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

March 27, 2024

43rd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2024-Mar-27 vol. A (PDF)

L139A - Wed 27 Mar 2024 / Mer 27 mar 2024

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 27 March 2024 Mercredi 27 mars 2024

Orders of the Day

Legislative reform

Members’ Statements

Ontario budget

Hospital funding

Crime prevention

Health care

Elmira Maple Syrup Festival

Arts and cultural funding

Housing

Jamshed Hassan

Health care

Anti-Semitism

Introduction of Visitors

Question Period

Ontario budget

Affordable housing

Ontario budget

Taxation

University and college funding

Taxation

Consumer protection

Ontario budget

Taxation / Imposition

Child care / Education funding

Taxation

Pompiers / Firefighters

Taxation

Automobile insurance

Notice of dissatisfaction

Member’s birthday

Introduction of Bills

Family Caregiver Day Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 sur les aidants naturels

Waterpower Day Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 sur la Journée de l’énergie hydraulique

Petitions

Land use planning

Agri-food industry

Orders of the Day

Legislative reform

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Legislative reform

Mr. Trevor Jones: I move that the standing orders be amended as follows:

Standing order 7(

f) is deleted and the following substituted:

“As soon as possible after New Year’s Day, the Clerk of the House shall publish a calendar which shows the days on which the House shall meet according to the standing orders.”

Standing order 9(

f) is deleted and the following substituted:

“No later than 6 p.m. on any day that the House meets, the government House leader may indicate in the House that no business is to be called during orders of the day on the next sitting day’s morning meeting, and in such case the House shall meet at 10:15 a.m. on that next sitting day.”

Standing order 36(

b) is amended by deleting the words “to the minister or to his or her parliamentary assistant” and substituting the words “to a minister or to a parliamentary assistant.”

For the duration of the 43rd Parliament, standing order 40(

e) is suspended and the following provisional standing order is substituted:

“40(

e) Following ministerial statements a representative or representatives of the official opposition and an independent member or independent members may comment for up to a total of eight minutes, commencing with the official opposition.”

Standing order 42(

b) is amended by adding the following at the end:

“but shall not read the text of the petition.”

Standing order 46(

c) is deleted.

Standing order 49(

a) is amended by deleting “on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday.”

Standing order 50(

b) is amended by deleting “If a recorded vote is requested by five members, division bells shall be limited to 10 minutes.”

Standing order 61(

d) is amended by deleting “If a recorded vote is requested by five members, division bells shall be limited to 10 minutes.”

Standing order 62(

b) is deleted and the following is substituted:

“Upon tabling or upon the appointment of committees pursuant to standing order 110(

a) and assignment of ministries and offices pursuant to standing order 113(b), the estimates shall be deemed to be referred to the standing committees to which the respective ministries and offices were assigned.”

Standing order 63(

b) is amended by adding the following subclause following subclause (ii):

“The estimates of the Office of the Premier and the estimates of the Cabinet Office shall constitute one selection and represent a single turn taken under standing order 63(b)(ii).”

Standing order 63(

d) is deleted and the following is substituted:

“63(

d) The time for the consideration of the estimates of each ministry or office shall be determined by the respective committee.

“(

i) The estimates of the Office of the Lieutenant Governor, if selected by a committee, shall have no time allotted to them, and when these estimates are considered, the Chair shall put, without further amendment or debate, every question necessary to dispose of these estimates.

“(ii) The estimates of the Office of the Premier and the estimates of the Cabinet Office shall be allotted time jointly and shall be considered concurrently.”

Standing order 65(

a) is deleted and the following is substituted:

“Upon tabling or upon the appointment of committees pursuant to standing order 110(

a) and assignment of ministries and offices pursuant to standing order 113(b), all supplementary estimates shall be deemed referred to the standing committee to which their ministry or office has been assigned.”

Standing order 70(

b) is amended by deleting “If a recorded vote is requested by five members, division bells shall be limited to 10 minutes.”

Standing order 85(a)(ii) is amended by deleting “$150” and substituting the words “a fee in an amount prescribed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which may be amended by that committee from time to time.”

Standing order 85(

c) is deleted and the following is substituted:

“Where, at the request of the applicant, a standing order is suspended with reference to a private bill, a charge shall be levied in an amount which shall be prescribed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and which may be amended by that committee from time to time.”

For the duration of this Parliament, the following provisional standing order is added:

“85(

h) Until the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has set new fees pursuant to standing order 85(a)(ii) and 85(c), the fees shall remain at the amounts indicated in the standing orders as they were on the first day of the 43rd Parliament.”

Standing order 85(g)(ii) is amended by adding the words “given further consideration by the House or” after “not.”

Standing order 99 is amended by deleting:

“The rules of procedure and the fees and costs related to applications for private bills are set out in the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly. Copies of the standing orders, and the guide, Procedures for Applying for Private Legislation, may be obtained from the Legislative Assembly’s Internet site at www.ola.org or from:”

and substituting:

“The procedures related to applications for private bills are set out in the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly and the costs of applications are set by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Information is available at www.ola.org, or may be requested from:”

Standing order 100(

c) is amended by deleting “eight” and replace with “nine.”

Standing order 110 is deleted and the following is substituted:

“Within the first 10 sessional days following the commencement of a Parliament, the membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs shall be appointed, on motion with notice, for the duration of the Parliament, which committee is empowered:

“(

a) at the beginning of a Parliament, and from time to time as may be required, to appoint or revise, for the duration of a Parliament, the membership of the standing committees referred to in standing order 110.1 and those select committees which the House has resolved should have their membership appointed under this standing order and shall make a report thereon to the House, which report shall be deemed to be adopted;

“(

b) to review on its own initiative or at the request of the Speaker or the direction of the House and to report to the House its observations, opinions and recommendations on the standing orders of the House and the procedures in the House and its committees;

“(

c) to advise the Speaker and the Board of Internal Economy, and to report to the House its observations, opinions and recommendations on the administration of the House and the provision of services and facilities to members;

“(

d) to act as an advisory body to the Speaker and the House on the television broadcast system and to conduct reviews, at least on an annual basis, of the televising of the legislative proceedings and of the guidelines established by the House with respect to the television broadcast system;

“(

e) to be the committee which is empowered to review and consider from time to time the reports of the Ombudsman as they become available; and, as the committee deems necessary, pursuant to subsection 15(1) of the Ombudsman Act, to formulate general rules for the guidance of the Ombudsman in the exercise of his or her functions under the act; and to report thereon to the Legislature and to make such recommendations as the committee deems appropriate;

“(

f) and to be the committee provided for by

section 33 of

part III (regulations) of the Legislation Act, 2006, and having the terms of reference as set out in that section, namely: to be the committee to which all regulations stand permanently referred; and to examine the regulations with particular reference to the scope and method of the exercise of delegated legislative power without reference to the merits of the policy or objectives to be effected by the regulations or enabling statutes, but in so doing regard shall be had to the following guidelines:

“(

i) Regulations should not contain provisions initiating new policy, but should be confined to details to give effect to the policy established by the statute;

“(ii) Regulations should be in strict accord with the statute conferring of power, particularly concerning personal liberties;

“(iii) Regulations should be expressed in precise and unambiguous language;

“(iv) Regulations should not have retrospective effect unless clearly authorized by statute;

“(

v) Regulations should not exclude the jurisdiction of the courts;

“(vi) Regulations should not impose a fine, imprisonment or other penalty;

“(vii) Regulations should not shift the onus of proof of innocence to a person accused of an offence;

“(viii) Regulations should not impose anything in the way of a tax (as distinct from fixing the amount of a licence fee, or the like); and

“(ix) General powers should not be used to establish a judicial tribunal or an administrative tribunal,

“and the committee shall from time to time report to the House its observations, opinions and recommendations as required by

section 33 of

part III (regulations) of the Legislation Act, 2006, but before drawing the attention of the House to a regulation or other statutory instrument, the committee shall afford the ministry or agency concerned an opportunity to furnish orally or in writing to the committee such explanation as the ministry or agency thinks fit;

“(

g) to be the committee provided for in subsection 7(1) and

section 12 of the Queen’s Park Restoration Secretariat Act, 2023, and subsection 108.3(1) and

section 108.5 of the Legislative Assembly Act and, without limitation, to have the general mandate to inquire into and make recommendations respecting any project to restore the Legislative Building at Queen’s Park including any relocation of legislative operations to a temporary location throughout the project.”

The following standing order is added:

“110.1 The standing committees shall be:

“(

a) Standing Committee on Justice Policy;

“(

b) Standing Committee on Social Policy;

“(

c) Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy;

“(

d) Standing Committee on the Interior;

“(

e) Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs which is empowered to consider and report to the House its observations, opinions and recommendations on the fiscal and economic policies of the province and to which all related documents shall be deemed to have been referred immediately when the said documents are tabled;

“(

f) Standing Committee on Government Agencies which is empowered to review and report to the House its observations, opinions and recommendations on the operation of all agencies, boards and commissions to which the Lieutenant Governor in Council makes some or all of the appointments, and all corporations to which the crown in right of Ontario is a majority shareholder, such reviews to be made with a view to reducing possible redundancy and overlapping, improving the accountability of agencies, rationalizing the functions of the agencies, identifying those agencies or parts of agencies which could be subject to sunset provisions, and revising the mandates and roles of agencies, and to review the intended appointments of persons to agencies, boards and commissions and of directors to corporations in which the crown in right of Ontario is a majority shareholder, excluding reappointments and appointments for a term of one year or less, according to the following procedures:

“1. A minister of the crown shall lay on the table a certificate stating that the Lieutenant Governor in Council intends to appoint a person to an agency, board or commission or to the board of directors of a corporation, together with a copy of the position description and a

summary of the person’s qualifications, which documents shall be deemed to be referred to the committee.

“2. Upon receipt of a certificate as referred to in paragraph 1, the Clerk of the Committee shall distribute to each member of the subcommittee on committee business a list of intended appointees in respect of whom a certificate has been received.

“3. The subcommittee shall meet at its own initiative, at the request of the committee, or at the request of any member of the subcommittee, to select from among the intended appointees referred to in paragraph 1 those intended appointees the committee will review. Each member of the subcommittee, other than the Chair, may choose one or more of the intended appointees for review from the certificates provided by the Clerk of the Committee.

“4. The subcommittee shall report to the committee on the intended appointees for review. Upon receiving the report, the committee shall determine a date for the review of the intended appointees as selected by the members of the subcommittee. The report shall specify the amount of time allocated for the consideration of each intended appointee and the date on which each will be reviewed. An equal amount of time shall be allocated for review of each member’s selections, and where a member of the subcommittee has selected more than one intended appointee the time available to review that member’s selections shall be allocated among his or her selections.

“5. Upon notice from the Clerk of the Committee that an intended appointee has been selected for review, the minister shall ensure that the committee receives a copy of the intended appointee’s résumé or biographical information and a description of the responsibilities of the position.

“6. A subcommittee member may choose to defer the consideration of one or more of the intended appointees that the member has chosen until a future meeting of the committee at which intended appointees are to be reviewed so long as the consideration of the intended appointee has not previously been deferred.

