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

April 13, 2021

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2021-Apr-13 (PDF)

L245 - Tue 13 Apr 2021 / Mar 13 avr 2021

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 13 April 2021 Mardi 13 avril 2021

Orders of the Day

Protecting Ontario Elections Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 sur la protection des élections en Ontario

Members’ Statements

COVID-19 response

Services for children with disabilities

Child care

Battle of Vimy Ridge

Ramadan

Edward Smith

Laurentian University

COVID-19 response

Organ and tissue donation

Question Period

COVID-19 response

COVID-19 response

COVID-19 immunization

Broadband infrastructure

COVID-19 response

COVID-19 response

Special-needs children

Laurentian University / Université Laurentienne

COVID-19 immunization

Indigenous education

Mercury poisoning

COVID-19 response

COVID-19 immunization

COVID-19 response / Réponse à la COVID-19

COVID-19 immunization

Notice of dissatisfaction

Deferred Votes

2021 Ontario budget

Workplace Safety and Insurance Amendment Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 modifiant la

Loi sur la sécurité professionnelle et l’assurance contre les accidents du travail

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Introduction of Bills

Supply Chain Management Amendment Act (Provincial Diverse Vendor Strategy), 2021 / Loi de 2021 modifiant la

Loi sur la gestion de la chaîne d’approvisionnement (Stratégie provinciale pour la diversité des fournisseurs)

Darvey Holdings Limited Act, 2021

Petitions

Addiction services

Long-term care

Addiction services

Documents gouvernementaux

Addiction services

Anti-smoking initiatives for youth

Orders of the Day

Protecting Ontario Elections Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 sur la protection des élections en Ontario

Private Members’ Public Business

Intimate Partner Violence Disclosure Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 sur la divulgation de la violence entre partenaires intimes

Adjournment Debate

Laurentian University

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Protecting Ontario Elections Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 sur la protection des élections en Ontario

Mr. Downey moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 254,

An Act to amend various Acts with respect to elections and members of the Assembly / Projet de loi 254, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne les élections et les députés à l’Assemblée.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I recognize the Attorney General to lead off the debate.

Hon. Doug Downey: I am honoured to rise in the House today for the third reading of the Protecting Ontario Elections Act. This bill, if passed, would make it easier and safer for people to vote and participate in Ontario elections.

We are proposing responsible changes that would ensure the province’s electoral process is equipped for urgent and evolving challenges, including COVID-19. Each and every Ontarian is a driving force in our democracy, from casting their vote to volunteering on campaigns or putting one’s name on a ballot. This proposed legislation would protect Ontarians’ central role in elections, promoting fairness and access to the electoral process for everyone. Our government is proposing changes to update election laws to better respond to the challenges of the day, the needs of voters and the way Ontarians interact with their democratic institutions.

Like other Parliaments before us, it is our responsibility to ensure that the electoral system and the laws that govern it continue to evolve to promote fairness and access to the electoral process for everyone. Never has it been more important to take steps to make our elections safer, more accessible and efficient for individuals. Our government recognizes this, and we are committed to ensuring that our electoral process is equipped to respond to the challenges of the day and is resilient now and in the future.

If passed, the Protecting Ontario Elections Act, 2021, would help strengthen our preparedness for the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, add additional guardrails to ensure that the influence of third-party advertising is reasonable, and provide new protections against irregular campaign spending and collusion.

Before I begin to discuss the proposed changes in this legislation in greater detail, I would like to extend my gratitude to our partners who have contributed to this legislation. I would like to thank the diligent and dedicated teams at the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs and my own ministry, the Ministry of the Attorney General, and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for their collective work on this legislation.

I would also like to acknowledge and thank Elections Ontario for its continued leadership in ensuring elections in this province are fair, accessible and responsive. A special thanks to the Chief Electoral Officer, who participated at committee and has been engaged in this legislation prior to the introduction, right through until today.

I would like to recognize the diligence of the Chief Electoral Officer for bringing forward a special report on election administration that was released in November 2020 in response to the risks that surround COVID-19, as well as his report, Modernizing Ontario’s Electoral Process: Report on Ontario’s 42nd General Election, both of which laid the groundwork for this bill and some key amendments, including making it easier for people to get to the polls earlier in advance of the general election and thereby avoid lineups.

Finally, I would like to extend my gratitude to all those who provided their feedback on this legislation at committee.

In Ontario, we are fortunate to choose our governments at the ballot box. It is imperative that the Legislature do everything it can to protect that privilege and keep our elections safe, fair and efficient. That is why we have introduced this legislation. It is why we are putting forth proposals to ensure that one of the flagships of our democratic system is protected and updated to meet urgent challenges, including COVID-19.

The Protecting Ontario Elections Act is about putting people first and making sure that elections in Ontario are responsive to the challenges of the day. Whether that be new technologies, outdated processes that don’t hold bad actors to account, the proliferation of pop-up organizations spending millions on influencing our elections or the uncertainty posed by things like COVID-19, Ontarians are fortunate to be able to count on the independent integrity of Elections Ontario, which began celebrating 100 years of elections in 2020.

Let’s pause for a moment: 100 years of elections for this institution. You can see the names on the walls when you go downstairs. There’s great history here. I remember when we were elected in 2018 and we were doing an orientation, they talked about there being only about 2,000 people who have ever been elected to this space. But I want to take a moment to think about all the people who weren’t elected here, who put their name on a ballot, the people who put themselves forward with an idea or a conviction. Obviously, we know more than two people run in every riding.

So that means if there are 2,000 people here, there are thousands of people who put their name on a ballot. Those people deserve a chance to have their voice heard.

As a result of that persistent commitment and the contributions of successive governments over the years that have made efforts to ensure legislation continues to evolve with the times, Ontario continues to be seen as a leader in promoting and protecting the democratic process.

With this bill, our government is taking up that critical responsibility to protect Ontario elections. We are responding to the challenges of the day and the needs of voters.

We know all too well the reality and impact of COVID-19 here in Ontario, across Canada and around the world. Right now, keeping people safe is at the heart of everything we do. As we all know, maintaining distance from one another is essential to curbing the spread of COVID-19. In today’s environment of physical distancing, we know many added measures will need to be in place to safely hold an election in Ontario, and we are proposing action now to help ensure Ontario is prepared.

The COVID-19 pandemic has driven up the importance of ensuring elections are accessible and safe for all Ontarians. When we think about election day in this current environment, for better or worse, one of our first thoughts is about people gathering at polling stations. We know that they can be crowded, with lengthy lineups, especially in peak times like after a long work day. It doesn’t take much to think about a school gym with multiple stations to vote at and people working side by side, each taking registrations as people come in, checking ID, and people lining up and going behind the box. There’s a lot of activity in that space.

One of the things that happens, at least in a lot of the places that I’ve volunteered, is that it’s a gathering place for the community. Because there are a lot of people, people then go outside and they’re talking to each other and they’re enjoying their community. I just can’t imagine how that would look if it were to happen today. Things have changed a little bit. We need to be careful, we need to make sure that we have distancing and we need to make sure that Elections Ontario is responsive to that.

We know that the idea of lining up and gathering at polling stations can be a source of anxiety and concern that could deter some voters from participating as they normally would on election day. Some people would envision that scene that I just described and be nervous about it and maybe not vote. We do not want that. We want everybody to vote who has the ability to vote.

Being able to maintain a safe distance while exercising your civic duty has never been more important. That is why we have proposed changes that would make it safer and easier to vote in a COVID-19 environment. We want to increase the number of flexible advance polling days from five to 10, based on need. Increasing the number of advance polling days would reduce the number of people in a polling station, so they could stay a safe distance apart and minimize risk. That added flexibility would allow people to participate in Ontario elections without fear or apprehension.

Ontarians who face obstacles in making their way to a polling station, such as people living in northern and remote communities, would have more options on when to vote. We have to remember that for many Ontarians, voting is not just a matter of walking a few city blocks or driving a few miles in their cars. For some Ontarians, casting their vote is a time commitment, it’s a travel commitment, and it often means juggling an already busy daily

schedule with work and with family. This change would also make it easier for shift workers and others on a strict work clock to cast their vote safely.

All these voters benefited from new technology-enabled polling stations. The success of the technology during this period provided Elections Ontario with some excellent insights about what to expect on election day.

During the 2018 election, mail-in ballots also proved to be a very popular option. Elections Ontario reported sending out more than 15,000 mail-in ballot kits for the 2018 election, which is up more than 50% from the 10,000 kits sent ahead of the 2014 provincial election. Speaker, we can clearly see that Ontarians have shown a growing interest in taking advantage of more of the convenient voting options that are available, even before the pandemic. We can see that for many people, voting in advance of election day can be a better fit for their individual circumstances and their routine.

Putting aside the present urgent need to provide flexibility for voters, I hope every member of this Legislature can agree that it is essential to make our elections more relevant and convenient for the people they are intended to serve. By increasing advance voting days, we would expand the opportunity for more Ontarians to vote safely and with more convenience, and help to ensure more individuals can make their voices heard. That is the experience that has been measured in recent elections here in Ontario and has been identified by Ontario’s Chief Electoral Officer as an area of our elections that needs addressing.

Speaker, we have also seen the need to improve access to advance voting through the example of provinces that conducted elections during the COVID-19 pandemic, with specific public health directives in place. Provincial general elections were held in British Columbia and New Brunswick last year. This past winter, a severe COVID-19 outbreak in Newfoundland and Labrador created chaos for election officials and voters. As a result of the outbreak, election officials cancelled in-person voting on the eve of election day and extended the time voters had to cast ballots until March 25.

Recognizing that this virus will be part of our reality in some capacity for the foreseeable future, we want to ensure we take responsible measures to mitigate risks related to COVID-19 while providing more options for Ontarians to feel safe voting in advance of election day. Newfoundland and Labrador’s experience shows how unpredictable elections can be in a COVID-19 environment and how quickly circumstances can change.

Like Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick was home to a relatively low number of COVID-19 cases when the writ was dropped last summer. Fortunately, that election was not marred by an outbreak of COVID-19 that required the kind of emergency action that was taken in Newfoundland and Labrador. The New Brunswick election saw voters turn out for advance voting in record numbers. In fact, more than 133,000 people voted in the two days of advance polls, the most ever in that province. This was up from 88,000 voters in 2018. So that’s 133,000, up from 88,000, which represents a marked increase in the COVID-19 context.

British Columbia has also had its own unique voting experience during the pandemic, and even though voting occurred as originally scheduled, unsurprisingly, British Columbia also saw a rise in votes cast in advance polls. According to elections officials, in 2020, the advance votes cast as a percentage of total votes—the increase was 35%, compared to 30% in 2017. Again, in a province the size of British Columbia, that’s a marked increase in round numbers. This demonstrates that there has been a greater uptake of advance polling in provinces where elections have been run safely during the COVID-19 pandemic.

