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

October 31, 2023

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 2023-Oct-31 vol. A (PDF)

L105A - Tue 31 Oct 2023 / Mar 31 oct 2023

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 31 October 2023 Mardi 31 octobre 2023

Orders of the Day

Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act, 2023 / Loi de 2023 pour mieux servir les consommateurs et les entreprises

Members’ Statements

Air quality

Breast cancer

Bail reform

Health care

Royal Canadian Legion poppy campaign

Remembrance Day

Jess Randall Larochelle

Why Not City Missions

Hungarian Heritage Month

St. Catherine of Siena Roman Catholic church

Appointment of Clerk-at-the-Table

Introduction of Visitors

Question Period

Government accountability

Government accountability

Government accountability

Taxation

Government accountability

Taxation

Government accountability

Government accountability

Taxation

Arts and cultural funding

Northern Health Travel Grant

Taxation

First Nations consultation

Taxation

Nurses

Taxation

Workers’ compensation

Visitors

Introduction of Visitors

Introduction of Bills

Healthcare Staffing Agencies Act, 2023 / Loi de 2023 sur les agences de recrutement de personnel de soins de santé

Bird-Safe Windows Act, 2023 / Loi de 2023 pour des fenêtres sans danger pour les oiseaux

Petitions

Hospital services

Renewable energy

Health care funding

Social assistance

Gasoline prices

Labour legislation

Front-line workers

Access to health care

Winter highway maintenance

Public safety

Long-term care

Labour legislation

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

Orders of the Day

Greenbelt Statute Law Amendment Act, 2023 / Loi de 2023 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne la ceinture de verdure

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act, 2023 / Loi de 2023 pour mieux servir les consommateurs et les entreprises

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 30, 2023, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 142,

An Act to enact the Consumer Protection Act, 2023, to amend the Consumer Reporting Act and to amend or repeal various other Acts / Projet de loi 142, Loi visant à édicter la Loi de 2023 sur la protection du consommateur, à modifier la

Loi sur les renseignements concernant le consommateur et à modifier ou abroger diverses autres lois.

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

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: It’s an honour for me to rise today and add the voices of the great people of London North Centre to this debate on Bill 142, the Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act. When we look at this bill, any bill that purports to increase protections for consumers is one that is easily supportable, one that the official opposition can easily get behind. Following the hour-long lead for our critic for consumer protection, I’d like to add my words to this.

If we take a look at what experts have been calling for for a number of years, they’ve been calling for regulation on new home sales and their warranties. This bill puts in new provisions for NOSIs, or the notices of security interest, but does not include any provisions on putting in rental hot water heaters in contracts for new homes. This is a situation whereby people will sign the biggest purchase of their entire life, and then, after the dust has settled, once they’ve moved in, once they start receiving those bills, they realize they’ve signed up for something that they didn’t necessarily know they were agreeing to. This is a huge and tremendous concern.

Additionally, this government has taken it upon themselves to talk about talking. We don’t actually see actions within this bill that will take out the beating heart of the situation where consumers are exploited by unethical HVAC companies. Back with the Liberal government, we saw that there was a ban on door-to-door sales. That was good. However, there were no teeth for that legislation, so there really wasn’t much by way of enforcement. This government has heard for numerous years about the pernicious and exploitative actions of many of these HVAC companies.

You see, Speaker, they no longer—in most cases, I should say—sell door to door. Instead, what they will do is they will send an email, they will make phone calls and they will set up an appointment within a person’s home. Typically, these companies prey upon the elderly. They prey upon people living with disabilities. They prey upon newcomers. They engage in high-pressure sales tactics, making claims that are patently false, promising savings that never occur and will often say that this is part of a government program and really misrepresent the services that they provide.

If that weren’t bad enough, what they’ll do is they will have a consumer engage or sign a contract which they don’t explain the terms of—and that should be in contravention of the Consumer Protection Act to begin with, because contracts need to be in clear, plain language so the consumers can understand them, but they, in their huckster snake-oil tactics, will absolutely not get into what the details are.

I’ve seen many of these contracts, and I know this government has as well. This government, though, is talking about talking. They want to engage in a consultation period to discuss this issue when the issue is well known. They will have heard it from many of their constituents.

CBC Marketplace has done tremendous investigation on this topic. On January 14, 2022, CBC Marketplace had a hidden-camera exposé on the tactics that these companies will engage in. They witnessed high-pressure sales tactics. They witnessed claims that were not backed up in actual truth. They saw these salespeople engage in what this government should stand up against, yet this government wants to just talk about it. They don’t want to act. They don’t want to actually do the right thing and protect seniors, people living with disabilities and newcomers by cutting out the beating heart of this issue, which is liens attached to property titles.

The CBC Marketplace exposé, for those of you who would like to view it, was entitled Hidden Cameras Capture Decisive Tactics Used to Sell Overpriced HVAC Contracts. In that exposé, they talked about a company called Ontario Green Savings. You see, oftentimes these companies will use the name of the province, so that people automatically think there’s some sort of credibility or some sort of connection to the government when there actually is none—to our knowledge, but who knows; perhaps there is.

Maybe this is why we don’t see any action and we see just more talking about liens and NOSIs, rather than actually making sure that they’re not being foisted upon people. In this, Karen Norgaard, of Cornwall, signed two contracts for an air conditioner and a furnace. What will happen in these situations is that they will be sold equipment that is very inexpensive in comparison to what they actually pay.

I want to take a look at a contract that I have. This is from Green Retrofit Program Capital Inc. This contract is in particular for a water heater. It’s—let me see—an electric water heater, and it’s $60 per month; it doesn’t seem unreasonable. I mean, we know that Reliance, which has long had a corner share of the market, costs less. However, much of this is not actually filled in. It’s very strange. We see that after tax, this will cost $67 or $68.

In that CBC’s Marketplace exposé, we actually saw some of the tactics of these high-pressure salespeople. We heard from folks who actually had to curse, swear and yell at the salesperson just to get them to leave the home. We know that this is an issue. It has been known for years.

Now, within this, if I go through this contract—and, of course, this information is varied, but don’t worry, I’m getting to it—much is missing. The UPC code is missing; the sticker from the equipment. And then when you actually look at the payment schedule, Speaker—it’s buried—it is a contract for 144 months. That’s 12 years. They’ve bamboozled elderly folks, they’ve bamboozled people living with disabilities and they’ve bamboozled newcomers into signing a 12-year contract.

If that weren’t bad enough, within the provisions of this contract, the equipment appreciates in value. They charge interest on that, so every year the cost of that equipment, which is not the top of the line—it’s often the bargain basement version that you can get anywhere. They will charge yet more and more and more. Speaker, I don’t have to explain to you compounding interest, but oftentimes, this equipment will cost a tremendous amount of money, so something that would be a $500 water heater will end up costing $20,000, $30,000, $40,000. It just depends on the contract that these unethical businesses will force and cajole and bamboozle someone into signing.

If that weren’t bad enough, oftentimes, these companies will hide from responsibility by selling off that lien to yet another company. In effect, they will distance themselves from legal responsibility. Also, if a complaint is made, the company will say, “Well, that was the salesperson. They’re no longer working with us. We apologize. But sorry, it’s a contract. You’ve signed it.” They will then take that and sell it off to another company, who may in turn sell it off to another company. I’ve seen instances where it’s moved six times. Guess what, Speaker?

Every time that contract moves over to a new person, they attach yet more money to it, so that person is being exploited again and again and again.

CBC also had an article. This was from 2018. This was before this government was elected, so they should be aware of this. It’s titled “Homebuyers Feel Duped by Hot Water Tank Rentals Included in Their New Homes”—people finding that they are locked into equipment that they never really agreed to. In this example, for instance, Nadia Mendola is “living with a contract with Enercare that lasts for the ‘useful life’ of the appliance (an average of 14 years), paying” $56 per month. It doesn’t seem unreasonable, but if she buys out the equipment, it’s $3,600, three times the cost of equipment offered in some stores.

In 2016, the Ontario Energy Group was exposed in another CBC

article where Taylor Wild found that he owes $20,000 after discovering a lien, because he, unfortunately, signed a contract with Ontario Energy Group for HVAC equipment.

It’s disturbing that this government wants to talk about this issue but doesn’t want to act. The evidence is very clear. The evidence is here before us.

Dennis Crawford has called the lien “the beating heart of this scam.”

A letter to the Ontario Minister of Government and Consumer Services from July 14 of 2020 requested “increased disclosure in rental appliance contracts.” This was from Anthony Durocher, the Deputy Commissioner of Competition of the Competition Promotion Branch. Does this bill, Bill 142, answer this situation, where people are being absolutely exploited, where they are being effectively tricked, having their security taken away?

Imagine that: a senior who is hoping to downsize. Maybe they’re an empty nester; maybe they’re somebody who simply has a home that no longer suits their needs, and they’re worried about their safety. They want to go to something that’s more appropriate, perhaps a condo apartment, perhaps a bungalow, something that would be a little bit more easily manageable and safer. They go to sell, and then they find that a company has taken a chunk out of their house. They’ve put in bargain basement equipment and charged them $20,000 for it. It’s unacceptable.

It’s unacceptable that we live in a province where seniors are being exploited, where people living with disabilities are being exploited and where newcomers are being exploited by unethical businesses, such as the ones I’ve just mentioned, and that the government just wants to talk about it.

Now, further, I also wanted to discuss today reforms to Tarion. This government, when they were in opposition, and some would say an effective opposition, talked

chapter and verse about how they would overhaul Tarion, how when they were in power they were going to do the right thing. Yet this government, once they assumed power, changed their tune completely. Just like how they were so fond of the Auditor General when they were in opposition and simply loved all of the work that the Auditor General had to do, and when they got into power, suddenly they weren’t friends again. Imagine that; I wonder why.

Also, despite not overhauling Tarion, which is what they had promised, they actually created yet another regulatory authority, the Home Construction Regulatory Authority, almost to confuse things yet further for Ontario consumers. On the side of the official opposition, we’ve called for a public audit into Tarion and the system. We want to see an end to the industry-controlled monopoly. Within the Tarion board, many people who are supposedly consumer advocates also actually work for the building industry. We haven’t seen a proper consumer advocate on the Tarion board.

Now, to turn to the recommendations for the member from Humber River–Black Creek, our critic for consumer protection, I was pleased and honoured to sign on to private members’ legislation calling for the establishment of a consumer watchdog—someone who would actually look out for seniors, someone who would look out for people living with disabilities, someone who would look out for Canadians and the rest of Ontarians who might be tricked into some very shady business practices.

We see businesses, individuals and even entire industries taking advantage of consumers within this province, and this government has failed to act yet again. It can be extremely difficult for folks to pursue justice. In the example of all of these HVAC liens and the NOSIs—for consumers to actually achieve justice, they’ll often have to pay a lawyer, and paying thousands of dollars to have the services of a lawyer may not get back the actual money that they are owed. It’s shocking to think that people are really only able to achieve justice in this province if they have money.

It’s a clear separation, it’s a classist separation that folks are unable to achieve justice, simply because they can’t pay the lawyer fees.

