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

September 22, 2020

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2020-Sept-22 (PDF)

L184 - Tue 22 Sep 2020 / Mar 22 sep 2020

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 22 September 2020 Mardi 22 septembre 2020

Orders of the Day

Legislative reform

Members’ Statements

Education funding

Beamsville and District Lions Club food drive

Education funding

York University Markham Centre Campus

Small business

Education funding

Goodwill, the Amity Group

Hydro rates

Terry Fox Run

Flu immunization

Question Period

Long-term care

Long-term care

COVID-19 response

Federal-provincial fiscal policies

Education funding

Education funding / Subventions destinées à l’éducation

Small business

Hospital funding

Prescription drugs

Seniors’ health services

Education funding

Education

Commercial tenant protection

Veterans

Child care

Deferred Votes

Legislative reform

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Estimates

Introduction of Bills

Protecting Renters from Illegal Evictions Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 visant à protéger les locataires contre les expulsions illégales

Change of Name Amendment Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 modifiant la

Loi sur le changement de nom

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Small business

Private members’ public business

Motions

Private members’ public business

Committee membership

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Petitions

Public sector compensation

Social assistance

Climate change

Abuse awareness and prevention

Affordable housing

Sclérose en plaques

Police services

Autism treatment

Long-term care

Documents gouvernementaux

Orders of the Day

Soldiers’ Aid Commission Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 sur la Commission d’aide aux anciens combattants

Private members’ public business

Adjournment Debate

Long-term care

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Legislative reform

Resuming the debate adjourned on September 17, 2020, on the amendment to the motion, as amended, regarding amendments to the standing orders.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Further debate? I recognize the member for Waterloo.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and good morning to you and to all my colleagues here in the House. It’s a beautiful day out there to talk about amendments to amendments to amendments. Unfortunately, that is actually what we’re talking about today.

I do have to say that there does seem to be a genuine disconnect from what’s actually happening in this Legislature to what’s happening outside of this Legislature. I wanted to bring some of that perspective to the debate here today. We have a weight of responsibility, if you will, which is what I would refer to as our commitment and the oath that we take as legislators when we first come into this House. In fact, the Speaker just said a prayer that we say here in this House, and it calls upon us to use our power wisely and to stay focused on the work at hand, and the work at hand is huge.

This province has never faced a crisis in the manner that we are facing today. COVID-19 has dismantled the structures and the infrastructure that we have grown accustomed to; it has changed the manner in which we operate and communicate, and form relationships. Indeed, it has been devastating for our economy.

As the critic for economic development and jobs, I would really prefer if we were, right now, in this House, not talking about limiting the powers that legislators have; I would rather us be speaking about the priorities of the people of this province, primarily on the education file. We all know, and all of us must be hearing from parents across this province about the anxiety that they feel, about the tension-filled conversations they’re having in their homes about whether or not to send their children to school.

I was recently contacted just last night by a parent who actually has started in the school system, and a now kindergarten class has been melded, if you will. So it went from a class of 14 and now it’s at 27. That was the tipping point for her in that decision-making process.

I will say that these are things that we should be having conversations about. We should be debating what is the next step because right now, there seems to be vacuum of leadership on the education file. Having a debate about how to move certain pieces of legislation through this House faster, with less eyes on it, without that sober second thought, is, in my mind, not the best use of our time.

So we are here in our second week at the Legislature and many issues have started to come to the fore, and my colleagues who have spoken to this motion have addressed the fact that there is a role for the official opposition to play in our democracy and that is one of holding the government to account, and that happens in question period. It hasn’t been happening very well, I would say, in question period, especially after yesterday. But it is an important role that we play where we try to hold the government to account for policy decisions that have been made, for financial decisions that have been made, and that accountability piece, we take that role very seriously.

It’s hard to actually pinpoint, sometimes, where this government is on issues, because we’ve heard from the Premier that, for instance, there was going to be an iron ring around long-term care. As we are moving once again into phase 2, we do not want to see what we saw last time: 1,854 seniors passed away in our long-term-care homes as we were caring for them. We failed in that. This province failed in taking care of seniors, and it needs to be said, and there needs to be some accountability for that.

As we asked the minister responsible for long-term care yesterday, we get essentially what is a non-answer. I know they don’t call it “answer period,” but on an issue like long-term care, you do want to have some semblance of where the province is going with long-term care—flat-out denial, when we actually brought the voices of PSWs to the floor of the Legislature. They’ve told us that they don’t have adequate personal protective equipment—and we believe them. We believe them when they say that, because why else would they be telling us that? They know that their health and safety is very much connected to the health and safety of the seniors whom they are caring for.

So when we get that pushback from the minister, it really begs the question: Was there ever an iron ring that the Premier talks about? Is the iron ring somewhere in the mandate letter that the Premier is trying to keep from public disclosure? Why is that a priority right now in Ontario? People do want to know that. They do want to see their government take on the issues at hand, the challenges at hand, and right now, our hospitals are seeing an increase. Flu season is coming before us. We’ve been promised a plan imminently on the next stage of tackling a very aggressive virus, although you still have the people who don’t believe that it will affect them.

When I’m thinking about what’s happening in my riding and what’s happening here, that disconnect is disturbing for me. A couple of weeks ago, I went to tour Food4Kids. This is the organization that feeds chronically hungry children in Waterloo region—a very rich region, I might add. This is an organization that builds in after-school nutrition for kids or the school food program. This is the program that feeds the kids who don’t get food on the weekends or on holidays, and they had 750 volunteers feeding children—250 families every week for the entire time of the pandemic. It just ended at the end of August.

Chronic hunger in our communities: That’s a priority for us. That’s what I wish we were debating: a holistic system where we make sure that food waste doesn’t happen and that every child who goes to school and is in Ontario actually has access to nutritious meals. That’s what I wish we were taking about.

I wish also that there was something before the House—there may be something pending—on the state of our businesses, because I spent June, July and August sitting on the SCOFEA, and I do want to give a bit of a shout-out to the Chair of that committee, because someone said that we heard 80 hours; I’m sure it was 800 hours, because there was certainly one day that felt like about 100 hours, because we went to 9:30 p.m.

But the Chair of finance, I think that he set a new record by saying “please unmute” and “sorry to cut you off” about a thousand times. It was a challenging committee because we were, as I mentioned at the beginning of my comments, adapting to COVID-19 and having delegations via Zoom from our living rooms and from our backyards for some of them.

I have to say, we heard compelling evidence from the businesses in this province that they want leadership, they want action on rent abatement, rent relief, and they need it to be over a period of time, where they can rebuild confidence in the economy, because we need people to have confidence in our businesses on a go-forward basis. We need them to understand that this province and this government, all of us, all legislators in this House, have their back.

The frustration that we felt in June and July and then August and even into early September here is that the federal program, the CECRA program, is not working, because it has a 70% threshold to qualify, so if you lose 65% of your revenue in your business, you still don’t qualify for that program, and then also, it’s all driven by landlords. Why would you put the responsibility on the landlord to apply for that financial relief when the businesses have everything invested? We heard from the fellow in Markham who mortgaged his house to start his business, and his landlord refused to apply for the CECRA.

So what do you do when you are absolutely tied, you are stranded, by the federal government and then the provincial government keeps relying on that same model? We don’t need to go down this path. We know better, and that’s why we had the delegations come to us all summer long. Those delegations were passionate, and they were emotional, and people were scared. They’re scared of losing their life savings. They’re scared of losing their business and their dreams.

We have tried to work with the government. I think, in total, 14 letters or pieces of correspondence went to the government members with suggestions, with ideas. I did write the finance minister when—because the finance minister of Saskatchewan actually wrote the finance minister at Parliament, who was then Bill Morneau and now is no longer, and asked, “You know what? CECRA is a failure. Let us do the job. Let us take ownership for this program,” because they allocated $3 billion for rent relief; only $1 billion had gone out, with the entire country. The measly number that accessed it had to fight for it.

There was definitely a lack of transparency in that program as well. Some landlords did collect the money and it never actually made it to the tenants. So it’s a flawed, failed program. If we all understand that, then let’s debate in this House what should happen on a go-forward basis. It’s a reasonable request, and it speaks to the priorities of the people of this province.

We also heard—and I wish this was on the floor of the Legislature right now—around the accountability around insurance. I cannot tell you how many businesses came to committee and said, “Listen, I had business interruption insurance. I paid a premium for that liability. I counted on my insurance company to recognize that this was an interruption.” A pandemic, I think, should qualify as an interruption in insurance and in the business. So many businesses came to our committee—it’s a matter of Hansard—and said, “Listen, can you do something for us on this?”

You know, the Premier did stand up around price gouging. Do you remember, Mr. Speaker, when there were certain grocery stores that were charging $39 for some Lysol wipes? He stood in there. He stepped up. But why is it okay for insurance companies not to honour their agreements, their legal agreements, and why is it okay for them to increase their rates during a pandemic? If we’re all in this together, that means all of us actually have to pay a little bit of the price.

So insurance, rent abatement: There are solutions out there. I would love to work with this government to actually strengthen and support small and medium-sized businesses in Ontario. But, trust me, they are so close to losing hope, and that is why this should be a priority. We should be debating saving small businesses in the province of Ontario. We should be debating keeping Ontario open for business. It’s going to be hard to recover in this province if there aren’t businesses to hire people to keep people employed. We all understand that it’s a circular economy.

It matters that businesses stay open, so let’s prevent them from getting evicted, not just to the end of October. Let’s prevent them from getting price-gouged under the Commercial Tenancies Act, which allows ancillary fees and changing of the locks. It’s an outdated piece of legislation that requires a modernization, and now that we have the knowledge—I’m a firm believer. Once you have the knowledge, you actually need to act upon that.

I am excited about something that’s finally going to be happening. Public accounts is going to be sitting tomorrow. It has been a while. Public accounts, for those who are watching, which just includes my parents and maybe the neighbour, is a way to hold the spending to account in the province and to determine where waste is happening and how policies are being put in place with the money that comes into this place. That’s coming.

And then I wish the Clerk Chris Tyrell was here, because I wanted to embarrass him by reminding people that he did get married this summer. There was a wedding, and I believe it was under the 10 or so people, the new rules, but congratulations to him.

Applause.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Thank you. He will be so pleased that I embarrassed him like that.

The thing that I think right now is a huge red flag in the province—and I hope that everybody is paying attention to it. I wish there was a plan by way of legislation and that is particularly on the issue of long-term care. There are fears of resurgence in long-term care bubbling up. This is from Queen’s Park Briefing. I’m going to read it. Long-term care minister “Fullerton offered an update on the government’s commission”—this is important, because this is the accountability piece that I was talking about earlier—“which has quietly launched a website”—so quietly.

