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

February 28, 2024

43rd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2024-Feb-28 (PDF)

L127 - Wed 28 Feb 2024 / Mer 28 fév 2024

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 28 February 2024 Mercredi 28 février 2024

Orders of the Day

Keeping Energy Costs Down Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 visant à maintenir la facture énergétique à un niveau abordable

Report, Financial Accountability Officer

Working for Workers Four Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 visant à oeuvrer pour les travailleurs, quatre

Members’ Statements

Health care funding

Pay equity

Pollard Windows and Doors

Women’s issues

Health care funding

Health care

Public transit

Black History Month

Leo Groarke

Winterdance Dogsled Tours

Introduction of Visitors

Question Period

Justice system

Justice system

Indigenous mental health and addiction services

Taxation

Affordable housing

Automotive industry

Public transit

Justice system

Transportation infrastructure

Child care

University and college funding

Skilled trades

Health care funding

Long-term care

Children’s mental health services

Deferred Votes

Keeping Energy Costs Down Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 visant à maintenir la facture énergétique à un niveau abordable

Visitors

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Justice Policy

Petitions

Subventions aux résidents du Nord pour frais de transport à des fins médicales

Manufacturing sector

Land use planning

Post-secondary education

Education funding

Land use planning

Alzheimer’s disease

Tuition

Tuition

Orders of the Day

Get It Done Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 pour passer à l’action

Adjournment Debate

Provincial schools

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Keeping Energy Costs Down Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 visant à maintenir la facture énergétique à un niveau abordable

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 27, 2024, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 165,

An Act to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 respecting certain Board proceedings and related matters / Projet de loi 165, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1998 sur la Commission de l’énergie de l’Ontario en ce qui concerne certaines instances dont la Commission est saisie et des questions connexes.

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

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: I want to start off by being clear: We’re in a climate crisis. We’re heading toward an iceberg and we need to turn this ship, not crank up the gas. We don’t have to wait for 2030. It’s here now, it’s getting worse faster, and it’s our fault. We can’t plug our ears and pretend we don’t know. We have to be brave, and we have to be afraid a little bit. It’s fear and courage that will help us do the right thing and save our way of life; whether it’s for your kids, yourself, your business or a space you love, I beg us, please.

I am worried that this summer in Ontario we’ll have an unprecedented fire season. Our province is going to burn. It will go up in smoke. This will devastate northern communities. We need to wake up and smell the smoke. Businesses will be impacted. Home building will be stalled. Kids will spend their time inside in the summer because it’s not safe to go outside, because we can’t breathe smoke. Smoke causes cancer. Ontarians will be at ERs because they’re sick from the smoke. We shouldn’t be doubling down. We should be preparing. We should prepare for extreme heat, the most deadly killer of climate impacts.

BC lost 600 people to death when they had an extreme heat dome. This foreshadowing should not be ignored.

When everyone in Ontario turns on their energy-inefficient air conditioning, we have to watch out for our grid. We have to watch out for us—for seniors, for folks with respiratory issues, for babies.

Can we spend our time now in the Legislature discussing how to improve our energy grid? Can we discuss how to install more heat pumps that are three times more efficient to cool our homes? That will help us with these peaks. It will help us with blackouts. It will help prevent deaths, and it will help prevent ER visits.

We know that every dollar we spend on mitigation will save Ontarians $7 to $10. The Conservative government’s own report says that for every dollar of adaptation we spend, we save $13 to $15. So if we care about affordability, this is a good investment. But get ready to adapt, spending our time in government working on how we can reduce the harm to our community, how to prepare for the devastation to come, instead of doubling down.

We are cooking Ontario, because Enbridge is cooking the facts. We know that they’re afraid that people can save on connection fees by not connecting. The gravy train will stop. This $16-billion company and the $19-million man will not benefit from this gravy train. They’re greenwashing right now. They’re being challenged in court for that, because they say that gas is clean, that it’s good for the planet and affordable. These claims have been proven untrue and unethical. They’re also lobbying mayors, which is also unethical.

We need to do what we can to make right decisions for the people of Ontario so that they can make affordable decisions.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We’ll now have questions to the member for Kitchener Centre with regard to her presentation and then allow her a chance to respond.

Ms. Natalia Kusendova-Bashta: I wasn’t expecting to hear about emergency rooms in a speech relating to Bill 165, but since I did, I’ll take the opportunity, as an ER nurse, to ask the member opposite if she knows how many new acute-care beds this government has built since we came into power in 2018.

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: Unfortunately, because we’re not documenting heat-related health consequences in this province, we won’t be prepared no matter how many beds we have.

How many beds do we have for slip-and-falls? In my community, when there was an icy day, we saw slip-and-fall visits to ERs explode. Not only did we have RSV explosion, but it doubled down because of climate impact, because of slip-and-falls.

So we’re talking to insurance companies right now, workplace injuries—if we have HR concerns, climate is not going to make that better, because we’re going to have smoky days in the summer, we’re going to have slip-and-fall days in the winter, and we’re not collecting proper data to prepare our health system for these consequences.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The next question will come from the member for Niagara Falls.

Mr. Wayne Gates: It’s always a pleasure to rise in the House—but this morning, I was up very early. Actually, I was watching the debate last night, at about 1:30 in the morning. It’s nice, how exciting my life is.

The reality is that this morning I heard that in Ontario, 50% of all people are living paycheque to paycheque.

And we know that Enbridge made billions of dollars in profit, approximately $18 billion—I might be out by half a billion there. Their CEO made $17 million in compensation.

My question to my colleague: Do you agree with the Conservatives that consumers who are living paycheque to paycheque should pay an extra $500 on their gas bill because of Bill 165?

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: I took business, and what I studied is that subsidizing a monopoly that is gouging our customers is not a great way to create affordability. I know that having a fair and open market is the way that we create competition, the very competition that we are working towards in our financial sector. That’s what brings prices down.

They’re afraid to compete with the heat pump industry that’s exploding all over the world. They want to save their monopoly, and they don’t want to play nice in the sandbox. They’re creating misleading information across our province, on radio, sending letters to mayors, because they’re afraid—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to interrupt the House for a second. Please stop the clock.

There’s a lot going on in the chamber at the moment. It’s the obligation of the Chair to listen to the member for Kitchener Centre. I apologize, because I’ve had three people come up to talk to me in the last 30 seconds.

Start the clock.

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: I think when we’re talking about low-income folks, we really need to make good investments. This is a bad investment. I don’t buy a car that I know is going to break down in five years, that’s not going to last. We’re saying this infrastructure is going to—we can pay it off in 40 years. If we can, let’s balance it. Let’s amortize heat pumps across 40 years, if you really want to be fair. Why are we not being fair in the marketplace? Why are we creating subsidies and barriers to a fair marketplace?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We have time for one more brief question.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I really appreciate the member from Kitchener Centre’s presentation.

I want to know from the member, how does it make sense that the government would overturn a decision—that by doing so is going to increase bills for gas customers by $600, so Enbridge can install heating systems that are going to cost them 13% more? Why wouldn’t we just go with heat pumps? Can you explain the benefits of heat pumps?

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: I think the numbers are finally showing that renewable energy and heat pumps are a more affordable choice than a hookup to gas. You have to buy an air conditioner, you have to buy a furnace, and you have to pay for that hookup. It is crippling our rural municipalities to pay for all this sprawl.

We know that the best way to save on a hookup is not to hook up. It doesn’t make financial sense anymore. If we’re going to give a fair market price to a new home, we have to make sure that it doesn’t just mark this moment in time in an urban centre—that we’re considering all the costs that go into connecting a house, and is it really worth it anymore?

Across the world, we’re seeing hookups being banned, not because of a moral choice, but they should also be considered a financially reckless choice. The reason why we know heat pumps are better: They’re more efficient—

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

Further debate? Further debate? If no one stands up, the debate collapses—just to remind the House—and then we vote. Further debate?

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s always an honour to be able to stand in this Legislature and speak on bills that are very important to this province and important to the people of Timiskaming–Cochrane.

Before I start on the bill, I just ask for the House’s indulgence for a moment.

Currently, the Cochrane-Timiskaming branch of the Canadian Mental Health Association has locked out their workers. As a result, right now, their clients are not getting any service. We are in the middle of a mental health crisis. As with any labour dispute, there are two sides; we recognize that. But I urge the management and I urge the government to discuss with the management what the roadblocks are from their end. They’re not that far apart, and we are facing a mental health crisis.

Right now, the people who serve their clients are being locked out and not being able to serve the people who have some of the most dire needs in this province. I urge the government to reach out to management to see what roadblocks exist so that those residents in my riding and in other ridings can get the mental health services they need.

Thank you for that indulgence, Speaker.

The bill we’re talking about—the working title is Keeping Energy Costs Down Act. This bill is more complicated than it seems. A lot of people, I think, would never think of how the energy system, particularly the natural gas system, is operated in Ontario. It’s regulated. That means that there is a regulatory board, the Ontario Energy Board, that oversees the system so it’s stable, so that people who are connected to gas or who want to connect to gas—if they do want to, and there are reasons why they may not want to—know that they’re getting as fair a deal as possible.

The Ontario Energy Board made a ruling that new gas hookups in new subdivisions, in new builds, shouldn’t be amortized over 40 years because it’s a very likely that that gas hookup won’t be useful for 40 years, because, as we know, the world is in transition.

Last summer, I was in this House speaking, and I think you will remember that we could smell the smoke from the forest fires, in this House. I don’t think that has happened in modern times.

Today, in Timiskaming–Cochrane, it was 8 degrees this morning, thunderstorms—in February. In Timiskaming–Cochrane, in February, it’s usually minus 20, minus 25, snowmobilers are happy, ice fishermen—ice fisher-people, I guess—are happy. But that’s not the case. People can say, “Oh, that’s a one-off,” and, “No, no, that could happen”—I was standing here, and so were the rest of us, sitting here, when we smelled that smoke. That’s not a one-off. Is that the only reason to look at this—what the government is trying to do here? It’s a big reason, but not the only one. But we have to keep that in the back of our minds.

We have to look at transitioning away from fossil fuels. We’re not the first people to do this. Most of my family comes from Europe. Right now in Holland, they’re self-sufficient in natural gas. They do import, but they could be self-sufficient. Right now in Holland, if you build a new house—

Mr. Stéphane Sarrazin: Put a heat pump.

Mr. John Vanthof: No, you don’t have to put in a heat pump, but you cannot be hooked up to natural gas. I’m not saying we have to follow that—not at all—because there are uses that are very important for fossil fuels like natural gas. As a farmer, grain drying—right now the technology does not exist to dry grain at a sufficient capacity, fast enough, hot enough, to actually make it feasible without natural gas or propane. I don’t think there’s any argument about that. But that’s not really what this bill is about.

This bill is about how the regulator said, “To keep the system stable, we can’t take out 40-year amortization mortgages on new parts of the system that likely might not make sense today and likely won’t make sense in five years.”

It was really interesting when the Minister of the Energy, who I respect, talked about how he had a heat pump with an electric backup and he was never cold. That tells me that, in large parts of this province, new houses could also have heat pumps with electric backup and cause much less impact to the environment than natural gas.

The financial part of what the government is doing—the Ontario Energy Board said, “No, no, it doesn’t make sense to take a 40-year mortgage out to pay for something that actually might not make sense for people now; it certainly won’t make sense in five years, because the rest of the world is transitioning already.” The government steps in and says, “No, no. The regulator? They don’t know what they’re talking about. We’re going to make an informed decision. What we’re going to do is, we’re going to make all the other people who pay, who are already on the system—we’re going to make them pay for the hookups that might not make sense. We’re going to destabilize the system on their behalf.”