“7. In reviewing an intended appointee, the committee shall not call as a witness any person other than the intended appointee.

“8. At the conclusion of the meeting held to review an intended appointment, the committee shall determine whether or not it concurs in the intended appointment. Any member may request that the committee defer its determination to the next meeting of the committee, but in any event no later than seven calendar days. In its report, the committee shall state whether or not it concurs in the intended appointments and may state its reasons.

“9. Whether or not the House stands adjourned, the committee shall release its report by depositing it the same day with the Clerk of the House and upon receipt of the report by the Clerk the report shall be deemed to be adopted by the House.

“10. A report that the committee will not review an intended appointee shall be deemed to have been made by the committee and adopted by the House in any of the following cases:

“i. a report respecting the intended appointee has not been made by the committee within 30 calendar days following the day on which the minister tables the certificate referred to in paragraph 1,

“ii. the subcommittee does not at its first meeting following the day on which the minister tables the certificate select the intended appointee for review, or

“iii. the intended appointee has not been selected for review by the subcommittee within 14 days following the day on which the minister tabled the certificate.

“11. The committee by unanimous agreement may extend any of the deadlines in paragraph 10.

“12. The Clerk of the Committee shall give the minister who tabled the certificate written notification of any decision respecting the appointment made by the committee or the subcommittee on committee business.

“13. During any adjournment of the House that exceeds one week, the committee shall meet on such day or days as may be determined by the subcommittee, but in any event not more than three times per month.

“(

g) Standing Committee on Public Accounts which is empowered to review and report to the House its observations, opinions and recommendations on the report of the Auditor General and the public accounts, which documents shall be deemed to have been permanently referred to the committee as they become available.”

Standing order 113(

a) is amended by deleting the words “standing orders 110(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (g)” and replacing it with the words “standing orders 110(

a) and 110.1(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e).”

Standing order 113(

b) is amended by adding the following at the end:

“The Office of the Premier and the Cabinet Office shall be assigned to the same standing committee.”

The following new standing order is added:

“113(

c) If the estimates are tabled in the House prior to the appointment of committee membership pursuant to standing order 110(

a) or prior to the assignment of ministries and offices to committees pursuant to standing order 113(b), all ministries and offices shall stand assigned to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs until membership has been appointed and assignment has been completed.”

Standing order 115(

b) is deleted and the following is substituted:

“Notwithstanding clause (a), each independent member may deposit, with the Clerk of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, his or her request to be appointed to at least one standing committee. An independent member may state his or her committee preference but such statement of preference is not binding.”

Standing order 115(

d) is deleted.

Standing order 115(

e) is deleted and the following is substituted:

“At any time before or during a committee meeting, a temporary substitution in the membership of a standing or select committee may be made provided a notification thereof, signed by the member acting as the whip of a recognized party, is filed with the Clerk of the Committee. If notice of a substitution is delivered while a committee meeting is in progress, the notification shall be delivered by hand to the Clerk of the Committee.”

Standing order 115(

f) is deleted.

Standing order 119(

a) is amended by deleting “110” and replacing it with “110 and 110.1.”

Standing order 128(

a) is amended by deleting the words “standing orders 110(a), (b), (c), (d), (

e) and (g)” and replacing it with the words “standing orders 110(

a) and 110.1(a), (b), (c), (

d) and (e).”

Standing order 143 is deleted; and

That the Clerk is authorized to renumber the standing orders and to make such other consequential, editorial or other minor changes as may be required to ensure a consistent form of expression throughout the standing orders.

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: Let me just thank the deputy government House leader for introducing this latest round of standing order changes, which I think continue to build on the hard work that we are doing to modernize how the assembly works.

Madam Speaker, you know that this government has been seized with ensuring that the standing orders reflect a 21st-century Legislative Assembly and the work that all members are expected to do.

One of the hallmarks, of course, of standing orders is that they are a living, breathing document that is to change in time so that we can reflect modern circumstances within an assembly.

For far too long in this place, the standing orders remained unchanged, and that certainly was the case prior to us coming into government. In fact, I’ve heard a number of members on both sides of the House remark at the speed and the number of changes to the standing orders that have occurred during our time of office, and that there were probably more standing order changes that have occurred under the last number of years than happened at any time outside of the first years since Confederation, when this place was being organized.

I take great pride in having accomplished that; I think it is one of the greatest achievements that this government has made. It is part of ensuring that our democracy works better.

I have no illusion that all members will always be happy with the changes to the standing orders that we have brought forward, but I am very, very comfortable in asserting and challenging anybody who would counter that the changes that we have made and the changes that we are making will not make this a better, more representative Parliament for all parliamentarians.

I just want to take a brief moment, because I think it is quite important for us to look back at some of the other standing order changes that we have made, and I want to do this in the context of what I am sure will be a barrage of criticism that you constantly get when you do these things; it’s what you always hear. If a government brings something forward, you’re going to get the barrage of criticism. But the hallmark of good government, the hallmark of good legislation, is to really fundamentally see, in the absence of the government, what would the other parties do differently? What would they change from what you brought forward?

In that context, I want to look over some of the items that we have done on the standing orders. I have a lot of time, so I’m sure you’ll permit me to reflect back on some of these things.

Back in 2019, some of the initial changes that we brought on—you won’t remember, Madam Speaker, because you weren’t elected at that time, and, frankly, it’s good that you don’t remember these, because, in fact, our Legislature, I think, was not as democratic a place as it is today because of these changes. So those members elected in 2022 will have a much different Legislative Assembly than those who were elected in 2018.

But let me go over some of the changes. In 2019, a modification in the daily order of business to increase the profile of members’ statements by moving them from the afternoon to the morning, before question period: Now, that might seem like a little thing, but members will know, at 1 o’clock or 3 o’clock, when we’d come into the place and do members’ statements, the chamber is completely empty. Members are usually at committee meetings. It is not the time of day when the galleries are full.

And we decided to elevate members’ statements—to do it at a time when the chamber is full, when galleries are full and when most of the media are here watching and when most of the attention of Ontarians is faced on question period. We would do members’ statements before question period. I ask very sincerely to members opposite, would that be something that they would remove from a future standing order change if they ever got the opportunity to do it?

You know how proud I am of being a Canadian. We returned the royal anthem to the once-a-month singing, when we do our national anthem. We returned the royal anthem. I’m a very proud monarchist and was very, very happy that we were able to do that.

We explicitly permitted—imagine this, Madam Speaker; I know you will find this amazing—the use of laptops, tablets and smart phones in a non-disruptive manner in the chamber. Imagine, a 21st-century Legislature did not allow members to use your smart phones, your laptops, your iPads in the daily functioning of your business, but that was something that was in the rules in this place. Would the members opposite remove that standing order? I highly doubt that they would, Madam Speaker.

We outlined the format for introduction of visitors in the chamber. Members will know it still goes on a little bit longer, but members will know that that would go on for a very, very, very long period of time, and members would be making speeches as opposed to introducing the visitors. So we did that. I doubt that they would change that.

We eliminated the need for a minister to verbally refer a question to a colleague during question period, which is the practice in other Canadian Legislatures—again, you will not remember, Madam Speaker, because you were elected in 2022—and we still have it. Every day a question comes, and 99% of the questions go to the Premier. Under the previous system, the Premier would have to get up in his place and refer the question to the appropriate minister, which actually kills time and means less questions for the opposition to have, and ultimately, the appropriate minister would also answer the question anyway.

So it gave more time to the opposition, and it was a procedure that was used in no other Legislature in Canada and, frankly, no other Western parliamentary democracy.

We allowed the electronic distribution of background materials to reports and sessional papers that are tabled in the Legislature. Imagine that before we made this change, you were not able to electronically distribute these documents. Is this something that the opposition will take away if they ever get the opportunity to serve on this side of the House? I doubt it.

Now, we know for sure that the Liberals, the independent Liberals, who have systematically refused to accept the verdict of the people of the province of Ontario, have—

Mr. Ted Hsu: The verdict is that we got elected.

Hon. Paul Calandra: You hear the member for Kingston and the Islands: “I got elected”—as independent members. They are not a party. But the arrogance of the Liberals to suggest that the votes of the province of Ontario were wrong not only in 2018 but in 2022 and that we should forget about the verdict of the people of the province of Ontario and restore them to a party in this Legislature—that is the arrogance of the current Liberal Party. I wish you could say it was the current Liberal Party, because that is typical Liberal Party arrogance.

But despite that arrogance, we provided a motion: changes to the standing orders that provided time allowing independents to reply to opposition day motions, because before we came here, independents could not reply to opposition day motions. They hum and holler, but who gave them that opportunity? This government gave them that opportunity. Who didn’t give independents that opportunity? It was 15 years of Liberals, who never ever once thought that independents should have a voice in this place. They’re going to hum and holler and scream, “Oh, you’re taking our rights away,” but, systemically, we’ve given it back. Will the Liberals or the NDP take that away? I hope not and I highly doubt it.

We allowed for members to co-sponsor private members’ bills by up to four members, including members belonging to the same party. How often have we brought private members’ bills to this place where more members wanted to participate, to bring cross-party unity, to bring members of a caucus who have worked on something? We allowed that to happen. Will the opposition take that away? I highly doubt that they will. But do they hum, holler and scream at these standing order changes? Absolutely. They will take none of it away but, I guarantee you, they’ll hum and they’ll holler.

We allowed debate of the same bill in the one-hour morning and afternoon sessions of the Legislature, so that we can more effectively use the Legislature’s time and give more opportunity for members to participate.

We permitted the temporary committee substitutions for afternoon sessions of the committee with at least 30 minutes’ notice, and we’ll have more on that in these standing order changes.

We established time for questions and answers following each speech given during debate on government bills, replacing the two-minute comments. Now, Madam Speaker, you will not remember this, but when bills happened in the place, members actually didn’t debate—so a debating chamber that had no debate. You gave a little speech about your bill or government legislation, you’d get up for two minutes, and then you would sit down, but there was no debate back and forth. That’s a hallmark of the Liberals, right? Because the Liberals don’t like debate, so why should we have debate in the chamber?

So it’s clear to me that if they ever got the opportunity, they would take this away, because for 15 years, they didn’t put it in.

I know my colleagues in the NDP actually like debate. We debate quite a bit on policy. We have disagreements on things. We have vigorous debate back and forth. But for 15 years the Liberals thought it best not to engage in debate back and forth, because for 15 years they systematically destroyed the province of Ontario. So why let members debate what it is that they were doing? “Let’s crush that.

Let’s crush the representation in the Legislative Assembly.” That was a hallmark of 15 years of Liberal rule, and we decided in 2018, starting with the changes in 2019, that we were not going to have that, that a flourishing democracy in the 21st century needed to have—go figure—debate in the House on the bills, and that that was good for democracy.

The Liberals will take that away. I’m hopeful that the NDP won’t, but we’ll see.

Interjection.

Hon. Paul Calandra: That’s up to the people.

We’re permitting temporary committee substitution in the afternoon sessions, with at least 30 minutes’ notice.

