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

May 14, 2024

43rd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2024-May-14 vol. A (PDF)

L158A - Tue 14 May 2024 / Mar 14 mai 2024

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 14 May 2024 Mardi 14 mai 2024

Orders of the Day

Strengthening Accountability and Student Supports Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 pour renforcer la responsabilisation et les mesures de soutien aux étudiants

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

Wearing of pins

Members’ Statements

First responders

Rod Brawn

Hockey

Tenant protection

Sunderland ringette

Soins de longue durée

Jerseyville Baptist Church

Pauline Shirt

Vision Health Month

Government investments

Introduction of Visitors

Flag-raising ceremony

Question Period

Education funding

Health care

Child and family services

Taxation / Imposition

Health care workers

Taxation

Forest firefighting / Lutte contre les incendies de forêt

Government accountability

Taxation / Imposition

Violence in schools

Violence in schools

Taxation

Consumer protection

Taxation / Imposition

Introduction of Bills

Cutting Taxes on Small Businesses Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 pour réduire les impôts des petites entreprises

Motions

Consideration of Bill 189

Petitions

Human rights education

Front-line workers

Social assistance

Sexual violence and harassment

Sexual violence and harassment

Sexual violence and harassment

Missing persons

Orders of the Day

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

1000151830 Ontario Inc. Act, 2024

1000151830 Ontario Inc. Act, 2024

Qui Vive Island Club Inc. Act, 2024

Qui Vive Island Club Inc. Act, 2024

Richard Crosby Investments Limited Act, 2024

Richard Crosby Investments Limited Act, 2024

2038778 Ontario Ltd. Act, 2024

2038778 Ontario Ltd. Act, 2024

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Strengthening Accountability and Student Supports Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 pour renforcer la responsabilisation et les mesures de soutien aux étudiants

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 7, 2024, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 166,

An Act to amend the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Act / Projet de loi 166, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur le ministère de la Formation et des Collèges et Universités.

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

Mr. John Fraser: Good morning, everyone. I’ll be brief. I know you don’t believe me—

Mr. Graham McGregor: Hear, hear.

Mr. John Fraser: There we go. I knew I would get a response for that.

There are three things that this bill does. The one that I can see that has—

Mr. Will Bouma: Merit?

Mr. John Fraser: I don’t know if I would use merit, but the transparency of cost. I think that’s good for families. But when I take a look at what’s in the rest of this bill, it’s an overreach. On top of that, it’s fine to say that we want you to do this and we think this is important, and then not provide the resources necessary to do the things that you want them to do? That’s what this bill does, right?

You have the tools available already, but you’re putting more demands and giving yourself more power in relation to universities and colleges. All of us in this building are against all forms of hate: anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, transphobia. We’re all there. We did have tools inside government in 2018 in the Anti-Racism Directorate to address all of those things, but this government cut them all.

This doesn’t happen very often. It’s not very often that I agree with the Premier of this province, but I want to tell you why or tell you the thing that the Premier said with regard to this bill: “It’s really up to the dean to govern his own university. I think we shouldn’t get involved in that, that’s my personal opinion. Like I said, there’s a lot of tools ministers have that they don’t use. It’s up to the people, that’s what we believe in.” And I agree.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Questions to the member for Ottawa South?

Mr. Joel Harden: I want to thank the member for his remarks. I’m wondering if he could elaborate for us—because he and I both share a city where a number of our residents don’t feel safe right now. They’re talking to us through our community offices about not feeling safe on campus. I’m wondering if the member could give this government some advice about what it can do.

I note that the blue-ribbon panel had asked for $2.5 billion in additional funding from this government. Most of the mental health supports on post-secondary campuses in Ottawa Centre are struggling, with wait-lists in excess of six months for mental supports for students. So I’m wondering what the funding message could be to this government to make sure that people do feel supported and safe on campus.

Mr. John Fraser: The recommendations to the blue-ribbon panel are critical. Mental health and anti-racism and hate, they go together. The pressures that are on people can often lead to those biases because people are struggling. My colleague is correct: There are a lot of people in our ridings that don’t feel safe on their campuses, that don’t feel like they’re getting support that is needed.

To actually make programs and then not provide the support that is needed to make those programs that you say are important work is not really doing a heck of a lot. That’s why this bill is hard to support.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Brampton North.

Mr. Graham McGregor: I want to thank the member opposite. I note that the Liberal Party hasn’t released a full-scale post-secondary education plan, and I know that students are worried about what that might mean in terms of tuition increases. We froze tuition—we actually cut it and then froze it.

I’m wondering if the member can confirm that when the Liberals release their plan for post-secondary education, tuition increases will be off the table.

Mr. John Fraser: That’s a great question. What I want to say is, yes, you froze tuition, but you didn’t put any supports there for the colleges and universities. And then you drove them to accept more and more foreign students to be able to support the colleges and universities, thereby, in some ways, creating grade inflation and reducing opportunities for Ontario students, to a certain extent. I’m not going to take any lessons from this government on post-secondary education.

I was part of a government—I worked for a Premier who put a focus on post-secondary education. Campuses expanded. We made sure more people had access to post-secondary education, like first generation, and then programs later to add grants and supports for people of very low income to be able to get an opportunity.

I’m not going take any lessons from you. So your demand of knowing what I’m going to say or what I’m going to do, I’m not going to buy that. You guys haven’t done what you’re supposed to do.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’ll remind the members to make their comments through the Chair.

The next question?

Mr. Joel Harden: I just want to ask again to the member from Ottawa South: It’s gotten to the point, because of the cuts to post-secondary institutions and universities which I’m familiar with, that almost 50% of the teaching at Carleton University—a great university that I’m proud to serve—is done by sessional instructors with absolutely no job security, no pensions, no benefits. It’s very common that these colleagues would be teaching at one, two or three campuses. I used to represent them as a union official for CUPE 4600. This is a problem not just unique to this government. We’ve been relying more and more on contract, precariously employed faculty and staff.

Is that something you think this government should change and is it something you’re committed to change?

Mr. John Fraser: If you want to have a stable workforce that delivers what you need, then you have to give them support—that means pay, that means benefits, that means security. That means that they can raise a family, like we’re all able to do here.

Post-secondary education is not just fun and good, it’s actually about the economy. It’s actually about having the most highly trained, highly skilled workforce. It’s the best thing for our economy. To not actually ensure that we can keep our workforce stable, that we have enough people to teach our young people the things that they need to learn, the skills that they need to build, it just doesn’t make economic sense.

For a government that talks about expanding the economy and about growing, I cannot believe the lack of support this government has for post-secondary education.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): That concludes the questions and answers for this round of the debate.

Hon. Andrea Khanjin: Point of order, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Point of order: the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.

Hon. Andrea Khanjin: Pursuant to standing order 7(e), I wish to inform the House that tonight’s evening sitting is cancelled.

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

Further debate?

Mr. Joel Harden: I’m happy to speak to Bill 166. This is an issue near and dear to my own heart, as someone who taught at the post-secondary level for a number of years and had the privilege to work with students and colleagues towards, we would hope, the advancement of the future, the advancement of the country.

As I understand Bill 166, now at third reading before this House, this is about making sure that there is accountability and student supports available to people on our campuses. As I mentioned in the Q&A with the member for Ottawa South, I am being contacted increasingly—our office is—by students, staff and faculty on post-secondary campuses who do not feel safe. So the timing for this bill is fortuitous.

But what I want to say in the time I have, Speaker, is that the focus of the bill, in my opinion, is misplaced, and certainly the applications and the resources that I’ve heard the government say will arrive with this bill, I think, at the moment, at least, are not going to the right areas.

Again, just speaking as someone who has taught at post-secondary institutions, I want everybody, if you can, to put your mind in the mind of a 38-year-old university professor, who, on June 28, 2023, was attacked by a 24-year-old student who walked into a hall at the University of Waterloo. The first thing that 24-year-old asked the professor was, “What’s being taught in this class?” And when the professor said to that 24-year-old student, himself a student at the University of Waterloo, that it was a gender studies class, the student pulled out two large knives and proceeded to attack the professor.

The only reason the professor wasn’t critically injured is that she resisted, but two other students in that class of 40 got up to try to resolve the matter.

I’ll never forget that day and the reporting that came out of the University of Waterloo, because I have had situations—not violent situations in class, but I have had situations in classes where I’ve taught where tempers have flared and people have jumped to their feet and you thought altercations were going to break out, because, frankly, that is what post-secondary education should be about: It should be about exploring ideas, even when passions flame, even when things can get difficult in the classroom.

Because I want to believe that that’s what our colleges and universities should be doing: They should be challenging us to think about our place in the world and how we use the skills that we have. But I have never encountered a situation like that, Speaker.

I wish I could say that in recent years it’s an isolated situation. But we also know that the same pattern that police studies and court evidence has shown was present in the mind of this 24-year-old student, who was asocial, who was troubled, who openly disliked Pride events at the University of Waterloo and who would regularly intervene in campus online groups, spewing hatred against queer and transgender groups on campus.

The same pattern repeats itself with a college dropout in London, Ontario, on June 6, 2021, who, on the third occasion, he’d marshalled—he’d tried to marshal the courage twice before, but on the third occasion managed to run down an entire Muslim family.

I asked myself in the aftermath of this, as we’ve had so much debate and reflection, given the terrorism charges that were laid against this 20-year-old, what can we do through post-secondary education to make sure that people who have fallen so deep down those rabbit holes of hatred that they would see Muslim neighbours as somehow a threat—what are we not doing on campuses?

And then, again, something that’s less known about the Quebec City mass shooting on June 27, 2017, is that that 27-year-old—and purposely, Speaker, I’m not naming the perpetrators, because I’m not interested in giving them any infamy, because I know that’s one of the reasons why they committed their lethal acts. I’m not going to name them—was a political science student at Université Laval and had been known in his class, on his campus and online to specifically target Muslim neighbours—to specifically target them, to at least a few times walk around the Sainte-Foy mosque.

And for the 40 people that he found worshipping on that day and the six fathers and brothers who are dead as a consequence of those lethal actions, I again ask the question for this House posed by this bill: What are we doing on campuses to reach hatred and diminish it before it manifests in a lethal act? I think that’s a very important question.

When I looked at the blue-ribbon panel that the government amassed to give it advice on what to do with colleges and universities, and when I listened to the member for London West, both in this House and at committee, ask questions—worthy questions—we kept coming back to a similar theme: We aren’t putting the faith in the resources in colleges and universities to make sure that students, staff and faculty have access to the resources they need when they’re in a troubled mental health state, when questions and difficult circumstances pop up. We are not providing the resources necessary.

The blue-ribbon panel asked for $2.5 billion; the government has given the post-secondary sector $1.2 billion, so half the ask. I know at Carleton University, as I said earlier in the question to the member from Ottawa South, there is often at least a six-month waiting list when students ask for urgent mental health supports on campus—six months; six months when you’re exhibiting behaviours that suggest that you could harm yourself or perhaps others.

