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

March 2, 2023

43rd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2023-Mar-02 (PDF)

L048 - Thu 2 Mar 2023 / Jeu 2 mar 2023

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 2 March 2023 Jeudi 2 mars 2023

Orders of the Day

Reducing Inefficiencies Act (Infrastructure Statute Law Amendments), 2023 / Loi de 2023 sur la réduction des inefficacités (modifiant des lois sur les infrastructures)

Members’ Statements

Project Hope

Ontario Place

School facilities

Community services

Homelessness

Bangladeshi Heritage Month

Health care

Ferry service

Cultural celebrations

Coldest Night of the Year

Introduction of Visitors

Question Period

Municipal finances

Employment standards

Labour disputes

Emergency preparedness

Health care

Occupational health and safety

Natural gas rates

Health care

Public transit

Health care

Housing

Land use planning

Affaires francophones

Smart Serve Ontario

Northern Ontario development

Business of the House

Visitors

Birthday of member’s assistant

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Introduction of Government Bills

Building More Mines Act, 2023 / Loi de 2023 visant l’aménagement de davantage de mines

Introduction of Bills

Health Professionals’ Week Act, 2023 / Loi de 2023 proclamant la Semaine des professionnels de la santé

Petitions

Climate change

Social assistance

Health care workers

Land use planning

Social assistance

Social assistance

Affordable housing

Land use planning

Water extraction

Orders of the Day

Reducing Inefficiencies Act (Infrastructure Statute Law Amendments), 2023 / Loi de 2023 sur la réduction des inefficacités (modifiant des lois sur les infrastructures)

Royal assent / Sanction royale

Reducing Inefficiencies Act (Infrastructure Statute Law Amendments), 2023 / Loi de 2023 sur la réduction des inefficacités (modifiant des lois sur les infrastructures)

Private Members’ Public Business

Cancer screening

The House met at 0900.

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

Prières.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Next we’ll have a moment of silence for inner thought and personal reflection.

Orders of the Day

Reducing Inefficiencies Act (Infrastructure Statute Law Amendments), 2023 / Loi de 2023 sur la réduction des inefficacités (modifiant des lois sur les infrastructures)

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 1, 2023, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 69,

An Act to amend various Acts with respect to infrastructure / Projet de loi 69, Loi modifiant diverses lois sur les infrastructures.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): When we last debated Bill 69, I understand the member for Essex had made his presentation. Now we’ll turn to questions to the member for Essex.

Mr. Jeff Burch: To the member from Essex: I was able to listen to the tail end of his comments yesterday. The government has—there’s a long, long list of transgressions against the environment, everything from gutting conservation authorities to a tax on the greenbelt. So when the government comes forward with a bill and they really don’t communicate anything to the opposition and there’s no real opportunity for us to learn the intent behind the legislation, why should we trust this government with anything that they have to say about the environment?

Mr. Anthony Leardi: Thank you for the question. As we learned throughout the very lengthy speeches made yesterday by the various members of this assembly—there were various commentaries made by the Minister of Infrastructure, who laid out the details of the bill and explained how it would operate. Other members spoke, both on the government side and on the opposition side, laying out the details of the bill and explaining how it works.

I, myself, took the impromptu opportunity to lay out the typical process of an environmental assessment as was my experience through being elected on a municipal government for six years. We all understood, from all of the presentations that were made from the various members of this chamber, that the standard environmental process can be very long and invite all sorts of public commentary. The public commentary, of course, is very important and desired and proper and good. That’s why an environmental process is open to public comment. That was the process that we discussed.

That is, of course, the main—or, at least, one of the main—subjects of the subject bill in front of us today.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Questions?

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: Thank you to the member from Essex for passionately talking about this bill. I was enjoying your presentation yesterday.

The EA process is not being compromised. The proposed legislative amendments are minor and won’t have any impact on the existing EA class, environmental protection.

My question to you: How is this government keeping the environment top of mind while reducing inefficiencies?

Mr. Anthony Leardi: I’d like to thank the member from Markham–Thornhill for that question. As it was showing, he had listened to the comments that were made throughout the period of the speech-making, and he was obviously doing his homework. That’s why he’s able to ask this question today.

As we have observed throughout the discussion of this entire bill, there is 100% opportunity for the public to comment during the process of an environmental assessment. That is 100% preserved. It is 100% preserved throughout the entire period, the lengthy period, that we discussed and that I described yesterday in my comments. Municipalities will still have to go through these processes and will still have to have public input. They will still have to go through the environmental assessment process, but we’re only talking about one very brief little skipping moment which might occur from time to time.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for London West.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I listened yesterday to the remarks from the member for Essex. I noticed that he repeated some of the claims that were made in the government’s press release accompanying this legislation. The government stated that the purpose of the legislation is to address the 2017 Auditor General’s report on Infrastructure Ontario real estate services. So I looked at the 2017 Auditor General’s report on real estate services, and never once in that report did I see anything about consolidating these 14 properties under the auspices of Infrastructure Ontario.

In fact, what the report did was criticize Infrastructure Ontario’s poor oversight of the contracts that it was managing. So can the member explain how exactly this legislation addresses the 2017 Auditor General’s report?

Mr. Anthony Leardi: I thank the member from London West for that question. I’ve had the opportunity to visit the city of London many times, for three years when I was studying for my law degree in the city of London. It’s an awesome city, a great shopping city.

With regard to the question about touching upon the Auditor General’s report, of course, we all know that one of the main functions of the Auditor General is to find efficiencies to decrease inefficiency. That is the original and primary function of an Auditor General, I would submit. That’s my opinion. And what is the name of this act? It’s the Reducing Inefficiencies Act, which coincides directly with the primary function of having an Auditor General.

So in my submission, this is exactly the kind of act that would be welcomed by the Auditor General, reducing inefficiencies—or I might put it another way: increasing efficiencies. I’m thinking that when the Auditor General sees that we’re reducing inefficiencies, the Auditor General would be very happy about that, because reducing inefficiencies, which is what this act does, saves taxpayers money. And I would hope that we would all agree, all 124 of us, that saving taxpayers’ money is a good thing.

But interestingly enough, when I put that question to the member from London North Centre last night, he didn’t really give me an answer to that. I asked him: Isn’t it a good thing? He didn’t answer. I think it’s a good thing. Let’s do it.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Niagara Falls.

Mr. Wayne Gates: I’d like to ask a question. He talked about saving money and taxpayers’ money. Why do you continue to support P3s? I gave an example yesterday and nobody answered it. When we built the Peterborough hospital with public funds, it cost about $350 million; when you built the St. Catharines hospital, it cost $1.1 billion. One was done with public funds, almost the exact same hospital; one was done with a P3. So if you want to save money, why are you not addressing the P3s and how much more they’re costing taxpayers over and over again?

Mr. Anthony Leardi: I thank the member for that question. I’d like to take this very brief opportunity to wish him a happy 27th wedding anniversary, as he mentioned it the other day. And now, answering his question--

Mr. Wayne Gates: Remember, she’s Italian.

Mr. Anthony Leardi: A De Luca from the De Luca family. I remembered that he married into the De Luca family, and I expressed the very heartfelt warmth and happy thought that being part of the De Lucas is a good thing.

Getting back to the question on building hospitals: There are several ways of building hospitals, and one is to put 100% of the cost on the shoulders of the taxpayer. That’s one way to do it. Another way to do it is to seek partners and perhaps shift some of that cost burden onto a non-government agency—and “non-government,” of course, means a “non-taxpayer” agency. So there are several ways to do these things, and several of these experiments and some of these have been tried over the years. There are a lot of government projects and non-government projects and hybrid government/non-government projects that have been tried over the various decades.

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

Mr. Aris Babikian: My question to the member from Essex: How will the centralization of real estate under these agencies help the government achieve its priorities?

Mr. Anthony Leardi: I thank the member for that question. He’s doing an excellent job of chairing the Standing Committee on the Interior.

To his question: Centralizing the decision-making authority for real estate is actually a very good idea. As I stated in my impromptu remarks yesterday night, there are currently, to my surprise, at least 14 various agencies that are juggling real estate files for the government right now. I suspect that there are actually more than 14, but perhaps the Auditor General might have something to say about that.

To have 14 different agencies juggling real estate files all at the same time is inefficient, so we are going to reduce that inefficiency by putting them all under one authority, which will now have the ability to fill empty spaces and move oversubscribed spaces over to empty spaces. That will be a good thing, because it will, as the title of the act says, reduce inefficiency and, consequently, save the taxpayer money. Of course, I have absolutely no hesitation whatsoever in saying that all 124 of us should be looking for ways to save taxpayer money.

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

Ms. Sandy Shaw: It’s always an honour to rise in this House to represent the people of my good riding.

We here are members of His Majesty’s loyal opposition, and I am the official opposition critic for the environment, and we all take that responsibility and that role very, very seriously.