We established time for questions and answers, as I said—we’ve done that. This was in our first standing order changes back in 2019. I don’t recall how people voted on that, so I’m not going to suggest whether they voted yes, but I do remember the speeches. Everybody was dead set against it. Oh, my God. The world was going to fall apart if we made these changes. If we allowed debate to happen in this place, the world was going to fall apart.

So I hope we’ll hear from the opposition, in particular the Liberals, who I know are going to get up on their feet today and hum and holler because they don’t like debate in this place. Which one of these from 2019 will they take away if they ever got the opportunity? Which one will they take away?

In the fall of 2020, a whole host of additional changes, Madam Speaker—frankly, I knew as far back as 2020 that the people would return us with an even larger majority in 2022, so we started on making even more changes to increase the ability for members to participate and for democratic reform. What did we do? We enhanced the focus of private members’ business by considering one item per day on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.

I remember the hollers on this. “Holy mackerel, if you focus on one private member’s bill a day, what’s going to happen? How am I going to bring my people? We should do it on Thursday.” Thursday afternoon, when the House is empty, is when we used to do private members’ business here. Thursday afternoon between 1 and 4, we would stuff three private members’ bills into one day and then that would be the end of it, right? That, I didn’t believe was a good focus for private members’ business. So what did we do? We made it once a day Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday so that a PMB can be the focus of everybody’s attention on that day.

And then—well, I’ll get to that; well, I’ll get to it right now, because we’re talking about PMBs—we said the vote had to be deferred. You’ve got to be able to vote on a PMB, not just a few people but everybody. If you’re bringing a private member’s bill here to this House, then all members should have the right to vote on that bill, so, while you debate it one night, after question period the next day, the entire House is here and you vote on that PMB.

You stand in your place and you be counted—a change that we made and brought to this place, and I think it is a change that has worked very well in ensuring that private members’ business is elevated in this place. Will the opposition take that away? I’m hoping to hear in some of their remarks if they will take that change away. I’m particularly interested in the member for Kingston and the Islands, who’s humming and hollering, because you know where I got that standing order from? The federal Parliament, where we both served. He was very silent there with respect to some of the private members’ business.

So we’ll see if he’s still feisty about the changes.

I already talked about how we’d defer private members’ votes so that all members can have the opportunity to speak. Again, I think that is one of the better changes. I have to say, the PMBs happening on a daily basis so there’s one focus with a deferred vote where all members are held accountable, I think, is one of the better changes that we made.

We also changed debate time, making debate time more equitable by adjusting the length of questions and answers to five minutes for any speeches shorter than 10 minutes. I think all colleagues will understand and remember why we did that.

Allowing more debate time on legislation by extending the sitting day if the afternoon routine lasts longer than 60 minutes. That’s a very technical one—extending the day if routine proceedings go more than 60 minutes. What does that mean? That means that if for some reason there are obstacles or something happens in the daily routine, as opposed to reducing the amount of time that members have to debate something, we’ll actually extend the day so that we can continue on the process of debating very important bills.

We know the Liberals will probably want to take it away, because they’re never really here past 5 o’clock anyway, so they’ll probably take that away anyway. I challenge more than one of them to stand up and disagree with me on that right now. I doubt that they will.

We established a take-note debate. We created the provisions for a take-note debate—this was in the fall of 2022—allowing the debates to take place after the House would normally adjourn so that we are not impacting House business. This is something that we never had before in this place, a take-note debate. We have utilized it in the last Parliament on a couple of very, very important issues. It allows members to speak freely on issues of the day that are very, very important. We’ve used it on a couple of occasions in this place.

I think there were very successful debates that highlighted important causes for members. I then again ask, is that something that will be taken away in the standing order change? Those colleagues who were here in the last Parliament will recall the humming and hollering on that provision.

We allowed deferral of closure votes so that the

schedule of the House could be more predictable and so that more members can have the opportunity to vote, which I thought was really good.

Something that we created, Madam Speaker, another exciting provision: We created more opportunity for debate in the Legislature by adding a 30-minute report stage when a bill is reported back from committee. What does that mean? Why would any government that has passed a bill add a provision in the standing orders that allows for more debate on a bill that just came out of committee? Why would any sane government with a massive majority, both in the last Parliament and in this Parliament, add this provision? Why did we add the provision?

Because it would allow the independents, who don’t necessarily serve on a committee, to have a debate and talk about the issues that they were not able to participate in a committee on and raise that here in the House.

How many times, colleagues, have the independents risen in their place to take advantage of this important provision in the standing orders—10, 20, 30? We’ve had hundreds of bills—zero. In fact, the only ones that have triggered that have been us, to give them more opportunities in the last Parliament to debate something that the member from the Green Party, if I’m not mistaken, wanted more opportunity to debate.

So while they hum and they holler and they scream and say, “We don’t get enough time. You’ve got to give us more time,” when you give them more time, do they use it? No, because for them it is all about show, no substance. It’s all about convincing the people of the province of Ontario that the people are wrong and that the Liberals are right. The people are wrong, and the Liberals are right. They should be a party because—you know what—the people were wrong; they were wrong, and they should be a party.

I’ve got something here from—in fact, I think this quote says it best. I’ll get to this quote again later because I think it’s important—the Liberal House leader: “Worst of all, these changes were put forward without consultation at all with the independent members”—I mean, it’s tabled; we’re debating it, and they have a right to vote on it, but I digress. “The independent members represent more than 1.8 million people.”

I get elected in my riding. I feel I represent 125,000 people. I’m not arrogant enough to assume that because I was elected in the government I represent 16 million people, like the Liberals do. That small grouping of seven, eight—whatever it is—they, like any other member here, represent everybody. We represent the people in our riding, in our constituency, and we do it very, very effectively. I would suggest that most members in this place do it very effectively, but the difference between Liberals and NDP and Conservatives, frankly, is that we don’t bring an arrogance to Parliament that they do.

We don’t bring an arrogance to Parliament that they do because we are strong believers in this place. I’m a very strong believer in how this place works.

We went even further. We actually gave the independents and the opposition more opportunities to ask questions in question period. That is something that we did. We allowed more questions for them to hold the government accountable. Guess who did that? We did that. That’s right; we did that.

We closed an additional loophole that would allow a bill to be debated in the morning, afternoon and the night sitting. It was a loophole that existed. We eliminated that loophole so that there could not be a bill rushed through this Parliament without due debate time. And, of course, we made a number of minor amendments as well, back in 2020.

Colleagues will remember the outrage at these changes—two packages of changes—outrage at both of them. But I challenge the members opposite: Which one of those changes are you going take away? I challenge them very, very clearly. As you’re debating this, stand and let us know which one of the other ones you are going to take away. Which one of the very reasonable measures are they going to take away? Because I think that is very, very important for people to know.

We eliminated deferral slips in 2021 for all recorded division. You’ll remember, Madam Speaker—or you won’t, Madam Speaker, but when you went to defer a vote, you had to come out with a deferral slip and go up and defer. It’s now automatic because we think people should have the opportunity to vote and their vote should be counted. So deferral slips are automatic.

We allowed committees to recall themselves when the House stands adjourned. Again, what government with a massive majority would then write into the standing orders that committees, which I believe are one of the most important parts of this place, could recall themselves even when the House was adjourned? You would think that that should have just been in there, but it wasn’t. And do you know why it wasn’t? Because for 15 years, that group, which is now a group of independents, treated this place as an afterthought. They didn’t want debate, neither in the House or in committee.

We made the change so that the committees could work stronger and more effectively and so that they could be recalled even when the House was in adjournment.

Madam Speaker, you will remember this change—and I will say the opposition NDP were upset with this change, and I still, to this day, don’t get it: We instituted bipartisan leadership on committees by requiring that Vice-Chairs of committees be elected from a party other than the party from which the Chair of a committee is elected. You remember this one, right?

We thought that maybe the roles should be shared—it shouldn’t just be a government Chair or government Vice-Chair—so we decided, “Let’s allow the opposition to be Vice-Chairs of committees or Chairs of committees.” And we would split—so we had to force them. And then I was actually accused of being too bipartisan. Do you remember that? Colleagues, you were here the last time. I was accused by the then opposition House leader, who’s now the whip, of being too bipartisan; I was working too closely and too collaboratively, and it had to stop. The speeches on that—“My gosh, this guy is working too much with us.

He has to stop. We don’t want to be Vice-Chairs of committees. We don’t want to be Chairs of committees. Stop it.” I didn’t know what to say about that. I have never been accused of being too bipartisan. Maybe I work too closely with the opposition; maybe I take that on myself, colleagues. Working together is something that I like to do. Forcing the members to be Vice-Chairs or Chairs of committees—I was very happy about it. I think it works out very well. I think it is something that is long overdue, frankly.

And I tend to believe now that upon reflection, my good friends in the opposition actually enjoy this and think that this is a good change to the standing orders.

Here’s the other thing: Right now, on two of our committees, we have independents who are Vice-Chairs. We have the—I’m not sure what his title is, to be honest with you. He sits on the front bench there for the Liberals. He’s their leader in the House but not their House leader. They’ve managed to double up positions with a caucus of eight people. They’ve red-taped themselves to death. They’ve doubled themselves up. He serves as a Vice-Chair. The leader of the Green Party serves as a Vice-Chair of another committee.

I challenge anyone to find for me in any Western parliamentary democracy where independents serve as Vice-Chairs of committees. This change allowed that to happen. I wonder if they’ll take that change away, colleagues. But they’re going to holler about it and scream about it.

In fact, we went even a step further in this Parliament. Not only do we have two independent member Vice-Chairs, we actually have an independent member who serves as one of the deputy Speakers of this Legislative Assembly. I challenge any member—I challenge the Liberal members, any one of the six or seven or eight of them, whatever it is—to stand in their place and tell me, in any other Western parliamentary democracy, where that has happened. I guarantee you they will not find that.

How does that happen, Madam Speaker? You will know that the Legislature votes on the Speaker, but how do the rest of them—how do you and the other Speakers? It is via a motion from the government. The government puts a motion forward that is debated and voted on, setting the officers below the Speaker. It is not any other fashion; it is the government that brings that forward.

It is this government that put an independent member in the Chair as a Speaker. It is this government that allowed independents to serve as Vice-Chairs of committees. It is this government that allowed independent members to have a voice in question period. This is the government that gave up our questions so that they could ask a question or two, unlike any other parliamentary democracy.

These are the changes that we have made so far. It is this government that has allowed this place to be a chamber that actually debates bills. It is this government that has systematically, since 2020, been making changes to improve how this place works.

Now, let me go on to some of the changes that we’re talking about now. I’m just only going to be brief on this one, because I don’t want to conflate it in what we did. Let me just say, I think yesterday we had a very historic day in this place. We made changes that allow Indigenous languages to be automatically recognized in this place. I think all members were unified in their support of that. I don’t want to say any more than that, but that was a change that was long overdue. It’s very, very important. I think all members will agree with that.

Very clearly, we separated it out, because we didn’t want it to be the focus of what could be differences on this. But I thank all members for that, something that was probably—not probably—something that was very, very, very long overdue and, again, that we worked together on.