If this government had a really good record of making forward-looking financial decisions, you could maybe give them the benefit of the doubt. It’s very, very concerning that they are overruling a regulator. If they had a reasonable track record on their legislation—but this is the government that, with Bill 124, decided to change how negotiations were done with public sector workers, creating a huge issue in the health care sector. And guess what? They rescinded it. They rescinded another bill to go over the “notwithstanding” clause. The greenbelt? They rescinded it. Now they’re saying, “We know more than the Ontario Energy Board.”

The government doesn’t have a problem tacking the bill on infrastructure for 40 years that’s likely not going to be worth it in five—“We’ll make the people who are already on that infrastructure pay the difference.” They’re willing to destabilize the system. They say it’s because they want to make houses more affordable. We all want to make houses more affordable.

But are you sure you’re making the house more affordable when you’re kind of forcing someone to put in natural gas because they’re hooked up when, over years, they’d be much better off with something that was more efficient for heating and cooling and that would save them money in the long run? I question whether the government has thought that through.

I certainly don’t think that this government has the track record to say that we, the province, should be very comfortable that we’re overruling a regulator.

This is a big debate. We need to take this issue seriously. We are making decisions for people in the future—it’s not just for today.

Thank you very much for the opportunity.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Questions?

Mr. Stéphane Sarrazin: Thank you to the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane for talking about this issue. Of course, you have to recognize that all the farmers in this area all want natural gas for the grain dryers and for operations. Of course, it’s a big priority, and he couldn’t go without mentioning it.

My question is, when the member knocked on doors for the election, what was the message he got from the people of Ontario? I hope it’s the same message we got. The one we got was about the cost of living, the lack of housing, the need for natural gas expansion and high-speed Internet. Our government did put money towards high-speed Internet, and I don’t see anybody complaining about Bell Canada or Rogers getting some favours, because what we did is bring service to the people of Ontario. So I’m wondering if he agrees with me on this.

Mr. John Vanthof: Thank you very much for that question. You raised a lot of issues.

I knocked on a lot of doors—we all knock on a lot of doors—and I can guarantee you, Speaker, that not one person said, “Sign me up to pay $500 extra so a new subdivision can get gas.”

Mr. Stéphane Sarrazin: But what’s the priority?

Mr. John Vanthof: Yes, they talked about affordability. But not one person said, “Sign me up for that.” Not one person said, “The priority here is to get rid of regulation; get rid of the Ontario Energy Board’s decision-making.” In northern Ontario, where we have unregulated gas prices, we pay way more for gas than do you. So, yes, we face a lot of the same issues, but not one person that I knocked on the door of said, “We need to pay for other people’s natural gas hookups.” Not one person said that.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further questions?

MPP Lise Vaugeois: Thank you for the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane’s statement.

We know that they’re overruling the Ontario Energy Board. I believe this has never happened before. Certainly, it sets a very dangerous precedent—an independent regulatory board.

We know that part of what’s going on is that Enbridge is afraid of having stranded assets, so they want to invest even more, but the public will have the stranded assets in the end. And we know that the public is going to be paying; current ratepayers are going to see their costs go way up.

My question is, do you see this as another example of fiscal irresponsibility on the part of the government?

Mr. John Vanthof: Thank you very much to my colleague for that question.

I see this as an attempt by the government to make a short-term political gain, not taking into account the long-term financial pain that it’s going to cause to everyone on the system. It’s a wake-up call that there are going to be stranded assets, things that we don’t use, and one of those is going to be large parts of the gas system.

You’ve got the Minister of Energy with a heat pump, supported by electricity. He’s going in the right direction. I don’t think he has access to natural gas. Everyone in this House is not going to subsidize a natural gas line to the Minister of Energy. He’s going to put in a heat pump, supported by electricity—which he did. So why does this government expect the rest of Ontarians need to do that?

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further questions?

Mr. Stéphane Sarrazin: Of course, this member has been asked by all municipalities, by every constituent, by every farmer if he can work on getting natural gas in his riding, because we all did—every one of us was reached out to by constituents because they need natural gas, because it’s the best way to heat their home at a reasonable cost.

So I’m wondering, can the member tell us if some constituents, some farmers or some municipalities did reach out to him, trying to work to get natural gas in his riding?

Mr. John Vanthof: I’m really glad the member asked that question.

I’ve been here for a while. Years ago, municipalities were demanding and residents were demanding access to natural gas, but now, many are doing what the Minister of Energy himself did and are putting in heat pumps supported by electricity, even in northern Ontario, because the price between natural gas and heat pumps is—the difference is no longer there like it was before. People are switching, and the government isn’t realizing that. The Minister of Energy realizes that, but his government doesn’t seem to.

Are there people wanting natural gas, needing it in particular for agriculture? Yes, 100%—but for heating their homes, not the case anymore, even in northern Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further questions?

Ms. Sandy Shaw: I have to say I’m disappointed to hear the member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell—the comment that you just made to this member, who does not do what you just said, ever. He comes to this House, and he presents an honest, true picture of what is going on in his riding. For you to question that is shameful. That’s on you.

My question to the MPP for Timiskaming–Cochrane, a well-respected member of this House: Why, fundamentally, do you think the government would throw down so hard for a for-profit, basically regulated monopoly when the evidence continues to pile up that people need to get off fossil gas, to get off methane gas? Why do you think they’re desperately hanging on to this when people in the province of Ontario need affordability and they need to face the fact that climate change is real? This strange weather that we’re having is not a coincidence. Why do you think this government is throwing down so hard on the side of a huge monopoly?

Mr. John Vanthof: That’s a very good question.

I can’t speak on behalf of the government, because most of us don’t understand what this government is doing most of the time.

If they don’t do this, and people actually have to make a rational decision, not all of them are going to choose gas. Then, if not everyone chooses gas, all of a sudden, the gas lines won’t get built, because everyone has to be hooked up to make that worthwhile. So they’re kind of forcing—if you’re a new development and you’re going to get, basically, a free hookup because everyone else is paying for that hookup, the chances are you’re going to put in a gas furnace as opposed to the chances of putting in a heat pump with electric backup or with another backup, because you’ve already got the hookup for the gas.

So they are helping Enbridge, and they are helping the developers, but they are creating stranded assets—they know that because the energy board told them, and they overruled. They know that we’re creating stranded assets.

At the end of the day, somebody is going to end up paying a lot of money for—it’s like taking out a car loan for 20 years when you know the car is going to last, maximum, eight, and you’re forcing everyone else to pay that car loan for 20 years. In eight years, that car is going to be in the recycling centre. That’s what—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Thank you.

Quick question, quick response.

M me Dawn Gallagher Murphy: Our government established the Electrification and Energy Transition Panel to advise the government on the highest value, short, medium and long term—all the opportunities related to the energy sector—and of course to help us with Ontario’s economy to prepare for electrification and energy transition.

All of that being said, does the member opposite agree that it’s unfortunate that the board moved ahead without waiting for the panel’s final report, considering that expert input should be critical to making any decisions like this?

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): My apologies to the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane; that ran a little longer.

Further debate?

Ms. Natalia Kusendova-Bashta: I’m proud to rise today in this chamber in support of Bill 165, the Keeping Energy Costs Down Act. I have to say that the Minister of Energy’s hard work on this file is truly commendable. Bill 165 focuses on lowering the price of newly built homes, and it shows how our government is tackling the housing crisis using a holistic approach. The housing file requires the collaboration of ministries to implement forward-thinking ideas so that Ontarians can achieve the dream of buying an affordable place to call home.

Madam Speaker, just this past week, the Premier awarded the mayors of Toronto and Brampton millions of dollars for their cities’ incredible success in meeting provincial housing targets through the Building Faster Fund. That is what we like to see—our municipal partners working with us and meeting our targets.

One notable city that unfortunately did not meet their housing starts is my very own city of Mississauga. Let the record show that under Bonnie Crombie’s leadership, our own city lagged behind in housing starts while others successfully met their targets. Last year, Mississauga only hit 39% of their targets. The Associate Minister of Housing mentioned that under Bonnie Crombie’s leadership, Mississauga denied an application for 4,700 units because the buildings were too tall. Really?

First-time homebuyers, young Canadians, young professionals working hard should know that Bonnie Crombie does not have your back.

That brings me to Bill 165. Since day one, our government has taken action to lower energy costs. We extended the tax cut on gas and fuel until June 30 of this year, saving Ontarians at the gas pump an average of 5.7 cents per litre. We’re saving families $312 a year with the Ontario Electricity Rebate. We ended the disastrous cap-and-trade carbon tax imposed by the Wynne Liberals.

And last week our government tabled the Get It Done Act, which will mandate a referendum if any future government wishes to establish a carbon tax, because Ontarians should have a say if a disastrous tax on everything is imposed on our lives. It is a necessary step when we have someone like the Liberal leader, Bonnie Crombie, the queen of the carbon tax, vying for power. During her federal time in politics, she was a champion of the carbon tax. Just this past week, she was asked by a journalist seven times on live TV if she supports a carbon tax, and she just kept on deflecting and deflecting.

However, we and the voters already know the answer. This past week, her own caucus voted against a motion from my colleague the member for Simcoe–Grey to eliminate the carbon tax on fuels used for the transportation of goods. Is that who we want as our next Premier?

Ontarians do not want to be taxed to death. Do the math. The same federal government we sued to exempt Ontario out of the carbon tax is the same federal government currently polled to lose the next election in a landslide.

Our government is using every tool at our disposal to keep costs down for people, especially those looking to buy their home.

When we see institutions like the Ontario Energy Board make decisions that are unnecessary and increase costs for homebuyers, we will take action, and we are taking action.

Bill 165 will give our government the authority to reverse the energy board’s recent decision for customers to buy 100% of the cost for a new natural gas connection up front rather than over a 40-year period. The energy board strayed outside of their lane on this issue. It is a huge departure from the realities of our energy system and from historical precedent, that homeowners should pay for these costs like a mortgage over many years.

We will be appointing a new chair to the energy board with the expectation that the board will abide by our legislative requirements when reaching any decisions that support our commitment to an affordable, reliable and clean energy system.

Paying for a natural gas connection for a 40-year period lowers the average home price by about $4,400, and tens of thousands of dollars for homes in rural areas of Ontario. As first-time homebuyers navigate through difficult obstacles such as high interest rates and inflation affecting the cost of building materials, it is important that we don’t burden homebuyers with even more new energy costs.

The energy board’s decision also raised concerns with how they incorporated public consultation. In this decision itself, the commissioner noted that it was reached without any input from Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator or from any stakeholders.

With this act, we are requiring the energy board to conduct broader engagement with stakeholders when conducting both natural gas and electricity hearings.

With that, Madam Speaker, I move that the question now be put.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Ms. Kusendova-Bashta has moved that the question be now put. I’m satisfied that there has been sufficient debate to allow this question to be put to the House.

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

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

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

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

Vote deferred.

Report, Financial Accountability Officer

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): I beg to inform the House that the following document was tabled: a report entitled Ontario’s Labour Market in 2023 from the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario.

Working for Workers Four Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 visant à oeuvrer pour les travailleurs, quatre

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 22, 2024, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 149,

An Act to amend various statutes with respect to employment and labour and other matters / Projet de loi 149, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne l’emploi, le travail et d’autres questions.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further debate?

