families in Chatham-Kent and its surrounding communities while creating more than 300 new jobs. This is great news for the families with children with special needs across the province, as well as their communities as a whole.

Speaker, would the PA to the minister be able to provide this House with more details on how these new facilities will improve available services for these families?

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: Thank you again—Speaker, through you—to the member from Chatham-Kent–Leamington for that great question. I know first-hand just how difficult this pandemic has been for families with children with special needs, particularly of course in the Ottawa region.

Our government is committed to making access to these critical services more accessible and seamless for families. This new investment through Ontario’s action plan will reduce wait times and improve care. In the case of CHEO’s 1Door4Care project—a project close to my heart—services from seven different locations will be brought together under one modern, purpose-built roof that will make it easier for parents and families to access care for their child. As well, this infrastructure project will benefit my community and the Ottawa community as a whole by creating a staggering 3,000 new jobs. This is a game-changer for Ottawa.

Speaker, our government is never going to stop working to improve services and make life easier for families of children with special needs, and we will continue to do so.

COVID-19 response

Ms. Marit Stiles: My question is to the Premier. Speaker, families woke up to news this morning that more restrictions are on their way for much of the province, but when it comes to schools, it’s just more confusion and uncertainty. Earlier this week we saw conflicting messages about whether the spring break would be moved again or cancelled outright; now, more conflicting messages about whether schools will be open next week or closed. If folks happened to be catching the minister’s tweet this hour, he says schools will remain open. I guess that’s what we have to do now as students and staff: stay on Twitter all day. I don’t know.

Mr. Speaker, which is it? Can the Premier tell us if schools will in fact remain open, and if they are, how he intends to keep them that way when more are being forced to close every single day because of outbreaks?

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

Hon. Stephen Lecce: We believe that students deserve to be in class. On the advice of the Chief Medical Officer of Health, Ontario schools will remain open in this province. April break will proceed. For students’ mental health and development, and for their learning, students will be in class today, exactly where they belong.

We’ve built a comprehensive plan, fully supported by the Chief Medical Officer of Health: cohorting, better-quality masks and enhanced cleaning, screening and testing—all of which has helped ensure that, while we deal with the third wave and these variants of concern, nearly 99% of schools are open today. Nearly three out of four schools have no active cases at all.

I want to thank Ontario educators, the students and parents themselves for coming together at this critical time. We will continue to monitor the community rates, in partnership with the Chief Medical Officer of Health and the Minister of Health. We will not hesitate to act to protect students, staff and our families. We are grateful that students are in class, where they belong, in this province.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: The minister is great at spinning numbers, but right now what students and education workers and their families need is leadership and certainty. What they’re getting instead is dwindling supports. These so-called enhanced supports: Where are they? Supports are dwindling. The testing plan is a mess. One in four schools has a COVID case in this province; 63 schools are closed right now; today alone, 249 new cases—children—of COVID-19; and it’s happening with the minister’s so-called enhanced protections.

I’m going to give the Premier another chance here. Will he put a stop to the half measures, the confusion and the mixed messaging and take immediate steps to ensure that our schools are safe?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: I will provide a few numbers to the member opposite. First off, 99% of schools in the province of Ontario are open. In the member’s community of Toronto—which is a hot spot, as we all can agree—98% of schools are open today as well.

We appreciate this is a global pandemic, a challenge that is not unique to Ontario, recognizing that in British Columbia the New Democrats have imposed restrictions and lockdowns, likewise in Quebec. This is a global challenge we are contending with.

But we are proud on this side of the House. We’re proud of our students and the system of education that has worked so well to keep COVID out of our schools. The fact that three out of four schools in Ontario have no active cases at all underscores one truth: that our parents and our educators and kids are working together and our comprehensive protocol is working every step of the way.

We’ll continue to consult and work with the Chief Medical Officer of Health to achieve one objective, which is to keep schools safe and open in the province of Ontario.

