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

June 2, 2020

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2020-Jun-02 vol. A (PDF)

L165A - Tue 2 Jun 2020 / Mar 2 jun 2020

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 2 June 2020 Mardi 2 juin 2020

Annual report and statistical report, Information and Privacy Commissioner

Orders of the Day

Order of business

Members’ Statements

Soins de longue durée

Anti-racism activities

Front-line workers

COVID-19 response

Employment standards

COVID-19 response

Commercial tenant protection

St. Jacobs Farmers’ Market

Réponse à la COVID-19 / COVID-19 response

COVID-19 response

Voting

Decorum in the chamber

Question Period

Long-term care

Long-term care

Long-term care

Economic reopening and recovery

Long-term care

Commercial tenant protection

Anti-racism activities

Anti-racism activities

Municipal finances

Long-term care

Long-term care

Long-term care

Tenant protection

Access to justice

Deferred Votes

Order of business

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

Motions

House sittings

Orders of the Day

Extension of emergency declaration

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Annual report and statistical report, Information and Privacy Commissioner

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I beg to inform the House that the following document has been tabled:

The 2019 annual report and statistical report from the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario.

Orders of the Day

Order of business

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 27, 2020 on the amendment to the motion relating to certain House proceedings and committee business.

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

Mr. John Fraser: I do want to say before I begin this morning that there’s a lot of stuff going on in the world right now. It’s pretty frightening what’s happening south of the border. There are a lot of people in pain down there; there are a lot of people in pain up here. Some of it has to do with history. Some of it has to do with what’s happening right now—the pandemic, violence. I think it’s just important for us to be mindful of that as we go through debate and question period today.

It really strikes me that our problems seem small in comparison with the problems that we’re seeing south of the border, but we have them here too. We can’t deny that. There is a lot of pain associated with racism and the history of the country and our province. That pain is still real and we need to address that. We need to face that. We need to look at that. That’s the only way we can get reconciliation. I just wanted to begin by saying that.

Motion 77: I don’t mean to be trite, but it’s the mother of all time allocation motions. I have never, ever seen anything like it.

So, juxtaposed to us discussing continuing the state of emergency this afternoon, it’s like there’s an emergency on these five pieces of legislation, which I don’t fully understand. I’ll go back: I think we worked very cooperatively together in the first 10 to 12 weeks, and I appreciate the work that we did. I understand that some parties were more co-operative than others, but that’s irrelevant right now.

We are rushing through pieces of legislation—and I’ve been on the other side, so I know how that happens. I know what happens when we rush through pieces of legislation. They aren’t as good as they could be.

I do respect the government’s need to get things done. That’s why they’re here. We’re all here to get things done. But I just look at, for instance, Bill 184: Why, when people are suffering, when renters are suffering, do we pull out a bill that talks about evictions? I don’t really quite understand that. I don’t know why we’re pulling out a bill, Bill 175, with regard to home care, when the whole landscape in health care is shifting. This pandemic has exposed to us some things that I think we knew were already there about how vulnerable we were because of the way that we’ve organized our health care system.

I don’t see the rush. I think what would have been a better way for us to do this was to have a discussion about these bills, about which ones and why the government felt it important to bring them forward.

I look at things right now like essential caregivers. Quebec has moved to make sure that essential caregivers can get into a long-term-care home, a hospital, a group home, because they’re essential to their loved ones or their brother, their sister—their care. We really haven’t done anything to address that other than to say, “We should do that.” Quebec has come forward with a plan; Manitoba has come forward with a plan. I don’t know why we’re not discussing a plan in here. Why would the government—right now it would seem to me the thing that’s really important is there should be a caregiver bill of rights.

There should be a caregiver bill of rights—not because it’s the nice thing to do and we just want to go and visit. They’re not visitors. Caregivers are just that: They’re caregivers.

When I looked at what the government has programmed and what they’re putting forward in comparison to what we need to do right now, I have a real challenge understanding the urgency with which we must pass all these pieces of legislation, when there are other things, like universal masking. It’s just not good enough for the Premier to stand up and say, “You know what, you should all wear a mask. It’s the right thing to do.” No, you actually have to have a plan. You have to communicate that to people. You need to communicate to people that you’re wearing a mask because you’re wearing it for other people. You actually have to make sure that people who can’t afford masks can get masks.

You have to have a plan, just like you do for PPE, to get universal masking with reusable masks. There’s no plan. There’s no discussion of that here. That is critical to our recovery, not just a recovery from a health perspective, but it’s critical to our recovery in the economy. We’re doing nothing about it other than to say, “You should wear a mask.” What about the people who can’t have a mask? Any discussion of that? What about the people who need the mask most because they live in conditions that are close and tight in apartment buildings, in townhouses, in public housing? Why aren’t we doing that?

I don’t understand. I don’t understand why there’s this urgency on all of these bills. I think it’s out of sync with the state of emergency and the things that we need to be doing to prepare for the second wave, because there is going to be one. It’s going to happen. We should be doing something on universal masking. We should be able to figure out what we can do for caregivers, how we can help caregivers do what they need to do for their loved ones. It’s a very serious issue, and it’s just not good enough to say, “You can do this.” We actually have to work with our partners, our hospitals, our long-term care, our group homes, all those places, and tell them, “You need to do this.”

I don’t want to take too much more of the Legislature’s time. We didn’t need to do this. We could have time-allocated some of these bills if the argument for doing these bills was valid. I think there probably are some in there. The government needed to articulate that; they didn’t. Maybe somebody will articulate it in the questions and responses. There are more important things for us to be dealing with.

I believe we’re still in a state of emergency. The government needs those powers to be able to react. But we can’t be doing something else at the same time that’s driving another agenda, because we’re going to miss the mark—and especially in a hurry. We’re going to come out with pieces of legislation that we’re not going to be happy with. I know because I’ve seen it before. So it’s not a wagging of the finger; it’s, “I know how this movie plays out.” I know that when we’re in a rush, we don’t do our best job. We’re in a rush, and we don’t need to be. We need to be focused on those things that are important to Ontarians right now.

Commercial rent evictions—sorry, I’m going off now. Commercial rent evictions: It’s not good enough to say, “Hey, you kids, if you don’t behave, I’m going to come upstairs and there’s going to be a big problem.” You’ve got to do something. Does the tiger have some teeth? It’s not good enough to say, “You know what? If you don’t do that, I’m going to get you.” You say, “If you don’t do this, here’s what I’m going to do.” It was an empty threat. Those are the things that are concerning Main Street: not-for-profits that can’t pay their rent; small businesses that can’t pay their rent getting evicted. Those are the things that we need to be dealing with.

I can’t support this motion, I won’t support this motion, simply on the basis that it’s not dealing directly with the things that are most important and critical right now to all Ontarians.

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

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: As always, it is a privilege and an honour to be able to rise in this House, in this temple of democracy, and speak to the issues that arise, and, of course, representing the good people of Niagara West. It is a privilege and an honour to be able to speak also following the member from Ottawa South.

I wish to begin by echoing the comments from the member opposite at the beginning of his contribution to the debate this morning with regard to what’s going on in society right now. We see turmoil. We see the impacts of decisions that have been made over hundreds of years, over decades, and the consequences that that has also in terms of the impacts on people of colour. We see the need to be able to stand forward, to move forward, and to not just empathize with those who are struggling, but also to be willing to take up their voice and be a voice for those who need people and need allies in this.

So I want to echo the words of the member opposite when it comes to seeing, both south of the border and in our own country, the fact that there’s always more work to be done to call out racism, to be an ally to persons of colour across Ontario and Canada, and to do what we can to create a more inclusive and accepting society, specifically one that recognizes the inherent dignity and worth of every individual. I want to thank the member opposite for beginning with that.

The member, though, in his address I believe failed to come—when he spoke about some of the issues that we’re dealing with in front of the Legislature and with the motion at hand, the importance of being able to, as my mother used to say, walk and talk at the same time. The reality is that as a Legislature, as a government and as a system of democracy, it’s important that we be able to deal with issues that are immediate, the issues that come up over the course of time.

I think no one, at the beginning of 2020, could have anticipated what we have seen this year turn out to be from, of course, the COVID-19 situation, as well as a number of other difficulties and challenges that have faced not just society but families and individuals.

When we talk about society and culture, we’re not just talking about people in this broad, esoteric sense, but really people on the ground level who are feeling the impacts. That’s, of course, very, very important, that we, as a government, deal with those things as they come up. I will speak a little bit later in this address, and also hopefully this afternoon have the opportunity to speak about what our government is doing in working in collaboration with other partners—both in other sectors of government, both within this chamber and outside of this chamber, both within the chambers of municipal governance and the chambers of federal Parliament.

It’s also important that we be able to move forward with important policy items that have come before this House and that we will have the opportunity to debate over the course of this summer, to be able to move forward in those areas—so of course responding, reacting, engaging with the issues of the day as they arise, but also thinking proactively and thinking longitudinally about what sort of challenges are coming in the future and what we must do to deal with those challenges.

That’s why I think it’s important, as we have these conversations this morning within this House, that we think about the issues of the day, but also think about the issues of tomorrow and how we’re going to be dealing with those.

One of the things in the reality of an elected office such as the ones that many of us hold is that, although people might not realize it—and I’m sure those who watch today on the Internet or perhaps on their television later this evening will appreciate the fact that many of us do speak. We rise and speak to the issues that come up in this chamber. But there’s also a lot of mundane work that is done by members of this House.

The history of Parliaments and the history of elected officials as servants of the people is a long one—and I have a bit of a history here—going all the way back to the origins in Rome and the origins of councils in Norway and in the Middle East, gathering to gain counsel from those who have been selected from communities to be able to speak. I would say the fundamental role of us as members of provincial Parliament is representing our constituents’ concerns, our constituents’ issues, and of course being advocates for the needs of our constituents as they come up, as well as speaking to the values that we need to see across society.

The reality is that a great deal of our work is very mundane. People see the speeches. People might even watch some of the committee work. But a great deal of the work we do as elected officials is dealing with the day-to-day issues that come up within our constituencies to assist people when it comes to being able to access government services, when it comes to being able to ensure that we have adequate public services, when it comes to being able to ensure that people are supported and that they’re able to pursue a better life for themselves, their children and future generations.

What we’re discussing today, although I believe very, very important, I also recognize, perhaps, the mundanity of the discussion that we are having around issues of, for example, Bill 156, ensuring agricultural security, or when we’re discussing Bill 175. These are very, very important issues, but as the members opposite have spoken about, there are a great deal of things going on in society as a whole that can be looking for our attention. We can give those issues attention and deal with those issues.

But simultaneously, we have to proceed with the agenda of the House, an agenda that was put forward now already two years ago, when we were selected by the people of Ontario to govern this province.