Dennis Crawford has done wonderful work on this file, and I must commend him. He’s a Stratford-area lawyer who has really called out the issues that have been created by government neglect, by government’s ignoring the needs of people and allowed an exploitative industry to take hold and to become extraordinarily rich on the backs of people who simply wanted to improve their home.

You know, our consumer watchdog was meant to be sort of a one-stop shop where people could register complaints. It would hold the power to investigate businesses. It would also be able to uphold these consumer protection laws. You see, the contract that I showed you earlier is in contravention of consumer protection laws, but do we see the government acting on that? No. They simply want to talk about talking. Talk is cheap. The consumer watchdog would also release public reports similar to the Auditor General or the Ombudsman of Ontario. They would be able to levy fines and other penalties against businesses that are found to not have acted in accordance with consumer protection legislation.

I wanted to add some quotes from consumer protection advocates who were very much in support of a consumer watchdog. There’s Ellen Roseman, who is a former consumer advocate columnist for the Toronto Star. Ellen states:

“When I started my journalism career in 1975, I decided to focus on consumer issues and advocate for people who needed help resolving problems with large companies that were shutting them out. I’m semi-retired now, but I still hear from desperate people seeking advice. Many of us find it hard to avoid losing money to misleading online pitches, service suppliers that promise refunds and never pay up, multi-page legal contracts that are impossible to understand and too-good-to-be-true credit deals full of hidden fees.”

Ellen heartily supported our Bill 77, the Ontario Consumer Watchdog Act; this government voted it down.

Barbara Captijn, who is also a consumer rights advocate, states:

“The Ontario Consumer Watchdog Act is a light for consumers in the current feeble state of consumer protection in Ontario. The patchwork of legislation, regulations, and legal grey areas in the current landscape is difficult for consumers to navigate.

“This bill addresses a much-needed area for modernization, and can help fix injustices and imbalances in the current system, and could help improve the lives of everyday Ontarians.”

Dr. Karen Somerville, who is the president of Canadians for Properly Built Homes, enthusiastically supported our consumer watchdog act. Karen talks about the decline in consumer protections across the board in Ontario for a number of years. She states:

“It’s obvious to most that Tarion is beyond repair. And now, the new Home Construction Regulatory Authority (HCRA), known broadly as ‘Tarion II,’ displays many of Tarion’s problems.”

Speaker, while I am in support of increased protections for consumers, there is much missing from this Bill 142, Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act. I would like to see this government stop talking about talking and actually get to the work of protecting consumers, stopping NOSIs and liens against title, and making sure that they are looking out for seniors, people living with disabilities and newcomers from falling prey to these terrible schemes.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): We’re going to move to questions.

Mr. Brian Riddell: While I agree with some of the stuff that my fellow on the other side of the aisle has said, I don’t agree with everything. We have a time that we’re going to be consulting with stakeholders, with the people of Ontario, which ends on December 1, to get their input. This bill has not been updated in 20 years, which is a shame for your government, the Liberals and for us. But it’s being done. To counter some of the things you said, we want the contracts to be simpler so people can understand them on both sides of the event that’s happening with these people.

I’ve seen videos from the Waterloo Regional Police of a gentleman who was—

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): Question? You can ask your question; you’ve got 10 seconds left.

Mr. Brian Riddell: I’m getting there.

Does the member not understand that we are doing something and we are going ahead and that we are consulting with stakeholders and the people of Ontario?

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: I’d like to thank the member from Cambridge for his question. You talk about 20 years of waiting; we can talk about the five years this government has been in power and has seen all of this news coverage. The problem with that is that while they talk about talking and they talk about acting, groups like Ontario Green Savings and the Green Retrofit Program Capital are still in action. They are still exploiting people. They are still taking advantage of people. And they are still signing contracts with vulnerable folks.

There is no indication from this government that they will take those liens that are currently being written and make them retroactive. Will they take away all liens for folks who have been exploited in this way? That’s my question. Is the government going to do the right thing and do well by consumers, or are they just going to talk about talking?

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): Next question.

Ms. Chandra Pasma: Thank you to my colleague from London North Centre for those thoughtful comments on the bill. I have a situation in my riding where 32 constituents have been waiting five years for a developer to build the homes that they have put down tens of thousands of dollars for. The developer has failed to communicate with them about timelines and has provided inaccurate information. These people who are making one of the largest purchases of their lives have been begging this government to act to protect them. They filed an appeal to the Home Construction Regulatory Authority 28 months ago, and there has been no action by HCRA, no penalties levied, no fines, and no action taken.

What does this bill do to help consumers like my constituents who are unable to get homes built or are getting homes that are built of shoddy construction in the province of Ontario?

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: I’d like to thank the member from Ottawa West–Nepean for bringing forward a terrible situation that is happening to many people across Ontario. You see, this government, when pressed about Tarion or HCRA, will often just dodge and say, “Yes, we need to stand up for consumers.” But you’re absolutely right: We see folks who are making the biggest purchase of their lives. They’ve put down a down payment. The materials costs go up, and the developer will come back to those people and say, “Well, you’re going to have to give a little bit more money.” We know that is against the law. We know that is entirely inappropriate, but these people are over a barrel.

We could have a government that stands up for people, we could have a government that overhauls Tarion and we could have a government that has actual consumer protection advocates on both boards, yet they choose not to. The Premier himself has said, during the price gouging during COVID-19, that he would be some big gorilla and he would look after things, but not one action has been taken on people who do this sort of gouging or people who take advantage of folks who have signed on the biggest purchase of their life—their home. That’s disgraceful.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): We’re going to move to the next question.

Mr. Billy Pang: Thank you to the member from the opposition for sharing his point of view, but we are aware that all of his examples were past tense. That means we are moving forward. This bill is to help protect the customers in Ontario to move forward. This bill has called to strengthen protections for Ontarians from unfair business practices. The bill’s name is the Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act.

There is one key component in this bill: consultation. My question to the member is—yes, you have a lot of great ideas. Are you going to bring your stakeholders to join this consultation to make this bill workable?

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: I would like to thank the member from Markham–Unionville for his question, but I’m a little concerned with the way in which he’s positioning it, because he said that my comments were about the past tense. I’m sure I could bring up many that are happening right now where NOSIs are being attached to title in the form of liens and that sort of thing, but what concerns me is this government. They say they are looking forward, but what about the people who have signed those contracts? Will they be looked after?

Will those folks who have had their savings exploited, who have had these unethical businesses take a chunk out of their home, will they be made whole? Will this government do the right thing? Will they look after them?

You can’t ignore these—you can’t say, “Moving forward, all of these terrible things are bad, but to all the people who have come before, sorry; too bad, so sad.” Is this government going to stand up for people who have been exploited? Yes or no?

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): Next question?

Mr. Chris Glover: I really want to thank the member for his comments this morning.

For 15 years, the Liberals allowed these dubious business practices that exploited people, in particular seniors and people with disabilities, locking them into contracts, long-term contracts, completely unfair contracts for hot water tanks, and then this government has allowed the same people to be exploited for another five years. Yet you’re saying that all of that exploitation, the liens that have been taken out on people’s homes, the up to $20,000 you were talking about—are those going to be expunged? Is this government actually going to stand up for consumers, or is this just wordplay and window dressing that they’re doing?

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: That is a great question, to my colleague from Spadina–Fort York. The Ontario NDP would stand for the removal of all liens. They would stand for ones retroactively, because if it is found that that is done in bad faith moving forward, how can it have been done in good faith looking backwards?

Many people who reached out initially will make a complaint to Consumer Protection Ontario, but do you know what they’re told, Speaker? They’re told to get a lawyer. Justice comes at a price because of this government’s inaction, their removal of investments within community legal aid and so many more things. It is really a disgrace.

It’s horrible to think that we’ve seen, year after year after year, exposés, undercover investigations, and this government says now that, well, they just want to talk about it, they want to hear about it. The evidence is clear. It’s clear that there aren’t consumer protection advocates on Tarion nor HCRA. We need to actually think of consumers in this province and not just talk about it.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): The next question.

Hon. Doug Downey: I’ve been listening intently to my friend, and he was talking about the action—they would take the action, they did take the action, they might take. He references Bill 77 that didn’t pass. Outside of setting up bureaucracy, what action does that bill ask for?

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: I’d like to thank the Attorney General for his question. It’s interesting that he’s talking about setting up bureaucracy when this government, when they were in opposition for 15 long years, promised that they would get rid of the monopoly known as Tarion, that they would overhaul it. Instead of fulfilling their promises, instead of being good to their word, instead of doing the honourable thing, they instead created yet another regulatory body, the Home Construction Regulatory Authority. They created yet more bureaucracy, using their words.

Now, had that been something that advanced the purposes and the causes of consumers, and had it protected people, had it stood up for people in the Ottawa area who were having to add yet more money to an unethical developer just to honour the contract they had already signed, maybe that would be something that the official opposition could support. But instead, we see the same systems at play again and again and again: consumers being exploited by government neglect. We see words; we don’t see actions. Let’s see some more actions. Let’s see you stand up for seniors.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): We don’t have time for another round of questions. We’re going to move to further debate.

Mr. Billy Pang: I am delighted about this opportunity to express my support for the Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act, 2023. I’ll share my time with my colleague for Mississauga–Lakeshore

This proposed legislation is a significant step forward in enhancing consumer protection and ensuring a fair and transparent marketplace for both consumers and businesses in our great province of Ontario. In an ever-evolving world, it is crucial that our consumer protection laws keep pace with the changing landscape of commerce.

The last comprehensive review of consumer protection laws took place nearly two decades ago in 2005. Since then, our marketplace has undergone a substantial transformation with the advent of online shopping, the proliferation of apps and new modes of conducting business. It is high time that we update and strengthen our consumer protection framework to address the challenges and opportunities presented by this digital age.

This proposed legislation encompasses a wide array of initiatives aimed at enhancing consumer protection and supporting businesses in their compliance efforts. I would like to highlight several key aspects of the bill and the potential positive impact it can have on our consumers and businesses.

One of the most important aspects of this legislation is its commitment to tackling unfair business practices. It explicitly prohibits specific unfair practices such as price gouging and taking advantage of a consumer’s inability to understand contractual language. By doing so, we are sending a strong message that unscrupulous business practices will not be tolerated in our province. The bill also updates the list of prohibited false, deceptive or misleading representations, ensuring that customers are protected from false claims and deceptive practices by businesses.

The media repeatedly reported on the issue notice of security interests, called NOSIs, shedding light on the challenges faced by unsuspecting homeowners, including some in Markham–Unionville. A NOSI is a registration on the land registry system that serves to notify third parties that a lender or lessor has a vested interest in a fixture on the land. Fixtures can include essential home equipment such as water heaters or furnaces that are installed in the consumer’s home.

These NOSIs are a vital part of the business landscape, allowing companies to protect their interests in goods should the homeowner default on payment, decide to sell their property or refinance it. However, NOSIs can lead to misunderstanding and disputes. Some unscrupulous businesses have misused NOSIs as leverage when consumers attempt to sell their homes or seek to refinance their properties. These tactics can force consumers to pay excessive amounts to clear the NOSI from their property title or even compel them to engage in costly, time-consuming legal battles to have the NOSI discharged.