It’s a big issue, but a quiet website. “Fullerton maintained there will be ‘transparency’ and public reporting, but the commission, which has the ability to hold hearings out in the open, has already been conducting interviews and gathering evidence behind closed doors.

“In an update on the website, the commissioners say they ‘are receiving foundational briefings....’”

But do you know who they’re not hearing from? They’re not hearing from Linda, whose mother died at Forest Heights in Kitchener and who is haunted by that grief. She is haunted by the fact that she wasn’t with her mother. This was a Revera home. Fifty-two seniors died in Kitchener. That’s why we fought for a public inquiry. That’s why we wanted to have an open process, because public inquiries are also about justice. They’re about justice in hearing people out and bearing witness to what they experienced.

The minister added that her deputy minister was grilled for “hours.” The minister anticipates she will get a turn in the hot seat and said she was “very happy” to participate. Do you know what? This should be happening in public. This isn’t something that should be happening behind closed doors. I guarantee you, if the Liberals were pulling this—and they did try to do a lot of things when they were in power. Of course, they are all gone, right? If they tried to do this, the official opposition that I used to know, the PC opposition from the previous six years, they would have been up in arms, Mr. Speaker.

A behind-closed-doors commission: How do the people of this province get justice from that?

It goes on to say—this is from the same Queen’s Park Briefing thing: “The Ford government is taking its two-year fight to shield” also “ministerial mandate letters—the Premier’s marching orders to cabinet—to the province’s top court.” And why, in the middle of a health crisis, an economic crisis, is the Premier of this province going to court to fight the release of mandate letters? This makes no sense. It is such a serious disconnect for me and for many people.

They filed a “freedom-of-information request to unseal the letters, but the government objected, arguing they were protected by cabinet confidence. The case is now headed to the Court of Appeal.” The one thing that we do know for sure is that this government has spent a lot of time in court. We think that there is a better way forward in this House.

Certainly, at the very beginning of this health crisis, there was a genuine sense of I wouldn’t say camaraderie, but it was pretty close to “Let’s see how we can make things better for the people of this province.” I would respectfully suggest that the government is off course in that right now. As we move into another crisis, we should be more focused on long-term care. It should be an open review, an open commission, so that people understand that we actually are taking what happened to those 1,854 seniors seriously.

On the education front, you would have our full support to implement social distancing in our schools. We think that that would be an investment in keeping our communities safe. Also, the businesses that came to our committee wanted a safe opening of the education system, because they rely on it being open so that their employees can come to work. So there’s a connectivity here, and that investment in social distancing is well worth it. It is well worth it. We just had another case come forward in our high school system in the Waterloo Region District School Board yesterday.

These things matter. These things matter to people, and that’s not reflected in the “amendment to the amendment” piece of this dialogue, so I will say that it has been a little bit frustrating.

I know that we’re going to be debating something, sort of a lighter economic development bill, hopefully today—I don’t know; maybe tomorrow. I’m not quite sure. I look forward to that. I look forward to working with the government to make it stronger, because that’s what people in Kitchener-Waterloo want from me as an MPP. They want me to come here, bring their priorities to the floor of the Legislature, get the ear of the government, try to affect policy, try to amend legislation and make it stronger, and that’s what I do each and every day in this House.

We as a team are united in the fact that if you try to undermine our rights as legislators by trying to push legislation through this House quickly, you are actually undermining the people that we serve and, in fact, our very democracy.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Further debate?

Ms. Lindsey Park: It’s a pleasure to join the debate this morning. I must say, I’ll take a little bit of a different perspective to this than the member for Waterloo, but I’ve enjoyed the discussion and listening to her perspective on this. Obviously, we’re rising today, and I think the start of any session back at Queen’s Park is a good time to re-evaluate what has been working well, what is maybe working okay and what maybe needs to be improved.

Maybe I’ll just share my own personal perspective. Before I was elected, many of you in this chamber know, I was a practising lawyer, so I was used to debate in the forum of a courtroom, where you rely on facts and evidence to put forward your case, and then the judge makes determinations based on the facts and evidence that have been put forward.

I must say—and I tell this story often in my constituency, and speaking with my fellow members and their constituents—that it was a bit of a shock to come to the Legislature, where it felt like, on many days, facts and evidence didn’t matter and weren’t even brought to the discussion in the Legislature. There wasn’t much opportunity to bring points of discussion outside of the government bills being put forward for debate.

Of course, the government needs to move forward, and nothing in this is preventing the government from moving forward on what they were elected to do. That’s the point of holding an election: so that certain priorities can be put forward and voted on. Then, in fact, it’s our duty to carry them out when we’re here in the Legislature. But as the member for Waterloo indicated, we also were all elected with certain local priorities, and there needs to be a mechanism in this place for those local priorities to be brought forward and highlighted.

So with that introduction, I’ll now turn to some of the specific changes, and maybe we can fit those into those introductory comments and principles. First off, talking about private members’ local priorities, certainly I was elected to represent the local priorities of the riding of Durham, which is the east end of Durham region. The member for Waterloo was elected to represent the local priorities of Waterloo. One of the mechanisms we have in this chamber for bringing forward those local priorities is private members’ business.

I’m really pleased to see, in the changes that have been brought forward by the government House leader, adding more private members’ business to the schedule. As you all know, the current framework is that on Thursday afternoons, three bills are debated and then voted on in real time at the conclusion of each debate. I think that has been a great starting point.

I think we’ve had some wonderful discussions, ideas, brought forward from members on all sides of the House and from all different parties, ideas that I think have strengthened not only the debate—and in the case where they’ve passed, actually made some changes to the laws based on it—but also informed government policy.

I know any private members’ bill that comes forward that relates to a policy of a particular ministry—the people that work full-time at the ministry, regardless of who is in power, pay very close attention to those debates and consider whether that might change their internal policy going forward. So there’s a real importance and a real value to those debates.

I’m pleased that these amendments that are being put forward to the standing orders would propose an additional private members’ slot every week. This is my own estimation, Speaker, so don’t hold me to it, but by my own estimation, that would mean that if there was an extra bill debated every week of the fall session here, that would be eight to 10 more private members’ bills put forward this fall. That’s eight to 10 opportunities for local priorities to come to the floor of the Legislature and be discussed. I can’t imagine any of our constituents, frankly, voting against that.

I think it’s a great idea and it’s an opportunity to enhance debate and bring the voice of our constituents to this Legislature.

I also want to speak about one of the specific aspects of that amendment, which is requiring that all votes that are divided to be deferred to specifically the following day, after question period. I think that does a number of things. Number one, it gives more members the opportunity to vote on private members’ business. Another great reason to do this, I think, is that it gives more predictability to when votes are going to occur.

We’ve all been in the situation where we’ve booked a meeting with a constituent or a stakeholder, even in this building, and the meeting gets cancelled because we’re suddenly called for a vote. It makes it very difficult to arrange meetings, which is a part of our job. We can’t bring good ideas representing local priorities and the priorities of Ontarians to this place if we’re not actually having meetings with them and hearing from them and talking to them.

So it’s to bring some predictability to the calendar so we can carry out what’s a very important part of our job, which is being here and debating things, but also carry out the other very important part of our job, which is listening to our constituents and listening to stakeholders, representing the interests of all Ontarians.

I want to continue on that point of predictability. I think another thing that is going to be important for this is allowing deferral of closure votes so that the

schedule of the House, again, can be more predictable and members can have the opportunity to vote. I think that predictability to our House

schedule is going to make us all more efficient. In ministry meetings that I’m in on a daily basis, there are sometimes eight to 10 other people who have rearranged their schedules to have that meeting, and suddenly you’re pulled out because voting is the most important thing in that moment and you suddenly come over here.

I think this is not only going to enable us as MPPs and members on this side of the House, members of the government, to be more efficient with their time, but also members of departments and ministries, who are not elected but adjust their days to fit with our schedules—it will allow them to be more efficient in the work that they do, which means more things can be done for the people of Ontario.

I want to go back, actually, to something the member from Waterloo said, before introducing the next amendment that I want to talk about. The member for Waterloo said—and I agree with her on this—that there was a need for more debate on issues that matter, but, at the same time, she’s saying that we shouldn’t be changing the standing orders right now, we should be debating those issues right now. Well, I sort of agree, but there’s no mechanism in the standing orders to do that right now, so that’s why we’re changing it. So I agree with you.

Perhaps we should be considering debating things like helping small business and how we can keep the province open and businesses open during this time, but, of course, there’s not the mechanism to have these take-note debates, to have discussions that are of importance like that, and so that’s one of the reasons the government House leader is introducing take-note debates.

Anyone that follows federal politics will be familiar with them from our parliamentary tradition in Ottawa, which, of course, our parliamentary tradition in Ontario comes from, and over time, of course, in different provinces, we’ve developed our standing orders in different ways. As part of this reflection at the start of each session, I think it’s helpful to consider, “Okay, what are other provinces doing in their Legislatures and what is the federal House of Commons doing, and where can we take something that they’re doing that’s really good and bring it in to our repertoire here?” Take-note debates is one of those examples.

What we’re doing is creating a provision in the standing orders for take-note debates, which, for those of you and those watching who are unfamiliar with the concept, they’re longer debates on issues of substantial importance, and they allow these debates to take place after the House would normally adjourn. The reason for that is so that it won’t impact the business of the day, so we can continue on with the private members’ bills, with the government bills that were scheduled to be debated.

Sometimes these bills have very real deadlines that need to be met because of something that has happened in the courts or something that is happening at a different level of government, so I really like this idea of it happening after the House would have been adjourned for the day, and, as I said, currently, there’s no explicit mechanism for this Legislature to hold what it would consider a debate of significance.

I think we’ve all thought about the need for this during this time. Sometimes there’s a need for recognition of an issue or event of significance. The parties can come to an agreement, currently, on a moment of silence or set aside time for debate of a motion on a subject if a private member brings that forward, but these debates take place within the regular flow of business and are not particularly notable or noticed.

A take-note debate would be up to four hours in length and it will occur during the regular day, but usually in the evening after the House would normally adjourn. The debate could be triggered by a minister, upon consultation with the House leaders of the recognized parties, and the members would debate in rotation, making speeches up to 10 minutes in length. There’s no vote at the end of this take-note debate because the purpose is simply to take note of an issue of significance.

Now, again, for those who are unfamiliar with how this type of debate has been used in the past in the federal House of Commons, take-note debates have been held on such items as the international campaign against terror in 2001, Iraq in 2003 and mad cow disease in 2004—I can remember that affecting my dad’s business at the time; mad cow disease was something I’d never heard of as a kid. It was the type of thing, like now with COVID, everyone was taking notice of in the paper.