Over the past few months, we have seen COVID-19 and some of the impacts of that terrible virus, and of course the economic consequences of it have taken up the vast, vast majority of our time. That is completely not just understandable, but I believe beneficial for the people of this province, that we’ve had to deal with a pandemic that didn’t come with a playbook, as I say in some of my virtual round tables, trying to hear from constituents in various sectors.

So although we don’t have a pandemic that came with a playbook and have had to move very quickly, hearing from the opposition, hearing from the third party—although, I suppose, it’s technically not a party—the independents who represent a third party, hearing from those important players within our system. We also have to realize that there are issues that need to be advanced to make sure that we’re able to help with those day-to-day experiences.

We talk about, for example, the importance of agri supply. We talk about the importance of maintaining our food supply chain. I want to just give a huge shout-out to all those, first of all, who are working in all the essential businesses—we recognize our health care workers, we recognize our doctors, our nurses—but also those who are essential in so many other ways when it comes to ensuring our supply chains are well-managed.

I’m thinking, for example, of our truck drivers; thinking of people like my siblings who work in agriculture, on farms across the Niagara region, across the country; and other people who are doing work that, in and of itself, can be considered “mundane,” but is so important to make sure that we have a functioning society and make sure that people have food on their table.

Similarly, when we think about the work that our essential workers are doing within health care, whether it’s doctors or nurses, or those who are working as PSWs or recreational therapists, whatever that work might look like, we have to realize that they’re not working in isolation; they’re working within a particular system. And so one of our duties as elected officials is to do what we can to try to improve that system. That’s what I believe, of course, Bill 175, the Connecting People to Home and Community Care Act, provides.

It provides support for those essential workers who are working in difficult situations, often, with pressure, both psychological as well as physical—and even the emotional impact and burden of being in those positions.

Those who are working in agri-food, from the truck drivers to the farmhands to the suppliers to the feed mills, need to ensure that they have security, and one of the pieces, of course, in Bill 156 is—Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act.

When we think about the impacts of the pandemic on our supply chain, we all have the memories of going back into our stores and of seeing empty shelves. Of course, toilet paper was the one that everyone talked about, but there were a lot of other impacts. That’s because we have a very tightly streamlined food supply chain that needs to ensure it has protection.

The bills that will come before the House this summer that we’re going to be debating, including Bill 156, which is in the motion, as well as Bill 175, really are connected, because we live in a society where each and every person is so integrated into our economy, is integrated into those supply chains that make up our food security, that make up our health care system. We need to make sure that we’re doing what we can as elected officials to pass legislation that ensures we’re strengthening those systems, that we’re doing what we can to provide better care where and when we can, to provide food at more affordable rates.

Of course, one of the things we talk about is food security and the impact that food insecurity has for people psychologically, mentally and physically. One of the realities is that the cost of food is also tied in with the ability to produce food safely.

Bill 156, the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, also ties into food security because of the fact that when you have higher costs, that is carried along to the consumer, and that is carried—often, the greatest impact is felt by those who are food-insecure, who might not have as much of an ability to put food on their table.

If we don’t bring forward legislation like Bill 156, if we don’t bring forward legislation like Bill 175, we are in fact creating challenges within that very system that is meant to support, that is meant to provide, that is meant to be an aid to some of the most vulnerable in our society. That is why I believe the motion that we have before us today is very important.

Speaker, I was going to speak a little bit about the history of parliamentarism. It’s quite a history. You and I have chatted about this, as well—the history of both this institution and, of course, our Westminster democracy as a whole. We share some similar loves of Churchill and others and we’ve had some good conversations about that.

The reality is that in our modern system, I believe it’s even more important that we ensure we do have sittings such as the ones we’re having this morning, where we can ensure we have not just the Zoom call that so many of us have become very, very well acquainted with, but we’re able to ensure that we have that, I’m going to call it “ambience”—that might not be quite the right word—the charge, the electric static of democracy that we have in a place like this where we’re able to have the interactions. I can make eye contact with the member opposite.

I can make eye contact with my colleague from the constituency next door. We can engage, perhaps non-verbally, but also, after this discussion, after our contributions, we can walk over and have conversations. Maybe those happen less frequently now with social distancing. But still, it creates that ability to connect in a way that Zoom calls, in a way that having virtual Parliaments, such as we’re seeing from our federal counterparts, who are trying to push that option, simply do not have.

I think that’s really why there’s such a strength in this House where we’re able to engage with each other, not just through this debate. I know that this is one of the most public-facing aspects of the work that we do, and it’s a very, very important task. I would be very convinced of that. It’s important that we have this. But so much work also happens when the camera is off, or not even off—it’s moved on to my next colleague who will also be speaking to this legislation; it’s moved on to a member of the opposition.

The speeches that we have here in this House are recorded for posterity. And the ability that we have to articulate the importance of the issues that we’re bringing forward is going to be read, is going to be reviewed, for a great deal of time to come. I was going through some of the research about the history of Parliament and the great tradition that we have of meeting at many different times. I know many of us have become perhaps a little bit used to the parliamentary tradition of September to June, following a bit of the school year. That, of course, for hundreds and hundreds of years was not the case. The history is quite different.

I was flipping through some of the online journals of the House of Lords in the UK, the House of Commons in the UK from 1617 to 1707. You’re reading the speeches, the Hansard of people who have passed, obviously, but whose work created the foundation of what we can work with today—who created the clay, who created the playdough, if you want to call it that, of our modern democracy, which we now have this great responsibility to deal with with care.

The assertion that I would have is that we can’t simply say, as we deal with COVID, as we deal with also the challenges that we’re seeing in society right now—and coming to terms with the consequences of racism and trying to deal with that—we can’t just say that these are the only issues that we have to be able to work on. They’re very important issues, but we also have to be able to deal with those other issues: from Bill 175, ensuring we have stronger health care; food security, to make sure that we’re able to ensure that we have access to safe, clean, affordable food for every member of our society.

Those are also tied in. Those are important. The only way we can make sure that we get those things moving is by sitting this summer.

That’s really what the crux of this particular motion is. This motion creates the ability for us to have debate over the course of the summer for several days a week in order to make sure that we’re able to move through our legislative agenda. I know my colleagues on this side of the House are very eager to do so. I’ve heard from some of the members opposite when we debated this motion as well last week, and I know that the independents, one of whom spoke prior to me, also are interested in making sure we can move this forward.

We’re not doing this to have checks on a box. We’re not doing this so that we can say, “You know what? We passed this many pieces of legislation.” We’re not doing it so that we can say, “We debated this many hours.” No, we’re doing it so that this chamber, this place, this centrifuge of democracy, is able to do its work meaningfully. We could all sit in our basements if we wanted to and do it on Zoom, but we wouldn’t have that interconnectivity that we have here. We wouldn’t have those free-flowing discussions that we have, whether the cameras are on or whether the cameras are off.

And that’s valuable; that’s important. That’s work, I believe, that is needed now more than ever. So I’m very excited, over the course of this summer, to come back to this chamber and to hear from my colleagues in government, in opposition, who have meaningful contributions to make.

I know that all members in this House represent constituencies that are quite large; I believe approximately 100,000 on average. I know there are some—I have spoken with some of my colleagues who have upwards of 140,000 just because of the significant growth in their ridings, because of the changing demographics and seeing huge surges. We have others, perhaps—I’m at 96,000; I’ll be at 100,000 pretty soon—that might have a few less.

But within those particular constituencies, there are important issues that our staff are dealing with every day, that we have to interact with and have the privilege of serving every day. It’s important that we bring those back centrally as well. Because I can write an email. I mean, we can all write an email, we can make a call, we can leave a voice mail, but that’s not the same.

That’s why being here today, speaking to this motion, I believe will create the ability for us to move forward with the way democracy is intended. That means having fulsome debate. That means having conversations about the challenges that may come up, the challenges that we’re already dealing with, and thinking ahead to what will be coming in the generations to come. So I want to thank the members who are speaking. I want to encourage them to bring the voices of their constituents into this place.

I’ve had the great privilege of working with so many people in my riding, so many people who have reached out who have concerns about COVID, who have been encouraged to see that so many people are working together, from Dillon’s distillery in Beamsville, to the Village of Hope food bank in Vineland, to the Grimsby Benevolent Fund in Grimsby, to the downtown improvement area providing face shields, Stanpac working with the firefighters in West Lincoln to make deliveries, to Fonthill Legion delivering thousands of free hot meals to vulnerable seniors in the community.

There have been so many amazing organizations that have stepped up to the plate, that have shown what it means to be a community. But they know that their government needs to support them, and that’s exactly what we’re doing.

This motion gives us the ability to be able to debate the issues that are coming forward, to be able to support those organizations in our community. It gives us the ability to go to our counterparts at the municipal and at the federal levels and say, “Here are the contributions of our members representing 14 million people across this province, representing 14 million voices.”

And no, we can’t echo every single one of those voices perfectly. That’s one of the realities of, again, the system we live in. Again, Speaker, going back to one of our shared individuals, Winston Churchill: He said that democracy is the worst type of system of governance except for all the other ones. That’s very true. We’re not perfectly able to reflect every single one of those 14.5 million voices, but we have the duty to try. We have the duty to think of those 14.5 million people and to do what’s best for them today, tomorrow and into the future.

I know my colleagues are going to speak extensively about the contents of the legislation that’s coming forward. I will be speaking again later this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to doing so. But for now, I wish to thank you for your indulgence, I wish to thank the indulgence of the House and I look forward to hearing from the next speaker.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I would rather we not be having this debate, to be quite honest, Mr. Speaker. It was said earlier by the previous speaker from the independents that there was a fair amount of co-operation that was going on between the parties for the last number of weeks, dealing with various things that this Legislature had to deal with. Some of it we weren’t happy with, but we understand that we are in a particular situation where things need to be done and we need to figure out ways to move forward.

So we were not oppositional, as the official opposition, to any of the measures that the government brought forward. In fact, we helped the government pass those particular things in a timely manner, with some debate—because it’s always been the view of New Democrats that you have to have some debate on issues that come before the House. We should not as a rule just be rubber-stamping things.

So the government was trying to do a couple of things. First of all, they want to have the ability to have a session during the summer, because normally the House would end at the end of this week. The government needed to have the House sit in June, July and possibly August. We understand that; we have no problem, as New Democrats. We’re prepared to work whenever this House has to sit. We will be here, and we will do what has to be done. So that’s not the issue.

If the government wanted to have a summer session, we would have been amenable to having some sort of a motion that could have been brought to the House, and there would have been very little debate as to that particular motion. We’re fine with the House sitting in the summer. That is not the issue. We’ve done that before. However, the motion goes way beyond that, and that’s the reason why I wanted to get up and speak this morning.

