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

March 1, 2021

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2021-Mar-01 (PDF)

L228 - Mon 1 Mar 2021 / Lun 1er mar 2021

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Monday 1 March 2021 Lundi 1 er mars 2021

Private Members’ Public Business

Environmental protection

Members’ Statements

COVID-19 response

Mental health and addiction services

COVID-19 response

COVID-19 immunization

Ancaster Community Food Drive

Wayne Roberts

Jackie Kelly-Pemberton and Steven Pemberton

COVID-19 response

International Women’s Day

COVID-19 response

Vice-Chair of the Standing Committee on Estimates

Question Period

Long-term care

Long-term care

Long-term care

Rural health services

Employment standards

Land use planning

Land use planning

Correctional services

COVID-19 response

Mental health services

COVID-19 response

Services for persons with disabilities

COVID-19 response

COVID-19 immunization

Deferred Votes

Stay Home If You Are Sick Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 permettant aux employés malades de rester chez eux

Introduction of Bills

Sickle Cell Disease Awareness Day and Thalassemia Awareness Day Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 sur la Journée de sensibilisation à la drépanocytose et la Journée de sensibilisation aux thalassémies

Petitions

Long-term care

Long-term care

Consumer protection

Multiple sclerosis

Small business

Front-line workers

Life insurance

Anti-vaping initiatives for youth

Small business

Public sector compensation

Orders of the Day

Accelerating Access to Justice Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 visant à accélérer l’accès à la justice

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I wish to acknowledge this territory as the traditional gathering place for many Indigenous nations, most recently the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation.

This being the first sitting Monday of the month, I ask everyone to continue to rise as we listen to the national anthem, followed by the royal anthem.

Playing of the national anthem/Écoute de l’hymne national.

Playing of the royal anthem/Écoute de l’hymne royal.

Private Members’ Public Business

Environmental protection

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: I move that, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should increase student awareness and education about the importance of conservation for future generations and the benefits of ecological initiatives such as planting trees and protecting air, water and land through opportunities including student volunteer hours and taking

part in the Provincial Day of Action on Litter.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Pursuant to standing order 101, the member has 12 minutes for his presentation.

I recognize the member for Markham–Thornhill.

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: Today, I am pleased to stand before the Legislature to introduce a motion that would enable Ontario students to make a meaningful contribution to the protection of the environment.

As a farmer’s son, I was taught to respect and protect the environment. I have carried this lesson in my heart since the start of my public service, when I was elected to Ward 7 as councillor for the city of Markham in 2006. As a councillor, I felt there was a lack of green open spaces for the public to enjoy in the southeast part of Markham. Most households in the area were multiple-generation homes. Parkland studies failed to recognize the need for adequate green space for these families’ unique needs. I made it my mission to expand the green space for these families.

As a result, the city of Markham developed many new parks and parkettes in this area, creating an urban canopy for children, parents and grandparents to enjoy and explore.

I was also supportive of the Adopt-a-Park program, which encourages civic engagement, environmental and social responsibility and volunteerism among the citizens to build sustainable communities in Markham. I continue to support this great initiative today.

I also used to organize a litter cleaning day for residents. Many families enjoyed participating, and it became a way for parents to teach their children important lessons about preserving the beautiful world around them. I am proud to say litter cleanup day was a success. It kept our neighbourhoods and parks clean and free of litter, teaching an important lesson about taking care of our planet.

As a part of the community sustainability plan, I initiated a sustainable home and community garden in Ward 7, which taught families to plant their own home gardens. It was a huge success for Markham, providing a creative way for the whole family to participate in wholesome activities, focus on learning about sustainable food growth and be one with nature. A home garden provides more than just delicious food; it becomes a habitat for native species by creating shelter and food for wildlife.

Another initiative and product from my councillor days is Markham’s textile and clothing reuse and recycling program. It is a game-changing example of a sustainable initiative to tackle both consumption and climate change. That now-permanent program began in 2015 with a textile recycling pilot program, making Markham the first city to prevent residents from leaving textiles at the curb.

Mr. Speaker, the lessons my father taught me about the environment are very important to me. In a way, they are part of the legacy he left behind. Climate change and environmental pollution cause serious challenges around the world. Our ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions driving climate change around protecting the environment will go a long way towards defining the legacy we leave for our children and future generations. It requires a collective effort: Every one of us has a role to play.

The motion would educate Ontario secondary school students on the importance of conservation for future generations and the benefits of ecological initiatives through a series of activities such as replanting and participating in the Provincial Day of Action on Litter.

Madam Speaker, our government is committed to protecting and conserving our environment through our Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan, which is a blueprint of action to protect air, water and land, to reduce litter and waste while lowering greenhouse gas emissions, helping communities prepare for climate change. This overarching plan commits Ontario to address the pressing challenges of extreme weather events, keeping lands and waterways free of litter.

We are already on our way to meeting that target. Approximately 94% of the electricity generated in Ontario was emission-free in 2019, and the province’s total greenhouse gas emissions have dropped by 22% since 2005. We are taking action to advance environmental protection with a combination of traditional standards-based approaches and new innovations like hydrogen fuel and clean technologies.

Our government is also committed to protecting and expanding the greenbelt. The greenbelt consists of over two million acres of land in the greater Golden Horseshoe area, including farmland, forests, wetlands, and watersheds. The greenbelt provides resilience to extreme weather events by protecting the natural systems and features.

The Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan also recognizes the benefit of reducing litter and waste. Over the past 15 years, over 70% of waste material has ended up in landfills. However, most of the waste material can be reused or recycled; for example, turning organic waste into natural gas. Reducing litter and waste will lower production costs on specific products and save space in landfills.

The Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan also commits our government to connect students with recognized organizations that encourage environmental stewardship so they could earn volunteer hours by cleaning up parks, planting trees and participating in other conservation initiatives.

This day is all about stewardship, raising awareness and educating the public about the impact of litter and how they can help. We also want to teach students the importance of reducing, reusing and recycling to decrease the amount of waste we produce. They will also learn that litter in the environment can impact air, water, soil and wildlife.

Madam Speaker, if passed, today’s motion will help meet this commitment by encouraging secondary school students to participate in environmental protection actions such as the Provincial Day of Action on Litter. Litter takes years to break down. It releases pollutants into the air, water and soil and can impact wildlife. This day is an excellent way to educate students about the negative impact of litter on the environment and how they can help to make a difference in their community.

Madam Speaker, protecting the environment is not just about reversing climate change. It is about helping define and promote the role of students in the community by encouraging civic-minded action. It is about the value of environmental stewardship, and passing it onto future generations. It also emphasizes the importance of taking responsibility for the environment by taking action.

I urge all of the members to support the motion I’m introducing to give young people a bigger role in protecting the environment and creating a safer, cleaner and more sustainable planet.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Further debate?

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Thanks to the MPP from Markham–Thornhill for this motion, which we will be supporting. MPP Kanapathi may mean well, but unfortunately, he’s part of a government that has caused so much damage to the environment. This government has gutted environmental protections and stripped conservation authorities of the ability to protect natural spaces. You talked about tree planting, but you cut the $50-million tree planting program, for heaven’s sakes. And now we have the municipal affairs minister issuing MZOs that are fast-tracking development on sensitive lands.

It is a matter of record that many of these MZOs directly benefit this government’s connected party donors. Clearly, they are hell-bent to push through development, even if that means paving over wetlands or building Highway 413 through swaths of dwindling agricultural land and the greenbelt.

However, Madam Speaker, the greatest insult that this motion represents has to be to the young people across the world and right here in Ontario. This government has zero credibility when it comes to the environment and it has no right whatsoever to tell youth anything when it comes to their futures, because surely you know that young people and students have been desperately trying to raise the alarm. Greta Thunberg, Fridays for Future: Is anyone on that side of the House paying attention?

Right here in Ontario, the Attorney General is currently fighting youth in court who are suing this government for weakening Ontario’s climate targets. Of that fight, 13-year-old Sophia Mathur had this to say: “I shouldn’t have to miss school to meet with politicians to convince them that my generation, my future is worth fighting for.

“And I shouldn’t have to take our own government to court to defend our right to a safe climate and healthy environment.”

This government will also know that Nestlé removes billions of litres of water from community aquifers, including from treaty lands where many First Nations communities still don’t have access to clean drinking water. Makaśa Looking Horse is a young water protector from the Lakota and Mohawk Wolf Clans who started a campaign to confront this problem. She had this to say: “Knowing that my community doesn’t have clean drinking water, and then a large corporation like Nestlé is making billions off of our water, is maddening.”

The climate crisis is the single-greatest threat humanity has ever faced. Scientists warn that we are in the sixth mass extinction, with more than 500 species of animal on the brink of extinction—but we do have litter day, thanks to the MPP for Barrie–Innisfil. But I have to say that Ontarians don’t need this government to take credit for what has already been happening for years in our communities across Ontario. Volunteers from neighbourhood associations to school groups put in countless hours to clean up litter from roadways, local parks and local waterways. This is to be highly commended.

For example, in Hamilton, volunteers have spent thousands of hours cleaning up Cootes Paradise and restoring natural plantings, and shoreline cleanups like the one held by the Youth for Lake Simcoe are fantastic. However, no amount of litter pick-up will help Hamilton with the 24-billion litres of raw sewage that flowed into Cootes Paradise, and a shoreline clean-up for Lake Simcoe will not help with the algae blooms and phosphorus loads that are only increasing with development pressure. And it won’t help to address concerns that communities have that this government will water down the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan.

Our support of this motion is tinged with much remorse, because our young people deserve so much better. This government is failing our young people when they side with insiders and developers over the environment. This government is failing our young people when they protect big corporations like Nestlé instead of protecting our water. This government is putting future generations at risk. They don’t need this motion to understand this; they already know.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Further debate?

M me Lucille Collard: Good morning. I am a strong believer that education is at the core of everything we know and everything we do. It is where everything starts—the good as much as the bad. Through effective and engaging education, we can inspire youth to get involved with building a better tomorrow.

Youth of all generations have led change throughout the years, and it’s important that we encourage their initiatives. We know that our children care about the environment. We watched them flood the streets of cities around the world in the fall of 2019, and many of us joined them in their advocacy.

In my riding of Ottawa–Vanier, I meet with a provincial youth council monthly to hear what issues are on their minds and what changes they would like to see. It has been clear from the beginning that protecting the environment is absolutely a priority for them. I also see this care in my own home. My four children have been advocates for fighting climate change and are always vocal about expecting better action from the government.

Youth bring passion and innovation to the subject of environmental conservation. Their ideas push past boundaries of traditional ways of thinking, and our policies would be better off with their input.