I have to say, as the critic for the environment, it has been a really demoralizing few years under this government—and not just for me, but for the people of Ontario. We have seen, in the last few years, under this government and under this minister—we have seen a minister preside over what we can only describe as the greatest assault on our public natural spaces, our green spaces, our natural heritage, our wetlands, our wildlife. It is something that has been unprecedented in the history of Ontario, and it begs the question as to why he’s even called the Minister of the Environment.

People in my riding and across Ontario are feeling nothing but despair. Young people who expected a government to protect their natural heritage, to protect what should have been a legacy handed to them from those of us who are entrusted to protect that, see nothing but a bleak future when it comes to our natural world.

There’s a real running tally, a real rogues’ gallery, if you will, of the things that have happened in this province under the nose of the Minister of the Environment. We have seen the loss of protection for our conservation lands, with this government kneecapping agencies that were once charged with protecting our wetlands.

In fact, it’s unbelievable to think that this government, rather than protecting provincially significant wetlands, has chosen to charge conservation authorities—not only have they taken away their ability to protect these wetlands, but they’ve actually charged them with the task of finding land that is under their protection for development. This is unbelievable. The conservation authorities now are playing a role in delivering up more of our protected, provincially significant wetlands for development.

Not only have they changed the role of the oversight body, the conservation authority, we’ve also seen loss of protection for our wetlands because this government is in the process of declassifying provincially significant wetlands. For those of you who don’t—I’m sure many of you do understand, but it cannot be said often enough that wetlands are significant in protecting not just our natural heritage, but they’re significant in protecting our communities, our towns, our infrastructure from flooding.

So wetlands are not just something that’s a bother that this government seems to see as in the way of development, but they’re something that’s a significant, important part of our natural landscape.

We have seen this government’s complete disregard, or complete disrespect, of the role of wetlands in conservation authorities, and clearly in the member from Oshawa’s neck of the woods. This government gave permission to pave over a wetland, in the case of Duffins Creek. Clearly, they don’t understand or they don’t care about the role of wetlands when it comes to protecting not only our environment but protecting communities from flooding.

We’ve seen the loss of protection for our wildlife species and their habitat with the watering down of the species-at-risk act. We’re talking about animals and habitat that we all love. We’re talking about the monarch butterfly. We’re talking about bald eagles. We’re talking about things that make us proud to be in Ontario, to call Ontario such a beautiful place for us to live and grow. Our habitat, our natural species are part of that. And we have a government that, instead of protecting these wildlife species, is watering down their protection.

This government introduced essentially a pay-to-slay provision that would allow destruction of the species’ habitats, or species, and that’s okay as long as the person or the entity that is doing this destruction pays a fine. That fine goes into a fund that really has no connection to restoring the actual area that was destroyed. Who knows how that money will be spent? That is cold comfort, to know that the habitat of one of these species has been destroyed or damaged, with no provision to restore it in any way.

Can we talk about climate change? Because we’ve absolutely seen no progress to address climate change. In fact, under this minister, the carbon pollution in our province continues to get much worse. They do not have a credible climate plan. Their made-in-Ontario plan, really, is just a pamphlet. So we have a government that either doesn’t believe in climate change or doesn’t care about the impacts it will have on future generations.

We continue to see in this province water bottlers, big multinational corporations like Nestlé and like BlueTriton, continue to be given a licence to drain our aquifers for pennies. It’s pennies on the litre. In fact, these companies that are profiting from our water and our waterways pay less in fees than it costs this government to oversee and manage this.

Why do we have a government that doesn’t understand that we think that large corporations shouldn’t be profiting off of our natural resources, which is water, and for it to be sold for a profit when the people of the province of Ontario have to pay those costs? Municipalities that do not have access to good groundwater—it impinges on their ability to grow. But companies are profiting, with no obligation to make whole these municipalities and those communities that are suffering from that.

And then I guess we have—I would like to say this is the mother of all, but we’ll get to the greenbelt. But we have Highway 413. As we know, this government is really ramming through this super-sprawl highway that we all know will pave over farmlands and wetlands. It will continue the carve-up of the greenbelt and, again, destroy the habitat of many, many more species at risk.

I just have to wonder—this government has decided that they’re going to look at a new biodiversity strategy. If you’re not aware of this, the government is looking for comment at their committee on the status of species at risk. My suspicion is that this is not to add species at risk to the list.

My suspicion is that it will, again, be a diminishing of the protection for species at risk, and I can only suspect—only suspect, with the lack of transparency of this government—that this may be in anticipation of building a highway in habitats for species at risk, and if we take these species off the list, the government is under no obligation to protect them. That is something that remains to be seen, but given the current track record of this government, it’d be hard to think otherwise.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): The member for Oakville?

Mr. Stephen Crawford: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I just want to remind the speaker and the member to stick to the content. I believe we are discussing Bill 69.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): I’ll let her continue on her train.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

So yes, to be clear: We are talking about Bill 69, which has a significant

schedule that will diminish the environmental assessment process in the province, which has a direct negative impact on the environment, as I’m discussing.

Highway 413: We know that it will go through some of Ontario’s last remaining areas of countryside. It will require cutting down a forest. It will continue to threaten our precious agricultural land. We have class 1 farmland that we’re losing at a rate of—I think it’s 379 acres a day. When I say that, I can hardly believe that that’s the figure—I think it is—because it’s so astronomical. But this Highway 413 further threatens the land on which we grow food.

So it’s quite clear that this highway is a potential looming environmental disaster, but I think we need to make no mistake that it is also a potential financial disaster as well. Estimates say that this highway could cost anywhere between $10 billion and $12 billion in taxpayers’ money. That’s a lot of money with not a lot of information from this government, and I just think, to put that in context—we’re having our budget coming up March 31, I believe. The government is going to present its fiscal plan for 2023. But if we look at where we are now, this is a government that’s sitting on $400 billion in debt. That’s the debt of the province of Ontario currently.

Interjection: How much?

Ms. Sandy Shaw: It’s $400 billion. It’s astronomical. They talk about being fiscally prudent, but under this government’s management, this debt has only continued to grow.

We also, as a measure of fiscal responsibility, look at the debt to GDP. I remember Minister Fedeli being outraged when, under the Liberals, the debt-to-GDP ratio went to 40%. We now have a government that has a debt-to-GDP ratio of about 43% and climbing. So by any measure, Highway 413 is not fiscally prudent, nor, I would suggest, is this government as fiscally prudent as they like to claim.

Then we come to the greenbelt and what has been described as the carving up, the selling off of the greenbelt. The outrage over this is about the environment. It’s about what’s at risk and what we stand to lose when it comes to our natural heritage, when it comes to farmland. All of this is something that we understand. When we hear just the name “greenbelt,” we know that this is something that we should be protecting and preserving.

But I think the absolute outrage for people comes from the fact that the Premier promised many times to protect the greenbelt, that he would not open the greenbelt up for development. And what we see is a string of broken promises. The people of the province feel betrayed. They feel betrayed that what they expected would be protected by this government has essentially been divvied up. And it would appear it has been divvied up not to benefit the people of the province of Ontario but to profit select powerful developers in the province of Ontario.

I’m not just making that up; it’s a matter of public record that the big developers that own land in this greenbelt are also clearly connected, either through employment, through appointments or through donations, to the PC Party.

So that’s the kind of cynicism that is not good for Ontario. I would suggest that people expect so much better from their government, not only to protect their environment but to be straight up when it comes to how you’re selling off our heritage. I think people feel that the government needs to hear this: This is not your land. This does not belong to the Ministry of the Environment. It doesn’t belong to this government to sell to its friends. This land is public, and it should be protected as such. It’s a jewel, and we should be protecting it and not selling it off—for pennies, really. The cynicism runs so deep.

I have a question. I’m hoping that the Minister of the Environment will speak to this bill. We have not heard the Minister of the Environment stand up to speak to this bill that has such a significant impact on the environment. When and if the minister speaks to this, my question to him would be around the greenbelt: When did this minister himself know that the greenbelt was going to be open for development? It would be interesting to know the timing of that as well.

With this list, I have to say, with all due respect, the government has not shown that they are forthcoming or trustworthy when it comes to the environment or our natural heritage. In fact, they’ve just given us many reasons not to trust them. So I think the government should understand why no one in the province believes anything that you say or what you’re doing when it comes to the environment.

Specifically to the bill, Madam Speaker, in this bill, we have a

schedule that will again address and make diminishing changes to the Environmental Bill of Rights. People need to understand in the province that we have a bill of rights. It’s a right that we all have as Ontarians. It’s the Environmental Bill of Rights. This is a legal right that’s enshrined in provincial laws, similar to us having access to government information, similar to the right for us to have safe and healthy workplaces and to the right of Indigenous communities to be consulted—free and fair, prior consent. The Environmental Bill of Rights is one of those sets of laws.