The government House leader came to us and said there were a number of things that he was proposing. Some of them have found their way into this motion; some have not. But one of the things that he wanted us to agree to is that there would be no private members’ debates during the summer session. I think that’s wrong, because all members of this House have the right to introduce a bill, which we still can do under this motion, but you will not be able to have your item called if your ballot number comes up.

All members of this House have been working diligently in their constituencies in order to help people in their community deal with this pandemic. Out of those experiences, we’ve actually developed some ideas. Constituents have come to us and said, “Hey, what about this? What about that?

What about the other thing?” I know that a number of members on both sides of the House have wanted to put those particular ideas into legislation to be brought to the House, because we know how this place works: Members get an idea, they develop a private member’s bill, they bring it to the House, and if it’s an idea that the government supports, the government will vote for it but very seldom pass it. They’ll just pick it up and put it in their own legislation, which achieves the same thing. We’re fine with that.

We understand the government wants to take some credit so they’ll bring it back and put it into their own legislation. But we can’t do that because of this motion. This motion is going to prevent all members of this House, government or opposition, to be able to have a debate on a private member’s bill when their ballot item comes up. That’s not the way that the Legislature operates and should operate.

If you take a look, my earnest colleague who spoke earlier spoke of Winston Churchill, and he’s right. Winston Churchill was an interesting individual, to say the least. But one of the things—and in fact, I read that in a book that you gave me, Mr. Speaker. I had read this before, but I read it recently about a year ago when you lent me that wonderful book on Winston. One of the things that Churchill understood was that the executive had its authority but it needed to be guided by the Legislature, and the Legislature had to do its job.

Even during the Second World War, when things were going terribly in 1939, 1940, 1941—things didn’t turn for the Allies until about 1942, 1943—there were debates in the House of Commons in England—mind you, closed debates—where members were able to come and be briefed by the ministers as to what was going on. They were able to ask questions and they were able to propose solutions. It allowed a way for Britain to basically fight its way through that terrible ordeal called the Second World War, because the best of all of the ideas is what went forward when it came to government legislation.

Yes, some of those bills back then—there might have been some private members’ aspect to it. But the government was able to hear the ideas, the ideas from all sides of the House, to listen to what had been said, to contemplate what was said and, if necessary, to pass that bill or bring that bill forward in their own legislation.

During the pandemic, I’ve got to say, I don’t care who sits on the other side. The government doesn’t have all the answers. It’s not a fault of the current government. The reality is that no government can think of all the angles, and that’s why we have a democracy that sends people to the House so that you can have the voices from Timmins, from Chatham, from Oshawa, from Ottawa, from different parts around Ontario where citizens have talked to their elected representatives, have given them ideas, and those members come to the House and propose the ideas either through statements or questions or, yes, Mr. Speaker, through private members’ bills.

This government said no at those meetings that we had by Zoom—because we didn’t do any face-to-face meetings during this particular pandemic. If we ever go back to having House leaders meetings, I would imagine we’ll be doing them by Zoom still. But the government was not interested in having any kind of discussion that included having private members’ hour. All of a sudden the government sort of went dark on us and decided that they were going to move this motion without telling us that the motion was coming, never shared this motion with us and just sprung it onto the House. Well, it’s their right.

I’m not going to argue the government can’t do that. They have a majority. They will be judged at the end of a four-year term as to did they dispense government in a way that is satisfying to the public. And the public will decide if this was a good or a bad move.

But I’m suggesting, and I will make the argument leading up to the next election, that this is a very bad move. Because members of this House, as I said, are all working hard in their constituencies, listening to constituents, talking to administrators and staff and long-term-care facilities, home care, hospitals, grocery stores, cab companies, car dealerships, you name it; we’re talking to these people, and they’re telling us things that make us reflect on “There’s a good idea of something that we should do.”

One of the things that was brought to my attention, one of the bills that I would have liked to have brought forward is a bill that deals with people who are custodians in apartment buildings. Did you know they’re not paid minimum wage? Even if you add up the money that they get for their particular rent subsidy—sometimes the rent is counted as part of their wages—they don’t even get minimum wage.

They’re all currently having to make sure that their buildings are clean; they’re having to clean them much more often than they normally do; they’re having to keep an eye on things; they’re having to make sure that people are following the directives of the Chief Medical Officer of Health. They’re working hard in order to make our homes and those apartment buildings safe, and we’re not even paying them minimum wage.

You’ve got PSWs who have been underpaid for years, and now you’ve got custodians who take care of buildings who don’t even make minimum wage. There was one idea that came forward from a couple of the custodians who approached me about this—because I always assumed that they made minimum wage. When you added up their hourly rate and you added their apartment rent and put that all together, I thought it came up to minimum wage. But it doesn’t. That’s just one idea.

There are a number of ideas when it comes to the issue of dealing with how you reform our long-term-care/home care/hospital system. Public health care has served us well over the years, but there are some failings, and we see that in the long-term-care sector. Much of that has been raised in this House on this side for years now. I remember Shelley Martel was the minister—well, she was minister at one point—was the health critic, and we started raising the alarm bells during the Harris days with regard to hours of care in long-term-care facilities.

And more and more over the years, we saw the hours of care that each resident got diminished and the amount of service and support that you got in the community diminished.

When we were government in the early 1990s, we had moved the entire home care sector into the public system. Everything had been moved over to the public system. And there was a reason for that: We wanted every dollar that you paid in taxes to go to making sure we could provide services at home so people didn’t have to go into long-term care.

We had people in all of our communities who were getting 60, 80 hours a month plus, in order to be able to remain in their home. That has been cut over the years by both the previous administrations, under Mr. Harris, under Mr. McGuinty and Madam Wynne, and this government, and we have not moved to address that. If we’re going to fix the long-term-care system, we need to fix the home care system.

But back to the motion: The motion essentially says that no member of this House, no individual member of this House, will be able to have a private member’s bill debated, and that’s wrong. The government doesn’t have all the ideas.

The other problem we have in the summer session is that it’s an extension of the spring session, which means to say there’s no opposition days unless there is unanimous consent. Again, one of the mechanisms that the opposition has to be able to move forward by giving ideas outside of question period and debate and meetings with ministers etc. is opposition days. Do you think the government is going to say yes to an opposition day motion from the New Democrats on anything during the summer session? Unless we have something that says, “Doug Ford is a great and benevolent leader,” they’re going to say no—I can’t use that word. I’m sorry.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Yes. I’m going to ask the member to continue to refer to other members by their ministerial title or their riding name.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Sorry, I want to talk about the Premier. We’ll just leave it at that.

The point is, we’re going to be in a very bad situation after this week. The government will be the only one that can actually bring something to the floor on how we deal with this pandemic and have it debated for consideration. I just think that’s so wrong. It’s so wrong.

We need to listen to the public. Like all of you, we meet with our chamber of commerce task force on a weekly basis. I think every member is doing that in the House—along with others. Labour councils and others are doing the same.

One of the things we talked about yesterday was how in the city of Timmins, we’ve been very, very lucky that everybody has been working together towards the same sort of direction in dealing with this pandemic. Citizens of Timmins have done a really good job of following the directives of the Chief Medical Officer of Health and, as a result, our amount of infections has gone from being the highest per capita in northern Ontario at the beginning of the pandemic to where we haven’t had one now for about two weeks. We haven’t had a single infection in two weeks reported.

That’s because citizens are following the directives, but it’s also because there’s leadership at the mayor’s level, at the business-side level, labour-side level, MPP and MP—everybody’s on the same page, following the direction of our Chief Medical Officer of Health. As a result, people are doing the right thing.

My God, even I went out and bought masks. You know how hard that is? You’ll never find a politician of our vintage, Mr. Speaker, who wants to hide their face, right? We’re constantly trying to stay out in the public. But I understand the directives of the Chief Medical Officer of Health, and it’s not about protecting me, it’s about making sure I don’t make somebody else ill. That’s really the situation.

So I just say to the government that to move in the direction that we will have no ability as individual members to be able to propose to the floor of this House items to be debated on how we deal with this pandemic is just wrong. That’s one of the very reasons we’re voting against it.

The other part of this is that the government has decided that it’s going to move essentially a time allocation motion within here to basically program all of the legislation they have on the order paper out of the House. Whatever is in committee, whatever is in the House, it’s all going to get dealt with and all going to get passed. This tells me, Mr. Speaker, and you’ve been around as long as I have, the government is doing that—because originally they told us up until June 6, if the House went to the 6th, we would deal with only pandemic issues, right? That’s fine; we agreed to that. We think that was a wise decision and something we should have done.

But the government broke its own agreement, because now they’ve brought a motion forward that has nothing to do with the pandemic. It has to do with moving their agenda. And they’re doing it in the portion of the sitting this spring when we’re supposedly all in agreement that we’re only going to deal with the pandemic. The government can’t even live up to its own agreement. They’re the ones who came to us and said, “Will you agree to this?” We went away and talked to our people, and we said, “Fine.” We’re actually the ones, as New Democrats, who said, “We’re fine with what you’re doing as long as we just deal with the pandemic issue.”

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I need to interrupt the member. Pursuant to standing order 50(c), I am now required to interrupt the proceedings and announce that there have been six and a half hours of debate on the motion. This debate will therefore be deemed adjourned unless the government House leader directs the debate to continue.

I recognize the member for Barrie–Innisfil.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: We wish the debate to continue, thank you.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The debate continues. I recognize again the member for Timmins.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Again, the government, when they came to us during the beginning of this pandemic, we had said to them, “We’re fine with all of the things that you’re asking to do—extending the emergency order, doing the emergency legislation related to the pandemic that needed to be done—but we shouldn’t be dealing with the government agenda.” The government agreed to that and said, “Okay. Until the end of the spring session, we won’t do any of that.”

Well, the government broke its own agreement by moving this motion last week in the House and having it debated this week. We’re still in the spring session. It’s not as if they couldn’t have done this—if they would have said they wanted a motion for the House to sit in the summer, New Democrats would have agreed. We have no problem with the House sitting in the summer. But there needs to be an opportunity for independent members, and not just independent members but members generally, to be able to propose, and they’re not doing that in this particular motion.

So the government is essentially time-allocating all of the business that they now have in committee, a lot of which has absolutely nothing to do with the pandemic. Are they good or bad bills? That’s for the public to decide and for us to decide at third reading in the ways that we vote, Mr. Speaker. But the government had given its word that they would not be doing any of that until we got into the summer session.

I’ve got to say to the government that I’m disappointed. We need, in this particular time, to be working together. We’re not out of this pandemic, Mr. Speaker. We look across the world where infections are starting to pop up again in different areas. We just heard about the farm community in regard to 120 infections that were just reported this week. We saw what happened in New Brunswick. We’re seeing what’s happening in other countries around the world. We’re not out of this yet.

