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

August 22, 2022

43rd 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 2022-Aug-22 vol. A (PDF)

L007A - Mon 22 Aug 2022 / Lun 22 aoû 2022

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Monday 22 August 2022 Lundi 22 août 2022

Orders of the Day

Appointment of House officers / Committee membership

Members’ Statements

Government’s agenda

Tenant protection

Arts and cultural funding

Employment standards

Riding of Cambridge

Township of Armstrong sewage lagoon

Grand Rapids Cup

Gun violence

Government’s agenda

Riding of Simcoe–Grey

Introduction of Visitors

Question Period

Health care funding

Long-term care

Education funding

Long-term care

Explosions in Chatham-Kent–Leamington

Long-term care

Northern Health Travel Grant

Disaster relief

Long-term care

Housing

Automotive industry

Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas

Nuclear energy

Social assistance

Fiscal and economic policy

Introduction of Bills

Publication of Mandate Letters Act, 2022 / Loi de 2022 sur la publication des lettres de mandat

Petitions

Hospital services

Optometry Services

Gun violence

Bait management

Optometry services

Optometry services

Orders of the Day

Appointment of House officers / Committee membership

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Appointment of House officers / Committee membership

Resuming the debate adjourned on August 18, 2022, on the motion regarding the appointment of presiding officers and revisions to committee membership.

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: I appreciate the opportunity to rise and speak to this motion. At the outset, let me just say that I believe that all of the individuals put forward as potential presiding officers are exceptional individuals, Mr. Speaker, and a lot of thought went into the decisions that were made. One of the overriding principles, of course, as was highlighted, in part, in a debate over a ruling which you subsequently made, was ensuring that the presiding officers reflect the makeup of Parliament. And I think that we’ve been successful in doing so, Mr. Speaker.

Another principle, of course, as you will know, was ensuring that the presiding officers also had, amongst their ranks, a French-speaking member of provincial Parliament. I think that we have done that. And, again, let me just say that for the officers that have been put forward, they are all people of exceptional calibre. They will do a service to this place. It will be a positive service to this place. They are more than equipped to handle the duties of presiding officers should this House, in fact, vote for them. Let me just also say at the outset that I’ll be splitting my time with the member for Ajax. I am very confident they will have the ability to do so.

I wanted to address some of the other parts in the motion, Speaker, because the motion isn’t just about presiding officers, as you know; it is also about adding people to committees. We have heard from the opposition anger and frustration about committees—people being put on committees that they didn’t ask for and how terrible that is. But let’s back up, Speaker, let’s back up.

On the election, the NDP were reduced to a much smaller contingent than they are now, so by virtue of that, by virtue of how this place works—the standing orders—the NDP were only entitled to have two people serve on each of the standing committees of this Parliament, and they, in fact, lost the chairmanship of one of the other standing committees, which reverted back to the government. And, of course, the independents had to request to be put on to committees.

Now, in order to ensure a vibrant Parliament with oversight, I believe, Mr. Speaker—and I still believe, and the NDP can vote against this because they’re obviously extraordinarily upset by this—that additional members serving on committee would actually be better for Parliament, better for ensuring the quality of debate on committees and, ultimately, for accountability.

So what does this motion do besides the presiding officers, Speaker? It adds a third member to committees for the NDP, and it adds every single independent member to a committee in a field that is consistent with their critic role. I think that’s a very, very important concession from the government in order to do that. It would have been easier, frankly, not to bring this motion forward and just take two members and that be the end of it, and then we could steamroll along as we wanted.

But everything that we have done since we have come into office, whether it be the standing order changes or this motion itself, has been about making this Parliament work better for the people of the province of Ontario.

I’m gratified that we have heard in some of the speeches from the opposition that, in fact, they embrace some of the changes that have been made. Let’s just go over, if we can, some of the changes that we made to committee—because it’s against their will and they didn’t want them. Well, half the NDP caucus, of course, was left off of committee. By virtue of their poor election results, half of them were left off of committee, and we keep hearing how important committees are. In fact, the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane said that this is where the rubber hits the fan, that where the government is held accountable is on committee. I agree, and that’s why we’ve added them.

Let’s look at what we’ve done, the horror of what we are proposing: the member from St. Paul’s, critic for heritage, appointed to that committee—the request was for no committee, but we appointed to that committee.

The member for London–Fanshawe—no committee requested; we have actually honoured that.

The member for Scarborough Southwest—government agencies requested. The member has been put onto government agencies.

The member for Mushkegowuk–James Bay—no committee requested. The member has been put on a committee.

The member for Niagara Centre: no committee requested, and that has been honoured.

The member for Waterloo, the finance critic: We heard this prominent in the member’s speech, that we put the member for Waterloo, the finance critic, on a committee that she didn’t want to be on. We’re forcing her. The member for Timiskaming–Cochrane, again, says, in his words—he talks about how people have better ability to do things, and when he was the finance critic, he wasn’t the best finance critic, but there’s somebody with better skills able to do it—presumably, the member for Waterloo. What do we do? We put her on the finance committee. Now, I ask you, Mr.

Speaker: If the member for Waterloo is not able to do the work on the finance committee, if she’s not the best person, then perhaps they should appoint a different finance critic. It is not my job to decide who is the best critic over there; they can make that decision. In his own words, he undermines his own argument. So imagine that: We’ve put the finance critic for the NDP on the finance committee—my gosh, colleagues, the horror of it, the savagery of such a decision.

But let’s go on. The member for Oshawa was put on procedure and House affairs. The committee request was none. We didn’t have room, but we made room on procedure and House affairs. My understanding is that the member has actually been elected the Chair of procedure and House affairs.

The member for Nickel Belt is on the policy committee that she’s a critic for—request made, request honoured.

The member for Spadina–Fort York requested no committee, and we provided no committee for that person.

The member for Windsor West: mental health and addictions committee was requested, committee honoured.

The member for Ottawa Centre—committee requested, committee honoured.

The member for Parkdale–High Park: The request was to make the member for Parkdale–High Park a presiding officer. The motion reflects that.

The member for London North Centre, critic, economic development and job creation, asked to be on finance and economic affairs—request made, request honoured.

Kitchener Centre—request made, request honoured.

The member for Kiiwetinoong: request made, and, if I’m not mistaken, the member is on the justice committee—and congratulations for being elected the Vice-Chair of that committee, something that in the last Parliament would actually not have happened had it not been for our standing order changes. Colleagues in the last Parliament will remember that when we made this change, the NDP voted against it. They voted against it because they thought we were being too good to the opposition and we were being too bipartisan, and that’s not the way a Parliament is supposed to work. But we said that is the way it’s supposed to work; that’s what makes a Parliament better.

But anyway, they can argue previous decisions to their hearts’ content.

The member for London West is the House leader, and she talks about all these secret meetings we have. I can tell you that there is no secret meeting with the member for London West. Every single House leader meeting we have had, we have a bet in our office of how long it will take for the member to go upstairs and speak to the media. I’ve got to admit, in the last one, I was wrong. I will give it to my assistant Patrick Kelly. He said, “They will go straight up to the third floor.” I said, “No, they’ll go up to their office first. They’ll craft something and then go.” But we were able to watch as they made that slow descent up.

There is never an opportunity where you have a secret meeting with the NDP, because their secret meeting is always a public meeting, right? That’s just it.

Interjection.

Hon. Paul Calandra: They don’t even ask the caucus, right? They just do as they like.

Now, the member for Hamilton West asked to be on the interior committee. It’s a new committee.

Mr. John Yakabuski: What committee is the member on?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Interior committee.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I just want to inform the House: I’d like to be involved in the conversation as well. Okay? Thank you.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Speaker, the member for St. Catharines didn’t ask to be on a committee and, because of how low their numbers were in the last election, was not entitled to be on a committee. But we put the member on the justice committee, because we thought all members should have an opportunity to play a role.

The member for Davenport was not going to be on a committee—not by my request, but by the request of the Leader of the Opposition, that we not put the member for Davenport on a committee. One could only assume that he’s a bit nervous that she might be running for the leadership and he didn’t want to do that. But either way, the people of Davenport deserve to have a member serve on the committee in this Legislature, and we made that happen by putting the member on the interior committee.

The member for Hamilton Mountain requested no committee, and we gave the member no committee. The member for Timiskaming–Cochrane says his skill set really isn’t, in a number of ways—so he requested no committee, and we gave him no committee.

The member for Thunder Bay–Superior North, Speaker—

Interjection: A brand new member.

Hon. Paul Calandra: A brand new member: They didn’t want her to serve on a committee. And by virtue of the fact that their numbers were so decimated, they weren’t eligible to serve on a committee. But how do you say to a new member who is coming here and wants to participate, “You can’t participate for the people of the north”? When this government has made the north such a priority, they wanted to take that opportunity away. So what did we do? We put that member on the public accounts committee. What better way to learn everything that happens here, to have first-hand knowledge of what goes on, Mr. Speaker, than to be on that committee?

The member for Sudbury—again, it seems like they want to ignore the north entirely. The member for Sudbury: not requested to be on a committee. We put the member on a committee. The member for Toronto Centre, a brand new member in this place, asked to be on the justice committee and is serving on the justice committee, Mr. Speaker.

And here you have the NDP arguing against adding an additional member to committee. This isn’t about presiding officers. It’s not about anything. It’s about the fact that the Leader of the Opposition wanted to exclude half of his caucus from serving on a committee. Again, it’s easy for us just to say, “Yes, no problem. We’ll let you only have two. We’ll take seven of the seats. Forget about it.” You know? It’s a lot easier for a Parliament when you have a 7 to 2 advantage. But we said no, because obviously the changes that we made in the last Parliament were reflective of making Parliament work better.

This motion adds a third member, and it adds an independent to every single committee in this House.

Now, the offence goes even further, Speaker, because the opposition then said, in their speeches, they didn’t even know. They didn’t even know. The independents had no idea what committees they were going on. They had no idea. But the reality was, yes, because you know what they did? They reached out and said, “If we could, we would like to serve on a committee.” And what did we do? We said, “Okay, what is your critic role? That’s the committee you’re going to be serving on.” Makes sense to me.

And then, when we reached out to the NDP, that was their list, leaving half of their critics off, leaving the northern members no opportunity to participate. We said, “No, that’s not good enough. It’s not good enough for the people of the north. We’re going to do better and we’re going to give up our seats and we’re going to ensure that the opposition have an opportunity to serve.”

Now, Speaker, they’re going to vote against this. They’re going to vote against this motion, right? Because they have some obscure thought that it’s, I don’t know, punishing their members by not allowing them to serve in this place, which I don’t get when the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane specifically says how important committees are to the process. Well, if they’re that important to the process, then surely the member would want members to serve on committee?

So to the members of the NDP who were excluded by your leadership: Again, this side of the House will stand up for you; this side of the House will make sure that your constituents have the opportunity to be represented on committees, have the opportunity to talk about legislation, bring motions forward, make amendments when bills go to committee, even if your own leadership won’t.