The member for Waterloo talked about the discrepancy between what’s being discussed in her constituency and in the media and maybe what we’re sometimes discussing in here; that’s the very purpose of this change, so these issues of importance to society can be brought into our discussions here and make sure we’re really reflecting those real concerns of Ontarians.

Another example of when this debate was used is Canada’s deployment in Afghanistan in 2005. The take-note debate was introduced federally in 1994, at which time the government used the format to consult members on the future of peacekeeping in the former Yugoslavia. Those are all examples, but we’ve had our own real example here in the province of Ontario, something that has affected constituents, businesses, everyone in all of our ridings over the last half year, and it has also affected all of Canada, other provinces, and affected countries all across the globe. I can’t think of a better example of something to discuss in this sort of debate than the pandemic that is COVID-19.

Take-note debates would specifically allow members to participate in the development of government policy-making, sharing their views before the government has decided to take a course of action. The debate does not include a vote, purposely, to allow for a less formal and less partisan discussion. I think that would be valuable to us all.

I know personally, when I’m thinking of how to move forward on topics under my portfolio as parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General, I often think, “Who’s brought forward private members’ bills on these topics in past years?” as a starting point for thinking about any public policy. It doesn’t matter if it’s an NDP member, an independent member or a Conservative member who has brought the idea forward if it’s a good idea. There’s a real richness and value to allowing that freedom to just bring ideas forward.

We all come from different backgrounds, we all bring different experiences to the Legislature, and we need mechanisms for those experiences to come to the floor. I think of the member for Mississauga—I’m going to get the name of the riding wrong, but my colleague who was on the front lines of this pandemic as a nurse.

She will bring very real experiences to that discussion that all of us who are not registered nurses might not be able to bring to the floor, whether that’s through private members’ business—but in the case of an emerging, pressing issue that’s affecting the majority of Ontarians, we should be able to have one of these take-note debates very early on when this issue is emerging so we can get all of those ideas on the floor. As members from different ministries and bureaucrats are sitting and listening, they’re probably facing it for the first time just like the rest of us are and trying to come up with ideas.

So part of that brainstorm and idea-generating process can include considering all of the ideas that members on the floor of the Legislature are bringing forward based on their experience.

We all know in a moment of crisis, we’re all really grateful for those team members, whether they’re on our side or the other side of the House, that are able to bring that unique experience and recommendations that we just hadn’t thought of. It’s not because it’s partisan, it’s just that we’re all in a crisis and we all are trying to act very quickly, and when you’re trying to act very quickly in a crisis, you’re just not going to be perfect.

You need those people around you, as many people as possible, that can bring good ideas forward, to bring those ideas as a sounding board, to consider in a most fulsome way all the different things that are possible and the different ways to address what’s before you.

On the topic of creating more opportunity for debate, I do just want, before I close off here, to mention two other changes in the standing orders that are geared towards creating that opportunity for debate. Another is the report-stage debate. That would create more opportunity for debate in the Legislature by adding provisions for a 30-minute report-stage debate when a bill is being reported back from committee.

I’ve actually often thought, as a committee member, “Hey, it would actually be nice if I could stand up in the Legislature and talk about some of the things that were discussed at committee,” and there would be a mechanism for bringing that forward before a final vote. I’m really pleased to see this change, and I want to thank the government House leader for being thoughtful, to add this to our process here.

I’m very pleased to see this, even though it will mean less opportunity for me personally as a government member to rise and ask questions in question period. Again, with the role of the official opposition to hold the government to account and enabling that spirit in question period, I’m really pleased that one of the changes the government House leader has thought to bring forward is enhancing the role of opposition to hold the government to account by providing two of what would have been or currently are the government’s question period questions and providing them to independent members.

That will mean that on every day of question period, independent members get two more questions to ask the government.

We all know, when it’s a pressing issue in our ridings, we’re really grateful for that opportunity in question period to stand up—and the opposition does this on a regular basis—and read directly from a letter from a constituent and ask the government because it’s a pressing issue, it’s urgent, and they don’t have an answer and you don’t as a member know how to get the answer. You stand and you ask the question in question period. I think that’s an important mechanism, again, for enhancing debate, giving the opportunity to bring local issues to the floor. I’m really pleased that the government House leader has brought forward these changes.

I do want to clarify, because I know there has been some discussion around the changes to reasoned amendments, that the opportunity for reasoned amendments will remain after these changes. The difference is, there won’t be the ability to delay and use that as an opportunity to delay moving forward with debate in this place.

I wholeheartedly support these changes, Speaker. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to debate this morning.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Further debate?

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: Good morning to all in Ontario. It is always a pleasure to be able to rise and to speak in this House on behalf of the residents of St. Catharines, actually speaking to a standing order motion.

I am reminded of my time when I was on St. Catharines city council. We had a process—a process that was respected. I guess it was somewhat simpler because on St. Catharines city council, it usually means one person and one vote. There was no way of cheating. That’s how I liked it and how the residents liked it. That’s what we wanted, and that’s what the residents wanted. We wanted to talk about a decision with the public; to give the public time to send it to a committee of concerned citizens who listened, as well as a council that listened; to communicate, to talk to staff openly and talk to them at council, valuing their experience and their expertise, valuing their transparency.

I think motions, like the one I’m speaking to, are the biggest culture shock for me being an MPP, because it is clear that this kind of duty to the process, the kind of fidelity to a system, that kind of principle of transparency and conversation does not live in this Legislature in the same way. Municipal and regional councillors are not just about elected officials; they’re about the people. This is true as well in this Legislature—at least, it should be.

We should be making laws for the people of this province and have our rules, as any parliamentary system does, and have our rules that are valued; have a committee process that allows the public to come before it in order to pronounce themselves how much they like a piece of legislation or how much they don’t like it, how to improve it or how to get rid of it. That’s the right of the public.

I recall being on a committee and connecting with the residents—the residents that cared intently about an issue. It was the seniors’ committee, and there was a senior adult there and her name was Mary Stanko. She lives in St. Catharines. She served on that committee for many years. It was called the older adult committee after the seniors’ committee; we had renamed it, but we gathered together to rename it as a committee as a whole, as the residents spoke forward.

But I remember Mary Stanko. She was so concerned about issues that mattered within the city of St. Catharines. She would often write a little

article or brochure that went to the seniors in St. Catharines, and within that brochure, she made a difference. She set up different things for seniors or older adults that they could do. They could plan activities, social gatherings. Of course, that was a day when we could have more than 10 or 25 within, but this committee listened to Mary.

We made sure that the budget was there. We talked to the residents. We talked to the people in St. Catharines, the older active senior groups. If it was the Dunlop senior centre or the local Legions, we talked to them to find out that what they wanted within their community, what would make a difference and how that difference would be made.

We’ve said this before. Each and every bill that this government has passed since they have come into office has not once, and I believe has not once, gone to committee—not even one. That is not being principled. That is not having a duty to the process. That is not fidelity to the system. The government is strengthening its ability to fast-track legislation and reduce the ability of the opposition to slow down bills. Not one bill that you’ve passed as a government bill has gone to committee. That’s not right. You’ve gone from second reading—

Hon. Paul Calandra: On a point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Excuse me. I have to interrupt the member from St. Catharines. The government House leader has a point of order.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Sorry, on a point of order, sir: I wonder if the member might just clarify that no government bills have gone to committee. There are a number of bills that I know the member herself has served on committees with government bills that have gone to committee. So I wonder if she might highlight the difference.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): The government House leader has raised a point of order. I’ll leave it to your discretion as to where you proceed from here on that.

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the government House leader would have given me a few minutes, I would have been able to explain where I was going through in my speech. Thank you. So I’ll continue on.

The government is strengthening the ability to fast-track legislation and reduce the ability of the opposition to slow down bills. You’ve gone from second reading to time allocation to third reading, and there has been no time for really any kind of committee decisions in between. I ask the government: Are you listening to the residents of Ontario? That means we are not doing our job. I think it is because it means—

Hon. Paul Calandra: On a point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Excuse me. I have to interrupt the member for St. Catharines again. The government House leader is raising another point of order.

Hon. Paul Calandra: I’ve tried not to object to many of the speeches, but I believe the member might be inadvertently misleading the House in her comments, and I wonder if you might adjudicate whether that is indeed the fact. The member is stating things that are simply untrue to the process, and I think she might, not purposely but inadvertently, be misleading the House on the procedures that this government has used with respect to passage of bills. I think that is a very, very important point, Mr.

Speaker, and it is not something that we should take lightly, given all of the work that all members have spent on committee passing not only government bills, but private members’ bills. So, again, I believe she might be inadvertently misleading the House, and I hope the Speaker can take some action on that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Thank you. I’ve heard what you said and I’ve been listening to what the member for St. Catharines has said. Perhaps inadvertently, you said that no bills have gone to committee, when in fact bills have gone to committee. Perhaps you were intending to say that the amendments that were suggested from the opposition were never picked up on and adopted by the government, and therefore there was no use in going to—I don’t know what you were saying. But if you were saying that no bills have gone to committee, then that is in fact incorrect, because we’ve had Zoom meetings and different committee meetings.

I’ll leave it up to you whether you want to correct your record or move on in such a direction that relates back to what the government House leader did have to say about your comments so far.

I return to the member from St. Catharines.

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: Thank you, Speaker. What I was trying to say was that some of the bills throughout this—I will stand to be corrected—seemed to be fast-tracked and moved through. That’s what I was trying to say. Thank you for giving me that time to explain.

Where was I? That means we are not doing our jobs, and I think it is because it means to say that government is really not giving the public its due diligence or its ability to have its say or be able to really listen to what the opposition has to say, because things seem to be speed-tracked through or expedited through this House.

I think that everything seems to be coming as a shotgun or knee-jerk reaction. The communication to the residents is not there, in some cases. When the government starts, I feel, hiding behind the process, opposed to championing it and using time allocation to block the public out, I think that this is problematic, in my opinion. I think “why” is an important question. Why are we doing this? Have we really run down the integrity of our offices to its thinnest, most base component? Is this just another move to grab power under the cover of an emergency pandemic?

I ask why is this government being willing to eliminate reasoned amendments? Is taking power to grant themselves the right to ram through—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): I apologize to the member from St. Catharines for interrupting. Again, the government House leader appears to have another point of order.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Yes, sir, and I promise—I guess I’ll leave the chamber after this one, because it’s getting difficult to stay. The member again might be inadvertently—and I do mean this—misleading the House when she says that the government is eliminating reasoned amendments. I wonder if the Chair might seek the guidance of the table officers.

The reasoned amendment has not been eliminated by these changes. While the speed at which or the delay that accompanies reasoned amendments may have been, the reasoned amendment itself has not been. So I wonder if the member has mistakenly misled the House.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): I’ve been advised that your point of order is not exactly a point of order.