The thing that we need to be careful of is how we open up our economy. I think all of us are very much wanting to make sure that we can open up our economy, but we need to do it in a safe way. That’s part of what could have been debated in the House here, because I’m sure that members would have come forward with ideas about, if this ever happens again, having some sort of mechanism that allows us to deal with this in a much more transparent way.

So far, the public, I think, has been generally supportive of the Legislature when it comes to the bills that we have passed up to date because they understand that the government needed to give itself the ability to extend the emergency powers that they have to deal with the pandemic. I think that, generally, the public was supportive of those things.

But the public is not going to be supportive once they start looking at what this government is doing inside this motion by blocking the ability of individual members to bring bills before the House for debate, by extending the spring session into summer, which means that there will be no opposition days unless the government agrees, and that the government time-allocates a number of bills that have nothing to do with the pandemic. So I just say to the government across the way, this is a wrong-headed move. The government would be wise to accept the amendment that was put forward by our deputy House leader, Ms.

Sattler from London, in order to be able to deal with parts of this motion, that could have made it a little more palatable, and a big part of that is dealing with the whole issue of private members’ bills.

Mr. Speaker, I think it’s an unfortunate step that the government has taken. I hope that the government will take the time to think about accepting the amendments that we have put forward—and that we make this House do what it should do, and that is, all members of this House on both sides have a valuable contribution to give to Ontario when it comes to how we continue through this pandemic, get out the other side, and build the systems that allow us to fix the current problems within our health care system and to better prepare us in the future for what could be more pandemics in the future.

I think we would be well served to listen to all members of the House—and not to say that the cabinet are the only ones who have all the ideas and the only ones who can bring anything forward during the summer session. I just think that’s the wrong thing to do.

With that, I thank you for this time in debate.

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

Mr. Vijay Thanigasalam: Mr. Speaker, I’m very pleased to be here today, along with our colleagues on both sides, and discuss motion 77.

The people of Ontario expect the Legislature to continue to function. The summer sittings allow the government to introduce important legislation as may be required to help Ontario recover and rebuild in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The government believes that question period must continue during this time to facilitate the constitutionally important responsibility of the opposition to hold the government to account.

Today, we are debating the motion tabled by our government to authorize standing committees of the Ontario Legislature to begin virtual studies on the following bills:

—Bill 156, Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, which will be studied by the Standing Committee on General Government;

—Bill 161, Smarter and Stronger Justice Act, which will be studied by the Standing Committee on Justice Policy;

—Bill 171, Building Transit Faster Act, which will be studied by the Standing Committee on Social Policy;

—Bill 175, Connecting People to Home and Community Care Act, which will be studied by the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I want to particularly focus on Bill 171, Building Transit Faster Act.

Before I do that, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the transit workers out there working day in and day out, throughout this pandemic.

And especially, before I thank the front-line workers, I want to give a shout-out to unsung heroes: the truck drivers of this province. They are ensuring that they are stocking the shelves at the supermarkets. They are ensuring that we get food throughout this pandemic.

And of course I want to thank all the front-line care workers for their dedication and for their hard work during this challenging time.

Mr. Speaker, as Ontario’s parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation, I have had the opportunity to speak with people and organizations from all corners of Ontario. Prior to the pandemic, I had the opportunity to do a four-day northern Ontario driving tour to discuss the ways our government can get Ontario moving and keep our roads and highways safe. People want to be able to get around more easily. They want more choices, more convenient transportation options. And that’s why it’s important to study this bill, the Building Transit Faster Act, at the Standing Committee on Social Policy, even during this difficult time, Mr. Speaker.

In my riding of Scarborough–Rouge Park, I regularly hear from unhappy commuters who live in an urban community with limited transit options to connect people with places where they need to go. We need a safe and a reliable transportation network that helps people travel easily within their community, but also provides seamless connections to large city centres and economic hubs.

Our government understands that a safe, efficient and connected transportation network is the foundation of a healthy and prosperous province. Getting to your destination shouldn’t leave you stressed or angry by the time you arrive. Whether it’s during the pandemic or post-pandemic, it is important. We need to keep our people and goods moving efficiently and fast.

For too long, the families, neighbours and communities in our ridings and right across the GTA have been stuck waiting for past governments to deliver transit options that address the productivity-killing congestion we face, but those days are over, Mr. Speaker. Since Premier Ford unveiled the historic GTA subway expansion plan last April, our government’s foot has been on the gas. The legislation that Minister Mulroney introduced, the Building Transit Faster Act, is proof that our government is done waiting and we are taking action now.

Our government is committed to building a world-class transportation network for the GTA that will boost economic growth and relieve congestion and get people to work and home to their loved ones faster. Our government is building better public transit and transit infrastructure, delivering faster service and putting people first by making public transit an attractive, affordable and low-stress alternative for individuals and families.

Mr. Speaker, we are making the single largest capital contribution to new subway builds and extensions in Ontario’s history and creating a truly integrated regional transit plan. To do this, we are taking a new approach to the way we think about and deliver major transit projects. And that’s why it’s important to have this motion 77 to authorize the Standing Committee on Social Policy to study Bill 171, the Building Transit Faster Act.

The old way of doing things led to costly delays again and again, and it’s time to look forward. We need to do things differently, and that is what this legislation is all about and that is why it is important to discuss and study this bill in the Standing Committee on Social Policy.

I’m pleased to say that if this Bill 171 passes, the Building Transit Faster Act will cut bureaucratic red tape and break down the roadblocks that have held up projects in the past. It will help us meet our ambitious timelines for our priority subway projects and deliver the transit network that people desperately need.

Our government has made cutting red tape a priority in everything we do, and this proposed legislation is a great example of how doing that can make a huge difference. By cutting red tape and redundant, outdated steps in the transit delivery process, we stand to save years in the delivery of our priority rapid transit projects, while still respecting property rights and negotiating in good faith.

While we are determined to eliminate roadblocks that cause delays, we are also committed to maintaining a collaboration-first approach with our municipal partners and stakeholders. As Minister Mulroney has explained, there are six key challenges that this legislation and the supporting regional changes address.

There are four projects that are very exciting for the people who live and work right here in the GTA. We are delivering the largest subway expansion in Canadian history, increasing the length of the current system by over 50%. With the new partnership between the province of Ontario and the city of Toronto, we are delivering a unified plan to modernize and expand our subway network.

People need to get home to their families quicker, and everyone deserves to enjoy all that the GTA has to offer. Our plan will help people get around more easily so they can spend less time travelling and more time doing the things they want.

Another important reason, even during this pandemic time, that we should study this bill in our standing committee is because this bill has a historic investment—I’m very proud to be part of the government that has this historic investment—of a $28.5-billion subway expansion.

This subway plan is now endorsed by the province, Mayor Tory and city council. It’s realistic, attainable and deliverable. It will bring subway infrastructure to new neighbourhoods across Toronto, Markham and Richmond Hill, and it will make a huge difference in the lives of families and commuters all across the GTA.

To respect physical distancing, the government will seek to continue the agreement among the parties and independent members to limit the number of members in the chamber at any given time and to allow members to sit, speak and vote from any seat in the chamber. Similar to that, having these studies in committee will enable that we fast-track, enable that we don’t delay these important bills. That is why I’m proud to stand here today to debate motion 77 and especially this bill, Bill 171.

Now, I want to point out a couple of key infrastructure projects that we are working on, on these four priorities.

Number one, I want to highlight the Yonge North extension. If we continue the process to pass Bill 171, the Yonge North extension will be delivered by 2029-30. It will extend the TTC’s Line 1 to major employment centres in the cities of Markham and Richmond Hill. It will stretch from Finch station to Richmond Hill Centre and will provide a much-needed transit connection to York region. Plus, it will maintain direct subway access in the downtown core for thousands of commuters and open up new destinations in York region for Toronto subway riders.

This will also help Etobicoke neighbourhoods. They will enjoy increased transit access with the Eglinton Crosstown West Extension, which will also enable future expansion into Pearson International Airport. Finally, our city is within reach of a subway system that directly connects to an international airport—a real benchmark of a world-class city.

Finally, something that I’m particularly excited about is the Scarborough subway extension. If we continue this legislation and continue the study in the standing committee, this project will finally bring a long-awaited subway line for the residents of Scarborough by 2029-30. For too long, Scarborough has been treated as second class when it comes to rapid transit. The people of Scarborough deserve a subway, and more than just a one-stop subway. Under our government, it’s happening, and as a proud resident of Scarborough, I couldn’t be happier.

Together, these projects will transform Toronto’s subway network into one that people can be proud of for generations to come. That means more than lines on the map; it means real, tangible benefits for people across the region.

More subways and a more connected network mean people can get where they need to go faster and more reliably. In this time and age, instead of riding on a crowded bus, thousands more people will be able to hop on a subway and get where they’re going in minutes. That makes it easier and much less stressful to get to work on time, to get to appointments, to school etc. Making transit more convenient and lower-stress means more people will choose it as an option every day.

These four new subway projects will get thousands more people on transit and help reduce congestion on roads. That’s especially important when you consider the one million-plus people who are expected to move into the GTA in the next decade. Less congestion means less time wasted sitting in traffic and fewer greenhouse gas emissions. It will cut down on billions in lost productivity costs each and every year. These projects will give thousands of people more direct access to rapid transit near their homes and workplaces. This will vastly improve the quality of life for the people who live and work in these areas.

Plus, with connections to other subway lines, with surface routes and the GO network, these projects will make getting around the region a much more seamless experience. New neighbourhoods and destinations all over the city will be reachable by rapid transit, including some of the city’s premier tourist attractions, such as Exhibition Place and the Ontario Science Centre. That’s great news for families. The people of Toronto will finally have a transit network they can be proud of and will no longer be looking at other major cities and their neighbours with jealousy.

Thousands of people across the city will be able to get to their job faster and more reliably, and thousands more will be able to walk out of transit stations and be at their workplace within a matter of a 10-minute walk. The projects will create new job opportunities in neighbourhoods that are currently underserved by transit, and these new subway projects will generate billions in economic benefits. This is an incredible achievement, one that we can all be proud of.

Our plan to build transit faster, if passed, will provide reliable connections and complete travel experiences sooner to support healthy and sustainable communities. We are focused on building transit practically and responsibly to get shovels in the ground sooner. In order to get shovels in the ground sooner, we need to study this bill and we need to study this bill in this standing committee. Our plan is building faster, and that’s why, even during this time, we are discussing motion 77.

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

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Mr. Thanigasalam has moved that the question now be put. I understand there has been six hours and 55 minutes of debate on this motion so far and 21 members have spoken to it. I’ve reviewed some of the precedents, and I’m satisfied that there has been sufficient debate to allow this question to be put to the House at this time.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: No.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Don’t test me.