MPP Jamie West: It’s fortunate that I switched my House duty with my colleague today because last week, as you know, the government House leader gave us an update of what we’re going to be debating this week, and Bill 149 wasn’t on that list of things we would be debating. I found it odd because, on Thursday morning, they brought it for debate so the minister could have his hour lead, and then it collapsed because of question period. We couldn’t proceed. They didn’t call it back in the afternoon.

This is a weird standard that they’ve set for these employment bills, because on second reading, they brought forward the debate at 5 p.m. on a Thursday—or a Wednesday; I apologize. They brought forward the debate at 5 p.m.—I believe it was on a Thursday—the minister had his hour lead, and then because of orders of the day, at 6 p.m. we went to different business, and then we didn’t resume debate until 11:30 p.m.

If you want to have fulsome debate, you have to hear the criticisms of the bill. It isn’t that this bill is a terrible bill—there are good parts to it; there are some terrible parts to it. Honestly, in this bill, there are some good parts, there’s a really bad part, and there’s a bunch of parts that really didn’t have to be there because they are already existing laws.

The bill is Bill 149. Technically, it’s called

An Act to amend various statutes with respect to employment and labour and other matters. It has four schedules. It’s an omnibus bill.

Schedule 1 is the Digital Platform Workers’ Rights Act; I’m going to get to that in a minute.

Schedule 2 is the Employment Standards Act.

Schedule 3 is Fair Access to Regulated Professions and Compulsory Trades Act. And

schedule 4 is the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

I’m going to start with part of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act because that’s the part of the bill, for the most part, that is very positive. That’s the part of the bill that was basically piggybacked from a private member’s bill that my colleague from Niagara Centre had—

Interjection.

MPP Jamie West: Yes, Jeff Burch—for Captain Craig Bowman. At third reading, Captain Craig Bowman’s family was here in the gallery. I know that this is what people really want from us in Ontario—when we work together on things like this, when it isn’t partisan, when it isn’t poison pills. This is the right thing to do. They took a good idea from my colleague, they integrated it into a government bill, and moved it forward. Good conversations were had by the previous Minister of Labour, the current Minister of Labour, as well as colleagues of mine from the House who, I didn’t know, are actually related to Captain Craig Bowman.

Knowing how the occupational disease affects people, from my background with health and safety working in the mining industry, I know that, like Captain Bowman, a lot of these people are really just hanging on to hear that there will be some good news for their family. They know the finish line is coming. They just want to hear something. They want to hear that their WSIB claim has been accepted, that there will be some compensation and recognition for what they’re going through and what their family is going through. And I’m very happy to hear that Captain Bowman had heard that this bill was moving forward before.

Last week, I was able to go up and talk to the family and let them know that, although we do have issues with this bill—primarily the Digital Platform Workers’ Rights Act, which is a bizarre name for something that’s kneecapping digital workers—we would be supporting this bill because of the importance of what it’s going to do for firefighters in our province. We’ll have another way to work on this digital workers’ section.

So that being said, that’s the cornerstone of the bill. That’s the solid part of the bill. There are some sort of wishy-washy things in the bill that are not really legislation that I’ll get into afterwards.

I do want to talk about this Digital Platform Workers’ Rights Act. This is one of those creative writing things. I’ve said often that a lot of these Conservative bills are basically for headlines. This sounds like a great thing. These are your gig workers—if you don’t want to read through it—these are your Uber drivers, food delivery drivers; these are these app workers. It sounds like a fantastic thing, “digital platform workers’ rights”—you’re going to have some rights. We know these workers have been exploited and taken advantage of, but it really doesn’t do anything for them.

What it does is, it spells out that they can make a complaint, and the complaint can be investigated—and that sounds great—but it also enshrines that you’re only paid for the time that you’re active in service. If you think of this morning, for example—I think up to now there have been seven people who spoke. Some spoke for 10 minutes. Some spoke for maybe a minute and a half, to answer a question or to ask a question. You would only be paid for the time that you spoke. It doesn’t matter that you came to the Legislature. It didn’t matter that you’re on House duty for hours on end.

It didn’t matter that you’re in committee—and I’m not taking cheap shots at anybody. We work hard here; I know it’s a joke to say that politicians don’t. We work hard, and there are a lot of hours in here. But if we were protected under this Digital Platform Workers’ Rights Act, I’d be getting paid right now, but nobody else would—not even you, Speaker; you’d probably get the least amount, because you just get up for a second to say, “Further debate?” or “I recognize the member.” This is unfair in any workplace.

When I was a flash furnace operator, I was paid to fill the trains with slag, and I was paid when the trains were switching out. When I was waiting for new pots to come in, my pay didn’t stop.

When I was a kid, working at Baskin-Robbins in the winter, when it was slow and we had fewer people, I wasn’t paid just when people showed up to get ice cream. I was paid for the amount of time I was there ready, willing, waiting to work. That’s what needs to happen for these app workers.

In this thing, when it says that you have a right to complain that your employer is paying you less than minimum wage per hour—but nothing will happen, because the Conservative government is enshrining the right for these companies to pay their workers less than minimum wage per hour. You’re only paid for your engaged time. That means that, for example, if you stop by a grocery store or a pharmacy on the way home and you have to pick up soap, bread or something like that, the cashier would only be paid for the time that you got there, and when they scan your device, and while they did the transaction.

Then, their pay stops. Think about a chess match. Every time they hit the clock—that’s how these workers are paid.

There was a document—I know I can’t hold it up, but I’m going to have it to read from. Legislated Poverty was from RideFair. This was presented to us the day before we went to committee on this: “Under current city and provincial regulations, Toronto’s ride-hail drivers’ median pay is an estimated $6.37-$10.60/hour, a collective annual loss of up to ~$200 million/year.”

This is about app delivery drivers. This is about ride-share companies, like Lyft and Uber. This is an amazing business plan. You come up with the app, and the workers provide all the equipment. The workers do all of the work. They pay for their vehicles. It doesn’t matter if it’s a car—you want to get an Uber Black, you get a high-end car, and you’re paying a lease on it. You’re doing food delivery, and you get on an e-bike that some people are renting or trying to pay off. And you hear about these rates of pay—because Uber is telling you that you make about 30 bucks an hour. That’s 30 bucks an hour if you only count the time when you’re working.

The Conservative government has created a law where—“Yes, we stand with Uber. We stand with the billionaires.” This is sort of a familiar refrain from the Conservative government. They love billionaires, but they don’t stand with regular working-class people.

A couple of quotes in here: “Toronto ride-hail drivers received an estimated median pay as low as $6.37/hr”— that’s before the deductions. That’s before gas. That’s before their lease. That’s before they pay for the bike. That’s out-of-pocket expenses.

Our minimum wage is $16.55. I want you to compare that—and I’m going to say it again: $16.55. What the Conservative government is saying is, “It’s okay if a company pays their workers $6.37 an hour instead.” That is flabbergasting. In this economy, in this time of financial strife, when people are feeling the affordability pinch—middle-class people, higher-income people are thinking about what they’re purchasing. They’re putting things back on the shelves. People who can afford it are just saying, “This is ridiculous, the way we’re being gouged.”

You have a Conservative government saying, “I think it’s great that this billionaire company is exploiting these workers. In fact, I’m going to write it into law so they can keep getting away with it.” It’s disgraceful.

Further, they did some analysis on this, and their estimate was that Uber’s proposed—Uber says they make 120% of minimum wage for engaged time, but only while they’re actually working. While they’re waiting for an order to come in, and if Uber decides—they know how the app works. If Uber decides, “I’m going to keep sending it to this person and ignore this person”—it’s only while they’re going; you get zero while you’re waiting.

One of the deputants who spoke to us at clause-by-clause told us about being out in snowstorms—because you get more orders for food in snowstorms—and waiting in Toronto with his bike and making $2.50 an hour, which, coincidentally, is what they estimate that works out to, actually, as an hourly minimum wage. It’s a little bit of smoke and mirrors, because the engaged time pay is pretty good, but if Uber doesn’t give you any deliveries, it’s pretty bad.

Again, think of us all here: Right now, I’m getting paid because I’m engaged; none of you are. None of you deserve a cent for what you’re doing. It makes no sense. It’s completely unfair.

So Uber is telling people—they’ve got a thing called Uber math; I guess that’s a trending thing. Basically, what they say is, you’re making $40.69 an hour—which is great, if you actually made that for the hour, but that’s only when they add up your engaged time over a long period. So, your engaged time, seven hours and 24 minutes—do you know how long the worker has to work to have seven hours and 24 minutes of engaged time? It’s 26 hours and 18 minutes. So to work an eight-hour shift for Uber, you have to work more than 24 hours a day. If you break it down to what they actually make per hour, in this instance, it’s $11.45.

I can go on and on about this, but there are other parts of the bill to get to. I’m spelling this out as clear as I can, though, because this is punishing for workers. We had several come who are Uber drivers and food delivery workers, and I asked one of them—I’ll hear, often, when people hear of somebody who has a job that doesn’t pay well, “Just quit and get another job.” So I said, “Why don’t you just quit and get another job?” He said, “There are no other jobs. I have to put food on the table for my family, and so what I do is, I sit in my car and I wait. I don’t spend time with my family.

I sit in my car for 16 to 18 hours a day, and then I collapse from exhaustion and sleep, and I sit in my car again.”

Interjection.

MPP Jamie West: The member opposite is talking about these jobs that are existing, and I think it’s a good opportunity for me to transition to another thing we heard during the deputations and when we had amendments.

The number one thing we heard from people, from amendments—I talked earlier about WSIB and how it’s going to help the firefighters, but the number one thing we heard was to bring in an end to deeming.

Our member from Niagara Falls, Wayne Gates, has a deeming bill that he has tabled more than once. What this does is that, if you’re an injured worker—and a lot of people, if they’re not injured, think WSIB works well. The sad reality is, for a lot of workers, when you are injured, you are first in line to the poverty line. It is a sad reality for way too many workers. The Ontario Disability Support Program is made up of way too many workers who have been injured on the job.

There is a historic agreement that brought forward the Workmen’s Compensation Act, now WSIB, and the idea was that workers would give up the right to sue. In the States, you see these multi-million dollar lawsuits, when you’re injured on the job. Workers in Ontario gave up that right so they could have access to fair compensation. But what’s happening is, workers are not getting fair compensation.

That’s a whole other kettle of fish, the larger picture—but to rub their nose in it, to even thumb down harder on these workers, they have a process called deeming. So what you can do is, if you’re injured and you have restrictions—let’s say that you have a back injury and you can’t stand for long periods of time. Many times, a doctor who has never even seen you, never analyzed you, never met with you, just went through your case files, and this doctor can deem you able to do another job. The doctor can say, “Do you know what?

You could be a parking lot attendant.” The reality is—I don’t know if you’ve been gone out to a lot of places—not a lot of parking lot attendants even exist anymore. It doesn’t matter if you live in a rural area where there aren’t even any parking lots—because places in Sudbury, like mine, outside of downtown, parking is free almost everywhere. It doesn’t matter if there are no jobs; they deem you able to do that job, and they bring your benefits down. You don’t have the job. You’ve got a phantom job.

The problem with this scenario is that it’s not like they say, “We think you can do this job,” and they send you out to do the job and they pay you for the job; they just say, “You could do this phantom job, and you can buy your groceries and pay your rent with the phantom cheques you’re going to get from it.” It is a broken, punishing system that is punishing people living with disabilities they got from their workplace. It is punching down on the weakest people in our province.