Honestly, I don’t know what has happened to this NDP. I don’t know what has happened. They have become such an insignificant force in Canadian politics. And it’s not just here, right? It’s not just here. We’re seeing this nationally—federally insignificant. The party that once people called the conscience of the House now is nothing more than an angry group of people fighting amongst themselves. It’s not about saying no, Speaker. It’s not about saying no. It’s about tearing down, isn’t it, colleagues? It’s about tearing down, right? When you build things up, the NDP want to tear it down. That’s what they do. They have no options.

When you make Parliament better, they all of a sudden want to tear it down. It’s not even about saying no anymore; it’s about tearing it down because that’s what they’re about. They’re not about policy. They’re not driven by ideology. They’re driven by this crazy belief that if you make things worse, it helps them. So when we talk about Parliament being better, they vote against every single motion. But then, colleagues, outside of the House, or back there, they say, “Oh, thank God you did that. It was terrible, you know? We didn’t like the way it was working before. It was terrible.”

As the long-term care minister, let me digress for a moment. They tell me, “Oh, you can’t build for-profit,” but then what do they do? They come across and say, “Can you approve this home in my riding?” And then, when we approve it, they go on TV and complain that it got approved, because it’s a for-profit home. It’s not about regulation; it’s about tearing down.

Hon. Monte McNaughton: Then they go to the ribbon-cutting.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Right? Yes, then they’re at the ribbon-cutting and they take credit for it. But I digress.

I want to briefly finish off, Mr. Speaker, by talking about the Speakers again. I can’t tell you how the presiding officers—excuse me. I’m very proud of the fact that the member for Flamborough–Glanbrook will be the Deputy Speaker if this motion is passed. I think she—and I know you will agree—is a very qualified, quality individual who has years of experience holding politicians accountable as a newscaster, years of experience serving in municipal politics.

I look at the member from Ottawa–Vanier, I believe it is: a Franco-Ontarian, served on Ottawa council, a strong, independent woman.

I look at the member for Ajax: served as a school trustee for about 10 years; has done so much work in her community; won a seat in this place; is fierce, tough and will do a remarkable job in that chair, Mr. Speaker.

I also look at the member for Parkdale–High Park, who I believe is one of the best MPPs in this place, Mr. Speaker—a very, very tough riding, works very, very hard and I think is a credit to all of us. It doesn’t matter that she’s the first Tibetan. It doesn’t matter who is the first of what who serves in that chair, Mr. Speaker. What matters is, can they do the job and can they elevate this place by the fact that they’re sitting in that chair? That is the ultimate responsibility of a holder of that chair: to make sure that we elevate this place. And what did we hear from the opposition?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Condemnation.

Hon. Paul Calandra: We heard condemnation of these appointments. We heard the member for Oshawa suggest that they didn’t even know that their names were being put forward as Speakers, that they were being used, and that, as women, they shouldn’t be used. Forget the fact that that’s completely and absolutely wrong, that all of the members who were put forward in this motion had the opportunity to decline or accept well in advance, including the member for Ottawa–Vanier. Forget that that is wrong. We then heard speeches about how somehow a decision was made to stop people from being in the chair.

This is where it gets ugly, because this is what the NDP does: You can’t win an election, so you try to tear down the people who beat you, try to tear down the people of the province of Ontario. Well, at some point you have to say no—and you can’t on one hand say, “I’m just a farmer who doesn’t even know where the emergency button is,” and then get in this House and say the words that the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane said, say the things that they did in a press release, say the things that the member for Oshawa and the member for Toronto–St. Paul’s were saying to try to stop us from moving forward with this motion. You can’t have it both ways.

This is one of the most diverse caucuses, one of the strongest caucuses and one of the best governments in order to get things done for people, including this Parliament. And if the opposition thinks that silly games, that press releases and speeches that try to get people angry, calling people racist, is going to somehow make a change, they have not seen the new face of the Conservative Party of Ontario. And there’s not one of us who will back down from that challenge, least of all the extraordinary women being put forward in this motion today.

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: It certainly has been an interesting start to the 43rd Parliament, I have to say. And I also have to say that it has been a very interesting experience for me to serve in the position of House leader for the official opposition in the previous government and continuing in this government. It has been an “interesting” experience, and I use that word carefully, because it puts me in a position of trying to work with a government House leader who has absolutely no interest in ensuring that the processes of democracy function as they are supposed to in this place. I remind—

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Point of order: member for Barrie–Innisfil.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: I just want reference the member—imputing motive as to what our House leader would or wouldn’t do.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I didn’t hear her impute motive.

The member for London West will continue.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Thank you very much, Speaker.

Like many members in this place and, I expect, many of the new members, in particular—many of us were sworn in in July and brought family members and volunteers to this chamber to watch this very powerful and significant moment, as we swear in to serve our constituents in the betterment of the people of the province of Ontario.

I joined the group that had come to attend my swearing-in, the volunteers who had participated on my campaign, in a tour, the official tour, of this assembly. We came into this chamber, and the tour guide pointed to two carvings on each side of this chamber. There is the carving of the eagle that faces the official opposition. The eagle represents the official opposition’s duty to hold the government to account, to make sure that the decisions that are being made by the government are actually in the best interest of the people of Ontario.

The government side looks at the carving of the owl, and that is a constant reminder to the government to make decisions that are thoughtful, that are wise, that are informed, that take into account all of the diversity of this province, the needs of the people of this province, and make good on its responsibility to do the best for the people that we serve.

I want to quote from the throne speech that opened this Parliament, Speaker, the throne speech that sets out the agenda for this government that is supposed to set the tone for how we are going to proceed in the 43rd Parliament. In that throne speech, the Lieutenant Governor, reading from the speech, said, “Now is not the time for partisanship and ideology to trump the virtues of partnership and collaboration.” I thank the Lieutenant Governor for that comment. I thank the government for including that statement in the speech from the throne.

I am saddened, however, that these are mere words, and that is shown by the actions of this government, this government House leader, in terms of the non-collaboration, the non-partnership that we have seen right from the very moment we came together in this place.

I was reading the Hansard of the debate that occurred on this motion on Thursday afternoon, and I do want to thank you, Speaker, for your very measured and thoughtful ruling on the point of order that was raised by my colleague the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane as the official opposition whip.

You pointed out, you confirmed exactly what the point of order had raised, that “a review of the history of the appointment of presiding officers” in this place “reveals that from 1989 to 2018”—a period of 30 years—“the House has appointed members of recognized opposition parties to the maximum allowable number of presiding officer positions. Between 1989 and 2008, where the standing orders provided that up to two opposition members be appointed, the House appointed two. And from 2008 to 2018, when the standing orders provided for up to three opposition members to be appointed, the House appointed three.”

You also noted that this motion that is before us today “represents the first time that less than the maximum number of members from a recognized opposition party has been proposed to fill presiding officer roles, the first time that an independent member has been included in the motion and the first time that the Speaker has been asked to interpret this standing order.”

I don’t envy you or the position that you are in, Speaker, as you are faced with weighing 30 years of tradition, 30 years of productive conversations between the government and the recognized opposition parties on the appointment of presiding officers. I should also say, typically, those motions to appoint presiding officers, the motions to appoint committee members are worked out in advance, through the collaboration and partnership that the throne speech highlighted, the urgency of working in collaboration and in partnership.

Through that process of discussion and collaboration and engagement, the wording of those motions is agreed upon in advance, and those motions typically pass by unanimous consent because there is no need to debate, because the government listens to the advice of the leaders of the recognized opposition parties on the appointment of presiding officers. The government includes the names that the recognized opposition parties put forward for the presiding officer positions, for the committee appointments, and the government puts those names in their motion.

But what we have seen in the first week that we were back and in this motion that is now before us today is the government completely disregarding the input that was received.

Now, I should not say “completely disregarding.” The official opposition put forward names of the three members of our caucus who were interested in serving as presiding officers, who would have been amazing presiding officers, Speaker. One of them you served with, the member from Oshawa, who always went above and beyond—to be fair, often to the consternation of people in our caucus when we were called out by the member from Oshawa as she served in that chair. She was an exemplary Acting Speaker or Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole House. She was one of the names that was put forward, and her name does not appear in the motion that is before us today.

My colleague the member for—Jill Andrew.

Miss Monique Taylor: Toronto–St. Paul’s.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Yes. My colleague the member for Toronto–St. Paul’s was another name that was put forward.

I heard the government House leader suggest that somehow we were disparaging the members who have been named in this motion for appointment as presiding officers, and I want to say that nothing could be further from the truth.

I read the comments from the member for Toronto–St. Paul’s, and she recognizes that the member from Ajax—she congratulates her on being a hard-working member and acknowledges the historic moment that is before us with a Black woman stepping up to the position of Speaker. That is a signal to Black girls, as was discussed in the debate, a signal to Black people across this province, that they too can serve in the position of Speaker. Now, I do acknowledge the Honourable Alvin Curling, who had previously served in that position, but this is the first time that a Black woman will serve in that chair.

But it’s not about the member for Ajax. It’s not even about the member for Toronto–St. Paul’s. It’s about the process, the history, the need for working across the aisle, the need for partnership and collaboration so that we can make things better for the people of this province.

I read the feedback on the point of order that was provided by the government House leader and some of his comments as to why he decided to disregard the names that were put forward by the official opposition—the only recognized party in this place—why he decided to disregard those names both in the appointment of presiding officers and also in the appointment of committee members. He quoted some percentages, somehow making the claim that the appointments that are included in this motion are more representative of the people of this province.

He said the NDP are presently at about 24% of the seats in the House, the government is about 67%, the Liberals at 7%, and he somehow claimed that he’s applying these proportions to the names that are in his motion.

But if the government House leader wants to throw out percentages, I also want to remind this government—as people across the province, in the aftermath of an election that saw an historic low voter turnout—that when only 41% of 43% of eligible voters in this province vote for this government, they are sitting in those seats with the support of 18% of Ontarians.

So 18% of Ontarians have entrusted this government with the responsibility to govern fairly and wisely and responsibly, and what do we see? We see a first-past-the-post system that translates that 18% support into a government that holds 70% of the seats in this Legislature and yields 100% of its power. That’s what this government has done with this motion before us on presiding officers, with the motion last week or two weeks ago on the committee appointments.

They have arbitrarily and unilaterally decided to exercise the power that first-past-the-post has given them: the power that they have gained because 18% of Ontarians of voting age have put them into office. They are exercising that power to unilaterally decide who is going to serve on committee.

I do want to respond to some of the comments that were made by the government House leader about, for example, the member for Waterloo. This government House leader suggests that appointing the member for Waterloo to the finance committee is somehow this government looking out for the interests of that member. But I want to remind the government House leader that the member for Waterloo had previously served on the public accounts committee. Again, she had been an exemplary Chair of the public accounts committee.