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

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

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

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

Vote deferred.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Orders of the day?

Hon. Paul Calandra: No further business.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): This House stands in recess until 10:15 this morning.

The House recessed from 1010 to 1015.

Members’ Statements

Soins de longue durée

M. Gilles Bisson: Durant cette pandémie, il y a beaucoup de monde dans nos communautés à travers l’Ontario qui ont travaillé d’une manière acharnée pour être capable de donner les services nécessaires à la population, les services nécessaires à ceux qui ont été malades faisant affaire avec la COVID-19. On le sait, dans le secteur de santé, dans nos hôpitaux, dans nos centres de santé communautaire, dans les bureaux des médecins, dans les maisons d’hébergement de soins de longue durée et dans la communauté, il y a beaucoup de monde qui travaille d’une manière assez importante pour nous donner ces services.

On regarde particulièrement ce qui s’est passé dans certaines maisons d’hébergement. C’est vraiment tragique, qu’on a eu cette situation, et c’est quelque chose qui n’est pas une surprise. Je pense que la plupart de la population, s’ils payaient attention à l’Assemblée pour assez longtemps—vous allez savoir que les néo-démocrates ont soulevé ces questions de combien de services par heure auxquels chacun de ces résidents ont droit.

Si on va faire des changements à ce système, je crois que ces changements doivent être faits en collaboration avec tout le monde dans cette Assemblée et avec la population. On a besoin de regarder comment ajouter des services domiciles, pour s’assurer qu’on donne l’option aux personnes qui sont capables de rester à la maison avant d’être envoyées à une maison d’hébergement.

Et avec ça, monsieur le Président, je vous remercie pour cette déclaration.

Anti-racism activities

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: I would like to recognize that many people in our province are deeply hurt, frustrated, outraged and saddened by the violence that has occurred across American cities over the past week. In particular, Black communities in Ontario have expressed sorrow and despair over historical and modern-day slavery and racism.

This includes business leaders like Farley Flex and advocates like Jamil Jivani, and it makes me think of individuals in my riding of Barrie–Innisfil, like when I went to the Black Women in Business event and there were community leaders such as Claudine Cousins, the CEO of Empower Simcoe; Stephanie Gourlie, the owner of Discount Granite Plus; and Shelly Skinner, the owner of Shelly Skinner Events. I think of Shak Edwards, who organizes Cure Courts every year, a charity basketball tournament to raise money for mental health and help youth cope with mental illness.

All of these leaders speak up, and they want to speak up to elevate and lift those around them to reach their full potential, whether they be women in business, a community advocate or an athlete in our community.

Our government is committed, Mr. Speaker, to doing our part to address community concerns, and will continue to engage with community voices calling for a more just society.

Front-line workers

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: I want to begin by acknowledging the thousands of front-line workers across Windsor-Essex who are showing up for our community every day throughout the pandemic. They are working long hours, making sacrifices and putting themselves at risk. I can’t thank them enough for their contributions.

Yet the government’s pandemic pay program has shown my community that not all front-line workers are being considered equal. So many people who put themselves at risk every day are not being recognized with pandemic pay. I’ve been contacted by many workers in high-risk environments who have been left out. However, Premier Ford says that no one else will be added to the list, making workers feel as though the line has been drawn which separates those the Premier feels are deserving and those he deems unworthy.

For those individuals who are eligible, there are issues, as well. The Premier refuses to make pandemic pay retroactive to the start of the state of emergency. Some eligible workplaces still haven’t heard from the government at all, and ultimately, no one has actually received pandemic pay yet, even though it was announced in April. They’re still waiting for the recognition that they deserve.

Some workers told me that they had to quit one or more jobs at retirement homes and long-term-care homes because of the government’s order to limit movement between workplaces. While this was important to stop the spread of the virus, it means that some folks who put in hard work in high-risk environments and were then forced to quit will not receive pandemic pay for the time that they put in.

The bottom line is that Premier Ford continues to call front-line workers heroes, yet he’s excluding people and delaying the recognition they deserve. Worse yet, many of these workers were already underpaid part-time employees cobbling together an income through several jobs before the pandemic. This Conservative government did nothing to help them then, and they’re failing to help them now. These workers deserve so much better.

COVID-19 response

Mr. Deepak Anand: Mr. Speaker, the global pandemic has challenged all of us. Our lives have come to a grinding halt. Many people have lost their lives, more have become sick, and even more have lost their jobs and livelihood. Yet across Ontario, beyond the numbers, beyond the terrible headlines, there are countless stories of compassion, co-operation, innovation and enterprise.

During this tough time, I was able to witness a ray of hope, in the form of organizations like Sai Dham, Seva Food Bank, Malton Women Council, Malton Masjid, Jame Masjid, Superfan Nav Bhatia Foundation, Ram Mandir, Saigon Park, Yogi Divine Society, YMCA of Greater Toronto Area, United Sikhs, Canada India Foundation, Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at, My Indians in Canada Association, Care4Cause, Punjabi Food Seva, Sew and Save, and many other organizations that have come forward to help the community.

“Ontario spirit” is the name Premier Ford has given to the actions of companies in competition coming together to build ventilators, elected members working together above party lines, organizations and individuals donating cash and in kind to help those in need, retirees coming back to work to pick up the baton and join the battle. Across Ontario, volunteers have gone above and beyond to help, from neighbours doing grocery runs to sewing circles making masks, to restaurants sending food, to children creating colourful thank-you notes. That is the Ontario spirit.

Tough times are a test time. To every single Ontarian, I want to say thank you for inspiring me, and thank you for your Ontario spirit.

Employment standards

Mr. Taras Natyshak: It’s an honour to be here today. First, I want to thank our first responders and those on the front lines, during this crisis and the global pandemic, around the world who have been protecting our communities.

Indeed, COVID-19 has exposed the vulnerabilities that we have as a society, has laid bare those inequities that we know exist and continue to exist.

Speaker, if anything, we know now that we are only as safe a society as the most vulnerable among us. As we learn more about the effects of COVID-19 and how it fragments our society, we only have to look at those who produce and provide us with safe nutrition: our farm workers, and specifically our migrant farm workers who are now at the epicentre of this outbreak. We are seeing that happen across and around the province.

Those are issues that we could have and should have addressed through regulation in this House and at the federal level, to offer them the same protections that other workers around the province have and continue to have, that have kept them safe: access to PPE; the ability to self-isolate; clean, affordable—and accessible living standards. Those are basic fundamentals that are putting not only them but our entire society in peril.

Speaker, we can do better. We must do better. These are the issues that this House has to be determined to address. I truly hope that we endeavour to do that.

COVID-19 response

Mr. Norman Miller: I want to thank the many individuals, businesses and service clubs across Parry Sound–Muskoka that are helping us get through the COVID-19 pandemic. There are way too many to list, but I would like to mention a few.

The Parry Sound Rotary Club, from the beginning, partnered with Sobeys to deliver groceries, and the Bracebridge Rotary Club donated grocery gift cards to families in need.

The Lions Clubs have donated to our food banks, and the Goodfellows Masonic Lodge and Waubuno Shrine Club made a large donation to the West Parry Sound Health Centre.

Muskoka Brewery has produced hand sanitizer for the hospital and others.

The Muskoka Builders’ Association raised more than $100,000 for our hospitals and food banks.

Various restaurants have provided food for our health care workers.

Noveltymann embroidery in Huntsville and West Parry Sound Health Centre Auxiliary have put their sewing skills to use, making masks, while the Parry Sound Sewing Centre produced gowns for the hospital staff.

True North Printed Plastics has been making face shields, while Huntsville High School student Caden Leadston has 3D-printed ear savers for our health care workers.

Tim Horton Memorial Camp donated all their food to the Parry Sound Harvest Share food bank.

Deerhurst Resort donated their supply of PPE to Muskoka Algonquin health centre and perishable food to the Huntsville Table food bank.

These are just a few examples of how people and businesses around my riding are showing the Ontario spirit and supporting their communities through this difficult time. As things reopen, it’s our community’s turn to show support for our local businesses. I encourage everyone to shop local as much as possible to help our local businesses recover.

Commercial tenant protection

Miss Monique Taylor: During this pandemic, I have heard from many small business owners in my riding of Hamilton Mountain. They all did the right thing and closed down during COVID-19, but now they’re afraid that their businesses won’t survive this pandemic.

Yesterday, I spoke to Christena, a small-business owner who runs a dance studio. Her landlord owns 60 commercial properties and is refusing to buy in to the program, and not only that, he’s raising her maintenance fees by 30%.

I also spoke to Teresa, who owns several hair salons. She understands that she needs to stay closed to help stop the spread. But the federal loan that she was able to receive only provides her with one month’s worth of rent for her businesses, and she is uncertain when the beauty industry will be able to operate again.

Ontario needs to do more to help its small businesses. Tax deferrals just mean that they have to pay down the line. Without a commercial rent subsidy or commercial eviction programs, we are going to lose small businesses that make our community vibrant and livable. It’s time for the government to listen to small businesses and take real action to help them weather this pandemic.

St. Jacobs Farmers’ Market

Mr. Mike Harris: This week is Local Food Week here in Ontario, a time to celebrate the agri-food producers and farmers that work so hard to feed our families.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the farmers in my riding have been working overtime to help keep our plates full of delicious local food. My family is always looking for ways to buy local food. One of our favourite summer activities is visiting the St. Jacobs market, which you will know very well, Mr. Speaker. It’s in the township of Woolwich, right in the heart of Kitchener–Conestoga.

While the market is typically in full swing by now, like most local attractions and retailers, things are looking very different this year.

I know that I was not the only one who was excited to hear that the St. Jacobs market received the green light to be able to reopen on June 4. We will once again be able to enjoy some of the best that Ontario has to offer.

The market has been supporting their vendors and working with the region of waterloo public health officials and municipal leaders during this difficult time, and I want to commend them for this. Physical distancing measures will be in place as well as additional cleaning and sanitation protocols to keep both vendors and customers safe.

St. Jacobs market is a staple of summer in my riding, and I am grateful for all of those who have worked hard to develop this plan. I look forward to being able to stop by and support our local vendors very soon in Waterloo region.

Réponse à la COVID-19 / COVID-19 response

M. Stephen Blais: J’aimerais profiter de cette occasion pour dire à quel point je suis fier des membres de la communauté et des travailleurs de première ligne à Orléans, qui sont forts et résilients. Chaque jour, je suis inspiré par leurs incroyables gestes de gentillesse et leur dévouement à s’entraider.