The Conservative government voted against our amendment to end deeming. The Conservative government voted against the deeming bill. The Conservative government doesn’t want deeming to end. In a bill that is called Working for Workers, I cannot imagine anything more working against workers than not bringing in deeming. In fact, we tried to bring the amendment forward, and they said, “You can’t bring it forward; it’s out of order,” because they don’t talk about deeming in this bill. The standing orders say that, and that’s fair enough.

My colleague the member from Niagara Falls asked for unanimous consent so we could debate the idea of even talking about it, so that we could even discuss the idea of having it. They still had the opportunity to vote it down at that point, but they didn’t want to talk about it because their mind is made up.

There is nothing this government loves more than to punch down on an injured worker. There is nothing they love more than putting their fingers in their ears when workers say, “This ability to deem me is punishing me and making my life more difficult.” There is nothing they like more than turning their back on injured workers and saying, “You’ve got it good enough.”

I know one of my colleagues from across the aisle is going to yell out about the 5% increase for ODSP, which a lot of these workers end up on. Basically, in the old days, we would have called this welfare. “ODSP,” I guess, has a better ring to it when you’re embarrassed about how you’re treating people who are living in poverty. But when you think of that 5% increase, I want you to imagine that there’s a waterline; this is the poverty line. This is where it was for people on ODSP, and that 5% increase brought you to here. You still can’t breathe. You’re still underwater. You still can’t pay your bills. But the good news is you got that 5%, so you should be thankful.

That’s the message the Conservative government gives to people: “We’re holding your head underwater. You’re not going to be able to survive.” Imagine the stress and the reality of that. “We cannot wait to do it. We’re going to pull you up 5%, but you’re not going to get to the surface. And not just that; we’re going to brag to people who don’t know enough about ODSP that we locked it in so as inflation rises, as the water goes up, you get to go up too, but never to the surface. We’re always going to keep you under the poverty line—and not a little under; far under. You can see the surface, but you can’t get to it.”

Imagine the ceiling, Speaker. It’s probably about 20, 30 feet above me. That’s where we’re holding these disabled workers. That’s where we’re holding these people, in poverty. That’s a government decision. The budget will come out probably at the end of next month or mid-month, and I’m going to predict “ODSP” won’t be a word in that budget. I’ll give you five bucks if it changes, but I’m telling you it’s not going to change.

Mr. Wayne Gates: “Deeming” is not going to be in it either.

MPP Jamie West: And “deeming” won’t be in it either.

Those are the bad parts of the bill, the main parts.

The other part of the bill that I want to talk about—I’m going to run out of time again because I’m not getting my full hour this morning. I think this is important too. When I was talking about the Digital Platform Workers’ Rights Act—this isn’t just an opinion that these workers are getting ripped off. If you go to any Tim Hortons, people will tell you they’re getting ripped off; they know they are.

It’s not like the Conservative government is waiting for an expert to tell them that these workers are misclassified as independent contractors. They’re not independent. They’re reliant on the app company for the job. There has been the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and an Ontario Ministry of Labour employment standards officer both indicating these app workers have been misclassified as independent contractors. So it’s not a handful of people talking about it. It’s not a guy who does the job who’s griping about it. These are authoritative figures.

I know that there isn’t a court case the Conservative government loves to lose enough, when you think of Bill 124 and all the other court cases they lost, but the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has said that these workers are misclassified. And the Minister of Labour—it’s his bill. One of his employment standards officers has said they’re misclassified.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has certified the landmark $400-million class action lawsuit against Uber, filed on behalf of Uber drivers who have been misclassified as independent contractors by the ride-sharing giant. So what they do is, they look at the claim and they say, “Yes, I think you have a case.” They’re going to have to make a ruling on it. When there’s a $400-million class action lawsuit, they have a decent look at that before proceeding. They said, “I think it has merit to be heard.” You are not an independent contractor if you don’t control your hours and you don’t control your pay.

We also heard from nurses who said, “I’m not an independent contractor, and I have some flexibility in how I do my work as well.”

So I think that these workers are going to win, in the same way that I thought the workers from Bill 124 were going to win, in the same way I thought the workers from Bill 28 were going to win. Those workers won too.

I think the government could save the province a ton of money if they listened to me once in a while, because they’re getting it wrong again and again. Honestly, two days ago there was a motion to have night sittings, and the first thing I thought is, “Well, we need those night sittings because of the legislation they’re going to have to walk back later.” The majority of our time, basically, is walking back legislation from a Conservative government who loves nothing more than a “ready, fire, aim” philosophy of Legislature.

On February 22, 2022, Ministry of Labour employment standards officer Katherine Haire “found several violations of the Employment Standards Act—and employment lawyers and advocates say the ruling sends a clear message on the issue of employment status that gig platform workers have long fought for.

“Haire ordered the company to pay Uber Eats courier Saurabh Sharma wages he argued were deducted without notice last August, along with wages to make up for missing public holiday pay and minimum wage discrepancies.” This added up to $919.37. “The ruling also dinged the company for not allowing required breaks during all of Sharma’s shifts.”

So there’s a Ministry of Labour bill, and the Ministry of Labour inspector in 2022 said, “These are workers who are being violated by the Employment Standards Act.” And instead of the Minister of Labour from the Conservative government saying, “I never realized this. What a travesty that these workers are being punished by this billion-dollar company. What I should do is stand up for these workers. I should be the voice of these workers”—remember the slogan, “For the Little Guy”? You don’t hear it anymore, because nobody believes it—but that’s what the Ministry of Labour should have done.

It should have been there for the little guy. Instead, they passed this act, this section, the digital workers’ rights protection act. They passed it so that those employees can no longer phone the employment standards agency inspector to have a complaint, because the employment standards agency won’t apply to those workers anymore. That’s the rights they have. The rights they have are that their rights were removed, and that’s what the Conservative government is trying to tell you is great in this bill.

I talked earlier about workers who were making about $6.50 an hour, a little over $2 an hour after deductions.

I want to remind everybody here that Uber, which is the largest company that does this, is worth $141.99 billion. I don’t know what they’re worth today, but that’s what they were—I looked it up during amendments: $141.99 billion. Do you know how they got rich that way? By paying people less than minimum wage. That is shameful.

I think we’re going to get the Feed Ontario report very soon again, and I’m going to predict—because it has been since 2018, since the Conservative government was elected—that more and more working people will be going to food banks. That number will increase again, like it has every single year.

Honestly, in 2018, when I talked about this, I was very fair to the Conservative government. You were just elected—not your fault; the Liberals did this. The Liberals created this trend. But the thing was, when you were elected, people were counting on you to fix it, as a Conservative government. People who were working full-time and going to food banks, people bringing their kids to food banks while having a full-time job—I talked about charity in the past, having to bring your kids to the food bank to put food on the table; working full-time in a job from the government and going to food banks.

But that wasn’t fixed in 2018, or 2019, or 2020, or 2021, or 2022, or 2023—more than half a decade—and I have a feeling it’s not going to be fixed in 2024 either, because they are not listening to this.

There are sections of this bill that last time I called “already law.” I keep looking over at the clock because I got into these “they were already a law” parts last time, when they tabled this at 11:30 p.m. for me to speak. But, honestly, any time you want to talk about workers, I’ll come running.

Three schedules to this bill—already a law. Wage theft is already a law—it’s already illegal. In fact, the Ministry of Labour and the previous Minister of Labour are aware of this. They’re aware of almost $10 million that has been reported, that’s stolen from workers by bad employers. We heard during deputations, before amendments, that in fact the same employers do it all the time. It’s just not enforced. So they do it because they can get away with it.

They know they will get away with it, because the Conservative government is aware of the $10 million that was stolen from employees—no effort to get that back, no progress. It’s not like the number goes down to $9 million, then $8 million. They’re not doing anything about it—open season, man.

Do you know what they’re doing? They’re holding press conferences to say that they’re announcing a bill that will have wage theft protection. What they’re not saying—because they want their picture in the paper, “Look what we’re doing for workers”—is that this actually exists as part of the Employment Standards Act, and it has for decades. We’re not enforcing it, but we want the photo op so people think that we’re working for workers.

The second

part is a similar form of wage theft. It’s about when you’re doing trial work, when you’re training—that you have to be paid. This has been part of the Employment Standards Act, as well, for more than a decade. It’s just that employers rip people off, and the Conservative government doesn’t enforce it. Going out and standing in front of people and telling them, “Look at these great laws we’re bringing forward,” and not saying, “Yes, they’re already existing laws that we don’t want to enforce and we don’t care about,” is deceitful. It’s a terrible thing to do to people—

Interjection.

MPP Jamie West: I apologize. I didn’t mean to say that. It’s hurtful, Speaker. It is hurtful to these people.

We had people come to the deputations and talk about how excited they were for these laws, because they have been affected by them. Then, I had to break their heart and say, “Do you know these were already laws that they’re not enforcing?” They already exist as laws. In fact, we’re wasting time talking about this being a duplicate law.

With the resources the Conservative government has—actually, the resources that any government would have—in terms of manpower, institutional knowledge and lawyers, surely somebody in that party would have put up their hand and said, “You guys know this is already law. It’s already part of the Employment Standards Act.” I would imagine that happened, and the Minister of Labour said, “Yes, but I’ve got to get in the papers. I want to go around the province and pose for photos saying, ‘Look what I’m doing.’” But they’re not doing anything. In mining, we call that, all sizzle, no stink. It’s a pretend law.

The third one that was already a law is about requiring Canadian experience in job postings. This is already part of the 2013 Human Rights Code, so it’s more than a decade old. The reason that it’s not enforced is because first you have to know—a lot of these workers are immigrated workers, newcomers to Canada—the Human Rights Code of Ontario, then you have to file a complaint. You have to know how to file a complaint, and then you have to wait for the complaint to be heard.

Right now, if you know, if you filed a complaint, if you’re able to wait for it, you’re going to wait between three to five years because there’s a backlog of over 9,000 cases. You would think there’s a backlog of 9,000 cases because there have been so many complaints and it hasn’t been enforced—and that could be part of it, but the reality is, most people don’t even know this exists.

In fact, the Conservative government got away with all kinds of press releases about doing this without people knowing about it. They had people come to the deputations, talking about how good this will be for them, because people they represented have been exploited this way and didn’t know it was part of the Ontario Human Rights Code from 2013. The people who did figure it out and filed the complaints have to wait three to five years. The reason they have to wait is because when the Conservative government came to power, they failed to reappoint and retain the experienced adjudicators.

When those people phased out, they didn’t appoint new people. When they finally did appoint new staff, they appointed staff who weren’t qualified and didn’t understand what they were doing. They had no expertise in human rights law. So that learning curve becomes steep and slows things down even more.

This isn’t about helping workers. This is about helping Conservatives have press conferences to pretend they’re helping workers. This shouldn’t even be in here. Make it an announcement that you’re going to enforce these. Make it an announcement that you’re going to start collecting the almost $10 million that has been stolen out of workers’ pockets. Make the announcement that you know there’s a backlog of 9,000 cases and you’re going to hire even more people to have this taken care of; you’re going to make sure everyone knows that these are already existing laws.

You’re going to bring a campaign—the Super Bowl had an ad that taxpayers paid for that was all fluff. It was just an “Imagine Ontario” thing. You want to have an ad? Have an ad at the Super Bowl saying, “If you work in Ontario, we’re not allowing you to rip off our employees. We’re not allowing you to get away with wage theft; we’re not allowing you to not pay people for trial periods; we’re not going to allow to you ask for Canadian work experience, because those are illegal in our province and have been for more than a decade. We’re going to enforce the laws.