So what we’ve done in the city of Ottawa is, through our community health centres, created a program called Counselling Connect: that, within 48 hours of intake—that’s the goal—it gets people access to three psychotherapy sessions that are culturally appropriate and as fast as possible. The goal is within 48 hours of intake. I know this program right now is helping over 700 people in the greater city of Ottawa. Some of those folks are students. That would make sense. That program, Counselling Connect, costs community health centres in our city, who are strapped for cash, believe me, $600,000.

But I want to believe that if Bill 166 wanted to provide the supports to students, staff and faculty on our campuses, it could partner with an organization like Counselling Connect. That would have real impact to make sure that people got the help they needed when they needed it.

Speaker, I’m also mindful of the fact that this bill is before the House at a time when many of our neighbours, many of our citizens, are mobilizing—understandably, given the horrors that we are seeing in the war between Israel and Hamas. I know the members opposite, the minister—the Premier has openly asked for encampments that are cropping up on university campuses to be dismantled, that they believe these encampments to be embodiments of hatred.

What I want to encourage my friends opposite to consider—because I visited the encampment at the University of Ottawa, I visited at the end of the workday here the University of Toronto encampment. While I may not agree with everything I’ve seen and everything that’s written down, I can honestly say that I have never seen better organized, empathetic young people trying to ask decision-makers in this country to do what they can to create more tolerance, peace and understanding. I am amazed. When I walked into the encampment at the University of Toronto, I had to go through almost a 10-minute interview intake.

So I was aware, as a politician, that I was not to be photographing or videoing people. If I wanted to conduct media interviews on site, I needed to contact them first. It was their encampment and there were rules around how I behaved and how I treated others. On this site, there was an Indigenous part—I believe it’s still there—with a sacred fire. I was blown away by the level of organization. The consistent message that I heard at least from students saying: “We want to be a voice for peace. We want Canada to be a voice for peace.”

So I am discouraged, I’ll be honest, when my colleagues in this House are asking for these encampments to be dismantled, without reckoning with that message that I hear loud and clear. I heard it at home and I heard it across the street at the University of Toronto. I would like to think that that is exactly the kind of message that should be embodied in our programs on campus: a greater understanding of each other; that we aren’t intimidated by each others’ symbols. We’ve had the debate in this House about the Palestinian kaffiyeh not being permitted in this chamber.

We have to see each other for our whole person. When heinous and horrible acts are committed with cultural symbols or religious symbols, we don’t hold an entire culture accountable for that. We hold the individuals responsible for that. So I actually, earnestly, want my friends in government to hear that message. I want them to think about what is happening on campus across Canada—it’s not a threat; it’s an opportunity.

I look at two stories, and I will end with this from home, from the University of Ottawa. In the first story, I’m going to be protecting the student’s identity because she fears reprisal. We’re going to call her Miriam, for argument’s sake. Miriam is an arts major, a Palestinian student. She recounted to me an instance where a colleague in her class, who had served in the Israeli military—serving in any military is an honourable thing—had said in class that he believed every Gazan needed to be eliminated for the goal of peace to be achieved. She was stunned, absolutely stunned—mouth-dropped-open stunned.

The gentlemen identified himself as a professional sniper and talked openly about how he believed that what he was doing was contributing to the cause of peace. She was stunned. She filed a formal complaint, and the response of the human rights office, sadly, at the university was to say, “Do you need counselling?” Do you need counselling?

Again, our classrooms should be places of vigorous debate where people of different perspectives should be able to hold forth, but the kind of open anti-Palestinian racism—like open anti-Semitism, open Islamophobia—open forms of hatred that I am seeing on our campuses, where so many neighbours are falling down these wells of hatred, we have to provide the mental health resources and training to the campuses so they can respond.

If we don’t do that, what we don’t respond to—which seems uncomfortable in a class on one day—could be a lethal event that we respond to later, and, frankly, we saddle the first responders who are there with the trauma of having to witness that, not only the people who live through it.

When Dr. Ge approached us, I simply listened, I tried to get a sense of how the university was dealing with the matter and I said to him, “What do you want from me?” He said, “Joel, I would love it if you would engage the university, love it if you would talk to them.” I said, “Sure. The University of Ottawa are my friends. We work together all the time.” I’m sad to say that there has been no public apology offered to Dr. Ge. There has been no public comprehensive investigation.

He has decided—and this is really one of the more shameful things I can remember in recent history, at a very difficult time—not to go back to the University of Ottawa, even though his suspension has been lifted and he’s allowed to, because he feels like his integrity has been questioned and he feels like the people responsible for castigating him for his beliefs have not been held accountable.

I would welcome the government’s interest in making sure that there are student supports, that we do hold campuses accountable. I think it’s worthy. I do see the rise of hatred on our campuses and I want to be part of the solution to deal with it, but we can’t do this in an arbitrary manner and we have to make sure that the resources are available at a local level that people can seek help.

Again, I just want to be as clear as I end: I am not saying that the way we deal with this is that we label people as being hateful and we segregate them and we marginalize them. No—I am actually encouraging a strategy of dialogue and conflict resolution here, modelling what we want to see between countries in the world at a local level through the campuses. The most skilled conflict resolvers, mediators, that I’ve met at a campus level do precisely this all the time, but we ask them to do a lot with very little budget. I’ll end with that.

I’ll say that the bill is coming to the House at a very opportune time, fortuitous time, but I think its focus needs to be ensuring that you at least meet the demands of the blue-ribbon panel—the $2.5 billion—and that we have some trust and collaboration with our campus partners. When we feel they have misstepped and they haven’t done their due diligence, as I think is the case with Dr. Ge, then we make sure that the province does insist that due process is followed at the campus level. I thank you for your attention.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): It is now time for questions.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Thank you to my colleague the member for Ottawa Centre for his remarks. He spoke about the financial crisis that is facing our post-secondary sector and the consequences for teaching faculty. Many of those faculty positions are filled by contract faculty who have very precarious job security—no job security, actually—very precarious employment, lack of benefits etc.

One of the things that we heard in committee is the same thing is happening in the mental health services offices on campus, the same thing is happening in the equity and diversity and inclusion offices on campus. They are terribly understaffed because universities and colleges don’t have the resources. Has the member been hearing that in his community as well?

Mr. Joel Harden: Absolutely. And something I used to say when I was a union rep representing sessionals—and the member for Thunder Bay–Superior North has been a sessional professor; the member for Spadina–Fort York has; you have a lot of experience in this House, Speaker—is that there’s an alarming amount of people that are living hand to mouth actually doing the work of working with students directly, and it’s not correct. If we’re doing that also with our counselling support services, we’re really selling ourselves short.

So again, I mentioned in my remarks a program called Counselling Connect that we’ve initiated in Ottawa, which I think could be grown across the province of Ontario and that could help our campuses deal with the wait-lists and the backlogs, because we don’t want someone suffering on a wait-list when we could be helping them.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Questions?

Mr. Lorne Coe: To the member from Ottawa Centre: This government believes that all students in Ontario deserve to learn in a healthy, safe and respectful environment. Our post-secondary institutions have a responsibility to provide a safe and supportive learning environment. When they fail to protect students, we end up with scenarios the likes of which we heard about first-hand in the standing committee—situations where students no longer feel safe to return to campus and finish their studies.

Will the member opposite support measures in Bill 166 to ensure institutions are inclusive and safe environments where students can complete their studies?

Mr. Joel Harden: As I said in debate, the objective is shared, absolutely. We want people to feel safe. We want them to finish their studies. We want them to go out there and make our communities and our country a better place. But we can’t expect that to happen on a shoestring. Nothing any minister in this government does, I want to believe, is done on a shoestring. You have staff. You have people advising every single decision. You measure and you research and you act. Why are we asking our campuses to do any different?

Why are we offering them half the amount of money that the blue-ribbon panel suggested we offer them so they can do their important work? That would be my question back to the member.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Further questions?

MPP Lise Vaugeois: I want to thank the member from Ottawa Centre for your words.

There are a few things: We know that the resources aren’t there to support the mental health of students when they’re in crisis. We also know that campuses are places of very lively debate, and sometimes very intense debate. You spoke a bit about creating opportunities for dialogue.

What I see in this bill is that the minister is actually going to have unilateral powers to intervene, which makes me very uncomfortable. But there is a real need to have fora where students and professors can talk about really difficult issues and bring the temperature down at the same time. Can you speak to that, please?

Mr. Joel Harden: I thank the member for the question. You took me right back to Kingston and being an undergraduate in Kingston and being the first person in my family to go to university, encountering a world that was so much bigger than my small town of 2,000 people, and learning a lot from not just students who are Canadian but learning from students from all over the world. That was even more so when I went to York University, which is really one of the international universities that Ontario has. So it does concern me.

I agree with my colleague that ministerial directives are being contemplated when we aren’t properly funding the campus programs. But I also think the minister does—and she has said so—have a responsibility to ensure that the province wants people to feel safe at work and at school, for sure. I noted in my comments instances where I do believe the campus has fallen short. Dr. Yipeng Ge’s case, I think, is a real travesty, that that incredibly talented mind is not going be part of the University of Ottawa community anymore.

So again, I would like a more collaborative approach. I do think the minister has an important responsibility, but we can’t do it on the cheap. We have to make sure it’s well resourced.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Further questions?

Mr. Andrew Dowie: I want to thank the member opposite for his remarks. Listening to them, I was thinking of some of the students that I’ve met back home who have really found it tough to make ends meet. Under the leadership of Premier Ford, we’ve seen the government cut and freeze tuition by 10%, a policy that has saved students more than $760 million annually. I know the government proposes to build on this historic action by regulating ancillary fees to make sure that tuition remains affordable for students. So I just want to see if the member opposite will support the bill regarding textbook costs to help students make informed financial decisions.

Mr. Joel Harden: I guess what I would say to the member is, I think tuition reductions and freezes are fine, but, if on the other hand, the funding envelope coming into the university intensifies the financial crisis on campus, that ultimately doesn’t serve anybody.

If you can’t afford to have an educator in front of a classroom of 20 for a small seminar—instead, it has to be 42—what is that educator likely to do? Are they going to be testing people’s writing skills, deliberative skills, debating skills, or are they going to be doing multiple-choice tests? Because, ultimately, that’s all you manage when the school’s funding is being cut because of the tuition revenue coming down.

I look at other countries around the world. I look at a great country like Germany. This is country where, if you meet the standards, you can study as an international student there for free at over 200 universities, paying modest ancillary fees. What do they get from that, one would ask, if you were a German citizen paying taxes? They get the benefit of people coming from all over the world to enrich the debate at that campus.

I actually see Ontario going in the opposite direction. We are using international students, often, as revenue sources, as cash cows—what many of them tell me—at a time when the funding to our campuses is cut off.

I salute the member’s interest in keeping the costs for students low, but we can’t do that at the expense of finances for the campus, which is what’s happening now.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Further questions?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: To my colleague the member for Ottawa Centre: One of the things that we heard at committee is that there are two basic essentials for policies to be effective. One is the direct engagement and involvement of those who are directly affected by a policy, to be involved in the development of that policy, and the second is the resources to operationalize a policy, to implement it. I wondered if the member sees either of those two criteria included in the bill.

Mr. Joel Harden: No, I don’t. And this is where, ultimately, we’re not using the resources we have.