We have proposed provisions to ensure election day and advance polls do not occur on weekends of major religious holidays, as determined by Elections Ontario.

As mentioned, 10 days of advance polls was most recently proposed by Ontario’s Chief Electoral Officer in a special report released last November on election administration and response to the risks that surround COVID-19. We are pleased to be responding to that recommendation, the lessons of previous elections in Ontario and the example of other provinces that have held elections during this pandemic.

Speaker, Ontarians see the current system, and it permits pop-up organizations and political action groups. It allows them to use their spending power to bring American-style politics that overpower the voices of individuals. We’re proposing to also include responsible reforms, to put safeguards in place to address the under-regulated third-party advertising in Ontario.

I want to begin here by clarifying what third-party advertising is and how it impacts our elections. Third-party advertising is a way for organizations that are not part of a candidate’s or a party’s campaign to make an impact on the public dissemination of information leading into an election and, ultimately, its outcome. I want to be clear: We recognize that there is a place for third parties to participate in our democratic elections. But the fact of the matter is this: The level of activity and spending that these pop-up organizations are engaged in in our province is significant, and it needs reasonable safeguards.

What we do know is that north of the border, this kind of campaigning takes on unique dimensions in our province compared with the rest of the country and even in the federal context. In Ontario, we’re the only province in Canada where third-party spending is counted in the millions rather than in the thousands. The influence of third parties in our elections is disproportionately significant in Ontario compared to other provinces and even in the federal context, on a dollar-to-dollar basis.

In 2018, in Ontario, third parties spent over $5 million during the election period and in the six months prior to the election. This is not spending by actual political parties or candidates who raise funds from transparent and accountable donations made by individuals. This is spending by outside organizations that can be funded by a wider variety of sources. The amount of money that can be spent, and is being spent, by third parties can be shocking when you look at the numbers.

Our government has been clear: We believe Ontarians should be the ones deciding elections. Again, we recognize that there needs to be room for third parties to participate alongside candidates and parties in the electoral process. Their voice is important too. But what we cannot allow is that their voice be louder than Ontarians themselves.

This bill would provide a balance to ensure the voice of individual Ontarians will not be drowned out. This is a position that has been supported by the independent officer of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario responsible for the administration of provincial elections. In 2016, the Chief Electoral Officer stated that the scale of third-party advertising in Ontario was greater than at the federal level and suggested that third-party election ads be monitored between elections, not just in the immediate lead-up or during the writ.

In this proposed legislation, the Protecting Ontario Elections Act, we are building on the Ontario Legislature’s 2016 decision to ban corporate and union donations by requiring third-party advertising spending limits to begin 12 months before an election instead of six months before. This proposed time-limit increase would responsibly regulate third-party advertising between elections. It would protect the essential voice of individuals and ensure that they—and not pop-up organizations—remain the driving force of our elections.

The spending limit is not changing. It will remain at $637,200. That’s in addition to the $106,000 each third-party group is permitted to spend during the official writ period. Of course, prior to the pre-writ, that is, 12 months before the election, the spending limit is unlimited—unlimited for nearly three years. So that’s an unlimited opportunity up to the 12-month period, over $637,000 for the 12-month period up to the writ, and then another $106,000 during the writ for any third party. That is significant, Speaker.

We’re proposing to strike a balance. We’re proposing changes to help reasonably regulate third-party advertising between elections, balancing the ability of third parties to continue to participate in elections and the need to ensure Ontario voters have the loudest voice in our elections. For clarity, I will note that these amounts are indexed annually and will be updated by Elections Ontario with the new amounts in January 2022.

The proposed time-limit increase would help to reasonably regulate third-party advertising between elections. I think we can all agree that we don’t want our politics to become as adversarial or polarized as what we have witnessed in the United States. Much of the disenchantment that many people feel about politics stems from attack ads funded by faceless political action groups, pop-up organizations and big-money conglomerates.

The proposed changes will protect Ontario from those risks. At committee, we made a few key amendments that will further strengthen this portion of the bill by creating greater accountability for third parties who choose to participate in our elections through paid advertising. We have made amendments that would require third parties to file interim spending reports with the Chief Electoral Officer to support compliance with third-party spending limits. These reports will have to be filed for every thousand dollars that the third party spends or commits to advertising.

Elections Ontario will then track third-party advertiser spending online by publishing interim reports, as well as the percentage of their allowable spending limit spent or committed to date. This will allow sellers of advertising to do their due diligence and not contract with or commit advertising to any third party if doing so would put the third party over their spending limit. It would both improve transparency and ensure organizations selling advertising are part of the accountability process.

Ultimately, we want individuals to make decisions based on what each party stands for and based on the record of that party. Our proposed changes will ensure that the under-regulated third-party spending is addressed—under-regulated, yes.

Speaker, our goal is also to protect Ontarians’ essential voice in campaigns and strengthen the integrity of the elections process by doing other changes. It is for this reason that this legislation also includes changes to increase the amount that an individual can contribute.

I would like to take a moment to touch on the 2016 Ontario Legislature decision to ban corporate and union donations. That decision also helped to protect Ontarians’ essential voice in campaigns and strengthen the integrity of the elections process. I think we can all agree. The Chief Electoral Officer has supported the ban of union and corporate contributions, and we agree that this is a good action taken by the Legislature. In fact, we believe it is imperative to ensure individuals—not big corporations or organizations—remain at the centre of the electoral process.

As we contemplated this change to increase the amount that an individual can contribute to a party, candidate or riding association, we looked at Ontario’s situation in comparison to other provinces to see where we stood against some of our counterparts across the country. By increasing these annual limits from $1,650 to $3,300 this year, as this bill is proposing, we would be putting Ontario right in the middle of the pack for individual donation limits in Canada. This would still be well below Alberta, where the limit is $4,243.

It’s well below Manitoba and Nova Scotia where, in both those provinces, the limits are $5,000. In Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador, there is, in fact, no limit at all. Again, this is another element of this legislation that builds on this Legislature’s long-standing history of updating Ontario’s election laws and ensuring that the electoral system continues to evolve.

The COVID-19 pandemic has changed almost every aspect of our lives and how we interact with our communities. Party and riding associations have not been able to safely engage with their constituents in the way they could before COVID-19, and this runs across all party lines. That impacts their ability to effectively connect with and represent their constituents and supporters, and their financial viability.

In recognition of the current circumstances, which have changed since the last time this Legislature debated per-vote subsidies for political parties, we’re proposing to extend the per-vote subsidies each party typically receives during an election at the 2018 rate of 63 cents per vote. These subsidies were scheduled to be phased out by 2022. In order to protect the essential political dialogue that Ontarians expect to engage in with political parties across the spectrum, we’re proposing that the per-vote subsidies each party typically receives stay in place until December 2024.

This will give all parties a chance to find some financial balance and move forward with planning for the future. We need to ensure that the electoral system continues to evolve to preserve fairness and access to the electoral process for everyone. We’re proposing a balanced approach which ensures we won’t be in a situation where parties aren’t part of the discussion simply because they can’t afford to be there.

I also want to briefly discuss a change to this portion of the legislation that we made at committee. In order to ensure that this proposed change fully meets our goal of ensuring all parties are financially viable, we made an amendment that would make the proposed change to subsidies retroactive and effective January 1, 2021. It’s a matter of fairness that parties and constituency associations should have the resources to fully participate in our democracy.

We believe that this change would help our democratic institutions be part of the province-wide COVID-19 recovery that our government is leading, and it helps protect the essential and vigorous dialogue that Ontarians expect in their elections.

Speaker, this legislation also includes important changes which will increase fairness for candidates. When we talk about ensuring fairness for candidates, for too long election rules have forgotten independent members. Currently, independent members of provincial Parliament do not have the same ability or resources as registered political party candidates to fundraise outside of election periods or keep surpluses from their campaigns. Their financial resources are limited. I believe and our government believes this is unfair.

If passed, our proposed legislation would level the playing field and provide all sitting independent MPPs with access to constituency associations. They would also receive the related benefits of being able to fundraise outside of election periods, qualify for constituency association voter subsidies and keep surpluses. British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan all presently allow incumbent independent MLAs to form constituency associations. We are proposing that Ontario join those jurisdictions.

Our government has continually worked to ensure that independent members of this Legislature stand on equal footing with those who are members of a party. Just before I move on, I would like to discuss a few other examples of how the government House leader has worked to ensure fairness for all members of this chamber. A few recent examples come to mind: In 2019, the standing orders were amended to provide equal time for independent members to respond to opposition day motions.

In 2020, the standing orders were amended again to reallocate two government question period questions each day to the independent members. Now, in 2021, I am glad to build on this work to support the independent members of this Legislature and the next and so on.

The proposed changes in this legislation will go a long way to ensuring that independent members have a fair shot in future elections. I am proud to be bringing forth this change to help build a more accessible election system in Ontario for all.

Ontario didn’t build a world-class electoral process by allowing the system to grow outdated. It didn’t allow it to be unresponsive to the needs of the people who rely on it to express their voice. Elections Ontario is celebrating a proud centennial, because generations of Ontarians have made our elections and our democracy a priority. In 2021, that means keeping up with how Ontarians expect to interact with their representatives, public life and even the technology they expect to be used as part of the elections.

As I mentioned earlier, this bill puts forward several reforms that were recommended by the Chief Electoral Officer, including a proposed change to introduce guidelines on voting technology. Just as Ontario’s justice system needs to keep up with the times, so does Ontario’s voting system. We are taking great strides in moving from an outdated, outmoded, paper-based justice system to one that embraces technology. We need to apply the same principles to our electoral processes.

Voting equipment used to count and submit ballots needs to keep pace with new advances. Of course, when we are looking at equipment that is used to count and submit ballots, we must ensure accuracy and accountability are paramount. That is why we are proposing an advisory committee appointed by the Chief Electoral Officer of Elections Ontario to advise on guidelines and make recommendations for Ontario’s voting equipment. This committee would include representation of every registered party in the Legislature.

It would have a similar structure to the political advisory committee to the Chief Electoral Officer, with the notable addition of experts in election technology. The advice of this committee would help modernize Ontario’s voting process and ensure it is updated to meet urgent challenges, including things like COVID-19.

Another recommendation from the Chief Electoral Officer that we are putting forward as part of this bill is about the use of administrative monetary penalties to ensure compliance with election rules. This bill would also boost the Chief Electoral Officer’s enforcement powers and discretion.

Currently, the Chief Electoral Officer reports election infractions to the independent prosecution service in the Criminal Law Division within the Ministry of the Attorney General, where they’re considered for possible prosecution. Once that has been done, the Chief Electoral Officer must wait. He must wait and see whether the independent prosecution service will proceed with a prosecution.