The public accounts committee is a perfect fit for her responsibility as finance critic and that is the committee that she expressed interest in serving on. That is the committee that we notified the government that that member wished to participate in. And in this government-knows-best approach of the Conservatives across the way, this government House leader decides that’s not good enough. This government doesn’t care where the member for Waterloo wants to best exercise her skills, her talents, her duty to hold the government to account and ensure that that appropriate oversight is there.

This government decided they were going to remove her from the public accounts committee and instead put her on the finance committee. They did that because they can, because they have 100% of the power. They have the ability to disregard the names that had been provided by the official opposition on those appointments and to put in place whoever they want.

Speaker, that is not a process of collaboration and negotiation that these extraordinary times demand of us. The government House leader today in his comments also pointed to the fact that they have added members to committee. They have unilaterally decided that certain members of our caucus should be added to certain standing committees of this Legislature. Again, I ask the government House leader: Wouldn’t it have been a better process of partnership, a better process of collaboration, if the government had come and had said to the official opposition, “Look, we want to add members to these standing committees.

Let us know which of your caucus members would like to serve in that role”? That would have been the appropriate way to deal with the addition of seats on those committees. But, no, that is not how this government operates. And we saw that.

We saw that in the 42nd Parliament with changes to the standing orders at a pace that we have not seen before. The government House leader changed the standing orders more times over that four-year period—actually, it was three years that he was in that role. But there were more changes to the standing orders in that three-year period than there were in the entire 15 years up to the election of this government. And each time those standing orders changed, it was to concentrate power more and more in the hands of the government.

It was to limit the ability of the official opposition, limit the ability of all non-government members to be able to have any influence on the legislative agenda that this government is pushing through.

Speaker, the government House leader is quite correct: We will not be supporting this motion. It has absolutely nothing to do with the names of the people who are listed in the motion; it has everything to do with respect for parliamentary tradition, with respect for the way that this place is supposed to function, the way that the government House leader is supposed to engage with the official opposition.

I heard the government House leader talk about the fact that nothing is secret when he meets with the official opposition. You will have read the story in the Toronto Star—all of us read that story—about the meeting that was held between me and the government House leader when he suggested that the official opposition caucus vote unanimously for the preferred candidate that he wanted to see in the chair of the Speaker or else we would not be able to get our recommended candidates for presiding officers and our recommended appointments for Vice-Chairs of committees.

He suggested that somehow I was being dishonourable by going public with this threat. I don’t think that threats are a good way for this place to operate. I don’t think that that’s a good way for the government to move its agenda forward. But that is the approach that this government House leader has chosen to take, and we won’t support it.

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

Ms. Patrice Barnes: I just want to remind the people at home who are watching what the motion is about. The motion, if adopted, would appoint four members to the presiding officer roles of Deputy Speaker and Chair of the Committee of the Whole House, and First, Second and Third Deputy Chairs of the Committee of the Whole House. The appointment of these positions is governed by standing orders 5(a), 5(

c) and 6, which read as follows:

“5(

a) At the commencement of the first session of a Parliament, or from time to time as may be required, a member shall be appointed by the House to be Deputy Speaker and Chair of the Committee of the Whole House....

“(

c) At the commencement of every Parliament, or from time to time as may be required, the House shall appoint three Deputy Chairs of the Committee of the Whole House, to be known respectively as the First, Second and Third Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole House, any of whom shall, in order of precedence, whenever the Chair of the Committee of the Whole House is absent or otherwise unable to act, be entitled to exercise all the powers vested in the Chair of the Committee of the Whole House, including those powers as Deputy Speaker....”

I recognize that if I am to be named, I shall very quickly need to memorize the faces and ridings of every member of this House, if I am to be one of its presiding officers. I take for granted that my own riding of Ajax is a simple one to remember, but that is my riding. I’m looking forward to recognizing, both literally and procedurally, every person in this room, no matter how many hyphens their riding may have.

Each chair in this Legislature is occupied by a politician, with the obvious exception of the chairs occupied by the Clerks, officials and the staff that keep this place running. However, each chair is occupied for the people of Ontario. These are the people whose hopes and dreams for the future of our province are personified in their elected officials. It is a sacred trust that we hold for our constituents. As the member for Toronto–St. Paul’s put in her impassioned remarks last week, to serve this House is a calling. It is a vocation.

To quote a former Speaker of the House, the late Chris Stockwell, “We are partisan by nature, we come here with political agendas, but when it comes down to decent, fair-minded individuals, I don’t think the people could have elected ... better people.”

It is my firm belief, Speaker, that we are the best group of people to legislate in this province. That is why it is important that the business conducted in this House proceeds with decorum, order and cross-partisan participation. To ensure that these aims are met, the presiding officers of this Legislature are chosen pursuant to the standing orders.

As the Speaker fairly and thoughtfully ruled last Thursday, the government motion at issue is in accordance with the standing orders. The multi-partisan representation on the slate of the presiding officers of this House reflects the neutrality, impartiality and objectivity imputed to the role of Speaker and the other officers who occupy the chair in his absence.

I would like to take a moment to address remarks made by my colleague, the member from Toronto–St. Paul’s, during the debate on this motion on August 18. To the member from Toronto–St Paul’s: I thank you for expressing the reality that people of colour face in spaces like this Legislature. That reality holds true for people of any equity-seeking group, from Indigenous peoples to members of the LGBTQSA+ community. To be a member of such a group and to hold an adjudicative position, such as that of a Deputy Speaker or presiding officer, is a complex matter.

On one hand, as I stand here, proudly joined in this House by other Black members of the PC caucus as well as across the aisle, it is amazing to represent a community that looks like me. Places of decision-making should not feel unwelcome to the people whose lives are affected by those decisions. Being the first Black MPP for the highest per-capita Black population riding in Ontario is something that was too long in the making. On the other hand, being a Black person in an adjudicative capacity creates a certain amount of pressure in one’s mind.

Similar to the experience of Black police officers, Black legislators face the pressure of being a representative of their race—which is highly politicized—while remaining impartial agents of the state.

Speaker, I agree with the member from Toronto–St. Paul’s in her assertion that Black people are not interchangeable. We each bring with us a unique set of life skills, life experiences and beliefs to this Legislature. Even in the PC caucus itself, our Black members do not constitute a political monolith. The member from Scarborough Centre, the member from Brampton Centre and I are fiercely independent advocates for our constituents and for our communities. That attitude holds true for every member in this House.

It holds true for the member from Flamborough–Glanbrook, who has been a recognizable face in her community for so many years. The reputation of her decorum and fairness she developed over her years in journalism, and subsequently as an elected member, will serve this House well.

It holds true for the independent member from Ottawa–Vanier. She brings impressive legal credentials and vast public sector service to this chamber. It reflects plurality of partisan affiliation in this Legislature. Hers is an important position in the Speaker’s throne.

It holds true especially for the member from Parkdale–High Park. As a member of Tibetan heritage, a scientist and a widely recognized elected official, she is ground-breaking on a number of levels.

I appreciate that the official opposition, in their opposition to the government motion at issue here, constrained their critique to procedural elements rather than the members involved. At the end of the day, we are here to do a good job for the people who elected us.

The government motion, which seeks to constitute the Deputy Speaker and the Chairs of the Committee of the Whole House, seeks to fairly represent the many views present here. It seeks to maintain proportionality between the elected members of different parties represented here today. The composition of the presiding officer slate is in accordance with standing order 6, and will provide robust, fair and non-partisan candidates.

Speaker, I respectfully disagree with the member from Toronto–St. Paul’s with regard to language suggesting Black legislators are being used as pawns in this House, as well as allusions to slavery. The member is correct in her assertion that there is no quota on Black members serving as presiding officers of this House. While I have not yet had the chance to work closely with the member, having only been elected, I know that she brings a wealth of experience and would also do justice to the role.

As I listened to the member from Toronto–St Paul’s, I understood the hurt and the disappointment that came through in her words. This, for her, would have been an historical point in her service in the Legislature, and I empathize. Where my opinion diverges is at the suggestion of manipulation by members of my own caucus or the claim that she was stripped of this position by the government, as it was not yet hers to lose, or that I am less deserving.

I have been proud to lead anti-racism and empowering initiatives for Black and marginalized students for many years as a school board trustee; this is no secret. I’ve never been asked to leave my ethnicity or cultural identity at the door when joining the PC caucus. I have never been asked, whether explicitly or implicitly, to shy away from being Black or to fit into this government. I am proud to be a Black legislator, I am proud to represent the people of Ajax and I am proud to be part of a Parliament where a plurality of viewpoints is respected.

In my maiden speech to Parliament, I spoke about it being an unprecedented Parliament, one where more voices get a seat at the table—or in this case, in the chair. Speaker, the proposed slate of presiding officers reflects the government’s balanced approach to cross-partisanship in this Legislature. It is my hope and my fervent belief that all those who occupy that chair during this session will treat it with the respect and honour that it deserves. I appreciate the government’s point in not just looking at experience. We’ve heard that mentioned across the table. If that were the case, the previous members would not have been elected.

Thank you, Speaker, for the time.

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

Mr. Ric Bresee: I am so very honoured to stand in this House today to deliver my inaugural speech. And let me begin by congratulating you, Speaker, on your re-election. I know you will serve this Legislature well. I also wish to congratulate each of the members of this assembly. The voters have chosen you to serve. This is an awesome privilege, a tremendous honour and an incredible responsibility. I look forward to working with all of you.

As a new member in this House, I would like to express my thanks to the staff of the Ontario Legislature. From the first moment I arrived here at Queen’s Park, a little lost and not even sure where to park, the friendliness and professionalism has impressed me. I was amazed to find the security officer at the door recognized me, greeted me by name and made sure I found my way around. And I have found every member of the staff here to be absolute professionals. I must say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Clerk, that he has built a fantastic team. They are all providing exemplary service to this Legislative Assembly, its members and the people of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, as you noted when recognizing me, I stand in this place representing the amazing riding of Hastings–Lennox and Addington. At over 9,100 square kilometres, it is one of the largest electoral districts in southern Ontario. Driving from the north end starting at the edge of Algonquin Park in Hastings Highlands township down to the South Shore Road on Amherst Island in Loyalist township, it is more than a four-hour drive—and there aren’t many direct routes as you travel the rugged and picturesque Canadian Shield.

It is safe to say that Hastings–Lennox and Addington has some of the most beautiful countryside in Ontario. These are also the ancestral lands of the Haudenosaunee, Mississauga and Omámíwinini peoples. Since time immemorial, the Indigenous peoples have been and continue to be the stewards of the land. Notably, today, within this riding are the lands of the Tyendinaga Mohawk territory, and their First Nations Technical Institute, which teaches Indigenous students from across Canada. Indigenous-owned and governed, this post-secondary institution has 35 years of rich history and has produced more than 4,000 proud graduates.

HL and A, as we call it, is a beautiful space preserved for successive generations. But it also contains an abundance of amazing and vibrant communities. Our 18 municipalities and two counties harbour almost a countless number of towns, villages and hamlets. From Denbigh to Stirling, from Stella to Lake St. Peter, and in between, so many different communities, each with its own timeline, its own heartbeat, its own story.