We’re all for great employers, but if you’re not a great employer, we’re going to hold you to account the same way we would hold bad employees to account.” That’s what they should be doing. But that’s not the goal. The goal is to be in front of the camera, to have a photo and to fool people to think that you’re doing something for them, and that’s disgraceful.

The next one is technically already almost a law; I didn’t want to throw it in with the other three. This is about pay transparency. I got this from the Equal Pay Coalition. Pay transparency laws allow people to find more fairness in pay. Basically, there was a bill in 2018 that had passed in April that would require pay transparency to come forward. It’s technically almost a law because it has never been dissolved; it just has never gone to have the LG read it into law. In 2018, Ontario’s Pay Transparency Act came through, and it was never repealed; it was just blocked.

I want to move to the

section here where they spell it out: “Doesn’t Ontario already have a Pay Transparency Act?” Yes, it does. It passed in April 2018. It was scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2019, to give some ramp-up time, and then employers would have to do it in 2020. But after the 2018 provincial election, when the Conservative government came in to power in November 2018—it was one of the first things they did; they rushed this in as quickly as they could—they indefinitely suspended the Pay Transparency Act from coming into effect.

They knew the blowback, if they actually repealed it, would be devastating, so they suspended it. You just tell people, “We’re going to put it on a shelf and look at it later”—they’re never going to look at it. So in

schedule 32 of that Restoring Trust, Transparency and Accountability Act—they tabled that for a little while to wait on it. They didn’t repeal it. They just blocked it from taking effect.

Then in this bill, they came forward and said, “We’re going to have pay transparency.” But all you really have to do to be in compliance with this new version of pay transparency—you literally can say, “I have a job posting, and you could make between minimum wage and a million dollars an hour.” That’s all you need to do. I don’t think employers are going to do that, but it is not going to meet the moment of what is expected for this

section of the act.

Pay transparency is a way for workers to understand what the average pay is where they work already. It’s a way that, in workplaces where there’s a gender wage gap, female employees can find out how much the male employees are making and can question why they’re making less. We know that it’s an ongoing issue. We know it’s being addressed, but if you don’t have the data, you can’t move it forward. All this in this bill—again, another headline moment where you can say, “We’re bringing forward pay transparency.” All it really requires you to do is say there’s a scope of pay.

Previously, I think it’s about 20% that women would make less than men—you could have that as your scope; you could do a 20% change. It gives no real data to anyone to measure anything. It just gives you the ability to say, “It’s between here, $0, and $5 million,” and then you’re aligned with this bill.

Speaker, I think you’re going to stand up and stop me.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Thank you to the member.

It is now time for members’ statements.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Health care funding

Mr. Anthony Leardi: Madam Speaker, I have more great news from the riding of Essex. This government has now embarked on the biggest expansion of nurse practitioner clinics in the history of the province of Ontario, and part of that expansion is happening in the county of Essex, right in the town of Kingsville.

In the town of Kingsville, they are creating an additional 1,200 spaces for people to be rostered with a nurse practitioner. Do you know what that means? That means an additional 1,200 people in the town of Kingsville and around the town of Kingsville will now have a dedicated primary care practitioner right in their own hometown. It means people are going to access primary care when and where they need it. But wait, there’s more: They’re also attracting a builder who is not only going to add to that clinic but build more medical services around the nurse practitioners.

Madam Speaker, the people of Kingsville are very happy with their additional 1,200 spaces of primary care, and they’re going to get their services where and when they need it.

Pay equity

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: Speaker, as we celebrate International Women’s Day and the historic protest by women garment workers, things are not looking good in the fight for economic equality. The gender wage gap is stark in Ontario’s caring economy, the health care and social services vital to our province. Ontario wildly underpays women and gender-diverse folks, newcomers and racialized people who work in these sectors.

A nurse is a nurse is a nurse. A PSW is a PSW is a PSW. ECEs—I could go on and on. The NDP fights for more for these workers, because they deserve fairness.

Do CEOs pay for their own work-related travel? Or would you be okay with lawyers getting paid by the case and not for the hours and days spent on it? Of course not. So why are governments so miserly when it comes to paying the caring professions? People’s good hearts alone should not be what hold up these vital systems.

I remember Bill 115 attacking education and the public sector—and now Bill 124: yet another expensive, loser legal battle. What is wrong with Liberals and Conservatives, that once they get into power they want to keep money out of people’s pockets?

When members of this chamber celebrate the many accomplishments of the women’s movement, they should ask why their government continues to undervalue women’s labour and starve people out of their preferred jobs.

The official opposition stands for wage parity across health care sectors, non-profits, developmental services, community support services, women’s shelters, and mental health and addictions support.

Investing in people strengthens families and builds communities.

To the government: Do you stand with workers? Show it with wage parity in budget 2024 and pay people what they’re worth.

Pollard Windows and Doors

Ms. Natalie Pierre: I rise this morning to recognize a business that is a cornerstone in my riding. Pollard Windows and Doors was founded in 1948 and recently celebrated 75 years in business. The Pollard formula for success has always been simple: Work hard, invest in new technology, and give customers more for their money. Today, Pollard is still a 100%-owned-and-operated family business manufacturing windows and doors in a state-of-the-art 300,000-square-foot-plus plant in Burlington.

Recognized as a leader in the window and door market, Pollard is known for developing innovative products that surpass even the most stringent building codes in Canada. Pollard’s manufacturing plant is a top employer in Burlington, supporting our local economy and manufacturing Ontario-made products. They’re known for their Energy Star ratings and for helping more Ontarians save on their energy bills. Pollard is committed to investing in the local economy and the development of skilled workers.

Thank you for your role in making Ontario’s economy stronger.

Women’s issues

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Next Friday is International Women’s Day, and I want to take a moment to recognize the contributions and leadership of women and girls who are making Ontario a better place to live, work and play.

And yet, this government, under Doug Ford has taken every step it can to systematically undermine women’s rights and economic stability. In their first term, they cut funding to the Ontario college of midwives—a profession held largely by women; they clawed back raises for early childhood educators, leading to a staffing crisis across the sector; and they repealed the curriculum that adequately addresses consent.

During the pandemic, this government left nurses and allied health staff—all predominantly female professions—feeling abandoned. When nurses needed this government the most, they were left with suppressed wages under Bill 124, short-staffed, and with unsafe working conditions.

Then, the Conservatives turned their sights on low-paid women education workers, with Bill 28.

This government is failing to support and protect women and girls—from mounting wait times to access basic reproductive care; deep cuts to legal aid funding; changes to social assistance programs; rape crisis centres at risk of closing; women’s shelters over capacity because of lack of transitional, affordable and supportive housing; and sexual assault cases being thrown out due to court backlogs.

As we celebrate the accomplishments of women and girls who are fighting for and building a fairer and more inclusive Ontario, I call on this government to support women instead of tearing them down, because women and girls in our communities deserve nothing less.

Health care funding

Mr. Nolan Quinn: It’s great to be back at Queen’s Park, and I’m excited to share this great news with everyone. On February 15, I was proud to stand alongside our local primary care teams to announce $4,074,398 in funding for the Seaway Valley Community Health Centre; Centre de santé communautaire de l’Estrie; Glengarry Nurse Practitioner-Led Clinic; and Rideau St. Lawrence Family Health Team. All four organizations are members of the Great River Ontario Health Team, who came together to collectively address the primary care needs of our area.

Instead of each organization going alone and submitting individual proposals, they collaborated for the benefit of the whole region. This is excellent news for our community, my riding of Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry. This will connect an estimated 19,340 people to a primary care doctor or nurse practitioner in Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. This will connect children, parents, grandparents, friends and neighbours to care close to home.

This $4-million investment is part of a larger investment of $110 million to connect over 300,000 Ontarians with a primary health team.

Congratulations to these primary health teams, and thank you for all that you do.

Health care

Ms. Chandra Pasma: Ottawa residents are desperately feeling the lack of primary care options. The Ontario Medical Association calculates that Ottawa needs at least 171 more family doctors in order to meet current demands. But we’re also seeing family doctors closing up practice because the conditions have become unsustainable, and unfortunately, 40% of family doctors say they are considering retiring in the next five years.

My constituents are upset, and I get it. It is incredibly frustrating, but also scary, not to have a doctor or a nurse practitioner you can turn to when you’re sick or have questions or just need a prescription renewed.

What’s even more concerning is that we’re seeing this shortage in the context of funding cuts for emergency care at the Queensway Carleton Hospital. The Queensway Carleton’s emergency department is one of the busiest in the whole province. Patients are routinely waiting hours to be seen—sometimes even just to be triaged—and yet the government is cutting funding to the Queensway Carleton ER. By April, we will be down 10 physician hours every single day in the ER. So 150,000 Ottawa residents don’t have a family doctor and have no option but to go to the ER, and now they’re going to have to sit and wait even longer to see a doctor there.

This is no way to run a health care system. It’s time for the government to take the crisis seriously and make the investments needed to make sure that every Ontario resident gets the primary health care and the emergency health care they need when they need it.

Public transit

Speaker, the one-fare initiative aligns with the government of Ontario’s commitment to affordability, incentivizing greater use of public transit. It promises to mitigate traffic congestion and put money back into the pockets of Ontarians. This showcases our commitment to saving commuters both time and money.

Whether individuals are heading to work, school, or social events, our government’s significant investments in Ontario’s public transportation system are simplifying travel, making it more convenient, efficient and affordable for everyone to reach their destinations.

Black History Month

MPP Andrea Hazell: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to get up in this House and speak on what Black History Month means to me. I expect that every single one of you had an opportunity to attend a Black History Month event, to learn about our ancestors and our contributions to this country.

The first Black people in this country did not come here by choice. However, this country has become one of the most open, equitable and free societies in the world. Therefore, I have immigrated to this country, like many other people of all races, religions and cultures.

My place among you would not have been possible without the blood, sweat and tears shed by the Black members before me: Mary Anne Chambers, Margarett Best and Mitzie Hunter, my direct predecessors in my seat of Scarborough–Guildwood. They have counselled me on the difficulties of being a Black woman in this chamber.

Most of all, I would like to pay tribute to Dr. Alvin Curling, former minister and Speaker of this very chamber and longest-serving Black MPP. He’s an inspiration to me and to so many community members, and he should be an inspiration to every single member in this House. But he’s more than that. He has the most honourable attribute a person can have, for he is a good friend and mentor.

With love to Dr. Alvin Curling on Black History Month, a celebration of excellence—“A Heritage to Celebrate; a Future to Build.”

Leo Groarke

Mr. Dave Smith: For 10 years now, Trent University has had Dr. Leo Groarke at its helm. He joined Trent in 2014 and was reappointed in 2019. During his time at Trent, he has had six consecutive balanced budgets, and he has revitalized recruitment, student success and retention, research and career services. But I would say that the review of the college system and the reinstatement of the college affiliations will actually have the biggest impact on student life.

This seemingly small aspect of Trent’s unique experience brings both on-residence and off-residence students together to form a unique community within the greater Trent community, and it helps create connections with students of every academic discipline.

Leo also helped Trent form a partnership with peopleCare to build a 224-bed long-term-care facility. This will provide some of the most needed care homes for our seniors, but it also creates a wonderful learning opportunity for Trent’s nursing students, Trent’s centre for aging, as well as Sir Sandford Fleming College’s nursing students, PSWs and culinary students.