While the Chief Electoral Officer will continue to have this opportunity, if this bill passes, it would provide the CEO with new options and more discretion to drive compliance, because to have it submitted to the Criminal Law Division for possible prosecution is sort of an all-or-nothing. It’s a very significant move for prosecution when some of the infractions are fairly minor, but there was no way to address those non-compliance pieces.

These options would include new powers to impose administrative monetary penalties for offences classified as “minor.” So, for example, for third parties, administrative monetary penalties could be applied for:

—third-party advertising with no authorization, if you forget the little tagline on a sign or something;

—failing to register as a third party;

—exceeding spending limits.

For nomination contestants and leadership contestants, these penalties could be applied for failure to register.

All political actors could be given an administrative monetary penalty for:

—failure to submit financial reports;

—exceeding spending limits.

Other offences would include:

—release of election surveys on polling day;

—failure to submit other reports.

Most offences would be subject to a maximum penalty of $1,500 for individuals and $5,000 for an entity, with the following exceptions:

—In the event that a contribution in excess of the limits imposed by the act is made, the maximum amount of the penalty is an amount equal to twice the amount that was contributed in contravention to that section, plus $1,500 for an individual or $5,000 in the case of an entity that contravenes the act.

—For any political or third-party advertising appearing during a blackout period and any third-party advertising that does not disclose the source or lacks authorization, the penalty would be up to $10,000 if the third party is a person and up to $100,000 if the third party is a trade union, employee organization, corporation or other organization.

—Failure to register as a third party would lead to a maximum penalty of $10,000.

Again, I want to be abundantly clear that each of these offences could still be prosecuted by the Criminal Law Division within the Ministry of the Attorney General. These are additional tools to drive compliance.

Speaker, the Commissioner of Canada Elections within the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer is authorized to use AMPs in this manner, and election officials at the federal level, in British Columbia and in Alberta can also apply similar penalties. Ontario would be following the precedent set in these jurisdictions. With respect to penalties for third parties, Ontario is proposing to follow the Alberta model, with higher maximum penalties of up to $10,000 for individuals and $100,000 for organizations.

At committee, we listened to a number of stakeholders like Democracy Watch and others who cited the need for a few amendments that would make the monetary penalty scheme fairer and more similar to other jurisdictions. As a result, monetary penalties can be appealed to the Superior Court of Justice within a certain time period as long as the appropriate appeal process is followed, and the Chief Electoral Officer may only issue a monetary penalty if the officer believes on reasonable grounds that the person or entity contravened the act. This amendment makes the standard more objective and fairer to appeal.

Like limitation periods in law, the Chief Electoral Officer will only be able to issue a monetary penalty within two years of discovering there was an infraction. These are all measures that will make it fairer and more transparent for all involved.

Speaker, we appreciate the feedback we received at committee, and as always, we’re glad to incorporate amendments that will further strengthen this proposed legislation. It’s a nod to the committee process, to the committee members who took the time to hear from people who self-selected to come in front of the committee and talk about what was important to them and their experiences in other jurisdictions. That’s one of the great things about Canada, as a federated model.

We have, really, all these different experiences across the country, trying different things, where we can pick up ideas that have been tested already, things that are in the field. It’s exactly this kind of approach that we heard at committee, where people said, “Here’s what happens in BC,” “Here’s what happens in Alberta,” or “Here’s what happens in Nova Scotia.”

Quite frankly, it gives us a chance to be educated and to gain the experience without going through the difficulty that a place like Newfoundland and Labrador went through with their election, where they ran into trouble. We could learn from that in real time. So when we heard those ideas—we’re always looking for ideas, but again, I want to thank all the committee members from all the parties who took the time to hear the deputations. They came up with some really good, concrete changes, and we’ve incorporated so many of those very practical changes into the process.

In terms of a legislative process, it’s very helpful when we have somebody who is proactive like the Chief Electoral Officer for Elections Ontario, who puts together a paper, some research and some ideas, puts them on paper, files them in the fall, gives us a chance to digest them, lets people look at them to see what might work, what might not work. And then we draw on our collective experience. There’s probably not anything else that I can think of that every member in this Legislature collectively knows as well as elections. It draws your keen attention when your name is on a ballot.

If you hadn’t been involved before, you certainly become educated very quickly on so many of the intricacies: things like blackout periods, things like how to raise money, how you report. There’s actually quite a bit of reporting that happens, a lot of accountability, whether it be at the nomination level or the election level. All of that collective experience that we have in this House goes forward into a proposed bill.

When it goes into first reading, as we know, there’s not a lot of discussion through first reading. At second reading, there’s a little bit more: We get some debate with the opposition, with the independents, and we hear some perspectives. Then we have a chance to go to committee. When it goes to committee, that’s when the public really weighs in. They talk directly to MPPs about what’s important to them and things that they think we can do better, things that they think that we may not have full context for.

I know we hear sometimes about how we have a majority and so we could just go forward. That is true, but that’s not really how we govern. We want to hear from people. We want to hear from people what their ideas are. There’s proof positive in the number of the bills that I’ve brought through the Legislature where we’ve made changes once we heard from people and had context.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the members for taking the time to listen, to help us articulate ways that we can do better, and I just reviewed a few of the ways where we have in fact taken that input and provided some amendments here in third reading. I just wanted to pause and mention that so that people are drawn to—if they were paying attention at second reading, there are some changes in third reading because of that process. It really is a very good process.

Another area of election law in Ontario that needed to be strongly enforced is collusion. In fact, as we were drafting this legislation to promote fair participation in elections, it was a priority to strengthen enforcement—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Order, please.

Hon. Doug Downey: I just wanted to wake the opposition up, Mr. Speaker; I just had to do something.

In fact, as we were drafting this legislation to promote fair participation in elections, it was a priority to strengthen enforcement around collusion. Now, to be clear, we’re proposing rules to address collusion that focuses on sharing of resources, not sharing of message. So if organizations are sharing the same message, that’s fine. Collusion is about sharing of resources, so that they’re not skirting and going around the spending limits simply by setting up another pop-up organization.

Now, currently collusion can only be established where it can be proven that a third party’s advertising has been done with the knowledge and consent of a candidate or party. Our proposed amendment would clearly outline what would entail collusion to help guard against those risks. We looked at the federal definition of collusion, and we are proposing to strengthen Ontario’s accordingly. We would like to add more clarity around sharing information, common vendors, common contributors and use of funds obtained from foreign sources, to ensure Ontario benefits from the strongest framework in Canada.

We are also proposing that the non-partisan, independent Chief Electoral Officer would investigate complaints or allegations on collusion. Our suggested changes would strengthen safeguards against collusion and, most importantly, protect our elections from outside influence and interference. Through this legislation, Ontario would have the strongest framework in the country.

We also made an amendment at committee that will further strengthen these collusion provisions. We are proposing now that third parties who donate funds to other third parties will have to disclose those donations as part of the donations relating to the third party’s spending limit. This only makes sense. Currently, third parties can circumvent the spending limits because third-party donations aren’t captured as part of those limits. So what I’m saying is, you could have one organization donate money to another organization, and then have double the spending.

Again, this is all about Ontarians’ voice, the voter’s voice. We shouldn’t have organizations doing that. It needs to be clarified and made more transparent. It’s what Ontarians would expect from their system.

We know that Ontario’s financial rules for candidates and parties in an election are inefficient and serve as barriers. These outdated rules may discourage people from running for an elected office. In order to further strengthen the measures set out in this bill, in the near future we will be proposing an additional amendment to streamline processes so that people vying for party nominations would only need to submit candidate registration papers and not the additional financial reports introduced in 2017.

This proposed amendment would still require contestants to register but remove all requirements for financial reporting, as recommended by the Chief Electoral Officer. Again, this is an idea that came from the CEO. This would simplify procedures and reduce bureaucratic red tape that could negatively affect interested candidates to the point that the actual candidate pool is reduced.

I also want to talk about spot audits for a moment. The term “spot audit” refers to financial audits of candidates, leadership contestants and parties that happen after an audit has already been submitted and found sufficient. So, as you know—I know everybody in this chamber knows—when you submit your financials, you submit them audited. They’re reviewed by Elections Ontario and they’re accepted. Well, a spot audit says, “We might have another look after that.” Speaker, political parties and campaigns are already subject to financial reporting requirements that include many checks and balances.

Like any other business in this province, they need to follow audit rules and requirements. For political parties and candidates, this means that political parties hire firms like PwC, KPMG or others to audit the party’s financial statements which then must be submitted annually and after each campaign.

Now, I mentioned these big companies, but I have to tell you there are so many people—Mike Bunn in Barrie, who is retired now, would do audits; Charlene Anderson; Susan Morrison. There are so many sole practitioners that would do financials and do audits, so it’s not just the big guys. It’s also individuals in your communities that step forward and do that.

Once they’re audited, the reports are then reviewed by Elections Ontario to confirm their accuracy, as I said. Spot audits reopen and reinvestigate financial statements that have already been audited, closed and approved, and place a large administrative burden on political parties and individual candidates. It’s duplication of work and it’s unnecessary. We’re proposing an amendment that would limit the Chief Electoral Officer’s authority to reopen previously approved audited financial statements.

This change would help make the elections process more efficient, while maintaining regular audits of finances and strong, effective oversight of provincial elections. But, as an additional balancing measure, we’re providing the Chief Electoral Officer with a stronger suite of enforcement tools to drive compliance. This will be the most complete toolbox of penalties and enforcement measures available to an election officer in Canada.

Speaker, we’re also proposing a number of administrative changes to help simplify the electoral process and make it more efficient. Constituency associations will be required to submit financial statements to the registered party quarterly, or as requested, to increase transparency. This will help to increase the transparency of election finances between parties and their constituency associations. We’re also proposing to reduce the requirement to post events to a party website from seven days in advance of the event to three days.

This would align posting requirements during writ and non-writ periods and help to increase the transparency of election finances between parties and their constituency associations. This proposed amendment also builds on previous reforms voted into law by Ontario’s Legislature to strengthen the integrity of elections and encourage fair participation by Ontarians.

We are suggesting a new minimum $10,000 threshold of contributions to trigger an audit. This would ensure audit subsidies are paid only to organizations with significant financial activity. The contribution threshold we are proposing is $10,000 of any financial activity. Previously, there was no threshold, so organizations that received significantly fewer donations could still be audited. Again, Mr. Speaker, this isn’t necessarily about the mainstream parties; this may be about an individual who puts their name forward on a ballot in a riding because they believe strongly in what they’re doing.

And I’ve been in the situation myself where one of my competitors registered and then realized that in fact that may not be the path they want to go in. But they stayed registered and ultimately, really, spent almost nothing. They happened to be on the ballot, but they really didn’t do much financial activity. To provide a subsidy to audit those statements is a waste.