With proper awareness and education, we can help foster this sense of innovation and motivation in today’s youth. We can ensure they all have the tools they need to put their thoughts into practice.

Les jeunes apportent de l’enthousiasme et de l’innovation au sujet de la conservation de l’environnement. Leurs idées repoussent les limites des modes de pensée traditionnels, et nos politiques bénéficieraient de leurs contributions. Avec une sensibilisation et une éducation appropriée, nous pouvons contribuer à favoriser ce sens de l’innovation et de la motivation chez les jeunes d’aujourd’hui. Nous pouvons nous assurer qu’ils disposent de tous les outils dont ils ont besoin pour mettre leurs idées en pratique.

Bien que je sois encouragée par cette volonté de sensibiliser les étudiants, il nous faut reconnaître la contradiction entre cette motion et les actions de ce gouvernement.

While I am encouraged by the eagerness of this government to increase student awareness, I can’t help but recognize the conflict between this motion and the actions of the government. We have seen cuts to environmental protection measures in favour of speed, centralization and development all throughout this government’s mandate. This motion seeks to increase awareness about the importance of conservation, but mere months ago, the government stripped away powers from conservation authorities.

By moving all the discretionary decision powers from conservation authorities to the minister, the government completely centralized power over the environment within their inner circle. These changes remove the ability of conservation authorities to protect wetlands from destruction, which will have very negative effects not only on the environment, but also on the economy.

More recently, we learned that this government has issued 37 ministerial zoning orders, directives that deny Ontarians the opportunity to voice concerns or appeal to plan development. Some 14 cases raised environmental concerns, and while some projects were crucial, others didn’t need to be fast-tracked and would have benefitted from proper consultation. If conservation is important for future generations, like this motion states, shouldn’t environmental protection be a collective effort?

Chaque jour que ce gouvernement ne donne pas la priorité à la protection de l’environnement, il laisse tomber les générations futures qui vont vivre avec les conséquences de nos décisions. Bien que je soutienne cette initiative de sensibiliser nos jeunes à ce sujet, nous devons également les écouter.

Every day that the government fails to prioritize environmental protection, they are letting down the future generation that will have to grapple with our decisions. Youth care deeply about their communities, and they know what kind of future they want to create. It is crucial that we both educate them and listen to them. I am happy to support this motion, but let us not forget about how important it is to work and do what needs to be done to actually protect and conserve our environment.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Further debate?

Hon. Paul Calandra: I appreciate the opportunity to rise. I’ll be brief, because I know the member for Haldimand–Norfolk also wants to say a few words.

Just to congratulate the member from Markham–Thornhill: As many colleagues may or may not know, as a long-term councillor in the city of Markham, environmental stewardship and working with youth are something that he has been passionate about for as long as I’ve known him, and it really was one of the reasons why he decided to make the jump here. His record in Markham in helping our youth and in making sure that reforestation and tree planting are vital to the city of Markham, I think, is very well known.

I’ll say this: Obviously we’re going to support the motion. It’s a good motion and I’m certainly glad that all members on all sides of the House are going to support this.

One of the opportunities that we have in our community that the member and I share is an organization called 10,000 Trees for the Rouge. I know that is one day that we all look forward to. It is an organization that takes parts of the Rouge that can’t be farmed and plants trees on it. They have been doing this for as long as I can remember. The fascinating thing about that is, it has become a day when hundreds of families come out with their kids, the entire family, and they’re educated on how to properly plant trees. It has become something that we all look forward to. It is educational, it gets you out and it helps the environment.

Look, there are a lot of things that we can do on improving the environment. I fundamentally believe that we all want a better and cleaner environment; we just disagree on how we might get there. I think this motion reaffirms that this Legislature believes in those principles and that we want to make sure that future generations understand how important it was to us.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Further debate?

Ms. Marit Stiles: Good morning. It’s always a pleasure to rise here in the Legislature to speak on behalf of my constituents in the great riding of Davenport. I want to thank the member from Markham–Thornhill for this motion and the member from Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas, who is our new critic for the environment, conservation and parks, for her comments. I think we would agree generally on these, absolutely.

You know, Madam Speaker, young people in this province largely learn about the environment and conservation in school. They learn about climate change. They learn about these things in our education system as it exists right now under the publicly funded education system. But with this government, they like to put forward these private members’ motions designed to make it look like they’re doing something to fight climate change.

I listened to the member opposite just now talk about this motion in great glowing terms. And it sounds fine. There’s nothing I particularly disagree with here. But what I really find offensive is that this government is trying to present the idea that they are actually fighting climate change. If you look at the government’s actual bills, if you look at the environmental laws, if you look at their attack on the structures that are designed to protect our environment, most recently Bill 197, the gutting of the authority that is there to protect watersheds—do you know what? I think that this government would do well to actually listen to the young people of this province.

I talk to a lot of students. It’s one of the great things about being the education critic and also having been a school board trustee in the past and a parent myself of young people. I listen to a lot of young people, a lot of teenagers in particular, talking about what their priorities are. Without fail, almost every time, their number one priority is fighting climate change. They feel very strongly about that issue. We see it on the lawns of Queen’s Park, of this Legislature, on most Fridays.

It’s changed a little under the pandemic, but those young people are still doing that important work here in Ontario and around the world. This government likes to talk at students, but they very rarely sit and listen, and they would do well to do so.

I want to quote a few people for you, a few students that I have met. I know that the member previous mentioned Sophia Mathur from Sudbury, who is an incredible activist, but I want to mention a few others. I think it’s important to bring those voices into this Legislature at every possible opportunity.

Let’s try this one: Cooper Price, 16. He says, “Our main concern is that coming out of this pandemic is that governments will completely forget about the environment and just try to put forward policies that quickly rebuild an unsustainable economy. So while this could have been a really, really big opportunity for complete reset in how governments tackle climate change, our fear is that they’ve ... done” quite “the opposite.”

I want to quote as well Ruby Swartz, 18, who is actually one of the activists with Fridays for Future. She says, “I’ve personally been very frustrated with the way that the Ontario government has dealt with the climate crisis. I feel like the government is selling my future.” I could not agree with her more.

Eden Brown, 17, says, “We want a recovery that puts the environment, and workers, and marginalized communities first, because those are often communities that are affected the most by the climate crisis, and we don’t think the Ford government is doing that.”

Madam Speaker, this government has ignored youth activism, has ignored climate change in their policies. I think this government would do well to join us in the opposition on the lawns of Queen’s Park speaking with those students and listening to them.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Further debate?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: I want to, first of all, acknowledge and thank my colleague the member for Markham–Thornhill for his leadership in this Legislature to ensure environmental protection is a steward and a principle that is advanced for future generations. I also want to thank him for his long tenured public service and advocacy for the protection of our land, water and air.

Madam Speaker, I rise in full support of this private member’s bill introduced by my colleague and friend, a champion of both the next generation and the protection of our natural environment. The Ontario government environmental protection awareness for students motion is incredibly worthwhile. I hope that all my honourable colleagues on all sides will continue to show their support.

Much like the member from Markham–Thornhill noted, the riding I’m fortunate enough to represent, one that I grew up in for the vast majority of my life, is located in the stunning natural beauty of the ecologically significant Oak Ridges moraine. Surrounded by ancient woodlands, the people of King and Vaughan are natural environmentalists, even if some don’t identify themselves as such. We understand the importance of healthy forests to our ecosystems, and we know that Ontario needs both development and conservation.

I support my colleague’s motion for a number of reasons, because it will help our province set a course to further reduce its carbon footprint and positively impact many local ecosystems by encouraging the reforestation of this province. Trees are critical and perform several critical tasks by providing us with life-saving and life-giving oxygen, and consuming carbon dioxide as they filter out harmful dust and pollutants. Trees help keep our urban areas cool in the summer. They reduce excess water runoff after a storm. They offer food, protection and homes to many birds and mammals.

Speaker, the member’s motion makes sense. It fits with the broader vision of the Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan and Ontario’s provincial day of action, which takes place this year on May 11. If I may, I just want to recognize my colleague from Barrie–Innisfil for her leadership in making that day a reality in this province.

There’s obviously action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which have decreased significantly since 2000. Our Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan is helping to continue that trend. But I do want to take some exception with my honourable colleagues across the way, in the context of making the case that conservation is at the core of our conservativism. It would not be lost on us, as students of history, to reflect on what our party, our movement, has stood for in the context of promoting conservation.

After all, the largest expansion of forests and parks in the history of this province happened under a Progressive Conservative government. The first government to close a coal plant commenced under a Progressive Conservative government. The first government to create for future generations the Oak Ridges Moraine Protection Act that has, for generations now, for a full generation, ensured the protection of this critical watershed—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Order.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: The party of the acid rain treaty; the party that helped to create the TTC—the vast majority, the overwhelming majority, of Ontario’s subways. The alternative, Speaker, notwithstanding the heckling from the members opposite, is a plan that raises taxes on working parents, a plan that raises taxes on seniors on fixed incomes and on pensioners, a plan that regressively kills jobs at a time in our economic recovery when we need to make sure our industry is competitive with the world.

That is the alternative, and it’s one we’re proud to campaign on because, for us, environmental protection should not be incompatible with economic growth. Both can be true, and it is our party that wants to ensure that both can be done, for the purpose of jobs but also because, as Conservatives, we believe conservation is critical to the maintenance of our natural spaces.

If we’re going to reach our goal, Madam Speaker, of getting greenhouse gas emissions to 30% of our 2005 levels, we’re going to need more trees, we’re going to need to encourage more reforestation in this province. Should it pass in this chamber, this motion will help us make even more progress towards achieving our carbon emission reduction targets.

Speaker, the motion is well worth supporting for that reason alone, but also in my capacity as a member, in addition to being the Minister of Education, I know many young people are deeply concerned about how we can protect the environment for their future. I commend the member from Markham–Thornhill for drafting a motion that would enable Ontario secondary students to make a meaningful contribution in the conservation of our land, our air and our water.

I believe that the environmental awareness program would benefit significantly and create more awareness about how they can make a difference in their own communities. They would temporarily put away, potentially, their smart phones for a moment, spend a few hours in the sunlight and fresh air, and return home with the personal satisfaction of helping to ensure we protect the environment for future generations. They would acquire valuable volunteering experience as well as leadership and teamwork skills that will last a lifetime.

It is for that reason that we continue to support this, because given a choice between apathy and cynicism as advanced by the members opposite, or the opportunity to make a positive difference, young people will choose the latter each and every day.

Madam Speaker, I conclude with a note of recognition and thanks to the member from Markham–Thornhill for his leadership and for continuing to stand up for young people, for our environment and for the conservation of our green spaces.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Further debate?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It’s a pleasure to be able to rise and address this motion this morning. My thanks to the member from Markham–Thornhill for bringing it forward.