The other changes that we’re bringing forward: We’re permitting any parliamentary assistant to answer a late show question. For those who don’t know what a late show is, if somebody answers a question and a member doesn’t like it, they can ask for further debate in the evening. This is something that we had done in the last Parliament. The parliamentary assistant would be able to participate in the rebuttal and the reply. It worked very well, so we’re just bringing it back.

The next one that we’re doing—I’ll acknowledge this a bit: We are extending the five minutes for reply to a ministerial statement to eight minutes and allowing independent members to use any time of the House as a group. Right now, in a ministerial statement—and I acknowledge that before the House left, I refused consent to allow the independent members to speak to something. It became something that it wasn’t intended to be, Madam Speaker—

Interjection.

Hon. Paul Calandra: You hear the member opposite hollering and screaming about it, and she has every right to do that because it was—

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Yes, because you shut down women on International Women’s Day.

Hon. Paul Calandra: No, I shut down the independent members from being allowed to speak to a motion, because the standing orders don’t allow them to speak to certain motions without permission from the government. So in order for them to speak, they’ve got to ask for permission from the government.

Now, we’re changing the standing orders to allow for the opposition to split their time, eight minutes guaranteed—three minutes. We’ll come away, and we will put it on for the independents in proportion to the size of their caucus. They don’t need to ask for permission anymore. It is automatic. It’s guaranteed. The opposition and the independents will work together to have their time on any ministerial statement.

As you know, the standing orders, as they have been for a very, very, very long time, give the official opposition five minutes, and we’re suggesting that an additional three minutes be added on so that the independent members can have that time. Nobody’s ever suggested any other changes to it, so we’re adding on time for the opposition to speak to a ministerial statement.

Now, some have suggested that adding that amount of time for a small group of independents is too much time, given the size of the official opposition in comparison—I mean, the official opposition is twice the size. Some have suggested it’s too much time. But what we’re allowing them to do is, the clock will be extended to eight minutes with the lead-off happening by the official opposition. They can extend that time up to eight minutes.

Again, this never happened before, right? As I said, as independents, you need to ask for permission from the government to reply. Now again, not on an opposition day motion because, you will remember, as I said—I want to clarify: not on opposition day motion, because on an opposition day motion, the independents never had the right to reply until we made that change that gave them the guarantee to reply. This is on a ministerial statement now, right? So we’re now adding time, taking away time and adding it so that all members can participate in a ministerial statement without having to ask for permission.

Well, what does the independent member from Haldimand say. I can read the whole quote. This is what she said:

“I think people would be shocked if the House leader has the ability to tinker with these standing orders to the degree that is occurring. We are all elected officials who should have the same parliamentary privilege. And this erosion of parliamentary privilege is an erosion of democracy, in my opinion.... They’re punting responsibility over to the NDP to ... wedge the NDP against the independent members. And you know, I believe that the NDP will treat us independent members fairly.”

So the independent member is now not worried about us as we worried about the NDP not giving them the time to speak. The independents would still rather ask me for permission than share an extended amount of time with—now, I know the opposition House leader. I know him. We work very, very well together. He’s a very gracious and good human being, a wonderful parliamentarian, and I think that the opposition will be able to work together with this extended amount of time. I reject the member for Haldimand who insists that she ask me for permission to speak in this place. It’s not the way it should be.

It should be guaranteed in the standing orders, and that is what this change is going to do. It’s part of this continuing bipartisan nature of working together, right? We can do that, and we will do it.

Now, we’re going even further. We’re allowing the procedure and House affairs committee to appoint and revise the membership of other committees. Now, this is a new committee, procedure and House affairs, that was brought together—as you know, we’re in the process of decant of this building. We’re looking for another place to exercise democracy while this building is closed down and undergoing an expensive renovation. So we created a new committee called the procedure and House affairs committee, which is a very powerful committee of this place, to be fair.

We didn’t take the chairmanship on ourselves; just so members will remember, we actually insisted in the standing orders that the Chair of this committee be from the official opposition. We thought that helps ensure accountability, especially in the process of decant.

But what we’re saying is that the membership of committees will come from the procedure and House affairs committee. Presently, these motions, as you will know, occupy House time. The proposal would see that the House appoint the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and empower the committee to appoint other committees and their memberships. It’s a practice that is already in use in the House of Commons. It works very well there, and we know that it will work here.

This is in reflection of comments made by the NDP. Again, in the spirit of working together and listening to them, they did ask that appointments to committees be taken out of the government’s hands because, again, Madam Speaker, in this place, the House leader can get up and appoint whoever he wants—or she wants, whoever the House leader is—to any committee that they feel. It takes up government time; it takes up the time of the government, but I can get up in my place after question period today and I can move anybody to any committee that I pleasantly feel without any regard.

Well, now that will happen through the procedure and House affairs committee, where members from all parties will have the opportunity to comment and have a role.

I do have a quote here from that debate on how important it was to remove the House leader. It was a very impassioned speech. It was a great speech, to be honest with you. I enjoyed it a lot. But I’m not going to read the quote from the member because I think the member recalls how impassioned he was that it not be just the House leader that appoints people to committee. So I’m fulfilling the demands of the opposition, yet again working in a bipartisan fashion; we’re doing that.

I’m also going to allow, if the House approves, substitutions on committees at any time and not just for 30 minutes. This just reflects the nature of what this place is, how busy members are, the fact that we are going to be approaching a decant at some point in time, that members will be scattered a bit more than they are right now. Some times, just through no fault of their own, members aren’t there and need to be replaced. If you don’t do it in the first 30 minutes, well, then everything changes.

Now look, Madam Speaker, to be honest, the reality is that, on committees today, Conservatives have an overwhelming majority—overwhelming majority. You remember, Madam Speaker, that, again, we went the distance here and we said, although we have such an overwhelming mandate from the people, in order to make committees work better, we did a motion in this House and unilaterally provided more opposition members to our committees. We thought that was important, because in committees, this place would have had one NDP member, eight or nine Conservative members, and that’s not reflective of how a committee should be.

So we unilaterally gave more opposition members to be on committees. We did that. We thought it was important to do back then, and I’m very proud that we did that.

We’re also making changes to the standing orders that would forbid the verbatim reading of text of a petition, Madam Speaker. I just think that this is a loophole that needs to be closed. Petitions are one of the most important things that we do here. It is a very, very important thing that we do here—petitions. I know members collect petitions and they want to bring them and present them to the House. Many table them. Some get up in their place and make a statement on them.

But they should not be allowed to be used as a 15-minute speech for a member, because then you frustrate the ability to actually present petitions. So the loophole that we are closing is allowing members to still, obviously, rise and talk about a petition—a petition, for instance, could be, “I’m very upset that the previous Liberal government closed over 600 schools, predominantly in rural Ontario, destroying the fabric of the nature, and I’m presenting this petition,” and then you sit down, as opposed to going on for 15 minutes about all of the bad things that the Liberals did in their time in government.

Everybody knows that; they don’t need to be refreshed on that. But we need more time to present petitions. There are some members here who present a lot of petitions. They do a lot of very good work, and this just closes that loophole.

We’re also sending more power, again, to the procedure and House affairs committee to amend private bills and the fees that were charged on private bills. This is a small thing, but I think it’s an important update. I know all members know, but for the masses watching at home: Private bills are very small bills that, if a corporation needs to be revived, somebody can petition the House and we would revive that corporation. The fees haven’t been changed to do that since 1929. In 1868, the fee was $60. The fee was increased to $100, and in 1929, the fee was at $150, and here we stand today.

It’s $150 to have that done. We are going to be asking the procedure and House affairs committee to review and come back with a fee framework that more closely aligns with today’s reality. To be clear, these private bills are an important part—but there is a substantial amount of work that goes, not only by parliamentarians, but by officials who review these private bills; legislative counsel, which has to review all of these bills.

We are going to be asking the procedure and House affairs committee to review that for us and come back with a new framework that works and then to be responsible for looking at that framework for us, as a Legislature, whenever it is required.

We’re also, of course, making changes that will ensure that when committees are struck, as I said, membership of those committees will go to the procedure and House affairs committee.

I know the independent Liberals are going to be suggesting that we’re removing their ability to serve on committees. We’re removing the ability, yes, for them to automatically serve on committees. We’re putting it in the hands of the procedure and House affairs committee to decide what committees they should serve on or if they should serve on committees. This is consistent with every other Western parliamentary democracy.

Remember that we also added the ability for reports from committees to be debated in this place for 30 minutes, at any time when they’re reported back. So not only do we give more questions to independents, not only do we give them the right to serve on committees, unlike other jurisdictions, not only have we made them Chairs and Vice-Chairs—not only have we put them in the seat—but we have also added a provision that allows for debate in this House.

This is what the Liberal independent House leader said—I’ll read the quote entirely, and I’ll tell you why I’m going to get to it. So—I think I’ve read it once, but I’m going to read it again: “Once again, the government has demonstrated it is committed to silencing the voices of 16 members in the Legislature. Worst of all, these changes were put forward without any consultation at all with the independent members, despite many offers to work with them to make reasonable changes. The independent members represent more than 1.8 million people. Ontarians deserve to have their duly elected representatives empowered to participate in every aspect of the Legislature.”

Madam Speaker, that member also serves as a presiding officer in this place, and I think that is a very difficult position for that member to be in. This is a presiding officer who has made a decision on a standing order, on changes that this House has not yet fully debated or passed, which by its nature will call into question any rulings that person makes when sitting in that chair. That is certainly something that that independent caucus is going to have to look at.

Moreover, we have a situation where this House now will have the opportunity to reflect on an additional series of standing order changes that I believe will make this place a more accountable Legislature, that will provide more opportunity for members to participate in debate, which grow and make it even, as I said, more democratic—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): My apologies to the government House leader. It is now time for members’ statements.

Debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Ontario budget

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: Read my lips: No new taxes. That’s right; our government is getting it done for the people of Ontario by investing in housing infrastructure, highways, transit and health care without raising costs on families, businesses and municipalities.

Yesterday, our government tabled the 2024 budget, Building a Better Ontario, and, Speaker, our government is getting it done for the people of Ontario and Niagara. Now, like the rest of the world, Ontario faces uncertain economic times due to high interest rates and global instability. But in this time, we’re continuing to press forward in ensuring that we’re getting the job done for the families in my riding and the rest of this province.

Despite the challenges facing us, Ontario is continuing to deliver on its plan to build by investing in infrastructure to get more homes built faster, attracting better jobs with bigger paycheques, all while keeping costs down for families and businesses and retaining a prudent path to balance.

For Niagara, building a stronger Ontario means:

—extending the gas cuts for families;

—expanding GO rail service to our region, increasing service levels;

—twinning the Garden City Skyway over the Welland Canal in St. Catharines;

—supporting the redevelopment of West Lincoln Memorial Hospital to completion, adding more primary care for 11,000 Niagarans;

—supporting the new South Niagara Hospital to completion; and

—supporting local grape growers and winemakers by cutting the 6.1% on-site farm tax, strengthening local economic development.