I was recently honoured to be present at the celebration of the 200th anniversary of the town of Marmora as they unveiled a statue celebrating its history as one of the original mining towns in Canada. Deposits of iron ore were discovered, followed by deposits of gold, copper and silver, leading to the development of nearby settlements like Eldorado, Cordova Mines and Blairton.

We are an historic part of the country. In the village of Bath, in Loyalist township, is the Hawley House, built in 1785. Just three years shy of being the oldest building in the province, it is recognized as the longest continuously inhabited residential home in Ontario. That same year, 1785, mills were being built in nearby Napanee, which would then ship flour to the towns of Montreal and Toronto. There are many towns with histories dating back to the 18th and 19th centuries, when Ontario was still part of Upper Canada, and we are very proud of our historic contributions to building this nation.

So, yes, the region is both historic and industrious. Traditionally, the northern part of the riding has been heavily involved in mining and forestry, hunting and fishing, and all the related tourism that those activities bring. Further south, away from the granite of the Shield, we have a tremendous agricultural sector, from grains and orchards, to some of the best meat and dairy in the country. And beyond these sectors we have amazing cheese factories, and in more recent years, have become one of the best beer and winemaking regions in the world.

While Hastings–Lennox and Addington is home to traditional industries, it also has ties to modern transportation infrastructure, with large facilities for train assembly and testing, automotive tire production, and, most recently, I was pleased to stand with our Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade as he announced a new $1.5-billion manufacturing site for battery components for electric vehicles. HL and A is very much a part of the future of the automotive sector. Speaker, as beautiful, historic and industrious as our riding is, its greatest asset is its people.

And it’s to those people today that I express my gratitude and my pledge to represent them in this venerable place to the very best of my ability.

I must make mention of the organizers and volunteers that worked with me through the election campaign. Their dedication and their efforts are an amazing testament to their belief in our democratic system. There are so many people involved in that for whom I have so much gratitude. I don’t wish to name some and miss others, so I will simply humbly say thank you to the entire team.

I will specify my appreciation for one of those volunteers: my predecessor, my mentor and my friend, Daryl Kramp. Daryl sat in this chamber during the last term of government, so many of you know him, and you know that he is, quite simply, legendary. He’s one of the few Canadians who have been elected to federal, provincial and municipal office. For decades, he was the guy that everybody knew, and everybody turned to, to get things done right; and alongside him for even longer, Carol Ann, the light of his life and a wonderful partner in all he has done.

Daryl was well known for working collaboratively with all members across party lines to achieve the desired goals, and it was Daryl who showed me what it takes to be an effective and compassionate MPP. I will attempt to live up to that Kramp standard.

Speaker, I’d like to provide a little of my lived experience to describe what brought me to this House. Like many people, I grew up in a time when it was considered impolite to discuss politics, religion or money, but this was not the case in my childhood home. Our dinner table encouraged wide-ranging conversations about just about any topic, and, specifically, about the events and government activities of the day at all levels.

It was through these conversations that I learned of taxation and unions and law enforcement and court systems, of economic development and health care, balancing rights and responsibilities and so many other topics. It certainly seemed to me that my father knew a lot about just about everything. It never dawned on me that many people would consider him uneducated because he never passed grade 10.

It was with this lens that I headed out into the world, and while I enjoyed and, at times, excelled in school, ultimately my own distractibility did not blend well with the structure of academia, so I did not do very well in school—at least not until many years later when I returned to achieve my post-secondary work.

In my teens, I ventured out to work. I spent much of the next decade working as a dishwasher, a cook, a telemarketer and in an array of different jobs that allowed me to support myself. I was, what we would call today, the working poor. In fact, for a brief period I was financially strapped enough that I was unable to pay my OHIP premium—for those who remember OHIP premiums. So I was without coverage under our universal health care system for about six months.

Of course, during that time, I managed to sprain my ankle. So what did I do? I wrapped it myself, I endured the pain and stayed off it for a week or so. I lost work, and I lost wages, but I understood that that loss was cheaper than going to the hospital would have been. These are choices we should not have to make, and I’m grateful that today in Ontario our government and our health minister have repeatedly affirmed our support of universal health care so that Ontarians don’t have to make such choices.

Speaker, that story is about a minor injury and a relatively young person, but I am about to tell this assembly a much tougher story, which demonstrates even more how truly grateful I am for our health care system.

In May 1995, I was joyously blessed with the birth of my second child, my beautiful daughter, Carly Jean Bresee. She was an incredible, healthy, happy child, and if you will allow a father’s loving bias, amazingly intelligent and incredibly beautiful. Carly grew up continuing to be happy and healthy, always doing her own thing. She excelled at school, she was very social and she was very active in her preferred physical activity, competitive dance.

But then in the fall of 2011, at age 16, Carly began experiencing exhaustion and lethargy. She very uncharacteristically missed school, so we thought she might have a cold or some similar ailment, but as it persisted, we took her to the doctor who ordered bloodwork. As an indicator of her great health up to that point, that was the first time since she was born that she had required bloodwork. She visited the lab on Monday and, on Tuesday, I received a phone call that I will never forget, and I certainly hope that no other parent receives such a phone call.

The doctor called me directly, instructed me to take Carly to the emergency room immediately and informed me of her likely diagnosis: leukemia.

That was mid-November. Over the next few weeks and months, we learned a whole new vocabulary: ALL, neutrophils, cytotoxicity and more. We learned about the very high rates of success with certain treatments for childhood leukemia, but then the more refined test came back and we learned that this was a rarer form of cancer that would be harder to treat. After one particular treatment that had been very damaging to her and deemed not successful, I asked the oncologist what we would do next. Her answer horrified me. She said, “I don’t know.” By March, it was clear that chemotherapy and radiation would not work. The only viable option, the only hope, was a very risky one, a bone marrow transfer.

The first good news we received, and against the odds, her brother was a good match for a bone marrow transfer, so we could do the transfer treatment. We spent months here at SickKids. It was a very dark time.

During one of those dark and scary nights, I made the mistake of googling what it would cost to perform that procedure if I lived in the United States, without a universal health care system. It showed me that if I didn’t live here in Ontario, I would have been given a choice: pay $1.2 million or watch my daughter suffer and die.

Mr. Speaker, I’m not a wealthy man, and while I would have done anything to save my daughter’s life, there was no way on God’s green earth I could write a check for $1.2 million. That would not have been a choice, it would have been a death sentence. But we do live in Ontario and our health care system is amazing. And so the treatment went ahead and it was successful. Carly would live.

But, Mr. Speaker, I must finish the story. After her successful bone marrow transfer, supplied by her heroic brother, she did thrive. For the next five years she completed high school, she went off to the University of Waterloo and she studied medicinal chemistry. She wanted to do research to make better treatment drugs for anyone that had to go through what she went through. In time, she met and fell in love with a wonderful young man named Jon.

Unfortunately, at the end of her third year of university, the cancer came back, and this time it was untreatable. We lost my beautiful baby girl in September 2017. To the end, she was, and we still are, eternally grateful for the amazing care provided to her by the wonderful people at our hospitals. I miss her every day.

I want to assure this House and all the residents of my riding and across the province that I will always support and fight for universal health care. My residents have told me that they want a great health care system. They want a system that works. They want a system that they gain access to with their health card, not their credit card.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to my personal political engagement, I take you back in time a little bit to the fall of 2000. Connor and Carly were just five and seven years old. I found out that my local municipal government was going to change the format of one of our parks, change it to a manicured flower garden and community gardens—changed from the large open space, well grassed, and a place for children to play. I disagreed with that. I looked at the members of our council at the time, and realized that they were all long-time community supporters, mostly of the grandparent set, so I decided to run for a seat.

It may not have been the nicest way to say it, but I started my first campaign for elected office saying that the current members had too much grey hair. I would learn to regret that choice of words. That was 22 years ago, and I was fortunate enough to be elected, and, yes, that park is still open as a play space for children.

As I started on council, I could discuss and debate many ideas, but too often I heard that we could not do this or that because the province won’t let us. So once again, I went looking for a place to express my views. For better than 20 years, I attended the AMO, the ROMA and the Good Roads conferences and signed up for all forms of committees and caucuses. I kept going back to my childhood belief that everyone wants to or should want to openly discuss new ideas, different approaches and even debate those ideas.

Now, seven elections later, I find myself here in this chamber, and honestly I am in awe and inspired by the people of all party stripes, whom I have admired. I am truly honoured to be here.

After all these years in office, I do understand that the people who vote for us expect us to speak our minds, but they also expect us to work civilly with our colleagues at the table, in the Legislature and in committee; to discuss, deliberate and debate the merits of the many ideas brought forward; and in the end, to try to get it right.

So Mr. Speaker, I pledge to speak my mind in this House, to bring to this place the comments and concerns of my constituents and to work co-operatively and collegially with all members of the assembly, regardless of the party, for the betterment of the province.

I would like to extend that spirit of co-operation to all, to encourage inclusion for our residents, especially those who have been historically excluded. We need to recognize the contributions and the voices of the 2SLGBTQ+ community, the BIPOC communities, persons with disabilities and any other disenfranchised group. Collectively, we must strive to ensure that all people are heard. For too many years, too many of our citizens have been left out.

My lived experience is that of a white male settler. I know I have a privilege bias, and I must commit to listening to people with a different lived experience and to being an ally to them. I believe we are living in the best province in the best country in the world, but like every other jurisdiction, we have our challenges, our current and historic mistakes, issues to fix. We must be open to discussion, to debate. It’s what gives us the opportunity to grow and to change, to recognize the failures of the past and to improve upon it.

This is not to degrade the difficult and tremendous actions of those who came before us, but rather it is to stand on their shoulders, to rise above, because they built the foundation on which we stand. I look forward to working with all members of this assembly, and I’m confident that we are ready to get it done.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank my amazing family: my mother, Leslie; my stepmother, Barb; my children, Connor, John, Alice and Liam; my two grandchildren; and, most of all, my incredible and supportive wife, who is in the gallery today. It is because of their love and support that I can do this. They drive and motivate me. Through them and thanks to the voters of Hastings–Lennox and Addington, I have finally come to a place where we can have that open discussion and debate, and I am so looking forward to it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): Further debate?

Mr. Brian Saunderson: It’s an honour and a privilege to speak in this House for the first time today. I want to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your re-election, and I know you will serve this House very capably in your important role. I also want to congratulate all members on both sides of the aisle on their election success on June 2. It is said that the voters are always right, and from this side of the House I say the voters absolutely got it right on election day.

I particularly want to thank the hard-working voters of Simcoe–Grey for their overwhelming support. Simcoe–Grey has a long and proud history of being Progressive Conservative, and I want to acknowledge my predecessor, Jim Wilson, who represented the residents in this House with distinction for 32 years. Jim was a committed, determined and effective champion for our residents, and I can tell you that as I knocked on thousands of doors in the election, I heard time and time again how much Jim had represented our constituents. He has set the bar for effective representation in Simcoe–Grey very high.