I have to ask, however, Speaker, why? We are in a situation in this great province, somewhat like a great ship on the ocean. where we have a captain who, instead of acting like the captain of the Titanic who tried to avoid the iceberg, is ramming the iceberg, while at the same time this member is making paper boats to put out on the water. I mean, I like paper boats. But in terms of the impact on the people of this province, their future, their lives, it’s the actions of this government, it’s the war on the environment, that are going to make the biggest difference. This motion will not make that difference.

What are the lessons that young people will learn from the actions of this government—not from this motion; from the actions of this government. We have a government that has demolished action on climate. It has a plan, so-called, that it is ignoring. I hear about this environment plan that’s been put forward by the government, but its own agencies turn their backs on it. They are not implementing it. That is the reality. What is the lesson young people should take from that? What is the lesson they should take from that?

We have had this government in its first few months cancel a renewable energy project, a wind farm, one that was almost completed in its construction, that had to be demolished, and then again it tried to stop another wind farm producing clean energy, helping make conservation happen. They were, happily, unsuccessful in that.

If we’re going to have clean air, we need to have a conversion away from gas-burning cars to electric vehicles. What has this government done about that issue? It cancelled subsidies; it ripped out charging points at GO stations; it changed the building code so that new homes don’t have to have charging stations incorporated in them. That was the cheapest point for doing that. If you want to have clean air, you have to change the system of transportation. This government has undermined the crucial steps necessary to have that happen.

And then, it didn’t stop there. Conservation authorities: We saw the assault on conservation authorities last year. If those conservation authorities, set up to protect people from being swept away by flood waters in the night—which is what we saw with Hurricane Hazel. If they don’t have the power and authority to protect people from floods, if they don’t have the power and authority to protect those natural areas, well, what is the meaning of conservation when it comes to this government? What is the lesson that young people need to take from all of this?

Speaker, we are in a situation where feel-good motions are not going to make up for this government’s constant, unremitting attacks on the environment of this province and the people of this province. In the end, the lesson that young people will take, not from this motion but from the actions of this government, is very simple: If they do not mobilize in the thousands and fill the streets demanding climate action, they will be left to a very bitter future. If they don’t act to throw this government out in the next election, their fate is very, very troubled.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Further debate?

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: I’m proud to stand in the House today to support my colleague from Markham–Thornhill on his motion to bring students’ involvement in the environment to the forefront through stewardship programs. This speaks to the legacy of the member from Markham–Thornhill, who has always stood beside the environment, helping students get more involved. It’s very complementary of our Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan, which is titled Preserving and Protecting our Environment for Future Generations.

It’s because we want to give students hope and opportunity so that they can actually do something about the environment, things that are tangible so they can make a difference; things like our day of action on litter that I introduced in this Legislature, which was supported by all members, so I thank you for that.

I’m glad they’re going to be supporting this motion, because this leads to a legacy of things that we are trying to do to help students. For example, on the second anniversary of our environment plan we talked about establishing a youth climate advisory group so, again, they can take action and work with the government. Youth around the province work with the Ontario government through things like the Ministry of Natural Resources. They have a stewardship youth ranger team, which has done great work around Lake Simcoe.

And of course—I’ve talked about them many times—we’ve got Zoe and the Youth for Lake Simcoe that are taking action as well. This motion today is an opportunity to thank all those students for all the work they do and, of course, inspire the next generation so they can learn that lesson and take it to their parents and take it to their community.

In budget 2020, we committed a further support to Earth Rangers by investing $100,000 over two years on youth-focused conservation organization activities to, again, inspire more youth to take action in their communities.

We’re not just stopping there, Speaker. There are plenty of things that we are looking to get students involved in, and this member’s motion is going to benefit that and benefit all the actions that we want to take for clean air, clean water and, of course, clean land.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Further debate?

Mr. Toby Barrett: I appreciate the opportunity to offer my support to the member from Markham–Thornhill for this motion. As he mentions, he learned from his father about tree planting. I learned from my father and my grandfather. We’ve planted hundreds of acres on our farms in southern Ontario. In fact, it could be another month from now when we can all be out there planting trees again, which I do every year.

You mentioned greenhouse gases. This is something we’ve been debating since the 1950s. Some people have recently discovered this issue. I have a Globe and Mail

article from 1953 that talks about the greenhouse effect. I put this forward: The answers lie in forestry and farming.

We talked a lot about greenhouse gases when I taught environmental science at the high school level in the 1970s. I’m very pleased that our Minister of Education spoke in support of this motion from my friend Logan. During that course, we covered everything back in the day, from pipelines to sustainable agriculture. The kids loved the course. The second year I taught it, the enrolment doubled with this course. I fully support more initiatives to be brought back within our high school system.

The member mentioned that he learned from his father. I have seen photographs of Logan’s father. He was a farmer. My family had farms in Markham. That was 200 years ago. Remember?

Ms. Donna Skelly: I remember that.

Mr. Toby Barrett: I’m not sure what those farms look like now. But the member learned from his father. Ensuing generations will learn from this member. I fully support this initiative.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Further debate? Further debate?

Back to the member for Markham–Thornhill for a two-minute reply.

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: I would like to thank you again for giving me an opportunity to present my motion. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Minister Calandra, the government House leader and member for Markham–Stouffville, for the great work he did; he worked tirelessly, he worked hard on bringing in the largest park in Ontario to Parks Canada. I can remember that.

I’d like to thank Minister Lecce, the education minister. Thank you for your leadership in encouraging me on this motion, for the personal support and encouraging me to reach out to students through this motion. Thank you for your leadership, again.

Also, to my colleague from Barrie–Innisfil, thank you for passing the PMB on the Provincial Day of Action on Litter. Thank you for your leadership in taking care of the planet in our lifetime.

Also, I would like to thank the member for Haldimand–Norfolk for passionately talking about his farm and his father’s farm and the generations of farms in Markham. I’m proud to see his passion for farming.

I also thank our colleague the member for Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas for your remarks, the member for Davenport for the different perspective and for your input, and also the member from Ottawa–Vanier for your remarks, and the member for Danforth as well.

Madam Speaker, I urge all of the members to support the motion I introduced today. Participating in activities such as the Provincial Day of Action on Litter and tree planting will help students to understand how their decisions and actions affect their environment with the knowledge and skills necessary to address the environmental issues, as well as how we can take action to keep our environment healthy and sustainable for the future. This will create an environmentally responsible generation.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Mr. Kanapathi has moved private member’s notice of motion number 140. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? That is carried.

Motion agreed to.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): Orders of the day? I recognize the member for Barrie–Innisfil.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: No further business.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Lisa Gretzky): There being no further business, this House stands recessed until 10:15.

The House recessed from 0945 to 1015.

Members’ Statements

COVID-19 response

Ms. Judith Monteith-Farrell: Good morning. Thunder Bay is experiencing a COVID-19 crisis, and I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone back home working on that. After months of very low case numbers, we have outbreaks throughout our community in long-term care, our shelters and our schools. Our hospitals that serve all of northwestern Ontario are stretched to the limit.

The impact on everyone as we are locked down yet again is immeasurable. People are dying. Families continue to be separated. Children, parents and teachers are struggling. Small businesses are struggling. Many seniors remain isolated and afraid, not understanding why it’s taking so long for the vaccines to roll out. We all have our stories and we’ve all tried our best, but we need this government to step up.

We have tried to advise that the slow course of action on outbreaks just does not work. It especially doesn’t work when we were clearly in a crisis a month ago. Our calls to action went unheeded; our community is paying for that now.

This government needs to start understanding the needs of the north. Will this government finally do the right thing and get Thunder Bay everything—everything—it needs to get these situations under control? Get us the human and financial resources to stop this. Lives are depending on you.

Mental health and addiction services

Mr. Lorne Coe: The Ministry of Colleges and Universities recently announced an additional $7 million to help increase access to mental health and addiction services for post-secondary students during COVID-19.

To assist local post-secondary students with access to the mental health services and supports they need, the government is providing Durham College in Whitby with approximately $374,000. This much-needed funding will strengthen community partnerships, increase the number of mental health workers and programs, and immediately expand access for students to the provincial mental health and addiction system during COVID.

Speaker, providing students with access to mental health supports and services when they need them is a critical piece to a student’s health and well-being. We will continue to work with and support our post-secondary sector partners like Durham College, Ontario Tech and Trent University to create a learning environment that helps Durham region students succeed in education and in life.

COVID-19 response

Ms. Suze Morrison: COVID-19 has intensified food insecurity in my riding of Toronto Centre. Coupled with the high cost of housing, precarious employment and insufficient income supports, food security in my riding is worsening. Low-wage workers who have lost their jobs; Black, Indigenous and racialized community members; and people experiencing homelessness have all been hardest hit. In some cases, people are opting to eat less in order to pay their bills or pay their rent.

Seeing the urgent need for help in our community, the Cabbagetown BIA partnered with Dixon Hall and St. Luke’s United Church to create the Cabbagetown Cares lunch program. This is a unique initiative that helps folks experiencing food insecurity, while at the same time also supporting local small businesses in the neighbourhood. The weekly lunch program provides healthy meals supplied from local restaurants to over 100 people a week in Allan Gardens. The organizers of the program hope that it will build bridges and connections that will last beyond the pandemic.

I’m happy to share the successes of this community initiative with this House, but we need permanent solutions to poverty, homelessness and income insecurity. No one in Ontario should go hungry because they can’t afford food, and communities shouldn’t be the ones stepping up to fill the gaps in our systems because this government refuses to address the upstream root causes of poverty and homelessness.

Speaker, we need increases to OW and ODSP. We need paid sick days and an increase to the minimum wage. We need more affordable housing, and our municipalities need the financial resources to navigate the homelessness crisis. When will this government finally act?

COVID-19 immunization

Mr. Mike Harris: Under the leadership of retired General Rick Hillier, Ontario has made huge strides in getting our front-line health care heroes and highest-risk populations fully immunized against COVID-19. Thanks to our local COVID-19 Vaccine Distribution Task Force, led by Waterloo Regional Police Service Deputy Chief Shirley Hilton, I am pleased to report that our region is also making headway in rolling out the vaccines through our mobile teams and the vaccination clinic at Grand River Hospital.

Health care workers and long-term care residents have been the top priority. Just two weeks into the new year, the vaccination of long-term-care residents began at Golden Years in Cambridge, and by January 25, with the support from our government to meet the deadline set by our Premier and General Hillier, all local long-term residents have received their first dose.