But I will say to the member, if you have stated that reasoned amendments are being eliminated, that is incorrect. The delay factor of a reasoned amendment is being eliminated, but the ability for a reasoned amendment still stands on the books.

I would ask you to continue, please. Thank you.

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and hopefully there are no more interruptions, because we’re here this morning to debate an amendment of an amendment, and the people of Ontario, I’m sure, would like to know what’s going on.

But anyway, where was I? Is taking power to grant themselves the right, in my opinion, to ram through their bills—particularly overnight, with no consultation, no public input in some ways, no time for the media or the public to read them and no notice given to the people those bills could hurt. The government, with this amendment to an amendment, in some people’s opinions, is strengthening its ability to fast-track legislation and try to reduce the ability of the opposition to slow down bills.

With this move, some people would say we are seeing something that is unprecedented in this House, something that is unnecessary, something that is unchecked. It is the power to use a majority to make whatever laws you want, in some sense, without any opportunity for the people of Ontario to object. That is not how it should be done. We don’t know—nobody knows, really—what is being cooked up behind closed doors, but this change warrants serious, serious worry for people who can’t take any more cuts. They can’t take anymore cuts, Mr. Speaker.

When I think of local communities, the value comes down to the inclusion of voices. Take, for instance, issues that affect communities of diversity or that require lived experiences. It is important that we are being inclusive. It is not just something that is a political calculation; it makes policy better, much better and stronger, especially when we could all be rewarded by having other voices included.

The elimination of reasoned amendments is problematic. It goes back to principles, but also it goes back to having good policies and creating policies that work for everyone.

Later on today, I’ll be standing in this House to showcase a hydro bill. I believe that if hydro rates were not fast-tracked with little consultation, this problem would have been avoided. You see, this is an example of a fast-tracked decision that led to seniors in my area paying more on their hydro bills, and often across this province. Why? Because seniors tend to do their dishes and their laundry in off-peak times. They’ve done their due diligence, and therefore have kept their hydro costs low. In fact, if you were to ask me about the change to the hydro rate, I would have to point out that my hydro bill in St. Catharines is substantially higher today than it was last year.

But it all comes down to a lesson around incorporation of other voices, and listening to the residents and a solid voice. It is one of the reasons why committees and amendments are so vital to our process: so you know that the government does not accidentally end up coming up with decisions that, in good faith, are to create one positive outcome, and in reality, quite frankly, end up costing some of our seniors and some of the residents across Ontario more in hydro.

On process: Once this change is made, a bill will only have to satisfy the requirements of being printed and being called for debate, allowing the government to pass a complicated item so much faster. It eliminates the current window available to stakeholders, the media and MPPs to review proposed legislation prior to the start of the second reading. That’s a problematic process in my mind, and for some of the area residents who have voiced it. That’s where mistakes happen, and big mistakes can happen, like how when this government made seniors pay more for hydro, as I just said.

Another concern, a big concern, is speed, the pure speed of these changes. A bill can go from first reading to third reading in a week if the government chooses to forego a committee, as they have. In my mind, they’ve moved it fast and expedited it through this House. Under new rules, we could see an introduction of a huge bill at 3 p.m. on Tuesday and begin debate at 9 a.m. on Wednesday. That is fast.

Recalling again when I was a city councillor: We respected the process and did not try to find ways to run around them. We did things that people liked to hear, we did it in full debate and we gave it due diligence. That’s how we should look at bills throughout this House. However, in either case, our safety mechanism was that we referred them to committee, and stakeholders and individuals would come before us at that level and they would say what they liked and did not like. We had to accept it and listen and do the due diligence.

It has been two years since I’ve been in this House as an MPP, so maybe that statement is not true anymore, but I’m newish. It is still clear to this newish MPP that the mechanism I described at a city council level is also the same one we should have here—or the same one we should have here if not for a motion like this one that is trying to change that.

This piece, this community conversation, as I will call it, is important. In fact, it’s very vital, because this is what politics is all about. Politics isn’t a backroom club for elected individuals only. Politics is about us enacting laws, government and opposition proposing laws, and eventually, they get to committee so that the public has a great opportunity to be able to speak on them, not pushing or expediting them through this House. This bill, no matter what the timeline is, should go to a committee, should be able to be discussed in order to give the public great say in what they have to say.

This government has a history of providing little by way of notice for new legislation, even prior to this pandemic. And in the event a briefing is offered, it usually comes after the bill has started second reading debate. There is nothing in the process changes that the start of a debate would be delayed until after a substantive briefing was provided.

I was a member of a government that did things that people liked and didn’t like, and I want this government to realize that due diligence should be done.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Further debate?

Ms. Jane McKenna: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this important motion that would allocate more time for debate, improve the prominence of private members’ business and create provisions for debates on issues of significant provincial importance.

As a long-time resident in Burlington, I first ran for public office first in 2010. I ran for municipal councillor in ward 1 because I was like Lady Munro and didn’t want to keep sitting around and talking about it; I wanted to jump in and see what happened. I did lose, but the great thing about that was that it was so interesting to get out and talk to the people in your riding to see what was important to them. I always say to my kids, “The difference between winning and losing is that a loser never goes out and tries, so you’re a winner right out of the gate.” Lots of us have done it in here as well.

I was fortunate. I ran in 2011 for here, loved every second of it, and then, in the sweep, I got out in 2014. I was fortunate in 2018 to be one of the only two MPPs to successfully come back to this beautiful House here, Speaker. In the 2018 election, I received over 25,500 votes in my riding of Burlington, nearly 10,000 more votes than the Liberal incumbent. I mention this because my role as an MPP is to serve the people of Burlington, regardless of who they vote for. And let me tell you, Speaker, I have always recognized the incredible opportunity we all have in this place to make a difference.

Today we’re debating the government House leader’s motion to make changes to the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly. For those watching these proceedings on TV or online, standing orders are the rules that govern debate, the passage of bills and the consideration of important issues of the day. I support the proposed changes to the standing orders because they will provide all 124 members a better opportunity to participate and involve themselves in legislative business.

The COVID-19 global pandemic has reinforced the importance of having strong and efficient democratic institutions. From the very beginning, the Ontario government acted quickly to ensure that our legislature was able to continue to function in unprecedented times. While some governments ended regular sittings, members of this Legislature met for 30 days during the height of COVID-19.

Throughout the pandemic, Premier Ford and House leader Calandra recognized the importance of opposition parties being able to hold the government to account, not opposing for the sake of opposing, but working together to pass legislation and implement programs to help Ontarians right across the province affected by COVID-19.

As we return to our regular fall session, the government House leader has proposed a number of permanent and provisional amendments to the rules of the Legislature. The wonderful member from Markham–Stouffville has demonstrated his commitment to enhancing the ability of all members of this Legislature to represent their constituents. He began last summer by engaging in a study of the standing orders. He took the time to do it the right way. As always, his approach to modernizing the rules of this Legislature was collaborative and inclusive.

He consulted with the official opposition and independent Green and Liberal members to make sure the changes proposed last December were fair and genuinely improved the way this place works. As a matter of fact, many of those changes that were debated before Christmas originated with the independent members in this place and were supported by the independent Liberal members and the leader of the Green Party.

Those changes included enhancing the focus on members’ statements, which are now delivered just before question period, enhancing questions and answers during debate, enhancing co-sponsoring of private members’ bills and allowing accommodations for members with temporary or permanent disabilities.

Speaker, for the benefit of those watching at home, I also want to talk about private members’ business and its importance to this legislative process. A private member’s bill in our parliamentary system allows any MPP who is not a minister of the crown to directly propose legislation. We go out into our communities, we speak to our constituents and stakeholders and we develop and introduce legislation. This is a very important part of legislative procedure.

Under the old standing orders, two members from the same party could not co-sponsor a bill and there was a limit of three co-sponsors for any PMB. I remember back in 2012 when I introduced my very first private member’s bill, the Inherited Heart Rhythm Disorders Awareness Act, it was co-sponsored by the NDP member from Hamilton Mountain and the former Liberal member from Oakville. The rules back then, as they were last year at this time, didn’t allow anyone else. I always thoughts the rule was strange. That’s why I was pleased to speak in favour of changing it on December 2, 2019.

Thanks to this change, standing orders now allow co-sponsorship of PMBs by any four members regardless of their party affiliation. This allows a PC, NDP, Liberal and Green MPP to come together to sponsor a bill in a show of cross-partisan support. This was a very welcome change.

When the Legislature suspended regular meetings at the onset of COVID-19 in March, 27 private members’ bills were scheduled to be debated before the House rose for the summer. Premier Ford and our government House leader are committed to ensuring these private members’ bills will be able to be brought forward. That’s why we’re proposing updates to the standing orders to allow us to effectively catch up by next summer.

To do this, the government is proposing the following measures:

First and foremost, we are enhancing the focus on private members’ bills by considering one item per day on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.

Second, to catch up from delays caused by COVID-19, we propose temporarily adding consideration of a fourth private member’s bill each week on Monday at 9 a.m. until June 2021.

Third, the government House leader is proposing requiring all recorded divisions of PMBs to be deferred to the following day after question period so more members can have the opportunity to vote.

Members on both sides of this House work hard to develop private members’ legislation. The changes being proposed today will ensure that the 27 bills not brought forward due to COVID-19 will be introduced.

Speaker, prior to the changes passed last December, debate on a bill was done in rotation. A member from one side had the opportunity to speak to an item of business for 10 minutes. Eight minutes were then allotted to four members to pose a question or make a comment, not exceeding two minutes each. The original speaker was then given two minutes to reply.

The old debate format was very constrained. It gave members an opportunity to voice their opinions, but it was rare to see genuine questions get asked and answered. Under the new debate format, after a member completes their 10-minute speech, other members are given 10 minutes to ask questions. Questions, of course, are limited to one minute, and the member who originally spoke now immediately gets one minute to reply.

Mr. Speaker, I move that this question now be put.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): According to the table officers, we have had 26 speakers and eight hours and 26 minutes of debate. I’m satisfied then that there has been sufficient debate to allow this question to be put to the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour of the motion that the question be now put, please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion that the question be now put, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I see five members standing. Therefore, a recorded vote being required, the vote will be deferred until after question period today.

Vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Orders of the day?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Seeing the clock is close to 10:15, no further business until 10:15.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): No further business until 10:15. The House is in recess until 10:15.

The House recessed from 1012 to 1015.

Members’ Statements

Education funding

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Last week, I held a back-to-school town hall. I invited local health and education experts to answer my constituents’ questions. And let me tell you, Speaker, the anxiety was palpable.