We’re trying to open the door for other voices to participate, to encourage people to put their name on a ballot, whatever their cause or their case or their argument may be. Again, this seems like a little bit of inside baseball that we’re talking about things like audits of financial statements for campaigns, but it’s pretty important stuff. It can be a gatekeeper for individuals who choose, then, maybe not to come forward. They may decide that they don’t want to go through all the paperwork.

We need to make it as easy as possible for individuals to participate in a democratic system in whatever manner they choose. Again, some people vote, some people do more. Some people knock on doors, put a sign on your lawn, contribute. Some people put their name on a ballot. We need to make it as easy as possible for all of those activities to happen.

This would ensure audit subsidies are paid only to organizations with significant financial activity. The contribution threshold, again, as I said, was $10,000. Previously, there was nothing. In our proposed change, we would not be spending public money doing audits of financial statements where there has been little or no financial activity because—I failed to mention those subsidies come from public money, so we’re spending public monies to audit where there may only be a thousand dollars of activity.

By setting an audit threshold, we’d also need to give audit subsidies to those organizations that have more than $10,000 worth of financial activity. We’re proposing to increase audit subsidies to a consistent level across the board—it makes it predictable and consistent—and we’re proposing $2,000 across the board.

Another administrative change that we’re bringing forward is increasing the deadline for reporting total contributions over $200, which is up from the current $100 limit, to political parties and leadership contestants from a single donor. We’re proposing to increase this deadline from 10 to 15 days from the date of deposit—still pretty quick. The administrative change makes it easier for political parties to record and report on donations received, increases efficiencies and makes things a little less bureaucratic.

We’d also like to provide candidates who register early with certificates up to six months before the writ so they can do things like open a bank account and be ready well in advance of an election period. Again, there’s a lot to do, and to have to wait until a writ is dropped, and then scramble to open up a bank account and do some of the administrative pieces that you need to do, is a complete barrier to some individuals who would otherwise come forward.

Again, those of us who are in a political party may have more support structure for that kind of thing, but an independent or a smaller party may not have that ability. Not only will this be a welcome change for many potential candidates and enable them to feel much more prepared for the election period, it serves as another incentive for people to become a candidate.

Another proposed amendment would allow the chief financial officers of registered political parties to issue tax receipts sooner for political contributions to fundraising functions with direct costs of $30 or less per person. This will make it easier for political parties and others who hold fundraising events to record and report on the donations they have received.

Now, I just want to talk about that again. If you’re doing a fundraiser and you’re confident that your costs per person are going to be less than $30—let’s say the ticket price is $100, and you’re going to provide some hors d’oeuvres and whatnot and it’s going to come out to about 20 bucks. Right now, what has to happen is that the individual donor gets a tax receipt for $80 on that $20; if the $20 is spent, you have to take that out. Well, that also means that you have to wait until after the event, because it might actually be $19.50 or it might be $22.

You have to be accurate, and so you can’t issue the tax receipts until after the event is closed, the costs are in and you get all that sorted out.

We’re saying, “Look, we want people to engage. We want to make less paperwork. We want to still keep accountability and transparency.” But if it’s under $30 on that $100 fundraiser, let’s get the tax receipt out into people’s hands, and let’s make it easier for the chief financial officers, who are volunteers in political parties in all of our ridings. Let’s take away some of that red tape and make it a little more practical. Ontario’s financial reporting rules for candidates and parties are difficult enough. They’re inefficient and may make people think twice about running for elected office, as I said.

A final administrative amendment we’re proposing is to provide the Chief Electoral Officer with the authority to share data extracts from the single register of electors with district social services administration boards, the DSSABs, for electoral purposes. This proposed amendment will help district social services administration boards have accurate data to reach out to electors in territories without municipal organizations attached.

Work is under way to build the single register, which will be in place to support the 2026 general election, regular municipal elections and any municipal by-elections initiated after January 1, 2024. Last year, in response to a long-standing request for municipalities, we made changes to eliminate duplication and combine the provincial and municipal voters lists into a single list managed by Elections Ontario.

For the last several elections, we have heard concerns about the accuracy of voter information that municipalities receive. Our changes will help make voting easier for Ontarians by reducing duplication and improving the accuracy of the municipal voters list, resulting in fewer corrections at polling stations, shorter lines on election day and reduced costs for municipalities. Beginning January 1, 2024, the CEO and Elections Ontario will be responsible for establishing and managing the single list. This action could cut red tape, help municipalities save money and make voting day easier for candidates, voters and, definitely, municipal clerks.

We’ve also received requests from municipalities to modernize election services and make them more efficient. In response to these requests, our government is proposing changes to make the election process more efficient for local staff, potential candidates and third-party advertisers. The proposed amendments to the Municipal Elections Act would enable clerks to allow candidates and third-party advertisers to submit their nomination and registration forms electronically. It seems like big innovation; we just have to use the tools that we have, Mr. Speaker. This is already done for provincial and federal elections and has been beneficial in reducing red tape and increasing efficiencies.

Another proposed change would allow registered third-party advertisers to end their advertising campaigns before voting day. The proposed change means that if a third-party advertiser files a nomination to run for office, their advertising campaign would automatically end. These proposed changes would apply to municipal by-elections initiated during the current term and all future municipal elections. This is one more way that Ontario is responding to the municipal sector’s request to modernize election services.

We know that our municipal partners have been working hard to continue to deliver the critical services that people in Ontario, in our communities rely on. The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic are making it more difficult than ever for municipalities to deliver modern, efficient services that are financially sustainable. Our government is proud to support initiatives that will strengthen local service delivery, modernize municipal processes and better respect taxpayers’ dollars. We’ll keep working in partnership with municipalities to meet local needs.

Mr. Speaker, fair, accessible and safe elections are the cornerstone of a free democratic society, and we need to do what we can to protect the electoral process as life in Ontario continues to grow and evolve. People should be at the centre of the political process and of democracy in Ontario. It is the people who form the backbone of our communities, whose spirit and energy drive our province and ultimately hold us, their elected representatives, accountable. They are the essence of Ontario, and they set the course for our province at the ballot box. With our proposed changes, we would reassert the central role of these individuals and put them back at the heart of the political process.

Our proposed Protecting Ontario Elections Act is about protecting the essential role of individuals in elections. We are putting people first. We are putting voters first. We want people to feel that they have a voice in our elections, and that’s why we have put forward a comprehensive proposal of legislative amendments for consideration.

This legislation is also about making it easier for people to vote, to run for office, to effectively represent constituents’ best interests. We have proposed changes that are crucial to ensuring our electoral system continues to evolve and fairness is promoted for everyone. As we move forward in these uncertain times, we are dedicated to making sure Ontario’s elections process is safe and accessible to all, whether you’re voting or running for office, or volunteering in your local riding, or working with Elections Ontario to keep our elections safe, fair and efficient.

I just want to take a moment. I talked earlier about that school gymnasium where there are multiple tables set up and how we’re creating more advance voting days. The people who work in those stations, the hundreds and thousands of people who are engaged during an election—we want to make sure that they’re safe, people from all of our communities. We know them; we all know some of them. You may have done it yourself. That may have been your pathway into politics, that somebody hired you during an election to help perform the functions, to take the vote, to make sure that there is integrity in the system. I just want to take a moment and thank those people who put themselves out there.

We’re making sure that the next election will have all the tools it can to keep everybody safe, those individuals who are working at a ballot station or the people who are volunteering in a campaign. Things are a little bit different; we need to be ready for different. Our government has innovated in so many different ways. I’m very proud to be bringing this forward on our behalf.

As we move forward in these uncertain times, we are dedicated to making sure Ontario’s elections process is safe and accessible to all, whether you’re voting, running for office or however you engage in the system. We want people to feel that they have a voice in our elections.

In this new COVID-19 environment, we want to make it easier for anyone who wants to make a positive difference in their communities to participate. These are responsible and balanced changes that are needed to make it easier and safer to vote during COVID-19 and beyond. These are practical updates that build on the Ontario Legislature’s history of ensuring that our electoral process is equipped to respond to the challenges of the day and is resilient for the future.

I look forward to further engaging with Ontarians and members of this Legislature on this important legislation as we work together to protect Ontario elections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): We now have an opportunity for questions. The first one goes to the member from Sudbury.

Mr. Jamie West: Thank you to the Attorney General for his debate. Speaker, I get calls every day. I get calls from 80-year-olds asking for the COVID vaccines. I get calls from small businesses asking for financial support, essential workers asking for daycare spaces, and landlords and tenants asking for rental support. I have never once received a call asking me to double the maximum political donation. I’m just wondering, Speaker, does the Attorney General truly believe that Ontario’s priority in the middle of a third wave COVID-19 pandemic—does anybody think their priority is to double the maximum political donation?

Hon. Doug Downey: I’m glad you’re engaged in your constituency office. I, too, get calls from businesses struggling and looking for the supports that our government has provided, helping people navigate through these uncertain times.

I’m spending a lot of time these days helping people navigate how they can get registered to get a vaccine. If only we had more federal vaccines, we would be able to get them in arms. We’re waiting; it’s very frustrating.

But I can tell you there are individuals who just assume that our election system is fair, open, democratic and transparent. They just assume that it will be run with integrity. They just assume that Ontario will, if not be a leader, at least, when it comes to donations, be in the middle of the pack, Mr. Speaker. I think people have assumptions.

Yes, there are other things top of mind for them when they’re calling into the office, but they are encouraging us to make sure that the system is current and has all the tools.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): The next question.

Mr. Dave Smith: I heard everything that was said during the speech, but there is something that you talked about very early on in the speech that I want to come back to. It really does tie into what the member of the opposition implied in that last question of his, and that is around the integrity of the election process.

Yesterday, the Newfoundland NDP filed a court case against Elections Newfoundland and Labrador because of how that election was run during a pandemic. People expect that things are going to be done fairly and that there aren’t going to be any challenges to being able to vote in a fair situation.

How does this bill address that so that people in Ontario can be assured that the next election will be run properly regardless of what happens with COVID-19?

Hon. Doug Downey: I’ll just take the opportunity to say that, of course, it’s an active court file so I can’t comment on it.

There are so many pieces in here. Really, at the core, the Integrity Commissioner—the Chief Electoral Officer of Elections Ontario has been very active in this, as I mentioned. He filed a report in November of last year. There are many independent voices who brought to bear their experience. Then, of course, at committee, we heard from a very wide range of interests.

This strengthens the collusion provisions. It strengthens third-party advertising and puts some guardrails on that. It allows people to participate in a safe way, adding advance polling days. There are several things that are in here that guard against that type of experience. We’ve learned from the Newfoundland and Labrador experience, along with the New Brunswick and the BC ones—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Ten seconds to conclude.