Over the years, I have heard from constituents in my riding that NOSIs were placed on homes without their knowledge, resulting in financial burdens far beyond the value of the rented equipment.

The Personal Property Security Act allows businesses to register NOSIs on the title to land. It also provides remedies when consumers have fulfilled their obligations related to the NOSI but the business has not discharged it. However, the process has always been fraught with complexities, leaving many consumers in precarious situations.

The proposed new legislation seeks to bring much-needed clarity and fairness to the matter of NOSIs. It aims to clarify a business’s obligations to discharge a NOSI under specific circumstances, ensuring businesses follow a transparent process. It also paves the way for consumers to receive assistance from the Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery in enforcing a business’s obligation to discharge a NOSI.

This legislation acknowledges the vital role NOSIs play in the business landscape but is determined to prevent their misuse at the expense of unsuspecting consumers. It reinforces the need for clear and fair procedures and ensures that businesses act responsibly when registering and discharging NOSIs. This way, consumers can have confidence that their property rights are protected and they are not subjected to excessive costs or legal disputes when attempting to sell or refinance their homes.

The proposed legislation’s approach towards NOSIs demonstrates this government’s commitment to promoting fairness and transparency in the marketplace, ensuring that consumers are not unduly burdened by these security interests. It also represents a significant step forward in enhancing consumer protection and supporting businesses in adhering to these essential rules.

The Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery is actively seeking public input on addressing and reducing the harmful and inappropriate use of NOSIs against unsuspecting consumers. I greatly appreciate this engagement with the public and stakeholders as it demonstrates this government’s commitment to creating a fair and just marketplace.

This bill addresses another issue that many homeowners in Ontario have faced, that is, predatory practices by some suppliers leasing equipment to homeowners. It establishes specific rules for long-term leases of home-comfort appliances such as heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems. These purchase-cost-plus leases are often a source of frustration for homeowners who wish to exit their contracts. This legislation establishes a 10-day cooling-off period and sets limits on termination costs for these leases, providing homeowners with greater protection.

The proposed legislation prohibits businesses from including terms in contracts that deter consumers from publishing reviews or billing consumers in response to the content of reviews. This promotes transparency and accountability in the marketplace.

This legislation is not just about protecting consumers; it’s also about supporting businesses in their efforts to comply with consumer protection rules. It introduces a single set of core rules that apply to most consumer contracts, whether for online or in-person purchases. This will simplify compliance and reduce the administrative burden for businesses.

The proposed amendments to the Consumer Reporting Act will enable consumers to assess their credit information and credit scores electronically once a month, providing them with valuable insights into their financial health.

By strengthening consumer protection and promoting fair business practices, we can boost consumer confidence, boost economic growth and create a marketplace where all stakeholders can thrive. I urge all members to join me in supporting this legislation, which will make Ontario a better place for consumers and businesses alike.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): The member for Mississauga–Lakeshore.

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: It’s an honour to rise here this morning to support Bill 142, the Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act. I want to thank the member for Markham–Unionville for sharing his time with me today, and I want to congratulate my former colleague at the Treasury Board both on his appointment as the Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery and on his first bill in his important new role. I want to thank him and his team for all the work they’re doing on this bill.

The minister and many of our colleagues have explained how, if passed, Bill 142 would modernize and update the Consumer Protection Act for the first time in 20 years. It includes many changes that the public and stakeholders have asked for over the last three years. Many of these new amendments against unfair business practices will help protect seniors, immigrants and other vulnerable Ontarians, who are often targets of scams, fraud and identity theft.

This morning, I’d like to focus in particular on

schedule 2 and on the minister’s proposed amendments to Ontario’s Consumer Reporting Act. As you know, Speaker, this law, which was originally introduced in 1971, governs the collection and reporting of credit information about consumers by reporting agencies like TransUnion and Equifax. In the late 1990s, these credit reporting agencies began to allow consumers to access their credit reports online for a fee, usually between $10 and $20, to cover the technical costs of making credit reporting available online.

Twenty years ago, President George W. Bush and the United States Congress passed the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, to allow American consumers to obtain free online credit reporting at least once per year from each agency. Many other countries have passed similar laws because they understand that any technical costs were recovered a long time ago.

But in Ontario, the current

section 12 of the Consumer Reporting Act requires the reporting agencies to provide free credit reports only after a written request, not online. There is only one physical location for each agency—Burlington for TransUnion; North York for Equifax—which is not practical for most consumers, so they would either have to make a request by mail and wait several weeks, or pay $15 online. And since there can be differences between the two credit reports from TransUnion and Equifax, you would have to pay both. This becomes a major profit centre for the reporting agencies. If a million Ontarians requested their two credit reports online each year, it would cost up to $30 million.

That’s why, earlier in our first term, in 2018, I met with Bill Walker, who was then the Minister of Government and Consumer Services, and his staff. I was joined by my friend and a constituent of mine, Jim Aziz, an expert on international consumer reporting, who was involved in drafting Ontario’s original consumer reporting act 52 years ago, in 1971. Since then, he has worked to update and modernize consumer reporting laws and regulations in over 20 countries, to meet the latest international standards.

He has worked with the International Monetary Fund, the American State Department, the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the UK Department for International Development, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

Today, Mr. Aziz says that the amendments introduced in

schedule 2 of Bill 142 will help Ontario to meet international best practices in consumer credit reporting, with many new protections for Ontario consumers. I’ll take a moment now to speak about a few of these.

First, this bill would amend

section 12 of the act to provide consumers with free access to their personal credit reports at least once per month online and at least two times each year by mail or by phone. As Mr. Aziz says, it is important for consumers to be able to view their credit reports, not just when they’re applying for a mortgage or other large credit purchase, but all the time, to help ensure that the information in their credit reports is accurate, and to see if there is any evidence of identity fraud or theft.

As the minister said, within the last five years alone, there have been major data leaks at both TransUnion and Equifax. A TransUnion data leak in 2019 affected 37,000 Canadians. An Equifax leak in 2017 was the largest in history, affecting over 150 million people worldwide, including 19,000 here in Canada. As the minister said, since then, our government has held public consultations about amendments to the act to help consumers monitor their credit information, and to protect against identity theft.

The proposed

section 12.4 allows consumers to place a security freeze on their information with TransUnion and Equifax. This is one of the best ways to prevent an identity thief from opening a new credit account in your name. I understand that the ministry has received over 20 requests for a security freeze option in Ontario, just this year alone. The security freeze has been an option in the US since 2018, and it was introduced in Quebec earlier this year.

The proposed

section 12.6 would allow consumers to add a statement in their credit report of up to 200 words. This can be used to provide valuable context about a particular account. For example, if you’re a victim of identity theft, or if you missed loan payments because you were laid off during the COVID-19 pandemic, a statement can help provide potential lenders with information about your history.

The proposed

section 23 would provide consumers with the right to take legal action against credit reporting agencies and to seek damages when they don’t comply with the act or the regulations. This should make it easier for consumers to correct false information in the credit reports.

Bill 142 would also update the penalties in the Consumer Reporting Act for the first time since 1990. The penalty for directors and officers would double, from $25,000 to $50,000, and the penalty for corporations would increase from $100,000 to $250,000. This would bring the penalties in the act in line with the laws in other sectors and ensure that consumers can hold these agencies accountable.

Speaker, last year the minister and I had the opportunity to meet with TransUnion’s insurance and analytics team at our office at the Treasury Board. Clarke Cross, TransUnion’s director of government relations, also attended, and I was glad to read his comments supporting Bill 142:

“TransUnion is pleased to see the government taking action to update credit consumer reporting. Through an extensive consultation process, the Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act, 2023, will provide people with modern and enhanced tools for managing their credit information. We’re excited for changes that continue to empower consumers and help companies like TransUnion to better serve Ontarians.”

Speaker, I should note that Equifax also supports free online credit reports each month, and many of the other changes proposed in Bill 142. Together, these changes reflect the latest international standards for best practice.

Again, I want to thank our minister and his team for all their work on this bill, and I hope all the members will support this. This bill will make a big change here in the province of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): We’re going to move to questions.

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: My question is to the member from Markham–Unionville. These NOSIs and liens that we’ve been discussing this morning are unjust enrichment. Will this government cancel the bad actors’ NOSIs and liens, or do Conservatives support unjust enrichment?

Mr. Billy Pang: As I mentioned earlier in this House, this is a bill to help us to move forward. Yes, there are bad actors; there are bad people in different sectors, right? But this one is talking about better for consumers and better for businesses. That means it balances the interests from both sides.

Talking about unfair business practices, in this legislation, we are prohibiting unfair business practices such as taking advantage of a consumer’s inability to understand the language in a contract.

So when we are moving forward, it’s just like we are driving: We need a rear mirror to check the back, but most of the time, we are looking at the front. Yes, we are looking at examples so that we can enhance this law that hasn’t been updated for two decades. Please invite your constituents, your stakeholders to engage in the consultation so that we can move forward.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): Next question.

Ms. Laura Smith: I was very intrigued by the member from Mississauga–Lakeshore’s comments, and I appreciate the fact that Equifax is on board with this. In my previous life, I dealt with credit reports on a regular basis, and I’m really happy to see that this is going to be accessible to the public because it does truly make a difference when people have to make that purchase and move forward with their lives, which is what we want all Ontarians to be able to do.

But speaking of this, could I ask the member exactly what kind of unfair business practices Ontarians are being targeted and victimized by? And just maybe circle around this issue of people’s rating in Equifax; I’m actually, honestly, really interested. What are the most heinous and preventable offences that Ontarians are facing, as well as weak consumer protection rules, and how is this proposed legislation going to address them?

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: I want to thank the member of Thornhill for that question. As you know, before, you would have to go to the two offices—one is in Burlington; one is in North York—to get your information. But now that you can do it online, you can do it monthly. You could even prevent people from taking identity theft on you, because you could check your credit rating on a monthly basis to see how you stand out there, and that will protect you.

But not only that, you can even put a security freeze on your account. So if you look at someone that never needs to borrow money, he could freeze his account so that no information would ever be leaked.

These are all things that will protect our consumers out there, because as we know, there is a lot of identity theft that is going on right now. And you see what happens: You sometimes go to apply for a mortgage and someone already has a mortgage in your name. And even on your vehicles too—you have noticed that people have liens on your vehicle.

By doing this, that you can check your credit rating on a monthly basis for free, it will prevent or decrease theft.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): We have to move to the next question.

Mr. Joel Harden: I listened intently to what my friends in government were saying this morning. I know it’s only 10 o’clock in the morning, but I move to ask a bit of a big-picture question to solicit a response from either member: What’s the purpose of government?

Because for me, when I think about a debate on a bill like this, I think the purpose of government is to make sure there’s equal opportunity for people to seek redress when they’re harmed. That’s a major responsibility. And sadly, what I’ve seen in the last five years as I’ve been in this place is the end of the Environmental Commissioner, the end of the French language commissioner.