It is humbling to see the growing number of people in my community be protected from this virus, and barring any further supply challenges, this momentum will continue. Earlier this week, an online portal was launched so those over 80 could pre-register for their shot—and I’ll quickly mention, for seniors without access to Internet, you can also call 519-575-4400. As we begin to expand capacity and ramp up for phase 2, plans for large-scale and mid-size clinics are underway locally with Deputy Chief Hilton making it a goal to administer 12,000 doses per day.

There has been great progress since December when the first PSW from Elmira was vaccinated. With Ontario leading the country in the number of doses administered, I’ll close out by echoing our Premier, that hope is on the horizon.

Ancaster Community Food Drive

Ms. Sandy Shaw: It’s always a pleasure to rise in the House, and it is my pleasure now to announce that the Ancaster Community Food Drive is going virtual in 2021. For almost three decades, people from Ancaster from schools, businesses and local faith groups have come together to raise food for our community. In fact, in the 28 years since the food drive has been taking place, they’ve actually raised 1,856,500 pounds of food for food banks in our community.

We know that during this pandemic the need is greater than ever, and so rather than donations of food, the Ancaster Community Food Drive is asking for people to make a financial contribution. People can go online to ancasterfooddrive.ca to make a donation. The campaign runs until March 6.

I would just like to take this time to say thank you to all of the volunteers who have worked so hard for so many years to make this food drive the kind of success that it is and to make the people of Ancaster proud. I would also just like to say that I give a personal shout-out to my friend Jan, who makes sure that this things run every year without problems.

While we can’t all be together for the Ancaster food drive in our Ancaster fairgrounds this year, we’re all looking forward to being there for the 30th anniversary of the Ancaster Community Food Drive.

Wayne Roberts

Mr. Mike Schreiner: It is an honour to rise today to celebrate the life of my dear friend and mentor Wayne Roberts, who we tragically lost on January 20. As the manager of the Toronto Food Policy Council, the author of 12 books and a columnist for Now Magazine, Wayne played a vital role in energizing and diversifying the local sustainable food movement. City food charters and policy councils across Ontario and around the world were inspired by Wayne. He won many awards, including the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee and a lifetime achievement award from Food Secure Canada.

I first met Wayne 25 years ago and was instantly moved by his wit, his wisdom and his booming laugh. His book Get a Life! inspired me to start a local food business, and his work with the Coalition for a Green Economy still influences my views on politics and policy. I loved working with Wayne and his wife, Lori, promoting Ontario food and farmers with Local Food Plus. Speaker, there’s a reason Wayne is known as the godfather of the local food movement in Ontario.

When you shop at a farmers’ market, harvest from a community garden, or find local food at the nearest green grocer, think of my dear friend Wayne. He will be missed, but not forgotten, and his legacy will live on in the local food movement in Ontario.

Jackie Kelly-Pemberton and Steven Pemberton

Mr. Jim McDonell: I rise today to congratulate a farming couple from the small community of Inkerman, North Dundas, who received a 2021 Environmental Stewardship Award from the Beef Farmers of Ontario. Jackie and Steven Pemberton have been recognized for their efforts to incorporate research and innovation as part of a farming strategy with an eye toward long-term sustainability, and for their contributions to the community and beyond.

The Pembertons’ environmental focus on research has led to partnership projects with Carleton University and the federal government, along with other organizations, on a number of issues, including agricultural adaptation to climate change, crop genetics’ impact on biodiversity and manure storage pits.

Jackie and Steven are also community leaders when they’re not on the farm. They invest their time and expertise in stewardship programs, education, promoting clean water strategies and nutrient management. They continue their volunteer roles with local associations and committees, including the Dundas county agriculture and cattlemen’s associations. Jackie is currently the Ontario Federation of Agriculture regional director and acts as a liaison for the Beef Farmers of Ontario.

I wish the Pembertons continued success in their farm operations and their educational and community involvement. Jackie and Steven, you are the pride of Dundas county.

COVID-19 response

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, people are tired out from this pandemic. They’ve felt the isolation and frustration from staying at home. They’ve felt loss with the death of loved ones and anxiety when they have a friend or relative who comes out with a positive COVID diagnosis. They’ve had it, which is why they can’t believe it when they see this government isn’t doing everything it possibly can to bring this pandemic under control.

Week after week, month after month in this House, we have been demanding a paid sick leave program that would protect workers and their families and protect all of us, and that would drive down the numbers and allow us to get past this pandemic more quickly. You would think, given the cost of the pandemic, that it would not be a big fight, that it would be a very simple, straightforward thing, but it has not happened, Speaker, and that is a major problem for people in this province.

We’re also in a situation where we’re not on top of things with vaccinations. We’re seventh out of 10 provinces in terms of people getting vaccinated. Just last week we were told it will be March 15 before people could book inoculations—March 15. We’ve known about vaccines since last fall.

It is not too late to save people’s lives and to bring this pandemic under control. We need to act now.

International Women’s Day

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Next Monday, Monday March 8, is International Women’s Day. This is a time to take the opportunity to reflect on the hard-fought progress of women and the men who have supported them on their journey toward real gender equality.

In 2019, I had the pleasure of hosting the first ever International Women’s Day breakfast and high tea in my riding of Carleton. Not only was it a fantastic way to support local women business owners like Debbie, the owner of Danbys Roadhouse in Richmond; it was a great way for women and their families to come out and celebrate themselves and their accomplishments. In fact, the last two events that I hosted in 2020, right before COVID hit, were my second annual International Women’s Day breakfast in Richmond and high tea in Metcalfe.

The 2021 International’s Women’s Day theme is #ChooseToChallenge. We can all choose to challenge and call out gender bias and inequality. We can all choose to seek out and celebrate women’s achievements. While this year, unfortunately, I won’t be able to host my International Women’s Day events to celebrate the amazing women of Carleton, I choose to rise in the House today to acknowledge their accomplishments and celebrate their achievements.

To all the amazing women of Carleton, including my three staff, Candice, Hina and Navita: Happy International Women’s Day. I can’t wait to celebrate again with all of you in 2022.

COVID-19 response

Mr. Norman Miller: First, I want to recognize the challenges that today’s move into the grey lockdown COVID framework presents for businesses and individuals across Muskoka. At the same time, two vaccine clinics are opening in Muskoka today to offer vaccines to those 85 and older. This is great news for seniors around Muskoka, but not the only good news for seniors in Parry Sound–Muskoka recently.

Last month, I was thrilled to announce that our government is investing more than $6.1 million to expand the Community Paramedicine for Long-Term Care Program across the riding. More specially trained paramedics will offer non-emergency services like community wellness clinics, home visits and remote monitoring of vital signs. This will help seniors stay safe in their homes while they wait for space in long-term care.

Jeff McWilliam, chief of Muskoka Paramedic Services, said that the funding will be used to expand remote patient monitoring and other services. Frank May, manager of the Parry Sound District EMS, explained how the program can allow patients to be examined by specialists using equipment like remote stethoscopes, without having to travel to an urban centre. In both regions, this funding will be used to hire and train more community paramedics to offer services seven days a week.

Thank you to the Minister of Long-Term Care for recognizing the need for this program, particularly in rural areas that struggle to attract doctors, and thank you to all the paramedics and health care partners involved in the existing community paramedicine programs and to those who developed the plans to expand these services.

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

The member for London West I understand has a point of order.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Yes, point of order, Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to move a motion regarding the accelerated passage of Bill 239, the Stay Home If You Are Sick Act, to help in the fight against COVID-19.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for London West is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion regarding the accelerated passage of Bill 239, the Stay Home If You Are Sick Act, to help fight against COVID-19. Agreed? I heard a no.

Vice-Chair of the Standing Committee on Estimates

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I wish to inform the House that the official opposition House leader and MPP for London West has provided me with notice of her intent to raise a point of privilege, and I’m prepared to hear it at this time. I recognize the member for London West.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Thank you very much, Speaker. As you know, I sent a letter to you last week raising concerns about a possible breach of privilege regarding this government’s decision to name a government MPP as Vice-Chair of the Standing Committee on Estimates. I very much appreciate this opportunity this morning to highlight a few of the points I made in my letter.

The Standing Committee on Estimates is one of three committees whose chairships are explicitly restricted in the standing orders. The standing orders outline two classes of committees, six whose chairships are distributed in proportion to the number of seats each party holds in the House and three with specified leadership requirements. Standing order 120(

b) reads as follows:

“The Chair of the Standing Committee on Estimates shall be a member of a recognized party in opposition to the government, the Chair of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs shall be a member of the party forming the government and the Chair of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts shall be a member of the party forming the official opposition.”

The rule that the estimates committee Chair must be a member from a recognized opposition party has been in place since that committee was formally established in 1989. This is in keeping with the responsibility of oversight that our system of parliamentary democracy places on the opposition. In the 30-plus years since then, the Vice-Chair, whose sole and only responsibility is to sit in for the Chair, has always been from the same party as the Chair. This has been the practice in successive Parliaments helmed by all three major parties, including the current government for more than two thirds of its current mandate.

The government will likely argue that the standing orders are silent on the matter of Vice-Chair. The official opposition submits, however, that the requirement that the Vice-Chair come from a recognized opposition party is implicit in standing order 120(b). The rules clearly and unequivocally state that the Chair must come from a recognized opposition party. That is without question. But the sole reason that the Vice-Chair role exists is to fill in for the Chair in instances where the Chair is unable to carry out her or his duties.

Unlike the naming of an Acting Chair, which is transitory in nature and temporary by design, the appointments of Chair and Vice-Chair are intended to provide stable and long-lasting leadership to a committee for an extended and possibly indefinite period of time. Since the Vice-Chair is permanently and only tasked with the responsibility to preside over committee proceedings in the Chair’s absence, it can be argued that the requirements and restrictions placed on the Chair also extend to the Vice-Chair in order to ensure that the permanent leadership is consistent with the intended function of the committee.

So while standing order 120(

b) is silent on Vice-Chairs, the spirit of the provision logically asks this question: If the permanent Chair of those committees must fulfill certain requirements, how can someone permanently tasked to act as Chair be exempt? Put this another way: If the sole purpose of the Vice-Chair of estimates is to be ready to assume the duties of Chair as outlined in the committee’s mandate, should the Chair be unavailable for whatever reason, does a government MPP in that role satisfy the intent of standing order 120(

b) that the Standing Committee on Estimates be led by a recognized opposition party? Speaker, the answer is no.

As Wilding and Laundy point out in the fourth edition of An Encyclopaedia of Parliament, parliamentary procedure “is a combination of two elements, the traditional and the democratic.” In keeping with our reliance on this mix of codified rules, unwritten practices and observed traditions, we should also look to the historic approach that the estimates committee has taken when it comes to installing Vice-Chairs.