COVID-19 response

Mr. Roman Baber: My question is to the Minister of Health. A year later we have learned so much about this virus, but this government continues to ruin millions of lives. Instead of protecting the vulnerable in long-term-care homes, this minister locks down 15 million Ontarians and makes them sick. A quarter million surgeries postponed; a million cancer screenings that didn’t happen; 60% to 70% of Ontarians are experiencing mental health issues; our children anxious and regressing; CFIB says that one in three small businesses may close—and for what reason?

We’re told that this lockdown is to prevent ICUs from being overwhelmed, but today in Toronto, the COVID hot spot, ICU occupancy is 80%, 10% below the goal of 90%. Province-wide ICU occupancy is also 80%.

A surge in COVID patients can be managed with transfers. Instead, the lockdown is in response to modelling by Steini Brown, which always over-factors the number of ICU patients. He meets the case projection, but the ICU factor is off by two to four times.

My question to the minister: Capacity is fine. Will you please look at the ICU data in front of you, acknowledge the ICU modelling errors, and stop ruining millions of lives? Please.

Hon. Christine Elliott: In fact, the modelling that has been done by Dr. Brown and his colleagues has informed many of the actions that we’ve taken to date. We will continue to follow both the modelling as well as the medical recommendations from Dr. Williams, the public health measures table, Public Health Ontario and the other medical advisers who have been providing us with their recommendations.

The fact of the matter is that we are facing some concerns in our intensive care units, but they are under control. But that is something that we need to continue to work on. We will have more to say about our response to some of these recommendations later today.

However, we are continuing to listen to the doctors. We are continuing to listen to their medical recommendations. We’ve already made changes. We’ve already put over $1.8 billion, just in this budget alone, in order to support the extra beds that we’ve created, to make sure that we can deal with some of the backlogs in surgeries—$300 million. As we’re dealing with the increasing cases of COVID, we’re also trying to work on the backlog of surgeries. We’re doing all of this plus increasing—

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

Mr. Roman Baber: Speaker, to the Minister of Finance: The third lockdown is a continuation of the same lockdown we’ve had in the GTA since October, but now province-wide. It’s grey, which the Premier loosened in response to pressure, not science. None of this is about science. It’s about re-election. It’s about polling. It’s about not disagreeing with the medical officer because, to quote the Premier, that would be like tying a noose around your neck and going off a bridge.

But the measures imposed are completely absurd. The Costco in my riding allows 500 customers, but gyms, restaurants, the beauty industry, dance studios and kids’ sports are closed? Why? We have so much data now. These destitute businesses are not a major source of outbreaks. They don’t lead to deaths or hospitalizations. Gyms, dance and sports are safe and good for people’s health. Restaurants and salons are safe and good for mental health.

The MPPs are collecting a paycheque. Some of them laughed at the prospect of collecting the CERB, but they ruined and decimated millions of lives.

Will the minister have the courage to look into the camera and tell these small businesses they’re not essential even though they’re safe?

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

Hon. Christine Elliott: As I’ve indicated earlier, the health and safety of the people of Ontario has always been our paramount goal and always will be. We know that we can’t have a healthy economy without healthy people. That is what we are working very hard on in terms of creating more space for people to be cared for in hospital, if they need to be hospitalized, whether that’s for COVID or any other issues—heart attacks, traffic accidents or whatever it happens to be.

We’re also working on the vaccination side. The good news is today we are receiving the 583,400 AstraZeneca vaccines that are going to be distributed, as soon as we receive them, to all parts of Ontario, including in at least three pharmacies in every public health unit region, and to primary care offices.

We are doing whatever we can to protect the health and safety of the people of Ontario. That has been, and always will be, our primary and first and foremost concern.

Broadband access

Mr. Rick Nicholls: My question is to the Minister of Infrastructure. Last Wednesday, March 24, the Ontario government presented its 2021 budget, Ontario’s Action Plan: Protecting People’s Health and Our Economy. It is here where I learned, “The 2021 budget commits a historic new investment of $2.8 billion in broadband infrastructure to ensure that every region in the province has access to reliable broadband services by 2025. This proactive approach is the largest single investment in broadband, in any province, by any government in Canadian history and will be pivotal to Ontario’s long-term economic growth.”

Speaker, I can’t tell you just how important it is to the people of my riding and for so many others throughout Ontario to know that they will have high-speed Internet connected to their homes.