In the Environmental Bill of Rights, this recognizes that we have a shared and common value in Ontario to protect, conserve and restore the environment “for the benefit of present and future generations.” That just sounds so lovely, and I think that’s what we should all be doing. In fact, what we have seen is the Environmental Bill of Rights continue to be watered down, chipped away—and I guess we’d call it death by a thousand cuts—with this government.

In fact, I’ll go on to show that this government has been proven to have broken the law, violated the rights of the people of the province of Ontario, under the Environmental Bill of Rights. I think it’s important to note at this point that the actual mechanisms by which you access your rights under this bill are that the government needs to notify and consult the public through a website called the Environmental Registry. For those of you who don’t know this, it’s called the ERO, the Environmental Registry of Ontario.

That’s where the government posts—or should be posting—things that will have a significant impact on the environment. That is an important right we need to protect and that we need to continue to utilize.

The whole idea of the environmental assessment is so that we look before we leap, when things are being proposed that will impact the environment that we have a transparent public consultation process, that we allow experts in their community to weigh in on things that will impact them. But apparently, this government finds that this law is just too burdensome for them. They call it burdensome. They say it’s red tape, but it’s your right that they are considering to be a burden.

In fact, with the Bradford Bypass, another highway that has the potential to impose significant damage to our environment, the government has chosen to exempt themselves from any environmental assessment.

So it’s quite clear that this is a government that does not want scrutiny, that doesn’t want the public to weigh in on the environment, and that they think they know best when it comes to our environment.

Again, we have the Auditor General to thank for the independent research that she does, the oversight that she provides to all of us in this House to do our job better, to understand the role of the government and how the government is performing on our behalf. We use this, as the official opposition, to inform the government, which is our role—to give them information that we believe will help make their bills better. We rely heavily on the Auditor General, as we believe the government should.

Unfortunately, the government has racked up a litany of failures when it comes to the Environmental Bill of Rights and when it comes to environmental assessment.

In her latest report of 2022, the Auditor General said that even though required under the Environmental Bill of Rights Act, the environment ministry did not provide educational programs to Ontarians about their rights. They don’t want you to know about your rights. They didn’t notify Ontarians promptly in over half of the leave-to-appeal applications. The environment minister could not provide documentation of internal controls—and many of the ministers did not follow internal procedures. The environment minister was not proactive in ensuring that environmentally significant decisions were made subject to the EBR act, the Environmental Bill of Rights.

It has been shown over and over again that this government has violated—a court has found, the Auditor General has found that this government does not seem to think that the Environmental Bill of Rights is something that they should be adhering to.

So what we see before us is a bill—we’ve seen that they have ignored the right under environmental assessment because it’s burdensome. Because they’ve broken the law and they don’t want to follow it, what we now have is a bill that changes the law, so there are no longer any requirements to follow some of the provisions. This is a continuing decline, I would say, of what we’ve seen in this province.

I’m disappointed to see that rather than protecting the environment, we have a minister, we have a government that have shown a limitless weakness to bend to the will of big development at every turn. Rather than sustainable growth, we have a government that is handing over our natural heritage.

I pledge to continue to stand with the people who stand for the environment. We will not stop. We will stand to make sure that our natural heritage is protected, because clearly, this is what the people of Ontario expect for us and—

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

Mr. Todd J. McCarthy: Speaker, since 2018, the Progressive Conservative government of Premier Doug Ford has been focused on building Ontario. We built schools. The previous Liberal-NDP coalition closed schools down. We are building hospitals, in contrast to the Liberal-NDP coalition that brought our health care system to its knees. We are building transit, with four new transit lines in the GTA, and the NDP said no to that.

Bill 69 will help predictable infrastructure projects—and let us build infrastructure faster without compromising the EA process.

Speaker, the opposition supported Bill 63. Why will the opposition not support Bill 69 and build infrastructure for the people of Ontario that they need and deserve?

Ms. Sandy Shaw: We do not want to see what this government is trying to do, which is drag us back to the 1970s when it comes to environmental protections, when basically it was the Wild West, where anything was allowed and the people of the province had absolutely no input on things that would impact their communities.

I think the people of the province of Ontario need to know that what we’re talking about is those little woodlots that are near your neighbourhood, the place where you walk your dog, those streams that you like and you don’t realize—were environmentally significant, protected—are no longer protected.

We absolutely will not vote for a bill that takes away people’s rights and does not take into consideration the things we need to do for sustainable ecological growth.

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

MPP Lise Vaugeois: Thank you to the member from Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas for her presentation.

During the pandemic, the conservation areas in my region, in Thunder Bay–Superior North, were the mental and physical lifelines that helped people get through the pandemic. They are beloved spaces, and I can’t see anybody wanting to give them up.

Is it your sense that the incredibly beautiful conservation areas in your region—I’m thinking of Webster Falls, for example, a stunning place. Do you believe that people in your region would be happy to see these conservation areas turned into housing developments without any consultation from local organizations?

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Thank you for the question.

That’s what we’re talking about. We’re talking about these natural spaces that people love and frequent and that are so good for our mental health and our mental well-being, but also just for the health of our province.

It’s really disappointing to see that the government has gutted conservation authorities to speed up development. I think people will be shocked to find what they’re going to lose—I think even the way that the Niagara Escarpment Commission has been taken out of the ability to preserve land, right into the fact that the conservation authorities no longer can consider pollution or conservation of land as part of their job to protect our environment. So, yes, I think people would be shocked to see what this province looks like once these kinds of laws go through.

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

Mr. Andrew Dowie: I want to thank the member for Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas for the remarks.

On Tuesday night, the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers had a reception here. Two members, Dan Cozzi of the Municipal Engineers Association and Chris Traini, county engineer for Middlesex county, made a beeline for me and expressed their frustration with the province’s environmental assessment process. It’s in dire need of modernization and simplification, I know all too well—because I’ve led many of these in my own professional career.

My question to the member is—why the red tape that is anticipated to be removed with this bill is worse off for Ontario versus what the municipalities would like to see.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Thank you to the member for the question.

I believe that the member will understand the severity of impacting wetlands. It seems to me that in your very own community, you have had not one but maybe two once-in-a-century storms that have resulted in loss of property, property damage, people’s homes being damaged, major flooding. And it’s my understanding that people can’t even get insurance for some of their homes. So why would you consider protecting people’s homes and protecting flood lands red tape? It’s your job to protect people and protect their homes and protect their financial health, not to eliminate those protections.

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

Mr. Wayne Gates: I wasn’t going to go there, but seeing as this member continues to mislead this House, you will remember, Speaker, extremely well—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): I will ask the member to withdraw.

Mr. Wayne Gates: Yes, I retract.

You will remember this, Speaker, because I know I was there with you, quite frankly, in Hamilton. When you want to talk about closing schools and closing hospitals—Mike Harris closed more schools and more hospitals than anybody in the province of Ontario. And you’ll remember this because you were the reporter: There were 100,000 teachers and other unions marching in Hamilton to try to protect their jobs and stop the closures of schools and hospitals in the province of Ontario.

So when you stand up and talk about coalitions—I’ve got to have a question for her. My question is, why do you think they want to build 1.5 million homes and attack the greenbelt, when we know we can build two million homes without touching the greenbelt today—and that was a report that came out two days ago.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Well, I think that if you’ve given me an opening to talk about the Conservative legacy under Mike Harris and this rush to eliminate protections when it comes to flooding and it comes to the environment—it has a direct DNA link to the Mike Harris years, and I need to go no further than to talk about Walkerton. This is a government that deregulated, decentralized protections for people when it came to drinking water. They probably called it red tape then. They probably said that this was burdensome and this was costly. What resulted was the loss of lives. How many people lost their lives?

Quite a significant number. People then lived for years and years after that with debilitating illness. So when you call protections burdensome, you have to look at your own legacy.

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

Mr. Vijay Thanigasalam: As we are discussing this bill, we are crystal clear that this bill will make the government fiscally prudent and make sure that we save taxpayers’ dollars. And when it comes to the environmental standards, it will be in place and there’s no compromise on the environmental assessments or the protections.

It’s very crystal clear: They will enable the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to waive the 30-day waiting period after the successful completion of an environmental assessment if there are no other outstanding concerns.

My question is, why does the NDP want to slow down government and not want to save taxpayers’ dollars?

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Thank you to the member for the question. With all due respect, nobody trusts this government and has no reason to trust this government when it comes to the environment and when it comes to the greenbelt. Everything that this government has said about protecting the greenbelt has been malarkey to this point. So why should we trust you now?

And so you’re saying to me that this bill will have no impact on environmental protections? Show me the evidence of what you’ve done so far, because your track record is absolutely abysmal. No one trusts you and no one has any reason to.

And so I say that we need to move forward on sustainable development, but we need a government we can trust and we don’t have one right now.

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

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: I appreciate my colleague from Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas mentioning the flooding that has happened: again, two once-in-100-year storms where people lost significant property and personal valuables. And for many right now, either their insurance rates have gone up or they can’t get flooding insurance at all in Windsor, and we know that Windsor needs support with infrastructure.