Since the creation of the Standing Committee on Estimates in 1989, there has never been an instance where a government MPP has held the Vice-Chair role. In fact, the committee has never had a Vice-Chair from another party from the Chair prior to the February 24, 2021, motion passed by the government majority of the estimates committee.

While there are no universally accepted guidelines on what constitutes formally recognized practice, there is a strong case to be made for an approach that has served the House well for more than 30 years and has been utilized exclusively since the committee’s inception. It can be argued that the universal, and only,

interpretation of a standing order that has never been substantively amended or modified at any point during its history satisfies all unwritten requirements to formally constitute recognized practice.

Speaker, you understand better than most this blend of tradition and written rules, because you apply it every day in the Chair. We simply cannot throw out more than 30 years of understanding and application by successive Parliaments simply because the government of the day is tired of the rules as universally understood. No government, including this one, has ever questioned the

interpretation or application of this standing order or has made any efforts to change it since it came into force in 1989.

Our traditions give governments the ability to permanently amend standing orders—and that’s something that this government has done more frequently than any other government over the last 30 years—but they also require that governments take the necessary steps to make changes. What they do not do is give governments the power to reimagine and repurpose established practices without the express consent of the House.

In closing, Speaker, it is our position that the government’s misinterpretation of standing order 120(

b) is not only a violation of the intent of the provision but a flagrant disregard of the established practices of this House, and that this action potentially compromises the intended function of the Standing Committee on Estimates. It is our hope that you will uphold the 30-plus years of precedent and rule in favour of this point of privilege.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Are there any other members who wish to speak to the point of privilege?

Hon. Paul Calandra: I rise to respond to the point of privilege raised by the member from London West. The member has made serious claims that privileges of the House have been breached resulting from the election of the member from Flamborough–Glanbrook, a member of the Progressive Conservative caucus, to the position of Vice-Chair of the Standing Committee on Estimates.

First, I assert that the member has failed to clearly identify any specific privilege of the House, or of any individual member, which has been breached. However, the member has made several arguments which I will respond individually.

While the alleged breach of privilege is specific to a Vice-Chair position, the basis of the member’s claim is that explicit restrictions in standing order 120(

b) for the allocation of Chairs flow inherently to the selection of Vice-Chairs by way of established practice. As such, I must first address the supposed intent of standing order 120(

b) as characterized by the member opposite.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, standing order 120 provides for the distribution of committee Chairs “in proportion to the representation of the recognized parties in the House.” The standing order further provides for exceptions to this general framework for specific committees: the Standing Committee on Estimates, the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The member claims that the standing orders distinguish between multiple classes of committees: (1) those with restrictions on the Chair; (2) those without restrictions on the Chair; (3) oversight committees; and (4) non-oversight committees.

In her notice of this point of privilege, the member writes, “As you know, the standing orders place restrictions on the chairships of the standing committees on finance, estimates and public accounts in keeping with the long-standing parliamentary tradition that ensures balance between a government’s right to proceed with its agenda (finance) and the opposition’s responsibility to hold the government to account (estimates, public accounts).” The member’s argument is, however, flawed.

If the intent of the restrictions on chairships was, as the member claims, to balance the obligations of the government and opposition parties, then surely the standing orders would include explicit restrictions for all committees making up the class of oversight committees.

As the member knows, the standing orders do not do this. They are silent on the chairship of the Standing Committee on Government Agencies, which must surely be seen as an oversight committee, in that its mandate and primary function is holding government to account. This has been acknowledged by the official opposition in a joint letter signed by the chairs of the standing committees on estimates, public accounts and government agencies dated June 16, 2020, grouping these three committees together as Legislative Assembly oversight committees and requesting that the House authorize them to meet following the temporary suspension of committee activities in the early months of the pandemic.

The member’s argument regarding the intent of standing order 120(

b) cannot be supported by the facts. If the intent of the House was to adopt a standing order for the purpose of balance and distinction between oversight committees and committees which facilitate the government’s agenda, then it would have further restricted the chairship of the Standing Committee on Government Agencies, a committee which existed when the provisions of standing order 120(

b) were implemented, to a member of an opposition party.

To determine the intent of clause (b), we must look at it in the context of the entire standing order: 120(

a) sets out that the chairship of standing committees shall be distributed proportionately; 120(

c) sets out the specific procedure for reconciling disagreements between parties on distribution. What the member has failed to recognize in standing order 120(

b) is that a small but incredibly important distinction in language exists. While the Chair of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts is to be a member of the official opposition, the Chair of the Standing Committee on Estimates is set out as a member of any recognized opposition party. The distinction is important in that clause (

b) clearly, and only, furthers the intent of clause (a), ensuring minimum standards for proportional distribution of those positions.

It is my position that the intent of standing order 120(

b) is to ensure that all recognized parties share the chairships of standing committees, while leaving room for scenarios where there are only two recognized parties. As noted by Bosc and Gagnon in

chapter 20 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Chairs play an important representative role on behalf of their committees, like the Speaker on behalf of Parliament: “They are the committee’s main spokesperson with ... parliamentarians, the media and civil society.”

It follows that the proportional distribution of Chairs, supplemented by minimum standards which create the conditions necessary to ensure members of all recognized parties become Chairs, would be desirable for the House and for the non-partisan institution of Parliament as a whole. This, Mr. Speaker, is the actual intent of standing order 120(b).

The member opposite has failed to demonstrate that the intent of standing order 120 was anything more than ensuring the chairships of standing committees be shared between parties, a much easier

interpretation of the intent of the standing order as written. The member opposite has simply not demonstrated that there is some inherent, unwritten, partisan requirement for certain Chairs to be selected from certain parties, as she claims.

Looking to the quote I read into the record earlier, the member has also made the argument that the chairship of oversight committees furthers the ability of the opposition to hold the government to account.

In addition, the member states the following in her notice of this point of privilege: “If the Vice-Chair maintains a standing responsibility to assume the duties of Chair as outlined in the committee’s mandate in the event of the temporary incapacity of the Chair for whatever reason, does a government MPP in that role satisfy the intent of standing order 120(b)? The answer is no.”

On this point, Mr. Speaker, I fundamentally disagree. It is an accepted convention of our system of Parliament, and our Legislature specifically, that the Chair of a committee or the Speaker shall be impartial.

Bosc and Gagnon noted in

chapter 7 in the third edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice: “When in the Chair, the Speaker embodies the power and authority of the office, strengthened by rule and precedent. He or she must at all times show, and be seen to show, the impartiality required to sustain the trust and good will of the House.”

The principle further applies to committee Chairs as they execute their procedural, administrative and representative functions on behalf of their committees, and to members acting temporarily as the Chair in the Chair’s absence. Those presiding over committee must be impartial. As such, political affiliations should have no effect on the ability of a Chair or Vice-Chair to execute their responsibilities. In fact, in her arguments, the member has conflated the responsibilities of opposition parties and the responsibility of committee Chairs and Vice-Chairs.

I do not, in any way, dispute the opposition bears a fundamental obligation to hold the government to account—in fact, I have referenced it countless times in this place—but I do assert that those holding the office of committee Chairs and Vice-Chairs do not bear the same obligation by virtue of those positions. In their roles, on behalf of committee, they bear only the well-documented procedural, administrative and representative responsibilities flowed to them by the House.

There is a further key distinction between the Chair and Vice-Chair position, as Bosc and Gagnon noted also in

chapter 20: “A Vice-Chair has no administrative or representative responsibility, such as convening or cancelling meetings, unless he or she is acting on the instruction of the Chair.” And further: “Vice-Chairs cannot fulfill any responsibility or perform any other function while the office of Chair is vacant.”

Vice-Chairs share singularly in procedural responsibilities when the Chair is absent and share none of the representative responsibility. It is my position that this key distinction, combined with the fact that the standing orders create the positions as distinct roles, separately referenced, indicates a clear intent that the House wish to defer to individual committees for these selections, as was the standard with all committee Chair and Vice-Chair positions prior to 1986.

It is exceedingly clear that the member’s arguments that the explicit requirements of standing order 120(b), respecting Chairs, somehow flow inherently to the position of Vice-Chairs has not been proven.

The member seems to also argue that there is some sort of parliamentary convention or tradition to select the Chair and Vice-Chair from the same party, and that to not do so impedes the work of committee. We need only to look to the House of Commons, where the standard practice is that the Chairs and Vice-Chairs be selected from different parties.

In fact, the standing order of the House of Commons specifically provide for this in standing order 106(2), which states: “At the commencement of every session and, if necessary, during the course of a session, each standing or special committee shall elect a Chair and two Vice-Chairs, of whom the Chair shall be a member of the government party, the first Vice-Chair shall be a member of the official opposition, and the second Vice-Chair shall be a member of an opposition party other than the official opposition party.” This practice has in no way disrupted or impeded the work of any of the nearly 30 standing committees of the House of Commons, and to argue that a similar arrangement for standing committees of this House would somehow impede the proper functioning cannot be supported by the facts.

There is simply no basis for the member’s arguments related to the standing orders, parliamentary convention or tradition, or the ability of committees to conduct business.

Further, Mr. Speaker, I must raise the issue of timeliness, which is a fundamental requirement when raising a point of privilege. On August 24, 2020, the Select Committee on Emergency Management Oversight elected the member for Humber River–Black Creek as its Vice-Chair. On October 14, 2020, the Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills elected the member for Ottawa South as its Vice-Chair. On October 20, 2020, the Standing Committee on General Government elected the member for Guelph as its Vice-Chair.

On February 18, 2021, the Standing Committee on Justice Policy elected the member for Ottawa–Vanier as its Vice-Chair. On February 18, the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs elected the member for Kingston and the Islands as its Vice-Chair, although he then resigned after only a few minutes of service. On February 23, 2021, the Standing Committee on Government Agencies elected the member for Scarborough–Agincourt as its Vice-Chair. Finally, on February 24, 2021, the Standing Committee on Estimates elected the member for Flamborough–Glanbrook as its Vice-Chair.

In each of these instances, a Vice-Chair was elected from a party differing from the party holding the Chair, but today is March 1 and we are only now hearing of the point of privilege from the member opposite. I would assert that this delayed point of privilege has not been made in a timely fashion.

Further, Mr. Speaker, when these elections occurred on August 24, October 14, October 20, February 18, February 23 and February 24, none of the member opposite or any of her colleagues from the official opposition raised any concerns with a potential breach of the privileges of this House. If you review the relevant committee transcripts, you will find that not a single concern was raised, except by the member for Kingston and the Islands, who did not feel he could effectively hold the government to account by serving as the committee’s Vice-Chair.