By mid-August, parents had already been required to decide whether they were going to be opting in for in-school learning. I polled my constituents during the town hall. Not only did the majority feel that they did not have enough information to make that decision, but the majority also did not feel safe sending their kids to school and believed this government did not do enough to keep classrooms safe. We spent most of the town hall going over the basics: busing, ventilation, class sizes, curriculum and start dates, all of which had yet to be decided by mid-August.

School has now started for most students in the province and the anxiety still hasn’t gone away. I spoke to a parent last week, and she told me that while her school is trying their very best, kids are not able to social-distance and there were not sanitizers at the door. She followed up with me two days later and wrote to tell me that they were doing better with the sanitizer at the door as the kids were going in, which was good to see. But she said she saw a piece on Citytv today about before and after care, and it looks like her concerns are not unfounded and very much all too common.

With low registration rates, parents are fearing programs closing; however, no cap on group size, no cohorting, and if you add the kids who bus, that throws that cohorting out the window as well, she says. She says there is very limited social distancing.

This is what she said, in wrapping up: For Premier Ford to say parties and schools are apples and oranges is more like saying they are talking about mandarins versus clementines, in my humble opinion—

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

Beamsville and District Lions Club food drive

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: One of the reasons I am so honoured to represent my home riding of Niagara West is the spirit of generosity in our local community. Over this weekend, I had the privilege to be part of that generosity at the 31st Annual Beamsville and District Lions Club food drive in support of Community Care of West Niagara. I want to commend and thank all those who gave generously for the less fortunate in our community.

Hosted at the campus of Great Lakes Christian High School in Beamsville, over 175 drivers and volunteers helped collect and sort a record 32,000 pounds of food donations—and counting—to help families in need in the town of Lincoln, especially in the context of COVID-19. This is the true Ontario spirit that makes our province great.

I especially want to thank and acknowledge the food drive organizers Lynda O’Donnell, fundraising coordinator at Community Care of West Niagara, and John Tutecky, food drive chair at the Beamsville and District Lions Club, for all their hard work in coordinating this year’s, and many other years’, events. I also want to thank Carole Fuhrer, executive director of Community Care of West Niagara, her hard-working team, our local Lions and everyone who participated in this year’s food drive. We will get through these difficult times by standing together in support of our neighbours across Ontario.

Education funding

Ms. Jessica Bell: Last week, I spoke to a teacher called Stephen. Stephen is a grade 4 teacher at Jesse Ketchum Public School in my riding. This is what he had to say about school last week.

Class sizes were wavering between 24 and 32 kids because of teacher reallocations and late enrolment. You can’t safely distance with 24 kids, and you certainly can’t safely distance with 32.

Face shields for every teacher hadn’t arrived yet. There was no clear system for who should perform COVID-19 checks. There was no clear system for how common surfaces should be cleaned and who should do the cleaning.

The music teacher, the science teacher and the librarian are all gone. The library is closed. The special education program for needy kids has been gutted. It’s now half the size of what it typically is. New students who are eligible for the special education program are not even able to enrol because there is no space for them anymore.

What is happening at Jesse Ketchum is happening to varying degrees at the schools across my riding: Palmerston, Lord Lansdowne, Whitney, Rosedale and St. Francis.

This government knew schools were going to open, this government knew COVID-19 was still going to be around and this government had six months to prepare. This is chaotic, this is not safe and it needs to improve.

Ontario government, from the parents and teachers and kids in my riding to you: Make the schools safe. Invest the money. Hire the teachers. There is nothing more important for our kids, for our economy, for our parents. Please improve this situation.

York University Markham Centre Campus

Mr. Billy Pang: In July, I was proud to join the Premier; the Minister of Colleges and Universities, the Honourable Ross Romano; and my York region caucus colleagues as our government announced supports to York University’s new Markham Centre Campus in my riding of Markham–Unionville.

As the first publicly assisted university campus in York region, the new campus will provide more young adults in Markham–Unionville and surrounding communities the opportunity to access university programs in the high-demand fields of technology, commerce, data science and entrepreneurship. The campus is also expected to generate over $350 million in immediate economic benefits and over 2,000 jobs for the community.

Mr. Speaker, the city of Markham is the fourth-largest community in the greater Toronto area and York region’s population has doubled over the past 20 years.

Our government’s support to York University’s Markham campus is great news for Markham–Unionville, York region and our province as we are expanding more opportunities for our students. I am looking forward to attending their ground-breaking ceremony this afternoon.

Small business

Ms. Sara Singh: Good morning. I’m really proud to rise here today and highlight some of our local businesses who have been COVID heroes throughout the pandemic.

Small businesses in our communities are not just businesses; they are members of our community. They are families, they are hard-working individuals who contribute to our economic and cultural and social fabric. Businesses like Catering by Gregory’s and Calypso Hut who helped deliver meals to long-term-care centres to ensure that their hard-working front-line workers got meals they needed to continue working; or Cristina’s Tortina Shop, which has been providing cupcakes and employing people with disabilities for over five years.

But these businesses are struggling. They need help, and they made it very clear at the finance and economic recovery committee that they need assistance from this government. Relying solely on federal assistance is simply not enough. This government needs to do better.

They asked for assistance in rent relief. They need assistance in making sure that their employees can get retrained and have the PPE they need. But this government simply isn’t listening, and small businesses in our communities are closing—not just in my riding, but across this province. Without the supports they need to continue to be members of our community and contribute to that fabric that we hold so dear, they are going to close forever. That impact is not going to be just felt during the pandemic, but it’s going to be felt for decades to come. So you have an opportunity to legislate and help those businesses, and I encourage you to do that.

Education funding

M me Lucille Collard: It is the reality that Ontario is entering the second wave of the COVID-19 crisis. The return to school has most likely contributed to the upward trend of new positive cases. The lack of resources from the government to school boards has prevented the implementation of a plan that could follow the golden rule of physical distancing. Despite the incredible challenge, school boards have stepped up and did their best to create safe learning environments.

Having sent my kids to school, I can tell you from the numerous and always changing communications, that teachers, principals, trustees and school board staff worked incredibly hard with public health officials, and today I want to thank them and recognize their sense of duty for the well-being of our children and families.

However, if we want our children to keep on learning, funding needs to flow to school boards. Boards need funding to enable students to access online learning right away, so that students can switch between in-class and virtual learning, either for an entire term or because they are in self-isolation. While we may all want for schools to remain open, it is no longer a mere possibility that some schools will need to close; it’s already happening.

Ontarians need their government to take action. Words alone will not protect our students, families and communities from the COVID-19 pandemic, but investments and action can.

Goodwill, the Amity Group

Ms. Jane McKenna: Speaker, September 27 marks the 85th anniversary of Goodwill, the Amity Group. Their mission is to change lives and strengthen communities through the power of work.

Goodwill Amity has four career centres and two thrift stores in Burlington, Oakville and Hamilton. Last year, they placed 853 people in jobs and supported the job searches of 3,063 others. The majority found full-time jobs with starting wages at 20% higher than minimum wage. As the parliamentary assistant to the Ministry of Labour, I’m happy to report that Ontario’s Goodwills place a candidate in a job every 31 minutes. It’s amazing. During COVID-19, Goodwill Amity redeployed their catering operations to serve over 6,000 meals.

I want to thank Kelly Duffin, president and CEO of Goodwill, the Amity Group, and the senior leadership team, including Tracy Cunning, Sheila Davidson, Glenn Cockfield and Maria Zegarac. A special thanks to Sharon Munro, manager of the Burlington career centre, and Dave Pegg, manager of the Burlington thrift store, and all of your staff; your work is making a huge difference.

Please visit goodwillonline.ca to learn more or to register for their virtual job fair on October 6.

Hydro rates

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: Speaker, let me tell you what burns me up: seniors who are trying to do everything right, seniors on a fixed income who have had to pay more during this pandemic for no good reason of their own.

I’m holding up Tony Sawlinski’s electrical bill. Over the past two summer months, Tony has had to pay an extra $100 in hydro. That is because the new fixed hydro rates introduced by this government during the summer have actually raised hydro bills for folks who were diligent about building a routine around off-peak hours. In short, this plan made life more expensive for people doing what was right. Most of all, these people will have higher hydro bills today, like Tony, who is a senior. I have received many complaints about higher hydro bills from seniors. This is not a good policy. This is not fixing a problem.

After the 2018 election, Premier Ford had an opportunity to fix hydro. In fact, this government had a mandate: Fix the budget-busting hydro bills from under the previous government. It was a big campaign winner. Actually, people in Niagara had a Facebook group. Two years into your mandate, we have not seen anything done to reform and fix the system from the previous government. However, instead, for some seniors like Tony, they are paying more. If you’re not going to fix hydro, then at least don’t make it worse for seniors in my community.

Terry Fox Run

Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos: People in my community of Oakville North–Burlington came together to fight COVID-19, but we know that cancer and cancer research cannot wait for the end of the pandemic. That is why I was proud to join residents for the 40th annual Terry Fox Run on September 20. The virtual runs in Oakville and Burlington raised an amazing $200,000 for research. This year’s run for cancer research was a virtual one, with families and friends running through local parks or along neighbourhood streets.

On September 13, our community held a virtual walk for the Ovarian Cancer Walk of Hope in Burlington and Oakville, which also raised more than $72,000 for cancer research. I want to thank all the walkers and runners, and their supporters and donors who raised funds for cancer research in our community and across the province.

Our government shares the commitment of these remarkable volunteers to fighting cancer. That’s why, this year alone, the Ontario government will spend $1.9 billion on cancer treatment services and $93 million on cancer screening programs. We also directly funded almost $4.5 million, which we announced last year, for the Hospital for Sick Children in research for pediatric cancers.

We are committed to preventing cancer, to treating cancer, and to supporting the research needed to fight it, because Terry asked us to try.

Flu immunization

Mrs. Daisy Wai: I would like to rise today and acknowledge the actions of all those who help to support the needs of the community in getting their flu shot, especially the ones in my riding of Richmond Hill. The importance of the flu shot cannot be understated to the health of Ontarians, especially this year, when we are in the middle of a pandemic unlike any that we have seen in a century. It is essential that all those who can should get the flu shot.

The flu shot is recommended for everyone who is six months and older. It is safe, including for children and those who are pregnant or breastfeeding. It is free and has proven to reduce the number of doctor visits and hospitalizations.

This year, I would like to encourage everyone to take the time to protect themselves and each other by getting the flu shot.

Mr. Speaker, all my constituents in Richmond Hill and I would like to thank the doctors, clinics, pharmacists and all the front-line workers for all that they do to support Ontarians in this time of need. Stay healthy and stay safe, everyone.