Hon. Doug Downey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): The next question.

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: I’d like to thank the Attorney General for his presentation. I listened with great care. I’d like to take this moment to remind the government that yesterday I asked that the N6A postal code be designated a COVID hot spot. The Attorney General mentioned a great deal about COVID safety. I’m looking forward to a response from the government.

My question is in regard to the donations. How does greatly increasing—or even doubling, actually—the maximum donation make elections safer and more accessible? How does this increase support the working class? How is this increase not for the Conservative elites?

Hon. Doug Downey: I just want to recap that we, in fact, looked across the country. Some areas have no limits at all. Some areas have $5,000 as a limit. We’re moving it to the middle of the pack in the country. Some people choose to participate by donating. Again, if you talk about an independent or you talk about somebody who is coming to run on a particular platform, they may reach out to their family. They may reach out to friends.

Look, there is no magic to the $1,650 number. There’s no particular magic to that number. But I think there is some magic to being the largest province in the country with an average or a middle-of-the-pack donation limit. There’s nothing odd or strange about that, Mr. Speaker. It’s updating technology. We’ve updated the limits. We’ve updated accountability. We’ve updated how people participate—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): You have 10 seconds to conclude.

Hon. Doug Downey: I hope I answered the member’s question.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): The next question.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: In 2016, the Ontario Legislature decided to ban corporate and union donations to political parties. But we know that third parties can still have an outsized influence through big-spending advertising. In fact, much of that spending is, well, unlimited. This legislation proposes to extend third-party advertising spending limits from six to 12 months before an election period.

Speaker, to the Attorney General: Could you please explain how this change addresses the concerns that many Ontarians have about the influence of third parties in our elections?

Hon. Doug Downey: In fact, the member hit on something very important. In the first three years after an election, there’s no limit at all. Then, for the 12 months leading up to the writ period, it’s about $50,000 a month for each pop-up organization, so $637,200 in a 12-month period, and then another over $105,000 during the writ period itself. We’re giving ample opportunity for individual third-party organizations to have their voices heard. But Ontario is an outlier in that we are the subject of millions of dollars in third-party advertising, where other jurisdictions are in the thousands. So we just need to put some guardrails on it, Mr. Speaker, and—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Ten seconds, please.

Hon. Doug Downey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): The next question.

M. Guy Bourgouin: Ma question pour le procureur général est un peu de ce dont mes deux collègues ont parlé. Ni plus, ni moins, c’est qu’on a des appels pour la COVID, on a des appels pour le vaccin, on a des appels pour les écoles, que les parents sont concernés pour leurs enfants. On a toutes sortes d’appels qui entouraient la COVID. On a fait la première vague. On a eu une deuxième vague. On a eu une troisième vague. On vit, comme c’est là, dans la troisième vague.

Puis ma question est : je n’ai pas eu d’appels quand ça vient aux augmentations des donations. J’aimerais entendre le procureur général. Pourquoi doubler les donations quand on vit, quand on est dans une crise de pandémie? On semble voir que le gouvernement vit dans une différente réalité, comme mon collègue de Timiskaming–Cochrane l’a déjà mentionné. Pourquoi augmenter ou doubler les donations dans une crise de pandémie?

Hon. Doug Downey: Thank you to the member for the question. I, too, am getting a variety of calls in my constituency. We put this legislation out there some time ago. We went through second reading with many hours of debate. We went through committee with many hours of presentations and then a number of amendments. After all of that, you’re confirming for me that you’re getting no phone calls about the increase. So thank you for that, because, really, Ontarians accept it. I think I’m hearing that from all of your members, that this really isn’t a big issue.

It’s an issue you might try and make some hay of, but nobody is calling you about it. It’s quite simply they’re accepting that we’re middle of the pack and that that’s okay.

People want to participate in different ways. Some want to knock on doors; some want to donate. I think that we should make every opportunity for people to participate, and that’s exactly what we’ve done.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): We have time for a quick question and quick response.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Protecting Ontario elections and ensuring that it’s easy and safe to vote is not a partisan issue. It is the responsibility of government to protect our elections and ensure that they are equipped to meet the challenges of the day, whether that be simply preparing for challenges that COVID-19 might pose to in-person voting or addressing the unchecked third-party spending.

Will the Attorney General please explain to this House why he has introduced this legislation and how it will protect elections in Ontario?

Hon. Doug Downey: We’re protecting elections currently by updating some of the rules, but we’re also making changes to protect elections in the future. The all-party members that will be part of the committee for the Chief Electoral Officer to review technology is a good example of where we’re setting the stage for continued improvement. We’re updating for 2021 and beyond.

I look forward to further debate from the members opposite on any of those issues about advance voting days, technology or any of the structural changes to support independent members and those who want to participate in our process.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): It makes little sense to begin another debate on this topic, so we’re going to move along, with your permission, into members’ statements.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

COVID-19 response

Ms. Catherine Fife: I’m fortunate to represent a region that stems from that barn-raiser tradition of coming together to support each other, a mindset that has created an innovation ecosystem second to none.

For instance, last week, the Greater Kitchener Waterloo Chamber of Commerce and the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce, in partnership with Communitech, helped facilitate the distribution of 15,000 rapid COVID-19 tests to 300 businesses. Yesterday, they reached 25,000 COVID test kits to 450 small businesses. They stepped up and acted. Rapid COVID tests are a game-changer that we need to get out there, just like vaccines. Ian McLean and Greg Durocher are also in the process of supporting other chambers across Ontario to do the same, like Timmins and Gananoque.

In addition to rapid tests, the chamber is also distributing 1.5 million made-in-Ontario masks, which were generously donated by Cambridge company Eclipse. This is PPE that is going to make a huge difference to businesses across this province. We all know that that cost is huge to them.

Chambers understand that investing in safety and medical-grade masks is just good business. Medical-grade masks are three to five times more effective than cloth masks. I’m wearing an Eclipse mask right here in the chamber today.

We have to up the ante on masking in our workplaces, and we need to get procurement right. We need to get Ontario-made masks into businesses, into hospitals. This is something that we should all agree on, on a go-forward basis.

Services for children with disabilities

Mr. Rod Phillips: I rise in the House today to share an update celebrated by Lorraine Sunstrum-Mann, the CEO of Grandview Kids, a children’s treatment centre in Durham region. Grandview Kids expressed its sincere gratitude in response to the recent announcement by the government of Ontario and the Minister of Children and Community Services, who are investing $240 million into programs and services for children and youth with disabilities.

Since 1953, Grandview has proudly provided high-quality, family-centred therapy services for children and youth with physical, communication and developmental needs in Durham region.

After 11 years, the sector is receiving the funds it needs to meet the ever-growing demand for its services. This life-changing money will enhance the lives of thousands of children and youth with disabilities and their caregivers throughout the province, including in Durham region. It will help unlock and unleash the potential for even more children and youth with disabilities to undoubtedly contribute to a more prosperous Ontario.

Today, I’m also proud that, with the support of our community and all levels of government, a new 130,000-square-foot facility will be located in Ajax to service 10,000 children and families every single year. In addition to $31 million of capital committed by this government, the federal government committed $17.5 million, and the town of Ajax generously donated the land that will house this important new facility.

This state-of-the-art facility, targeted for completion in 2024, will support the seamless and coordinated provision of family-centred care. There will be open, welcoming and inclusive community-based pediatric services, including supporting integration, rehabilitation, medical and clinical services, as well as education and research. The new, larger facility will enable Grandview Kids to expand and enhance existing services and introduce new ones.

It is important to recognize that this journey began in 2008. Through ongoing advocacy and impressive collaboration and partnership across Durham region, municipal, provincial and federal governments—and countless individuals, including Durham area MPPs—we are close to realizing this long-awaited vision. The future is bright for Grandview Kids and for Durham region.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Thank you. A reminder to all members that the time allotted for member’s statements is 90 seconds.

Child care

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: I rise today in this House to speak on behalf of the families in St. Catharines and to tell their story. This story conveys the cost of the cycle of lockdowns and the cost of not making the investments to make schools safe in the first place.

I have two residents, Steve and Bailey, who have two beautiful young girls, one in kindergarten and the other in daycare. Mom and Dad have already used their vacation guessing about lockdowns. Dad guessed he would be off on March break, but that was cancelled; he was wrong. Mom guessed about spring break; however, that now has been extended. She was wrong, but she was right.

The last shutdown in January, Mom and Dad could continue work because the girls’ grandmother helped with child care. That’s not true this time. This means Bailey will have to take time off work and the family will now have their income cut in half. The mother and family will have to sacrifice.

This story is not unique. Every family has had to make exceptions. I just want to make it clear what the cost of the cycle of lockdowns is when we do not have the required child care spots available to support families.

There are solutions. To every member of this House, we need to make hiring ECEs a priority, we need to pay them fairly so we can retain those workers, and we need to make child care universal and affordable.

Battle of Vimy Ridge

Mr. Rick Nicholls: I often have referred to COVID-19 as World War III, a worldwide battle that we are all fighting together, but today, I want to take a look all the way back to 1917, specifically World War I. The Battle of Vimy Ridge, which actually has just had its 104th anniversary this past Friday, took place in the north of France and was part of the wider battle of Arras. The battle lasted three days, starting on Easter Monday, April 9, 1917.

Now, many link the success of Vimy Ridge to symbolize the birth of Canadian national pride and awareness. It was a huge military victory for Canada, but sadly, it came at a price. Out of the 40,000 Canadians who were involved in the attack, 3,589 were killed in action and an additional 7,000 were wounded. Their sacrifices were not wasted, clearing and capturing the summit of Hill 145, a strategic point for the German army and now under Canadian control. It was the first time where all four divisions of the Canadian corps attacked as a composite formation.

I want to take this moment to mention a few Canadian heroes from around the Chatham area who fought at Vimy Ridge: Private S. Brown of the 102nd Battalion, killed in action; Private A.S. Gomme of the 21st Battalion, killed in action; Private J.R. Henry of the 18th Battalion, killed in action; Private R.R. Morris of the 20th Battalion, died of wounds; Private K.L. Parker of the 2nd Battalion, killed in action; and Sergeant W. Gray of the 21st Battalion, killed in action.

To these brave soldiers who paid the ultimate price so that we can live in peace, may they rest in peace. Lest we forget.

Miss Monique Taylor: Last week, we hosted an online round table discussion to hear from people with disabilities and their loved ones in my community about the challenges of accessing the COVID-19 vaccine. I heard a lot of concern, confusion and worry.

I heard from a mom who has an adult son with developmental disabilities, how they have kept family deaths and the loss of a family pet a secret to not add to the loneliness and confusion of why they are still locked down.