And when we have been offering in debate the prospect of a consumer watchdog—this is what the member from Humber River–Black Creek, our lead on this, has insisted that the government take on—we have not seen that taken up. What I fear is, for people in this House and others like us in Ontario who have the means and the capacity to fight for our consumer rights, the status quo may be fine. But as the member from London North Centre said very clearly, people are going to continue to fall between the cracks.

It’s an invitation to either member: There is a lot of good stuff in this bill, but would you propose a strong consumer watchdog to ensure that people who don’t have the resources that people like us do in this House can fight for their rights when they are harmed?

Mr. Billy Pang: Very important questions. When I put forward my personal member’s motion, it’s about protecting customers. Now, this act is the Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act. On one hand, we are protecting our consumers. On the other hand, we also protect businesses.

For example, protecting against business practices that frustrate customer choice to cancel a contract will help support market competition. At the same time, market competition is likely to be improved as businesses are incentivized to compete on price and quality, rather than relying on contracts and practices that lock in existing consumers. These are two examples telling us that our people of Ontario can rely on this bill to support—no matter if it’s personal, home interests or businesses.

I encourage the member, again, to engage your stakeholders in consultation so that this bill can be enhanced according to what Ontarians need.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): We’ll move to the next question.

Mr. Will Bouma: I think I speak for all of my constituents when I say that a review of this legislation is long overdue, and changes are necessary. I’m very glad to see that our government is making meaningful changes here and to hear the very supportive comments from the opposition.

Stories of fraud and bad business practices are far too common. What makes it worse is knowing that our laws on consumer protection haven’t been updated for almost 20 years. If we don’t take decisive action now, we’re opening the door for Ontarians to remain vulnerable and for our economy to lag due to a lack of confidence in the consumer market.

Through you, Speaker, I was wondering if the member from Markham–Unionville, because he was speaking about that during his speech, could elaborate on why our government is moving to make these changes now and what is the main reason for doing so.

This particular legislation gives us a 10-day cool-off time. A consumer can spend 10 days to read the fine print line by line, word by word, letter by letter. That helps the consumer to understand what is going on and what is signed. So, they have 10 days to repeal that contract accordingly. This also helps the ministry to have a better position to introduce powers through the ministry to support consumers and holds bad actors—

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): We move to the next question.

Mr. Chris Glover: My question is for the member from Markham–Unionville. My own colleague here from London North Centre was talking about the horrific exploitation that’s happened under 15 years of Liberal government and the last five years of the Conservative government, where people, particularly seniors and people with disabilities, have been pressured into signing these long-term leases for hot water tanks. We’ve seen that people end up with sometimes $20,000 liens on their homes when they try to sell their homes. He’s called this unjust enrichment.

Your government is talking about consumer protection, but you keep talking about moving forward. Will your government expunge these liens, these unjust enrichments by these corporations, by these companies? Or will you let those consumers continue to suffer, as they suffered through 15 years of Liberal government—

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): Thank you.

For a final response, and a not-too-long one, the member for Markham–Unionville.

Mr. Billy Pang: Thank you for the question. Again, don’t forget: In past decades, this law hasn’t been implemented because you supported the Liberals not doing that. Okay? And we are doing this and helping the province to move forward. This increases the maximum amount of fines upon conviction of offenders under the CPA.

We have proposed the new legislation. We’ve provided consumers with the right to accept the time-share contract, if they so choose, after 25 years have passed. This is providing consumers an exit for time-shares—

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): We’ve run out of time. Thank you to the members for the questions and answers, and we’re going to move to further debate.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: It is a pleasure to rise today to participate in this debate on Bill 142, the government’s consumer protection legislation entitled Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act. I want to start by commending the critic for consumer protection for the official opposition, the member for Humber River–Black Creek, who spoke for an hour on this bill yesterday and set out the need for strengthened consumer protections for people in this province, and also identified some of the gaps in this legislation, some of the work that still needs to be done to make sure that consumers in this province are protected.

Certainly, having this debate today in the context of an affordability crisis that has significantly challenged people in this province, especially people who are on low income—we are hearing every day from constituents, the people we represent, about concerns as to whether people will be able to make their paycheque last the week, whether they will be able to put food on the table, whether they will be able to pay their rent.

Particularly, tenants who are living in apartment buildings or units that were constructed since November 2018 do not have any rent control on the units that they occupy, so every year when the new rent is announced to the tenants, they worry about whether they will be able to continue to live in the unit that they call home.

We know affordability is a challenge. We hear also from people about their utility bills, the cost of Internet access, cellphone bills. All of this in today’s economy has really created huge pressure, so consumers need to be protected, because dollars are scarce and they want to make sure that when they purchase something, they will be treated fairly.

One of the issues that my colleague raised when he spoke to this bill yesterday was about the fact that the government has moved many regulatory provisions of consumer protection legislation from bill form or from the legislation into regulations. The member pointed out yesterday that this can be a problem because it can delay the implementation of the legislation. It can delay making sure that those protections are put into place.

The PAWS Act: Many members in this place may remember the debate on that legislation for the protection of animal welfare. When the PAWS Act moved provisions from legislation to regulation, it caused considerable delay in getting the bill enacted, because there had to be the consultation done on the regulations and sometimes that process takes time and delays the enactment of the bill.

Further to that, Speaker, there’s not only the concern that there may be a delay in getting these protections in place, but we have seen examples of legislation that is designed to protect consumers and citizens in this province—legislation that is debated in this House, goes to committee, gets public input, comes back to this House for third reading and actually gets royal assent, but then is never proclaimed. I want to use the example of

an act called the Access to Consumer Credit Reports and Elevator Availability Act. That was legislation that the Liberals brought in in the dying days of their mandate in 2018. The bill went through all of the stages required by the legislative process. It got royal assent, but it has never been enacted.

I have a situation right now in my riding in London West where people have been harmed because that legislation, the Access to Consumer Credit Reports and Elevator Availability Act, has not been enacted, so the protections in that bill, even though it has had royal assent and is waiting to be put into force, are not available to people in this province. And the particular concern in London West right now—I know in ridings across this province, many MPPs will have heard this—is around elevator maintenance and repair.

There is a building in my riding, 1 Andover Drive, where it’s a four-storey walk-up and it is occupied by many, many seniors—vulnerable seniors, seniors with mobility issues—and their elevator is out of commission. They have been told that it could take up to four months to get that elevator repaired, and there’s no legislation on the books to require the building manager or the owner to make those repairs in a timely fashion.

Seniors from that building have contacted my office and they’ve talked about the fact that they feel that they “are being held hostage.” An email I received just last week says that the fact that it could take up to four months to repair the elevator is “unacceptable, grossly negligible and quite frankly feels like we are being held hostage in our apartments ... we are looking at” having to spend maybe the entire “winter being locked in.” Speaker, you can imagine for vulnerable people, for seniors who have medical needs, the impact of the loss of access to the elevator.

One senior who lives on the third floor uses a cane and can’t use the stairs. He said that he has had to cancel medical appointments that he had scheduled for an upcoming knee operation, so he’s not able to make it out of his apartment to get to those necessary medical appointments. Another tenant said that he has had to cancel a dialysis appointment because he can’t manage to get up and down the stairs. This is an important protection that people in this province need to feel assured of, and there is legislation that would offer that protection.

It would require the elevator to be repaired in a timely fashion, and that protection, even though it’s on the books, isn’t enacted. That legislation is not in force.

So that is definitely what we do not want to see happen with this piece of consumer legislation. We want to make sure that when it moves through the legislative process, moves through the regulatory consultation process, once those stages are complete, the legislation will be not only passed and get royal assent but that it will be enacted for people in this province.

Some of the provisions of this bill speak directly to some concerns that I have heard from constituents in London West. I want to talk about the issue of time-shares. I was recently contacted by a constituent who said he had signed a time-share contract in 1999 when he and his wife were in their late fifties. The duration of the contract was 50 years, which they felt was too long, but they were assured that if they wanted to terminate the time-share contract, the time-share company would buy it back from them or they could sell it on the open market.

Subsequently, they discovered that there never was a buy-back option available from the company. They said that “it is impossible to even give the time-share away for free on the open market.” They raised the concern that they are essentially on a fixed income now as retirees, yet the maintenance fees for the time-share are increasing by at least the cost of living every year. They advocated for an exit clause to be available to all time-share owners and resorts in Ontario. He says, “Over the years, we have met many time-share owners and most want to terminate their contracts.”

This bill, by putting in place an ability to terminate a time-share contract after 25 years and making that retroactive—there’s no question that that will assist many consumers in this province, like my constituents in London West who are in a time-share agreement that they want to get out of.

However, it’s unfortunate that the government didn’t strengthen consumer protections for other issues related to home ownership and property ownership. In particular, I want to talk about Tarion. There is a real problem that the government did not do anything to strengthen the Tarion provision for new homeowners.

The organization Canadians for Properly Built Homes has been advocating for better protections for new-home owners for years. They raise the concern that the legislation that’s before us today does not address many of the key concerns that they have raised that are necessary to help purchasers of newly built homes. They argue that the government has a responsibility to ensure that the largest purchase that most people ever make in their lifetime, a home, is good quality and that it meets basic code provisions.

They note that the bill fails to address the ongoing serious shortcomings of administrative authorities that are supposed to be providing consumer protection oversight, such as the Home Construction Regulatory Authority, the Ontario Builder Directory and others.

Of course, I’m very proud of the work that the NDP has been doing to push for the necessary reforms to Tarion, to push for a full public audit of Tarion and to strengthen protections for new-home buyers. I’m also very proud of the work that the NDP has done to—

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): I apologize to the member for London West. It’s 10:15, so we need to start with the members’ statements.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Air quality

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: Every parent in Ontario wants our children to be able to learn in the best possible conditions. Good air quality is an important factor in the ability to learn well and ensure health and well-being. Addressing air quality in schools and child care centres helps reduce the spread of infectious diseases like COVID, RSV and flu. Good ventilation also protects against pollution and air-quality issues like wildfire smoke. It doesn’t require any behavioural changes on the part of children, teachers, education and child care workers or parents. Studies have also shown improving air quality can boost children’s test scores in math and reading.

While the Ontario government has made investments in ventilation the past few years, the government refused to set any standard for air quality or to require measurement or reporting of air quality. We have no idea what conditions are like in our classrooms and child care facilities.

We can do better. That is why my colleagues and I have tabled the Improving Air Quality for Our Children Act. Its provisions will help improve air quality in all classrooms and congregate spaces in our public schools and in licensed child care facilities. It was developed in consultation with experts in ventilation and air quality, public health experts, education and child care partners, and parents.

I hope that this government will pay attention to this broad coalition of support and do the right thing: adopt this bill to ensure our children have the best and safest learning conditions possible.

Breast cancer

Ms. Laura Smith: Today is the last day of Breast Cancer Awareness Month. On average, 78 Canadian women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and 15 women will die of breast cancer every day. With 13,000 diagnoses this year, statistically that means one in eight women—look around you, ladies—will be diagnosed in her lifetime.