To the residents of Simcoe–Grey and to the residents of our province, I pledge to continue that tradition of committed and determined representation that Jim Wilson and, before him, George McCague and Wally Downer have established in this great riding.

Speaker, Simcoe–Grey has a population of over 152,000 and consists of seven municipalities: six in Simcoe county and one in Grey county. It stretches from Thornton in the south to Thornbury in the north, from Alliston in the west to Angus in the east. It is a growing, dynamic and diverse region that has incredible opportunities and is facing some significant challenges.

Geographically, Simcoe–Grey is blessed with an abundance of green space and natural features, as well as miles of shoreline along the southern shores of Georgian Bay. From the longest freshwater beach in the world and the UNESCO Georgian Bay Biosphere to the Niagara escarpment and the greenbelt, the low-lying hills and ridges of Canadian Shield bedrock support a rich mosaic of forests, wetlands and habitat with an incredible abundance of biodiversity.

Simcoe–Grey boasts a diverse and dynamic economy. There is a long-standing and robust farming sector in the south that goes back to the early 1800s and was one of the region’s original economic engines—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): The time for debate has expired.

Debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Government’s agenda

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I am grateful to stand in the Legislature today as the returning member for Niagara West. I wish to thank, once again, the voters of Niagara West for placing their trust in me to represent their concerns, priorities and values in the halls of Queen’s Park.

Throughout the campaign I listened very closely to the priorities of the people of Niagara West, and I want to ensure that those are the priorities I’m advocating for here.

Rebuilding the economy: Across Niagara West, job creators, families and workers spoke about the need to reduce taxes, invest in manufacturing and cut red tape for businesses in our communities to create good jobs in Niagara West.

Keeping Ontario open: Constituents I spoke with emphasized the need to build up our health care system, hire more nurses, invest in home care and therapeutics to support patients and their families, and keep Ontario open for good.

Keeping costs down: Across Niagara West, constituents spoke about looking forward to seeing measures such as cutting the gas tax, keeping licence plate sticker fees off their vehicles and scrapping road tolls to make life more affordable.

Building key infrastructure: From building our new hospital to new roads and bridges in Pelham and West Lincoln, to the construction of a GO station in Grimsby, new schools in Lincoln and a renovated community centre in Wainfleet, I heard about the need for continued investment in key infrastructure projects.

I look forward to continuing to work to ensure that the priorities, needs and values of the people of Niagara West are brought here. I’m thankful to work on their behalf for another four years.

Tenant protection

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: I’d like to take this opportunity to celebrate the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s ruling that landlords cannot ban air conditioning, as access to cooling during extreme heat waves is a human rights issue. It has long been a health issue, and now it is finally recognized as a human right.

As the number of extreme heat waves increases, the right to accessible and safe housing must include air conditioning. Extreme heat makes life unbearable. It is extremely dangerous, especially for seniors and those living with disabilities. Despite empty words in 2020, the Ford government has failed to deliver air conditioning for seniors in long-term care. This government has failed seniors, time and again.

The commission grimly notes, “Extreme heat caused by climate change is killing people.”

In London, tenants like the folks at Huron Gardens have been organizing to protect their most vulnerable neighbours from extreme heat.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission is now calling on this government to include air conditioning as a vital service like the provision of heat.

The Ontario NDP were well ahead of the curve, fighting to protect Ontarians from extreme heat. I look forward to supporting my colleague the MPP for University–Rosedale’s motion when she re-tables it. I encourage all members to vote in support of this motion.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): Thank you very much. The member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry.

Arts and cultural funding

Mr. Nolan Quinn: Thank you, Speaker. Congratulations on the election to your role.

As this is my first time humbly rising in the chamber, I’d like to thank the residents of Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry for having faith in myself representing our riding and needs.

Most who know me know I am a passionate and committed advocate for mental health, both for youth and adults alike. I’d like to thank the Minister of Health, Sylvia Jones, for announcing with me last week six new safe beds in my riding for people in crisis to heal and recover in a safe environment.

As we all know, fairs and events are back and thriving in our ridings. These events help with our own and our neighbours’ mental health, to be able to socialize and gather as a community. Whether it’s Canada’s oldest fair—at 211 years—the Williamstown Fair, the Avonmore Fair or the South Mountain Fair, it takes an army of dedicated volunteers to organize these important events.

Thank you to all who help bring back this sense of normalcy in our lives. My riding, as well as many others, was successful in receiving funds from the Reconnect Festival and Event Program from the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport to restart these important events in our communities, both economically and for the mental health of those we serve.

Employment standards

Miss Monique Taylor: I’ve been hearing from health care professionals in my riding of Hamilton Mountain about the devastation happening to our local hospitals. A local nurse reached out to my office to share her concerns. Her message, sadly, was not surprising. She told me that our health care system is falling apart before our very eyes. Our province has abandoned all health care workers. They are constantly short-staffed, working long hours with a high patient-to-staff ratio. Patient care is being put at risk due to this government’s lack of respect, and underfunding of our health care system.

She asked me to call on this government to repeal Bill 124 to ensure health care workers are paid accordingly. Health care workers should be allowed to negotiate fair wages for their work, but Bill 124 is keeping them from doing that.

I’m calling on the Premier and his government to immediately repeal Bill 124. Health care workers have been the backbone of this pandemic. They have put themselves, their own safety, the health of their families all at risk. They deserve fair compensation for their work. The Premier needs to do the right thing and repeal Bill 124 immediately.

Riding of Cambridge

Mr. Brian Riddell: I’d like to congratulate everybody on their re-election, including the Speaker of the House.

The riding of Cambridge consists of two unique communities that I represent: the city of Cambridge and the township of North Dumfries. As one of the fastest-growing areas in Ontario, the city of Cambridge is located along the 401 and is part of Waterloo region. It’s a place with vitality, innovation and quality of life. The city of Cambridge is only minutes to the regional airport in Waterloo and only 50 minutes to Toronto Pearson, depending on traffic.

The city of Cambridge was incorporated in 1973 when the three municipalities of Galt, Preston and Hespeler and the settlement of Blair were amalgamated into a single legal entity under a new name—a new name that was not really that new because Preston used to be called Cambridge Mills. Each of these communities possess a long and proud history. A healthy sense of rivalry has always governed relations among the three communities. Even today, our residents will tell the outside world they live in Cambridge and call that home, but they identify themselves from the area that they came from: Galt, Preston and Hespeler.

While the original communities had come together well in the years since amalgamation, they began life apart. As a result, Cambridge is blessed with not one historical downtown, but three, and we’re preserving this for future generations. Cambridge is well poised to continue to flourish into a prosperous city and one of the best places to live in Ontario. The region of Waterloo is one of Ontario’s fastest-growing and economically prosperous areas.

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

Township of Armstrong sewage lagoon

Mr. John Vanthof: I would like to update the House on a potential environmental issue that’s happening right now in the township of Armstrong in Timiskaming district. Last year, a sewage lagoon for raw human sewage was approved on a former dairy farm, in the former dairy lagoon. A company from Quebec is importing that sewage. Why the neighbours found out? When the trucks started coming.

Part of the process is consultation. Many of the neighbours were not consulted at all. Had they been consulted, the ministry would have known that there was a well on the property because it was a former dairy farm. When we asked the ministry if they had looked for that well and if the consultant had looked for that well, the response was that there was no well on that property. We are still waiting for answers from the ministry, because the ministry also said it wasn’t a former dairy lagoon. Yet in the plans of the site, the lagoon was enlarged. Also, there is no actual proof that the piping that came from the barn to the lagoon was ever removed.

We are quickly losing faith, not in the consultants but in the ministry to actually protect the health and welfare of people in northern Ontario. And if they can’t do it on little projects, God knows what they’re going to do on big projects. We need their help right now to assure people that things are going to be safe.

Grand Rapids Cup

Mr. Ross Romano: Yesterday, I coached my nine-year-old son’s soccer team, the Soo City Junior United, in the finals of the Grand Rapids Cup, where we were trailing 3-0 at halftime against the BC Fire of Saginaw.

After my best Vince Lombardi impression at halftime, our boys took to the field and within minutes had managed to score our first goal, bringing the game to within two. A new-found sense of resilience, they overtook us even after Saginaw responded with a goal of their own to restore their three-goal lead. Over the next 30 minutes, we played a full court press like you’ve never seen before. We scored four straight goals and took the lead 5-4 and, then, with just over a minute left to play, on Saginaw’s first shot in what seemed like an eternity, they scored and once again the game was tied.

Teams started prepping for penalty shots. I heard the referee’s alarm go off, and as he checked his watch and brought the whistle to his mouth in what seemed like the most harmless of plays, one of my boys kicked the balls out for a corner kick. The ref decided to let them take that corner kick even though time had expired—and you can probably guess what happened? A weird bounce and the ball was in the net. The ref blew the whistle, the game was over. We lost 6-5. We were all in disbelief. Our boys played their hearts out. They gave it their all but came short.

My favourite part of coaching kids is that there are so many life lessons that come out of it. This past weekend’s lesson is that sometimes in life, regardless of how hard you work, you just fall short, and that’s okay because you truly cannot win them all and nothing is perfect.

But as Lombardi himself said, “Chase perfection ... catch excellence.” My boys were excellent this weekend, and I’m beaming with pride because of it.

Gun violence

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: It’s always an honour to rise on behalf of my constituency in Scarborough–Guildwood, yet today my heart hurts. Gun violence is a public health issue that leaves long-term impacts on our communities. It touches all of us.

As provincial leaders, this is our problem and we must do more to break cycles of violence and help communities to heal. We know that exposure to gun violence has mental and physical health impacts that extend far beyond the victims. We know gun violence traumatizes people and leaves a trail of sorrow in its wake, and we know without access to long-term supports, it leads to generational trauma.

This past April, I was deeply concerned and saddened by a drive-by shooting that took place in Scarborough. After midnight prayers, a group was heading back to their vehicles when shots rang out and five young men were struck by bullets in a brazen attack. Fortunately, no lives were lost. However, I know from speaking with the victims and their families that the aftermath of this random act of violence still affects them and our community today.

It’s a problem that Bill 9, the Safe and Healthy Communities Act, would bridge. By declaring gun violence a public health issue, my private member’s bill would allow for trauma-informed counselling and supports for survivors. Speaker, I urge all members of this House, on September 7, to make the change that we so desperately need by supporting Bill 9.

Government’s agenda

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: Mr. Speaker, this is my first time rising in the 43rd sitting of the Ontario Parliament. I want to congratulate you on your re-election and also congratulate each and every MPP on their election or re-election.

I want to start by thanking the constituents of Mississauga–Erin Mills for renewing their trust in me. It is my honour to represent the people of Mississauga–Erin Mills, and I will take this opportunity to reaffirm my commitment, since day one, to be their voice in this respected Legislature and deliver their opinions and concerns.