I also heard that the coordination between the LHINs and family doctors wasn’t working and that many family doctors have no idea about the process. Overall, the level of confusion, inconsistency and poor information from the province has left people in my community unsure if they qualify for a vaccine. And if they do qualify, they are unsure of how to access it. We have already called on this government to prioritize people with disabilities. Today, I’m calling on the government to make sure that people with disabilities are accommodated and that barriers to getting the vaccine are removed.

Ramadan

Mr. John Fraser: As Muslim families in Ottawa South and across Ontario begin their observance of the holy month of Ramadan, I want to extend my warmest greetings to each and every one. Ramadan is a time for Muslims to focus on the five pillars of Islam: faith, prayer, alms, fasting and pilgrimage. It’s a time for fasting and sacrifice; a time for prayer, reflection and spiritual growth; a time for charity. And it’s a time to strengthen ties with family and community.

Once again, this year it’s going to be hard to get together as we always have. This pandemic won’t last forever, but we have to do what we have to do to keep each other safe and healthy. I hope next year to be able to attend in person the many iftars that there are in Ottawa South. For now, it’s important for us to connect virtually again with family and friends.

To our Muslim friends and neighbours, thank you for giving your children the gift of faith; it will sustain them. I wish for you and your families a blessed month of Ramadan. Ramadan Mubarak.

Edward Smith

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Small communities depend on our firefighters. They depend on people like my friend, North Perth Chief Ed Smith. Ed served our community for 44 years. He began at age 21 when he joined the Elma Logan fire department, later to become part of the North Perth Fire Department. He became its first full-time chief in 2001. Just this morning, the municipality of North Perth announced Ed’s upcoming retirement.

As chief, he oversaw construction of the new Listowel and Monkton fire stations, he developed a highly trained department and he established a training committee and training standards. His commitment to fire prevention and safety is legendary, not just in North Perth but across Ontario. His work led to my private member’s bill, the Rea and Walter Act, named after the North Perth firefighters who perished in the line of duty. A word about that fire 10 years ago: It was because of his steady leadership that the department and the community got through those dark days. We are grateful.

In 2015, Chief Smith was nominated by his peers for the Alf Stone Award for leadership, honesty and respect. Leadership, honesty and respect: There are no more fitting words to describe Chief Smith. Thank you, Ed, for your 44 years of service. We wish you the very best.

Laurentian University

Mr. Jamie West: Speaker, today I only have 90 seconds to describe the carnage of the CCAA process at Laurentian University. Ninety seconds may not be enough time to tell you about the workers who lost their jobs: workers who told me they were fired on a Zoom call with 16 other people on the line; workers who told me they were six months pregnant and the breadwinner in their family.

Ninety seconds might not be enough time to tell you about the students who were affected: international students who gave everything to come here; Indigenous students who said they were betrayed again; northern students who said, “I don’t want to lose my education because of this”; NOSM students worried that shuttering nearly 30 francophone programs will affect the future of French-speaking doctors in the north.

Ninety seconds might not be enough time to remind you that Conservatives promised to do everything in their power to support students at Laurentian, but 90 seconds is long enough to remember that the Conservatives chose to do nothing. Ninety seconds is long enough to remember that Conservatives aren’t defending francophone and Indigenous programs. Ninety seconds is long enough to remember that the Conservatives are responsible for every single one of these job losses. And 90 seconds is long enough to remember that the Conservatives can stop this now and are simply refusing to get off the sidelines.

COVID-19 response

Mr. Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, this past Friday I had an opportunity to host a town hall meeting with dozens of businesses in Milton. I want to thank Scott and his team at the Milton Chamber of Commerce for organizing this discussion. During these unprecedented times, I feel it is extremely important to be there to be able to listen and to answer any questions that constituents and small business owners have in our ridings.

One small business owner in my riding made the following statement—and I wanted to share it with everyone in the House. Troy from Troy’s Diner, which is a landmark in Milton: “As I woke up and drove into work this morning, I started to reflect on the last year of ups and downs, open and closing of the restaurant....

“I don’t want to dwell on the negativity and the financial impact it has had on small business owners. But I’d rather focus on the positive.

“How family, friends, employees and customers have been there for us, supporting our businesses, offering words of encouragement. Just being there for us.

“I will not allow this pandemic to bring me down.

“Everything is possible. Nothing is impossible.

“Stay strong, we will get through this.”

I echo Troy’s comments. We need to stay strong, because we will get through this. I want to thank all of my constituents, including small business owners, farmers, families and students in my riding, for doing their part during these very difficult times.

Organ and tissue donation

Mr. David Piccini: Across Ontario, in April we celebrate Be a Donor Month in support of organ and tissue donation awareness. I encourage all Ontarians to show their support by registering their consent for organ and tissue donation. The province-wide registration rate for organ donors is at 35%, and in my riding it’s at 50% thanks to champions like Sarah Marshall. But I know as a province we can do more.

One organ donor has the potential to save eight lives and enhance 75 more through the gift of tissue. Since 2003, over 20,000 Ontarians have received life-saving transplants. Almost 1,600 Ontarians are currently waiting for a life-saving organ, including 26 in the riding I represent, Northumberland–Peterborough South. Every three days someone dies a preventable death waiting for a transplant. Any Ontarian resident 16 or older with a valid Ontario health card is eligible to register.

I close my remarks today to honour Cassidey Ouellette, who tragically lost her life in a car accident. A resident of my riding, a daughter to Christine Milligan. Nobody should have to bury their child.

Cassidey, you’re gone but not forgotten. You live on through the lives of those you’ve touched and selflessly given to through the gift of organ donation.

Mr. Speaker, in Cassidey’s honour, we should ensure that nobody can strip their loved ones of their ability to consent. We should ensure that we all are opted in to organ donation in this province, and we don’t have to opt out.

Question Period

COVID-19 response

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Before I start, I just want to wish Ramadan Mubarak to all of the Muslim folks in our province. It’s a month of religious observation and great grace for that community.

My first question is to the Premier. On Sunday the government told parents that schools were safe to open, and then on Monday they turned around and closed the schools. My question to the Premier is, why would you tell parents on Sunday that schools were safe, less than 24 hours before closing them?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): In response, the government House leader.

Hon. Paul Calandra: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. As the Leader of the Opposition would know, we have consistently been working very hard and the Minister of Education has been working very hard to make sure that our schools are safe. They have remained remarkably safe through all three waves of COVID that we’ve been fighting, and it’s because of the investments that we’ve made.

Obviously, the minister has continued to work with the Chief Medical Officer of Health—and not only Dr. Williams, but across all 34 public health units in the province—as he committed and has always committed. He said that we would continue to work with the Chief Medical Officer of Health and with the public health regions across this province and take their advice.

The advice had come that, despite the fact that schools are safe, despite how important it is to keep our kids in school, recognizing that we would continue to help and assist to try to keep the numbers down that we’re seeing in the community spread in the third wave—that’s why the decision was made to act quickly in order to ensure that more people were staying home and that the advice of the medical officers of health across the province was listened to.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The government had been warned for months and months and months on end that schools needed to be made safer, that we needed to see smaller class sizes, that there needed to be investments in better ventilation and the ability even for classrooms to open their windows, that we needed mass testing in our schools. Yet the government ignored those warnings each and every time. In fact, they even cut education in their last budget. Speaker, why does this government continue to ignore warnings and the advice of experts, leading us right into crisis after crisis?

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

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Mr. Speaker, the Chief Medical Officer of Health has been absolutely clear, as has every medical officer of health in this province: The plan in place to keep schools safe and open has ensured that students—1.5 million each and every day—were able to go to school. The issue that we responded to yesterday as a government singularly exists with rising transmission in the community, creating a threat, potentially, to our schools—in fact, to every member of this province. This is precisely why we have followed the advice and taken decisive immediate action to prevent a challenge in our schools.

In the words of the Chief Medical Officer of Health, he said yesterday that schools have been safe. This intervention is designed to keep them safe, to get them back open. Our collective resolve is to make sure that Ontarians follow the rules and that we keep strong protocols in place and reduce the transmission in the community to get Ontario schools back open.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This government’s lack of action has led to uncertainty, has led to stress. It’s led to anxiety. This is anxiety and stress and uncertainty for parents and for kids and for teachers and education workers, because this government didn’t want to listen to the experts and refused to spend the money to keep our schools safe. Now the warnings are upon us that in fact child care might be next in terms of closing.

Why is it that this government refuses to listen to the expert advice? When will they actually do the right thing, fix this mess, reverse the cuts to education and invest in our schools, our kids and our education workers?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: We have followed the advice of the medical experts. In the words of the CEO of the Hospital for Sick Children yesterday, “I don’t think we can open schools right now. We have to just now do our part and not fail our children and do everything we can to drive down community transmission so that schools can be the first doors to open.”

We certainly agree, which is why we’ve taken action in this province with the stay-at-home order and with a variety of actions designed to reduce transmission in the community. This issue rests exclusively with rising transmission in the province, as well as our ICU capacity, really to breaking point. That’s why this decision was made, pivoting quickly to remote learning, where this government has invested. We’ve also ensured the continuity of mental health access for these kids, recognizing that they should be in a class.

Our commitment on this side of the House is to work every day with the Chief Medical Officer of Health to do everything we can to reduce transmission, to protect our health care heroes and to get kids back in class.

COVID-19 response

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Families and child care workers are very worried that the closure of child care centres in this province is inevitable. The calls for prioritizing the vaccination of child care workers, ECEs, are growing. The calls are growing.

Yet here we are again. The government had no plan to keep our child care centres open. They had no plan to vaccinate the front-line child care workers to keep them safe and be able to keep the centres open.

When will we hear a plan from this government? Is there a plan that the government can share with us today to keep child care centres open and vaccinate those front-line child care workers?

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

Hon. Stephen Lecce: The commitment of this government is to get every front-line worker a vaccine as supply gets to this province, because we continue to face challenges in getting it to Ontario. That is a matter of fact. If we have more, we would have expanded it to every single front-line worker already.

What we have done, however, in the second phase, which we are in, is accelerated prioritization to education staff, our EAs, our ECEs, our school bus drivers and our teachers who work within our schools, particularly within the hot-spot areas of Toronto and Peel, as well as for special education staff province-wide. With respect to child care workers, they are also in phase 2, and our aim, as more supply gets to this province, is to get them to the head of the line. We know the critical role they play in keeping families and the children they care for safe.

That’s why we’re committed to getting them supply, getting them access to the vaccine they deserve as soon as Ontario gets the vaccine from the federal government.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Back to the Premier: This Premier is behaving with a very dangerous pattern of denial. This week, schools were safe, until they weren’t. Last week, a stay-at-home order wasn’t necessary, until it was. Back in February, the government ignored the advice of all of the experts and instead started to open too fast and without investing in extra health precautions and protections.