Let me just be a lot more specific. Saint Paul University, which is an independent campus at the University of Ottawa, which is in Ottawa Centre, they do what they can with what they have. One of the programs they have, which helps our mental health strategy for the city, their psychotherapy students participate in offering people in need of free or pay-what-you-can counselling sessions overseen by a trained professional. That’s them maximizing their budget, collaboratively, doing whatever they can to help people in distress.

So when people come through our constituency, we have areas of referral: Counselling Connect, which I’ve already talked about; workplace sites, if there is one; an employee wellness program, where there is one; or the Saint Paul campus, playing a huge role for the city. That’s collaborative. I would invite the minister to be as collaborative in this bill.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Further questions?

Mr. Lorne Coe: I want to take you back to standing committee again when we were deliberating on Bill 166. We heard disturbing accounts from students who lost lab positions, had members of their families threatened and who were physically assaulted on the basis of their race or ethnicity. We also heard from the students that their institutions did nothing, absolutely nothing, to help them or hold their perpetrators accountable. One said that it was futile to report anything since nothing would be done if they did.

To the member from Ottawa Centre, this legislation provides provisions to address the concerns that these students expressed. I hope you’ll join me—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Thank you.

Response?

Mr. Joel Harden: You won’t find any disagreement on this side of the House as to supporting students, staff and faculty in distress. But we also shouldn’t unduly politicize it, and we should make sure that response is well-funded. That would be what I would say to my friend opposite.

Hon. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: I move that the question now be put.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Mr. Cho has moved that the question be now put. I am satisfied that there has been sufficient debate to allow this question to be put to the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? The motion is carried.

Ms. Dunlop has moved third reading of Bill 166,

An Act to amend the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Interjection: On division.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Carried on division.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 8, 2024, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 165,

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

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Further debate?

Mr. Joel Harden: A question, as we see this bill, rather like the last, to its last moment in this place: If you could pinpoint a time when Ontario could have done its part for the climate crisis, as the member for Toronto–Danforth said many times, as others have said in this House before, this may be one of those moments. This may be one of those moments.

There was a moment a little over a decade ago—if I have my calendar in my mind correct—when Ontario decided to phase out coal-fired electricity. That was critically important. That was a decision that made the air cleaner for our kids, that made huge strides for Ontario in its climate responsibilities. I salute it, even though it was done by a government that has a different political shade than mine. It was the right move. Was it easy? According to people I know who served at that time, no, it wasn’t easy. Did it involve a lot of discussion, planning, industrial policy, thinking through the impact on businesses and consumers? Absolutely it did, but it was a decision that was taken.

And now, when we’re faced with the really important responsibility of deciding how the energy needs for Ontario are going to be met in the next 10, 20 or 30 years, what are we doing with this bill in this House? We are passing a specific piece of legislation to overturn a decision made by an independent regulator of this House, the Ontario Energy Board. Not a partisan organization, a research-based, adjunct entity of this House that is obliged to give us the right advice—and the energy partners in the sector—on what we do to make sure we do right by the energy needs of the province. And when we’re living in a time of such climate chaos, that advice could not be more important.

I’m sure everybody did the same this morning when you got up and you checked the news on your phones. You saw the news from the west end of this country, the wildfires that are blazing. The member from Thunder Bay–Superior North has talked about the woodland firefighters who are putting themselves in harm’s way. They did it last summer and—are they already doing it now? They are in the middle of prepping for it right now.

My wife’s family lives in Calgary, Speaker. We are planning—we hope—a family reunion this summer where we can finally get together with some of her cousins from interior BC and from Calgary. But we’re booking cancellation insurance on those plane tickets, believe me, because it’s highly possible that by the time later July comes around, the air will be so thick with smoke that it will be impossible, particularly for the elders in our family, to safely have this family meeting. And we’re just one anecdote in a larger scenario here, Speaker, but we’re living in a time where climate chaos has real impact on people’s lives.

So the decision the Ontario Energy Board made—for the record, it’s been stated a number of times; I’ll just repeat it here: The Ontario Energy Board told Enbridge, which holds the monopoly on the distribution of gas in the province of Ontario, that they needed to pay for the costs of all the infrastructure for new home developments up front. They gave that advice because they believed the gas sector was being unduly subsidized at a time when more climate-friendly options—heat pump and geothermal installations—were making huge inroads.

The costs of these technologies are coming down, and the Ontario Energy Board looked at the evidence—10,000 pages of documents, extensive consultations, including housing providers, subject-matter experts—and they rendered the opinion, two of the three adjudicators on that board rendered the opinion that it was not feasible to tell Enbridge that they could continue to expect a subsidy from the province of Ontario for a particular kind of home heating fuel. If people wanted to choose gas for their homes, they could. If the developer community wanted to install it in those homes, they could.

But the province of Ontario would not be on the hook for a significant subsidy to a highly profitable energy company whose CEO made $19 million last year at a time of climate chaos.

My friend the Minister of Energy over there has installed, as I understood it from debate, a heat pump in his home. The PA, my neighbour from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell, a great riding where I grew up, has done the same thing for his home. I would like to see every single Ontarian, whether they live as a renter in an apartment building or whether they have their own home of any type, have the same options that the members of the government have shown through their own leadership.

And we do have—we’re groping towards it; we’re inching towards it—the Independent Electricity System Operator of Ontario is offering some subsidies, modest as they are, to low-income Ontarians so they can start disconnecting from fossil fuel-based heating and cooling systems to electrical or geothermal systems.

But we’re nowhere near the ambition of the province of Prince Edward Island, which is at the moment run by Conservatives. In that House, in Prince Edward Island, they set the objective much larger than we have here. They have, if I understood the Premier’s latest comments correctly—35% of the homeowners and residents in that province had made the switch to heat pumps, because if you make less than $100,000 a year and if your home is worth less than $400,000, the province will buy you a heat pump. And I believe it’s a similar strategy for the multi-level apartment buildings in the bigger communities like Charlottetown. I mean, that’s an ambitious strategy.

I look at the city of Vancouver. The city of Vancouver decided to take the choice that for new hookups for new apartment buildings they were going to require that it not be automatically going to their monopoly natural gas holder, Fortis, in that province. They were going to say, “No. We see our climate obligations for what they are. We are going to insist that new hookups be electrical. You’re not going to have a subsidy.”

But for some reason, here in Ontario, we are absolutely determined to do Enbridge a favour, and I don’t understand why. Over the last four years, profits for the fossil fuel industry, oil and gas, are up 1,000%. And have those companies done anything to help consumers at the pump or at their homes for their heating costs, their transportation costs? Have they paid any of that forward? Absolutely not. The only instances where they have been compelled to pay that forward are in countries that have made conscious policy decisions.

Let me just cite another one: A Conservative government in England brought in a windfall profits tax, and with that windfall profits tax, they are generating billions in revenue to make life more affordable in England—a Conservative government. But what are we doing with this bill before the House here? Will Enbridge be required to make energy costs more affordable? No. Will Enbridge be required, as they say they are, by law to hit certain targets in the transition to cleaner heating and cooling options in Ontario? No. We’re essentially saying we’re going to continue the regime we have.

The primary reason I got into this job, Speaker, when my family and I decided to make the leap back in 2017, of all the issues—they are all important, but ensuring that there was a viable future for our children was the first one. When I look at independent research organizations that look at the decisions made by this government on this particular matter with Enbridge and reversing the OEB decision, or the decision to embrace gas-fired electrical as we refurbish nuclear stock, this is going to absolutely impact our ability to deliver on our climate obligations in the province of Ontario.

I honestly don’t understand why we’re making that decision, except for the fact that Enbridge likes it; except for the fact that the lobbyists who circulate in this building for Enbridge are well paid, I’m sure articulate and make all the right short-term calls to help this minister deal with the problem, the problem being that people need heating and cooling options. They have an affordability crisis, and half the people in our country—that was the last comment I remember hearing from my federal leader, Jagmeet Singh: Half the people in this country are living from paycheque to paycheque.

One in seven kids are still going to school hungry in Canada. We do have a huge problem. In that reality, I don’t understand why we are making life easier for Enbridge.

I’ve also noticed that for months, my friends in government are very interested in having a debate about the federal price on carbon. That has been a big focus for them as they deal with the affordability crisis. But what I honestly don’t understand—and I had to seek out a consultation with environmental experts at home—is how it becomes the only thing in the environmental policy file to talk about. It takes up all the space: the federal levy on carbon, the provincial carbon tax that we have because we decided to get rid of the cap-and-trade initiatives of the previous government. This has taken up all the space.

I went back home and had a specific consultation with environmental leaders back home who do a number of different things I’ll talk about in a minute. I asked them, “Help me out. Is this the only thing worth talking about with environmental policy right now, given the obligations we have?” We talked specifically about the Ontario Energy Board’s December 21, 2023, decision. They said, “No. Absolutely, Joel, it’s not.” That OEB decision was the first that they had seen that actually reckoned with the evidence of saying, “This is where we have to get to by 2030 in our climate emissions; this is where we’re going, now that we’re embracing gas-fired electrical,” and the two didn’t square.

I talked to my landlord back home, the Centretown Citizens Ottawa Corp. The biggest non-profit houser in Ontario is in Ottawa, my landlord at 109 Catherine Street. Sarah Button, who’s their ED, said to me, “Joel, one thing we could do is bring back advantageous financing options for co-ops like ourselves, for non-profits like ourselves, for housing.” With that advantageous financing—which Ontario could do, because we regulate credit unions—we could get back into the business of building the kinds of sustainable, environmental homes that people want to live in.

My office sits at Beaver Barracks. People know Ottawa; it’s an old military base that was transformed into a series of residential properties powered, heated and cooled by geothermal sources. It is absolutely even heat and even cool when you’re in there. Come visit us any time if you’d like to sample it yourself. It’s wonderful. We don’t have a big space, but it’s a great place for residents to interact with us.

The folks in the buildings all around us really appreciate their living conditions, too. But it required a significant investment by CCOC on the infrastructure side. They took on a large debt obligation, because they didn’t get the help they needed from the federal or provincial governments. They got some, but not enough. Sarah Button said to me, “Joel, can you imagine what we could do for environmentally conscious housing if there was an active partner at Queen’s Park and an active partner at the federal government?”

Just in case my colleagues in government think I’m only holding them to account, let me just say clearly for the record that the federal housing strategy, the 10-year housing strategy, insofar as how it has done its job to provide affordable, sustainable housing, has met 3% of its target. Those 3% of the homes built under the strategy five years in are 30% of the residents’ income. We are subsidizing highly profitable corporate landlords to build housing that people can’t afford at the federal level.

Just in case the government thinks I’m only having concerns about them, I have massive concerns with how the federal government has fallen short of its obligations—some changes lately, but that’s the reality.

But back to Enbridge. If you think about the amount of money we are shovelling to Enbridge, and you think about what we could use it for—I think about a subject near and dear to my heart: public transit. Talk to a transit user in the city of Ottawa, and you will get a look back of massive consternation. We, through this bill, are going to be offering a subsidy to Enbridge of billions of dollars. But our city right now, in this year, is 74,000 service hours less with the buses we have on the road, bringing people around to where they need to go because of cuts from Queen’s Park.