The people of Ontario have spoken: Under the leadership of Premier Ford, people believe in our side of the House. They see that we are the only ones who can get it done for families, for putting more money into people’s pockets. We are the only side that says yes to building homes, yes to reducing fees, yes to reducing taxes, yes to building highways, and yes to creating a sustainable and efficient health care system that serves all the people of this great province.

Mr. Speaker, it’s very important that the federal government raise their health care spending share to Ontario to 35% of the funding. It has been agreed over the years that just provincial funding is not enough to deliver the sustainable health care that Ontarians deserve.

We are challenging the status quo and building the province after so many years of neglect, and re-boosting our economy in the recovery from the pandemic. The people of Ontario can depend on this side of the House to always do the right thing.

Riding of Simcoe–Grey

Mr. Brian Saunderson: Hopefully I’ll get an opportunity to finish what I start this time.

I rise to speak as the member for Simcoe–Grey. It’s a great honour to be here today as part of a House that is prepared to get things done and to improve lives for the residents of our province.

As the member for Simcoe–Grey, I want to speak briefly about my riding. With a population of over 152,000, it consists of seven municipalities, six in Simcoe–Grey and one in Grey county. I want to highlight this morning the ways in which those municipalities are working together collaboratively to serve their residents effectively and efficiently, something that this government has been working hard with our residents and lower-tier governments to make happen. We know that there is only one taxpayer, and I want to congratulate each of these municipalities for their initiative and their leadership.

On Friday, my colleague from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, MPP Byers, and I attended a meeting with the mayors and CAOs of Collingwood, Wasaga Beach, Clearview, Town of the Blue Mountains and Meaford to discuss their work regionally to address issues relating to transportation and housing—issues that are very compelling and pressing for all of our residents.

Last week, both the councils of Collingwood and New Tecumseth approved the renewal of the water supply agreement that will continue and expand the supply of safe and abundant drinking water from Georgian Bay to the residents of New Tecumseth.

Speaker, these are just two examples of how my municipalities are working very hard collaboratively to provide effective and efficient governance for their residents.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I am advised that constituents from Wellington–Halton Hills are here with us today: Wolfgang Stichnothe, as well as his grandsons Samuel Rogers and Jacob Rogers. Welcome to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

Ms. Chandra Pasma: I would like to introduce my family, who is joining us in the members’ gallery today: my husband, Matt; my daughters, Mira and Clara; and my son, Luc. I hope members will join me in warmly welcoming them to their first question period at Queen’s Park.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: I would like to introduce some visitors from the riding of Barrie–Innisfil: Moji Ahmadi and Hamid Ghaneian, the parents of our page Pania Ghaneian. Welcome.

Ms. Marit Stiles: I’m very pleased to welcome to the Legislature today and introduce my parents, Kathy and Geoff Stiles, from the great riding of Ottawa–Vanier. Thanks for coming.

Mr. Anthony Leardi: From the beautiful riding of Essex, I’d like to welcome my son, Andrew Leardi.

Hon. Todd Smith: I do have a number of people I’d like to welcome to the Legislature today: Mark Abbott, Doug Bagley, David Kroft, Daniel Cozzi, Katelyn Lockridge, Josh Clayton, Matthew Peck, Caitlyn Frost, Melonie Williams, Brayden Bagley, Kendall Garry, Lee Murdoch, Rick Koczka, Andreea Nicoara, Andrew Bull, Kelly Sander, Curtis Lockridge, Bart Adams, Mudasar Nawaz and Jess Maga. All of these people are Hydro One employees. They worked extremely hard throughout the spring and summer—when we’ve had violent storms that have made their way through the province—in restoring our power, our reliable supply of electricity.

I’d like to welcome them all to the Legislature here today and give them a big thanks, big gratitude, for their work.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I understand the member for Nickel Belt has a point of order.

M me France Gélinas: Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to move a motion to allow an emergency debate on the health care crisis this afternoon during orders of the day.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Madame Gélinas is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion to allow an emergency debate on the health care crisis this afternoon during orders of the day. Agreed? I heard a no.

Question Period

Health care funding

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question for the Premier: According to Dr. Michael Warner, the OR at Michael Garron Hospital in Toronto dropped to using just two out of 10 operating rooms at 4 p.m. That’s eight operating rooms sitting empty for more than 12 hours per day.

Why is the government choosing to send surgeons, nurses and funding to private, for-profit clinics while operating rooms in our hospitals sit idle?

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

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Thank you to the member opposite for giving me an opportunity to highlight the announcement that we made with the Minister of Long-Term Care on Thursday. It’s a plan to stay open, health care stability and resistance: a five-point plan that talks about not only health care human resources but giving hospitals the additional investments that they need to make sure that when there are operating suites available we are funding them additionally.

We are doing programs that allow our paramedics to go into community and serve people in community. In my own community, on the weekend, I was approached by someone who said they had been using the community paramedicine program for years, and they love it. It is exactly what they need to be able to stay safely at home.

The five-point plan covers a number of areas that we know we can focus better on and ensure that we have the health care services we need, where we need them.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Again to the Premier: In December 2021, Ontario’s Auditor General reported that ORs sit unused far more than they should. A full third of hospitals in Ontario didn’t even hit the target for operating room use. The same goes for CT and MRIs. CT scanners are used at 37%, while MRI machines are used at 56% of system capacity. St. Joe’s and SickKids in Toronto, Lakeridge Health hospitals in Oshawa and Ajax, and North Bay Regional Health Centre all shut down their CT and MRI machines by 4 p.m.

Why is this government refusing to use the operating room, CT and MRI capacity we already have?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Speaker, as I mentioned, we’ve already invested $300 million as part of our province’s surgical recovery strategy.

I only point to the Ontario Hospital Association’s comments after the Thursday announcement: The OHA “supports the strategy announced today by the government of Ontario for the fall and winter 2022-23 as it will help maintain access to health services during what is expected to be a challenging period. It is essential that all partners continue to work closely together with a ‘Team Ontario’ approach to overcome the complex, underlying issues facing the health care system. Hospitals are here to serve the people of Ontario and will continue to do everything possible to meet their health service needs.”

We will continue those partnerships.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Moving surgeries and procedures to private, for-profit clinics will send surgeons, nurses, technicians and other health care workers out of our hospitals. Why is the Premier robbing from the underused public system to send health care workers and funds to private, for-profit clinics?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I will remind the member opposite and all parliamentarians here that we have actually added 400 physician residents to support the workforce in northern and rural Ontario. We’re launching a new provincial emergency department peer-to-peer program to provide additional, on-demand, real-time support and coaching from experienced emergency physicians and—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Member for Kitchener–Conestoga, come to order. Member for Hamilton Mountain, come to order.

Minister of Health can continue.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Thank you, Speaker. And from the Ontario Medical Association: They support the initiatives announced today by the government:

“Strengthening collaboration with government, doctors and other health care stakeholders is critical to resolving the unprecedented pressures on Ontario’s health-care system.

“‘No one group can do this alone, we must work together.’”

Long-term care

Mr. Wayne Gates: My question is to the Premier. Last week, we got to see the Conservatives’ long-term-care plan. Cruel doesn’t even begin to describe it. Hospital discharge planners have always been allowed to have conversations with patients. However, the new regulations give them power to assess a patient without consent, to send their personal information to a private care home without their consent, to discharge them from the hospital and admit them into a long-term-care facility without their consent.

Informed consent is a cornerstone of modern medicine and health care. My question is clear: How on earth did the Premier come up with this cruel scheme instead of just properly resourcing our long-term-care system?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: Well, the honourable gentleman is actually incorrect. Perhaps he didn’t have a chance to take a look at the bill, because had he looked at the bill, he would have seen, right in the explanatory note, that in fact consent will still be required. If he went a little bit further into the bill, subsection 60.1(7), he would see, again, that consent is still required.

What we’re doing, actually, is working with our acute care partners to finally be able to be in a position to address the challenges that have faced acute care for a very, very long time in this province. Long-term care is in a position to be part of that solution, and it’s in that position, ultimately, because of the investments that this government has made since coming to office in 2018.

So, again, the honourable gentleman is wrong. I’d be more than happy to send a copy of the bill over to him so that he can take a look at it for himself.

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

Mr. Wayne Gates: I certainly do appreciate the minister sending over the bill to me, but I just happen to have a copy in front of me. “This new provision authorizes certain actions to be carried out without the consent of these patients.” It’s right in the bill. So maybe I’ll give it to the Clerk and maybe they can send it over to you.

Speaker, this bill seeks to send seniors out of their communities to homes with open beds. Do you know which homes are most likely to have open beds? They are private, for-profit long-term-care homes with terrible records of abuse and no air conditioning in their rooms—we have 79 care homes that have no air conditioning as of this weekend—the same private care homes with PC insiders on their boards.

How can this government even pretend to care about seniors when they are literally proposing to rip them from their families? Will the Premier accept responsibility when seniors deteriorate under this scheme and get abused like they have been for a couple of years now in these facilities?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Again, Mr. Speaker, the honourable gentleman is wrong. I’ll quote directly from the bill: transfers of “an ALC patient to a long-term-care home without the consent of the ALC patient or their substitute decision-maker” will not be allowed. So it is very clear that that will not be allowed.

But the member’s tune has changed a little bit since Thursday, right? Because Thursday, colleagues, he was saying that people would be forcibly removed from hospital against their will, without their consent. He said that they would be moved into ward rooms across the province and hundreds of miles away from their family and friends.

Because of the investments that we have made in long-term care, that is not going to happen, and the member knows this. He knows that we will not move people without their consent. But it allows us to have a conversation. What homes might be available to a patient in a hospital who has been discharged in and around their homes of choice while they wait for their home of choice to become available? I think that’s responsible. It is part of the solution to the acute care challenge that we faced for decades, and I’m happy that long-term care can play a role.

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

Mr. Wayne Gates: Let’s be clear: Conversation is not consent.

Speaker, 5,000 seniors have died in long-term-care homes over the last couple of years, and 40 of them died last week—parents, grandparents, mothers-in-law, fathers-in-law. Under this government’s watch, we have seniors waiting in hospital because there are no long-term-care beds in their own communities. We have seniors roasting in long-term-care homes that are over 40 degrees because there’s no air conditioning in their rooms. Now the government’s own legislation says seniors will be sent to homes outside their community without consent.

When will this government admit they completely failed on this file and left seniors behind? Taking care of seniors shouldn’t be a part-time job. When will the Premier appoint a full-time Minister of Long-Term Care? Seniors deserve no less.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Speaker, I think it’s not dangerous that the honourable gentleman is wrong, because I can only assume that he hasn’t read the bill and he’s not up to speed. But what is dangerous is to be out there communicating things that just simply are not part of the legislation. Nobody will be discharged from a hospital and moved into a long-term-care home without their consent. It’s in the explanatory note, and it’s actually in the legislation itself. There is nobody roasting in long-term-care homes at 40 degrees. The Fixing Long-Term Care Act, which he voted against, ensures that that does not happen.