Will the Minister of Infrastructure please tell us how the government came to this monumental decision?

Hon. Laurie Scott: Thank you to the member for the question.

Last week’s Ontario budget 2021 showed that this government is serious about getting things done for the betterment of all Ontarians.

We are well aware of the pressure COVID-19 has placed on us, and we have seen the shift in the way we live and the way we do things, emphasizing our reliance on being digitally connected to the world.

I am proud to say that our government is committing an additional $2.8 billion, for a near total of $4 billion, to accelerate broadband expansion, ensuring that all regions of this province will know they can count on us to deliver high-speed Internet to their homes and to their communities.

This also benefits:

—regional economies;

—farmers who can connect and use new technologies for their industry;

—mining and forestry companies and their communities;

—entrepreneurs and many more businesses;

—communities and municipalities as they expand digital integrations.

And it gives support to greening our economies, with less commute times and emissions.

Mr. Speaker, it’s clear, Ontario’s decision to do so speaks for itself.

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

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Thank you to the minister for that very informative response.

Speaker, this pandemic has shown us exactly why broadband is so important to the people of Ontario.

I’ve had constituents write and even phone me asking, “When will I get reliable Internet service to my home or to my business?” That’s why I was thrilled to learn of the close-to-$4-billion investment to connect my community and the rest of Ontario.

As the minister has said, investments alone can’t connect all of Ontario. Can the minister please tell this House about the other issues we face as we work to get 100% of Ontario reliable access, regardless of where they live?

Hon. Laurie Scott: Thank you for the question.

Like the member opposite mentioned earlier, we’ve all heard the stories, and these challenges have only been magnified by the pandemic.

There are very real barriers to expanding broadband in Ontario, including costs and delays when attaching to hydro poles, delays in access to municipal rights-of-way, and Ontario’s rate for hydro pole attachments and other costs.

But we can’t afford to let unnecessary barriers and cumbersome processes stand in the way of achieving access to broadband for all.

That’s why we introduced the Supporting Broadband and Infrastructure Expansion Act, 2021. If passed, this legislation would help connect communities to reliable high-speed Internet sooner by accelerating the deployment of provincially significant broadband infrastructure projects across Ontario.

Later today, we will continue third reading debate on this bill. We need the support of every member in this House to connect Ontario. I am counting on you.

Autism treatment

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: My question is to the Premier.

Since the Premier has taken office, the wait-list for families waiting to access services through the Ontario Autism Program has ballooned to 42,000. That’s 42,000 kids whose lives have been put on hold because of the government’s actions. For over two years, families have been forced to go into debt, to remortgage their homes or to work multiple jobs to ensure their kids don’t fall behind.

Yesterday, I spoke to Natalie, a London mom. Her son has been on the wait-list since April 2017.

Your government has shown time and again that you do not intend to support families like hers. What else are they supposed to think when there’s no mention of autism in your latest budget?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The parliamentary assistant, the member for Ottawa West–Nepean.

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: Of course, making sure that we are supporting our families with children with special needs is a key priority for our government, both during this pandemic and throughout our term in government.

Implementation of the new needs-based Ontario Autism Program is well under way. We’ve begun issuing letters, inviting families to move into the new program’s core clinical services. At this stage, we are focused on gathering important feedback from these first participants as we continue to invite more families into core clinical services.

I can tell you that we are continuing to follow the over 100 recommendations of the Ontario Autism Program Advisory Panel as we roll out the new program, including their recommendation that we rely on the clinical and research experts on the implementation working group who are providing key input on key elements of the new program. We are also—

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: It’s a little too late for—after two years, the best they can do is 600 kids, when there are 42,000 kids on the wait-list.

The OAP pilot project was announced over two months ago. Why does the ministry still have no specifics about it? There are no metrics for success. There’s no northern strategy, no appeals process, no staff, no families. Invitations are not enrolments. You called together an advisory panel and ignored the recommendations.

In honour of world autism day tomorrow, can you commit to listening and actually learning and implementing from the people who have lived those experiences? Will you accept your responsibility to ensure Ontarians with autism have