I’m wondering if the member from Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas could build and speak a little more about the importance of environmental protections. I know the member opposite from the Conservatives talked about savings for the taxpayers, but the reality is, when you don’t protect the environment, when you’re building homes in flood plains, that is a cost to homeowners. And there’s environmental costs as well. So I’m wondering if the member from Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas could build on that conversation.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Response? You’ve got 30 seconds.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Absolutely. Not only has this government left individual homeowners holding the bag when it comes to the cost to repair their flooded basements, to repair their flooded land, to pay for increased insurance premiums—this government has left you on your own. They’re also leaving municipalities out on their own. Municipalities have to pay the cost of infrastructure, roads, bridges that are eroding, culverts all across this province, and this government is not providing the municipalities the money they need—taxpayers will.

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

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I rise to speak on Bill 69, and since my time is limited, I’m going to focus my remarks on

schedule 1, which, if passed, would give the minister the power to waive or alter the 30-day comment period following the public comment period.

Speaker, let’s be clear about what this says. It says that you, the people of Ontario, have the right to comment on the possible harms and damage of a particular project. And let’s say the deadline for that is March 31. On April 1, the minister can simply say, “We don’t care what you say. We’re going to ignore it. We’re going to not even consider your comments over the next 30 days and proceed with the project anyway.”

The government wants us to believe that, on its own, this is a minor step that will do little to affect the EA process. But Speaker, what it really is is another step in a risky and reckless trend towards dismantling environmental protections that directly affect people’s lives, livelihoods, property, businesses and community infrastructure.

The Environmental Assessment Act was brought in in 1975 for a reason: to do risk assessment on development projects before blindly proceeding with a project that could result in serious harm or subject us to significant risk or cost.

Speaker, I was taught when I was a kid to always look before I leap, because it’s a way to prevent yourself from injuring yourself and it’s a way to prevent yourself from experiencing significant harms or costs, but the government doesn’t seem to understand this. Instead, the government has spent the last five years systematically dismantling legislation that helps us look before we leap, that helps us reduce the cost and harms of environmental damage. This makes absolutely no sense at a time when the frequency and severity of climate-fuelled extreme weather events are on the rise.

The FAO alone estimates that the risk to public infrastructure just over the next seven years is $26.2 billion a year.

So why would we dismantle the ability of conservation authorities to protect us from flooding and protect our drinking water? Why did the government weaken the environmental assessment process through Bill 197 a few years ago? Why did they gut the Endangered Species Act, bringing in pay-to-slay provisions? Why are they opening the greenbelt for development, paving over the farmland that feeds us and the wetlands that protect us from flooding, at a time when the risk, the cost and the harms are on the rise?

If the government truly wants to modernize the environmental assessment process, then why not improve it? Why not improve it instead of weaken it? Why not expand it to include private sector projects that cause harm, as well?

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

Mr. Vijay Thanigasalam: I just want to be crystal clear in this House that the environmental assessment standards will definitely remain in place, including that this bill will not compromise assessing potential environmental impacts. It will not jeopardize identifying mitigation measures. It will not jeopardize any consultation with Indigenous communities, the public, stakeholders. This will follow all the EA process that is in place; this bill just enables the 30-day waiting period to be waived if there are no outstanding concerns after its successful completion.

My question to the member from Guelph is: Why not quicken the process after the successful completion, to get the municipal partners and other stakeholders to start—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): I recognize the member for Guelph for a response.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: The reason, Speaker, is that I care about what the people of Ontario have to say. I think it’s important for government to listen to people. I think it’s important for us to analyze the expert advice that comes forward during the public comment period, and to take that into consideration before possibly making a decision that could produce significant harm to the people of Ontario or escalate costs related to that harm.

The 30-day period is there for a reason. It says that consultations are meaningful. It says that governments care about what people say and aren’t simply going to disregard what the people of Ontario think.

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

MPP Jamie West: Thank you very much, Speaker, and thank you as well to the member from Guelph. You spoke a lot about environmental protection and the importance of recognizing it, and all the things the Conservative government has done to erode environmental protections.

We’re in an age right now where climate change is real, and we all—well, most of us agree with it. Most people outside of here, I would say, all agree to it. Sophia Mathur in Sudbury was the first young woman outside of Europe to do climate strikes on Fridays, starting when she was 13; she’s almost an adult now. I’m trying to understand where this climate change disconnect comes from, because Sophia is asking people to listen to the experts, to follow expert advice. Meanwhile, last term, the Conservative government’s environment platform was litter cleanup day.

Litter cleanup day is something that we were doing when I was a cub scout. That’s not new policy. So why won’t they listen to expert advice? Why is there this disconnect with climate change?

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I just want to give a quick shout-out to Sophia, who’s one of my heroes and a great young climate activist.

Speaker, I’ve just thought about the debate that has happened today. We’re having hundred-year floods regularly in Windsor, the Ottawa region and Muskoka. There was one day in Toronto where, in three hours, there was $84 million of flood damage. The costs are escalating.

That’s exactly why I asked the Financial Accountability Officer to do a risk assessment for the province of Ontario. Our public infrastructure will have additional costs of $26.2 billion over the next seven years—this decade alone. We’re on the hook for that. If you want to talk about fiscal responsibility, let’s maintain the environmental protections that are in place to prevent those costs from falling onto the people of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Further questions? I recognize the member for Mississauga–Malton.

Mr. Deepak Anand: No, no.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): I recognize the member for Scarborough–Rouge Park.

Mr. Vijay Thanigasalam: The people of Ontario want a government that’s fiscally prudent, a government that saves taxpayer dollars cutting red tape and a government that’s practising good governance. That’s why our government is looking at new ways to access and upscale the real estate property that sits underused or empty, to better meet the needs of our province: for example, to optimize the existing funds in real estate to reinvest into addressing market inflation, to invest in capital repairs or rehabilitation.

That’s what we are focusing on in this bill. Why does the member from Guelph want to spend taxpayers’ money from Ontario?

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I’m standing here right now pleading with this government to protect taxpayer dollars, to protect the $26.2 billion in additional infrastructure costs we’re going to experience because of the climate crisis and the dismantling of environmental protections.

Let’s talk about the average homeowner: $42,000 to fix a flooded basement. I’m here to protect taxpayers from rising insurance costs. Let’s talk about the fact that environmental protections—

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

Hon. David Piccini: It’s wonderful to rise in the Legislature to speak to this bill. I just wanted to briefly start off at the top with addressing a comment the member opposite said, the leader of the Green Party.

He said, “Look before you leap.” My mother used to say the same, but she also said, “Look before you speak.” I think if the member were to give a closer look at the actual class EA process, he would know that the ERO posting goes concurrently with the listing with the proponent municipality—in the case of a waste water treatment plant, for example, going forward with the project—the class EA moves forward through the EA process, and it’s open generally between 30 to 45 days for a comment period, sometimes 60 days on the ERO.

Class EAs take longer than that, so this position at the end of the class EA, this 30-day waiting period, would never—never—correspond with a comment period, so I really think it’s important that we get that out there and address the facts.

Speaker, it’s my pleasure to rise to this bill. As the Legislature is aware, this Environmental Assessment Act has not been updated in 50 years—I’ll repeat that again: 50 years. I think everyone in this Legislature would agree that a lot has changed in the last 50 years. I, for one, wasn’t alive. The technology has changed. We’re leveraging a lot of technology today to improve the way we do things, and that includes improving the Environmental Assessment Act. Yet the act itself has been frozen in time, in part a relic of the past that’s holding Ontario back today.

The changes contained in this bill are not a revolution, Madam Speaker. In fact, I would submit to you that these are largely administrative in nature. They do not, as some in the opposition will have you believe, change the fabric of the EA process. This is a modernization of the act, reflective of the realities today. Simply put, the act is outdated and needs, like our environment, to constantly move and change to better reflect the realities of today and to better protect our environment.

Ontarians deserve better. They deserve a government that moves with them. They deserve an Environmental Assessment Act that helps support building a resilient Ontario.

The foundations of this act remain strong. The changes make the 30-day waiting period happen after the completion of the environmental assessment. This gives government the ability to waive that 30-day period, should all of the conditions have been met through the environmental assessment process. That’s right, Madam Speaker: Following the completion of an environmental assessment, we’re frozen, frozen in time for 30 seconds.

I just paused for two seconds. Nothing happened. I didn’t address the substantive nature of this bill. I didn’t provide any answers. That’s what this does: things in time. I don’t know about you, Madam Speaker—but depending on the circumstance, that seems inefficient. I would personally love to hear the rationale as to why, when a proponent has completed their due diligence and completed the environmental assessment process, they should be forced to wait automatically for 30 days with no ability to move forward with the project.