The latest new deal we signed with the government which has some stuff in there that we could work with on community safety, security, emergency housing. There is absolutely a goose egg for transit. There’s nothing for transit.

And hey, I’m not sure what the Premier is thinking. Maybe his view is that everybody works for the federal government, has a wonderful salary with benefits, and that’s what Ottawa is. That is not—some people in our city meet that description, but in Ottawa Centre, we have the highest number of rooming houses in Ottawa. A rooming house is a multi-unit building where people rent out a room. Conditions are often squalor in many of these buildings that I’ve had occasion to visit neighbours in. We have a lot of deep poverty in Ottawa Centre too. What do those people rely on to get around? Transit.

So I think if we were to propose a climate solution, following the advice we’ve given to this government, through all levels of this bill, it makes a lot more sense—excepting the fact that the OEB made a decision that upset Enbridge, certainly. But it set us on track, were we to have followed it, to do a lot more by the climate. Ottawa has been the recipient of some significant weather emergencies. We’ve had tornados rip through the west end of our community. We’ve had floods on the east and west.

We’ve had a historic derecho that happened literally during the provincial election where all of us were competing for our seats. We had to shut down our campaign for two days so we could check in on neighbours who had power lines falling across their verandas or their apartment buildings by phone and signalling to emergency services where there were emergencies—like this is the world we’re living in. We’re having more and more significant weather events, and the decisions we make on the big files—the big files being housing, transportation and this one, energy—set the pattern for everything else.

Some 45% of the emissions in the city of Ottawa come from buildings, come from housing. When I think about one in particular, I’ve got a great relationship with many of the residents in the apartment buildings all over the downtown. But I think of one in particular, on McLeod Street, the Golden Triangle area of Ottawa Centre. If you walk up to McLeod—it’s a community housing building—in the dead winter in January, you will see at the top of the building, the windows are wide open. Ottawa winter; the windows are wide open. Why are they wide open?

Because literally the families and the people living in those units, because of the nature of the heating system they have, which works in one direction only: on 100%—they’re sweltering. They might as well be living in a sauna. They find mould all over their units, because of the amount of condensation that drips into their homes.

If you talk to Ottawa Community Housing, you talk to people like Stéphane Giguère, the executive director or Brian Billings who is the properties manager. They shrug their shoulders, like “Joel, we’re doing our very best, but there’s no magic pot of money for us to be able to refurbish our buildings and to embrace the technologies that are becoming more and more affordable right now.” So windows are left wide open in the middle of January. And we are paying, the province is paying—as we direct subsidies to municipalities for community housing, because they are unsustainable—to have heat escape into the air. Oil boilers in these buildings makes absolutely no sense.

So instead of giving a multi-billion dollar gift to Enbridge and continuing that regime, why wouldn’t we consider doing what we ran on in the last provincial election and the NDP proposed, which is a significant retrofit program for community housing and apartment buildings right across the whole province, where we would make a big upfront investment, create a lot of jobs for skilled trades workers, create jobs for manufacturers of heat-efficient windows and heating in cooling units? We could make sure that people don’t live in a sauna in the winter if they live in community housing.

We could spend the people’s money wisely, but instead, no, we’re not doing that. We’re giving a gift to Enbridge.

Now, Enbridge has also said that they want to be part of the energy transition, they see the value of homes making this shift towards electrification or geothermal sources of heating and cooling. The words are nice, and the anecdotes that you see every now and again in the Enbridge brochures are great, but, ultimately, this is a company that has a lot of influence in this province. This is a company that has a monopoly agreement in the province for the transmission and distribution of gas. We here in this House get to sell the rules by which they exercise that monopoly right.

I want to believe that if a Conservative government in Prince Edward Island can undergo a revolution in the heating and cooling of homes there, we can do it here. I want to believe that if a Conservative government in England can say to energy giants like Enbridge or other oil companies that, “Hey, you’ve been doing fantastically well. Time for you to share some of that wealth with the societies in which you live so people can get access to the things they need”—that makes a lot sense, but I don’t see that in this bill.

What I see in this bill is continuing a very favourable playing ground for Enbridge. I didn’t get elected in this House to work for Enbridge; I got elected to work for the people of Ottawa Centre. All of us have our responsibility to look our residents in the eyes and say in this moment we made the right climate decisions, and that involves voting no to this bill.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): It is now time for questions and answers.

Mr. Andrew Dowie: I want to thank the member for Ottawa Centre for his impassioned speech. I certainly understand where he’s coming from, but I know in my community there is a development called Little River Acres. It was, I’ll call it, a modern development in the 1970s, and none of the homes were built with natural gas, and, boy, are they regretting that decision today, because the cost to power these homes is significant through electric heating and cooling.

I know that the Keeping Energy Costs Down Act speaks not just to my constituents, who need affordability at their homes, but all Ontarians. By reversing the Ontario Energy Board decision, we’re saving families tens of thousands of dollars on the price of a new home and will save, down the road, heating and cooling costs for those people like my constituents at Little River Acres.

So I ask the opposition why their party is trying to make housing more expensive than it already is rather than working with the government to keep the cost of housing affordable down, not just on the capital but on the operating side too.

Mr. Joel Harden: I guess to properly answer the member’s question I’d ask, through a head nod, are those electrical systems electrical baseboards or heat pumps?

Interjection.

Mr. Joel Harden: Okay, well, they’re not the same thing. If we put electrical baseboard heating in a home, you’re absolutely right, that’s hugely expensive. I think the last government prior to you guys in 2018 suffered because they didn’t pay attention to energy poverty because of the situations you’re describing there. But that’s not what I was talking about in my 20 minutes. I was talking about the province here following the lead of Conservatives in Prince Edward Island that have looked at brand new technologies that can make sure that communities like the ones the member mentioned don’t get saddled with energy poverty because of terrible decisions.

Buying into this market right now, the electrification of heating and cooling right now, is getting more and more affordable, and what will cost us a lot is stranded assets of natural gas-heated communities that may not even be relevant 20 or 30 years from now.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Further questions?

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: I’d like to thank my colleague from Ottawa Centre for an excellent presentation. It seems that with Bill 165 it’s yet the next installment of must-miss theatre. Its quite unselfconsciously yet ironically titled bills are part of a pattern of this government, but this bill represents unprecedented political interference with an independent regulator. Does this political interference help consumers or put them at risk?

Mr. Joel Harden: Thanks for the question. It absolutely puts them at risk. When I read the decision the first time and I saw the words in the report, they made me stand up in my chair. I mean, stranded assets in 20 or 30 years—when you look all over Europe, because of the terrible invasion of Ukraine and the impact that’s had on all of those countries, the rate of the shift going on in Europe right now is beyond belief. They are embracing this. But we, however, seem to be stuck in our servitude to Enbridge, and I don’t know why we’re doing that except to make Enbridge and its lobbyists happy.

But, to the member’s question, that’s not why we’re here. We’re here to make homeowners and renters, people who want to live in a home that’s healthy, happy. That should be the objective of this bill; that’s not what it is.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Further questions?

Mr. Lorne Coe: To my colleague from Ottawa Centre: When I’m knocking on doors, one of the main issues I hear is affordability, and I’m sure he does in Ottawa Centre, as well; there’s no question about it. But with the policies like the federal government’s carbon tax that I know that the opposition supports, Ontarians are being forced to give up their hard-earned money.

I’d like the member from Ottawa Centre to speak to affordability challenges—and I know they’re top concerns in Ottawa Centre, as well—and whether he would welcome the changes, and his constituents, in this particular legislation that he spoke on.

Mr. Joel Harden: He’s right; the member from Whitby is right. We do care about affordability all over the province. Ottawa Centre, Whitby—people are having a really, really hard time out there. But we’re not going to make it better, Speaker, by embracing a technology that will be obsolete in 20 or 30 years. If somebody is investing into a natural gas-powered community now or in five years and is later reckoning with the fact that they may not even get that service anymore because the entire sector is moving towards electrification but it didn’t 10 or 15 years prior—we don’t want to put anybody in that situation, not a renter, not a property owner, not a homeowner.

If you look at the province, a third of our emissions are coming from energy. We have to make the right choices to make sure that we can make people’s lives more affordable right now but also going forward.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Further questions?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I want to thank the member for an excellent speech. You touched on this, but I would appreciate it if you would expand on what you see as the climate impact if this bill is passed as proposed by the government.

Mr. Joel Harden: If we follow it to the letter, I actually don’t think—as you’ve said in debate too, even if this bill is passed and the government continues to do favours for Enbridge, I think ultimately industry itself is going to shift. But consumers are going to be left with the debt of this decision, and that’s got a huge climate price.

There’s a few things happening now, and the member knows it well. If we embrace gas-fired heating and cooling and we continue the Enbridge subsidy, we create a preference for that in new home construction. That will have a huge climate impact. But in addition to that, we’re embracing gas-fired electricity too. There are climate costs to every single one of these decisions, and the wildfires that are going to be happening this summer are not abstract from this; they contribute to this. It’s the environment in which we live.

And the people we put in harm’s way, the woodland firefighters, that deal with the moment, these are the people we push into the emergency when we could be making the decisions to reduce emissions. But that’s not what’s going to happen with this bill.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Further questions?

MPP Lise Vaugeois: Thank you to the member from Ottawa Centre for your remarks. A couple of things that stood out to me: $19 million for the CEO of Enbridge and profits at 1,000%. That represents a lot of money, and we are continuing to subsidize that. Now, I should say that in my region, there’s a lot of desire to have natural gas. The chamber of commerce has said they want natural gas. They want to have that access. They want that subsidy to remain. I appreciate that, but it’s also installing an older technology that we know is going to become more and more expensive.

The problem in our region is there’s no investment in the electrical lines to carry the volume of electricity needed in order to have heat pumps and EVs in our communities. That, to me, would be a very valuable investment of some of this money that’s going into a much older technology.

Mr. Joel Harden: The situation is the same as the member for Windsor–Tecumseh mentioned, that there are communities that are in an older form of electrical heating that are going broke because they can’t pay the costs of their homes. So I totally understand where people are coming from, but there are other choices people can make. Mattamy Homes right now is embarking upon a number of geothermal-inspired district heating communities. This is someone in the private sector that’s saying, “This is better for our business. It’s better for the environment. These are homes that people will want to live in.” So Mattamy is leading—good for Mattamy. But the province should be encouraging this.

In Thunder Bay, if the electrical capacity is a question, geothermal, if there is space, could potentially be an option. And the drilling technology is getting even more effective in smaller urban areas. So, we do have choices, but one of the choices I would hope we don’t make is doing Enbridge a favour and continuing a multi-billion dollar subsidy for them, when we could be helping people out on energy affordability by making the right investments.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Further questions?

Mr. Lorne Coe: Speaker, through you to the member from Ottawa Centre: From time to time, the government highlights some of the cuts that we’re making to red tape. That’s because we’re committed to building more than 1.5 million new homes and because we’re looking to land historic investments that our Minister of Economic Trade and Job Creation has secured thus far, and more to come.

Can the member from Ottawa Centre speak to the leave-to-construct change in the legislation that he spoke about earlier, another great example of how we are cutting red tape?