Dr. Groarke is truly a unique and special individual. Perhaps it’s in his DNA, because Dr. Leo is actually a triplet. That in of itself makes him somewhat unique. However, to add to the exceptional uniqueness, both of his brothers also have PhDs and are presidents of Canadian universities.

Leo, enjoy your retirement this June. And, yes, we will get out kayaking this summer.

Winterdance Dogsled Tours

Ms. Laurie Scott: Earlier this month, I had the opportunity to experience the rush of dogsledding alongside the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport at Winterdance Dogsled Tours in Haliburton. The minister took the helm of the sled as I tested my filmmaking abilities, navigating the rugged wilderness and lakes of beautiful Haliburton Highlands and sharing in the thrill of dogsledding.

Our guide, Hank, is an accomplished athlete who has competed in four Yukon Quests and two Iditarods, and continues to compete to this day. His wife, Tanya, is an equally accomplished speaker, author and entrepreneur. She has even taken the stage as a keynote speaker to Fortune 100 companies, sharing her story of leadership, team building, overcoming challenges and chasing dreams.

I would like to thank the couple and their children, Logan, Dustyn, Michaela and Jessica, and their team for their hospitality and sharing their passion with us, and their love for dogs. Any day spent outdoors with dogs is a good day, as the minister said, but it was made more magical thanks to the couple’s love and commitment to the huskies and adventure.

I encourage anyone who has never gone dogsledding to embrace the spirit of adventure and embark on an unforgettable experience, to head to Winterdance in the Haliburton Highlands before the end of the season.

And yes, the dogs were the true stars of this adventure. Their joy and eagerness for the trail was contagious. In short, they were all paws-itively amazing.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m very pleased to say that we have with us in the public galleries high school students from across the province participating in the annual Legislative Assembly of Ontario Model Parliament program. I want to thank all members for their support and participation in this important project.

Please join me in warmly welcoming our future parliamentarians to the Legislature today.

Applause.

M me Dawn Gallagher Murphy: I would like to congratulate one of my constituents, Skye Baker, who is the page captain for today. I’d also like to give her family a warm welcome to Queen’s Park: Lorna Coulter, Craig Baker, Juul Baker, Marie Coulter, Ken Coulter, and Natalie Coulter. Thank you for coming in today.

I’d also like to welcome and introduce some of my local non-profit organizations from Newmarket–Aurora that are visiting me today: the ABLE Network, Abuse Hurts, NewMakeIt, York Pride, Blue Door, Royal Canadian Legion Branch 426 in Newmarket, and Royal Canadian Legion Branch 385 in Aurora.

Welcome to your House.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Today is Principals’ Day at Queen’s Park. The Ontario Principals’ Council is here. I’ll be meeting with Jeff Maharaj and Amy Johnson, and I want to welcome them to the House.

Mr. Vincent Ke: I want to give a warm welcome to the members of the Toronto Happy Ping Pong Club, who have joined us here today in the gallery upstairs.

I also want to welcome Kelly Wang from my riding of Don Valley North, who is here with the Ontario Model Parliament.

Enjoy your trip to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Greg Rickford: I don’t often get to do this, but Alexis Latter is here from Fort Frances with the Ontario Model Parliament. Thanks for coming all the way down here. I appreciate it.

Miss Monique Taylor: This morning, I had the privilege of meeting with the Ontario Principals’ Council—Jeff Maharaj and Amy Johnson.

I also met with, from the Canadian Federation of Students–Ontario, Erfan Azadehfar, Nawfal Sbaa, Suanny Aranguren, Thanu Subendran; and from Model Parliament, from my riding of Hamilton Mountain, Daunte Hillen, who is a former page. Welcome back, Daunte.

Ms. Laura Smith: It is my very great honour to welcome to the House some of our amazing not-for-profits. We’ve got Sheindl Belenky, who is the director of finance with Kayla’s Children Centre; Rudy Barell, who is the chief development officer at DANI; and Morris Zbar, who is on the board of directors at the Bernard Betel Centre.

It is also my great pleasure to hopefully see and introduce myself to Matthew Carnide, a Thornhill student also participating in Model Parliament.

Welcome to your House. I can’t wait to meet you, Matthew.

Ms. Marit Stiles: I’m proud to recognize Matias Biderman, who attends Saint-Frère-André in my riding of Davenport. He’s one of our page captains today. His family is here, as well, with us: his father, Luke Biderman; his mother, Carmen Pena, his brother Milan Biderman, his grandmother Sylvie Biderman; and his grandfather Mel Zimmerman.

Welcome to your House.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: It’s an honour to rise today and welcome a number of folks who are here to support my private member’s bill: Eric Lombardi from More Neighbours Toronto; Abdur Chatni, CEO and founder of CLIP Homes, specializing in multiplexes and mid-rise development; and Dillon Fraser, president of the Guelph and district realtors’ association, as well as a number of his colleagues from GDAR. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Deepak Anand: It’s an absolute honour to welcome Gurbani Oberai, who is here for Model Parliament. Thank you for making Mississauga–Malton proud.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: I would like to personally welcome one of our future legislators here from my riding of Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas: Araf Faruquzzaman.

Welcome to your House, and I certainly hope question period doesn’t scare you away.

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady: I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park Nathan LaChapelle-Villimaire from Valley Heights Secondary School in my riding of Haldimand–Norfolk.

Enjoy Model Parliament, Nathan, and welcome.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: I want to welcome the Ontario Principals’ Council, their president, Ralph, and many principals who are here. Thank you for meeting with me this morning.

I also want to welcome Julia Gadyatskaya, who is a Model Parliament participant from King–Vaughan. I want to welcome her and everyone to the House.

I encourage all legislators to attend the reception in the In Camera dining room this evening from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m.

MPP Lise Vaugeois: I’d like to welcome two people who are here for Principals’ Day: Hillary Howe, who is here from the Superior-Greenstone District School Board, and Greg Arkwright, who is here from the Trillium Lakelands District School Board.

Welcome to your House. I’m looking forward to meeting with you later today.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: I’d like to introduce a brilliant and passionate city builder, clever Kristin Lillyman. She used to be part of my terrific team at Toronto city hall, and then she went on to bigger and better things.

Welcome, Kristin.

Ms. Christine Hogarth: It is my pleasure to introduce a bright young fellow, Anthony Siracusa, who is here for Model Parliament today. Have an amazing day.

Ms. Chandra Pasma: I’d like to welcome the members of the Ontario Principals’ Council who are here today: Greg Arkwright, Amy Johnson, Jeff Maharaj, Hillary Howe, Daisi Dina, Peggy Sweeney, Ralph Nigro, Nadine Trépanier-Bisson, and my neighbour in Ottawa Patsy Agard.

Welcome, and I apologize, on behalf of the members, for the challenges you faced in getting into your House today.

I’d also like to welcome, from Ottawa West–Nepean, Model Parliament participant Sophie Brin.

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: I want to welcome Evan Lecours to the Ontario Legislature today. Not only is he participating in Model Parliament, but he’s from the great riding of Carleton, and he’s actually one of my constituency staff. Welcome, Evan.

Mr. Rick Byers: It’s my pleasure to welcome Trinity Ann Bechan from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound to the Legislature today, participating in Model Parliament.

Thank you for coming. Have a great day with us all.

M me France Gélinas: J’aimerais vous présenter M. Yanick Proulx, qui fait

partie du Parlement jeunesse. Il est de Hanmer dans mon comté de Nickel Belt. Bienvenue à Queen’s Park, Yanick.

Hon. Andrea Khanjin: I want to invite two members of Barrie–Innisfil who are here for Model Parliament—Lucy Duncan and Yael-Eden Grinman.

Welcome to your House.

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: I’d like to give a very warm welcome to Kristin Lillyman, Lauren Mumford and Hillary Steele, visiting from Parkdale–High Park.

As well, I would like to welcome Zophine Saitua-Rippell, also participating in Model Parliament.

Mrs. Daisy Wai: I’d like to welcome all the non-profit organizations that have come to Queen’s Park today.

Welcome to your House. After the question period, come to the grand staircase and let’s take a photo together.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I am delighted to welcome Alec Tweddell, who attends Oakridge Secondary School in London West and is here for the Model Parliament.

Welcome to Queen’s Park, Alec.

Hon. Todd J. McCarthy: I welcome Lola Bullock-Castillo from the great riding of Durham, who is participating this week in the Model Parliament.

Mr. Chris Glover: I’d like to welcome my friend Ralph Nigro from the Ontario Principals’ Council, and also Stuart Kinnear and Magdalena Kinnear, the proud parents of our page Jeremy.

Mr. Ted Hsu: I wanted to welcome a couple of young model parliamentarians: Colesen Lebrun, who is from Kingston and the Islands; Yanick Proulx from Nickel Belt; and a few others I have been meeting this morning.

Welcome to your Ontario Legislature, in which you’ll be debating and using this chamber on Friday.

Mr. Will Bouma: I’d like to welcome, from the city of Brantford, His Worship Mayor Kevin Davis; chief of staff, Sasha Hill; CAO Brian Hutchings; and from Model Parliament, my daughter Ella Bouma.

Hon. Stan Cho: Straight from the centre of the universe, here for Model Parliament: Kaan Bektas. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. Amarjot Sandhu: I would like to welcome Arielle Soukantima from Brampton West, who is participating in the Model Parliament program. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Billy Pang: I would like to welcome Adrian Au and FeiXue YangYe, participating in the Model Parliament, from Markham–Unionville.

Hon. Charmaine A. Williams: I want to welcome Mahreen Siddiqui, who is here from Brampton Centre for the Model Parliament. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Nolan Quinn: I’d like to welcome Madeline Lovell from my riding of Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry for the Model Parliament.

Hon. Michael Parsa: I’d like to welcome a constituent of Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill who is also a board member of My Women’s Place Shelter, and all the non-profit organizations that are here today.

I look forward to seeing all of you at tonight’s reception.

Hon. David Piccini: I would like to welcome constituents here for Model Parliament: Brodie Johnston, who may be replacing me here, but not too soon, who is here with his mom, Lisa. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I would like to welcome Celia Ciufo and Tristan Kim. They were chosen to represent Huron–Bruce.

Have a great day. We’ll see you on the stairs afterwards.

Mrs. Robin Martin: I would like to welcome Model Parliament participants from Eglinton–Lawrence: Leora Kasneci, Victoria Greenwood and Kevin Guo.

Mr. Brian Saunderson: It’s my great pleasure to welcome to the House some hard-working and dedicated people from our not-for-profit sector in Simcoe–Grey who do incredible work: Norine Baron from Beaver Valley Outreach; Lisa Ogbole from Imani’s Place; Janice McGurran from My Sister’s Place; Mary-Lou Osborne from Community Living Association of South Simcoe; Teresa Gal from Breaking Down Barriers—and for our Model Parliament today, Stefania Giampa.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’d like to introduce four model parliamentarians from Oxford: Angella Ortiz, Savrup Saran, Xin-En Tan, and Nathan Bean. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Jess Dixon: I would like to welcome to Parliament Feiyang Luo from Kitchener South–Hespeler as part of the Model Parliament.

I’m looking forward to hearing what you have to think about it.

Question Period

Justice system

Ms. Marit Stiles: This question is for the Premier.

Yesterday, the Premier tripled down, I guess, on his decision to interfere in our judicial appointments process. He described an epidemic of crime happening on his government’s watch. His solution: appointing Conservative insiders to the committee that appoints judges.

Ontarians don’t want an American-style partisan judiciary. They do not want judges picked because they are “like-minded” with a government that is under criminal investigation by the RCMP. They just want a system that works.