Le Rendez-vous des aînés francophones d’Ottawa a poursuivi son précieux rayonnement communautaire en offrant une programmation virtuelle aux aînés francophones d’Orléans. Il s’agit d’un excellent exemple d’un organisme essentiel qui utilise la technologie pour continuer à établir des liens avec les populations plus vulnérables.

Organizations like the Orléans community resource centre and the Eastern Ottawa Community Resource Centre provide vulnerable families with the support they need every day and especially during this recent crisis.

The recent Together, Apart virtual concert saw thousands of residents come together online to enjoy local music and raise valuable awareness and money for these important community organizations.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the events of this last week have cast a dark cloud across our community, both here in Ontario and across North America. But in that darkness, I continue to be inspired by the work of local sports organizations like the Orléans Bengals Football Club. Their outreach programs have been recognized by both mental health advocates and municipal leaders for the positive impact they have in the community.

The Bengals are now putting the focus of these efforts to combatting racism, leading the way to eradicate racism amongst our youth before it takes root by embracing diversity, inclusivity and love. I want to thank them for their community leadership and ask everyone to “Be a Bengal, Not a Bully.”

COVID-19 response

Mr. Stephen Crawford: We know these are very difficult times for everybody. There are shining examples in the Oakville community of people doing great work, helping our community and those who need some help, and this needs to be recognized.

Since COVID-19 began, James Montague has been organizing meals to seniors homes as well as drive-bys for Special Olympians. The idea behind the birthday drive-bys was to show support and love for someone while respecting physical distancing.

For the past four weeks, Zumin, a local real estate company, has been coordinating with local food companies to deliver food to front-line workers, whether they are paramedics or work in retirement homes, the Kerr Street Mission, Halton Women’s Place, among others.

Oakville resident and realtor Shawn Fang, along with the Oakville Chinese community, has coordinated and helped donate thousands of N95 masks and other PPE supplies. Their outstanding work is going to the Oakville hospital, Halton police and Ian Anderson House, among others.

Arthouse is a Halton charity that has been enhancing the creativity and the positive well-being of children in Halton for over 11 years. COVID-19 has dramatically affected lives of Arthouse families and kids’ access to school breakfast programs and after-school programming. Kerr Street Café, a local business very close to my constituency office, is helping Arthouse by providing meals to families in need through the Arthouse program.

Finally, I would like to also acknowledge there is actually an anonymous Oakville physician who has donated $200,000 to local food relief efforts.

We should thank these people for all their great work. It’s the Ontario spirit.

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

Voting

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I understand the government House leader has a point of order.

Hon. Paul Calandra: I am seeking unanimous consent to move a motion without notice respecting the voting procedure today and tomorrow.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Mr. Calandra is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion without notice respecting the voting procedure today and tomorrow. Agreed? Agreed.

Government House leader.

Hon. Paul Calandra: I move that, for any recorded division today and tomorrow, members may rise and be counted from the public galleries.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Mr. Calandra has moved that, for any recorded division today and tomorrow, members may rise and be counted from the public galleries. Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry? Carried.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Timmins on a point of order.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Just before we go into question period, we realize the Premier may be held up, so we’re asking unanimous consent to stand down our leads.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Mr. Bisson is seeking unanimous consent of the House to stand down the lead questions from the official opposition. Agreed? I heard a no.

Decorum in the chamber

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Before I ask for oral questions this morning, I seek the indulgence of the House to make a brief statement.

Since the declaration of emergency in the province of Ontario due to the novel coronavirus pandemic, this House has sat eight days, including today. By and large, these sitting days have been characterized by an exceptional degree of co-operation by members on both sides of the House, setting aside partisanship and working together. In the 30 years I have been privileged to serve here, it has been unprecedented. At times, I thought the Speaker’s position might even be declared redundant, such was the harmony that existed in this House. Thank you for making my job so much easier.

We have asked the people of Ontario to sacrifice much in our collective effort to combat and contain the deadly virus. Their lives have been upended by COVID-19, but they have shown endurance, resilience, courage and their belief that we will get through this together, and that Ontario will emerge from it stronger than ever before. And we will.

The people have listened and responded to your leadership. They have a renewed sense of faith and trust in all of you, which you have earned by your compassion, your hard work and your willingness to work together across party lines. Just as we have since March, in the coming weeks and months, they will be looking to us, their elected representatives, to chart the course forward for the province, whether we serve on the government’s side or whether we serve on the opposition side of the House.

While we won’t agree on many things, we can strive to ensure that the words and expressions we choose to use in debate, the tenor and tone of that debate, and the strategy and tactics that we employ are worthy of the sacrifices we’ve asked our constituents to make.

You have entrusted me to serve as your Speaker, and I am asking that you keep this in mind at all times when you are in the chamber. As has been said so often of late, extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. Let us continue to show respect for one another and let us continue to make the people of Ontario proud of their provincial Parliament.

It is now time for oral questions.

Question Period

Long-term care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Before I begin my first question to the Premier, I think it’s important to acknowledge the pain and anger and anguish and frustration that is unfolding around the United States as well as around the world with the murder of George Floyd, and the protests against anti-Black racism that are everywhere, and also acknowledge the loss of Regis Korchinski-Paquet, a young Black woman with mental health issues whom we lost last week. I’m hoping her family can get the answers that they deserve.

Earlier this morning, I spoke with yet another family coping with devastating loss following the death of a loved one in our broken long-term-care system, this time at Royal Rose Place in Welland. Tammy Coutu wasn’t informed that her grandmother had contracted COVID-19 until hours before her death. Like thousands of others, Tammy is demanding answers.

The Premier has not only refused to call an independent judicial inquiry, but last week Tammy learned the government maintains a list of high-risk red homes, but refuses to tell families which homes are on it. Will the Premier tell Tammy today whether the home where her grandmother died was on that list?

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

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you for the question. Our government has been clear that our number one priority is to the residents and long-term-care staff in homes that are affected. The well-being and safety of residents and staff is a commitment of our government.

Fighting fiercely against COVID-19, we have taken tools and measures on an ongoing basis, and we’ve acted swiftly to assess and make sure our homes are protected as much as possible. We have done that.

The red homes are a priority, and we work with Ontario Health, our Ontario public health system, hospitals and the emergency teams that are going in on an ongoing basis to help our long-term-care home staff. We have a sense of urgency, and that’s exactly what we have been doing all along, and our government is transparent.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My supplementary is also to the Premier. This weekend, families in Vaughan were shocked to learn about a COVID-19 outbreak at the Woodbridge Vista Care Community, a long-term-care facility that was operated by the same corporation currently facing lawsuits following the armed forces report into extreme neglect at their Altamont facility. Staff at Woodbridge Vista say they have no confidence in the management’s ability to handle the crisis. They’re pleading with the government to take control of this facility. The Premier thus far has refused.

Will the Premier tell staff and families of residents of the Woodbridge Vista facility whether that home is on the government’s secret list of high-risk red homes?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you for your important question.

When we look and assess the homes, there are many eyes to determine how we are going to help these homes. It is a collaborative effort that we use. When the process is taking a very long time for the homes to be able to stop the spread of COVID and contain COVID, when it’s taking longer than we anticipate, that is a moment in time when we determine it is necessary to have a mandatory management order. We’ve worked with hospitals to help with that.

This is a collaborative effort, but when it comes right down to it, our government has said that everything is on the table. We will do what is necessary to shore up these homes. I’ve said before that COVID-19 has a devastating impact on long-term-care homes. We’ve taken measure after measure and used all tools possible to address this. We will continue to do that, to help to our homes and our residents and staff.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My final supplementary is also to the Premier. Last week, the Premier said this: “You deserve to know what I know as Premier.” That’s what he said: “You deserve to know what I know as Premier.” But the reality for thousands of families is that they’ve been left in the dark. They’re unable to visit their loved ones, unable to get basic information about what’s going in inside the homes where their loved ones reside.

The government has refused to commit to an independent judicial inquiry, and now they’re refusing to even reveal which homes are dangerously unsafe. Why is the government so unwilling to expose the failures inside these for-profit facilities?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you for the question.

Our number one priority is the safety and well-being of our residents in long-term care, and the staff and their families. It is a guiding principle that we have consistently adhered to during this whole process. This is a war with COVID-19, there is no doubt—globally, nationwide and in our province.

In terms of how we address issues with licensees, an application to change a licensee on any home is looked at with rigour. We address those issues. An independent commission will allow us to move and advance the needs of long-term-care residents, their families and staff.

Communication is a key part of this, and the homes that have come in and had assistance from hospitals are doing much better with that.

Long-term care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier, but I have to say that nothing at all that has happened in terms of oversight of long-term care in this province has been done with rigour for decades. Nothing has been done with rigour.

The government’s own website says that the resident quality inspection, or RQI, is a comprehensive, unannounced, systematic and detailed review. Because they are unannounced, private care home providers can’t sweep problems under the rug when the inspectors arrive.

Last year, they only completed nine RQI inspections—nine inspections for 626 long-term-care homes. By the way, in 2020 this government has conducted zero thus far—zero RQI inspections in 2020.

This government knew in January the potential for this virus to hit our long-term-care homes and knew it was a big possibility. Why did they not complete a single RQI inspection in long-term care leading up to the pandemic?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Long-Term Care.

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you for the question.

There is need for absolute clarity in terms of the inspections. Our government has been committed to making sure that the safety and well-being of our residents in long-term care is the priority. Our ministry conducted almost 3,000 inspections. These were not notified inspections; these were random inspections.

We’ve had public health risk assessments of all of the homes. Public health goes in and does food inspections and kitchen inspections. Our hospitals have done IPAC assessments. We are making sure that many eyes are on these homes.

We also anticipated that with the coming of COVID. We knew that we needed to take action to make sure that we had as much support for these homes as possible, and that’s exactly what we did.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My supplementary is back to the Premier, Speaker. The government has had a secret list of which are the most problem-plagued homes in the province. The former government called them “high-risk.” As we know, this government calls their secret list “red homes.” They knew which homes were the most at risk for problems, but they still didn’t do an annual RQI inspection in them. Worse still, in the first three months of the year they did nothing—nothing at all—to prepare these so-called red homes for the pandemic. They didn’t stockpile PPE. They certainly didn’t ensure that they had hired enough staff.

Does the Premier still think it’s unacceptable that his government didn’t conduct a single comprehensive resident quality inspection of long-term-care homes in the crucial months leading up to the COVID-19 pandemic?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Long-Term Care.

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you for the question. To be absolutely clear, there were almost 3,000 inspections. There were annual inspections. There were public health assessments. There were IPAC, or infection prevention and control, assessments. There were ongoing assessments. Looking at how we could maintain the safety of the people going into the homes was paramount. We were working with Public Health Ontario, Ontario Health and Ontario health teams, looking at how we could make sure our homes were supported, so this is something that has been ongoing.