Question Period

Long-term care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, my first question this morning is to the Premier. Yesterday, I asked the Premier why he had failed to act on expert advice to protect seniors in long-term care in the midst of a second wave of COVID-19. He refused to answer, but the Minister of Long-Term Care insisted that action was already under way, and that concerns about infection control and staffing levels were simply “politicking.”

Will the Premier—and the minister, in fact—stand in their places today and repeat this claim?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply on behalf of the government, the Minister of Long-Term Care.

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you for that question. Absolutely, I will repeat that, and I will tell you why. Our ministry, this government, has absolutely been dedicated to addressing the issues in long-term care from the very beginning. We have had IPAC teams available to our long-term-care homes, and that continues. We have had staffing issues and had an expert panel to advise on a comprehensive staffing strategy.

It is well known that preceding COVID, staffing was in a crisis in long-term-care homes. We pulled out every stop, including four regulation amendments and three emergency orders, making sure that our homes had the flexibility to provide the staffing that’s necessary and that they had the duty to provide. That is absolutely clear.

I will repeat it again: There is politicking going on on this issue. Our IPAC teams are in our two homes that are affected in Ottawa, the West End Villa—and I will repeat that 99% of our long-term-care homes have no resident cases—99%. Our attention is on the ones that are affected severely.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, I am nothing short of shocked by this minister’s response, because just after she made those comments yesterday, she received this very letter, which, in fact, has something different to say about what’s happening in long-term care—that goes to the Minister of Long-Term Care, please, Lawrence. Thank you.

The letter is penned by associations that represent literally every long-term-care home in this province. It’s a letter that’s representative of organizations that represent thousands and thousands of families who have loved ones in long-term care. That letter says, “We need to say plainly and directly that the government of Ontario has not yet put the necessary supports and preventative measures into place that we in the sector have long made clear are essential to protecting our residents [and] staff.”

Now, if there is a plan in place to protect long-term-care homes during a second wave, as the government claims is the case, why are the people who run those homes and the families of people who live in those homes insisting that the opposite is in fact true?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you for the question once again. It does not take a letter from agencies or the OLTCA to provide us information to act on. We have been acting. We have been absolutely on this from the beginning.

You don’t just snap your fingers and make staffing appear. That’s why we started as soon as we had the Justice Gillese report in July. We started organizing an expert panel to give us proper information to consult with the sector, consult with our agencies. We have been doing this all along.

You simply show your ignorance when you think that you can just snap your fingers and create staff. We have been absolutely dedicated to making sure we’re addressing staffing and infection control, making sure that our homes have support.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. I’m going to caution the Minister of Long-Term Care on her language to ensure that it is temperate and appropriate for the Legislature.

Start the clock. The final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, I’m really shocked by this minister. I mean, this is willful ignorance on the part of the government to ignore exactly what—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’ve just cautioned one member for that very word. I’m going to caution the Leader of the Opposition for that very word. Please make your language temperate.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Certainly. But it is a matter of life and death, Speaker. The government is doubling down on their lack of action and yet it is a matter of life and death for the people who are living in long-term care. Eleven people have died at West End Villa in Ottawa—just this month, 11 people have died.

This letter makes it very clear, regardless of whether the Premier and the minister wish to ignore it, that things will get worse if this Ford government does not act on this issue, if they continue to deny that the problem exists. The letter says, “Ontario’s long-term-care homes are not currently ready to manage a second wave of COVID-19.”

So why is the government refusing to follow the advice of providers, of experts—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. The Minister of Long-Term Care to reply.

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: As a family physician for almost 30 years, I understand life and death, and my heart goes out to everyone who’s been impacted by COVID-19. Our government is dedicated and on the ground, knowing what’s happening with our inspectors in these homes, working with Ottawa Public Health to make sure that we take every measure possible, making sure that our hospitals are involved.

But I want to mention, we’re not only working on the emergency processes; we’re also stabilizing the sector. We’re also looking at a modernization of this sector that was so badly neglected. I’m going to repeat that 21 homes out of 29 in outbreak have no resident cases—21 out of 29 have no resident cases; 99% of our homes have no resident cases.

We are making sure that the homes that need support are getting it, and the hospital sector is assisting. We are taking the concerns of our sector and the representative organizations—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. The next question.

Long-term care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. It sounds like another invisible ring of iron, or whatever you used to call it—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Iron ring.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: —an iron ring around long-term care, another invisible one, Speaker.

Three months ago, infection control experts urged this government—urged them—to build out proper infection prevention and control measures inside our long-term-care facilities. Now, families of residents and the homes themselves—Speaker, the homes themselves—are pleading with the government for action. In this letter they say, “We need immediate action to ensure the health and safety of our residents, hard-working staff and family members.” This was written yesterday, Speaker.

Experts provided a blueprint for exactly that kind of action months ago. Why has the Premier failed to act?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: I have to sit back. The Leader of the Opposition is talking about invisible. The only person who has been invisible is the Leader of the Opposition. She’s been invisible like Casper the ghost for the last six months. For the Leader of the Opposition to stand up like an armchair quarterback, a Monday-morning quarterback, and tell us how the game has been going, when my great minister—both ministers here have been working around the clock doing everything we possibly can with the infectious control procedures. They’re in place. We’re moving on it. Everything is moving all at once, Mr. Speaker.

But I can tell you, I have 100% confidence in the system. As the minister said, 99% of the homes are case-free. We’re going to work on making sure it’s 100%, as it was just a few weeks ago. But for the Leader of the Opposition to come in and start saying like she knows everything is just—the gall. The gall of her is staggering, absolutely staggering.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Sticks and stones, Speaker. But who I listen to are the experts and the providers and the family members and the residents, who are all saying exactly what I’m saying. I don’t know where the Premier gets his information from, but certainly we’re listening to the people who really matter.

When our Armed Forces actually blew the whistle on what was happening in long-term-care homes under this Ford government, the Premier promised it would never happen again. But Ontario’s long-term-care homes are not ready. That’s not me saying that. They are telling the minister and the Premier that they are not ready for the second wave. They’re saying they don’t have the staff that they need. They are saying that they don’t have the infection controls in place that are necessary.

The Premier has had months to prepare, and so has this minister. My question is: Why is it that they are feeling so unprepared? Why is it that this province is unprepared in long-term care for the second wave?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Long-Term Care, once again, to reply.

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you again to the member opposite for the question.

Ninety-nine per cent of our long-term-care homes have no resident cases. We are working with the medical officer of health in Ottawa to make sure that these homes are getting the care and support that they need. We are supplying and have supplied $243 million plus another $45 million for IPAC, for staffing, for assistance to our homes. We will continue to work with our sector, whether it’s the OLTCA, AdvantAge Ontario and other groups, because we do listen and we have been acting.

We have been consistent in the message that the safety and the well-being of our residents and our staff in long-term care are our priority. I feel that from the bottom of my heart, and I tell you what, I will keep fighting for them. If you want to inform yourself about what we’re actually doing and listening, it would be wonderful.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Once again, I will remind the members to make their comments through the Chair. Restart the clock.

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Seniors deserve so much better than this. They deserve so much better than this.

When the cameras were on, the Premier promised over and over and over again that the horrors we saw in long-term care in the spring would never happen again. And yet, here we are. A second wave is upon us, Speaker. Homes are once again in outbreak. Seniors are dying from COVID-19.

Long-term-care homes are saying clearly to the minister, whether she acknowledges it or not, that they are not ready for the second wave. The Premier has been talking about a detailed plan literally for months on end now. So why are families, operators, staff yet again left pleading for a plan from this government? Why has it come to this yet again?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you for the question. As you may know, COVID is new to the world. The science is developing. We have learned a lot of lessons since the beginning, and we continue to act on those lessons. There is new information that is emerging, and you can see that with the confusion over the Centers for Disease Control, or CDC, the changing recommendations from the World Health Organization about the type of spread this is. We are continuing to learn. As we learn, we will be flexible, we will be adaptable and we will continue to provide the proper surveillance.

It would definitely be helpful if we could have rapid tests in our homes so that we could be screening staff as they enter. That is something that the federal government and Health Canada could be helping with.

We know that there are many more things that could be done. We will continue to act as we learn more information, and I would appreciate the members of opposition informing themselves.

COVID-19 response

Ms. Sara Singh: My question is to the Premier. Health experts have been telling the government for months to prepare for the testing needs of a second wave. Yet we’re falling short of testing targets, and lines are stretching around buildings for hours.

To quote Dr. André Picard: “Ontario’s messaging on testing (and virtually everything else) has been abysmal.” Families have been left waiting for hours to get a COVID test done, and they desperately need the Ford government to improve their testing plan for the second wave.

How will the Premier address this issue, and will he release the long-delayed fall action plan to finally address the shortcomings in our system?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I can’t believe what I’m hearing in the House. We’re falling short on testing? We’re leading the country, bar none. Every single province in the entire country combined—add up their numbers, and they don’t even come close to ours. We’re 38% of the population. We’re doing 52% of the testing. We’ve done over 3.5 million tests, ramping up to over 40,000 a day, getting up to 50,000. We aren’t going to stop at 50,000. We’re hammering the testing.

We’re making sure we have the community paramedics going out there. By the way, these folks are incredible, the community paramedics. They’re doing great. I had an opportunity to speak to a few of them.

We have the hospitals increasing the hours to make sure they can handle the load. We have pharmacies coming on board right across the board, making sure that we take the burden off the public system, for the asymptomatic people. We have all hands on deck right now.

Again, Mr. Speaker, where has the opposition been for six months? Hiding in a cave—that’s where they’ve been.

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

Ms. Sara Singh: The long waits in testing lines are now leading some entrepreneurs to offer private testing. A new service called Home COVID-19 Private Diagnostics says they’re now offering private mobile and reliable access to do PCR testing at home, at $429 a test, Speaker. What does this say about the government’s testing plan, that people are actually ready and willing to avoid the lines and long waits to pay $429 to access a test?

Will the Premier be allowing people to pay their way to the front of the line to get a COVID test?

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

Hon. Christine Elliott: I thank the member for the question. We certainly understand that there are some private operators out there that are proposing some of these tests, and we’re examining this in the ministry to understand whether that can continue or not.

But what we’re really focused on is increasing the volume of our tests. As the Premier indicated, we’re already leading in the country. Over 3.5 million Ontarians have already been tested. We are aware that there have been some lineups in some areas, but we’re acting quickly. We responded immediately. We have assessment centres that have expanded their hours. We have some pop-up centres that are opening up to take off some of the pressure from the assessment centres. We have the mobile testing units that are going in, and we’re looking at expanding further into the community in other ways.

So while there have been some lineups, they are diminishing rapidly because of the actions that we’ve taken proactively to reduce those lineups immediately.