Mr. Joel Harden: I don’t think you’re going to have objection anywhere in this House to the urgency for housing. We are agreed on that. The question is, what kind of housing? What are going to be the heating and cooling systems in these units? Where are people going to live? Are they going to live near transit if they need it? Will that bus come on time? Will people be living in a neighbourhood with good schools? Will the schools get all the resources they need? Will we be supporting small businesses and local enterprises, and not just the big guys? These are the questions that come to mind with housing.

You can’t just look at housing in a silo; it has got to be surrounded with an industrial strategy for all of the other things.

So I’m very glad, and I hear we’re getting good news today on the industrial policy front. But we need to make sure that the housing that we put in the ground works, and that it’s good for the planet, too.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): It’s now time for further debate.

Mr. Trevor Jones: Good morning, Speaker. I really appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill 165, Keeping Energy Costs Down Act, 2024, because this is a significant matter. It’s one that touches the lives and livelihoods of hard-working families, farmers and business owners all across Ontario.

The landscape of energy consumption is changing. Our government understands the importance of developing infrastructure that addresses Ontario’s expanding energy requirements, fosters innovation and drives economic progress, while remaining affordable and keeping Ontario competitive. High interest rates, skilled trades shortages, lack of supply and increased demand in housing have increased building costs and increased housing prices.

Our government is focused on working to make life more affordable for everyone. We’re delivering solutions that will help power the province’s growing economy. As Ontario’s population continues to grow, the proposed Keeping Energy Costs Down Act, 2024, would ensure that the province can build new homes, and people from across the province can continue to access reliable, cost-effective energy, where and when it’s needed.

My riding of Chatham-Kent–Leamington spans from the beautiful town of Leamington, my hometown, to Pelee Island and across the southern half of Chatham-Kent, along the shores of Lake Erie, through Wheatley, Blenheim, Ridgetown and Highgate. I’m proud to share that my riding hosts 3,800 acres of controlled-environment agriculture, the largest concentration of greenhouse agriculture in Canada. These farms produce fresh, safe, locally grown fruits and vegetables with exceptional quality and yield, while conserving water, recycling nutrients and implementing cutting-edge technology solutions right here in Ontario.

I have personally witnessed a technological revolution in sustainability, innovation and entrepreneurship on our farms, in our orchards and in our high-tech greenhouses. To maintain our momentum as global leaders, our government is taking decisive action to keep energy costs down and empower our farmers to reinvest in their operations while remaining competitive. Lower energy costs help keep family farms viable to reinvest in their operations, remain profitable and respond quickly to changing consumer preferences, all while enhancing long-term resilience.

By prioritizing policies that keep energy costs down, we’re strengthening our Grow Ontario Strategy and empowering our entire agricultural sector and Ontario’s farming families to continue to grow fresh food for families in Ontario, Canada and the world. By supporting safe, reliable, affordable energy to grow our own food, we can maintain food sovereignty while nurturing the technological industries and innovation that support it, right here in Ontario.

The latest report from Ontario’s Electrification and Energy Transition Panel highlights that natural gas plays a crucial role in Ontario’s energy landscape, serving three vital functions: powering electrical generation, providing home and water heating and supporting various industrial and agricultural sectors.

Our government knows that this bill is a step in the right direction to preserve consumer energy choices by ensuring that natural gas remains viable, safe and affordable for all consumers. Bill 165 is a pivotal piece of legislation that supports safe, affordable, reliable options for farm operations like grain drying, which contributes to broader agricultural stability and security. By prioritizing measures to minimize energy costs and promote affordability, this act ensures that grain farmers all across Ontario have access to cost-effective energy solutions, including natural gas, for their critical drying operations.

This is essential for farmers across the province, especially during harvest season, to ensure these precious crops can be safely stored, make it to processors and make it to our markets. By using natural gas, grain farmers can effectively manage moisture levels in a wide variety of harvested grains. That prevents spoilage and ensures the highest quality of production that Ontario is known for.

As global leaders in fresh food production, Ontario greenhouse growers rely on safe, affordable natural gas, which is essential during our cooler months while enabling us to grow crops year-round. This, in turn, enhances exports, increases prosperity and strengthens food sovereignty. This is growing Ontario.

Greenhouses, of course, require precise temperature and humidity controls for optimal plant growth, and this is exactly what natural gas can deliver: safe, consistent and reliable power. By using natural gas, greenhouse farmers can maintain ideal growing conditions for a variety of crops with higher yields and world-renowned quality year-round.

The Keeping Energy Costs Down Act would, if passed, also provide an ability to reverse the Ontario Energy Board’s split decision which would have required any new home buyer, farm or business to pay 100% of the cost of a natural gas connection up front—very, very difficult. Reversing this decision would save at least $4,400 on the price of every new home for my family, for our constituents and for your families.

Through the Keeping Energy Costs Down Act, our government is dedicated to promoting fair and inclusive decision-making processes within the Ontario Energy Board. This ensures affordability for everyone. The legislation, if passed, will mandate the OEB to engage specific stakeholders or economic sectors, ensuring voices from diverse backgrounds are hard, particularly those who could be affected by forthcoming decisions. By prioritizing inclusivity and transparency, we’re taking meaningful steps toward building a more equitable and sustainable landscape in energy for everyone.

Speaker, I’m going to share some local and highly credible voices who are supporting this act, if I have time.

First, Mr. George Gilvesy, chairman of the board of directors of Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers: “Natural gas is an essential crop input, as heat and carbon dioxide are captured to optimize and enhance greenhouse vegetable production.” That’s right here in Ontario. “Legislation such as this will continue to drive investment in Ontario’s agricultural sector, growing food, jobs and economic prosperity.”

Similarly, the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Drew Spoelstra, stated, “The Ontario Federation of Agriculture is supportive of the decision taken by the Minister of Energy to address the Ontario Energy Board’s decision, which threatens to increase costs for new homes relying on natural gas for heating, jeopardizes housing affordability and future access to this energy”—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): I apologize to the member, but it is now time to move on to members’ statements.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

Wearing of pins

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): On that note, I’m going to recognize the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

Hon. Michael Parsa: Speaker, if you seek it, you’ll find unanimous consent to allow members to wear pins in recognition of May 14 being the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies’ Children and Youth in Care Day.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): The minister is asking for unanimous consent to wear pins recognizing children’s aid societies. Agreed? Agreed.

Members’ Statements

First responders

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: On May 4, we were happy to celebrate International Firefighters’ Day. This was an opportunity to thank the firefighters of Mississauga for their service, recognize their extraordinary efforts and acknowledge the sacrifices that many firefighters have undertaken to keep us safe.

I was happy to hear the government’s announcement about increasing coverage for firefighters with cancer. And I had the opportunity to visit the three fire stations in my riding, Stations 107, 115 and 122, to meet with the hard-working firefighters and thank them for their service.

Speaker, this week also serves as national police week and road safety week. We know the police play a critical role keeping our roads safe for all of us to enjoy. The dedicated personnel at Peel Regional Police are working hard to take criminals off the streets and enforce traffic laws.

The latest provincial budget announced $46 million to support response times, including purchasing four police helicopters. This will help keep our streets safe. Our government’s committed to supporting police and giving them the resources they need.

I am proud to be part of a government that supports our front-liners.

Rod Brawn

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: Today, I mark the passing of Rod Brawn, a good friend of mine, beloved of Tina, a staunch New Democrat and a kind, gentle and loving person to all lucky enough to meet him.

Rod was born in Sarnia on May 19, 1954, and earned three degrees at the University of Western Ontario: honours history, honours music and bachelor of education.

Rod had a variety of jobs: James Reaney Sr.’s research assistant, a journalist for several small-town newspapers and an elementary and secondary supply teacher.

Rod was passionate about music and was active in his church, St. John the Evangelist. He sang in the choir and played the trumpet for special occasions. Rod often played the Last Post at the funerals of WWII veterans and refused to be paid for the service; it was his way of honouring veterans.

Craig Smith writes, “Rod’s trumpet may have been silenced, but his music will still be heard.”

Rod tutored refugee children and volunteered with the Amabile choir. He was adamant about helping the underdog. As Rod and Tina were fond of saying, “Jesus was a socialist.” Now if that confuses anyone, please be sure to go back and read it again.

Rod fought for universal health care and public education. He truly believed J.S. Woodsworth’s words, “What we desire for ourselves, we wish for all.”

In his final years, Tina had to fight for Rod’s health care, trudging him through snow in the middle of winter to a clinic for his so-called home care. Rod fought for a system that wasn’t cut to the bone and privatized. Throughout, Tina has been the example of selfless love, caring for Rod without a word of complaint.

Rod died on May 12, a week shy of his 70th birthday. He was well loved by all.

Rod, I commit to you that I will keep you at the heart of all of my work and every decision I make here in this Legislature. Rest in peace, Rod.

Hockey

Mr. Brian Saunderson: It’s my pleasure to rise to talk about the long and proud hockey tradition that is part of the DNA of my riding of Simcoe–Grey. In Collingwood, the tradition of junior and senior hockey goes back generations, to the late 1800s, with storied teams like the Shipbuilders from the early 1900s, the Greenshirts in the 1950s, the Glassmen in the 1970s, the Blues in the 1980s and the Blackhawks in the early 2000s.

Speaker, that tradition continued with the return of the Collingwood Blues Junior A hockey team to Collingwood in 2019. In four short years, the team raised the Buckland Cup in 2023 as Ontario’s champions.

This year, the Blues picked up where they left off last season, finishing the regular hockey season ranked number one in Canada, and last month, they defended their Buckland Cup title. The Blues are now playing for the Centennial Cup in Oakville as one of 10 teams from across Canada vying to be Canada’s Junior A hockey champions for 2024.

The success of the Blues is a testament to the dedication of the ownership and management, the talent and tenacity of the players and the support of the hard-working volunteers, but it is the fans that are the team’s special sauce, faithfully packing the arena for home games. The Blues led the league again in attendance this year, averaging over 1,100 fans per game.

I want to thank the Blues, the local Junior C teams, the Alliston Hornets and the Stayner Siskins, and the many vibrant minor hockey associations throughout my riding for continuing our proud hockey tradition. Go, Blues, go!

Tenant protection

Ms. Jessica Bell: We recently had a tenant contact our office to raise a very concerning issue. The tenant had read about the recent court decision that forced a tenant to pay his landlord’s delinquent tax bill to the CRA, the Canada Revenue Agency, and he was concerned that this rule could affect him.

Since his landlord was refusing to tell them if they were paying their taxes, the tenant contacted the CRA and asked them what he should do. The CRA told him to withhold 25% of his rent and pay it directly to the CRA.

Now, if a tenant doesn’t pay on time, the CRA’s website says they will pay interest and they may be fined. The tenant went back to the landlord with the bad news and the landlord said, “If you withhold your rent to pay this tax bill, I’m going to evict you for arrears.”

Okay, so this tenant is now caught between a rock and a hard place, between having the CRA go after him for someone else’s tax bill or risking eviction. And this renter isn’t alone. Every renter who is living in a property owned by a non-resident landlord could be in the same horrible predicament.