COVID-19 requires us to adapt quickly and to be responsive, and sometimes to adapt our processes, which is what we’ve had to do. We’ve done it consistently in anticipation. To say that on February 3, with guidance; March 11, with essential visitors; active screening; all the efforts that we’ve made in terms protecting homes—it’s been ongoing, it’s been swift and it’s been decisive. We need to be absolutely accurate on this information.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It has been nothing at all like swift, and it has been nothing at all like decisive. In fact, it has been quite the opposite, which is why we’ve had over 1,600 deaths in long-term care as of this date.

Eatonville Care Centre in Etobicoke is in the Premier’s own backyard. It’s a privately operated home that hasn’t had a thorough resident quality inspection since 2017. In the last two years, it’s obvious that problems that inspectors had long identified have even gotten worse. This is the type of facility that should have been thoroughly and randomly inspected annually, but this government refused to undertake thorough RQI inspections across the board.

In April, we joined the front-line health care workers calling for the government to take over the management of Eatonville, something that took them six more weeks and the death of 11 residents to finally do. Why did the government fail to inspect and handle the serious COVID-19 outbreak at the Eatonville facility?

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

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you for the question.

Our government is committed to the safety and well-being of residents. There have been almost 3,000 inspections. There have been annual inspections. There are public health assessments. There are food inspections. These are ongoing. Many eyes have been on these homes, which is exactly why we took the measures that we did to bring in the Canadian Armed Forces, understanding that these homes were under siege by COVID-19. This was, leading up to this point, also a collaborative approach, to make sure that our staff in our long-term-care homes had the support that we could provide.

But above and beyond that, COVID-19 was taking a toll. That is why we moved decisively to bring in the armed forces at our homes’ time of need and the province’s time of need, and that’s what we did. Eatonville has been supported. Trillium hospital is in there, has been for weeks, and this will continue. The mandatory management orders will be ongoing until we can get these stabilized.

Long-term care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. But I have to say, this government has been very slow and very indecisive. If the homes were under siege by COVID-19 and the siege was successful, it was because this government did not protect the vulnerable residents in long-term care.

The Rose of Sharon Korean Long-Term Care Home has been a vital provider of care, and the only facility in the province dedicated to the Korean community. They haven’t had a single case of COVID-19 infection, which is why the community is worried. The government has received an application to transfer ownership of the home to Rykka, one for the for-profit private providers who operate two of the worst-infected homes in the province, at Eatonville and Hawthorne Place.

Will the government do the right thing and stop any transfers of licences of long-term-care facilities to private, for-profit operators during this pandemic?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Long-Term Care.

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: As I’ve said numerous times, our government has taken swift action and decisive action for our homes and used every measure and every tool possible.

In terms of the case that you’re mentioning, an application to change the licensee on this home has been received by the Ministry of Long-Term Care. But a change of licensee goes through a rigorous examination, and that will be the case in this situation. No final decision has been made. But let me assure this House that all considerations will be examined.

I want to take the opportunity to say that many of our homes have managed heroically during this pandemic that has affected long-term-care homes across the globe with devastation that is unprecedented. Some 70% of our homes right now are not in outbreak, and we’re moving in a direction of support and improvement. I hope that all of you will collaborate to support our long-term-care homes and help them get what they need.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This is my final supplementary. That would make eight questions. I’m hoping the Premier can answer this one.

The community has reason to be worried. Things are so bad at Eatonville that the military actually had to be called in to try to save residents, after countless people died and many more were infected by COVID-19. The community doesn’t want to see a private, for-profit operator with a record of COVID outbreak to take over. They don’t want to see that happen to their home. There should be no expansion of for-profit long-term-care homes during this crisis, and there should be no expansion of for-profit long-term care until all enquiries and all investigations are completed in this province.

Will the government stand with the Korean community and refuse to transfer the licence of the Rose of Sharon facility to this for-profit agency?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: As I said, a rigorous examination of this issue will be ongoing. We will make sure that it is a thoughtful process and adheres to what is required for this home and for the residents. The safety and well-being of residents and staff is our government’s number one priority. That’s exactly why we’ve been working on across the board with public health, Ontario Health, Ontario health teams, an integrated system to make sure that well-being is supported in our homes.

No doubt, the homes have been struggling, some of them. But if we look at the data, resident cases are at the lowest number since April 15. Staff cases are at the lowest point since April 20. As of May 31, there were 19 homes in red, and in the first week of May, there were 34 homes. So we are making substantial progress.

These efforts must be ongoing, and I hope that you will be part of the solution. Please be part of the solution.

Economic reopening and recovery

Mr. Jim McDonell: My question is to the Premier. Premier, I’m proud of our government’s prudent, scientific-based approach when it comes to handling this pandemic. Our aim has always been crystal clear regarding the protection of the health and safety of the people of this province while supporting businesses and entrepreneurs, who are the backbone of the economic success in Ontario.

The people of this province have seen this success demonstrated in the phase 1 reopening framework, thanks to their commitment to following the health and safety protocols in place regarding physical distancing measures.

Could the Premier please share with the Legislature what new operations our government has announced to allow our constituents to enjoy the outdoors, while staying safe and practising physical distancing?

Hon. Doug Ford: Thank you to the member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry for the question.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: A hard-working member.

Hon. Doug Ford: He’s one of the hardest-working members. Thank you for that.

Our province continues to fight the spread of this disease and we have seen real, positive results. We’ve seen positive results on the expanded testing, on the tracing, making sure that the public is informed. And I’ve got to thank the 14 and a half million people in this province who have co-operated and listened to the protocols of the Chief Medical Officer of Health. That’s what allowed us to look at stage 2, about regional opening across this province.

We’re going to come up with some answers for that over the next few days, but the number one priority is to make sure that the people of this province stay healthy. We’re going to base that on health and science. We aren’t going to base it on people out there saying, “Open up,” or people protesting outside saying, “Open everything up,” because it wouldn’t be safe. We’re going to do the safe and responsible thing and listen to the medical professionals and listen to the health team. That’s how we’re going to open up.

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

Mr. Jim McDonell: Premier, this is great news, and I know that many of my constituents, along with the rest of Ontario, are very happy to hear about more and more operations restarting. The ability to see a movie with the family or practise batting skills once again is a positive activity that many of my constituents greatly appreciate.

Further, providing more and more outdoor options for people, especially as the days become longer and the weather becomes warmer, is great for people wanting to get some exercise.

Speaker, can the Premier please share with the Legislature the potential next steps our government would consider for potential phase 2 reopening of the economy and the province as we move forward?

Hon. Doug Ford: As we’ve consistently stated, any decision will be based on science and health. Further, I’m not prepared to take unnecessary risks when it comes to health and safety. Because of the strength of our new testing program in place, and encouraging results, we are now comfortable with asking our officials to look at a regional approach for staged openings. This will be one option that we consider as we move to stage 2.

This is one option that we’re putting on the table. We’re only able to do this now because we’re getting great testing results. We’re expanding it right across the province. We’re looking at hot spots, Mr. Speaker—areas in the GTA and even parts of Toronto—because there’s a tale of two provinces here: There’s the rural area, where we haven’t seen the spread, and then there is the urban area, where we’ve seen the spread. So we’re going to do the responsible thing and listen to our health professionals.

Long-term care

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Premier, Speaker. Last week, the Premier indicated that he was going to get tough with private, for-profit long-term-care operators, yet at the same time he revealed that James Schlegel, the CEO of Schlegel Villages Inc., a private, for-profit long-term-care chain, was a key member of the Premier’s Incident Management System Long-Term Care Table. Through his various corporations, Mr. Schlegel has donated upwards of $50,000 to the PC Party since 2007. This includes a donation of $20,000 to the Minister of Health’s leadership bid.

Does the Premier think that it is appropriate for one of his most generous party donors, with a stake in private, for-profit long-term care, to have this important role?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m looking at the Minister of Long-Term Care.

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you, Speaker. This pandemic has hit homes of every type of ownership. We know that the capacity in our long-term-care homes was at 99%. It was a long-standing issue. As well, the staffing was in a crisis leading into the pandemic.

We were addressing both of those things leading into this pandemic. We were making progress, progress that had never been seen before, after almost two decades. Many of you sit here, and you were in a position to make those changes—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Official opposition, come to order.

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: —as an opposition supporting the Liberal government of the time.

So let us deal with facts. Let us deal with the truth. We know that boardrooms play an issue; they are an issue in this. Our capacity was an issue. The staffing—and also regional, looking at where the outbreaks—

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Among other things, the table that Mr. Schlegel sits at is tasked with making decisions about staffing, access to personal protective equipment, and oversight of long-term-care homes, including the ones that Mr. Schlegel owns and operates.

Speaker, the Premier has not invited any nurses or front-line staff onto this decision-making group, even though their leadership and insights have saved countless lives throughout this crisis. They’re good enough to work in these places but not good enough to offer their expertise to make these places better.

Speaker, I heard the long-term-care minister say that everything is on the table. But of course, with this government, not everybody is at that table. Why has this Premier made a space at the table for prominent PC donors who own some of the very homes that he makes decisions about?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: It is no secret that the Ministry of Long-Term Care has consulted across the board to understand the issues that were so badly neglected for many years. We say Ontarians have questions, and we want to answer those questions. Our long-term-care sector and those who work on the front lines also have information that is helpful to us. We need to understand from all corners what we can do to improve the situation. We need to be listening, we need to acknowledge and we need to find solutions. That’s going to take all of us. The problems in long-term care are bigger than—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. The Minister of Long-Term Care will take her seat, please. The member for Essex will come to order. The Premier will come to order.

Start the clock. I recognize the Minister of Long-Term Care.

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: The problems in long-term care have been long-standing. It behooves us all to work together to get the information we need and to listen to our sector, the front-line workers and beyond. That is exactly why we are having an independent commission: to be able to have public hearings, to have a public report—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Hamilton Mountain, come to order.

The next question.

Commercial tenant protection

Mr. Randy Hillier: My question is for the Premier. Premier, you’ve stated quite clearly, “The people have a right to know what I know.” I agree. However, you seem to have forgotten that democracy is a two-way street. For it to function properly and effectively, you need to know what members know, and what they are hearing from their constituents.

Unlike your cardboard cut-outs, Dale Moore is a real person. He’s worked all his life. He’s contributed to society. He saved diligently and had a dream to own his own business. He was set to open his business on March 17, the day you shuttered his dreams and turned them into a nightmare.

Dale’s financial capacity has been exhausted. He faces financial ruin under your state of emergency. Dale is one of thousands of unseen tragedies of your government. Premier, why do you insist on creating more tragedy for the people who voted for you?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To respond on behalf of the government, the Solicitor General.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: The member opposite talks about people’s lives. I think, more than anything, that is what this emergency motion and this extension are all about.