Why should a municipality that needs to build a new waste water treatment plant keep clean drinking water on pause for an additional 30 days? It’s nonsensical, but it’s not surprising, as I listen to the members opposite. They voted no to more homes. They voted no to critical infrastructure projects to meet a modern and resilient Ontario. What does that mean? Modern waste water treatment plants, stormwater retention ponds—all of this is paused in time, is paused in this relic of

an act, in as relic a nature as some of the members opposite.

Why should an immigrant who’s looking to come to this province have to wait longer to access a home; why should a young person who’s waiting in their parents’ basement, who’s looking to have the dignity of home ownership, have to wait because a municipality is paused while they build the critical waste water infrastructure needed to support a growing development or intensification?

Madam Speaker, I think of some of the closed-loop waste water treatment plants that I’ve had the opportunity to tour. I’ve seen some of the incredible technology. I’m going to talk a bit about some of my personal passions. I’m a big Star Trek fan, and I feel like I’m on the bridge of the Enterprise sometimes when I’m in these waste water treatment plants, like one I recently toured in Millbrook, and I see the technology we’re using today. I think everybody would agree, and I would submit, that that technology was not there 50 years ago today.

When that municipality has completed their class environmental assessment process, they’re on pause; they’re waiting for 30 days. In some cases, that 30 days can mean the closing of a construction window, which means we wait yet another year. I know that year doesn’t matter to many in this Legislature—“Let the municipality wait.” There’s no justification—they will try and impute that that means somehow we are weakening environmental protections. How? They would rather us wait, for the sake of waiting, another year. They would rather us wait, for the sake of waiting, to tell that immigrant, “Sorry.

Live in the basement.” Even worse, the next generation, a person in this province who’s desperate to have a roof over their head—they say, “Wait.”

The municipality, like the member opposite who hails from Hamilton, with a lot of aged infrastructure—they would rather say to that municipality, “Wait. Clean drinking water can wait.” I would submit to you that it can’t.

To build a resilient Ontario, to build an Ontario that adapts to the changing realities of today, we have to have the option to move and waive that 30-day period, and that’s exactly what we’re doing.

Our government is committed to building a strong environmental assessment program that considers the input of local community and ensures that we focus our attention on those projects that have the highest impact on the environment.

We consulted with municipalities. The member from Windsor is an engineer and will know that the association of engineers supported us when we brought forward class environmental assessment process—I’ll elaborate on that soon—when we brought forward an amendment to look at consolidated linear infrastructure.

I was recently in Brampton. Our incredible member in Brampton, MPP McGregor, brought together a round table where municipal staff who were there long before I was elected and who will be there long after I move on lauded the moves that this government has done on consolidated linear infrastructure.

Think permissions on a pipe-by-pipe basis versus looking in a holistic manner—that’s how we’ve got to do things today. Technology has improved. We have much better waste water systems, storm, sani systems today than we did 50 years ago, and we’ve got to adapt to reflect that.

While development and building Ontario is, of course, important, let me make it crystal clear that the environmental standards and protections that are in place today will remain in place and continue to be long into the future. So those permissions are in place. While we look at the process that deals with those permissions, I think we can have a conversation about that process. I think we can say, for a nonsensical automatic 30-day waiting period, we should have the option to move forward if we’re satisfied for class projects—that means they fall in a variety of common classes that are quite standard.

This isn’t an individual EA; this is class assessments that are very standard, that municipalities now do with their eyes closed. That we would say, “We’re not going to automatically pause you for 30 days,” I think makes sense, and I would submit to you that the majority of Ontarians think the same.

As I mentioned, I’m a big Star Trek fan. One of my favourite episodes is “Mirror, Mirror.” Sometimes in the members opposite, it’s that other alternate reality. It’s somewhat—I sometimes hear nasty statements, and so negative. I think if you flash forward and you look at what we’re actually doing here and you look at what’s happening, it’s reflective of consultations with municipalities. It’s reflective of what we hear.

A nonsensical pause—the only thing that’s really happening in that pause is that they’re moving to this alternate reality where they’re impugning all sorts of things that are really not reflective of what’s actually before us today in the bill. They’re incapable of actually addressing the bill and the measures in this bill because they understand it’s nonsensical, a 30-day waiting period. It’s a false choice, because it’s not a choice. We don’t need to choose between this pause and this sort of impugned—that we need to do this for the environment.

This, to me, makes absolute sense. It’s what we’ve heard from the communities we’ve spoken to, and the proposed amendments are merely to provide the ability to waive or alter the 30-day review period, allowing projects to begin sooner. That actually doesn’t change the

section 16 order, which members should be familiar with. If a member of the public has concerns, even if it’s a class EA—things that are commonly done, part of a class—even if all those conditions have been met and it’s the position of the great staff scientists at MECP—who, again, will be there long after I move on—that the conditions have been met and the position of community members who have addressed comments in the ERO posting, there’s still the ability for Ontarians to request a review order to the minister through

section 16, and this does not change.

So there’s many things in place to empower Ontarians to have their say, to voice their concerns in ways that most other jurisdictions just simply don’t have, and I’m proud of that. I’m proud that in Ontario we have that.

As you can see, Madam Speaker, this pause really changes nothing. This is the effect of this arbitrary 30-day review period. It serves no purpose—perhaps 50 years ago, but today it doesn’t. The current EA process requires that 30-day review, and it doesn’t really make sense.

If you’ll indulge me, I want to give context to what a class environmental assessment entails. A class EA is a proponent-led self-assessment process, and the majority of class EAs are undertaken by our municipal partners. The class EA establishes a planning process for projects that fall within a class of undertakings, such as a municipal class environmental assessment for infrastructure projects or electricity transmission projects.

So out of one side of one’s mouth, we hear a call for electrification, for decarbonization, and then, out of the other side of one’s mouth, we hear, “No, we’ve got to pause it. We need this automatic 30-day review period that’s going to pause the transmission line.” It doesn’t make sense. You’re smiling because you know. It doesn’t make sense.

Class environmental assessments can be developed for classes of undertakings that are similar or routine in nature, such as building a road, building a water treatment plant, building a school or building a hospital. That member keeps saying 30 days, Madam Speaker—it’s not a big issue for him: 30 days go by, and he still collects his paycheque. But when 30 days go by and we can’t build a transmission in a construction window, it matters. When we can’t build a hospital in that construction window, it matters. Not surprising, because he’s voted against building hospitals in places like Brampton.

He’s voted against building new schools after a decade of darkness in which we saw 600 schools closed. Not surprising, because he did actually mull running for leader of that party that closed those schools down.

I don’t know about you, Madam Speaker, but these projects seem like bad things to delay construction on for a month: building a critical road, building a water treatment plant that’s leveraging modern technology to clean the water today, to provide clean drinking water, to provide clean water that’s discharged into our tributaries. We’re using incredible technology today that’s much better than the technology we used 20 years ago, and in 20 years’ time it’s going to be even better, but not, Madam Speaker, if we have these nonsensical pauses.

Projects that fall under the class EA process have known potential environmental effects that are predictable and well understood. Building in Ontario is not a novel concept. Building a water treatment plant isn’t novel. Building a school isn’t. Building a hospital isn’t. We have experts and expertise that guide us, and I believe in listening to those experts.

Class EA projects can be managed, Madam Speaker, through established impact-management methods. A class EA is routine—as I said, it’s well understood—and this bill does not make any changes in the execution of that EA. Anyone who says otherwise either has not read the bill or does not understand it, or, worse, one is intentionally misleading Ontarians. All this means that a project that falls within a class of undertakings in a class environment assessment is approved, as long as the proponent successfully completes the approved planning process.

Despite what members may say, let me assure you, Madam Speaker, that any class environmental assessment requires public consultation, robust postings on the ERO and a comment period. After all the work is complete, then we wait. We wait some more. And, yes, we wait and wait and wait. No work gets done. We’re not seeing cleaner drinking. We’re not seeing a home being built. We’re not seeing a hospital being built. We’re not seeing a waste water treatment plant being built. We wait for 30 days, and no work is done until that 30-day period expires.

This gives the ability to waive that 30-day period. I think to a recent example in Mississauga where this was quite literally the difference between a year of waiting—and do you know what happened in that year? We entered 2022-23, where we saw massive inflation.

But they don’t mind, because there is no government spending they won’t support. The party with the taxpayers’ money will never end for the members opposite, because it doesn’t matter. You wait another year and this has kicked it into another construction cycle? It doesn’t matter. Inflation? Just a number; keep spending.

But when we’ve met the robust environmental oversight, why wait needlessly for a waste water treatment plant that the community needs now? To call this an unnecessary delay is an understatement. And I have said this is not costless. There is always a cost—a cost to the people of Ontario. This does nothing to change the process in the class environmental assessment. This is a mandatory waiting period.

But not surprising—they wait; they wait. They’re going to wait a long time to form government, Madam Speaker, because they never will, because Ontarians recognize that we have to get it done when it comes to clean drinking water. We have to get it done when it comes to building public transit projects that are going to take cars off the road and that are going to get people using public transit. We’re not going to wait when it comes to giving a new Canadian the ability to put a roof over their head and provide for their family.