Mr. Speaker, this is an argument which has been referenced by the member opposite in her notice of the point of privilege and which is entirely contradictory to her other points. On one hand, she claims that the official opposition must hold the Vice-Chair of the Standing Committee on Estimates in order to hold the government to account. On the other hand, she argues holding the Vice-Chair would have limited the member for Kingston and the Islands’ ability to hold the government to account.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I believe that parliamentary convention and precedential rulings of Speakers of this House and of the House of Commons leave with you no choice but to find that this point of privilege has not followed the necessary process. As Bosc and Gagnon noted in

chapter 3, “Speakers have consistently ruled that, except in the most extreme situations, they will hear questions of privilege arising from committee proceedings only upon presentation of a report from the committee which deals directly with the matter and not as a question of privilege raised by an individual member.”

To support this point, I reference Speaker Levac in his decision of March 25, 2014, respecting an allegation of the improper disclosure of committee documents. In that ruling, it says, “This power” to reconcile the conflicting arguments presented “rests with the Standing Committee on Estimates, which ... is best able to decide if the allegation of improper disclosure is correct, and it can bring this matter properly before the House by adopting and presenting a report, if it chooses to do so.”

In 2003, Speaker Milliken ruled in a similar case: “In the absence of a report from the committee on such an issue, it is virtually impossible for the Chair to make any judgment as to the prima facie occurrence of a breach of privilege with regard to such charges.”

Most recently, Mr. Speaker, on July 14, 2020, you ruled on a point of order which I raised regarding the disclosure of confidential information from an in camera meeting of a standing committee as follows: “While disclosing information regarding an in camera meeting of a standing committee would be inappropriate and could be a valid point of order, the Speaker has no way of knowing what transpires in each standing committee, especially during their in camera sessions. This issue would therefore properly be raised in and considered by the committee.”

Mr. Speaker, I submit that the member from London West has failed to make any reasonable case for prima facie breach of privilege. She has failed to show any specific privilege that has been breached. She has failed to prove that the standing orders or any parliamentary convention explicitly or implicitly prohibit the election of Vice-Chairs who are the members of parties differing from the party to which the Chair belongs. She has failed to prove that the ability of committees to conduct business would be in any way impeded by this practice.

She has failed to prove any rational connection between the partisan affiliation of a committee Chair or Vice-Chair and the member’s ability to execute those non-partisan, impartial offices. Finally, she has failed to show that even if a breach of privilege could be proven, the government is in any way responsible for it.

Over the course of six months, seven separate committees of this House have elected members to Vice-Chair positions on committees where members of the opposing parties held the Chair. Each of these times, the Chair of those committees, in consultation with the Clerks, found the motions nominating those members to be in order. In two cases, the Chairs were members of the official opposition, one of whom was a former NDP House leader who has 30 years of elected experience and 10 years in a heavily procedural role.

The member for London West claims that the government is acting in hostile way, aggressively using its majority to unilaterally install bipartisan committee leadership. I’ll read that again: aggressively using its majority to unilaterally install bipartisan committee leadership. I will end by saying that on this side of the House, we will always see aggressive bipartisanship as a good thing, and we will always work to enhance the engagement of members on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, this is simply not a situation where the rule in question is vague or unclear as to its scope or application, which might logically invite a Speaker to opine on its exact meaning. In fact, the standing order in question is very clear on its face and should be interpreted in the manner in which it was clearly intended.

Finally, thank you for hearing my response in this matter. Of course, any legitimate breach of privilege of this House must be considered seriously, but now, having heard these arguments, I urge you to dispense with this unfounded point of privilege and allow this House to return to its important business.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. Are there any other members who wish to offer their opinions on this matter?

I want to thank the member for London West for her presentation, as well as the government House leader for his response. I will deliberate and inform the House of my ruling in due course.

Question Period

Long-term care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My first question this morning is for the Premier. On March 30, the Premier said this: “We’re putting an iron ring of protection around our seniors.”

The testimony of the Minister of Long-Term Care at the long-term-care commission was made public, and it’s very clear in that testimony that she knew very well that there was no such thing, no iron ring at all around long-term care. So why was the Premier telling seniors and their families that the government had put an iron ring of protection around seniors in long-term care when, in fact, his minister was telling him that that was not the truth?

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

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. I simply want to start by clarifying, and want to make sure words are not being put in my mouth. So I would ask anyone who wants to find out what was said to read the testimony.

I had the opportunity to meet with the commission and answer their questions, and I’m confident the testimony they have heard will serve as a solid foundation to build their final report and recommendations. Our government is looking forward to receiving those at the end of April as we work to modernize long-term care.

It’s no secret that the sector entered this pandemic having been neglected by previous governments for many years. The former Liberal government never got four hours of daily direct care done for long-term care. The former Liberal government built only 611 beds, leaving our seniors vulnerable, and the NDP propped them up every step of the way.

That, Mr. Speaker, was the state of long-term care entering into this pandemic. We did everything we could. The NDP and Liberals voted against key stabilization investments and measures. If they had their way, homes in their constituencies would not have received hundreds of thousands of dollars.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s really clear from the minister’s testimony that she was flagging some concerns that the government then took weeks and sometimes months to act upon; things like, for example, how the virus was spreading, things like that long-term care had literally been forgotten when it comes to the distribution of PPE, things like warning that the army needed to be called into Orchard Villa as people were dying by the dozens. In fact, she mentioned that, I think, on April 17, and yet it took until the 28th before the army was even called in.

Speaker, why was the Premier telling the people of Ontario that there was an iron ring around long-term care when, clearly, his minister was telling him that that wasn’t true?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you again to the member opposite. I had been following what was going on around the world, and these were largely anecdotal cases at that point. There was a paucity of research, a paucity of evidence, and there hadn’t been any real large-scale studies into it then. Dr. Williams would have been in tune to the latest science and research and had more inputs available to him from a public health standpoint than we did at the cabinet table. I want to emphasize the importance of the whole cabinet and the whole government taking the advice of the science and public health experts at that time.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, back to the Premier: Experts and front-line staff in long-term care were warning about the asymptomatic spread of COVID-19. They were warning about the movement of workers between homes. They were talking about the critical lack of PPE in long-term care. The minister, apparently, behind the scenes was echoing these very sentiments.

So if that was the case, as was indicated by her testimony at the commission, why was the Premier of our province telling seniors and family members that he had put an iron ring around long-term care when obviously she was telling him it wasn’t the truth?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Again, I wish to clarify for the record that the mischaracterization of any statements I’ve made is not appreciated.

I have been following what was going on around the world throughout the pandemic. We relied on leading scientific and public health voices. This was consistent, and this was made very clear by the Premier—absolutely. This was something we were doing, and we continue to do to this day.

Our government did everything we could to shore up the sector, investing $1.38 billion to date. These investments provided critical supports to purchase things like PPE, hire more staff or modernize HVAC systems. This was an ongoing effort. We did everything we could. We moved as fast as we could. We took the advice of the experts, the scientists and our public health experts the whole way along.

Long-term care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, my next question’s actually for the Minister of Long-Term Care. It’s really clear from the minister’s testimony at the commission that she had concerns about the protection of seniors in long-term care. Throughout March and April of last year, and in fact many months subsequently, the Premier kept claiming that there was an iron ring of protection around long-term care. Why didn’t this minister, then, go public and speak up and save lives in long-term care?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: I think it’s important to note, back in the day, taking you back to that time, very little research was done, very little evidence—global competition for PPE, global competition for test kits and reagents. The whole world was learning about the evidence surrounding this virus. And we were taking the advice of the Chief Medical Officer of Health, of our public health experts.

I give all of those people credit because, again, we were learning and trying to learn very, very rapidly, taking the advice of the experts, the public health authorities the whole way through and understanding what measures we could put in place to protect our most vulnerable. They had the landscape of understanding, and they were in their role. I had my ministry to advocate for our most vulnerable, which I absolutely did, knowing that we needed to have an ongoing effort to put more and more measures in place, which we continue to do today.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The minister was clearly disagreeing with the Chief Medical Officer of Health and the Premier about how the disease spreads and about the need for PPE in long-term care. Meanwhile, we watched as homes like Orchard Villa racked up tragedy after tragedy after tragedy while seniors were dying, Speaker.

The Premier kept claiming that there was an iron ring of protection around long-term care. Why did this minister, knowing what she knew, continue to back up the Premier’s claims?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Once again, I understand what the member opposite is attempting to do here. I want to say how important it was for our cabinet, this whole way along, to be understanding the science as it evolved, listening to the public health experts, listening to the scientists and understanding what we could do in the context of what was known about COVID-19, during a pandemic that hadn’t occurred like this in a hundred years.

I give credit to everyone who has been working around the clock to understand this virus this whole time, whether it was getting the PPE we needed—many people worked on that—getting the testing done or making sure that we could have the science behind the vaccines and the rapid tests. All of this was ongoing to make sure that we used every measure, every tool in the tool box we possibly could, listening to the science, listening to the experts and addressing a novel virus.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the minister knew that seniors were not safe. The minister knew that protections were not in place to keep them safe. We all watched as the tragedies continued to occur in places like Orchard Villa. The people of Ontario saw the horrifying evidence in the Armed Forces report that came out of their help there.

It is unbelievable that these unspeakable tragedies continued to occur while the Premier claimed there was an iron ring of protection around long-term care. Why did this minister say nothing? Why did she not take the veil off of that comment, off of that assertion that the Premier kept making when she knew that it was not true?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Withdraw, Speaker.

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

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Again, I find it offensive the way this is being mischaracterized. I will say adamantly that this whole side of the House has consistently said about the importance of following the experts, the importance of following the science—which is exactly what we did.

Again, my background as a family doctor perhaps made me slightly different than the average politician, but again, I was not the public health expert. I was not the scientific expert. I was in my role as the Minister of Long-Term Care, advocating for the ministry and making sure that we used and advocated for every measure possible, which is exactly what was done. Certainly the expert opinion and the expert advice from the scientists involved is very much appreciated, and we will continue to follow that advice.

Long-term care

Ms. Sara Singh: My question is to the Premier. Last week, the government dumped hundreds of thousands of documents and thousands of pages of notes on the long-term-care commission. The Deputy Premier and health minister told the commission she didn’t fully know how this government made certain decisions—for example, such as opening up asymptomatic testing to all Ontarians. She told the commission that this was something “that was very important to the Premier” and that “you would really need to speak to him about that.”