We are trying to do the right thing, and that means that we are going to extend the declaration of emergency. We can tweak it. We can remove it as we see the numbers go down. But let me be clear, Speaker: This is about protecting people’s lives. That’s why we’re doing it, that’s why we continue to do it, and that’s why you will have the opportunity this afternoon to debate it fully. Thank you.

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: Again to the Premier: For 13 weeks, you’ve frustrated the members of this House from participating in and voting—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Okay, the member will take his seat. The member will take his seat.

The member knows full well that he makes his comments through the Chair and not making direct accusations across the aisle. Address your comments through the Chair.

Mr. Randy Hillier: The executive powers of the unelected are shrouded in darkness and hidden from view, and from their ivory tower they cannot see what we all see.

Like Dale, Erin owns a business, is raising two children, has a mortgage to pay, has food to put on the table, and spousal support payments. Erin’s business is also shuttered, but must still pay the rent, the business and the property taxes.

Speaker, the Premier has placed Erin in an untenable position. He has destroyed the dreams and hopes of many people in Ontario. Will the Premier end this ongoing tragedy and permit members of this House to be involved—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The question to the Premier.

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to answer the member: What we’ve been doing for 13 weeks—I don’t know what you have been doing; I’ve been working 18 hours a day, around the clock, seven days a week, 24 hours a day. I am doing everything I can to help small businesses, to help families get through it, to fix the procurement program, to see the cracks in this ship that were left over from the previous government and propped up 98% of the time by the opposition here. That’s what we’re doing.

We’re being transparent. I’m out there every single day telling the people what I know and what we are doing to fix it. I am proud to say that we finally, finally, after a lot of work, have the procurement system going on the right track. We have enough PPE for everyone across this province. We’re expanding the testing. We’re expanding the tracing. We’re coming up with a great tracing platform, as well. That is what I am doing. I can’t even see straight in the morning because I’m up all night helping people, fixing the problems and returning phone calls. That’s what I’m doing.

Anti-racism activities

Mr. Michael Coteau: My question today is to the Premier. Yesterday marked the third anniversary of the Anti-Racism Act here in Ontario,

an act that committed the government to the following:

—establishing a three year anti-racism strategy;

—implementing the collection of race-based data across ministries;

—organize and conduct ongoing public consultation to provide the public with reporting; and

—create an anti-racism campaign for our education system.

This government has failed to implement even one of these pieces within the act. Premier, the first question I asked you in this Legislature almost two years ago was, “Do you believe systemic racism is real?”, which you failed to answer. I’ll ask you again. Do you believe that systemic racism and anti-Black racism is real? If so, what are you going to do as the Premier of this great province to combat these forms of racism?

Please, have the decency, Premier, to answer this question. You owe it to so many people here in Ontario, as the leader, to answer it.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I recognize the Solicitor General to reply.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I was very honoured when the Premier appointed me the Solicitor General. With that responsibility came the Anti-Racism Directorate.

The work that we have been doing—to reflect the Premier’s comments yesterday, there is nowhere in Ontario where hate and antisemitism and anti-racism is appropriate. We are working together on that. The Anti-Racism Directorate continues to do excellent work, across ministries. We’ve already talked previously about how the Ministry of Health has proactively chosen to trace race-based data when it relates to COVID-19 issues.

Mr. Michael Coteau: Anti-racism isn’t appropriate?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: You know, I understand that the member opposite is agitated, is frustrated, but frankly, so are many of us. We need to make sure that we get this right. We need to allow—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. The supplementary question, member for Scarborough–Guildwood.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: My question is to the Premier. Premier, the 627,000 Black people in this province are heartbroken. We’ve all seen the images of George Floyd and how just devastating it is, who died on the streets at the hands of being detained and restrained by police.

Incidents of racism happen in Ontario, in this province. Years ago, in Scarborough, Patrick Shand was restrained by a security guard, and he too said, “I can’t breathe.” Moments later, he stopped struggling and he died. A coroner’s inquest did change the laws here in Ontario and provided additional training for security guards.

My question, Premier, is that Indigenous, Black, people of colour want to live in this province, not just appropriately, but actually free from racism. It is their right. They want the full enjoyment of all the systems in education, in justice, in society, in the economy. They want to know that their children will not die at the hands of police or anyone else. So my question to you, Premier, right now: Will you tell the people of this province that you are going to be taking concrete steps to eliminate anti-Black racism and racism in all its forms in this province and restore full funding to the Anti-Racism Directorate and the—

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

Premier to reply.

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: What we saw down in the United States, what happened to Mr. Floyd—it was nothing but disgusting, what happened. There’s no room here in the province for racism, not under our government, not under me as Premier. I think my friend over there knows that I’ve always stood up—my family has always stood up for the Black community, anyone in the minority community. We have zero tolerance for racism—zero tolerance.

We’re going to move forward. We’re going to support the Black community and every other minority community here, because we are the most diversified province, jurisdiction, anywhere in North America. That’s why 99% of us, we all get along. There are always bad apples. There are always bad apples, no matter what profession it is. But I can tell you, the Black community knows I have their back, and I’ll always, always have their back. And you know it, and you know it.

Anti-racism activities

Mr. Kevin Yarde: My question is to the Premier. This weekend over 5,000 people from across the GTHA marched for Regis Korchinski-Paquet and against anti-Black racism, and I was honoured to march along with them. They know that Ms. Korchinksi-Paquet’s death is not an isolated incident, but part of a pattern of Black deaths that include D’Andre Campbell in Brampton and countless others. They are calling for an independent investigation into Regis’s death, because people do not trust that the SIU in its current form will bring justice to her family and the community.

How will the Premier ensure an independent, public investigation and justice for Regis when his government refused to adopt the core recommendations from Justice Tulloch’s report and has removed measures to make the SIU more transparent and accountable?

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

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I completely understand why family, friends and community are wanting answers and demanding answers, and they have every right to do that. But I will not make assumptions and jump to conclusions. We need to let the independent SIU do their job. The ability for them to independently investigate this very critical incident is, frankly, what the Paquet family needs, what the community needs, what the policing community needs. We need to let the SIU do their job, without any kind of suggestion of interference politically from your side or our side. Please allow the SIU to do that independent work now so that we can have the answers that the family deserves and we need to know.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Parkdale–High Park.

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: My question is to the Premier. We are hearing from people across the province devastated by Ms. Korchinksi-Paquet’s death and demanding an independent investigation into what happened. They know that when a Black Ontarian or their family calls for help during a mental health crisis, it should not result in their death. For justice for Regis, for her family and Black communities, there must be a full, transparent, independent and public investigation, and steps must be taken to address anti-Black racism in all our institutions.

The Premier could start by restoring the funding to the Anti-Racism Directorate that he gutted and investing in community by funding culturally responsive Black mental health services. Will the Premier commit to making that investment today?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: If I may remind the member opposite and individuals listening, the SIU reports are public. The investigation is independent. We need to allow them to do that work. The independent, arm’s-length civilian oversight body that investigates deaths, serious injuries, allegations of sexual assault that occur in circumstances involving police and civilians—allow them to do that work.

To be clear, again I will say the Anti-Racism Directorate has not had any funding cuts. They continue to do excellent work, and I wish that the members opposite would actually embrace what they’re doing across government to ensure that we have what we need in the province of Ontario for all Ontarians.

Municipal finances

Mr. Stephen Blais: Mr. Speaker, the financial impact of COVID-19 on Ontario’s municipalities is real and it’s staggering. Ontario residents rely on municipalities to provide critical services each and every day, and COVID-19 is crippling their finances. Mississauga is projecting a $100-million shortfall. In Ottawa, they’re burning $1 million a day. And here in Toronto, the capital of our great province, they’re projecting a loss of $1.5 billion. This will mean tens of thousands of Ontario residents are laid off and residents will see massive increases to property taxes and bus fares.

It should be clear to everyone that no economic recovery is possible without a solution to the municipal financial crisis. We’ve called for the establishment of a $4-billion emergency fund. Municipal leaders are pleading for help.

My question is to the Premier: When will the province provide direct operating support to Ontario’s municipalities?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Minister of Finance have been working very closely with our federal partners to bring forward a program. We were very clear in saying that we need assistance from the federal government for our municipalities. Yesterday, I believe, the federal government did advance some funds that had already been committed. That’s a good start, but as the Premier said, we need significant additional funds.

Many of the municipalities had already accounted for the funds that were released by the federal government, that had been previously delayed by the federal government. They’ve already accounted for that in their budgeting.

As we’ve said, we are going to need some additional help from the federal government. I think this is something that you’ve heard from municipalities not only in Ontario, but across the country. Our Premier and the Premiers across Canada have been asking for the federal government to do a bit more to help us on this, and we wait anxiously for that additional support.

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

Mr. Stephen Blais: Mr. Speaker, Toronto’s mayor has said that there have been a lot of encouraging words, and I think we’ve just heard some more, but of course encouraging words don’t pay the bills.

Ontario’s large urban mayors are projecting a $415-million revenue loss in transit for April to June alone. Without provincial leadership, big cities will have no choice but to slash bus routes and raise bus fares. There will be no economic recovery in Ontario if our big cities don’t get back on transit, and transit will fail without provincial leadership. The federal government has said that they’ll be there to support provincial leadership in supporting municipalities and public transit.

To the Minister of Transportation: Will the government guarantee that bus routes won’t be cut and fares won’t go up because of their delay in providing support to transit?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: I thank the honourable member for his question.

We’ve been very clear from the outset that we were going to need the assistance of the federal government in the pan-Canadian response to the COVID-19 crisis. They have been very good partners to this point. But I think the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Ontario association of municipalities have been equally clear that they need additional support and assistance from the federal government.

When he talks about transit and transportation, the honourable member will know that the government has made a significant commitment to transit and transportation across the province of Ontario—almost a $30-billion commitment. There are a number of projects that have been awaiting approval of the federal government when it comes to transit and transportation through the Canada infrastructure program. We made limited progress yesterday when the federal government finally released monies that had already been committed.

But I agree with the member, there is more to do. This government is ready to do more, and we will do it in co-operation with our federal partners, as we have throughout this crisis.

Long-term care

Ms. Jennifer K. French: My question is to the Premier. The military’s account of what went on behind the curtain at Orchard Villa long-term-care home in Pickering is awful. The families of Nina Watt and Paul Parkes and George Morrison are just a few of the almost 80 grieving families wanting to know what happened at Orchard Villa. The city of Pickering is calling for an investigation. Some 5,700 have signed an online petition. There are lawsuits and a call for a criminal investigation.

Families of Orchard Villa wrote to the Premier: “Today we are asking you to begin an independent public