Federal-provincial fiscal policies

Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos: My question is to the Premier. Premier, this past Friday, you travelled to Ottawa to stand shoulder to shoulder with fellow Premiers from across the country. You were there to advocate for priorities that are important to the people of Ontario and all Canadians.

Health care funding is the key issue in the lead-up to the Council of the Federation meeting, and it is a critical issue that Ontario expects the federal government to address in its upcoming throne speech. Ontario is investing over $67 billion towards health care this year, but it’s not enough to keep up with the growing health care needs. All the provinces and territories are making unprecedented investments in health care, but we need the federal government to provide more assistance.

Speaker, can the Premier please share with the Legislature more about our government’s efforts to fight for equality when it comes to funding for health care in our province?

Hon. Doug Ford: I want to thank the great member from Oakville North–Burlington. We had a great meeting, Mr. Speaker, when we were in Ottawa—again, a unified message from all parties right across the province. It doesn’t matter if it’s the NDP, Liberals or Conservatives.

We’re speaking from one voice when we’re up there, and the voice is, we need the Canadian health transfers to increase from an average of 20% to 22%, up to 35%, because, as health is growing at a 6% rate, the federal government—and by the way, I want to emphasize this: It’s not this federal government; it’s this federal government, the last federal government, the last federal government. This has been going on for decades. At one time, the split was 50-50. Now it’s 78-22, or 80-20—one in every five dollars. Nothing moves. There’s no province in this entire country that can go it alone.

We’re asking for their support. They’ve been a great partner so far, but we need the support for the Canadian health care system.

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

Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos: Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Premier. Premier, those are critical areas of importance for my constituents of Oakville North–Burlington, and all Ontarians. But the federal government also needs to play a more active role on other health care fronts like testing and enforcing quarantine measures. We need the federal government to expedite approvals for made-in-Ontario rapid testing options. This means more testing at the borders, sharing data and information quickly, and making sure travellers are acting responsibly, especially now with the case numbers on the rise.

But health care is not the only area of concern for my constituents and all Ontarians. Speaker, we need the Premier to continue his advocacy for further federal funding for infrastructure priorities like improved broadband services and major transit projects to make life easier. Will he commit to doing so?

Hon. Doug Ford: Thank you so much to the member. That was another item. There were three items, infrastructure being one, Mr. Speaker. We’ve put a record $144 billion into infrastructure over the next 10 years. A couple of projects are our number one priority. For the people in Toronto and the GTA, it’s the four subway lines—the largest subway project in North America. It’s absolutely critical we partner up. And, again, talking about a green initiative, that’s the best green initiative we could do.

And then for the rural folks, nothing, I can tell you—nothing—is more important than infrastructure. Broadband is critical. It changes people’s lives. It changes the opportunity for kids who need to go online for at-home learning. It’s absolutely critical for businesses. I talk to business owners who have to drive into town to make a transaction. We’re going to make sure that we partner up with the federal government and make sure everyone in this province, as the federal government promised in the last election, has proper broadband.

Education funding

Ms. Marit Stiles: My question is for the Premier. Speaker, the Orangeville Banner is reporting on another striking case of ballooning classrooms. The Bellissimo family felt comfortable sending their young son to school because his class was set to be around 15 children. But just three days later, they found out that the class was collapsed with another one, doubling the size. But what’s adding insult to injury is that when the family contacted their MPP—who happens to be the Solicitor General of Ontario—staff in her office suggested the family consider private schooling.

Speaker, through you to the Premier, is this the government’s answer to the overcrowded classrooms we’re hearing about across the province? Put your kids in private school?

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

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Mr. Speaker, the government’s answer is $1.4 billion of net new investment to keep every school safe in the province of Ontario. The assertion by the member opposite is categorically false. That was not shared nor communicated. What we are doing in every board in this province, urban and rural, is providing our school boards with more funding to reduce classroom sizes.

Mr. Speaker, we are seeing classroom sizes being reduced province-wide. In Toronto, we have over 366 more teachers being hired. In Peel, they’re looking at over 60. In Dufferin-Peel, in the region the member opposite speaks about, 29 more; in Hamilton-Wentworth, an additional 90 more educators—in every school board, utilizing that $200 million provided by the province. Our aim is to ensure the layers of prevention are in place to ensure every school is as safe as we can make it as we respond to COVID-19.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Look, the minister can try to spin this, but the truth is, this government’s failure to fund safer, smaller classrooms is absolutely undermining our public education system in this province, and it is making kids less safe. Just this morning, we now have 51 new cases in schools—141 cases in 116 schools in this province. And you know what, Mr. Speaker? We don’t know how many cases there are in the private schools because they don’t report it. How convenient.

In fact, the Solicitor General and Conservative MPPs doubled down on crowded classrooms just last week when they voted unanimously to defeat our motion to cap class sizes at 15. And it is not just in Orangeville. A parent from Collingwood called me yesterday to share that in their school, and there’s so many like this, four kindergarten classes of 20 have been collapsed into three classes of 26.

Will the minister stop trying to sell us a bill of goods and start taking action to ensure the safer, smaller classes—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. Minister of Education to reply.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Let’s just inform all members of what we’re doing province-wide. In the Toronto District School Board, in those high-risk communities, there are caps of 15 from kindergarten to grade 3; from grades 1 to 3, caps of 20, supported by provincial funding; from four to eight, caps of 20. In Durham District School Board—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: —junior kindergarten to senior kindergarten, 21 average; one to three, 19 average; grades 4 to 8, 23. In Peel District School Board, junior kindergarten to senior kindergarten, 27.5 students; one to three, 18.9 students; grades 4 to 8, 21.9. In each and every board across this province—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Member for Davenport, come to order.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: —we have provided funding to school boards to ensure that these classes are safe. We’re doing everything we can, supported and endorsed by the Chief Medical Officer of Health of this province.

Education funding / Subventions destinées à l’éducation

M lle Amanda Simard: My question is to the Premier.

As we know, a report from the Financial Accountability Officer confirmed billions of dollars in funding from the federal government, meant to support the province’s back-to-school safety plan and to keep Ontarians safe from COVID-19, has been piling up and left unused.

Oui, des milliards de dollars donnés par le gouvernement fédéral demeurent non utilisés pendant que le premier ministre ontarien se pète les bretelles de tout l’argent investi pour venir en aide aux Ontariens—franchement.

Will the Premier explain why he’s hoarding a pile of cash from the federal government, when that cash is meant to keep students and communities safe? Is it being kept to throw around ahead of a snap provincial election in the spring?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Minister of Education.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Well, I appreciate the question from the member opposite. What I will say is, the $380 million that the federal government provided the government in two installments—one on September 1, one on January 1. I would inform the member opposite that the funding will flow in 2021, as per the agreement and as per the terms announced by the Prime Minister. It is his decision when to flow it, although I agree and I’m pleased to hear that the member opposite stands with the government in calling for flexibility of those funds and expediting them based on the need in our schools now for additional funding.

It is this province that allocated the $381 million, the first tranche, on the day the funding was announced, because we moved quickly, knowing the risk and knowing the needs on the ground. We’ll continue to be there for our boards, and advocate to the federal government to ensure the flexibility parents, students and communities deserve.

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

M lle Amanda Simard: Mr. Speaker, again to the Premier: Yesterday, teachers working for the Upper Canada District School Board learned that not only are they tasked with teaching students in their classes, but also livestreaming to students at home, while providing digital material to a third group of students and providing printed materials to a fourth group of students. These students are all in the same classes and the teachers are expected to do all of this at the same time. This was confirmed to teachers just yesterday, and they’re expected to have plans in place by next Monday.

Can the Premier explain how the government expects teachers to meet the diverse needs of their students, while teaching using four different platforms?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. The Upper Canada District School Board—we have provided an additional $15 million in COVID funding to respond; an additional 14 nurses and $1.5 million specifically to hire more educators.

With respect to online learning: We have set a high standard in this province because we believe education quality should be achieved in the class and online. We are urging every member of this Legislature to call on all of our partners in education to live up to that standard of excellence when it comes to online education. We didn’t have that in the spring, respectfully. We also didn’t have a unanimous voice in this Legislature calling on that outcome, which I think students deserve.

Some 75% of instruction will be done in a live Zoom-like experience. We’ve provided $36 million to hire principals for virtual schools. We’ve provided professional development for every educator. We will continue to expect the very best for all students in this province.

Small business

Mr. Jim McDonell: My question is for the minister responsible for small business and red tape reduction. In Ontario, small businesses make up 98% of all businesses and account for a third of all private sector jobs. I’ve talked to many small business owners, both main street businesses and supply chain employers, who have been the most affected by COVID-19, and they need help. We’ve also hosted a number of virtual meetings, and the message is always clear: They need help.

Can the associate minister tell this House what he’s doing to consult with small businesses and help them get ahead after months of COVID-19-related disruptions?

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: Thank you to the member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry for that question.

Our government understands the importance and how essential small businesses are to our economy. That’s why, as soon as the pandemic began, we immediately began province-wide consultations with small businesses from all regions of the province.

In the last few months, caucus colleagues and I have held close to 100 small business round tables that covered—participants from manufacturers, agri-business, professional service providers, not-for-profits and many more. These round tables have been a significant help in identifying challenges and barriers that currently exist, and also the reason we have been able to invest in small businesses, like programs—the largest single investment in helping businesses go digital is a $57-million investment in the Digital Main Street program.

We’re going to continue to work with small businesses across the province and deliver the supports they need.

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

Mr. Jim McDonell: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. As you know, there are many different types of small businesses that make up this province and make them work every day. From restaurants to mechanic shops, to auto sector parts plants and convenience stores, small business is not a sector but rather a horizontal cut of many sectors.

Can you please explain how you will ensure that all small businesses are part of our consultations and strategy as we move towards recovery?

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: Small businesses make a big difference in our communities, but in times like these, COVID-19 has created new challenges for small business, and we recognize that. We know our small businesses face those challenges, and we’re determined to hear directly from them, to listen to their concerns and help them achieve their long-term goal of success right here in Ontario.

Our consultations have focused on helping businesses that have been affected most by the pandemic. For example, the restaurant and retail industry—we have used our consultations to bring meaningful change to regulation and processes. In April, we introduced temporary regulations that allowed bars and restaurants to include alcohol with their takeout or delivery food items. We passed legislation to allow municipalities to quickly pass temporary bylaws for the creation and extension of patios.

We will continue to use regulatory modernization as a lever for economic support and activity.

Hospital funding

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Santé. Today I will share the tragic story of baby Sophia from Newmarket. At the end of last year, Sophia’s parents took her from Newmarket to SickKids after Sophia had been sick for 10 days. They waited seven hours in a crowded waiting room with a sick baby, only to be told that the wait would be at least six more hours. They decided to go home.