Speaker, if the Deputy Premier and Minister of Health believes the Premier should be the one providing the answers to Ontarians, why won’t the Premier appear before the long-term-care commission?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: As we’ve seen, the commission has been doing a tremendous amount of work. I remind the members of the opposition that this was a commission that they didn’t want. In fact, they fought tirelessly against it.

I’m gratified to know that they are continuing to do the hard work. Both the Minister of Long-Term Care and the Minister of Health have appeared before it. Dr. Williams has appeared before it. We’re anxiously awaiting additional recommendations coming from that so that we can act, as we have done on the first two sets of recommendations.

There’s a lot of work to do in long-term care. This will help us facilitate that work—work that we started from day one after we were elected.

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

Ms. Sara Singh: The commission is supposed to be getting to the bottom of the disasters in long-term care in order to save lives and ensure that this never happens again. As we saw in the second wave, where even more families lost their loved ones due to COVID-19 in the long-term-care system, this government did not build the iron ring that they continue to promise.

The Minister of Health doesn’t even know why this government made decisions about this pandemic and what to do about it. She believes, and she told the commission in her testimony, that the Premier is the one with the answers.

Does the Premier intend to appear before the commission so that Ontarians who lost their loved ones will get the answers and closure that they deserve?

Hon. Paul Calandra: In fact, this government took action immediately. We knew that we were inheriting a system that was woefully underfunded when we took office in 2018. It was unprepared to deal with the challenges of the day, let alone the challenges of a pandemic. That’s why we moved very quickly to make some serious investments into long-term care, to build new beds and to add capacity to the system. The Minister of Health brought forward a new Ontario health team to allow for a blanket of care.

We saw some of that in action when hospitals in my riding assumed responsibility for some of the long-term-care homes that were having challenges. Infection prevention and control measures were brought into place.

The commission is helping us address some of the issues that we found in a pandemic so that if this ever happens again, we are prepared better than we were when we inherited this government in 2018. We will spare no expense to make sure our seniors get the care and services that they need, and we look forward to the commission’s final recommendations so that they can be added to the things that have already been started by both the Minister of Long-Term Care and the Minister of Health.

Rural health services

Mr. Stan Cho: My question is for the Minister of Health. We all know that rural hospitals play a critical role in providing high-quality health care for Ontarians close to home. We also know that these hospitals have been left behind under the previous government. Can the minister please update this House on the latest measures our government is taking to end hallway health care and support our rural hospitals?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you very much to the member from Willowdale for this very important question. Rural hospitals play a critical role in ensuring equitable access to high-quality care for patients and families all over Ontario. That’s why we’re investing up to $53 million to support the development and construction of the new Grey Bruce Health Services Markdale Hospital as part of our plan to end hallway health care. This new hospital is part of our investment of $20 billion over 10 years to build new and expanded health care infrastructure.

This will ensure that the people of Markdale and the surrounding area have access to modern facilities and high-quality services close to home when they need them.

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

Mr. Stan Cho: Thank you, Minister, for that response and for all of the hard work that she is doing to lead the way in ending hallway health care here in Ontario. Speaker, through you, can the minister please tell this House specifically why this investment is critical to Grey Bruce Health Services?

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

Hon. Bill Walker: I was pleased to attend the virtual announcement with the Premier and the Minister of Health on this new critical health care infrastructure, and I’m still smiling.

Construction begins this week. Once complete, the new Markdale Hospital will provide more services in a modern and spacious environment for patients and families in Markdale and neighbouring regions, including:

—a 24/7 emergency department with four exam and treatment areas that will provide improved space for staff and patients;

—four short-stay beds better adapted to new non-surgical procedures, and one palliative care bed;

—a bigger space to double outpatient care and expanded procedural services, including minor procedures;

—access to a clinical laboratory and state-of-the-art diagnostic imaging services, ambulatory clinics, space for visiting specialists and interprofessional teams, and expanded telemedicine services; and

—an ambulance bay for two ambulances.

The president and CEO of Grey Bruce Health Services, Gary Sims, said, “This is the news we have been waiting for, and we are extremely pleased to begin construction of a brand new, state-of-the art hospital in Markdale. This announcement solidifies the future of excellent health care in” Grey Centre. The mayor of Grey Highlands, Paul McQueen, said, “I couldn’t be happier.”

I echo those. Health care in Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound is the best that it can be.

Employment standards

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Premier. During the debate on the Stay Home If You Are Sick Act last week, the member for Burlington stated that paid sick days do not work to control the spread of COVID-19, which probably explains the Premier’s initial opposition to the inadequate and temporary federal program which he now claims to champion.

Speaker, a research study from the United States, where employers were required to provide two weeks of paid sick days between March and December last year, showed that the measure prevented an average of 400 cases per day, per state.

With the real threat of a third wave upon us, why does this government not think that preventing 400 COVID cases per day in Ontario is something worth doing?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Labour, Training and Skills Development.

Hon. Monte McNaughton: I would like to actually begin by congratulating former Premier Bill Davis. Mr. Davis was sworn in as Ontario’s 18th Premier 50 years ago today. On behalf of the government of Ontario, I want to congratulate Premier Davis on a legacy that he’s left of a province.

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the members opposite that the very first action our government took was to bring in job-protected leave. If any worker is in self-isolation, in quarantine, if you’re a mom or dad who has to stay home and look after your loved one, a child, you can’t be fired for that. Furthermore, we eliminated the need for sick notes during COVID-19.

I’m proud of the Premier of this province joining with all provincial and territorial leaders in signing a $1.1-billion agreement with the federal government to bring in paid sick days for all workers in Ontario.

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Unpaid leave does not work for workers who live paycheque to paycheque.

The Premier has been trying to rewrite history on his support for paid sick days, so long as they are provided by the federal government. But public health officials, mayors, municipal councils, boards of health and small business owners all understand that forcing workers to take unpaid leave and then apply to the federal program, risking their own financial security and that of their families, will not help curb workplace transmission, regardless of the changes that are made to the CRSB. That is why they are calling for changes to provincial employment standards legislation so that workers can actually stay home to get a COVID test and wait for results.

Will the Premier listen to these calls and direct his caucus to support my bill today?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: Furthermore, the Premier of this province, as I said in my first answer, negotiated $1.1 billion worth of paid sick days for workers in Ontario and across the country. Over 110,000 workers have now applied for that benefit or are receiving that benefit. There is still $800 million left in the bank. We’re not going to duplicate that program. In fact, we’re advocating on behalf of workers to improve that program.

I’m proud to say, because of Ontario’s advocacy, payments are getting into workers’ bank accounts, directly deposited, within three to five days. Workers can now apply more than once. And there are now four weeks of paid sick days for workers in the province of Ontario, something you, ma’am, should applaud.

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

The next question.

Land use planning

Mr. Mike Schreiner: My question is for the Premier. Opposition to Highway 413 is growing every single day, with Mississauga city council being the latest to pass a resolution against it. People do not want to see 2,000 acres of prime farmland and 400 acres of the greenbelt paved over so that commuters can save only 30 seconds. They don’t want to supercharge 1950s-style sprawl at a time when we need farmland to grow food and jobs, and we need green space to protect us from flooding. People want affordable public transit, not more expensive congestion and highways.

Speaker, will the Premier commit to protecting prime farmland and say no to Highway 413?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: I appreciate the question from the honourable member. As I said last week, there’s still a tremendous amount of work that needs to be done here: some consultations that of course have to happen with our partners in the area, an environmental assessment.

Of course, the greenbelt legislation always did make allowances for critical infrastructure. Having said that, once we accomplish all these consultations, if it makes sense for the highway to proceed, it will; if it doesn’t, we won’t.

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

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I think it is clear the government has not done its homework on this highway, from the answer we received today and from the opposition that is growing across this province. Even people who supported the highway in the past are now passing resolutions asking the government not to fast-track the environmental assessment process. Some are even calling on the federal government to step in and have a federal EA. Just four years ago, experts said this highway costs far more than the benefits it provides.

Speaker, it’s clear: Highway 14 is fiscally irresponsible, it threatens our food and farming economy, and it will increase flood risks. So, Speaker, I’m asking the government to get its priorities right, conduct the proper studies and shelve Highway 413.

Hon. Paul Calandra: I do appreciate what the honourable gentleman is saying and I do obviously appreciate his passion. I think we share a passion for farmland and how important it is to the economy of the province of Ontario. That is why we will continue to work closely with our partners in the area.

It is an area that has seen rapid expansion and population growth. In addition to transit and transportation options, we are obliged to look at everything. But this has to go through an environmental assessment, additional consultations. If it makes sense to proceed with it, we will. But if it doesn’t make sense for the people of the province of Ontario and the people in the area, then we will not proceed with it.

Land use planning

Mr. Stan Cho: My question is to the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. The greenbelt is an important part of our province. It includes over two million acres of land, offering several environmental benefits like helping to protect our farmland, forests, wetlands and watersheds. The greenbelt also provides resilience to extreme weather events by protecting important natural systems and features, such as the Oak Ridges moraine and the Niagara Escarpment.

Mr. Speaker, I’ve spoken with constituents in Willowdale who are very concerned about the impacts of climate change in their local communities. They want to know that they can trust their government to ensure that Ontario’s natural spaces, including the greenbelt, remain protected and preserved for future generations to enjoy. So, Speaker, my question is simple: Can the minister please commit to us today that he will protect and support the improvement of the greenbelt?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: I want to thank the member for Willowdale for that question and inquiry. Mr. Speaker, in our Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan, we made a commitment to protect and recover our natural spaces. I want to congratulate the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing on his great work in doing his part to grow the greenbelt.

My ministry is investing $12 million over three years to support the Greenbelt Foundation’s ongoing work to protect, promote and improve the greenbelt in the province’s Golden Horseshoe region. Some of the priority projects this funding will support include native tree, shrub and other vegetation plantings to increase natural cover; enhancing opportunities for people to experience the greenbelt; and maintaining and enhancing green infrastructure and climate resilience.

Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to preserving and protecting our natural environment, and we continue to support the stewardship of the greenbelt now and for future generations.

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

Mr. Stan Cho: While the greenbelt has an important environmental role to play in this province, it also contributes significantly to Ontario’s social and economic well-being. It provides great support to local communities, providing them with food to eat and clean water to drink.

Speaker, I know the members opposite like to rewrite history when it comes to environmental protections, but the reality is, the Liberals, backed by the NDP, openly admitted and even tried to justify carving into this significant landscape at least 17 different times over the last decade.

I know that the Greenbelt Foundation has been an important partner in the government’s efforts to restore the environmental and agricultural integrity of the greenbelt area, so can the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks please expand on how the Greenbelt Foundation investment will be used to help protect and restore the greenbelt?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Thanks again to the member for Willowdale for that question. The greenbelt is a vitally important part of our province. It provides ecological, social and economic benefits for everyone. Our government is proud to support the ongoing work of the Greenbelt Foundation to look after this key area.