No tenant should have to risk eviction for paying their non-resident landlord’s delinquent tax bill. This is fundamentally unfair. In this incredibly expensive housing market, renters have it hard enough.

We are requesting the following measures to resolve this situation: The province should direct the Landlord and Tenant Board to deny any landlord’s application to evict a tenant if the tenant is withholding rent to pay the landlord’s own tax bill, and second, the CRA should work with the federal government to reverse this rule immediately and not force tenants to pay their landlord’s delinquent taxes ever.

Sunderland ringette

Ms. Laurie Scott: It was my pleasure to attend the Sunderland girls Stingerz ringette year-end ceremony this month to celebrate all their many team accomplishments. It was a special day for the under-14 A girls’ team as they were the gold-winning provincial champions.

Sunderland ringette celebrates over 40 years of providing opportunities for female athletes to excel at competitive sport in a positive way, providing on-ice skill and enhancing physical health and well-being, higher levels of confidence and leadership, and a lot of fun.

Many of these athletes start their ringette journey from as early as four years old and continue to train and compete all throughout high school. The coach of our champions, Coach Carson, was also a past ringette star before she took on the mantle of coach, and she was assisted by her dad on the job. It is this generational mentorship that makes the Sunderland Stingerz a formidable force on the ice in Ontario. The celebrations filled the arena with family, friends, current and former coaches and players to mark this celebration.

I’d like to thank the president of the association, Jennifer Smallwood and her team of volunteers, athletes, coaches and parents for their hard work and dedication to the girls’ ringette program, and I’d also like to thank the Sunderland Legion, which always plays a supporting role in the town and for the girl athletes.

Soins de longue durée

M. Guy Bourgouin: Un résident de Kapuskasing veut transférer sa mère d’un centre de soins de longue durée à Toronto pour un centre à Kapuskasing ou Hearst, plus près de chez lui, où il pourra la visiter plus souvent. Mais il y a une liste d’attente de deux ans avant qu’elle ne puisse être transférée—deux ans, monsieur le Président. Sa mère, qui commence à montrer des signes de régression de mémoire, se sent seule à Toronto sans sa famille. Imaginez vivre à neuf heures de votre famille, simplement parce qu’il n’y a pas de lits dans votre village natal.

Le maire d’Opasatika a écrit au ministre Cho :

« On the third of May, my mom with dementia was told in the morning that she would have a bath at around 2 o’clock in the afternoon. So she was ready to go for her bath in her room at that time. She waited for an hour, nobody came, turns out they forgot....

Il y a deux ans, le gouvernement a annoncé haut et fort la création de 68 lits de longue durée à Kapuskasing. Extendicare prévoit demander une prolongation et de mettre ce projet en arrière-plan. Le gouvernement se traîne les pieds, même si les subventions sont adéquates pour bâtir. Cette situation est tout à fait inacceptable.

Jerseyville Baptist Church

Ms. Donna Skelly: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. I’m so pleased to rise today to recognize the Jerseyville Baptist Church, a church in my riding of Flamborough–Glanbrook that recently celebrated its 200th anniversary. I had the privilege of attending this celebration and witnessing the sense of community the organization provides for residents in the surrounding area. I was genuinely moved.

I asked Pastor Matthew Richards what this 200th anniversary means to him and his church. He said, “For many years, the church’s stated mission has been, ‘We will, by prayer and faith, in action, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, impact our community with the love of Jesus Christ and walk in fellowship with those who trust Him.’ This takes place in formal times of worship and Bible teachings and also in genuine friendships within our congregation. We ... support with our prayers, time and resources other charities, local and global, which complement our mission.”

Pastor Richards explained that many of the last names of those who were instrumental in the establishment of the church are still prevalent in the community today. Clearly these deep community roots are evident as the church celebrates 200 years of offering fellowship and support throughout the community.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to again congratulate Pastor Richards and the congregation at Jerseyville Baptist Church on their remarkable longevity. I wish them many, many more years of service to Jerseyville and beyond.

Pauline Shirt

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Good morning, Mr. Speaker and everyone here.

“We celebrate, we acknowledge spirit and spirit will come alive.” This sentiment from Pauline Shirt will never be forgotten, and her spirit will continue to come alive through generations to come.

We sadly lost Pauline, one of Canada’s most beloved Indigenous elders, from the physical world on May 7, 2024. Her spirit lives on not only through her children and loved ones but in the stories told in Indigenous languages which she had a hand in preserving.

Grandmother (Nokomis) Pauline Shirt, Nimikiiquay, or Thunder Woman, as she was also known, was a knowledge keeper, leader and visionary.

A Plains Cree Elder from the Red-Tail Hawk Clan, Pauline and her late husband, Vern Harper, first established the Ontario leg of the Native People’s Caravan to Ottawa in 1974. Their critical work did not stop there. In 1976, Pauline and Vern founded Canada’s first Indigenous-run and -focused school, because they wanted a culturally safe and appropriate space for their son to learn. Kapapamahchakwew, Wandering Spirit School, still operates in the east end of Toronto today.

As city councillor, I had the pleasure of engaging with Pauline on a student beading installation at Raindrop Plaza, the first stormwater demonstration site in the city.

In 2023, I watched Pauline Shirt be inducted into the Order of Ontario, the province’s highest civilian honour, for a lifetime of contributions.

Pauline Shirt chose to live in our Beaches–East York community at the end of her remarkable life, and there is no greater honour for me than to have represented her.

Meegwetch, Pauline. You will be forever remembered.

Vision Health Month

Mr. Will Bouma: Good morning, everyone. As you may know, May is Vision Health Month in Ontario and across Canada. Vision Health Month is traditionally a time when optometrists take a few extra moments to enlighten their patients and their communities about the significance of regular eye examinations.

Maintaining good vision health is not hard. In fact, 75% of vision loss can be averted through simple steps, and this starts with an eye exam. An eye exam does more than test your vision, it can also detect symptoms of diseases like diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, brain tumours, multiple sclerosis and cancer.

Being able to see clearly is a critical part of maintaining a healthy and happy life. As a practising optometrist, I am acutely aware of the importance of regular eye health examinations. Eye exams are essential for updating prescriptions for glasses or contact lenses as vision can change over time, especially as we get older. Glasses not only correct vision but also contribute to better eye health, safety, performance and overall well-being, making them an essential part of many people’s lives.

As we celebrate Vision Health Month in Ontario, our government reaffirms our commitment to prioritizing eye health. By raising awareness, encouraging regular eye exams and ensuring access to quality eye care services, we can all contribute to a brighter and clearer future for all of Ontario.

Government investments

Mr. Lorne Coe: Last Friday, the Associate Minister of Housing, the Honourable Rob Flack, and I announced that our government is providing $1.2 million to help create housing units in Whitby that will support youth 19 to 24 years old experiencing or at risk of homelessness, mental health and addiction issues. This investment is part of the province’s social services relief fund which has provided over $1.2 billion of support to help municipal service managers and Indigenous program administrators create longer-term housing solutions and help vulnerable people in Ontario.

The Ontario government is also investing an additional $202 million this year in homelessness prevention programs. This includes an allocation of $18.7 million to the Homelessness Prevention Program for the region of Durham in 2023-24, looking after the hard-working families in the region of Durham.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We have with us today, in the Speaker’s gallery, a delegation from the Republic of Fiji. The delegation is led by the Honourable Manoa Kamikamica, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade, Cooperatives, Small and Medium Enterprises, and Communications.

Please join me in warmly welcoming our guests to the Legislative Assembly today.

L’hon. Greg Rickford: Chers collègues, j’aimerais vous présenter mon collègue et ami du Québec le député de Vachon, le ministre responsable des Relations avec les Premières Nations et les Inuit, Ian Lafrenière. Il est accompagné de sa conseillère principale, Alana Boileau. Bienvenue.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I’m pleased to welcome my constituent Craig Smith who is here in the public gallery. Craig and I worked together in this place in 1990. He is now the president of ETFO Thames Valley, and I’m here. Welcome to the Legislature, Craig.

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: I’m thrilled to welcome today from the riding of Vaughan–Woodbridge, Rhys Tweedie, who is our page captain today, as well as his sister and his mother Pauline. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Marit Stiles: I’m so happy to be able to welcome to the Legislature today members of the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario. I know others will also be welcoming many members today, but I particularly want to mention Karen Brown, president; David Mastin, first vice-president; Shirley Bell, vice-president; Gundi Barbour, vice-president; and my brother-in-law, the president of the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board ETFO local, David Berger. Welcome to your House.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: I want to welcome the Friends and Advocates of Catholic Education, who are with us, as well as Bishop Bergie, who’s with us.

Thank you to the head of OECTA as well as the Ontario Catholic School Trustees’ Association.

Likewise, as mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, welcome to all the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario colleagues who are with us today.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Chandra Pasma: I would like to join in welcoming Friends and Advocates of Catholic Education, including Bishop Gerard Bergie, president of the Assembly of Catholic Bishops of Ontario, from his St. Catharines diocese; Michael Bellmore, newly elected president of the Ontario Catholic School Trustees’ Association, from the Sudbury Catholic District School Board; René Jansen in de Wal, president of OECTA, from the Toronto Catholic District School Board; and from the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, executive members Mary Fowler, Carolyn Proulx-Wootton, Mario Spagnuolo, Tamara DuFour, Juan Gairey, Michael Thomas, Sylvia van Campen, Jenn Wallage and Nathan Core.

Thank you so much for being here today.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: I’d like to welcome sensational Sebastian and terrific Taddy, who are representing superb Scarborough with the Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada. Welcome to your House.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Miss Monique Taylor: Mr. Speaker, today is youth in care day, so I welcomed some guests this morning for a press conference. With us, we have the former Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth, Irwin Elman; Fred Hahn, president of CUPE Ontario, and members Zenee Maceda, Jesse Mintz, Janet Dassinger, Jo-Anne Brown, Lorrie Peppin, Karen Trench, Kim Leonard, Aubrey Gonsalves, Juanita Forde, Dhananjai Kohli and Eric Bell.

Welcome to Queen’s Park, and thank you for all of the work that do you.

I have one more guest who I see up in the gallery above. Patrick Daly is here with the Friends and Advocates of Catholic Education.

It’s nice to see you.

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: I’d like to warmly welcome members of ETFO today who are having a lunch reception, if you can join, especially President Karen Brown; Carolyn; my sister Michaela Kargus from Upper Grand. And we have some great Waterloo region folks: Jeff Pelich, Lisa Tonner, Marsha Auxilly.

I also want to do a shout-out to Janice and Robin, who are here from KWFamous. Look them up on Instagram.

You guys put the “U” in fun. Thanks for being here.

Hon. Michael Parsa: A very warm welcome to the representatives from the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies who are here today in recognition of the 10th anniversary of Children and Youth in Care Day—a day to honour and celebrate current and former kids in care across our province. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I want to say hello to all the members who came today to advocate for the Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada. Today, Marit, the leader of the NDP, and I met with Owen Charters, president of BGC Canada; Adam Joiner, CEO of BGC Ottawa; Utcha Sawyers, CEO of BGC East Scarborough; Chris Harvey, executive director of BGC London; Howard Moriah, executive director of BGC Durham; Pablo Vivanco, executive director of BGC Albion; and Sam Lapensee, manager of digital media at BGC Canada. And a special welcome to the youth of the year, Sebastian, of BGC West Scarborough. Welcome to the Legislature today.