We’re not going to wait when it comes to leveraging modern technology to provide clean drinking water to Ontarians or to deal with decade-old infrastructure that’s discharging and we’re seeing spills and overflows leaking into our rivers, our bodies of water.

We need to upgrade these things, and these upgrades and these routine infrastructure upgrades that fall under a class EA process don’t need to wait for an arbitrary mandatory 30-day waiting period. If conditions have been met and if, according to municipalities, the proponents, the scientists within the ministry, the directors—because there is statutory authority, not given to me, but given to directors within the ministry that are there long before and long after I have the privilege of being environment minister. But if, in everybody’s opinion, these conditions are met, we can waive the 30-day waiting period.

It is quite literally the difference in many cases—and I have a number of tangible examples, like the one in Mississauga I cited, or like some in my own community in Cobourg and Port Hope—between one construction season to the next.

What happens when you’re moving forward on the class EA process and you’re lining up contractors and trades—they’re falling further and further out of touch with labourers and workers in this province; it’s not a surprise that those unions backed us in the last election, because they understand that waiting causes massive uncertainty for those workers. Waiting causes massive uncertainty for the planned growth with the new waste water treatment plant. And we’re saying that if conditions have been met, let’s have the ability to waive that 30-day pause. It’s so we can build a more prosperous Ontario.

It’s so we can build a more resilient Ontario. It’s so we can leverage modern technology to better make ourselves resilient to the impacts of climate change, utilize the latest technology in our stormwater and sanitary.

This isn’t sexy stuff, but it’s important stuff that the Premier understands is needed to build an Ontario for tomorrow. A tomorrow for the young immigrant that’s looking to Ontario to start a family and wants to have a roof over their head. An Ontario that a senior, a young person, can get on public transit and get themselves not just from point A to point B, but a better quality of life.

We’re not going to apologize, Madam Speaker, for making sure we leave no stone unturned in making sure we achieve the potential of that Ontario for everybody in this province to enjoy. And while they wait and while they entrench the relics of a time long gone by, we’re going to move forward to build a better, more climate-resilient Ontario for all Ontarians to enjoy.

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I’m glad to have an opportunity to ask the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks a few questions about the environment, about public input. He’s referring to this 30-day pause after the class EA process period as being a nonsensical pause, but it’s an opportunity for the ministry to review all comments received and any concerns, and I would say that the voices of communities should matter to this government.

The Auditor General, as I raised yesterday, outlined clearly that ministry after ministry doesn’t seem to be considering public input, and that’s an unfortunate pattern for this government. We also know, according to their affordability task force, we don’t require the land in the greenbelt. I wonder how the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks actually feels about the fact that we’re doing such harm to the greenbelt in the province of Ontario?

Hon. David Piccini: There’s a lot to unpack there, but I want to address the critical piece in this bill. We heard how the members opposite would govern if, God forbid, they ever had the chance to do so in Ontario. They feel that MECP sit on their hands and wait until the class EA process is done, which reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the class EA process. We don’t close our eyes, hold our breath and close our ears and eyes until the end of the six-month process. It’s a constant relationship where we’re back and forth with the proponent on a constant basis, where we’re addressing any challenges and where we’re responsive to the ERO posting and that feedback.

Months later, when this is done and there’s this arbitrary 30-day waiting period, they want us to start reviewing it then. Well, I’ve got news for them: MECP is constantly working with proponents from day one, not closing their eyes and ears, as the members opposite would have them do.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Unfortunately, we are out of time for questions and answers, but we are going to be moving to members’ statements.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Project Hope

Project Hope was started by two Toronto police officers, Farzad Ghotbi and Mustafa Popalzai. Both of them are immigrants to Canada from Iran and from Afghanistan. In August 2021, when Officer Popalzai saw Afghan refugees trying to get on a plane, he started Project Hope to gather supplies for those arriving in Canada. This is a humble beginning. Since its inception, they’ve gathered over $425,000 worth of supplies for Afghan refugees.

On February 10, when the earthquake struck Türkiye and Syria, they again put out a call for donations of brand-new baby supplies, first aid supplies, blankets, clothing, etc. By the last day of the drive, February 28, they had gathered over $120,000 of donations of brand new items. Thanks to their work, their dedication and countless hours spent by Toronto police officers across the city, those donations have been gathered up and are on their way. I want to thank both of those gentlemen for their incredible work.

Ontario Place

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: Ontario Place was opened in 1971 to showcase and celebrate the beauty of this province and to allow easy access to our waterfront for everyone to enjoy. Now the Ford government wants to hand over this historic and valuable public space to a foreign developer, the Therme Group, who plans to turn it into a private water park and spa. The Premier wants to give the developer 650 million public dollars as a subsidy for this private spa at Ontario Place. This makes zero sense. How does this serve the interests of Ontarians? For less than half the amount, the government could refurbish Ontario Place into a world-class park destination.

The Premier wants to spend 450 million public dollars for a 2,000-spot underground parking lot to support this private spa, when the Ontario Line is going to have a stop right at Ontario Place. How is this value for money for Ontarians? It’s no surprise the Ford government is doing all of this with no public consultation, transparency or regard for heritage. Even the city of Toronto was not included in any discussions about the future of Ontario Place.

By giving away precious public waterfront space, this government is showing total operational incompetence, a complete lack of imagination on how to revitalize these valuable assets and downright disregard for public lands. Ontario Place belongs to the people, not to Premier Ford.

School facilities

Mr. Andrew Dowie: It is with great pleasure today that I rise to recognize two transformative school projects under way right now in Windsor and in Tecumseh.

Two weeks ago, the member for Perth–Wellington travelled to Windsor to celebrate the opening of the new Catholic Central secondary school. When the project is completed, Catholic Central will finally have some of the amenities we all take for granted in school, like having an outdoor sports field. Right now, it doesn’t have one. Seven consecutive funding asks to the province for the project were turned down by the previous Liberal government until funding was conditionally approved in 2016.

Our government, in comparison, got the job done by approving an extra $7 million on top of the $26 million for the building, so that the students could learn at a suitable site, steps away from beautiful Jackson Park.

In my own neighbourhood, D.M. Eagle Public School has long served as the pride and joy of St. Clair Beach, where it proudly stands today overlooking the historic Beach Grove Golf and Country Club. Under the previous Liberal government, this school was on track to join the many school closures that we’ve experienced in the town of Tecumseh and was planned to be re-established outside of our municipal limits. But in 2021, Minister Lecce approved additional funding of $3.3 million to keep it just one block west of the existing school, on top of the $25.7 million previously approved. I am proud to say it is our government that finished the job.

I want to recognize and thank the Ontario government for finally ending the roadblocks and delays encountered for these projects and for ensuring that Windsor and Tecumseh students and their families have access to a quality learning environment close to home.

Community services

Ms. Chandra Pasma: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as the saying goes, and yet this government is underfunding vital community supports and services that keep people out of the hospital. Thirty-two organizations that provide community supports in Ottawa and in eastern Ontario are being forced to implement service cuts of up to 40% because of this government’s refusal to provide adequate funding. They are being asked to respond to increased need while still operating on 2012 funding levels.

The Olde Forge Community Resource Centre in my riding of Ottawa West–Nepean is one of these organizations. They provide essential supports and care to seniors and adults with disabilities, allowing them to stay in their own homes longer and keeping them out of hospitals and long-term-care facilities. Yet this government’s refusal to support this important work means the Olde Forge will be forced to cut up to 22% of their services this year.

On Monday, 15 hospital CEOs in eastern Ontario co-signed a letter to the Premier and the Minister of Health requesting adequate funding for the community support sector, because they recognize these services keep people out of hospitals and get them home from the hospital sooner.

An investment of just $7 million would mean these organizations can maintain their level of service. That’s pocket change compared to what we spend on the hospital sector. I hope the Premier and Minister of Health will do the right thing and listen to the call to invest in these vital services.

Homelessness

Mr. Rob Flack: It is exciting to share some great news from London, Ontario, with this House today. Like many communities in Ontario, London is experiencing a homelessness crisis. I’m proud to say that over the past three years, our government has invested nearly $4.4 billion in housing and homelessness support through our municipal and Indigenous program partners.

However, homelessness remains a pressing issue, as we all know. In response to this crisis, over 260 citizens came together to make transformational change. They came from a range of sectors, including health and social services, institutional health care, education, emergency services, business and economic development, city officials and staff from provincial and federal ministries. Throughout the last three months, a comprehensive whole-of-community systems response has been devised and approved by the municipal council, with implementation to begin immediately in keeping with the critical circumstances on our streets.

Inspired by this community-wide effort, a fund was created called fundforchange.ca, initiated by one anonymous London family with an incredible—I repeat, incredible—gift of $25 million and an additional $5 million in matching funds, inspiring the rest of the community to join this noble cause. Impressive indeed, Speaker.