Some of the great past work of the Greenbelt Foundation has been making improvements to environmental farm practices, supporting a viable agricultural and viticultural sector, and promoting vibrant rural communities. Our government’s continued partnership with this organization will help support research and enhance information, knowledge and awareness of the greenbelt.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue to help Ontarians recover from the impacts of COVID-19. This investment is building on the government’s work to support both a healthy environment and a healthy economy, a concept that we keep proving over and over again on this side of the House.

Correctional services

Ms. Laura Mae Lindo: My question is to the Premier. Appalling working conditions for Black, Indigenous and racialized staff at the Toronto South Detention Centre have forced officers to file human rights complaints about racism and discrimination. The complaints show that racialized staff were routinely subject to abuse and racism from their managers.

One manager faced allegations of racism and had a history of excessive force before being put in charge of projects overseeing Black inmates. When racialized staff complained, they were punished for speaking out. The well-being of racialized staff and racialized people who are disproportionately incarcerated has been ignored at every turn.

Speaker, through you to the Premier: The ministry should have known what was happening. So why has this government failed to address systemic racism at Toronto South Detention Centre?

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

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I think we were all disturbed when we heard the allegations, but I must reinforce: In fact, they are allegations. An active investigation is happening, and I don’t want to presuppose the outcome. The importance of having investigations happen without overdue political interference is a very important part of our judicial system, and I would hope that the member opposite would appreciate and understand that.

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

Ms. Laura Mae Lindo: Back to the Premier: These conditions don’t just happen at Toronto South. To be honest, we’ve got report after report saying that systemic racism is running rampant in our justice system.

Staff have called the working conditions at the detention centre toxic. They have said that they don’t feel safe going into work anymore, because “racialized personnel bear the brunt of the rather sick work environment.” They have called for systemic change to address racism within the correctional system.

Nobody deserves this treatment. No one should ever have to deal with conditions like this, not while they’re at work, not while they’re incarcerated, not anywhere in Ontario. Speaker, through you to the Premier, what will the government commit to do today to address the horrifying examples of systemic racism at the Toronto South Detention Centre?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Again, Speaker, I say: Let the investigation proceed. Let’s find out what the allegations are and if there is any factual evidence to it. Instead, the member opposite has actually expanded and said it’s everywhere. Please allow the investigators to do their job so that we can find out what the issue is, if there is an issue, and solve it.

COVID-19 response

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: My question is to the Premier. We’ve heard from the Premier, his own insistence, that he will do whatever it takes for long-term-care residents and to put an iron ring around these homes to protect them from COVID-19. However, what has come to light from the long-term-care commission is that this government’s strategy has been a complete failure. They have been slow to respond to the facts, and this has put the elderly at risk, as well as our front-line care workers.

Two ministers admitted to the commission that the Premier ignored their advice and their conscience. Once the threat of asymptomatic spread was an accepted fact, the government did nothing to protect long-term-care residents from a second wave, even though the minister herself said she wrote to the Chief Medical Officer on April 2 about staff transmission of the virus. I, too, wrote to the Premier and the Chief Medical Officer about the risk five days prior, on March 27.

Speaker, what is the government doing to prepare long-term-care homes for the third wave? Can the government confirm that all front-line care workers have been vaccinated, and if not, when will this be done?

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

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: I appreciate the concerns of the member opposite. The fact is that our government moved quickly. COVID is very fast and we were ahead of the processes, understanding what could be done for long-term care, the whole way through, and we will continue to do that. Unfortunately, COVID has hit long-term-care homes not only in Ontario but across Canada and around the world.

We’re using every option at our disposal to prevent and contain the spread of the virus. We implemented surveillance testing of residents and staff. This slowed outbreaks by catching new cases early. We lowered the threshold of the definition of “outbreak” so that we could get public health experts into the homes rapidly. We’ve initiated the rapid tests; 1.5 million rapid tests have been shipped to over 550 long-term-care homes. We continue to add layers of defence.

The vaccinations have rolled out across Ontario. All long-term-care homes have had outreach for residents to receive vaccines, and we continue to loop back to see if anyone further is wanting a vaccine or has changed their mind, and it’s made available to staff—

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

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: Speaker, the fact is that this government is not doing everything in its power. When you look at Quebec’s experience, they hired—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: —and trained orderlies in the summer of 2020. You have yet to do that, to hire the required PSWs that are needed in these homes—

Interjections.

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

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: —so that the staffing levels are at complementary levels; and this, despite the fact that you have resources. You are sitting on $4 billion in standard contingency funds that could be used right now to invest in our long-term care, to invest in front-line workers to make sure that public health units are well resourced to do the work that you are asking them to do.

Speaker—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: —back to the minister: Will you do the right thing and use the contingency funds to provide paid sick leave so that workers in Ontario, including our front line health care workers, have the option to stay home when they are sick, instead of having to go to work? Will you do that: yes or no?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. Stop the clock. I repeatedly asked the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks and the Minister of Labour, Training and Skills Development to come to order. I couldn’t hear the member for Scarborough–Guildwood with her question so I had to give her a little extra time so she could place her question.

Start the clock. The Minister of Labour to reply.

Hon. Monte McNaughton: I remind the member opposite that the first action that our government took was to bring in job-protected leave for any worker in Ontario. If they are impacted by COVID-19, if they’re in self-isolation, in quarantine, or if they are at home looking after a son or daughter because of disruptions to schools, they can’t be fired for that. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we were the very first jurisdiction in North America to bring forward action to protect workers. We went further: We eliminated the need for sick notes in Ontario.

But, Mr. Speaker, there is now four weeks of paid sick days for workers in this province; 110,000 workers have either applied or are receiving this benefit. We continue to advocate on behalf of workers in this province. I look forward to the federal-provincial-territorial call this afternoon to continue advocating on behalf of workers to improve the federal program for paid sick days.

Mental health services

Mr. Stan Cho: My question is for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Students at colleges and universities across the province have had their mental health negatively impacted by COVID-19. For many of them, this pandemic has limited their ability to socialize and explore opportunities available to most post-secondary students, things that can provide purpose, like extracurricular activities, volunteering in our community and playing sports. In addition, courses have had to move online and many students have had a difficult time with that transition.

Even though the majority of students are not on campus, the government has the responsibility to make sure that our students are getting the support they need to succeed while attending college or university.

Speaker, through you: Can the minister please tell us what the government is doing to support mental health services on campuses and for students?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The parliamentary assistant and member for Northumberland–Peterborough South.

Mr. David Piccini: The member is quite right that COVID-19 has been a challenging time for many students alike across the province of Ontario. That’s why we launched over 50 sector-specific consultations when the COVID-19 pandemic hit. We’ve been working closely with student groups to support them during these trying times.

I would like to highlight a recent investment of over $695,000 into Peterborough–Kawartha. I joined the Minister of Infrastructure and the member of Parliament for Peterborough–Kawartha to announce over $695,000 to support mental health funding at Trent and Fleming. The funding at Fleming is going to go towards increased access to mental health practitioners—such as psychological and additional support for counsellors.

At Trent University, this funding will be directed towards crisis counselling, mental health planning, additional FPHL counselling, international counselling, direct counselling, peer-to-peer support etc. I was touched to receive a message from one of the students, who acknowledged the important investments that this will make to support in shared and lived experiences.

Mr. Speaker, the government will always stand to support students during these trying times.

I thank the member for that question.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Stan Cho: We know that before COVID-19 students on college and university campuses were increasingly facing mental health challenges. According to the last National College Health Assessment survey of the Canadian student population from 2019, 52% of students reported feeling depressed compared to 46% in 2016; 69% experienced anxiety; 12% of Canada’s students had considered suicide compared to 14% in 2016; and 2.8% of students reported having, sadly, attempted suicide. Those statistics are alarming and must change.

Speaker, through you to the member: What is the government doing to address these concerns across Ontario’s post-secondary campuses?

Mr. David Piccini: I’d again like to thank the member for Willowdale for this important question, and for always being a champion for students facing trying times through COVID-19 in his own riding and across the province of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, we’re going to continue working with our post-secondary institutions and, importantly, with our student groups—not just here in Ontario, but we work across our country to work through important mechanisms like the Council of Ministers of Education, to work with other provinces to ensure that we’re always responding to the ever-changing needs of students during these trying times.

In fact, this government is making an historic investment this year of over $26.25 million in mental health supports for post-secondary students. This is an increase of over $10.5 million alone over last year’s funding. These additional funds will be important in our ongoing efforts to support students: things like mental health grants for our publicly assisted colleges and universities; the Good2Talk/Allo j’écoute mental health helpline, new investments to support innovative partnerships; new virtual mental health supports—and I could go on.

Again, I would like to thank the member—

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

COVID-19 response

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Premier. With the Legislature now back in session, we’re getting a better taste of the Premier’s priorities. For those keeping track at home, paid sick days are not on the list. A permanent raise for front-line health care staff like PSWs, both in home care and long-term care? Maybe later. Safer schools and workplaces? “Well, we’re working on it. We’re thinking about it.”

But we were all surprised last week when one of the Premier’s priority items was introducing legislation to put more publicly funded dollars into the PC Party coffers. In what alternative universe is that a priority for anyone in a pandemic, when thousands of people have died? What priority is that for anyone?

Interjections.

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

The government House leader to respond.

Hon. Paul Calandra: The member will know that changes to the Election Act need to be introduced in this Legislature well in advance of an election so that the Chief Electoral Officer can ensure that those take place.

The member, of course, seems to be against adding advance polling days; we support those. We think more people should have the opportunity to vote earlier. We’ve seen that that’s an advantage.

There are other modifications that have been introduced that make sense, and I am quite confident that as the members review the legislation, they will be very supportive of it.

As the member obviously knows, time needs to be given so that the Chief Electoral Officer can ensure that the changes can take place before the next election.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: I commend the government House leader on his answer. He’s an expert at the bob and weave. But the issue is that what people are looking for, what we were expecting last week and hoping for, was a bill to support small business.

I spoke to the West Nipissing Chamber of Commerce last weekend and they were looking for more help for small business. So were we. What no one was looking for was a bill to increase public funding to the PC Party—no one. If that is the government’s priority, the Premier’s priority, we have bigger problems than we thought. Why is increasing funding to the PC Party a government priority right now?

Hon. Paul Calandra: First and foremost, let me just suggest to the gentleman opposite and all members of this Legislature that some of the items that the member has referenced—I have reached out to two