In fact, almost 89% of our homes have air conditioning in each and every room, and 100% of our long-term-care homes are air-conditioned. That is the reality.

Here is the thing: Long-term care—we can be part of the solution. It has been decades that long-term care has placed a challenge on the health care system, but because of the investments that we have made, that they have voted against, we can be part of the solution, and we will be.

Education funding

Ms. Marit Stiles: This question is for the Minister of Education. Speaker, unfortunately, our public health care system isn’t the only sector that is being targeted for privatization by this government. Two weeks ago, the finance minister announced a new scheme that would give payouts to parents for tutoring outside of school. It’s a plan that sucks $225 million out of our public schools, far surpassing whatever this government is contributing to in-school supports for kids and giving them what I can only guess is about 50 bucks per family for tutoring services outside of school.

Speaker, through you, to the Minister of Education: How does taking money away from our in-school supports and public education, and forcing families to find help for their kids at 50 bucks a year, actually help our struggling students?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Mr. Speaker, we reject the premise that it’s an either/or proposition. This Progressive Conservative government is going to give support to parents while increasing investments in public education. We can do both in this province, and we owe it to parents to do both. It’s so critical at a time of rising national inflation, the cost-of-living challenge—I find it a bit bizarre for New Democrats and Liberals to oppose measures even if they incrementally provide $50, $100, $200, $400, as we’ve done in the past year over the pandemic.

That makes a difference, and parents in this province want more of it, not less. We’re going to increase investments for public education, as announced by the Minister of Finance, by 615 million more dollars for this September—a learning recovery plan that leads the nation with $175 million in tutoring supports for the publicly funded schools the member opposite rightfully speaks about.

We agree it is important these kids get back on track, and the most important thing we can do, in addition to the dollars, is to have a resolute commitment to keep the kids in class, and our government will deliver that for the kids of this province.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, it’s clear this is really about sucking funds out of publicly funded education and subsidizing private tutoring. At $50 a family a year, what does that actually achieve? If anybody was watching the Jays game last week, you probably saw the slick new taxpayer-funded ads for the government’s so-called Plan to Catch Up, and let’s be clear that most of that is a recap of funding that was announced last year and this new $50 tutoring support.

The only problem is, we don’t even know who, how, when, or who’s going to get those support cheques, because the government hasn’t even released any details of it. So, not only are they prioritizing these one-off cheques over real investment in our kids’ schools, but they’re spending massively to convince parents that they’re doing more than they are.

How much is the government spending on this massive advertising program to promote a plan that doesn’t even exist yet?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: It’s not lost on families watching that when the details were unveiled for the $200 investment we provide to every child—or the $400, when we doubled it—the New Democrats opposed it then, just like they will do now. They have stood up against the incremental savings our government has been able to provide for families.

Ideologically, it is consistent. After all, in the child care deal we’re now saving, on average, $4,000 this year and $12,000 by next year.

The New Democrats wanted us to omit for-profit child care because they don’t believe in choice, they don’t believe in respecting parents and they don’t believe in delivering affordability for the taxpayers of this province.

Our government and our Premier have a mandate to do that, to work with our publicly funded school boards to improve education quality, to invest more and to expect more. That’s exactly what we’re going to do by investing in a landmark tutoring expansion plan and a 420% increase in mental health. All of this is going to make a difference as we get kids in normal, stable, more enjoyable schools this September.

Long-term care

Mr. Lorne Coe: My question is to the Minister of Long-Term Care. Last Thursday, the minister introduced legislation in this House that critics have suggested will see seniors discharged from hospitals and moved into long-term-care homes in communities far from their family and friends, and against their will.

We all know how difficult it was during the initial waves of COVID-19 when family could not visit or participate in caring for their loved one in a long-term-care home.

Is the minister doing this, as critics have suggested, and ignoring the lessons of the pandemic and forcing seniors to live alone, isolated from family?

Hon. Paul Calandra: I would like to thank the member for Whitby for the question and the obvious passion which he brings to the file. I can assure the member that, of course, no such action will be taken. Consent will still be required.

Ultimately, we do understand how important it is that loved ones—family, friends, spouses, partners—are close to their loved ones in long-term care, not only because they provide assistance with day-to-day activities but because of the emotional support that comes with having a loved one nearby.

But it also reflects that the best care for somebody who has been discharged from a hospital is not in a hospital. It is in a long-term-care home. As the parliamentary assistant said, we want to turn people from patients into residents. We have the ability to do so. I’m very proud of the fact that long-term care can be part of the solution.

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

Mr. Lorne Coe: Back to the Minister of Long-Term Care: I appreciate the answer. However, regulation will be used to implement the legislation and will identify the parameters around movement into a home.

Very specifically, who will the minister be consulting in advance of establishing a regulation? How long will Ontario families wait before the minister delivers the regulations implementing the legislation?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Again, I thank the honourable member for the very important question. My parliamentary assistant, Mr. Jordan, has already begun undertaking consultations. We’ll be working with residents’ councils, family clinicians, hospitals and residents to ensure that the regulations, in fact, keep residents as close to their homes of choice as possible, and close to their family, friends and spouses.

Specific to the question, assuming that this Legislature passes this bill, we will quickly present regulations no later than one week following the passage of the bill.

Explosions in Chatham-Kent–Leamington

Mr. Jeff Burch: Speaker, through you to the Premier: One year ago this week, downtown Wheatley exploded, likely as a result of an old abandoned gas well that had leaked.

According to the Globe and Mail, months after the explosion the Chatham-Kent fire chief warned the provincial government of gas leaks and repeatedly begged for help, but the province evidently decided this was the municipality’s problem, not the province’s. There are an estimated 15,000 abandoned oil and gas wells in rural southwestern Ontario. Experts say another Wheatley is just a matter of time.

Will the provincial government take action to prevent another explosion, or will the Premier abandon rural communities to deal with this danger on their own?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: Again, thank you for the question. First and foremost, let me just thank the new member from Chatham-Kent for the work he’s been doing on this file. It is something that he addressed immediately after his swearing-in. At the same time, significant resources have been put in place to ensure that we identify and cap wells.

Frankly, we are working with our partners at all levels—municipal and the federal government—to not only identify these wells but to cap them. As I said, funding has been put in place to ensure that happens. At the same time, through the good work of the member for Chatham-Kent and, of course, the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade, local businesses that were impacted by that are being supported.

More work needs to be done, but we’re well on our way to ensuring all communities are safe.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary: the member for Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: To the Premier: The explosion in Wheatley flattened the downtown core and many people were hospitalized. About a year before the Wheatley explosion, there was another explosion just 10 kilometres away near Leamington. That explosion took the lives of a retired couple. Experts believe that a leaky oil and gas well may have been the cause of that explosion as well. People have died, and yet when Chatham-Kent detected a gas leak in downtown Wheatley and begged the province for help, the province dithered.

Past provincial governments have allowed oil and gas companies to walk away from their responsibilities when they abandon these wells. When will your government take action to prevent another deadly explosion like we are seeing in the province of Ontario?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Steve Clark: The government is keenly aware of the problem with the homeowners and tenants in Wheatley. Obviously, we were on the ground very early, both the Premier and Minister Rickford. On March 4, 2022, the province extended the Wheatley Residents Assistance Program to the end of the year. Wheatley residents who have not been able to return home can receive assistance costs until December 31, 2022.

So far, the honourable member should know that we’ve paid over $823,000 to help evacuated households, and additional payments are being made on an ongoing basis.

Long-term care

Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos: In an answer to one of my colleagues earlier in question period, the Minister of Long-Term Care confirmed that no patient in hospital will be discharged into a long-term-care home against their will, and that he understands the importance of keeping someone in long-term care close to family and friends. However, the opposition are suggesting that as part of the solution to the decades-long challenges in acute care, seniors are being forced back into four-bed ward rooms. These ward rooms were singled out by the long-term-care commission as being a serious part of the problem in the initial waves of COVID-19.

Can the minister confirm if he is considering this as part of the solution, and if so, what evidence does he have that they are now safer?

Hon. Paul Calandra: I thank the member for the question. Of course, the member served as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Long-Term Care predating me and did a tremendous amount of work which has brought us to the position where we can actually participate in long-term care. So I thank her for that work and the passion she brings.

But very specific to her question, despite what the opposition critic is tweeting out and press releases, four-bedroom ward rooms will not be used as part of this solution.

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

Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos: Thank you, Minister. My follow-up to the minister is about the resources that will be available to residents who are moving into a long-term-care home following discharge from a hospital. Often patients coming from hospital require some additional assistance that is not always available in a home. For example, patients requiring dialysis must move back and forth from home to hospital for their treatment. Residents with dementia would also need special services and care.

The minister has stated that long-term care is able to be part of the solution. Can the minister explain what additional resources are provided to improve residents’ quality of care?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: Thank you again to the member. I understand why she’s asking this question, because it is something that she worked on for four years as the parliamentary assistant on the strategic long-term-care advisory table.

What we are doing is adding $37 million in additional resources right now, and over $60 million ongoing. What this will do is look at homes and retrofit them. It’s a community partnership that we’re doing. So a patient discharged from hospital who needs dialysis: We will make sure that the home where they may go to actually has dialysis available. But we’re doing a bit more than that, too. We’re partnering up with Baycrest, which offers leading-edge behavioural services.

We’re doing that, and we’re providing additional supports for behavioural services in Ontario to deal with or to assist in those instances where patients leaving hospital with dementia are in a home and require additional resources in order to deal with it.

It is really, in all honesty, thanks to the hard work of the member for Oakville North–Burlington and, of course, my predecessor the minister who undertook a lot of this work in advance of me even getting there.

Northern Health Travel Grant

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: Ma question est pour le Premier Ministre. The Northern Health Travel Grant has not been revised in years. With the rate of inflation this program does not even cover the cost of gas, let alone a hotel room to travel, for residents in northern Ontario. Patients are left paying out of pocket for their expenses or racking up credit card bills. Sadly, some people must cancel their appointments because they simply cannot afford it. What is this government going to do to help offset the costs of important medical travel and ease the financial burden for residents of northern Ontario?

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

Hon. Sylvia Jones: You know, we recognize that the residents in northern Ontario face some unique challenges because of the distances between accessing health care, particularly specialty services. The Northern Health Travel Grant is continuously upgrading quality improvement opportunities. In fact, in the 2021-22 allocation, it was $48.2 million. And most importantly for me, 96.2% of those applications were approved.

We have done things like making sure that people who have to use the northern Ontario health travel grant have the opportunity, if they so choose, to be able to have direct deposit. So if you are using the service on a regular basis, you have the ability to receive that payment back sooner as opposed to waiting for a cheque. It is an optional program, but I think it speaks to how we always want to see where there are opportunities for improvement, and we will act as a government.