I, along with my colleagues from London in this Legislature representing London, our Forest City, hope that this magnificent philanthropic response, supported with incredible financial support from the citizens of our city, will prove to be a model that can be applied across Ontario, and indeed across Canada.

Bangladeshi Heritage Month

Ms. Doly Begum: It is an honour to rise today to address an important proclamation. In Ontario, the month of March marks Bangladeshi Heritage Month. This month, we pay tribute to and celebrate the thriving, strong and vibrant Bangladeshi community in Ontario.

March is a very special month for our community, as March 26 commemorates Independence Day, the day that Bangladesh, in 1971, declared independence from Pakistan. This declaration led to the beginning of a nine-month-long bloody war where many lives were sacrificed. Youth, intellectuals, men and women fought and sacrificed so much for an independent nation. After this period, known as the liberation war, on December 16 a new nation was born.

Scarborough Southwest is home to an active Bangladeshi community whose contributions to our communities across the province have been extraordinary. This is a community that gives light and hope to Scarborough, with amazing talent, so many local businesses, food, art and performances, as well as community leaders who continue to stand by their neighbours. I’m looking forward to spending this month honouring our culture and heritage, remembering the history and enhancing the work and voices of our community here in our province, as a Bangladeshi Canadian who has the honour of representing our incredible community.

Speaker, I’m honoured to be a member of this amazing community. On behalf of our Legislature, I know that I can wish all the Bangladeshis across Ontario and across Canada a happy Bangladeshi Heritage Month.

Health care

Mr. John Jordan: I am pleased to rise in the House today to applaud this government’s efforts to deliver integrated, team-based models of care in Ontario. In these models, a team of health care professionals from various disciplines works together to address the patient’s physical, mental and social well-being. Thanks to the leadership of Premier Ford and our Minister of Health, Aboriginal health access centres, family health teams and community health centres are delivering quality care in an integrated and collaborative way throughout the province of Ontario.

Residents of Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston are benefiting from the services of the Smiths Falls Nurse Practitioner-Led Clinic; Rideau Community Health Services—a CHC model; ConnectWell Community Health—another CHC model’ and the Ottawa Valley Family Health Team. Recent provincial funding has enabled the Ottawa Valley Health Team to expand their services to residents of Mississippi Mills, Carleton Place and Beckwith—the fastest-growing community in Canada. This is the kind of efficient, collaborative model that ultimately enhances physician recruitment in a highly competitive market.

Our thanks again to Premier Ford, our Minister of Health and parliamentary assistants, the member from Eglinton–Lawrence and the member from Newmarket–Aurora, for supporting an integrated approach to high-quality care for patients at every level. The people of Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston thank you for getting it done.

Ferry service

Mr. Ted Hsu: This government can’t be trusted to manage the economy. There’s a shortage of MTO ferry crews, service is being disrupted, and yet, with Bill 124, this government has suppressed salaries below prevailing wages, so, naturally, ferries are losing workers.

I’ll start with paramedic service on Wolfe Island, which was recently cut again in favour of paramedic crews based on the mainland. Residents were told that adding the new, second ferry could compensate during emergencies. Now, not only has the new ferry been tied up for a year awaiting crew and not only has the current service been disrupted by the lack of crew, now MTO is saying, not surprisingly, that they have to break their promise of running the new ferry alongside the old ferry because—wait for it—there’s a lack of crew.

What’s making the staffing shortage worse? This government has been suppressing wages with Bill 124. Workers have been sucked away to the private sector. This government has been hiring temporary crew from agencies to fill permanent positions and incurring much higher costs. Regular salaries are $23 an hour for deckhands, $38 an hour for a captain. My order paper question revealed that the Conservatives are paying $86 an hour for temporary workers. That’s salaries, expenses and also agency profits.

This is the exact same pattern we’ve seen with nurses in Ontario. It’s a pattern of economic mismanagement we cannot afford.

Cultural celebrations

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: Vannakam. The new year brings hope, optimism and rejuvenation for all of us. As we move into the new year of 2023, we renew our energies for the year with a fresh beginning for the festivities of Thai Pongal, Tamil heritage and the Chinese lunar new year in my ethnically diverse riding of Markham–Thornhill.

Thai Pongal is a harvesting festival which can be considered as the Tamil new year. It is celebrated among the 400,000 Tamil communities in Ontario and around the world. It’s a festival that symbolizes thanksgiving and is truly the emblem of Tamil heritage. It is dedicated to the sun, or Suraya, and livestock.

The Tamil language is one of the oldest classical languages used in modern times, spoken for 5,000 years in South Asia, and now over 100 million people speak Tamil.

I celebrated and organized many Thai Pongal events with my MPP colleagues which rocked Markham–Thornhill. Especially, my constituents thank Minister Stephen Lecce, who graced the occasion with his presence at the Markham theatre. Close to 200 students, our local talents, showcased their vibrant cultural performance. I thank the parents and teachers who trained these young dancers.

I am fortunate to have a huge Asian community in my riding. We organized a lunar new year celebration. Everyone loved the dragon dances and delicious food.

Xiu Xiu. Pongalo Pongal.

Coldest Night of the Year

Mr. John Yakabuski: Last Saturday, I was pleased to be joined by wife, Vicky, members of my staff and their families to participate in the Coldest Night of the Year walk in Pembroke.

Coldest Night of the Year began in 2011 at two locations and has continued to grow, to the point where 166 locations took

part in 2022, with over 31,000 walkers. CNOY was instituted to give people a sense of what it would be like to experience homelessness on the coldest night of the year.

As in the past, the Pembroke walk was in support of the Grind, a non-profit organization that supports youth and adults who are marginalized and struggling to live a normal life. Some 256 walkers participated this year, raising over $105,000. I’ve seen first-hand the tremendous work that the Grind does locally and have been truly moved by the compassionate way in which they operate. It is a faith-based organization that accepts and supports all people, regardless of age, ethnicity, sexual preference or social status, providing non-judgmental support through their client services office and supporting agencies and programs.

Having had the opportunity to visit the Grind myself on multiple occasions has given me a much greater understanding and perspective of the breadth of services it provides to support those who are homeless, marginalized or at risk.

Once again, our team of walkers, known as the Yak Pak, were proud to support this wonderful cause. If you’re in the area, I would encourage be you to drop by the Grind yourself and see what wonderful things are taking place there.

Introduction of Visitors

Hon. Sylvia Jones: As the members all know, the RNAO is visiting us today. It is an honour to welcome president Claudette Holloway and, of course, a friend of all, Doris Grinspun, RNAO CEO. Please join me in welcoming them to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Marit Stiles: I also welcome all members of the RNAO here into your House, but especially, I want to acknowledge Dr. Claudette Holloway, president, and of course, Dr. Doris Grinspun, CEO.

I also want to acknowledge a former member of Parliament for Beaches–East York, Matthew Kellway, who is here in the gallery.

Thank you so much. We look forward to seeing you all today.

Hon. Michael Parsa: I’d like to introduce Rohan Goel from the great riding of Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill, who is today’s page captain. I’d also like to welcome his family to the Legislature: his mother, Veenu Goel; his father, Vinay Goel; and his siblings, Rishabh and Roshni Goel. Welcome to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

Mr. Chris Glover: I would like to welcome to the House the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, including those nurses I met this morning: Kathy Moreland, Michelle Heyer, Josalyn Radcliffe, Linda Sheiban Taucar, Simon Donato-Woodger. Thank you so much for all of the work that you’ve done to keep us all healthy through the pandemic.

Hon. Jill Dunlop: I would like to introduce Janet Greaves, who is a nurse practitioner from my area who I met this morning and have met with in the riding as well. It’s great to see her here this morning. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

MPP Lise Vaugeois: I would like to welcome members from the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, and in particular, Sarah Lynne Myllyaho, Tanis Banovsky and Duncan McWaters, who travelled here from Thunder Bay. I appreciate so much the effort you took to come. Thank you and welcome.

Mr. Billy Pang: I would like to welcome students, volunteers and teachers from Markham–Unionville’s Lincoln Alexander Public School. There are more than 70 of them.

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: Good morning. I’d like to welcome all the nurses who travelled down from Niagara from the RNAO.

As well, I would like to welcome Clare Flynn. She has been in my office, shadowing me around for the past couple of weeks. Welcome to your House, Clare, and thank you for all of your hard work.

Mr. Ted Hsu: I’d like to welcome nurses from Kingston today, Debra Lefebvre, Heather Hamilton and Daria Hope, and also somebody who grew up in Kingston, a former colleague in the House of Commons, Matthew Kellway.

Mr. Dave Smith: I would like to introduce a couple of nurse practitioners from my riding—they’ve got an application in for a nurse-practitioner-led clinic—Shayna McLauchlan and Erica Atfield, as well as a couple of my staff members who are here today, Sally Carson and Jenna DePaiva.