Early detection can make all the difference, which is why I’m so relieved to hear that our government is connecting more women to breast cancer screening by lowering the eligibility from 50 to 40 beginning in 2024. Women aged 40 to 49 who were screened were 44% more likely to survive, and the five-year survival prognosis of stage 1 breast cancer is 99%—survival, 99%. These are positive.

And the knowledge of breast density: This category is another key piece in screening and the diagnostic process. Knowing your breast density is so instrumental in this category, so I’m proud to advise that, since July, all women in Ontario who receive a mammogram are directly informed of their density category.

Speaker, the majority of women diagnosed with breast cancer have no family history of the disease. Regular mammograms are so important and can improve the outcome and reduce the need for aggressive treatment.

All you need is 20 minutes. Prioritize your health, ladies. Breast health should not be just a priority in October; it should be literally something that we look at every day and—

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): Thank you. Next member’s statement.

Bail reform

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: I’m speaking today on the issue of provincial bail reform. News story after news story, Ontarians are losing faith in their justice system. I hear from small businesses in Toronto about how the accused are released back into the community without access and pathways to housing or rehabilitation. Innocent people are getting hurt. Iconic businesses like Dudley’s on Church Street have experienced smashed windows caused by people out on bail without supervision, thus threatening their staff and their business.

Risk to community safety needs to be screened properly and adequately in the courts before anyone is released back into the community. People at high risk of committing violent offences are not having past violence considered. People at low risk are being detained for far too long. Police officers and other first responders are being put at unnecessary risk, as we have tragically learned through the murder of OPP constable Greg Pierzchala.

The Premier can do more than just write letters to the Prime Minister. The Ontario NDP will continue to push for real provincial bail reform, including taking immediate action to (1) ensure timely bail hearings, compliance and enforcement; (2) restore the Ford government’s $130-million cut to legal aid funding; (3) ensure that the targeting of the most dangerous offenders does not criminalize people are who are experiencing poverty, mental illness or addiction; and (4) ensure that everyone who needs it can access adequate housing and mental health care.

We call on this government to do more than to point fingers. Start implementing provincial solutions immediately.

Health care

Mr. Anthony Leardi: I have a great story to tell today about my constituent and friend Michael Greenaway. Michael had cataracts. He went to his doctor, and he got a referral. Within two weeks, he got to go to a community care clinic, one established by this government, and he went to go see the famous and expert Dr. Tayfour. Within two more weeks, Michael got his cataract surgery done. I spoke to him last week. He is recovering fine, and the total experience was very positive. Only four weeks elapsed between the time of referral and the time of surgery. That’s great service. Michael is very happy with his whole experience.

I would like to remind this House that the community care clinic that Michael went to for his cataract surgery was established by this government and was opposed, and continues to be opposed, by the coalition of doom and gloom, the opposition.

I would like to thank the Minister of Health for establishing these community care clinics and taking care of my constituent and friend Michael Greenaway, and for taking care of hundreds of people like him who are getting eye care when and where they need it.

Royal Canadian Legion poppy campaign

MPP Jamie West: I’m pleased to rise today to talk about something very interesting that happened last week in Sudbury, a tradition that has been going on for several years. Every year, behind M.I.C. restaurant, veterans—members of Legions 76, 564, and other veterans—come together to raise the largest poppy flag in North America. Last year, they weren’t quite sure if it was the largest in the world in its measurements. So this year, when they replaced it, they increased the size of the poppy flag to 4.5 metres by nine metres—that’s 15 feet by 30 feet—ensuring that it would be the largest poppy flag in the world.

It’s a pretty exciting thing to recognize the remembrance of veterans returning from war or battle or those who have served in the Armed Forces. I say often in this House that not just those who have been on the front lines—but I think often of my grandfather, who served as a clerk, and how we have to recognize, as well, the families. When members are deployed—it’s not just the soldiers themselves, but it’s the families, as well, who are deployed.

As we head into Remembrance Day, it’s important that we remember our soldiers.

Lest we forget.

Remembrance Day

Ms. Natalia Kusendova-Bashta: Every year, on November 11, we observe a moment of silence at 11 a.m. to commemorate Remembrance Day, when we honour the brave men and women who paid the ultimate sacrifice for our country.

Last week, I attended the funeral of Lieutenant Colonel Zbigniew Gondek, a Second World War veteran who fought for Poland and lived here in Canada to the great age of 99 years old. While I was there, I reflected on the immense courage and valour these men and women practised, many of them being in their early adulthood. They were willing to give their lives so that their children, parents and spouses could live in a world free from tyranny and fascism.

Today, during our moment of silence, let us reflect on the gratitude that comes with being a Canadian, and our home and native land, where we cherish freedom, democracy, the rule of law, and human rights. Let us recognize our Canadian Armed Forces, who continue to promote global peace and stability. And let us renew our commitment to supporting our veterans.

Lastly, let us ensure the sacrifices of our soldiers, past and present, were not in vain.

Remarks in Polish.

Lest we forget.

Jess Randall Larochelle

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon: As Remembrance Day nears, I rise today to talk about one of Canada’s heroes: Private Jess Randall Larochelle, of Restoule, Ontario.

In 2006, Private Larochelle of the 1st Royal Canadian Regiment was manning an observation post when it was destroyed by an enemy rocket in Pashmul, Afghanistan. Although he was alone, severely injured, and under sustained enemy fire, he continued to aggressively provide covering fire over the otherwise undefended flanks of his company’s position. Private Larochelle’s heroic actions saved many lives that day.

Private Larochelle was awarded the star of military valour for his actions, Canada’s second-highest citation for bravery in conflict. However, I believe that Jess deserves our highest possible recognition, the Victoria Cross, and I am proud to join 15,000 petitioners and three living Victoria Cross recipients to call for recognition of this modern-day hero. His selfless actions are a shining example that our armed service members exhibit. I can think of no better way to observe Remembrance Day this year than to highlight and celebrate the service of one of Canada’s best.

Sadly, Jess passed away earlier this year. His friends described him as quiet, unassuming and a superhero. I hope all members will join me in supporting the veterans’ group Valour in the Presence of the Enemy in calling for a review to award Jess the Victoria Cross, and take time this week to remember Private Jess Larochelle.

Why Not City Missions

Mr. Will Bouma: I am honoured to rise today to speak about the life-changing work being done by Why Not City Missions and the Why Not Youth Centre in Brantford. Why Not City Missions has provided homeless and at-risk youth in Brantford with a safe and inclusive environment since 2002, and has been a valuable member of the Brantford–Brant community ever since.

I was fortunate enough to attend Why Not’s annual fall gala this past Saturday, where I joined board chair Mike Bosveld and executive director Karen Stewart, as well as Why Not co-founders Charlie and Sue Kopczyk, in celebrating the invaluable work that Why Not continues to do in our community. I was also pleased to learn on Saturday that Why Not reached their yearly campaign goal and raised $1 million to pay down the mortgage and renovation expenses on their girls’ home.

Because of the incredible support from the Brantford–Brant community, Why Not has evolved from a simple curbside coffee and prayer service to a youth centre open seven nights a week, a residential housing program for young men and supportive housing for young at-risk parents and their young children. I am proud to know that our community supports its own to such a great extent and that Why Not City Missions will continue to understand and fulfill the needs of at-risk youth in Brantford–Brant.

Hungarian Heritage Month

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: I am proud to rise this morning to celebrate the second annual Hungarian Heritage Month in Ontario.

On Hungarian Republic Day, I was proud to join the Minister of Finance and many of our colleagues to help raise the Hungarian flag here at Queen’s Park, and then at Toronto city hall, together with my friends Máté from the Hungarian consulate and Sándor Balla, president of the Hungarian Canadian Business Association, and some of the Fifty-Sixes, veterans of the revolution in 1956. I also attended a gala dinner and concert at the Hungarian Canadian Cultural Centre in North York with the Associate Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and the ambassador of Hungary to Canada, Mária Vass-Salazar.

Speaker, I was honoured to receive the Knight’s Cross of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Hungary, joining my friend Tamás Buday, the great Hungarian Canadian sprint canoe coach at the Mississauga Canoe Club, and I want to thank him again for helping decorate my office for Hungarian Heritage Month.

I want to thank all members again for supporting my private member’s bill to recognize this month, the first of its kind in Canada to celebrate a community that has contributed so much to Ontario. Thank you.

St. Catherine of Siena Roman Catholic church

Ms. Donna Skelly: Good morning, Speaker. Today I would like to recognize the St. Catherine of Siena Roman Catholic church, as I attended their mass of dedication on October 22 and was truly impressed.

This new church was formed in 2017, out of the amalgamation of two parishes: Our Lady of Lourdes Parish, which was established in 1958, and Corpus Christi Parish, which was established in 1962. Since 2017, the two parishes continued as sites while the new church was being built. The new church, now open on the south corner of Rymal Road and Upper Sherman, marked the closure of the two previous sites.

The mass of dedication was a beautiful ceremony to commemorate the opening of the parish. With an estimated 1,500 people attending, all 750 seats were filled, and the overflow crowd stood in back of the building and even into meeting rooms where they could watch the mass on screen. It was a tremendous turnout.

Thank you to all who played a

part in the creation of this new place of worship. St. Catherine of Siena Roman Catholic church will serve as the new meeting place for Catholics to gather to celebrate their faith.

Appointment of Clerk-at-the-Table

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m pleased to advise the House of the recent appointment of a new permanent table officer. Effective October 11, 2023, Julia Douglas has assumed the duties of senior Clerk, table research.

Please join me in welcoming Julia in her new role and responsibilities. Congratulations.

Applause.

Introduction of Visitors

Ms. Laura Smith: I am very proud to welcome to the House artist, musician, cancer survivor, and founder and author of Aggressive Positivity, my friend Limore Twena Zisckind.

Hon. Paul Calandra: I welcome to the House Jessie Saliba, who is also celebrating her 29th birthday today.

MPP Lise Vaugeois: I would like to introduce my very good friends Bonnie Satten and Charlie Faust, who are visiting from Thunder Bay. Welcome to your House.

Ms. Natalia Kusendova-Bashta: Good morning. I’d like to welcome Steffi Burgi, who is an OLIP intern, starting her session in my office. We’re very excited to have her and look forward to working for the benefit of the people of Ontario.

Ms. Chandra Pasma: I am very pleased to welcome Astrid Krueger, who is joining team Ottawa West–Nepean as an OLIP intern for this next session.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: I want to introduce Sam Demma, who is here with us today. He is the incredible best-selling author of Empty Your Backpack—an inspiring young Canadian. Thank you for joining us in the people’s House.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature today two constituents from the beautiful community of Wainfleet. We have Alfred and Ann Kiers. Welcome to Ontario’s Legislature.

Mr. Deepak Anand: It is an absolute pleasure to introduce Mr. Arun Kumar from Sandeep Entertainment and Mr. Sharat Samudrala and Hema Samudrala from CutMirchi Media. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Remarks in Anishininiimowin.