Speaker, as the Minister of Finance said yesterday, our only option in these uncertain economic times is to move ahead, and we’re going to continue to get things done for the people of Ontario and all of Niagara.

Hospital funding

Mr. John Vanthof: In early March, Englehart hospital had to close their ER for a couple of days due to a physician shortage and, like many rural hospitals, is also facing ballooning budget problems because of agency health care staff—agency nurses.

So we were very interested, in looking at the budget yesterday, what that was going to do for rural hospitals. There was an increase in base funding to hospitals. That’s a good thing, but the base funding increase was less than inflation. So, actually, that was a cut. It was less than inflation, and it didn’t do anything to address—one of the biggest issues in hospitals is paying for agency nurses, agency PSWs. It’s a huge issue, and it’s an issue that this government seems to want to ignore—or, actually, almost seems to want to perpetuate.

When we see in our hospitals the biggest budget item is agency nursing and we know that the cost is massively inflated by the profit margins of the agencies, it’s an issue that has to be addressed. Is there a role? Do we need agencies in some cases? In some cases, yes, but not at the extent of what’s happening now. This government has missed the mark on this, and we don’t know why, but they need to act now.

Crime prevention

M me Dawn Gallagher Murphy: Last Thursday, I had the privilege of hosting a community safety discussion at the Aurora town hall with the York Regional Police. In response to recent incidents of auto theft and break-ins in our community, we organized a town hall to provide our residents with updates on local safety initiatives led by the York Regional Police services.

With the rise in crime over the last few years, as a provincial government, we have committed to fighting this crime by investing millions of dollars to combat various forms of crime, from auto thefts, to enhancing court resources to prosecute criminals, to standardizing investigative practices, particularly for hate crimes, as well as addressing the Guns, Gangs and Violence Reduction Strategy.

The message was clear from the residents in attendance: an increased police presence and greater CCTV monitoring as well as stricter bail reform to ensure perpetrators who are committing multiple crimes over and over will be kept in prison.

A heartfelt thank you to York Regional Police as they are on the front lines to support our community to protect us and keep us safe. Thank you to all of the vigilant residents whose partnership and proactive stance when it comes to safety helps drive our communities forward.

Health care

Mr. Jeff Burch: Kathy Kairies of Port Colborne is grieving the loss of her beloved husband Ernie Kairies, who died on Monday, October 16, 2023, at the age of 67. Her journey on the loss of her husband of 20 years is deeply personal and emotional. Ernie was a healthy, intelligent husband, father and grandfather, very active in his family’s lives, and they continue to struggle with this overwhelming loss.

Kathy, a registered nurse for over 35 years, knew a delayed cancer diagnosis would lead to serious consequences or death, and that’s what happened. Classic symptoms were either heart failure or cancer, and his heart was fine. But Ernie couldn’t get an oncology appointment until he had a cancer diagnosis. That dragged on for months, with several painful biopsies. One of those biopsies was sent to British Columbia when there was a clinic in Toronto that could have done it.

Kathy said she witnessed so much wasted money and resources as she continued to advocate for her husband. The process was exhausting. It was stressful for Kathy to watch her husband suffering this whole time and the ongoing hardships in getting the proper treatment for him.

As she grieves, she wants other families to know what happened to Ernie. She says there is a lack of coordinated care in our region and across the province, which contributes to high costs and poor, inconsistent care across different facilities. There’s a direct correlation between the decisions this government makes in the budget and the way the health care system works. Right now, it is in crisis.

I will continue to advocate for people like Kathy and her family as they are impacted by doctor shortages, underfunding, lack of staffing and hospital plans that are shrinking our health care services in EMS, urgent care and emergency surgical care at a time when our population in Niagara is growing.

We must do better, Speaker.

Elmira Maple Syrup Festival

Mr. Mike Harris: Mr. Speaker, you’ll be delighted to hear that this year, on April 6, is the 60th anniversary of the Elmira Maple Syrup Festival. Friends, this is the largest single-day maple syrup festival in the world. It holds a Guinness world record and this year, we’re expecting roughly 80,000 people in a city that’s built for about 15,000. So you can imagine how busy it’s going to be.

But this year is going to be a little bit different. In late December of last year, we lost a champion of the Elmira Maple Syrup Festival: Doug McLean passed away. He served on the festival committee for over 35 years, twice as chair, and also ran the toy show for many years.

So, Doug, on the 60th anniversary, this one’s for you, my friend. All the best to your family, and I can’t wait to be in Elmira on the 6th.

Arts and cultural funding

MPP Lise Vaugeois: My former artistic home, the Thunder Bay Symphony Orchestra, continues to bring world-class performances and music education programs to communities throughout our very large region. The three orchestra concerts I attended this month alone were not only huge artistic successes, they were full houses. And there are always full houses for the collaborations between Indigenous artists and the TBSO. Everything that is under the control of the organization is on solid ground, but, unfortunately, not even full houses can make up for years of funding cuts.

Yesterday, I was shocked—there was no mention in the budget of restoring funding to the Ontario Arts Council. In fact, apart from some supports for film production, there was no mention of the arts at all. This is short-sighted. The TBSO is the epicentre of a unique industry in our community that diversifies the economic landscape. In recruitment materials for professionals and workers in all categories, the orchestra is a key selling point for the city of Thunder Bay, and I know that the centrality of arts organizations to community life is true throughout the entire province.

Artists, in all disciplines, are the lifeblood of our communities and it is long overdue that the government recognizes this and restores funding to the organization that supports it all, the Ontario Arts Council.

Housing

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: The housing crisis is the primary cause of the affordability crisis in this province. That is why last week, the Premier announced that Ontario will be investing over $1.8 billion in housing-enabling infrastructure in order to help build 1.5 million homes by 2031. That investment is part of the commitments our government has made to help build more affordable homes across Ontario.

Speaker, the new $1-billion Municipal Housing Infrastructure Program will help support core urban infrastructure that growing and changing communities need, such as roadways or waterworks. This funding is supporting our existing $1.2-billion Building Faster Fund to help reward communities that meet or exceed their housing targets.

Our government is investing to build homes that Ontarians can afford and looking at new methods of housing, such as modular homes.

York region and my city of Markham are looking forward to working with our government in order to get more shovels into the ground that will help build more housing, especially affordable housing.

I would like to thank the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the associate minister and the PA for their hard work to help create more housing supply.

Jamshed Hassan

Mr. Ted Hsu: I rise today to honour an outstanding citizen of Kingston, Mr. Jamshed Hassan, affectionately known as Jimmy.

From Pakistan to California to Toronto to Kingston, 21 years ago, Jimmy fearlessly worked his way to where he is now. He opened a Pizza Pizza franchise when he got to Kingston—a store he still owns, and where he still sweeps the floors today.

Jimmy treasures the diversity of Canada, and he founded the Canadian Colours Kingston Foundation seven years ago to promote just that by gathering different parts of our community together.

Through his business, he has donated to local charities every year and used his contacts to organize drives to collect blankets and food for the homeless.

He’s the producer and host of his own cable TV show, Community Voices, about local social and political issues.

And in 2022, he was elected to Kingston city council.

You’ll find Jimmy at community events, at the mosque, in his store, in council chambers, at political events, or maybe he’s away visiting his family in Pakistan.

He’s a husband, a father to three boys, a successful businessman, a community leader and, most of all, proud to be Canadian.

Sometimes it takes an immigrant to remind all of us what Canadian citizenship really means.

It’s an honour to call you a friend, Jimmy.

Health care

Ms. Natalia Kusendova-Bashta: Yesterday’s budget, Building a Better Ontario, was a very exciting day for Ontario families, residents, seniors and workers, including those in the health care sector.

When we got elected six years ago, we made a commitment to ending hallway health care, investing in infrastructure, growing our health care workforce and supporting those on the road to recovery in their mental health journey.

In contrast, the previous Liberal government wreaked havoc on our health care system, by freezing hospital budgets and their inability to sit at the table with our doctors.

Speaker, yesterday’s budget had many wins for health care, such as an increase for behavioural supports, $2 billion more for home care and 3,000 more nursing student spots at our colleges and universities.

We understand that more seniors want to grow old in their home, beside loved ones, and not in a hospital hallway. And this is true for seniors living with dementia.

Yesterday, we announced an investment of $46 million to support the continued operation of 59 existing behavioural specialized unit beds and to add more than 200 new BSU beds.

We are also investing $2 billion into home care, bringing stability to the sector and helping people manage chronic conditions like dementia at home for longer.

Our front-line heroes have always been there for us, and we will continue to have their backs.

Anti-Semitism

Mrs. Robin Martin: Last Saturday evening, I attended a local Purim celebration at Temple Sinai in my riding.

During Purim, Jews commemorate escaping from tyranny with the help of Queen Esther.

Although Purim is normally joyous, this year it is clouded by uncertainty as over 130 hostages are still being held by Hamas terrorists, over 170 days after October 7.

Temple Sinai also commemorated the life of Judih Weinstein, a member of its congregation murdered by Hamas, whose body has not been returned to Israel or her family. Those present listened to a haiku recorded by Judih, which ended with the sentiment, “Now, more than ever, kindness and tolerance with an open heart.”

On Sunday, I attended a rally at Queen’s Park, organized by Canadian Women Against Antisemitism, CWAA. On public land, the crowd sang along with gospel singers to Leonard Cohen’s Hallelujah and listened to women describe their experiences with anti-Semitism. People held up signs reading “Love thy neighbour” and waved the Canadian flag, and Judih Weinstein’s haiku was shared again.

At the same time as the CWAA event occurred, a Shut It Down for Palestine demonstration occurred. The objective, as the name implies, was to shut down the activities of others, including by blocking intersections and waving signs saying, “By any means necessary.”

Instead of persuasion, that strategy relies on power and intimidation. Power and intimidation are not democratic tools, and we cannot and will not be intimidated. This is our Queen Esther moment, and we must fight back against anti-Semitism and all attempts to impose tyranny.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Will Bouma: I’d like to welcome to the House Julie Barnard and her mother, Carole Desborough. Welcome to the people’s House.

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: It is my pleasure to welcome the new executive committee members of the Tibetan Women’s Association of Ontario. They are Tsela Wangmo, president; Yangchen Dolma, vice-president; Tenzing Yangchen and Yeshi Choedon, secretaries and program coordinators; Migmar Lhamo, accountant; Lobsang Dolma, treasurer; Kyipa Tsering, religious coordinator; Dolma Dolma and Rinzing Wangmo, cultural and Lhakar coordinators. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Dave Smith: Today is Ontario Waterpower Association day here at Queen’s Park. There’s a reception at 5:30, and some of the people that you will meet there are up in the gallery: Paul Norris, the president of the Ontario Waterpower Association; Janelle Bates, director of communications; Jan Fonseca, communications and community outreach; Ryley Gutoskie; and Jessica Worosz.