Will the Premier rescind these appointments and start reversing the damage that his neglect has had on access to justice in this province?

Hon. Doug Ford: I’m not going to double down, I’m not going to triple down; I’m going to quadruple down to make sure that we keep these violent criminals—that they go to jail.

We have the greatest police officers anywhere in the world right here in the province. They arrest criminals for doing heinous crimes, and guess what happens? The judges let them out on bail to do more heinous crimes the next day. They’re kicking in doors in the middle of the night, putting guns to people’s heads, scaring their children, scaring the families, scaring neighbourhoods. Where are the rights of the people of this province?

Why are you always supporting the criminals?

We know the Liberals and NDP aren’t tough on crime. They want these criminals out.

Let me give you headlines:

—"Court Grants Bail to Alleged Gunman of Five Victims”;

—“Teacher Charged with Sex Offences Released on Bail After Weekend in Jail”;

—“Woman Charged with Manslaughter Released on Bail”;

—“Southern Ontario Man Charged with Forcible Confinement, Drug Trafficking Granted Bail.”

People breaking into homes—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Premier will take his seat.

Stop the clock.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. The member for Ottawa South will come to order. The member for Ottawa Centre will come to order. The Premier will come to order.

Start the clock.

Supplementary.

Ms. Marit Stiles: I’ve got a headline for them. How about: “RCMP Investigates Ontario Conservative Government”?

The newly appointed chair of the judicial appointments committee is a registered lobbyist who lobbied the government as recently as last week—among their clients, American gun manufacturers. Yesterday, the Attorney General seemed to say this was all business as usual, and I have to say, unfortunately, I don’t disagree, because under this government, business as usual means that insiders, donors, people with access come first every single time.

Back to the Premier: Will he rescind these appointments now or do we have to wait another month for him to backpedal on this latest scandal?

Hon. Doug Ford: We have a duty to protect the people. We have a duty to protect the students here, there, the people right in this Legislature. You ask them: Do they approve of letting these criminals out, after committing heinous crimes, terrorizing neighbourhoods, running around with guns like it’s the Wild West? No, they don’t support it. I’ll guarantee you they don’t support it.

The students are so terrified they don’t even want to stay at home without their parents because they’re worried about these gun people coming in, shooting up the streets, kicking their doors in, putting guns to a woman’s head, saying, “I’m going to blow your brains out if you don’t give me the keys to your car.” How do you think that feels? Or the child who was so scared they ran outside and jumped in the car when the criminals were taking it.

But guess what? The Liberals and the NDP are okay with these criminals—"Let them out. Let them keep committing crimes. Let them keep going.”

You guys are so weak it makes me sick.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Premier will take his seat.

Final supplementary.

Ms. Marit Stiles: This Premier refuses, again, to take accountability and responsibility for anything. Our court system is collapsing, and he is blaming the judges?

The government spent a billion dollars on a new Toronto courthouse—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): This is going sideways fast. I would remind all members that the Speaker needs to hear the question. The Speaker needs to hear the response. Interjections are out of order. Members should make their comments through the Chair.

I had to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition; I apologize.

Start the clock.

The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Thank you, Speaker. I’ll start again.

Our court system is collapsing, and he is blaming judges?

The government spent a billion dollars on a new Toronto courthouse only to have it dubbed “a monument to failure.” Courtrooms are forced to close every single day in this province because of understaffing. Their chronic underfunding means that people never get their day in court, and it means that victims will continue to be forced to watch their assailants walk free under this government.

Will the Premier finally take responsibility or will he continue to look for scapegoats for his own failures?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply for the government, the Attorney General.

Hon. Doug Downey: I hear the public sometimes say politicians are all the same. But here’s a stark contrast. If the Leader of the Opposition had clue one how the system worked, then she would understand that we don’t cherry-pick judges. There’s a committee that makes recommendations. There are judges who sit on the committee.

Never mind all that. They want to defund the police. They want to tie the hands of the judges with all sort of crazy notions that their federal cousins are [inaudible] Justin Trudeau, do what he’s doing. They run the Criminal Code. You want to talk about tough on crime? Their federal cousins could be helping us, but they won’t. They’re moving in the other direction.

We’re going to stand up for the average citizen.

I hope she asks me another question.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): There is an opportunity for another question. The next question.

Justice system

Ms. Marit Stiles: The scandals never end. Today we learned about yet another sole-source contract handed over to an international company by this government. PricewaterhouseCoopers received more than $25 million to develop software for a digital tribunal system without competing with any software companies, let alone Ontario software companies. It seems the government hasn’t learned anything—or maybe it simply doesn’t care about fairness or transparency.

To the Premier: Why was a multinational accounting firm with little to no experience with software development handed this contract without having to compete?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply, the Attorney General.

Hon. Doug Downey: I thought she didn’t know anything about the justice system. Now she doesn’t know anything about the IT system. The member doesn’t know anything about the IT world.

Back in April 2020—actually, before that—I sat down with the NDP government in British Columbia because their court digital system is renowned. I sat down with Minister Eby at the time—he’s now Premier Eby—and said, “I hear about this fantastic system,” and he said, “We would love to share it, and we will give it to you for nothing, as long as you adapt it to your market and then share the enhancements.” I’ve talked about this in speeches. I’ve talked about this in the House. But just like I said before, until somebody wrote about it in the paper—they’re not paying attention. It’s in the estimates. It is in Hansard half a dozen times.

I’m happy to explain more, but I’m glad they are now joining the discussion.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: This sole-sourced contract with PwC was originally signed for less than $1 million. But now, just three years later, the contract has ballooned to over $26 million. This government has been unable to justify this massive increase—no competition, no transparency, again.

Despite what the government members say, ministry and tribunal staff say timelines and milestones are repeatedly delayed, and the costs just keep growing.

To the Premier: Can you explain why you’ve let the costs balloon to over $26 million when they cannot seem to get the job done?

Hon. Doug Downey: Mr. Speaker, this is what happens when you do your fact-check through a newspaper report. They misread the estimates. It was never a million and a half dollars, ever. So I would love to see what it is you are relying on, unless it’s strictly the newspaper

article that you read. Please share where that million and a half dollars came from. It’s categorically wrong.

What is true and what tribunals is saying is that we had a crisis because the Liberals left us a system that was failing. When we came in, we had this failing system. That is why we looked around the country. We went to BC and had a conversation so that we can have something that works for the people of Ontario.

I’m happy to send over a letter—this is not a prop; I will send it to the Leader of the Opposition—wherein Minister Eby says exactly what I was saying, that they would share it for free. Minister Eby says, “You have to pass—you can go with PwC, which we recommend; it will be faster, or you can go the longer way around”—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Response.

Hon. Doug Downey —because they have success in BC.

So what is the choice? Let the system fail? Let Ontarians fail, or go with the proven track record?

Interjections.

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

It’s the Speaker who decides what is a prop and what isn’t, and you used that as a prop. Please don’t do so again.

I would remind members to make their comments through the Chair.

Start the clock.

The final supplementary.

Ms. Marit Stiles: The long way around—like having a fair process or giving Ontario companies a shot at a contract?

People are not getting justice at the Landlord and Tenant Board. They have been plagued with delays since this government came into office six long years ago. There are now more than 38,000 people waiting for their cases to be heard. People are waiting months and sometimes years for their hearing to be even scheduled.

And while Ontarians are stuck in this chaos, this government’s solution is to hand out more multi-million dollar contracts to their insider friends and giant corporations.

So one more time to the Premier—and I’m going to make it simple: Why was only one company considered for this contract, and why is it 26 times more expensive today than it was when it was signed?

Hon. Doug Downey: This false narrative about an increase is nonsense, so I won’t go into that anymore.

I’m not going to take business lessons—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’ll ask the Attorney General to withdraw the unparliamentary comment.

Hon. Doug Downey: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Conclude the answer.

Hon. Doug Downey: I will not take any lessons from the NDP in terms of how business is run.

This is not a company with two men in the basement of a cottage. This is a company that has been in Canada over 100 years. They have an entire justice division within the company, and they have a track record by building the BC product.

So this disingenuous, if I could use that word—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): You can’t use that word. You’re going to have to withdraw it.

Hon. Doug Downey: I withdraw. It’s frustrating, Mr. Speaker, trying to use words that the NDP will understand.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to caution the Attorney General.

I’m going to move on to the next question.

Indigenous mental health and addiction services

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Speaker, jurisdiction of health care for First Nations people doesn’t end when you step off a reserve.

On January 24, leadership of Nishnawbe Aski Nation held an emergency meeting on mental health and addictions. All levels of government were invited, and the leadership from NAN were very disappointed when none of the Ontario ministers showed up for the meeting.

Can this government let the people know why they didn’t show up for the emergency meeting?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply for the government, the Minister of Northern Development and Indigenous Affairs.

Hon. Greg Rickford: In subsequent conversations with the grand chief of Nishnawbe Aski Nation, we have reaffirmed our commitment in a couple of important categories to address the mental health crisis both in isolated communities and for students attending high school in Thunder Bay.

Those resources focus on NAN Hope, a program run by Keewaytinook Okimakanak, an organization widely accepted and thought of as the right organization to deliver services to students on-reserve and transitioning to the big city, as well as mental health resources on the ground in Thunder Bay—additional new funding—to support the challenges that they face. That was the right action to take. It dealt on point with the kinds of things that the NAN leadership was asking to be addressed. We were there for those communities.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Speaker, I would like to thank the government for that funding, but it was peanuts.

This government has an opportunity to listen to First Nations on health transformation, to be true treaty partners in health. We cannot continue to operate in crisis.

And we don’t need to continue to lose our children to preventable deaths by suicide. It’s not normal to attend funerals for 11-year-olds who have died by suicide.

Will this government start taking this Nishnawbe Aski Nation health state of emergency seriously?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Associate Minister of Mental Health and Addictions.

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: We do take very seriously the work that we are doing with First Nations throughout the province of Ontario, especially in the north and in the rural communities.

In fact, I was present for the announcement in Thunder Bay just two weeks ago, and it wasn’t the end of the work we’re doing; it’s the beginning and a continuation of the collaboration that we’ve had for a long time.

In fact, under the leadership of Premier Ford, this government and the Minister of Indigenous Affairs, we’re working collaboratively with all First Nations across the province of Ontario. We’re making investments in all the communities as well as utilizing the Addictions Recovery Fund to put 56% of all the beds we’ve opened in the province in northern Ontario.

Specific investments: $7 million to support land-and-water-based healing—Batchewana First Nation, Mushkegowuk, Kashechewan, Kettle and Stony Point—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Response?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: —TTN and the First Nations Horizons treatment centre.

Mr. Speaker, we’re also working to provide supports to the youth, with—

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

Taxation

Mrs. Daisy Wai: My question is to the Associate Minister of Small Business.

Our government was elected with a strong mandate to serve the people of this province. We know the carbon tax adversely affects businesses and the economy and makes life more expensive for Ontarians. That’s why our Premier recently introduced legislation that, if passed, guarantees that no provincial government can force a carbon tax on the people of Ontario without their say.

Small businesses in my community of Richmond Hill were thrilled to hear our government stand up for Ontarians and prioritize keeping costs down for families and businesses. They want to continue to lead by example and fight the carbon tax.

Can the associate minister tell us what this legislation will mean for small businesses?

Hon. Nina Tangri: Thank you to the great member for Richmond Hill for the question and for her great advocacy for the businesses in her riding.