When is this government going to get ahead of the crisis? When is this Premier going to stop saying “Things are pretty good” and actually ensure that things start getting better for the people of Ontario?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know where the Leader of the Opposition has been for the last year, but Ontario has been leading the way when it comes to fighting the coronavirus.

What yesterday and what last week represented was the Ontario government and the people of Ontario finally moving away from defence and to offence to fight and defeat the COVID virus once and for all. We started fighting back by increasing our testing capacity from 5,000 to 75,000. We inherited the ability to do 5,000 tests a day; it’s at 75,000. We started fighting back by increasing hospital and ICU beds in the system. We fight it back by increasing 3,000 beds. We fight it back by increasing critical care capacity in the province. We fought back by increasing long-term care.

We fought back by adding beds in long-term care. We’re fighting back by bringing the vaccines into the communities that are the hardest-hit and we’re fighting back by bringing it into the workplaces that are so essential to keeping this province going.

We are fighting back. That’s what the next 28 days is all about, and the Leader of the Opposition should help us to do it.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Once again, this government refused to act until it was too late. They refused to spend the money on making schools safe and now the schools are closed. They refused to spend the money to vaccinate essential front-line workers and, guess what, the spread of COVID-19 occurred in our province. They refused to make smaller class sizes in our schools. They refused to vaccinate front-line education workers, and now, of course, our schools are closed.

My question is, when will this government undertake the measures necessary to deal with the crisis that we’re in? When will they give us paid sick days? When will they give workers paid time off to get their vaccines? When will they make sure those essential front-line workers are getting vaccinated? When will this government get ahead of the crisis that we’re all dealing with?

Hon. Paul Calandra: The Leader of the Opposition will know full well that this government inherited a mess from the previous Liberal government and left us with the inability to fight the pandemic from day one. That is why we had to be on the defence for so long. That is why we made important investments in health care. That is why we made important investments in long-term care. That is why the Minister of Finance has made important investments to keep our small, medium and large job creators going.

That is why the Premier fought so hard to ensure that there were 20 paid sick days for the people of the province of Ontario. That is why the Minister of Education ensured that there was over a billion and a half dollars for our students so that our schools could return safely, Mr. Speaker.

That is what we have been doing since day one of this pandemic, and we are fighting back, Mr. Speaker. We are fighting back despite the fact that, month after month, the federal government has disappointed us with vaccine supply. We are fighting back and taking the vaccines that we’ve got into the communities that are most impacted, into those essential businesses, and we’re getting the job done. There’s more work to do and we will get it done, despite the Leader of the Opposition.

COVID-19 immunization

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is for the Premier. Last week, the government announced the list of hot spots, but that list left out some of the hardest-hit areas in Hamilton. Hamilton’s chief medical officer asked that additional postal codes be added. She was denied, so she added them herself.

Our public health units are trying to implement this government’s announcement, but they need support. Right now, Hamilton is behind some of the neighbouring regions when it comes to vaccinating eligible groups. Will this government provide Hamilton public health whatever support it actually needs to get this job done?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The parliamentary assistant, the member for Eglinton–Lawrence to respond.

Mrs. Robin Martin: Our government has been clear: Phase 2 of our vaccine rollout will be focused on older adults, those at risk of serious illness and our hot spot areas. This approach is designed to save lives, protect those at risk of serious illness and to stop the virus from spreading.

Let me be clear: Hot spots have been identified based on historic and ongoing rates of COVID-19 deaths, hospitalizations and transmissions, and on outbreak data, research and analysis conducted by the COVID-19 science advisory table, low-testing rates, sociodemographic barriers that may result in vaccine hesitancy. All of these things go into picking the hot-spot areas.

We have a number of them picked out, and we have been going at those communities to try to make the vaccinations more widespread in those communities, including communities that are represented by the MPP for Hamilton Mountain and the MPP for Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas that have been identified as hot-spot areas. As soon as we have more vaccines, we will be in more communities, getting those vaccines out.

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

Miss Monique Taylor: Back to the Premier: When the government announced the list of hot spots, it also shared confusing information about who is eligible. I am constantly hearing from residents in my community who don’t know if they’re eligible and they don’t know how to get an appointment. This government has to stop making policy by press conference and actually provide public health units the support they need.

Hamilton is still working on identifying people with high-risk medical conditions. These residents are still waiting to get an appointment. Will the government provide Hamilton public health more support in getting this done instead of making their work harder and making confusing announcements?

Mrs. Robin Martin: Our government has been clear: Phase 2 of our vaccine rollout will be focused, as I said, on older adults, those with serious illness and those in the hot-spot areas.

We also know that certain communities have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19, and we understand that administering vaccines to people who live in these areas is critical to reducing the impact of COVID-19 as quickly as possible, which is why as part of our second phase of our vaccine rollout, we have identified specific hot-spot areas in postal codes in 13 public health units around the province. Right now, anyone in Hamilton over the age of 50 in those hot-spot areas can register and get a vaccine in those hot-spot areas. Across the province at pharmacies, everyone over the age of 55 can get a vaccine.

There’s lots of vaccines available. We want people to get out there and get the vaccines as quickly as possible. We’re doing everything we can to make that happen in Hamilton and across the province.

Broadband infrastructure

Ms. Donna Skelly: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. Last week, our government issued an emergency stay-at-home order to continue to keep Ontarians safe. That means more people will be forced to work from home, learn from a distance and connect with loved ones virtually. To do this, they need access to the Internet, but residents in Flamborough–Glanbrook, my riding, need better broadband.

I’d like to share part of an email from a constituent in Lynden. She writes, “I am married with four children. I, along with most in my area, am struggling with getting adequate Internet access at my home. With heightened need for decent home Internet because of online school and working from home due to COVID, my frustration is growing.”

This isn’t the first time that I’ve received an email like this and I look forward to the day when I receive the last of these messages. When can I tell my constituents who are in dire need of Internet that better connectivity is coming their way?

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

Hon. Laurie Scott: The member is absolutely right, and I thank her for the question. There is no time more important than right now to get more households connected to high-speed Internet. That’s why we’re taking a groundbreaking approach to build broadband faster so that everyone in Ontario can get reliable Internet, no matter where they live.

It’s undeniable that the lack of broadband Internet is detrimental to the daily lives and livelihoods of too many Ontarians. Can you imagine that as many as 1.4 million people in Ontario live without broadband in this day and age? On this side of the House, that is 1.4 million people too many.

That’s why I introduced the Supporting Broadband and Infrastructure Expansion Act, 2021. This legislation addresses the onerous barriers faced by the telecommunications sector when it comes to building broadband faster. I am thrilled to say that finally this cornerstone legislation has been passed by the members of this House. Now the telecommunications sector can get those shovels moving and those households connected.

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

Ms. Donna Skelly: A 2019 report by the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce on digital infrastructure notes that significant investments are needed to bring the current infrastructure up to speed. The president and CEO, Keanin Loomis, said, “In this digital age, the ongoing improvement to Hamilton’s digital infrastructure is essential to the economic prosperity of our city. Businesses in Hamilton rely on high-speed, dependable, low-cost Internet connectivity to operate and remain competitive.” Although this report was written two years ago, the need for more Internet connectivity still prevails and has been made much worse by the COVID-19 pandemic.

That’s why I was pleased to learn that Ontario’s 2021 budget commits a historic new investment of $2.8 billion in broadband infrastructure to ensure that every region has broadband services by 2025.

Would the minister please share with this House what we can expect from this investment?

Hon. Laurie Scott: Thank you very much to the member again for her question. Mr. Speaker, our government’s primary focus is to protect every life and every job we possibly can from COVID-19. Without healthy people, we can’t have a healthy economy.

That’s why we introduced Ontario’s Action Plan: Protecting People’s Health and Our Economy. This is the next phase of Ontario’s response to COVID-19. Part of the investments in the budget go directly to getting more Ontarians connected to the digital economy, ensuring that no one gets left behind.

As the member noted, I am proud this government is committing an additional $2.8 billion, for a near total of $4 billion, to accelerate broadband expansion across all regions of this province. Our historic investment will benefit regional economies, farmers who can connect and use technologies for their industry, entrepreneurs, small businesses, and the list goes on, Mr. Speaker.

We’re stepping up to the plate to fill the digital infrastructure gap left behind by members across the aisle.

COVID-19 response

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, we learned that lobbyists and long-time PC Party insider Kory Teneycke apparently used his regularly scheduled caucus presentation time to warn Conservative MPPs about leaking decisions to journalists before the Premier’s press conferences. Speaker, Mr. Teneycke’s firm is registered to lobby in Ontario on behalf of companies like Amazon, so his presence at caucus raises serious concerns about how the Premier makes his decisions.

Speaker, my question, through you to the Premier, is: When ICUs are overflowing, when schools are being cancelled, when our small business community is collapsing and when COVID cases are burning out of control, why are you bringing in lobbyists to warn your MPPs about anything other than how badly you’re handling this crisis?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Government House leader.

Hon. Paul Calandra: The member will know full well that the reason why we’re having such a challenge and we had such challenges in the first and second wave was because of the lack of investment that was made by the previous Liberal government across many different sectors, whether it was the health care sector, whether it was the colleges and universities, whether it was the small businesses which were fleeing the province of Ontario in droves. We lost over 300,000 manufacturing jobs.

In 2018, the people elected a government that would focus on their priorities. Their priorities were job creation, health care, education—and in all of those areas, before the pandemic, we saw thousands of jobs returning to the province of Ontario. We’re making historic investments in health care, because we need to increase our ICU capacity that was left to us by the Liberals as one of the lowest per capita in North America. We want to end hallway health care, and we are going to do that. It is the NDP who—as the member for Brampton South had said once, the only time the NDP are happy is when people are sad. We’re going to make sure that people are happy—

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: The government House leader’s response—or spin, rather—reminds me of our late, great friend Paul Dewar. That answer was definitely face-palm-worthy. You gave us nothing tangible in that answer.

The Premier told himself and everyone else yesterday that he never makes a decision himself. I guess that’s what makes sense now that we know that lobbyists and PC Party insiders are the ones who are really calling the shots around the conference table. So, again, my question to the Premier: For the next meeting, can the Premier tell us whether he can convince Kory Teneycke or any other PC Party insider-turned-lobbyist to put paid sick days or more support for hot spots on the agenda? We’re just asking for an entire province here.

Hon. Paul Calandra: That’s ironic coming from a member of Parliament who has accomplished the sum total of nothing in the time that he has been here. It took this government, this Minister of Health, this Premier to finally get a hospital for the people of Windsor-Essex, something that they have fought for, for so long. It was not a priority when the NDP shared government with the Liberals in the minority area. It was never a priority. Long-term care was never a priority of that member and of the NDP when they shared government with the Liberals. It was auto insurance, and they settled for what? A stretch goal, Mr. Speaker.