Mrs. Daisy Wai: It is my pleasure to welcome to the House the board of directors from the Richmond Hill Board of Trade that are with us this morning. I’m happy to introduce George Vasilache, the chair of the board; Errol Da-Ré, first vice-chair; Jaclyn Zhang, second vice-chair; Payal Bhardwaj, director; Jason Colterman, director; Amin Panjwani, director; and also Monique Dennison, the executive director. Welcome to Queen’s Park

Mr. Billy Pang: It is my pleasure to welcome Ms. Karen Chow from Markham–Unionville. She is the mother of page Tyler Chow. Welcome to Queen’s Park, and thank you for coming.

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: I want to take the opportunity to introduce one of my staffers that is here today, manager of stakeholders, Giancarlo Da-Ré. He’s also joined here by his father, Errol Da-Ré, so I’d like to welcome both of them to this House and hope they enjoy question period.

Ms. Jess Dixon: It’s my pleasure to introduce two of my constituents and wonderful supporters, Adnan Khan and Daoud Yaqoob, otherwise known as Dave, who represent the Wright and KW Towing group of companies. Welcome to your House, and thank you so much for coming.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: I want to welcome Taline Dorna and her family, who are here with us today. Taline has gone to great lengths to support her son following her cancer diagnosis, and in an effort to raise awareness of this disease, she penned a book, The Extraordinary Eye. She has been a great source of inspiration in our province, and I want to welcome her here to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Stephen Crawford: I have a constituent here from the town of Oakville, David Blackmore. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Question Period

Ontario budget

Ms. Marit Stiles: Good morning, Speaker. This question is for the Premier. If you’re one of the 2.3 million people in Ontario without a family doctor, if you’re a young family looking to find an affordable place to call home, if you’re a parent feeling deflated for having to cut back on your child’s extracurricular activities or if you’re someone who is shuffling between two or three jobs to keep up with the rising cost of everything, the Conservative budget is not for you.

So I want to hear from the Premier: Why didn’t the budget contain any new measures to help make life more affordable in Ontario?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply for the government, the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Of course, we’ve seen interest rates and inflation, and an economy that’s slowing down around the world. That’s why we acted early to help the people of Ontario. In fact, it was the summer of 2022 that this government took action by lowering the gas tax. It was this government that doubled the low-income individuals and families tax credit so people making up to $50,000 pay some of the lowest personal income taxes in the land. It was this government that introduced one integrated fare, so that transit riders are saving $1,600 on daily commutes.

This is a government that’s taking action. This is a government that has got the backs of the people, and this government will always have their backs.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: At a time when people are so desperate for a change in direction, yesterday’s budget doubled down on the same tired approach that has left people worse off today after six long years of this Conservative government. It shows a government that is clearly out of touch and out of ideas.

The government voted down our plan to take away the administrative burden on family physicians that would have delivered on care for millions of people. The government’s plans will barely cover a fraction of the 2.3 million people who don’t have a family doctor.

Why has the Premier spent so much more but failed to address our doctor shortage?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Mr. Speaker, I thought we handed out copies of the budget to the opposition yesterday.

Let’s talk about the investment in health care that this great Minister of Health has put forward, a vision for a health system in Ontario. Two years, a $10-billion increase, some 5% to 6% a year, and where does that money go? Another big investment in primary care so that 600,000 more patients can have health care in this province; on average, an increase of 4% to the hospitals so they can continue to lower wait times for surgeries and keep emergency departments open; almost three quarters of a billion dollars to hire more registered practical nurses, more registered nurses.

My God—even Doris Grinspun gave us an incredible quote in the press yesterday. The RNAO supports the work that this Minister of Health is doing.

Mr. Speaker, we are investing in health care. We are investing in the people of Ontario because you can’t have a healthy economy without healthy people.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: These so-called prudent fiscal managers achieved the impossible: They turned a $200-million surplus into a $10-billion deficit in just 12 months. Yet this budget still falls seriously short on the things that matter the most to the people of Ontario: health care, child care, affordable housing, education.

So my question back to the Premier is, how does his government justify spending so much more to deliver so much less?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Finance.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Mr. Speaker, we’re not an island here. Maybe the NDP lives on an island called “their world,” but in our world, we’re dealing with the economic environment that we’re in globally. We’re dealing with higher interest rates and inflation. In that environment, Mr. Speaker, you have two choices: You could cut spending and put on the brakes or you could keep going. Well, this government chooses to keep going.

We are choosing to invest in workers and the people of this province by increasing the Skills Development Fund so we can train our workers to build those hospitals that this Minister of Health is building. This Minister of Transportation is building highways right across the province, public transit—that’s what a government does when it has options in front of them.

Mr. Speaker, this government has a plan. It’s got a vision. It’s executing against that plan, and we will continue working on behalf of all 16 million Ontarians.

Affordable housing

Ms. Marit Stiles: I’m going to go back to the Premier again. The budget doesn’t just lack a vision for health care, it also lets people down when it comes to addressing the housing crisis. Last week, the federal government warned Ontario we are about to lose $357 million from the National Housing Strategy because of this government’s failure to meet the conditions of the agreement.

My question to the Premier is, did the government submit an updated action plan to ensure that Ontario isn’t left with a $357-million hole in our housing budget?

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

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Mr. Speaker, I’m sure the member opposite deals with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and Ontario’s Big City Mayors. Of course, if she talked to them—you would know what their number one request was: to fund the infrastructure to build more housing. Guess which government delivered on that?

This is about all types of housing, working with our municipal partners, working provincially for affordable housing, for student housing, for seniors’ housing, for front door and back door, for condos etc.

I can tell you this: One thing we learned, when we work together, when municipalities and provinces lock arms, we can do a lot. But do you know who else has to lock arms with us? The federal government. We are hitting all the targets they put in that commitment, and it is this Minister of Housing, along with the head of the association of municipalities, who wrote a letter to the minister saying, “We’re hitting the targets. We need you to step up. Join us to build housing right across the province.”

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: First of all, Speaker, municipalities actually wanted the government to give them back the money they took from them.

There is no use blaming the federal government for this government’s failure to meet the demand for housing in our province. Ontario’s record on affordable housing has been an absolute embarrassment. The Premier has ignored the recommendations from his own Housing Affordability Task Force. He’s even ruled out affordable housing options that would bring so many people closer to the dream of home ownership.

So back to the Premier: Why has this government let Ontario fall so far behind on housing?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Again, thank you to the member opposite for that question.

I was listening to the head of the Green Party over there. He said, “You know, I want to see the priorities in the budget be housing, housing and housing.” And do you know what the priorities in the budget are? Housing, housing and housing. Come on over to our side.

We are putting in place so many measures. Let’s talk about the Building Faster Fund: $1.2 billion to help reward and incent municipalities who hit their housing targets.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier was in Hamilton just recently, handing out a cheque. The Premier and his colleagues were in Pickering—and that colleague happened to be me—to hand the cheque to the mayor of Pickering. We are working with municipalities.

With the Building Faster Fund, we’re building infrastructure, putting that in place. We’re even helping on purpose-built rentals and getting the federal government to join us on rebating the HST for purpose-built rentals, Mr. Speaker. This government is focused on housing, housing and housing.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, this government has failed, and one of the reasons they have failed is because they were so focused on carving up the greenbelt instead of building the housing that people in this province so desperately needed. What a waste.

I had to read this a couple of times to make sure I was right because it’s so astonishing—Ontario is expected to have added just 1,100 affordable units since 2018. It’s an embarrassment: less than 6% of the province’s housing target under the National Housing Strategy. With only a few years left to deliver on the agreement, we are further and further behind.

My question is, what will this Premier do today to ensure Ontario doesn’t lose the $357 million in federal funding due to his failures?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Finance.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Mr. Speaker, as we know, we inherited a lack of infrastructure—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. Opposition, come to order.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: I think the members opposite agree. Thank you to the members opposite for agreeing on that.

Mr. Speaker, we are not only getting affordable housing built, but we’re also investing more in supportive housing. Again, through the leadership of the Minister of Health, we’re investing another $150 million in supportive housing. But it doesn’t stop there: student housing, senior care housing, long-term-care housing. It’s this Minister of Long-Term Care who made a great announcement in the budget yesterday to support more building of long-term-care housing.

I’ll come back to it again, Mr. Speaker: It’s this government that’s getting things done. It’s getting shovels in the ground, working with our municipal partners, working as a team. I would ask the members opposite to join us in building all of Ontario and helping us get municipalities, the federal government and the province aligned so we can all build those 1.5 million homes.

Ontario budget

Ms. Catherine Fife: This weak budget shows that the Conservative government is out of touch and out of ideas. For a government that prides itself on fiscal responsibility, they projected a $200-million surplus and instead delivered a $10-billion deficit.

In the health care sector, the government is planning to spend $1 billion less when 2.3 million Ontarians do not have a doctor and there have been 203 emergency room closures.

In the justice sector, the words “tribunal,” “bail” and “backlog” are not mentioned in the budget at all. The court system is literally crumbling in this province. So much for that tough-on-crime bluster.

Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. How is this government failing so miserably to address the needs of Ontarians?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Well, Mr. Speaker, take a look at this budget. We are in a global economic slowdown. We’re not immune from those forces. But let’s look at the numbers in the budget. Let’s look at the numbers, because I know the opposition can look at the numbers and understand the numbers. Our health care budget is up $10 billion over the last two years. What does that $10 billion get us? It gets us more primary care, more hospitals built, more HHR—health human resources—for those hospitals, more investments in home and community care, more money for mental health and addiction care.

This is a budget that decides to invest in Ontarians, invest in infrastructure, invest in the economy, invest in the people—the health care workers, the teachers, the skilled trades—right across this province. Because through not spending money and not investing, this is the situation we have. We’re investing.

These deficits will pass. You know the revenues are down because of the global economy. But those long-term investments will last a—

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

The supplementary question?

Ms. Catherine Fife: Speaker, this is not the people’s budget. It is insulting to the people of this province. Half of Ontario universities are running deficits, yet this Conservative government has slashed funding by $425 million. Child care centres are at risk of closing across Ontario, yet this government is doing nothing to support Ontario’s $10-a-day child care program and supporting the ECEs that are needed for that program.

In education, there is no mention of the word “teacher” in this budget. This budget fails to keep up with spending on the repair backlog—and investing nothing in student transportation. Parents care about student transportation in this province, and they’ve been begging for support, and they did so at pre-budget consultations.

This budget is spending more and delivering less. This is the truth of the matter.

To the Minister of Finance: When will this Conservative government listen to the people of Ontario and ensure that funding goes where it is needed, to the people we’re elected to serve?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Finance.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Mr. Speaker, I heard a bunch of things in there. I heard “education.” It’s this Minister of Education who is building more child care spaces and making it more affordable for child care.

I think I heard “colleges and universities.” It’s this Minister of Colleges and Universities who is freezing tuition, making it more affordable for students and families.

I think I heard the word “transportation.” It’s these ministers making it more affordable to take One Fare, saving $1,600 a year for the daily rider.

While we’re at it, why don’t we talk about the gas tax that we’re cutting, continuing to put more money in the pockets of the hard-working people of Ontario?