I’d like to welcome to the Legislature Chiefs of Ontario director of justice Jackie Lombardi, Anishinabek Nation Regional Deputy Grand Chief Travis Boissoneau and also Amanda Kioke from Attawapiskat. Meegwetch for coming.

Hon. Graydon Smith: I want to welcome four constituents from Huntsville today—great community builders as well: Jason, Chantelle, Molly and Madeleine Armstrong. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): With us in the Speaker’s gallery this morning is Dr. David Malkin. Dr. Malkin is a pediatric oncologist and scientist at the Hospital for Sick Children, whose current research focuses on understanding the genetic basis of childhood cancer. He and his team are developing novel and groundbreaking techniques for early cancer detection and targeted treatments with fewer side effects as part of the SickKids Precision Child Health initiative.

Welcome, Dr. Malkin. We are delighted to have you here today.

Question Period

Government accountability

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Yesterday, newly uncovered documents provided even more evidence that it was Conservative political staff, not civil service experts, who directed changes to municipal official plans that favoured very specific land speculators in Niagara, Hamilton, Halton, Waterloo, Peel, York and Durham regions.

It’s clearer than ever that the Premier was looped into decisions regarding urban boundary changes from the start. So I have to ask the Premier, were these specific changes made to benefit the Premier’s friends, just like the decision to remove sites from the greenbelt?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: Last week, when I reversed the official plans, I acknowledged that there was in fact too much involvement of political staff in those official plans. That is why I revoked the official plans and went back to the original plans as submitted by the regions.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: It’s very obvious that the Premier’s office was more involved in all of these decisions than they have disclosed. As we start to dig, the former Minister of Housing’s chief of staff, Ryan Amato, didn’t mince words. He directed senior ministry staff to “keep their mouths shut” about the changes.

These revelations bring the Premier’s and the former minister’s testimony to the Integrity Commissioner into question. Why is there such a discrepancy between the Premier’s testimony to the Integrity Commissioner and what’s revealed in these documents?

Hon. Paul Calandra: As I said at the news conference last week, I thought there was too much involvement from political staff in the former minister’s office. That is why I repealed the changes that the province had made to those official plans and reinstated the official plans as submitted by the regions. I acknowledged that last week.

At the same time, we’re going to continue focusing, working with our municipal partners to make sure we get shovels in the ground and homes built for the people of the province of Ontario.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: So it was just an accident, right? A one-off? No.

Speaker, the Premier told the Integrity Commissioner that he had “no recollection” of meeting developer Sergio Manchia about removing his lands from the greenbelt. The Premier repeated that just this morning, but the documents uncovered yesterday tell a very different story. In fact, they indicate that the Premier did meet with Mr. Manchia on September 20, 2021—with the same Mr. Manchia whose staff members said the Premier “needs to stop calling.”

I’m going to ask again, why is there such a discrepancy between what the Premier testified to the Integrity Commissioner and the revelations in these documents?

Hon. Paul Calandra: I said quite clearly—I’ve answered it a number of times—that there was too much involvement from political staff in changes to the official plans. That is why I repealed the changes that were made by the province to the official plans and why I reinstated the official plans as submitted by those 12 municipalities. There was too much involvement. I repealed them. I’m working with municipalities to ascertain which of the changes they may support over the next 45 days, but I have acknowledged right from the beginning that there was too much input from political staff.

We have a provincial policy statement. That’s what we should be guided by, and that’s what we’ll continue to be guided by as we build 1.5 million homes, working with our municipal partners to get that job done.

Government accountability

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, Ontarians are growing increasingly concerned that this government doesn’t understand the gravity of the situation they’re in.

Back to the Premier: They’re under a criminal RCMP investigation. Apparently, interviews are going to start this week. They’ve appointed a special prosecutor. The Integrity Commissioner and the Auditor General had to do comprehensive probes in order for the public to get a sense of the scale of this government’s dirty deals. This goes so far beyond the greenbelt. We’ve seen a clear pattern of preferential treatment benefiting the private interests of a select few landowners over and over and over again.

Speaker, to the Premier: How can Ontarians trust this government when a mountain of evidence shows they’re only in it for their friends?

Hon. Doug Ford: I’ll tell the Leader of the Opposition why they can trust us. You can look at the economy, the 700,000 people that are working that weren’t working five years ago. Then you look at the housing starts, record housing starts and rental starts over 30 years. We look at the infrastructure, building the highways and the roads and the bridges and the transit. We’re spending $70 billion on transit, $30 billion on roads. When it comes to MZOs, there’s 234,000 people that have a roof over their head today that wouldn’t have a roof over their heads.

There’s 5,000 seniors that can call long-term care home because of the MZOs that were asked by the municipalities to do. There’s 150,000 construction jobs that happened because of those MZOs.

It’s a tool that we aren’t going to stop using. We’re going to continue building homes. The 1.5 million homes, that’s our target. We’re going to continue doing it.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: That’s his alibi? We have 7,000 pages of evidence, 7,000 more reasons that Ontarians have to question this government’s integrity. Everything in there points to the Premier and his staff directing policy changes to favour specific speculators with ties to the Conservative Party. In one instance in Hamilton, this government copied a developer’s exact request into Hamilton’s official plan word for word.

To the Premier: Who runs this province? Is it the Premier, or has he outsourced the job to his speculator friends?

Hon. Doug Ford: Do you know who runs this province? The people of this province run it, the people that elected us with two massive majorities. I always say, Parliament is supreme. And what is Parliament? Parliament is elected by the people, so the people are supreme. They tell us what they want. We ran on a very clear mandate: building homes, building roads, building highways, building long-term-care homes, building hospitals. The reason we have to do this is because the Liberals, for 15 years, supported and propped up by the NDP, destroyed this province, basically put it into bankruptcy. We came in and saved the people and saved the province.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, this Premier and his minister testified under oath that they did not know about the changes to the greenbelt until late October 2022. Yet now, we have pages and pages of redactions due to cabinet confidentiality from September and early October. These redactions seriously call into question the accuracy of the Premier’s testimony. We know that the Premier’s former minister, principal secretary and director of housing policy all conveniently provided the Integrity Commissioner with the same incorrect dates when they were living it up in Vegas with a greenbelt speculator.

Speaker, to the Premier: Why is the Premier’s cabinet sitting on their hands while he is clearly giving preferential treatment to his insider friends?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: Just the opposite, Speaker: We’re not sitting on our hands. In fact, we are getting the job done across the province of Ontario. She talks about minister’s zoning orders. The Premier talked about it: Minister’s zoning orders will ensure that we have the largest long-term-care home in the country built in Mississauga. You know what else it will mean? It will mean the largest hospital in the country in Mississauga.

So, the Leader of the Opposition would like us to close down 600 beds for seniors. She’d like us to stop construction of the largest hospital in the country. She’d like us to put down the shovels on the social housing that is being built within the city of Toronto. She would like us to stop the subways that are being built. She would like us to stop the GO trains that are being built across the province of Ontario. And she would like us to stop building homes for people of the province of Ontario who have one dream. The dream is to come to this province, or if you’re already here, to get out of your parents’ basement so that you can have the same dream as everybody else.

We won’t stop. We’ll get the job done.

Government accountability

Ms. Marit Stiles: The jig is up. The jig is up. This should be a moment of very sober reflection for this government and instead they’re doubling down.

This question is for the Premier. From official plans to the greenbelt to MZOs, we have a chaotic and speculator-friendly process driven by the Premier and his political staff. When discussing the Cherrywood lands owned by Silvio De Gasperis, Mr. Amato is quoted in these FOI documents saying the government should just do “what they asked for.” At another point, Mr. Amato says the speculator is getting an “unfrozen $3-billion asset.” On another point, he says the process needs to look “as clean as possible.”

If Ontarians can’t trust this government’s testimony under oath, why should anyone believe them at all?

Hon. Doug Ford: When it comes to the official plans, there are thousands and thousands and thousands of changes. This has been going on for decades, even when I was down at the municipality. When I directed the Minister of Housing to pull those back, we’re going to work hand in hand—and as sure as I’m standing here, the municipalities are going to come back and they’re going to ask for more changes, and God bless them for asking for changes because that means we’re going to be building homes.

But do you know what I find ironic? No matter if it’s MZOs or OPs or whatever, guess who shows up to all the announcements? The NDP shows up to the announcements, standing beside me when we’re announcing a long-term-care home. This happened numerous times. I find it very ironic they vote against it, but they want to take the kudos when we actually get the long-term-care homes built.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Marit Stiles: The Premier can’t continue to claim ignorance about this. This is embarrassing. We now know that he had a meeting regarding the greenbelt on September 15. We have a note from October 13 saying that the decision on the York region area is “with the Premier’s office right now,” but “the Premier doesn’t understand it’s in the Oak Ridges moraine.”

In document after document, we have quotes like “they’re bringing it to the PO,” “in conversation with PO.” And PO, by the way, in case anybody doesn’t already know, is the Premier’s office.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Where you’ll never be.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Ms. Marit Stiles: On October 26, the minister wanted to rip off the greenbelt Band-Aid and hope developers don’t “stab them in the back.”

Back to the Premier: If this is how the Premier’s office conducts business, when is the Premier going to come clean about his role in these shady backroom deals?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Speaker, listen, this is no different. This is an NDP that is literally opposed to everything. The Leader of the Opposition is sitting next to a member whose own riding depends on mining, and then he sits in his place and laughs because he knows he voted against miners and thousands of jobs. Behind her is a member who relies on schools and colleges and universities, and that’s a member who votes against student housing. On the opposite side is a member who votes against long-term care in his riding every single day but, as the Premier said, shows up to the announcements and says, “Oh, I want to help you cut the ribbon to something that I opposed every single time.”

Surrounding the Leader of the Opposition are members who vote against housing; they vote against transit and transportation in their riding. It is a caucus that is divided, and the Leader of the Opposition will do anything to distract from the divisions in her own caucus. We will move forward on building a bigger, better, stronger province of Ontario because that’s what the people need, and we won’t let them down.

Taxation

Ms. Laura Smith: My question is for the Minister of Finance. When meeting with local businesses in my riding of Thornhill, I’ve heard time and time again of the pressures the federal carbon tax is putting on our economy and especially on our local commerce.

Starting and growing a business is hard work. All businesses play a vital rote in our province’s economy. While the opposition Liberals and the NDP have no problem with a regressive carbon tax, it’s not fair or right that our businesses are being punished.

Speaker, can the minister please explain what impact a carbon tax has on our economy and our businesses?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Thank you to the hard-working member from Thornhill for that great question. Their local business owners are absolutely right: The carbon tax is driving up costs and making life more expensive for the people of this great province.

In fact, a recent study by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business found that more than 56% of businesses would need to increase their prices immediately due to direct pressures from the carbon tax. That means that it’s not just on the carbon tax, Mr. Speaker. It’s a tax on the truck drivers who bring in our food, it’s a tax on the farmers who grow our crops and it’s a tax on the local businesses that try to succeed in Ontario.