Mr. Adil Shamji: It gives me great pleasure to welcome two very bright young stars, both students from McMaster, Hayley Kupinsky and Ori Epstein. I must admit, I learned today that Ori will be attending law school at McGill next year, and I want to congratulate him as well.

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: I want to give a warm welcome to the Legislature today. MPP Gates and I met with Brian Barker, Kim Finlayson and Stacy Sullivan with ETFO to discuss immediate attention to the rise of violence towards educators in our classrooms.

I’d also like to give a warm welcome to Bishop Gerard Bergie, president of the Assembly of Catholic Bishops of Ontario.

Welcome to our House.

Mr. Rick Byers: It’s my pleasure to welcome Julie Stanley to the Legislature today. She is president of the ETFO Bluewater local. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon: I’d like to warmly welcome representatives from the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, the First Nations Technical Institute and the Friends and Advocates of Catholic Education in Ontario. Welcome to your House.

Hon. Michael Parsa: I’m very pleased to welcome representatives from Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada and the different Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada from across the province who are here for their advocacy day. Welcome to Queen’s Park. It’s wonderful to have you.

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: It gives me great pleasure to welcome good friends and talented educators Craig Smith, president of ETFO Thames Valley Teacher local, as well as Mike Thomas, first vice-president of ETFO Thames Valley Teacher local as well as a provincial executive member. Thank you for standing up for public education.

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: I’d like to extend our welcome and congratulations to the First Nations Technical Institute for hosting their morning reception. It was wonderfully attended, and everybody had a lot of good times but we also learned a lot. I want to welcome Suzanne Brant and Cathie Stewart Findlay.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I just want to welcome Nathan Core, the president of the Waterloo Region Occasional Teachers’ local, as well as my friend Jeff Pelich from ETFO. Welcome to your House.

Flag-raising ceremony

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I recognize the member for Thornhill on a point of order.

Ms. Laura Smith: I want to welcome everyone to join us at the flag-raising for Israel in celebration of their independence day, Yom Ha’atzmaut, just outside, right after question period.

Question Period

Education funding

Ms. Marit Stiles: This question is for the Premier. Yesterday, we gave the government an opportunity to put children, to put kids, first, an opportunity that this government passed on. We asked the government a simple question on behalf of our children: Will you fix our schools? The failure of this government to take inflation into its budget calculations is resulting in more crowded classrooms, more growing incidents of violence and more school programs that are disappearing day by day by day.

So I want to ask the Premier again: Will the Premier explain to the children of this province why he doesn’t like funding their schools?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To respond, the Minister of Education.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: When we came to office in 2018, the funding in Ontario was at $23 billion. Today it stands at north of $28 billion, a 22% increase in funding, proof positive of our government and Premier’s commitment to invest in publicly funded schools.

When it comes to mental health, when it comes to preventing violence and injury of our staff and of our kids, we, as the government, are working with the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions to have increased funding in mental health by 577%. It is the most significant investment, and we mandated learning on mental health—the first in the country to do so. We’re going to keep investing to support our kids.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: A budget that ignores inflation is a budget that ignores reality. We have already lost 5,000 qualified educators since this government came into office, and with this budget we’re going to lose thousands and thousands more qualified, caring adults in our schools. The government thought that if they gave the funding formula a different name, they rebranded it, families weren’t going to notice that their kids are being shortchanged again. Well, I’ve got news for you: They’re noticing.

Why is this government so determined to leave our education system worse than when they found it?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Education.

That is how we make a difference in Ontario schools: by investing in prevention and upstream investments and through curriculum. We’re working across ministries, from health to education to social services, to make a difference and keep our kids safe.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Well, Speaker, 14 cents per day per student on student safety, 22 cents per day per student on mental health—that, to me, is a shameful lack of investment in our children’s well-being.

When the government cuts education funding it is parents who have to make up the difference—parents who are right now struggling already with the cost of living and are increasingly having to pay out of pocket for education supports, for activities and, yes, even for mental health supports. This government is cutting education funding for our schools to the tune of $1,500 per student. That’s a fact.

I want to know what the Premier thinks our children should do without. Is it breakfast programs? Is it counsellors? Is it music and sports—the things that bring joy in your life? What is it that this government expects our schools to cut and our children to do without?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Education.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: We increased staffing in Ontario schools by 9,000 additional education workers in the province of Ontario—an inconvenient truth for the member opposite—3,000 additional front-line educators. They don’t just happen by chance; they happen because of investment, not in spite of it.

And Mr. Speaker, I found it very curious, the member’s motion yesterday includes a component about supporting parents financially, but the Leader of the Opposition led the charge against our support for parent payments when we gave $200 and $400—

Interjections.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: You’re laughing—$1.8 billion of investment as you trivialize giving funding directly to parents.

This is what’s ironic about your motion: On one hand, you call for us to back parents, but if only parents knew that you voted against five iterations of payments to parents. It is regretful, it is shameful and it’s consistent with your support for higher taxation in this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’ll remind the members to make their comments through the Chair.

The next question.

Health care

Ms. Marit Stiles: I’ve got to say, I was so disappointed yesterday in the government’s responses to the questions that Ontarians are asking. I didn’t get the answers that we were looking for. I’m going to ask again and see if we get somewhere today.

The Minister of Health said that recruitment and retention of family doctors was “not a major concern.” I want to say that again: “not a major concern.” A quarter of patients in the Soo are without a family doctor. That’s not a major concern for this minister? Some 30,000 patients in Kingston are without access to primary care—not a major concern?

These comments are insensitive considering there are 2.3 million to 2.4 million people in this province without a family physician, but they are also dangerous. So I want to ask this government again, to the Premier: Does he really think it’s not a concern that millions of people are going without primary care?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The parliamentary assistant, the member for Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry.

Mr. Nolan Quinn: Facts matter. The records matter, Speaker. In the NDP government, when they were in power for those short five years, and hopefully never again—and the Leader of the Opposition was a staffer at that time—they cut medical school enrolment by 10%. In 2015, the Liberal Premier cut 50 resident spots, which amounts to hundreds of fewer doctors serving in our province today.

We expanded the Learn and Stay grant—which, again, the opposition voted against—which provides tuition, books, supplies for nurses and other health care workers who work in underserved areas in our province. We’re also funding the largest expansion of the medical school spots in over 15 years, adding 1,212 undergraduate and 1,637 postgraduate seats across Ontario; 60% of these seats will be dedicated to family medicine.

What I do recommend is that the Leader of the Opposition gets her party to support our budget, Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Supplementary question?

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, I’m going to ask the member there, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health, to really think about this: people being diagnosed with cancer, not in the comfort and the safety of their family doctor’s office, but in an overcrowded emergency room, how did they get there? Because they don’t have a family doctor. So by the time they get there—just imagine for a moment, to the member opposite, being the emergency room physician who then has to tell that patient that not only do they have cancer, but it has metastasized, because they couldn’t get to see their family doctor. They couldn’t get screening. This is not a major concern?

So I want to ask the member opposite: They’re having you answer all the questions today. Is this not a major concern for you?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Again, I remind the members to make their comments through the Chair.

The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health.

Mr. Nolan Quinn: What is a concern for me is the short-sighted policies of both the NDP and Liberals that cut those seats, Speaker. That is why we are currently where we are today.

Since 2018, we’ve registered over 80,000 new nurses in Ontario, as well as 12,500 new physicians, with 10% of those being family physicians. Last year alone, we registered 2,400 new doctors to practise in Ontario. That was a record-breaking year for nurses in Ontario, but we’re not stopping there. We will continue to ensure that the people of Ontario have what they need for health care.

We have 17,500 new nurses registered last year, which was a historic number, over 33,000 over the last two years. We’ll continue.

We’re investing significantly into our health human resources. In this year’s budget, we have over $740 million to address immediate staffing needs, supporting the expansion of over 3,000 new nursing seats across Ontario.

We’ll continue to do what needs to be done to ensure that we have the best publicly funded health care system.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Historic wait times, historic emergency room closures, historic numbers of Ontarians without family doctors—own it. Take some responsibility. You’ve been in government for six long years. You are responsible for the state of our health care system today.

It is unimaginable, Speaker, that this minister doesn’t see this as a concern; that this Premier and this member don’t see this as a concern. We are losing doctors and nurses and health care workers faster than we can recruit them.

I want the members opposite for just a moment to imagine being the mother of a newborn. You have so many questions; you have nowhere to go for answers. Imagine you’re the parent of a sick child and you live in the Soo and you find out now you have no family doctor. Where are you going to go?

Take some responsibility, own up to it.

Will this government admit that they have a problem on their hands and that it is unimaginable that their minister, who was supposed to be responsible for this, refused to live up to her responsibility?

Interjections.

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

The member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry to reply.

Mr. Nolan Quinn: Let me correct the Leader of the Opposition—sometimes facts hurt—we have some of the shortest wait times in Canada, with over 80% of the people of Ontario getting their surgery within the recommended time.

Speaker, we understand that more needs to be done. That’s why we’ve invested $110 million into interprofessional primary care teams, and then in this year’s budget, we actually added another $546 million. Over 600,000 Ontarians are going to receive the care they need.

We’ll continue to ensure that the health care system in Ontario is the best publicly funded system across all of Canada.

Child and family services

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is for the Premier. Today is the 10th anniversary of Children and Youth in Care Day, a day promised to kids who shared their stories, lived experiences and recommendations.

This morning, CUPE front-line child protection workers—many are here today—released their survey results of young people who are being warehoused instead of being afforded safe homes. The results are shocking: children and youth as young as two years old in hotel rooms, Airbnbs, for-profit facilities and on cots in children’s aid offices.

Will the Premier and his minister, today on Children and Youth in Care Day, commit to sustainable funding for safe homes for our most vulnerable children and youth?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

Hon. Michael Parsa: Thanks to my colleague for the question.

First and foremost, I’d like to thank the women and men who are doing great work to make sure children and youth in our province are served and protected. That’s what’s driving the redesign of the child welfare system in the province of Ontario.

It was this government that took action. It was this government that said more reports, more discussions are not going to cut it. We need action, which is why we have more inspectors now hired across the province, which is why we have more unannounced inspections being conducted across the province.

I’ve said it many times in this House, and I’ll say it again: When it comes to children and youth, they may be a portion of our population, but they’re 100% of our future, and we will never give up on them. We will do whatever it takes to make sure that they’re served and protected, and back that up by investment.

Mr. Speaker, thanks to the leadership of the Premier and the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board and this caucus, the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services has received increased funding two years in a row, more than $1.6 billion—

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

Supplementary?

Miss Monique Taylor: This minister needs a reality check. Things have never been as bad as they are today. Tonight, on the 10th annual Children and Youth in Care Day, dozens of young people in care will be going to sleep in motels, hotels, short-term rentals because there are not enough foster beds or treatment facilities. A young person with autism will be sleeping in an agency’s office, as they have been for months. Workers will be scrambling to provide a healthy meal in rooms which are dangerous and leave kids vulnerable to the exposure of bedbugs, human trafficking, drug use.