And why doesn’t that opposition and that Liberal Party over there march down the road in Ottawa and tell the federal government to cut or freeze the carbon tax next week and help the people of Ontario?

Taxation

Mr. Trevor Jones: My question is to the Minister of Energy. The impact of the carbon tax is devastating to my riding of Chatham-Kent–Leamington, and throughout Ontario.

Last year, the carbon tax cost the average family around $710, even after the rebates. That’s why it’s ironic to hear the Liberal and NDP members in this House talk about affordability and the rising cost of living when they continue to support this disastrous tax.

Unlike the queen of the carbon tax, Bonnie Crombie, our government has opposed the carbon tax from the very start, and we’ll continue to oppose it until it’s removed.

Speaker, the people of Ontario deserve far better from their elected representatives. It’s clear the members opposite are more interested in playing politics instead of standing up against the federal government’s unjust tax rules.

Can the minister please tell this House why it’s necessary to eliminate the carbon tax altogether?

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks to the great member from Chatham-Kent–Leamington, who’s doing a fantastic job in southwestern Ontario.

There has been a lot of conversation this morning about the budget, Mr. Speaker. Do you know what’s not in the budget that was delivered yesterday by Minister Bethlenfalvy? A carbon tax, or any kind of new tax, or any increased fee.

The number one issue that the people of Ontario are talking about when we go door to door—we’ve got a couple of by-elections coming, in Milton and in the area west of London, where Monte McNaughton used to serve. Do you know what the number one issue at the door is? Affordability—the carbon tax. It’s the number one issue that’s coming up for the people of Ontario.

Yet, Justin Trudeau, in four days’ time, supported by Bonnie Crombie, the queen of the carbon tax, is going to increase the carbon tax by a staggering 23%. That’s not what you should be doing in an affordability crisis.

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

Mr. Trevor Jones: Thank you to our minister for that response.

The carbon tax is the worst tax you can put on the people of Chatham-Kent–Leamington and anyone in Ontario. It’s useless. It’s a tax imposed by elites and activists who are hurting the hard-working people across our province. And, yet, the federal Liberals are still proceeding with a 23% tax hike next week.

Speaker, over the next year, the carbon tax will add over $360 to an average household’s annual natural gas bill. That’s not right. The people of Ontario should never have to choose between eating and heating their homes.

Can the minister please explain why the federal government must scrap the carbon tax in order to give our hard-working families much-needed relief?

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks again to the member from southwestern Ontario—and a big shout-out to the folks in Lambton–Kent–Middlesex, where that by-election is about to get under way. I know our candidate Steve has been going door to door with folks like the member who just asked the question and many others on our team here. And the number one issue that’s coming up at the door is the federal carbon tax. They cannot believe, they cannot understand why, in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis they’re increasing the carbon tax by a whopping 23% on Parliament Hill, with Justin Trudeau.

This tax is supported by this Liberal caucus in the Legislature. They’ve stood up and time and time again and said that the people of Ontario are better off than they would be without a carbon tax. Who in their right mind thinks that? Certainly not the PC government, led by Premier Ford.

Our budget delivered yesterday indicates what’s important for our party and our government. That’s making life more affordable. That’s building the infrastructure that we need. That’s connecting people to primary care. It’s all in the document delivered yesterday and the opposition party should support us.

University and college funding

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday’s budget showed that this government’s completely inadequate funding for post-secondary education, coupled with a 50% decrease in international study permits, will mean a $1.4-billion revenue loss for colleges in 2024-25 and an additional $1.7-billion revenue loss in 2025-26.

Not only that, the government’s inadequate funding ends after three years, which will mean even deeper losses for colleges and universities down the road. Why is this Premier choosing not to increase post-secondary operating grants and deliberately allowing colleges to fail?

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

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member opposite: Thank you for that question. It’s this Minister of Colleges and Universities who froze tuition to make it more affordable for students and families to get an education. With a blunt instrument, in the middle of the night, without consultation, the federal government capped those student enrolments. We’re going to support colleges and universities with our three-year stability fund—$1.3 billion.

What I can tell you is this: It’s an economy that is firing on all cylinders in Ontario. We’re investing in infrastructure, housing, hospitals, highways, transit, you name it. We’re investing in schools. We need the people to build those schools, those highways, those roads and those public transit systems. That’s why we need international students. That’s why the federal government should step up and help us build Ontario.

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Students need affordable tuition but it’s not going to help if there’s no campuses for them to attend. University budgets are not included in the government’s books, but we know that universities are also bracing for huge revenue losses. Almost half are reporting deficits this year. This government chose to ignore urgent calls from its own expert panel for an additional $2.5 billion in post-secondary base funding and is instead allowing university deficits to grow, programs to be eliminated, campuses to be closed and student supports to be cut.

Why did this budget not include the permanent, significant increase in operating grants that would move Ontario out of last place in the country in per-student funding and that is desperately needed to keep the sector afloat?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Finance.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: I don’t know which part of my answer the member opposite didn’t hear. We’re making tuition more affordable for students and families in this province. We are there to support colleges and universities. This budget has more money to build infrastructure—student housing—which has been long overdue. We inherited a terrible infrastructure deficit in this province.

We’re not going to let the people of Ontario down. We’re not going to let the students of Ontario down. We’re not going to let families down. We’re not going to let the great people who are building this province down. We’re getting it done, and we’re going to do it together.

Taxation

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. This Monday is April Fool’s Day. Lots of jokes are going to be told, but none from the federal Liberals. They’re not joking about their 23% increase to the carbon tax on April 1. In fact, they’re very serious. It’s a cruel joke to Canadians.

In fact, they’re going to continue to hike the carbon tax each and every year, despite businesses and individuals calling on them to scrap it. It’s yet another Liberal tax grab, and our government continues to stand up against it. Instead of doing the same, Bonnie Crombie, the queen of the carbon tax and the provincial Liberals, haven’t said one single word to their federal colleagues.

We’re going to continue to stand up against this tax. I have a private member’s motion later today asking us to spike the hike. Minister, can you tell us how scrapping the carbon tax will affect the people that are powering our economy?

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

To reply, the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: No carbon tax equals more money in the pockets of the people who have earned it, and that includes the more than 120,000 auto workers who have solidified our position as a global leader and a manufacturing powerhouse. It includes the 70,000 life science workers who are driving unprecedented medical innovations. It includes the 420,000 tech workers, a 100,000 more last year alone—or since we took office; 25,000 firms—they put Ontario’s tech sector on the map. The 85,000 AI workers, 20,000 last year alone—they’re all saying the same thing: Enough with the high taxes. Scrap the carbon tax.

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

Mr. Steve Clark: Back to the minister: Bonnie Crombie has now flip-flopped and said that if she was Premier, she wouldn’t introduce a carbon tax. But she won’t even stand up and say one word to her federal colleagues in advance of their cruel joke they’re playing on Canadians on April 1.

The people of Ontario aren’t as gullible as she thinks. They also remember her close friends, her campaign team—what the Trudeau Liberals said in the 2019 election: that they had no intention of raising the carbon tax. I think we all know how that played out for Canadians.

The hard-working Ontarians, the hard-working businesses that are powering our economy have had enough of Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax. They want the tax scrapped.

Minister, can you explain how what we’re doing in Ontario by lowering costs and how that plays out for our economy?

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

The Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, we have said this day after day, week after week. We’ve shown the Liberals the way by lowering costs that allow businesses to succeed and create good-paying jobs. We have done the opposite. We’ve lowered the cost of doing business by $8 billion annually, and now, as a result of that, 700,000 more men and women are working since when we took office.

Last year, 180,000 new jobs were created. We attracted $11 billion in new investments by keeping taxes low. From 2018 to 2023, Ontario created more jobs from foreign direct investment than any province in Canada and any US state. That’s because we keep taxes low.

I say to Bonnie Crombie, the queen of the carbon tax: Call your federal counterparts. Scrap the tax.

Consumer protection

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, to the Premier: This week, the Toronto Star reported that thousands of Ontarians are going to be out of pocket for energy conservation renovations because Enbridge will not honour its commitments. Without notice, applications worth many thousands of dollars were thrown away. Will you stand up and tell Enbridge they can’t mistreat Ontarians this way?

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

Hon. Todd Smith: Mr. Speaker, let’s be clear: The member opposite would tomorrow eliminate natural gas from our province. Natural gas is currently providing home heating for over 70% of the homes in Ontario. And not only that, but natural gas is the insurance policy that we have to keep the lights on in the province of Ontario.

Now, we have many conservation programs that are available to the people of Ontario that are offered through different providers, like local distribution companies and, in particular, the Independent Electricity System Operator. We’ve put $1 billion into that CDM program, that energy-efficiency program, one that’s making life more affordable.

Let’s be clear: That member in particular supports a carbon tax, and not just a small carbon tax; he wants a carbon tax that’s even bigger than the one that Justin Trudeau is imposing on the people of Ontario next Monday. When it comes to affordability, it’s just not believable from the NDP.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Again to the Premier: I’m not surprised the government dodged this question, but the reality is thousands of Ontarians have been cheated by Enbridge, and this government has to act. When people cut their energy use and their bills, they clean our air and they help fight climate change. With this move, Enbridge will make people sour on investing in their homes to make life better for all of us.

Will the government tell Enbridge that they have to correct this abuse of everyday people right now?

Interjections.

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

The Minister of Energy.

Hon. Todd Smith: That member, from Toronto–Danforth, the long-time energy critic for the NDP, would wipe out natural gas tomorrow, so to all of those Enbridge customers who are out there, think about it for a second: He would be ripping your home heating out of your home. Not only is he against natural gas, that member opposite is against the investments that we have made in our nuclear facilities. Nuclear provides emissions-free, base-load power to our province 24 hours a day, seven days a week that’s affordable and employs 76,000 power workers, engineers and building trades in our province every single day.

As a matter of fact, the energy critic for the NDP was participating in a town hall saying that nuclear is dangerous to the health of people when it’s actually the reason that we’re off coal in Ontario, and they are a major producer of not just Canada’s but the world’s nuclear medicine through nuclear isotopes.

Anything the NDP says about energy is baloney.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to caution the minister on his choice of words.

The next question.

Ontario budget

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for the Premier. Never has an Ontario government spent so much, borrowed so much, incurred so much debt to accomplish so little.

Yesterday’s budget did nothing to address affordability for Ontario families. No relief for renters crushed by massive increases, and the Premier’s NIMBY—

Interjections.

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

The member for Ottawa South is speaking audibly, but I can’t hear him for some reason, and it could have something to do with the fact that the House is rather noisy at the moment. I would ask the House to come to order so that I can hear the member for Ottawa South.

Start the clock. Member for Ottawa South.

Mr. John Fraser: Thank you, Speaker. I’m glad to have the members’ attention.

This Premier’s NIMBY—I’ll take care of my friends first—approach is not making affordable housing a reality for any Ontario families, and, thanks to this Premier, every day, more and more Ontarians are having to pull out their credit card instead of their OHIP card to access basic primary care services.