This is a party, the NDP, that has never been trusted to govern the province of Ontario but one time, and they were so bad at it that the then Premier abandoned their party to join the Liberal Party. They have never, ever come close to gaining the confidence of the people of the province of Ontario. We have, and we will get the job done.

COVID-19 response

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for the Premier. Today, there are 623 patients in Ontario’s ICUs, and today’s COVID positivity rate in Ontario is a dangerously high 10.3%, guaranteeing that ICU admissions are going to continue to rise. ICU doctors, nurses and staff have been working flat out for a year. They’re exhausted. They’re tired. They’re burnt out.

Yesterday, the minister said we’re going to add another 350 ICU beds. Those beds will require staff, staff that we do not have. As critical care doctor Michael Warner says, eventually we’ll run out of space to move patients because we don’t have the staff to care for them.

So, once again, it feels like we’re not ready and that there’s no clear plan. Speaker, through you, can the Premier assure Ontarians that we will have enough trained staff to support the additional ICU beds that are going to be required for the rest of this pandemic?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply, the government House leader.

Hon. Paul Calandra: How can this member, representing a party that governed this province for 15 years, a member who was the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health, get up and criticize this government, which has had to do everything in its power to catch up because of what we were left?

We inherited a system that had one of the lowest ICU capacities per capita in North America. We inherited a system that did not have a staffing protocol. We inherited a system that allowed us to do 5,000 tests a day. And what have we done? We have invested in ICU capacity. We’re increasing it. We’ve added 3,000 beds to the system. We’ve added critical care capacity to the system. We took our testing from 5,000 to 75,000.

We’re doing that for the people of the province of Ontario, because even before we were elected, we knew the devastation that Liberal cuts to health care were causing the people of the province of Ontario. It’s not just about new hospitals in Windsor–Tecumseh. It’s not just about new hospitals in Brampton. It’s about making investments to make the system better for the long term.

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

Mr. John Fraser: Speaker, I think we need to take it down a notch or two today about what’s happening in Ontario. I want to talk about something a little closer to home. We know the danger of the variants in the third wave, but every day in this place, we ask 300 people to come into this building, on public transit or walking, and it poses a risk for them.

Now, the opposition—all three leaders have asked for a virtual question period. We do committee virtually. Municipalities, the federal government, Legislatures across the province are doing that. I implore the government to make some plans for that. But, more importantly, there is no threshold by which we decide when we pull the trigger on closing this place down, so we don’t pose a risk to all these people who are here, people who have helped us every day as members, people who come here every day to protect us, to inform us. It’s not right.

Speaker, through you: Will the government House leader commit to meeting with us to make some plans for about when we pull the trigger and how we manage that after?

Hon. Paul Calandra: First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, I’ll say this: There is no other provincial Legislature that has gone virtual. The member opposite will know that because the previous Liberal government made absolutely no investments in the running of the Legislative Assembly, it is the investments that we have had to make that will allow our committee rooms to be made public through video conferencing.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I will remind the honourable gentleman that this House passed a motion, one of the first things it passed when we returned, that took away the right of me to adjourn the House and put it in the hands of all the House leaders. So the protocol is this, which he agreed to, which was unanimously agreed to in this House: that, if it should be required, all House leaders will approach the Speaker and we will pass a motion to adjourn the House.

But I will say this: As long as essential front-line workers are going to work, as long as you can get a coffee at Tim Hortons, as long as ECE people are working, Mr. Speaker, I think the people of the province of Ontario expect their members of provincial Parliament, who are making incredibly important decisions for them, to be here working, and we will continue to do that in a safe way.

Interjections.

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

Hon. Monte McNaughton: You’re entitled to your entitlements, John.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Labour, come to order.

Interjection.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Ottawa South, come to order.

Hon. Monte McNaughton: Forget about that poor Tim Hortons worker.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Labour is warned.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Ottawa South is warned.

Start the clock. The next question.

Special-needs children

Mr. Robert Bailey: My question is to the minister of children and youth. Mr. Speaker, for years, families of children and youth who have special needs have struggled to access the clinical assessment and services their children need. These are not new problems. Many of us on this side of the House watched for over a decade as demand grew and the previous Liberal government continued to underfund the system. Families have been challenged even further by COVID-19, which has made accessing appropriate supports and services especially difficult for those caring for children with special needs.

Mr. Speaker, would the minister tell this House what the government is doing to address the challenges that families of children with special needs are facing?

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks very much to the member from Sarnia–Lambton for a great question this morning.

Speaker, supporting children with special needs and their families is a top priority for our government, not just during COVID-19, but beyond. We announced a number of new initiatives that are going to improve the lives and outcomes of children and youth with special needs in Ontario through budget 2021, which was introduced by our great finance minister, Minister Bethlenfalvy, just a few short weeks ago. These include significant investments in buildings, like brand new children’s treatment centres in Chatham-Kent and also the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, CHEO, in Ottawa, and a renewed investment, as well, to the Abilities Centre in Whitby.

But we didn’t stop there. We announced a ground-breaking investment of $240 million over four years to ensure that children and families have access to early intervention and children’s special needs. I look forward to talking about more—

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

Mr. Robert Bailey: Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, I’m very glad to hear about the focus our government has placed on ensuring that children and families have access to early intervention and children’s special needs services. The science shows that children’s special needs services are most effective and result in better outcomes for children and families when they include early intervention, proactive life planning and support for families.

Would the minister please provide this House with more details on this new investment and whether it will address these critical areas?

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks again to the member from Sarnia–Lambton. Speaker, that member is absolutely correct, as he usually is: Early intervention is a critical piece in delivering children’s special needs services. Our new investment will focus on areas key to improving long-term outcomes for both children with special needs and their families, providing early and timely connection to supports, proactive and holistic life planning, and supports for natural transitions such as into school and also into adulthood.

Focusing on these areas will help families access services earlier, improving the quality of available services, and get better results for families in areas like community inclusion, as well as participation and success in education and employment.

Laurentian University / Université Laurentienne

Mr. Jamie West: My question is for the Premier. The NDP had cautioned the Premier and the Minister of Colleges and Universities about massive cuts to Laurentian for months. Instead of taking action to protect northern Ontario, the Conservative Party chose to stand on the sidelines and do nothing.

Yesterday, over 100 faculty members received termination notices at Laurentian University. The university is also cutting nearly 70 programs, including whole departments, many of which are unique Indigenous and francophone programs which Laurentian is mandated to support. They’re cutting programs like engineering, math, economics, entrepreneurship, nursing and midwifery.

Laurentian University is Sudbury’s third-largest employer. My question is, how is the Premier going to address the many people who are losing their jobs amidst the pandemic because the government refused to fund and protect this public university?

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

Mr. David Piccini: Indeed, it is deeply disturbing, the situation Laurentian University has found itself in—a situation where such drastic and immediate action is needed to ensure long-term sustainability.

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the priority of this government continues to be the students and the families affected by this. It’s why, as a government, in addition to looking into this specific issue at Laurentian University, we continue to expand funding for francophone supports and we expand funding for Indigenous supports as an institution.

This deeply concerning situation is before the courts, so it would be inappropriate to comment further.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Nickel Belt: supplementary.

M me France Gélinas: Right now in my community, instead of being focused on their final projects and studying for their year-end exams, Laurentian students are worried about their future. The Minister of Colleges and Universities keeps promising that the Conservative government would protect Laurentian students and ensure that their studies were not disrupted; however, thousands of students woke up Monday morning to learn that their program, their entire department, had been cut, that their teacher, their supervisor, their mentors had been laid off.

Mr. David Piccini: This government remains resolute in ensuring pathways to graduation for all students. That is exactly what we’ll do.

With respect to francophone programming that the member opposite spoke about—let’s talk about that: $17.6 million to expand French-language supports for the post-secondary sector; $74 million to support over 30,000 students who enrol in French-language programming across Ontario; moving forward with Ontario’s first-ever francophone university, governed by and for francophones; and 10 other post-secondary institutions that provide hundreds of French-language programs across the province of Ontario.

It’s those members who voted against expanded supports for our Indigenous institutes, who voted against increased funding for those institutes and who have voted against supports for historic reductions in tuition that are benefiting francophone students, Indigenous students and all Ontarians across this province. That’s their record, which they’ll have to defend to students in their ridings.

COVID-19 immunization

Can the minister explain what data was used to identify which communities would be prioritized to receive the vaccine?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply on behalf of the government, the member for Eglinton–Lawrence and parliamentary assistant.

Mrs. Robin Martin: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. As I said earlier, our government has been clear that phase 2 of our vaccine rollout is focused on older adults, those at risk of serious illness and our hot-spot areas. The approach is designed to save lives, protect those at risk of serious illness and to stop the virus from spreading.

Let me be clear: Hot spots have been identified based on historic and ongoing high rates of COVID-19 deaths, hospitalizations and transmission. I’d like to point out to the member opposite that these communities were identified based not only on the high rates of COVID-19, but also on outbreak data, research and analysis conducted by the Ontario COVID-19 science advisory table, low testing rates, and sociodemographic barriers that may result in vaccination hesitancy.

Of course, as we get more vaccines, we’re going to be able to open up to more areas. We want to get vaccines out to every community as quickly as possible and in the arms of every Ontarian as soon as possible. We’re working hard to make that happen.

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

M me Lucille Collard: Again my question is for the Minister of Health. It’s clear that the government’s choices of hot-spot communities were not informed by all the necessary data. For example, in Ottawa, our local unit had not identified any high-priority neighbourhoods in one of the hot-spot regions this government chose. It was, in fact, doing pretty well compared to others.

My question is, will the minister commit to working with local public health units to identify high-risk communities and designate hot spots to improve access to vaccines in vulnerable neighbourhoods to control the spread of COVID-19?

Mrs. Robin Martin: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Our entire strategy works with local public health units. We’ve worked with local public health units from the beginning. We know that they know the situation on the ground in their communities, and that’s why we’re working together. Although some people have suggested that’s not the right way to approach things, we believe it is, because local public health units have on-the-ground knowledge.

As of April 11, almost 98% of those 80 or older have received a vaccine and over 22% have received their second dose in the Ottawa area. It should be noted that last year, Ottawa was one of the first public health units to receive a shipment of the Pfizer vaccine in the province. We’re working very hard on all vaccines across the province. I want to point out that right now, 87% of Ontarians 80 and over have been vaccinated, 80% of Ontarians 75 to 79 have been vaccinated, and 60% of Ontarians 70 to 74 have been vaccinated. We’re working very hard to get the vaccines out to people, especially in priority areas. We’re only constrained by our supply.

Indigenous education

Ms. Donna Skelly: We all know that this past year has been very difficult for all Ontarians, including staff and students at our post-secondary institutions. I’m proud that our government has always put students at the centre of our education policy, and that has not