It’s not fair for the people of this province to continue with this punitive carbon tax, and that’s why we will continue to fight against the carbon tax, even as the Liberals and the NDP opposition members continue to vote to make life more expensive for Ontario families.

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

Ms. Laura Smith: Thank you to the equally hard-working minister.

The carbon tax harms the health, wellness and progress of Ontarians. The regressive tax adds an artificial barrier to the affordability of essential items. It forces small businesses to increase prices, making them less competitive, and it places an unfair burden on our producers.

Ontario companies are struggling every day to stay competitive and viable in a global market due to high inflation. In this time of economic uncertainty and affordability concerns, let’s not tax Ontarians more. Unlike the opposition Liberals and NDP, our government believes in putting money back into the pockets of people by removing this harmful tax.

Can the minister please share his views on why we need to fight this carbon tax and provide support to Ontario businesses and families?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Thank you again to the great member from Thornhill for that question. As the member so clearly outlined, the carbon tax continues to drive up prices and make life more unaffordable, and I was really disappointed to see that the Liberal opposition members and the NDP members voted against our motion to remove the carbon tax from grocery items.

That’s why I was proud to have stood alongside the Premier today to announce that our government is once again taking action to support hard-working Ontario families and businesses by extending our gas tax cut. If passed, the 2023 fall economic statement will extend the gas tax cut to June 30, 2024, saving households an average of $260.

Mr. Speaker, this is just one more cost-saving measure championed by our government, putting money back in the pockets of Ontario families at a time when they need it most.

Government accountability

Ms. Jessica Bell: My question is to the Premier. According to FOI documents, at a meeting on October 13, 2022, staff discussed the removal of Gormley lands from the greenbelt. In a meeting note, Ryan Amato said the decision on the Gormley greenbelt lands was with the Premier’s office. I quote Amato: “Premier doesn’t understand it’s in the Oak Ridges moraine.”

My question is to the Premier: Did you make the decision to remove these Gormley lands from the greenbelt? Yes or no?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: Speaker, the Gormley lands were never removed from the greenbelt. I know this quite well, because it is in my riding. I actually, begrudgingly, campaigned in two elections to remove the Gormley lands from the greenbelt, because the town of Stouffville is having such a difficult time raising the funds needed with respect to unfunded liabilities with respect to infrastructure, because it is entirely greenbelted. But the Premier, on both occasions, told me it’s not happening and rejected that greenbelt expansion.

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

Ms. Catherine Fife: Again to the Premier: At a subsequent meeting on October 21, 2022, ministry staff met to discuss outstanding issues relating to certain greenbelt properties. These properties included the Gormley greenbelt lands in York region. According to the meeting note, Ryan Amato said, “They’re bringing it to the Premier’s office.” Two weeks later, these greenbelt lands were designated for development in the ministry’s amendments to York region’s official plan. They got what they wanted.

The Premier previously claimed he was not made aware of the changes to the greenbelt prior to the cabinet briefing on October 27. We all remember this very well. Would the Premier, out of respect for the people of Ontario, like to correct his record?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Again, Mr. Speaker, the Gormley lands were not included.

Taxation

Mr. Will Bouma: My question is for the Minister of Indigenous Affairs and Northern Development.

The carbon tax is making everything more expensive for all Ontarians and especially those in northern Ontario. The reality is that, because of northern geography, the cost of transporting goods is already much higher than it would be in any other part of the province. The north is a vast land where many individuals have to travel by car, and in many cases larger vehicles are needed for safety due to the many back roads and unpredictable weather conditions.

The carbon tax is negatively impacting people in these communities as they are hit hardest at the gas pumps and in the grocery stores. Speaker, can the minister please elaborate on his views regarding the negative impact that the carbon tax has on northern Ontario?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

The Minister of Northern Development and Minister of Indigenous Affairs.

Hon. Greg Rickford: —because he’s proud to stand with two leaders, Prime Minister Harper and Premier Ford, who have taken a hardline stance against the carbon tax.

There’s no place in this province where that cost has had a greater burden. Think for a moment, when the Dryden Eagles want to play the Fort Frances Muskies, there’s 185 or 200 kilometres. It’s hockey, it’s basketball, badminton, all those sports, Mr. Speaker. Think of how much more money those schools have to pay to play each other. Gas is already more expensive up in northern Ontario. That 14 cents a litre is a big hit.

But let’s talk about energy, mining and forestry. A recent study at the University of Waterloo says this is a hit to Canada of $256 billion for forestry, mining and energy combined. As one of the largest producers or users in those three spaces, Ontario is exposed in three of its primary drivers for our economy. It’s time to scrap this tax.

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

Mr. Will Bouma: The carbon tax is, in essence, a tax on everything: your groceries, your gas, heating your home and so much more. It’s not right that individuals and families in northern communities are negatively impacted because of this regressive tax.

You know what, Speaker? Instead of supporting northern Ontario, the previous Liberal government, supported by the NDP, spent more time insulting this region, calling it “no man’s land.”

Unlike other parts of our province, the north faces unique barriers that need to be understood and respected. The opposition Liberals and NDP downplaying the carbon tax’s impact on northern Ontario is disrespectful to all of its residents. Can the minister please elaborate on the detrimental effects that the carbon tax is having on the people, communities and businesses of the north?

Hon. Greg Rickford: With all due respect, it isn’t just the fact that they downplayed it; they voted in favour of this carbon tax. That’s a matter of record in this Legislature and in Ottawa. In no place could this be on higher profile than the isolated communities in north Ontario.

Now, this government understood that. We put a reduction in fuel costs into the isolated communities in the last legislative session. The member from Kiiwetinoong, how did he vote against that, colleagues? These are carrying people and goods to his isolated communities. He voted against it, as did his other colleagues who have isolated communities in their ridings. They already have some of the highest costs for groceries, goods and, importantly, diesel fuel for the last remaining communities in northern Ontario who deserve an electricity corridor.

I know the Minister of Energy is listening hard to that. This carbon tax is very expensive for our isolated communities. It’s time to scrap the tax.

Government accountability

Ms. Sandy Shaw: My question is to the Premier. According to FOI documents released yesterday, in an email dated November 4, the day the greenbelt changes were announced, Ryan Amato asked ministry staff for a map to make sure that greenbelt land in Nobleton could be developed. This land was not technically removed from the greenbelt, but development was enabled through the ministry’s changes to York region’s official plan, also announced on November 4. Mr. Amato wrote, “PO”—Premier’s office—“has asked me for a picture to make sure it’s captured.” Why was the Premier’s office so interested in these Nobleton greenbelt lands?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: To the best of my understanding, the Nobleton greenbelt lands were not rezoned for housing.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question? The member for Niagara Centre.

Mr. Jeff Burch: Back to the Premier: These greenbelt lands appear to correspond to lands owned by Flato Developments, owned by the Premier’s friend Shakir Rehmatullah. The Integrity Commissioner’s report described how Ryan Amato decided to open these greenbelt lands for development using changes to York’s official plan rather than changes to the greenbelt boundaries.

Through you, Speaker, did the Premier or any of his staff direct Mr. Amato with respect to Flato’s greenbelt lands in Nobleton? Yes or no?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Again, no changes were made to these lands, Mr. Speaker.

Government accountability

Mr. Ted Hsu: Yesterday, a freedom-of-information document gave us a glimpse into the $8.3-billion greenbelt and urban boundaries scandal. We learned that the Premier’s office, on or before October 26, 2022, was worried about the public reaction to greenbelt removals. Staff notes recorded that the minister wanted to “rip the Band-Aid off but the PO doesn’t want that, he wants safeguards.” While the Premier’s office seems to have known what was going on in October last year, or before, the Premier himself says he didn’t know anything until that November.

If the former housing minister resigned because he didn’t know what was going on in his office and his head was in the sand, will the Premier step down for the same thing? Mr. Speaker, what did the Premier know and when did he know it?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: I think both the Integrity Commissioner and the Auditor General were very clear that the Premier had no role in that. At the opposite time, though, the Premier has been very clear that we have to continue on our goal of building 1.5 million homes for the people of the province of Ontario.

It is no secret that when we took over government in 2018, we were faced with a province that had crippling debt, crippling taxes and crippling red tape. We are in a housing crisis because of the obstacles that the Liberals, supported by the NDP, had put in the way of building homes. Now we’ve started to release all of that. What we’re doing with our housing supply action plans is working. We have the highest amount of purpose-built rental starts in over 30 years, and the same great news for new home starts.

Listen, we’re not going to stop working to gets kids out of their basement apartments and into their first homes. That is our job, and we will get it done for them.

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

Mr. Ted Hsu: On October 31, 2018, the Premier stood in this House and said, “We have the most ethical, most transparent, most accountable caucus—not just cabinet, but caucus—I’ve ever seen in politics.... They make sure they don’t make the backroom deals that we’ve seen in other governments.”

Does the Premier consider his team’s actions on the greenbelt over the last couple of years ethical?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Speaker, do you know what we’re doing on this side of the House and the Conservative majority on that side of the House? We’re rebuilding a province that under 15 years of Liberal government, supported by the NDP, was literally decimated. Now they finally started to come around to understand just how bad a government they were. When we brought a motion forward on the carbon tax—you’ll remember this, Speaker. We have said since day one that the carbon tax would kill the economy, that it would cost every single Ontarian far too much. They disagreed with it.

This Premier brought the federal government to court to stop that tax. Now we’ve finally seen a split in the Liberal Party. Half of them want to continue the tax, and the others want to kill the tax. They know that we’re on the right page.

We will not stop ensuring that we reverse everything that that Liberal government did—cutting taxes, reducing red tape, building more homes for the people of the province of Ontario. They were incredible failures. We’ll get the—

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

Taxation

Ms. Natalie Pierre: Speaker, my question is to the Associate Minister of Transportation.

Since the implementation of the carbon tax, the people of Ontario have been paying more and more every single day for food, for services, and for transportation. They’ve been forced to pay much more to fuel their cars. The carbon tax is making life more expensive for millions of people in Ontario. While our government showed much-needed leadership and reduced the gasoline tax, the federal government did not. Instead, they increased fuel and gasoline costs by 14 cents, forcing individuals and families to pay more at the pumps because of this regressive tax. Doing so hurts our drivers and negatively impacts our economy.

Can the associate minister please explain the negative impact of the carbon tax and what our government is doing to mitigate this unfair policy?

Hon. Vijay Thanigasalam: The member from Burlington is correct—and thank you, for her advocacy and the great job that she is doing.

The federal carbon tax is draining the pockets of hard-working drivers. It hurts workers who want to drive to the office and get back home. It’s unfair for truckers who transport critical goods across our province. That is why I’m proud that our government opposed this harmful carbon tax. Unfortunately, the Liberals and NDP had no problem supporting this tax, all while saying no to any of the measures our government is bringing to provide financial relief to Ontarians. Let’s not forget that they said no to our government’s fantastic removal of tolls on Highway 12 and Highway 18. By removing these tolls, the average commuter can save $300 on the 418 and $150 on the 412 every month.

Unlike the Liberals and NDP and their carbon tax, our government is making life more affordable—

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

Ms. Natalie Pierre: High gas prices caused by the federal carbon tax are making life more difficult for people in my riding.