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

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: Encore, le Premier Ministre: The reimbursement rate is 41 cents per kilometre and has been for many years, with the price of gas sitting around $1.90 to $2 per litre. The hotel industry has seen an increased rate of up to 30%; it’s not uncommon to pay $150 per night. The travel grant covers $100 for two nights. Meals are never included in the grant.

These medical appointments are booked because they’re necessary. How are seniors and low-income patients supposed to cover these costs? Will the government stop dragging their feet and implement a new, revised reimbursement formula for this program?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: As I mentioned in my previous answer, of course we understand the unique challenges that northern and rural residents in Ontario experience, which is frankly why we have ensured that there are now 400 new additional health care providers working in northern and rural Ontario. We’ll continue to work with our partners to improve any programs that we have in place. Those programs, such as matching an emergency room doc with a peer mentor that may have access to different skill sets—and using that to make sure that we leverage so that people in northern Ontario and across Ontario have equitable access to health care in the province of Ontario.

Disaster relief

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Ottawa.

Mr. Stephen Blais: Climate change is wreaking havoc around the globe: fires, windstorms, floods all happening with a ferocity and a frequency that we haven’t seen before. Ottawa has seen two floods and three major windstorms in the last five years. That’s once-in-a-generation storms happening every single year, Mr. Speaker. But Ontario has failed to invest in infrastructure adaptation or the modernization of disaster relief programs to address the new reality.

In May, the derecho, with winds up to 190 kilometres an hour, swept across the city. There were 180,000 residents without power, some for days, many for weeks. Residents were isolated at the upper levels of apartment buildings without fresh water. The emergency response to the storm has cost the city and Hydro Ottawa up to $50 million. Three months later, despite promises from the Premier, there has still been no provincial support to the city or Hydro Ottawa.

When will the government step up, fulfill its commitments to the residents of Ottawa and compensate the city and Hydro Ottawa for the cost of this storm?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I apologize to the member. His riding, of course, is Orléans.

The Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.

Hon. David Piccini: I thank the member opposite for his question and was pleased to join him with members of Ottawa city council to discuss climate change and the commitments that this government is taking to address and improve adaptation and resiliency through the province’s first-ever climate change impact assessment. I know my colleague will address some specifics in the supplemental, but I’d like to lead by saying that this is the first-ever climate change impact assessment this province has ever undertaken. It was welcome news by the city of Ottawa and will help build our resiliency.

To add to that, Speaker, we’ve made critical investments in stormwater and waste water infrastructure upgrades after years of neglect by the previous government, where we saw sewage spills leeching into Lake Ontario, where infrastructure was crumbling and not able to meet extreme weather events. Under this government, we’ve increased OCIF, a critical funding instrument for rural municipalities. We’ve increased funding for sewage and water to address overflow issues. We’ve launched the first-ever climate change impact assessment and we’ll continue to work with municipal partners to address this.

I’d like to thank the incredible staff at Hydro One for the work that they’ve done to address these outages—

Interjections.

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

Mr. Stephen Blais: The supplemental is to the Premier again. Some of the hardest-hit areas of Ottawa were in the rural areas: Navan, Sarsfield, Carlsbad Springs. Families like the McWilliamses, the McFaddens and the Cottons have seen utter devastation to their farms and their properties—farms that have been feeding the community in the region for generations. And they’re not alone, Mr. Speaker. Despite some nice promises from the Premier during the election, these families still don’t qualify for the disaster recovery assistance program. Why? Because the government hasn’t activated the program for the city of Ottawa.

These families have worked for generations, not only producing food but giving back to the community. Whether it’s leading the Navan Fair, which is vital to the village; whether it’s volunteer firefighting; whether it’s Hay West, these families have been contributing to their community, helping all of us for years.

During one of their darkest hours of need, when will this government step up and provide disaster relief to these families? When will their government be there for them?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Steve Clark: Ministry teams have been working with local officials since the May 21 storm event in the province. We deployed 19 provincial disaster assessment teams to assess damage both in southern and eastern Ontario.

People who were affected by the storm: Because the disaster relief assistance program for Ontarians isn’t a replacement for insurance, we obviously want to continue to encourage residents to meet with their insurance company to talk about the assessment. And we’ll continue to work with local officials.

I, like all members of this House, celebrated the work that our hydro workers have done. We’ve got a tremendous amount of municipal staff and hydro staff that have been on the ground since that May 21 event. We applaud the work that they do and we’ll continue to work with our municipal partners moving forward.

Long-term care

Mr. Brian Riddell: My question follows up on the previous two questions from my colleagues to the Minister of Long-Term Care. While I appreciate that no senior will be discharged from the hospital into a home against their will and no patient will be separated by great distance from family and friends, I am concerned about the resources being available. I’m not talking about additional funding that will be part of this, but more the availability of staff in homes that receive a senior discharge from a hospital.

Given the staffing challenge faced across the sector, how will the minister ensure that no senior discharged from a hospital becomes a resident of a home that is understaffed? What exactly would be the point of reducing stress in the acute care sector only to add it to the long-term-care sector and put residents at risk?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: I thank the member for the question. It’s a very good question, because we have heard some discrepancies on how this will work.

One of the reasons why we need to be able to work with families is so that we can assess what homes are available in and around the patient’s preferred choice. Does the home, as part of the Fixing Long-Term Care Act, provide the resources that are needed? Does it require the extra resources, and does it have the staffing and the care available for a patient who might be discharged? That is what this act allows us to do that it didn’t allow us to do. Again, as you know, as part of the Fixing Long-Term Care Act, nobody can be discharged into a home that does not have the appropriate level of care for the person who is becoming a resident of that home.

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

Mr. Brian Riddell: Speaker, the minister has stated that long-term care can be part of the solution to what has been a decades-long challenge in the acute care system. Part of the government’s plan includes elimination of isolation rooms that have been set aside for COVID outbreaks in-home. There are currently a number of homes across the province in outbreak. Will this policy not put these residents at risk? Is the minister declaring victory over COVID at this time when no one else is?

Hon. Paul Calandra: It’s a very good question from the member, and I appreciate it.

What the policy allows us to do is reflect on the fact that vaccinations have made such a difference in long-term-care homes across the province of Ontario. Fully 81% of our eligible residents have received a fourth dose. What we are doing, of course, is that there are currently 2,000 beds that have been set aside for isolation purposes. This policy will take about 1,000 of those beds and make them available for the acute care system, leaving in place over a thousand beds for isolation purposes. Of course, homes still have to provide an emergency plan.

To the specific question on outbreaks: There are still 167 homes, down from 197 homes, that are in outbreak. To put it into context, 34% of those are asymptomatic cases; 10% of the homes in outbreak have absolutely no resident cases, and 60% of the homes that are considered in outbreak have between one and 10 cases.

So a lot of work has been done to ensure our seniors are safe in long-term care.

Housing

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: My constituent Andrew reached out to me saying, “I make decent money as an engineer but there is no way I will be able to afford a house in the next 10 years. It makes me want to leave. Many believe that zoning and supply are the issues, but demand is artificially generated by those who are rich enough to speculate and pay cash. Their greed will never run out.”

Speaker, every housing expert notes that supply alone didn’t create the housing crisis; speculators with insider connections did.

What is this government doing to stop the rampant speculation taking home ownership out of reach for young families and tenants?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Associate Minister of Housing.

Hon. Michael Parsa: I thank my honourable colleague for the question.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to housing, supply is absolutely the issue in this House, and I’m not sure why my colleagues in opposition continuously fight that.

As a result of inaction by the previous government, we are in a housing crisis in Ontario right now and every single person in this province is feeling it, which is why, under the leadership of this minister and this Premier and this government, we are making a difference.

Last year alone, 100,000 starts started right here in this province. That’s over—

Interjections.

Hon. Michael Parsa: —13,000 of those were rental units.

When we are talking about helping Ontarians, we’re talking about housing across for every single province.

Speaker, every single initiative that we’ve put forward, the opposition has voted against. They have let the people of this province down. We’re going to fight for them every single day to make sure that life is more affordable and everyone has a safe and loving home to go to.

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

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: Again to the Premier: Although my question wasn’t answered, I’m going to ask a new question. During a housing crisis and a looming recession, this government is allowing a historic rent hike of 2.5%. This government continues to allow a rent control loophole on new units. My constituent Terrence told me this weekend how everyone he knows, including himself, is stuck living where they are now because to move, they’ll be paying more money for less housing. The prices are going up every month while rents are spiralling out of control.

Speaker, while encampments grow in every Ontario city, why is this government worsening inflation by allowing a historic rent increase?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Steve Clark: I was waiting for this member to ask a housing question because I wanted, from our government’s perspective, to find out which MPP is here today. Was it the Toronto city councillor who talked about supporting more housing construction? Or was it the Toronto city councillor who once threatened to take this government to court about consulting on the building code and the recommendations regarding the Algoma mall? Or was it—Speaker, through you—the councillor who once threatened to create her own red-light system to stop development of housing in her riding?

Over and over again, we’ve seen New Democrats not support when we want to strengthen penalties for bad landlords. We’ve seen New Democrats vote against increased support for tenants who were wrongfully evicted. Which New Democratic Party stands here today: the one that’s going to support our government when we stand up for tenants or the one that always blocks new construction?

Automotive industry

Mr. Hardeep Singh Grewal: The auto industry helped make this province an economic and manufacturing powerhouse for decades. Yet we saw the damage the previous Liberal government’s policies did to this sector. We all remember the warning from the former CEO of Fiat Chrysler, Sergio Marchionne, who said that the Liberals’ carbon tax policy risked toppling Ontario’s competitive position in the auto industry.

Today, we see the threat that buy-American policies like the US EV tax credit have on Ontario’s auto sector. My constituents are worried about the economic impacts this will have for Ontarians and the auto sector. What is this government doing to protect the auto industry in Ontario?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: The Premier and our team spent considerable time with US lawmakers, and we made a very solid case for what we call a buy-North America stance. And this ended with a personal visit to Washington to visit with Canada’s ambassador, Kirsten Hillman. Now we can proudly say that our team efforts paid off, as the US-only EV program is now the North American vehicle credit.

This is yet another reason that automakers and those in the supply chain will continue to invest billions of dollars in Ontario’s emerging world-class EV sector. By reversing the damage the Liberals and the NDP caused over more than a decade, we’ve reduced the cost of doing business in Ontario by $7 billion annually. And Speaker, it’s no wonder that we’ve already attracted $16 billion in EV investments and thousands of jobs over the last 20 months.

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

Mr. Hardeep Singh Grewal: Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Speaker, we remember when the previous Liberal government sent businesses running from Ontario with their costly policies. We can’t afford to lose businesses once again. We need to increase production here in our province. We need to show the world that Ontario is open for business and that we are an auto industry leader once again. The communities of Oshawa, Windsor, Brampton, Oakville, Ingersoll, St. Thomas are all leaders when it comes to auto production. We know that we can compete with the rest of the world and succeed, but this is not the case with Liberal and NDP policies.

My constituents want gr