My question is to the Premier: Why did he do nothing to address affordability in this budget for Ontario families?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply, the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Thank you for that question. When that member opposite and his party were in power for 15 years, deficit after deficit after deficit after—can I go on? Do we have time for 15 years of deficits?

What did we get? What did they build? Did they build hospitals?

Interjections: No.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Did they build highways?

Interjections: No.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Did they build public transit?

Interjections: No.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Did they build schools?

Interjections: No.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Did they build long-term care?

Interjections: No.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Did they build the Ontario for tomorrow? No.

They spent money, deficit after deficit, ramped up the debt, and we got squadoosh for that.

It’s this government that has a vision, under this Premier, to build Ontario. Those deficits will pass. We have a path to balance. But do you know what will be left? The legacy of building the infrastructure and the economy.

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

Mr. John Fraser: Yesterday’s budget’s meagre increase to health care in this province amounts to a cut. That has left the two million Ontarians without a family doctor without hope. They need access to primary care. Under this Premier, too many families are now having to face using their credit card instead of their OHIP card to access basic primary care services.

The Premier knows this is happening, and he’s just watching. By all accounts, that’s just fine with him. This Premier is really ready to point a finger but never able to lift one.

I’ll ask the Premier again: The Premier had an opportunity to actually take some measures to address the affordability crisis, so why didn’t he?

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

The Minister of Finance.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Mr. Speaker, the Premier and I and our colleagues, the other day, stood forward in front of the people of Ontario. You know what we did? We continued the cut in the gas tax, providing benefits for drivers right across this province. Yet their party, supported by their leader, want to have the carbon tax in Ottawa increase next week by 23%.

Mr. Speaker, do you want to stand with us, cutting taxes and cutting fees, or do you want to stand with them, increasing taxes and increasing fees?

Let’s look at Ottawa. We’re investing. Which party is getting the Ottawa Civic Hospital built? Which party is building more schools in Ottawa? Which party is building more for the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario? Which party is building more highways in Ottawa? It’s this party. They didn’t get it done. We’re getting it done.

Taxation / Imposition

Mr. Will Bouma: My question is for the Minister of Indigenous Affairs and Minister of Northern Development. The carbon tax is making everything more expensive for all Ontarians, but the people of northern Ontario are even more affected by the high cost of goods and travel because of this regressive tax.

Clearly, the federal Liberals do not care about the consequences the carbon tax has on northern communities as they plan to go ahead with their April 1 tax hike. The independent Liberals and their leader, the carbon tax queen, Bonnie Crombie, want to continue to burden the honest and hard-working people in our province with this disastrous tax. Unlike the opposition, our government is working for the people of Ontario.

Speaker, can the minister please tell the House how the carbon tax is hurting northern Ontario?

L’hon. Greg Rickford: Je remercie le député de Brantford–Brant pour cette question opportune. C’est clair que Justin Trudeau et Bonnie Crombie rendent la vie trop chère, et c’est un cas d’urgence. La taxe carbone va augmenter de 23 % le 1 er avril.

La taxe carbone n’est pas un plan environnemental. Par contre, c’est une taxe qui augmente le coût de tout pour les familles et les entreprises. En contraste frappant, sous la direction du premier ministre Ford, notre gouvernement réduit les taxes et garde l’argent dans les poches des familles et des entreprises.

Nous essayons d’avancer l’une des plus importantes politiques écologiques, la stratégie pour les minéraux critiques, et de créer une chaîne d’approvisionnement entièrement intégrée aux batteries—that’s tough. De plus, nous faisons des investissements verts dans des projets comme le four à arc électrique, et à chaque étape de ce processus, il y a une taxe carbone au-dessus. Ça ne fait aucun sens, monsieur le Président. Il est temps de supprimer la taxe carbone.

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

Mr. Will Bouma: Thank you to the minister. It is not right that the federal government continues to punish individuals and families in the north with this regressive tax.

To make matters worse, the NDP and Liberal members in this House continue to support carbon tax hikes. They actually agree with the federal Liberals’ plan to increase the carbon tax on gasoline six more times by 2030. That is disgraceful.

The opposition may be fine with ignoring the impact that the carbon tax has on northern Ontario, but our government knows that it will only continue making life more difficult for residents. Enough is enough. It is time to scrap this tax.

Speaker, can the minister elaborate on the detrimental effects that the carbon tax is having on northern communities and businesses?

L’hon. Greg Rickford: Oui, monsieur le Président, il est clair que la taxe carbone n’a absolument rien fait pour lutter contre le changement climatique.

Le Canada se classe maintenant 62 e sur 67 pays, en baisse de quatre places par rapport à l’année précédente selon l’indice de performance du changement climatique. C’est parce que la taxe carbone n’est pas un plan environnemental; c’est un plan fiscal.

Le premier ministre Ford fait

partie des sept premiers ministres provinciaux qui dénoncent la hausse de la taxe carbone. Les premiers ministres ne sont pas les seuls à s’opposer à cette taxe carbone : un récent sondage Léger commandé par la Fédération canadienne des contribuables a révélé que sept Canadiens sur 10 sont maintenant contre la taxe carbone. Alors, il est clair, monsieur le Président, que Justin Trudeau et Bonnie Crombie sont déconnectés de la réalité.

La population de l’Ontario a parlé. Il est temps de supprimer la taxe carbone.

Child care / Education funding

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: If you’re a parent looking for affordable child care in Ontario, yesterday’s budget from this Conservative government isn’t for you. At a time when child care operators are warning of closure, workers are leaving the sector in droves and parents are seeing hundreds of dollars more in the cost of their child care because operators had to withdraw from the program, this government didn’t even mention the words “child care,” beyond a footnote.

My question to the Premier: Parents are waiting for affordable child care. Why did your budget ignore them?

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

To reply, the Minister of Education.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: What’s also not in the budget is the carbon tax, which is something we are standing up against every single day because members opposite seem to trivialize affordability for working parents of this province. We will not increase the costs of groceries, of baby goods, of fuel, and punish people who go to work or drop off their kids at the local school or child care centre.

But talking about child care, it was a Progressive Conservative government, not ironically, that actually slashed child care fees by 50%, saving an average family in this province $6,000 to $10,000 a year. That is meaningful when it comes to delivering affordability for working people. We’re building 19,000 spaces in Toronto, 86,000 across this province.

We know there’s more work to do. We’re working with an imperfect system from the federal government, but we stood up to this Liberal Prime Minister for a better deal for the people we represent. Join us. Fight for more affordable child care for Ontario families.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: The issues with this budget aren’t limited just to child care. School boards across this province were reporting deficits before this budget, which doesn’t even keep up with inflation. The minister knows what this will mean: more cuts to student programs and supports.

Why is this Conservative government failing our students and schools?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: I am proud of a budget that increases investments in public education to the highest levels ever recorded in Ontario history. The numbers tell a story. In 2023, education spending was at $36.6 billion. It is on track to hit $40 billion in 2026. It’s up $2 billion in just two years. That is proof positive that we’re investing.

We’re hiring 3,000 more teachers, 7,500 more education workers. Part of this budget is an increase in funding to combat issues of insecurity in our schools, an additional investment to improve math, the hiring of 800 specialized literacy educators to boost the fundamental skills that we know matter to the course and success of a child.

Speaker, this budget invests in our kids. It invests in better futures. It invests in better jobs and bigger paycheques. We’ll always ensure our children have a better education that leads them to better jobs in this province.

Taxation

Mr. Stéphane Sarrazin: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. When I spoke with my constituents in the riding of Glengarry–Prescott–Russell last week, I kept hearing how the federal carbon tax is making life more unaffordable. With many people in Ontario already dealing with the rising cost of living and high interest rates, the last thing they need is another tax hike.

Speaker, this punitive tax is increasing the cost of everything in our province. After next month’s increase, Ontarians will be paying 17.6 cents extra on every litre of gas, costing them hundreds of dollars every year. Of course, that’s unacceptable. The federal Liberals need to scrap this tax now.

Can the minister tell this House how our government is keeping costs down for Ontarians?

Hon. Graydon Smith: Thanks to the great member for the question. I’d love to tell the House how we’re keeping costs down for Ontarians, and our finance minister has done a great job of doing that today as well.

But we know that the carbon tax is everywhere. It’s everywhere. It’s in the bush. When people want to go hunting and they want to get on their ATV, they’ve had to pay carbon tax on the fuel for that ATV. They’ve had to pay carbon tax in the truck to get out and enjoy the great outdoors, carbon tax in the generator for the camp. Mr. Speaker, it is never-ending. It’s impacting our traditional ways of life, just trying to go and enjoy hunting, enjoy fishing.

Well, there’s someone being hunted, all right. It’s the wallets of every Ontarian, by the Liberals and the NDP, by the carbon tax. And I’ll tell you what, it’s in the sights, and on April 1, the kill shot is going to happen and it’s going to take all the money in all the wallets, because they won’t rest. They won’t rest. They want to take all that money for carbon tax and take away our traditions, our ways of life in the north that we respect. This government—

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

The supplementary question?

Mr. Stéphane Sarrazin: Thank you to the minister for his response. The carbon tax is punishing the hard-working people of this province, and it’s only going to get worse. The Liberals and the NDP want to nearly triple this regressive tax by 2030—unacceptable. Everything from the price of groceries to fuel costs will increase because of the Liberal tax hikes.

Individuals and families in rural Ontario rely heavily on their vehicle for transportation. The carbon tax is negatively impacting residents of rural Ontario as they are hit hardest at the gas pumps. While the opposition members representing these communities support this ludicrous tax, our government will continue to advocate for all Ontarians.

Can the minister explain what our government is doing to make life more affordable for northern and Indigenous communities and rural communities?

Hon. Graydon Smith: Again, thanks to the great member for the question. Since becoming Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, of course I’ve had the opportunity to travel throughout so much of the province, especially in northern Ontario. Recently, I’ve been to Timmins, I’ve been to Thunder Bay, I’ve been to Atikokan and communities in between, and do you know what I noticed? Something pretty obvious. In these communities, people rely on their vehicles. There isn’t a subway service. There isn’t a GO train. I know a few years ago, I wrote an April Fool’s joke about Bracebridge having a subway service. That was just a joke.

There aren’t other options for people in the north. They need their vehicles to take people to school every day. They need their vehicles to get to the grocery store. They need their vehicles to get to work. It’s their only option. It’s why our government cut the gas tax and has extended that cut. It’s because we respect Ontarians. Our government is fighting back against the failed Liberal plan to make life unaffordable in northern Ontario. We need to scrap that tax. April 1 is almost here—

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

The next question.

Pompiers / Firefighters

M. Guy Bourgouin: To the Premier: Dans le budget que votre gouvernement a déposé hier, on remarque qu’alors que le budget pour lutter contre les feux de forêt était de 216 millions de dollars cette année, il va baisser à 135 millions de dollars en 2024-2025. C’est une diminution de 81 millions de dollars.

Monsieur le Premier Ministre, alors que nous faisons face à une crise de dotation de pompiers forestiers, comment justifiez-vous cette baisse de 37,5 % du budget pour combattre les feux de forêt?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply, the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry.

Hon. Graydon S