The federal government has increased the carbon tax on gasoline five times so far, and they are planning another seven increases by 2030. This is wrong and unfair and will hurt many hard-working individuals and families who are already struggling.

Cancelling the carbon tax will save money at the pumps for our drivers by putting more money back in their pockets. Individuals and families are looking to our government for help during these challenging times, to provide support so that life is more affordable.

Can the associate minister please explain how removing the carbon tax will make life easier for Ontarians and how our government is making everyday life more affordable for drivers in our province?

Interjections.

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

We’re in the midst of question period. The member for Waterloo and the government House leader, if they wish to have a conversation, could perhaps do so outside the chamber—if they wish.

Restart the clock.

The Associate Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Vijay Thanigasalam: Speaker, removing the carbon tax would be a long-overdue victory for drivers in this province. The hard-working people of Ontario would no longer be overburdened when paying for gas, food, transit, and other everyday essentials.

In the meantime, we are finding concrete ways to fight against the negative impacts of the federal carbon tax, by putting more money back into people’s pockets. That is why I’m proud that, under the leadership of Premier Ford, our government eliminated the licence plate renewal fee. In fact, it’s because of our work on this policy alone that over $2.2 billion went directly back into the pockets of over seven million hard-working Ontarians.

Mr. Speaker, we are fighting the federal carbon tax that the opposition Liberals and NDP continue to support. Our government will continue to put more money back into people’s pockets. It’s time to scrap the tax.

Arts and cultural funding

MPP Jill Andrew: Good morning. My question is to the Premier—

Interjections.

MPP Jill Andrew: Can you shut it so I can speak? Thanks.

My question is to—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. Stop the clock. I’m going to remind—

Interjections.

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

MPP Jill Andrew: Thank you, Speaker—

Interjections.

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

The member for Toronto–St. Paul’s.

MPP Jill Andrew: Thank you, Speaker.

My question is to the Premier. This government’s cut of $5 million this year to the Ontario Arts Council and continued failure to match funding to inflation is being felt deeply across Ontario, and Toronto–St. Paul’s is no exception. This year, Ballet Jörgen’s funding was cut by 16%. As a result, they have been forced to cut staff and free programming that serves racialized, northern, rural and underinvested-in communities, all because this government failed to deliver adequate funding to see it continue.

My question is to the Premier. Will you commit to restoring their funding to meet inflation so that communities, for which the arts are a social determinant of health and well-being, can thrive?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Hon. Neil Lumsden: I thank you for the question. In 2023-24, Ontario Arts Council will be provided with $60 million of operating allocation. To confirm, the previous year, it was also $60 million. That has great impact in the community, in arts organizations across all communities. As a matter of fact, it’s over 220 communities—and helping support, through grants, 500 arts organizations and individual artists.

When it comes to the specifics of the question, since 2018, Ballet Jörgen—and I hope I pronounced that correctly—has received over $1.4 million in support through the OAC, Ontario Arts Council; the Ontario Cultural Attractions Fund; and, of course, special investments through the COVID funding.

I’d like to reinforce that what the OAC does in all of our communities is support artists, young people and helps communities thrive. That’s really important across the board, including tourism.

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

MPP Jill Andrew: The government seems to care about our big eight art organizations but not so much about our small and medium-sized community arts organizations.

Back to the Premier: I wrote to the Premier and minister outlining just how important Ballet Jörgen’s programming is for its dancers as well as all Ontarians, because investment into arts organizations is a guaranteed return both economically and socially. As a harm reduction strategy, social determinant of health and building block to our jobs, our economy, our tourism—the whole nine—just to name a few, our province is better for it and will pay the price without a properly funded arts sector.

My question is back to the Premier. Will he commit to Ontario’s economic future by restoring Ontario Arts Council funding in line with inflation to meet the needs of Ontario artists and organizations who depend on it for their livelihood?

Hon. Neil Lumsden: Again, thank you for the question. I believe I said $60 million previously and for this year, and I don’t think that’s a cut. I just want to double-check.

I also take exception, when we’re talking about impacting communities in a positive way, youth in communities, arts, artists, the cultural part of what’s going on, and there’s a suggestion—and I want to make sure this is correct—that, since 2018, $1.4 million in funding isn’t enough. Boy, I’ll tell you what; there’s a lot of organizations out there that wish they had half that money and do it mostly within the community. So I think that’s a little bit of a slap in the face, but that’s okay; we’re big boys over here.

Northern Health Travel Grant

Mr. Michael Mantha: My question is for the Minister of Health.

Access to health care in the north often means travelling long distances to get to the care you need. In my riding, people often must travel to Health Sciences North in Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay or southern Ontario for surgeries, special appointments and diagnostics. We rely on the Northern Health Travel Grant to make sure that no one is denied the care they need because of costs. However, my office is often and constantly hearing from constituents who are waiting weeks, if not months, on end to get a meagre reimbursement that barely covers a portion of the cost to travel and the accommodations.

To the minister: Does she believe that people in northern Ontario have the same right to access health care as the rest of Ontario?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I do, and not only do we believe that, but we’re actually making changes. Since 2018, we have expanded almost 50—49—MRI machines that will be operating in the province of Ontario in communities, closer to home. Why do we do that, Speaker? Because we want to make sure that people have access to those diagnostic tools as close to home as reasonable.

And specifically speaking on the Northern Health Travel Grant, we now have 95% of individuals who submit for a travel grant get that reimbursement within 30 business days. We have made changes that make improvements, and we will continue to do that because we have a plan and it is working.

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

Mr. Michael Mantha: Again to the Minister of Health: The fact of the matter is that the Northern Health Travel Grant is failing to address health inequities in northern Ontario, and this government is content to sit on the sideline while it does. A constituent in my riding, Heather Wilson from Espanola, must travel to Toronto for medical treatment regularly. She wrote to my office last spring saying, “I have had to navigate the Northern Ontario Travel Grant system. The outdated system of printing off forms, getting the referring doctor and the referred doctor to fill out these forms, and then mailing it in and waiting for reimbursement of costs seems archaic to me.”

Northerners have the right to the same resources in a prompt manner, and the current Northern Health Travel Grant does not do this for northern Ontario residents. Will the minister support and pass my bill to improve the Northern Health Travel Grant so that it finally works for northerners?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: As I said, in fact we have made improvements. One, of course, is allowing auto-deposits so that constituents can access and get that money back.

But I want to talk about the expansions that have happened in northern Ontario. Whether it’s returning the Ontario Northland for the first time and having your constituents and others access it, whether it is a brand new hospital—I had the opportunity to visit and talk to Weeneebayko hospital leadership, to make sure we are making those investments in northern Ontario—or whether it is an expansion of a community health team in the member’s own riding that we did this summer, we are making sure that individuals in northern Ontario, rural Ontario and all across Ontario have better access to health care closer to home.

Taxation

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Associate Minister of Small Business. The carbon tax raises the price on everything, especially for small businesses like those in my riding of Carleton and across the province who have no choice but to either absorb the loss or pass on the cost to customers. Business owners, especially restaurateurs, are the heartbeat of communities across Ontario and are the backbone of our economic engine. They are rightfully concerned about the financial impact that the federal carbon tax continues to have on their bottom line.

Unfortunately, the opposition Liberals and NDP continue to ignore and disrespect small businesses’ concerns about the impact this regressive tax has on them. Speaker, through you: Can the associate minister please share what she has heard from small business owners and entrepreneurs regarding the impact that the carbon tax is having?

Hon. Nina Tangri: I want to thank the great member from Carleton for her great work in the riding and for the question. Speaker, just yesterday, I met with Restaurants Canada to discuss the continued economic recovery of the food service industry. They made it unequivocally clear that owners are facing hardship over the federal carbon tax. For years, the NDP and the Liberals failed to stand up in this House and recognize what their constituents had been saying all along: That from the farm to the table, the carbon tax was a disaster for small businesses in our province.

Restaurants and small business owners cannot simply pass these unnecessary costs on to consumers, forcing them to cut staff instead. Meanwhile, the federal government turns a blind eye to their struggles. Speaker, this tax is the difference between doors open and doors closed. We demand better than empty words from those who champion this joint Liberal-NDP tax grab.

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

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Thank you to the minister. As we all know, small businesses are the backbone of our local economy, especially in my riding of Carleton. However, many local businesses are already feeling financial pressure due to higher costs associated with inflation and ongoing supply chain challenges.

I often speak with business owners who are concerned about the impact that the carbon tax is having on their business operations. Many of these owners are still struggling to recover and they worry about the impact increasing carbon taxes will have on their ability to continue operating. The opposition Liberals and NDP need to hear their concerns and support our small business owners by opposing this regressive and harmful tax.

Speaker, through you, can the minister please share what impacts the federal carbon tax increases have had on small businesses in our province?

Hon. Nina Tangri: Thank you again to the member from Carleton who works extremely hard for her small businesses in her riding. Yesterday, I also had the pleasure of speaking to representatives from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. They expressed to me that while our small businesses pay close to half the billions collected in carbon taxes each year, only a tiny fraction of that money comes back their way. Even worse, funds intended to help small businesses with carbon costs have been taken away and thrown back into the ever-expanding taxation.

All the while, the opposition parties have cheered on these policies without care for how hard they hit family businesses and people working from paycheque to paycheque.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Hon. Nina Tangri: Only this Premier and this government had the backs of entrepreneurs in this province from the start. We call on the spooky NDP and Liberals to stop grandstanding and for once stand up to their federal counterparts and demand that they—

Interjections.

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

If it wasn’t Halloween, that remark might not have been acceptable.

Start the clock. The next question.

First Nations consultation

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Meegwetch, Speaker. Good morning. My question is to the Premier. I have been speaking with First Nations leaders across Ontario and they are frustrated and confused about Ontario’s ongoing consultation of the Métis Nation of Ontario within First Nations territories. First Nations affected by these decisions have asked the government repeatedly to share the evidence Ontario is using to support this recognition. Ontario still hasn’t shared that evidence.

Will Ontario share the evidence as asked? Yes or no?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Northern Development and Minister of Indigenous Affairs.

Hon. Greg Rickford: Speaker, the government of Ontario is guided by some legal decisions and we make it our business to engage Indigenous peoples across the province. I’ve never seen a leader of a political party be more accessible to Indigenous leaders, business leaders and political leaders to fundamentally change the dialogue, to create opportunities for Indigenous populations across the province, to settle treaty disputes, to settle flooding and land claims, and to ensure that First Nations communities and the Indigenous population across the province of Ontario writ large have the tools they need for greater economic prosperity.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: The Ontario Court of Appeal recently provided direction on consultation in the recent Whiteduck decision. The Ontario government must consult with First Nations about issues affecting their traditional territories, including when it recognizes the Métis Nation of Ontario communities in those territories. Will this government follow this decision, yes or no?

Hon. Greg Rickford: We’re very proud of the fact that we have increased the number of resource revenue-sharing agreements available for Indigenous communities. It’s just another example of how we endeavour to