Since day one, this Premier and our government have fought back against the carbon tax. It’s because we know that for so many households, more tax means less money to spend at their local small businesses. And for so many entrepreneurs, more tax means less money to invest in their businesses or to hire staff.

Speaker, while the Ontario Liberals and NDP have stayed silent as their friends in Ottawa plan to increase the carbon tax by over 37 cents per litre, our government is working to guarantee that no provincial government can force a costly carbon tax on the people of Ontario without ensuring their voices are heard loud and clear.

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

Mrs. Daisy Wai: Thank you to the associate minister for that response.

The costly carbon tax has taken a toll on families and small businesses in Richmond Hill and across the province.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, by 2030, Ontarians will experience a decline in their quality of life due to additional costs resulting from the carbon tax. With an estimated financial cost of $2,000 per household, individuals and families who are already struggling to make ends meet will experience further hardship.

While the NDP and the Liberals continue to believe that increasing taxes is a solution, our government knows that the carbon tax is unfair to hard-working Ontarians.

Speaker, through you, to the associate minister: What are small businesses saying about the impact of the carbon tax on their businesses and their communities?

Hon. Nina Tangri: Thank you again to the member for the question.

Speaker, let me tell you what I’m hearing from businesses around the province—and this is a quote from a small manufacturer: “The carbon tax increasing each year is crippling our ability to do business outside of our local area. We used to have a large province-wide presence with some of our product in a major retailer and online delivery but now shopping costs are too high to make a profit doing that.”

I’ve stood in this House and raised the fact that the federal government still hasn’t returned the millions of dollars owed to small businesses in rebates. So, once again, we’re calling on the opposition NDP and Liberals to pick up the phone, call their federal counterparts and start supporting and advocating for their businesses and job creators in their ridings.

Affordable housing

Ms. Jessica Bell: My question is to the Premier.

The Conservatives came up with a definition of affordable housing in order to spur the construction of affordable homes 18 months ago. But 18 months later, the law is still not in force, the government still can’t make up their mind on what exact definition of affordable housing they’re going to use, and not a single home has been built under this new initiative.

Ontario is in a homelessness crisis and a housing affordability crisis. Given that, why is this government taking so long to get this affordable housing initiative off the ground?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: The member, of course, will know that her party was supportive—in fact, the House unanimously supported the definition of “affordable housing” that was passed by this government.

At the same time, we’re seeing a tremendous growth across the province when it comes to purpose-built rentals. We are at the highest level in the history of the province.

We had the unfortunate thing yesterday, of course, where the NDP doubled down on wanting us to tax those very same homes that the member across is wanting us to build. They want us to put back a development charge on those.

We heard from Habitat for Humanity and we’ve heard from a lot of other affordable housing builders across the province of Ontario that the removal of taxes is what is spurring on the development of affordable housing across the province of Ontario.

We want to build all types of housing, because the dream of home ownership is something that not only should just be a dream, but it is something that should be a reality for the people of the province of Ontario. Because of the policies of this government, that is the reality for hundreds of thousands of people. We’re going to continue to do that hard work.

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

Ms. Jessica Bell: Back to the Premier: It’s like “affordable housing” is a little bit too hard, so let’s try “attainable housing.”

Speaker, 18 months ago, the Conservatives said they would come up with an exact definition of “attainable housing” in order to further construction of attainable homes. It’s 18 months later, and the law is still not enforced. The government still cannot decide what the definition of “attainable” is going to be, and not one home has been built under this new program either.

Why on earth is it taking the government so long to get these programs off the ground?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Paul Calandra: It’s just the opposite actually. We’re seeing the largest number of homes being built across the province of Ontario. Year after year, we’re seeing those numbers increasing—more purpose-built rentals, more shovels in the ground than at any other time in the province’s history. So I would invite the member to look at the stats.

But I’m more encouraged by one thing—I just want to stray for a second, if I can, colleagues, and I want to thank Colin D’Mello for his incredible reporting. I’m going to quote directly from Colin D’Mello—and I want to thank the member opposite for her support. We’re seeing that, in Ottawa, 1,200 new long-term-care homes were built; in Markham, 320 new homes; 256 in Burlington; 192 new long-term-care homes in Ajax; 256 in Peterborough; 288 new homes in Belleville; 224 in Clarington; 416 in Stouffville, my hometown; 160 in North Bay; 160 in Sarnia. Do you know who’s against that? The leader of the Liberal Party, who said they’re not homes. That’s shameful.

We’ll continue to build homes for all Ontarians.

Automotive industry

Mr. Anthony Leardi: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade.

The previous Liberal government was a disaster for Ontario’s economy. Their agenda of high taxes and burdensome red tape shuttered businesses—we saw our most talented workers flee south of the border—and blocked new job-creating investments. Thankfully, the days of Liberals neglecting our economy are over.

Our government has created the conditions for businesses to succeed and, as a result, good-paying jobs are being created across Ontario.

Can the minister provide us with an update on any recent developments that are helping to create good-paying jobs for the hard-working people of Ontario?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Of course, I am going to start off with the fact that I have been starting off with almost every day: that in 2023, Ontario created more manufacturing jobs than all 50 US states combined. We cannot say that enough in this Legislature. That is a sign that our auto plan is working.

Think about when we attracted NextStar from Korea into Windsor. They’re currently building a $5-billion battery plant. At that time, we said there would be a lot of follow-on investment. Well, here’s one: A company, Bobaek, has invested $35 million in a brand new plant across the street in Windsor that does battery insulation panels and other parts for electric vehicles. They are putting 144 people to work there, and Bobaek is already planning their phase 2, which is a twin building next door. It’s because we lowered the cost of doing business by $8 billion.

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

Mr. Anthony Leardi: I thank the minister for that answer. It’s great to hear about Bobaek’s new facility, which will create good-paying jobs for my constituents in the county of Essex.

When the Liberals were in office, they were content with seeing new auto investments land in foreign jurisdictions while Ontario’s auto sector stagnated. They didn’t believe Ontario auto workers and firms had what it takes to compete in the global economy. Unlike them, we believe in the hard-working men and women who power our economy and the firms who continue to provide Ontario with a competitive advantage.

The contrast between our approach to economic development and the Liberals’ failed approach could not be clearer.

Can the minister highlight how, by fostering the conditions for businesses to succeed, our government has enabled the revitalization of our auto sector?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, it’s always important to remember where we were.

To the students who are here: Under the previous government, we lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs. Since Premier Ford was elected, we have seen 700,000 men and women go back to work.

It was only a few years ago that Reuters announced there would be $300 billion spent on electric vehicles across the world and zero of it was coming to Canada. Now, here we are, three years later; $28 billion in electric vehicles has landed in our province, putting men and women to work every single day. Bloomberg has now said that Canada is the number one jurisdiction around the world for electric vehicle parts. That is where we are. We have dethroned China from the number one position for the very first time. That’s what’s happening in the province—

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

Public transit

Mr. Joel Harden: My question is for the Premier. On Eglinton Avenue East in Scarborough, 10 to 12 sections of brand new sidewalk were just dug up because of deficiencies in the Eglinton Crosstown LRT. This happened a year after the Sloane station on this platform’s project was jackhammered and carried away in pieces. We’re going into the 13th year of this project—three years late, $1 billion over budget. That is the record of Metrolinx and Phil Verster, its million-dollar CEO. They don’t build transit; they break it. They don’t finish projects; they extend them.

To the Premier: When will this government hold Mr. Verster and Metrolinx accountable?

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

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: Mr. Speaker, we’re making the largest investment in public transit in the entire world—$70 billion-plus over the next 10 years.

Let’s look at the record of the previous Liberal government and the NDP—voting against every single one of these investments—

Hon. Doug Downey: Upside-down bridges.

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: —building upside-down bridges and stopping highways from being built, stopping governments from investing in public transit.

Mr. Speaker, that member has voted against every measure this government has taken to improve public transit in this province. Not only does he support the largest carbon tax in Ontario—over 35 cents—he doesn’t want anybody to ride on public transit. He’s voting against projects like the Ontario Line. He’s voting against projects like the Scarborough subway extension.

Our government will continue to commit to building the largest expansion of public transit in the world.

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

Mr. Joel Harden: Speaker, back to the minister, I suppose: The people of Scarborough just got their answer today. They can see with their own eyes, on Eglinton Avenue, pieces of brand new sidewalk being carried away in dump trucks, just like the people living near Sloane station saw the platform carried away in dump trucks again.

Under this government’s watch—they can’t blame anybody else—in 2020, the Auditor General told them that the Eglinton Crosstown LRT was being built “at risk.” Metrolinx, Phil Verster and their P3 buddies carried on despite that risk, and now we have at least 260 deficiencies in this project that this government will not answer for.

When will this government do what a competent government would do and fire Phil Verster? Signal that you demand change for the hard-working taxpayers of this province. Tell the people of Scarborough, tell the people of Toronto that a new day is coming; that we’re going to build and not break public transit.

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

Hon. Vijay Thanigasalam: Mr. Speaker, with the previous Liberal government, supported by the NDP, Scarborough was a forgotten part of the city of Toronto.

Under the leadership of Premier Ford, after 30 years of inaction, we are building the Scarborough subway. Shovels are in the ground for the Ontario Line. Shovels are in the ground for the Scarborough subway.

Premier Ford made one fare possible. The NDP and Liberals voted against one fare not just once; they voted against one fare—$1,600 in savings—twice.

Justice system

MPP Andrea Hazell: My question is to the Premier.

Why did you appoint a gun lobbyist to chair the panel that chooses our judges?

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

Hon. Doug Downey: Mr. Speaker, we appointed a very accomplished individual with a deep knowledge of how government works, with a deep knowledge of how various sectors work. We also appointed an individual who has complied with all of the rules and regulations with the Integrity Commissioner, somebody who plays above board. That’s the kind of person we appointed. And he happens to be registered with a particular company. It’s not because—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Hon. Doug Downey: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals laugh. Do you know what I laugh at? Their feigned indignation. It is unbelievable, given their track record, that they even comment on this stuff.

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

MPP Andrea Hazell: Back to the Premier: I take this to heart. I’m coming from a community in Scarborough that is deeply impacted by gun violence. Don’t we matter? In my campaigning, I went to apartment buildings—

Interjections.

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

MPP Andrea Hazell: —and I spoke to parents who have suffered because they have lost their 19-year-old, their 18-year-old, their 17-year-old. There are students who have been impacted in their schools over gun violence.

To the Premier: Don’t the people of Scarborough matter to you?

My question to you, again: Why did you appoint a lobbyist to chair the panel that chooses our judges? We matter.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’ll remind the members to make their comments through the Chair, not directly across the floor.

The Premier.

Hon. Doug Ford: I agree; everyone matters.

Why don’t you support us on making sure we appoint tough judges to keep these criminals in jail?

Tell the young people that I’ve been out to Scarborough 1,000 times—not 100; 1,000 times—supporting your community. And do you know what the mothers say? “Throw these criminals in jail.” That’s what the mothers are telling me. They’re telling me the same thing in Scarborough as they’re telling me in Etobicoke North. They want to make sure their kids can walk to school peacefully. They want to make sure their kids can go to the park, even at nighttime, without getting a gun pointed to their head.

And the judge lets them out the next day—that same criminal is in the park, dealing drugs, putting guns to people’s heads, robbing people. And guess what? He gets bail again. He doesn’t get bail once; he doesn’t get bail twice—he has been out on bail eight times.

Transportation infrastructure

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: My question is for the Minister of Transportation.

Ontario’s population is growing rapidly. As we continue to build our province, the transportation infrastructure also needs to expand.