The next day, they took Sophia to a local walk-in clinic. The doctor at the walk-in clinic sent them directly to the busy local hospital, and Sophia was sent back home. The mother said that the emergency department in their local hospital was so busy that the doctor didn’t even have time to see their daughter. Tragically, three days later, little baby Sophia died.

Speaker, with the flu season around the corner, hallway medicine back into many hospitals and a looming second wave of COVID, families are losing confidence in our health care system. What is the government doing to ensure that such a tragedy never happens again in Ontario’s health care system?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I thank the member very much for raising this issue. First, I would like to express my condolences to Sophia’s parents on the loss of their child. That is every parent’s worst nightmare, so I’m very sad to hear about that.

But you are right: We are facing significant capacity challenges in our hospitals right now as we prepare for the fall, as we prepare for a resurgence of COVID-19 and the second wave. We are seeing numbers creep up. We are facing flu season. We want to ensure, of course, that we can also continue the surgeries and procedures in our hospitals that were delayed as a result of wave one.

I have had experience in speaking with parents as well as with the board at SickKids as recently as yesterday to understand the significance this has, specifically for parents with very medically fragile children and their desire to not have any further surgeries postponed because it has a significant impact on their lives. I will have further information in the supplementary.

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

M me France Gélinas: No family should be turned away from our public health care system during a crisis with a sick child. No parent should have to wait 13 hours to see a doctor at SickKids or any other hospital in their time of need. The government needs to demonstrate to Sophia’s family and to all families across Ontario that they take this crisis in health care seriously.

Right now, it looks like the second wave of COVID will come at the same time as the flu season. So now it is more important than ever that this government tackle hospital overcrowding and hallway health care. It is the minister’s responsibility to prepare our entire health care system for the upcoming surge in demand. What is the minister doing to make sure that our health care system will be there for all Ontarians in need?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I can certainly agree with you that every Ontarian, regardless of where they live, deserves timely access to excellent-quality health care. We know that our system has been very stressed as a result of COVID-19, but I can assure the member and all Ontarians that we have a comprehensive, integrated plan to deal with capacity issues and the other issues that a potential second wave of COVID-19 faces. That plan is going to be released starting today.

We are going to discuss with Ontarians the plan that we have to deal with continuing to follow public health measures to make sure that our hospitals have capacity, both with COVID-19 patients and with flu patients and other patients who need care. We are working on making sure that we have the health human resources to be able to deal with that, and we want to make sure that we can continue with those surgeries and procedures that are so important, because as much as we’re dealing with a COVID pandemic, there are many other Ontarians with other health issues that deserve to be treated in a timely manner as well. We do have a plan. It will be presented starting today so that all—

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

The next question.

Prescription drugs

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Minister of Health. It’s been more than three months since the minister assured this House that cystic fibrosis patients in Ontario would soon have access to the drugs they need to enhance their quality and length of life. Since then, we’ve heard nothing more about negotiations between Vertex Pharmaceuticals and the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance on a purchasing price for Kalydeco and Orkambi.

As the minister knows, Sasha and Jamie Larocque from Tottenham have two young sons suffering from cystic fibrosis. Both have returned to school this fall under very different circumstances. Ten-year-old Andre is part of a trial that provides him with a gene-modulating drug to treat his disease. Eight-year-old Joshua has no access to such drugs. He is attending classes far more vulnerable to COVID-19 than he needs to be.

Speaker, why, during a global pandemic, does the government continue to withhold access to Orkambi, a drug that prevents lung infections?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you to the member for your continued commitment to helping people with cystic fibrosis gain access to these new drugs.

We certainly take the health concerns of all Ontarians very seriously. Even during a pandemic, we understand that people have other health needs besides COVID. And we know that people with cystic fibrosis are very hopeful that these new drugs are going to be able to live up to the promise, commitments and their needs to help them live higher-quality lives, because they will be able to be improved on some of these new drugs.

But we need to know and we need to remember that there is a process that we follow in Ontario for approving new drugs. We know that we have to take this evidence-based approach to make sure, first of all, that the drugs are going to work as we have been told that they will. We need to know what the response will be with patients. We need to do the—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. The supplementary question?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Speaker, this has gone on far too long. Twenty other countries have been providing Orkambi to their cystic fibrosis patients for years. The government has spared no expense to keep Ontarians safe from the COVID-19 respiratory virus, yet not enough has been done for cystic fibrosis patients who have a respiratory disease with a 100% fatality rate.

Given statements from the government about “keeping our most vulnerable people safe,” and “sparing no expense to protect our children,” why don’t we have a deal with Vertex? My constituents ask me often, “Is it the drug company digging in its heels? Is it Ottawa? Or is it the Ontario government itself?”

Can the minister explain to Joshua and other cystic fibrosis patients what the holdup is?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I can assure the member that the discussions with Vertex and with Cystic Fibrosis Canada are still continuing, but we all have to remember that this isn’t just sitting down with the manufacturer, with Vertex, and negotiating a price commitment. There are many other aspects to this. We also have the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance that is involved in these price discussions. So, even though Ontario is a party to those discussions, there are many other parties to these discussions as well, and so we can’t predict a timeline for this to be concluded.

I do ask for regular updates from the department in the Ministry of Health that deals with this. And while we all hoped that we would have had a response by now, we are continuing to follow it. We are continuing to have our involvement with it. We continue to press the alliance to please come to a conclusion soon with respect to these drugs, because we know that people with cystic fibrosis are continuing to count on Orkambi, especially Trikafta, as well as another drug that holds very promising improvements. We will continue those discussions, and we will indicate to them that people across Ontario are waiting for a response as soon as possible.

Seniors’ health services

Could the minister please inform the House on our government’s plans to help our low-income seniors?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The minister responsible for seniors.

Hon. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: Good morning, Speaker. I would like to thank the member from Scarborough–Agincourt for raising that important question. Our government’s priority continues to be supporting the health and well-being of our seniors in our province. I also have heard from seniors across the province on how difficult it can be to find affordable dental care.

I am proud our government has taken concrete action to ensure that our low-income seniors have access to the quality dental care they deserve. That’s why we are investing $90 million annually through the Ontario Seniors Dental Care Program.

Our seniors have built this beautiful province. Our government stands with our seniors.

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

Mr. Aris Babikian: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. It is great to see our government taking action and assisting our seniors. Mr. Speaker, can the minister give the House some more information on how this program will benefit Scarborough–Agincourt and Ontario seniors in underserved and rural areas?

Hon. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: Thank you for the second question. Investing in our seniors will continue to be a priority for our government. When fully implemented, our Ontario Seniors Dental Care Program will help 100,000 seniors a year. To help address underserved areas, we are also investing $25 million this year in critical projects, adding eight mobile dental buses. Our Premier made a promise in the last election to deliver this service for our seniors. Mr. Speaker, when we make a promise, we keep our promise.

Education funding

Ms. Jill Andrew: My question is to the Premier. Women have disproportionately been impacted by COVID-19, and as he knows, in education, especially full-day kindergarten and elementary, educators and education workers are four times more likely to be women. That rings true in St. Paul’s.

Unfortunately for these women and their families, this government’s plan for a second wave simply isn’t working. The Conservative government’s policy and implementation failures are hurting my families, hurting my schools and my community.

Speaker, to the Premier: Our educators and education workers, again disproportionately women, are seeing our children and families through their toughest challenge during COVID-19. These front-line heroes are suffering behind the smiles that they’re giving to our kids. Speaker, when will the Premier ensure that every single school in Toronto–St. Paul’s has enough PPE, disinfectant and every resource we need to keep every soul in our schools safe?

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

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Indeed, over 31 million pieces of PPE were delivered from the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services. We’ve worked very closely to ensure access to the supply chain so that all school boards, all schools in all regions have the adequate supply they need. The next tranche for October is going to go in real time, and a critical mass has already flowed. I’ve been working with Minister Thompson to ensure that continues to be done, ensuring that all the necessary materials that are required are provided.

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

Ms. Jill Andrew: My question is to the Minister of Education. Speaker, one of our staff members from Humewood Community School in St. Paul’s has tested positive for COVID-19. I’ve heard from many staff and families. They are terribly, terribly scared, as I hope you can imagine.

The risk of infection weighs heavy when our classrooms are still too large and some are either rationing PPE, having to purchase it on their own, don’t have enough or, frankly, just don’t have it at all. How can teachers like Rebecca ensure that toys are properly disinfected in between each play experience without disinfectant?

To quote the nine-year-old kid I spoke with alongside his mom in Hillcrest Village, “Ms. Jill, why are we only allowed 10 people inside” our home “but my class is so much bigger? It’s like I’m confused.”

Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Ed: Will you cap all class sizes today—all—to 15 children maximum, without taking jobs away from one single ECE while you do it, to keep our schools safe?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: The government has provided school boards with additional funding in the context of PPE. We’ve increased funding for cleaning; an additional 1,300 custodians are being hired province-wide.

In the area of the Toronto District School Board, just yesterday I facilitated a call with the COVID-19 command table with Dr. Dubey, the Associate Medical Officer of Toronto, as well as the directors and chairs of public and Catholic and French school boards with a singular aim, which is to really work together to understand how we can further collaborate to minimize risk within our schools. What we are hearing, Speaker, is that our outbreak protocols are working.

Obviously, we continue to work very closely with public health to minimize risk. We see continued increasing numbers in community transmission, and we’re watching that with a plan, as the Minister of Health will unveil, to further reduce risk province-wide and ultimately keep our kids safe within our schools.

Education

Ms. Christine Hogarth: Speaker, parents in my riding know how much this government cares about educating Toronto’s two million students. They are the next generation and they must be set up for success. Now, more than ever, we need to invest in our children, and I’m proud that since our government was elected, each and every year we are investing more in education than ever before, with record investments for important initiatives.

With COVID-19, we now face new challenges, and challenges that face our next generation. Can the Minister of Education please tell the Legislature how this government is setting students up for success while we battle this pandemic?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Indeed, I want to thank the member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore for her leadership and fighting very hard for the people of Toronto, for the next generation of our province.

We codified financial literacy and now coding for every student from grade 1 and up.

We worked with TVO and TFO to strengthen online learning capacities within our province.

We unveiled an anti-racism/anti-discrimination plan, a first step in our plan to mandate training of all teachers, mandate professional development of all trustees and work closely with all school boards to ensure our boards, our schools and our communities are more inclusive for all Ontarians.

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

Ms. Christine Hogarth: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. Speaker, I’m very proud to be part of a government that puts the safety of students, families and staff as paramount, backed with record investments and a nation-leading plan. Although our minds may be drawn to COVID and i