This is the state of too many children who have been separated by their families. This is the state of a system that, for the first time in history, is running millions of dollars in deficits.

Will the Premier and his minister commit today to honour their duty to Ontario’s most vulnerable children and properly fund our child welfare system?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

Hon. Michael Parsa: The member talks about a reality check? It’s unbelievable, hearing a member of the NDP, who held the balance of power, who could have done so much for children and youth in this province, that did nothing.

It was this government, through the child welfare redesign, who said we don’t need any more report writing. We want to stand up for children and youth in care in this province now. We want to make sure every child, every youth that is in care is treated the same as every child regardless of their circumstance. That’s what’s driving our redesign. We will never give up on children and youth.

When it comes to the redesign, part of that is the Ready, Set, Go Program, which provides support for children in care as low as 13, supporting them, providing them with the life skills they need at 13, at 15, right up to their 23rd birthday, with financial support, something the previous government didn’t do and something that certainly was not a priority for the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Stop the clock.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Hamilton Mountain will come to order. The member for St. Catharines will come to order. The member for Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas will come to order. The member for Niagara Falls will come to order.

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

The next question.

Taxation / Imposition

Mr. Matthew Rae: Ma question est pour le ministre du Développement du Nord et le ministre des Affaires autochtones.

The Prime Minister has a new flashy video, but he’s not fooling anyone. Ontarians are paying more for food, gas and home heating. And at a time when we are facing a 40-year-high inflation rate the Prime Minister and the federal Liberals decided to hike the carbon tax by an additional 23%. You can hear the groans already from the independent Liberals. It’s clear that the Liberals in this place do not care about affordability and addressing that. Under their leader, carbon tax queen Bonnie Crombie, they are content with seeing the tax continue to rise and eventually triple by 2030.

This is unfair to Ontarians that are paying for the expense of failed Liberal policies. The Liberal carbon tax must come to an end.

Speaker, with the summer quickly approaching, can the minister please explain how the carbon tax continues to burden every Ontarian?

L’hon. Greg Rickford: Merci au député de Perth–Wellington. C’est vrai que, ce matin, nous avons un ami du Québec. C’est tellement agréable d’avoir des gens qui partagent les mêmes idées ici. Le membre du Québec qui est ici en Ontario partage la même position en matière de ce qui concerne la taxe carbone.

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

Mr. Matthew Rae: Merci au ministre. The carbon tax drives up the price of everything, and it is costing Ontarians who can least afford it. This is a regressive tax, and it’s an utter failure. It’s disgraceful that the carbon tax queen, Bonnie Crombie, and her Liberal caucus support this tax grab that punishes the hard-working people of this province when they are just trying to get by.

While the members opposite have no regard for fiscal discipline, as the people in Ontario truly understand after 15 years under the previous Liberal government, our government will continue to put Ontarians first, protect their hard-earned paycheques and savings.

Can the minister please share with our House today how our government remains steadfast in investing in the priorities that resonate with the people of Ontario while the NDP and Liberals across the aisle continue to support the carbon tax?

Hon. Greg Rickford: As incredible as it sounds, Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I introduced a new actor to the very complicated carbon tax royal love story. We talked about the king of the carbon tax, Prime Minister Trudeau, and his failure to rein in his friends and folks in the Liberal family and, of course, Prince Carney—a very smart man in his own right; just ask him—read the tea leaves. He said this is not a very good tax for Canadians right now. That’s interesting.

I’m not sure whether it’s driven from his intellect or from polls, but here’s what’s clear: This introduced increased costs on every conceivable thing that the people of Ontario and the people of Quebec buy. From fuel to food, from appliances to planting their gardens this spring, there’s only one thing that’s going to pop up every single time, and that’s the carbon tax. That’s why we take the position to just scrap this tax.

Health care workers

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Santé. According to ministry data, Ontario is presently short 13,000 nurses; in a few short years, this number will rise to 33,000 nurses. The number one reason for this shortage is the workload that nurses face on each and every shift. What is this government doing to improve the workload of our nurses?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health and the member for Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry.

Mr. Nolan Quinn: Since Minister Jones was sworn in as Minister of Health, our government has registered a record number of new nurses two years in a row, registering a total number of 32,000 nurses in Ontario. We achieved this by directing the College of Nurses of Ontario and the college of physicians of Ontario to break down barriers for internationally trained and educated health care workers, and expanding programs like the Learn and Stay grant, which, I will remind the House, the opposition voted against.

Our government has invested nearly $1 billion into the home and community care sector. This funding has not only added thousands of PSWs—in fact, we’ve added nearly 25,000 since 2021—but it has also increased compensation for the PSWs, nurses and other front-line health care providers to further stabilize the workforce.

We know that more needs to be done, and that’s why as part of our 2024 budget, our government is investing another $743 million to continue to grow our health care workforce.

We will continue to do what needs to be done to ensure that we have the best publicly funded health care system.

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

M me France Gélinas: It gets worse: The ministry data tells us that Ontario is short 38,000 PSWs; in three years, this number will be 50,000 PSWs short. It doesn’t matter how many PSWs we train; 25% of them, a quarter of them, leave their profession each and every year. Why are dedicated PSWs leaving their profession? Their working conditions. What is this government doing to improve the working conditions of PSWs?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Colleges and Universities.

Hon. Jill Dunlop: You know what we are doing? Training more PSWs, more nurses, initiatives like the Ontario Learn and Stay program. We have 3,500 graduates coming through the program that are nurses, lab techs and paramedics in underserved regions of the province. These students have their educational costs covered by the government in order to fill those spaces. In fact, there are actually six students for every nursing space in Ontario. This is a growing profession, and we have students across the province who are looking to become nurses.

We are going to continue to work with our post-secondary partners to ensure that we have nurses, paramedics, lab techs and PSWs across Ontario.

Taxation

Ms. Donna Skelly: My question is for Minister of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development. The Liberal carbon tax raises the price of absolutely everything in our province and is hurting our economy and our workers. It drives up the costs of everyday essentials like food, heating and transportation.

With a rapidly growing population, we need all hands on deck to start building right across Ontario, but the costly carbon tax is hurting our workers’ ability to invest in their skills and development to build a better future for Ontario. The federal government needs to finally listen to what our government has been asking from day one and eliminate this job-killing tax.

Speaker, can the minister outline the steps that our government is taking to fight the carbon tax and to ensure Ontario has the workforce that we need to start building for the future?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The parliamentary assistant and member for Ajax.

Ms. Patrice Barnes: Thank you to the member for that question.

On this side of the House, we know that Ontario’s prosperity hinges on our ability to address the pressing issue of our province’s labour shortage, particularly in the skilled trades. Sadly, the carbon tax is only increasing these issues.

Ontarians are deeply concerned about the cost-of-living crisis that the carbon tax has created. While the Crombie Liberals would like to separate this issue, we, on this side of the House, know that the cost of workers don’t just end at the workplace. Whether it’s being able to cover the cost of one’s commute or the ability to invest in the tools and skills that you need, we know that it’s just essential for workers’ success.

We see the Liberals at every turn working hard to make it harder for Ontarians to survive. In stark contrast, our government has adopted a wholly different approach. We’re committed to empowering our workforce by launching a comprehensive skilled trades strategy, supporting nearly $1.5 billion in funding over the next four years.

Together, we are unified in our effort to build a future our province deserves.

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

Ms. Donna Skelly: Back to the parliamentary assistant: The Liberal carbon tax is hurting the household budgets for individuals and families right across Ontario. Ontarians should not be subjected to a tax that does nothing but burden them with unnecessary costs. To make matters worse, the Liberals in this Legislature, under the leadership of a woman who loves the carbon tax, Bonnie Crombie, ignore the hard-working women and men of our province who oppose this punitive tax.

But, Speaker, it’s not surprising, considering for 15 years, the previous Liberal government failed all Ontarians and drove 300,000 manufacturing jobs right out of Ontario. Now they want to make it harder for young people to get the skills and the tools they need to enter the skilled trades by supporting the federal Liberal carbon tax. That’s unacceptable.

Speaker, can the parliamentary assistant tell the House what our government is doing to get more people into the skilled trades, despite the Liberals advancing their anti-worker carbon tax agenda?

Ms. Patrice Barnes: Thank you to the member for that question. For years, the previous Liberal government has neglected the skilled trades. Their failure to prioritize these crucial sectors resulted in a significant decline in apprenticeship applications, leaving thousands of well-paying jobs unfilled and undermining Ontario’s economy. If this wasn’t bad enough, for a decade and a half of complete neglect, their federal Liberal friends are discouraging more Ontarians from entering the trades.

Yet our government is resolute in its commitment to rectifying this Liberal mess and ensuring that Ontario’s economy works for everyone. We’re accomplishing this by investing in our workforce. We have launched our over $1.5-billion Skills Development Fund aimed at training Ontario’s next generation of workers.

And Mr. Speaker, we’ve seen the results. To date, over half a million workers have benefited and 597 training and workforce development projects have received funding.

We continue to be steadfast in our determination to clean this mess.

Forest firefighting / Lutte contre les incendies de forêt

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: My question it to the Minister of Natural Resources. We know we are 200 firefighters short. Last week, the minister said our crews were so ready that we will be able to send them to other provinces. Minister, if this government is that ready to face wildfires, how many firefighters are we going to share with other provinces when we are short 200 firefighters today?

Hon. Graydon Smith: I must say that one of the hallmarks of our firefighting service here in Ontario is that we do help out other jurisdictions at their time of need. So we know that the forest fires right now in BC, Alberta and Manitoba are significant. We hope and pray that the situations there go well, but we stand at the ready to help. Because that’s what Ontario does. That’s what firefighters throughout all the jurisdictions in Canada do: They help one another when they have the resources to help.

Here in Ontario, where we had a firefighting budget of $69 million when we took over, it was disrespected and neglected by the previous government, supported by the NDP. We upped that budget to $135 million a year to build capacity to be able to help, to be able to be there for others in this country when they need that assistance. We’re here for Ontarians every single day. We’re here for Canadians every single day.

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

M. Guy Bourgouin: Monsieur le Président, les conservateurs de l’Alberta ont fait la même chose que l’Ontario fait depuis 2018 : coupé sans cesse dans la prévention des feux de forêt. Aujourd’hui, on voit des conséquences désastreuses du choix politique de l’Alberta.

Monsieur le Ministre, allez-vous répéter les mêmes erreurs que vos homologues albertains et nous rendre vulnérables et dépendants des autres provinces?

Hon. Graydon Smith: I can’t repeat enough—because I’ve said it time and time again and the opposition just doesn’t seem to get it—that we continue to make more investments in firefighting in Ontario than any previous government ever has. Again, 15 years of disrespect and neglect by the members opposite—the Liberal independents, supported by the NDP. We had to clean up that mess.

We’re the ones that had to make the investments, and it’s not only in the base budget that we made those investments. Last fall, an additional $20 million to look at alternative ways to fight fires in Ontario. How can we bring new aerial technologies in? How can we work with universities on collaborative research agreements about the ch