MPP Jill Andrew: I would like to welcome nurse Marketa from St. Paul’s, along with the RNAO president, Dr. Claudette Holloway, and the CEO, Dr. Doris Grinspun.

I’d also like to thank the RNAO’s Black Nurses Task Force. Thank you to the co-chairs, Dr. Angela Cooper Brathwaite and Corsita Garraway, and to all the outstanding nurses who are here. Thank you for your outstanding work.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: For the first time at question period, I have a member of my staff who is actually leaving us. Please join me in welcoming Andrew Vittas. He’s actually worked for MPP Scott, Minister McNaughton and myself. I’m not sure what that means about me, but well done, Andrew. It’s been an honour.

M. Joel Harden: Ça me fait honneur de saluer mes collègues de la fédération des étudiants de l’Ontario.

It gives me great pleasure to welcome the Canadian Federation of Students, Ontario section. I had the pleasure to meet with Navya, Alistair, Gishleine, Reeon, who are with us in the members’ gallery, and Andrew.

Also, props and thanks to the folks from RNAO. It’s great to see you here this morning.

Mr. Trevor Jones: I’d like to offer a warm welcome to Sarah Weaver from my riding of Chatham-Kent–Leamington, a tireless volunteer, young professional and an amazing person. Thank you. Welcome to your House.

Mr. Vincent Ke: I would like to welcome page Taylor Moore from my riding of Don Valley North. Welcome, Taylor.

Question Period

Municipal finances

Ms. Marit Stiles: The Financial Accountability Office’s latest report paints a very dark picture for Ontario’s municipalities. Despite swimming in $6.4 billion, this government is shortchanging our cities and towns. They’re withholding $120 million for services and a further $644 million earmarked for repairs to infrastructure, to broadband and other supports that people out there desperately need.

Can the Premier explain to Ontarians why he doesn’t deem their communities worthy of the investments his government promised?

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

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Thank you—Mr. Speaker, through you to the member opposite—for that question. I’ve got the fall economic statement here. I’ve got the budget from last April that we took to the people.

As I go around, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing goes around, and the Premier and the Deputy Premier, we talk to big-city mayors. We talk to rural mayors. We talk to all kinds of mayors. And do you know what they keep telling us? Thank you for the investments that we’re making in their communities.

What do I hear? Maybe you should get out and listen a little bit. You know what I hear? Thank you to the Minister of Infrastructure for investments in broadband, which is so critical to many of our communities.

Do you know what else we hear? Thank you for the investments in the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund so they can upgrade their water and their sewage, which we doubled to $2 billion.

Just recently, at the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, they said thank you for the—

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Let me tell the minister what’s really happening out there. This government is hitting municipalities on all sides. First, they let their rich developer friends skip the bill and starve municipalities out of billions, and then they sit on nearly $1 billion earmarked for municipal services and infrastructure.

Now people from Oshawa to Thunder Bay are facing massive increases in their property taxes as municipalities are scrambling to make up for that lost funding. In Waterloo region alone, taxes are going up 8.55% at a time when people are already hurting.

Go out there and talk to homeowners. Their heating bills are up. Their grocery bills are through the roof. Can this Premier explain why he’s making everyday Ontarians pay his developer friends’ bills?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know what kind of math they’re teaching in Waterloo, but that just isn’t the truth in terms of actually understanding—

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

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: First time in five years I do that. Withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

When we go to places like the Waterloo region, do you know what they say? They say thank you for the investments in infrastructure right across this whole province. They say thank you for helping us with building highways—not just the 413 and the Bradford Bypass but Highway 7 between Kitchener and Guelph. That’s what they’re talking about. They’re talking about the widening of Highway 17 all the way from Arnprior to Renfrew. They’re talking about the Timmins connecting link.

They’re talking about moving people and goods so that the hard-working people of this province can take their kids to school, that they can take their goods to market. That’s what we’re doing in this province.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Do you know what they’re teaching in Waterloo, Speaker? They’re teaching quantum physics in Waterloo.

Look, this is about this government giving their insider developer friends a free ride. Municipal governments keep doing more with less, but at every turn they’re met with nothing but disdain and blame from this Premier.

Some municipalities are estimating that by limiting their ability to charge developer fees, this government is bilking them out of tens of millions of dollars over the next five years. Toronto alone is anticipating $2.3 billion in lost revenue. Local governments run the buses people take to work. They maintain our local roads, and they try to build the affordable housing units we so desperately need.

When is this government going to commit to stop off-loading their costs onto municipalities and partner with them to build stronger, more caring communities?

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

Hon. Steve Clark: Again to the Leader of the Opposition: What she’s really saying is, she’s against non-profit housing providers, like Habitat for Humanity, from getting deferred development charges.

Many of the opposition members, when they were on local councils, voted in favour of deferring or eliminating development charges for non-profit housing and other groups like Habitat for Humanity. So when they were municipal councillors, they were in favour of this type of policy, but now that they’re part of the NIMBY party, they’re going to be against it. When it comes to the NDP, their housing policy has no merit.

Employment standards

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, let me tell you, this has nothing to do with non-profits or building affordable housing. With this government—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. The government side must come to order. I have to be able to hear the member who has the floor. At the present time, it’s the Leader of the Opposition, not the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, although he might get his turn.

Start the clock. Leader of the Opposition.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, with this government, people out there know it’s about who you know and how much you’ll pay for it.

Back in 2018, one of the first things this government did was take away permanent paid sick days from working people. What a cruel way to start their term, and terrible public policy too. People should not have to choose between putting their co-workers, customers and community at risk or losing a day’s pay. We have tabled three times now, since then, the Stay Home If You Are Sick Act. It would give people 10 permanent paid sick days, but you vote it down every time.

Will this government give workers the time they need to recover and keep people safe by backing the NDP plan for 10 permanent paid sick days?

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

Hon. Monte McNaughton: Mr. Speaker, we were the first province in Canada to bring in paid sick days during the pandemic to support those workers, Mr. Speaker. We were the first province in the country to bring in job-protected leave to ensure that when those workers stayed home, they couldn’t be fired from their job.

We’re working for workers every single day. I’ll remind the Leader of the Opposition that she voted against our plan to hire 100 more health and safety inspectors in this province to bring the inspectorate to the highest in provincial history.

This is an NDP party that has abandoned workers in this province. But under the leadership of Premier Ford, we’ll work for our workers every single day.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: I’ll point out, Speaker, that those measures that the minister talked about are temporary and they end at the end of this month.

The Conservative members must be hearing the same stories that we are from people in communities all across this province who are exhausted. They feel abandoned by this government, parents living in constant fear that if they or their kid gets sick, they won’t be able to pay their rent or afford the groceries. And the Premier can stay home when he gets sick.

Why do these workers deserve anything less? Will this government finally side with working people and make sure everyone has access to 10 permanent paid sick days?

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

Hon. Doug Ford: Mr. Speaker, do you know what helps workers? I’ll tell you what helps workers. When we took office in 2018, the NDP and the Liberals ran 300,000 jobs out of this province. As we stand here today, there are 600,000 more people being able to pay rent, pay a mortgage, buy a home, get a car—and an electric vehicle car. Because we’re creating the environment and the conditions for companies to come here and thrive and prosper and grow, and when they thrive, prosper and grow, Mr. Speaker, the people that work at those companies thrive, prosper and grow.

It puts more money into their pockets, more job security. This is an employee’s market right now. We’re short 380,000 people to fill the jobs. Our GDP is at $1 trillion now—eighteenth largest in the entire world, right here in Ontario. That’s what helps people.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Boy, I tell you, this Premier is so out of touch. This room is filled today with nurses who are leaving this province at record levels. Nursing has become our greatest export from this province because this government fails to respect working people in this province.

Speaker, it took COVID for this government to give even anyone the three paid sick days. Only for COVID, only for the first time you get COVID, and even that ends at the end of March. Get out there and listen to people in communities across this province—they are struggling—people like parents who can’t take time off because they need to put food on the table. It is not a laughing matter; it is not something you should be applauding yourselves for.

Government could do something about this. Will you give them the paid sick days that they need?

Hon. Doug Ford: We love our nurses. We know the dedication. They go in day in and day out. But I’ll tell you the numbers, Mr. Speaker. Since 2018, there are 60,000 more nurses registered here in Ontario. There are 8,000 more doctors. We set a new record; there were 12,000 alone just last year.

We’re going to continue hiring nurses. There are 30,000 nurses in our colleges and universities ready to serve. We’re grateful and we think the world of our nurses.

Labour disputes

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Premier, if you actually loved and supported nurses, you wouldn’t be fighting them in court over Bill 124.

My question is to the Premier. In my riding, Windsor Salt workers, members of Unifor Locals 1959 and 240, have been on strike for weeks now to stop the contracting out of good-paying union jobs. They’re fighting an attempt at union busting. The owners of Windsor Salt, Stone Canyon Industries, have tried to break the picket line and resume production.

Will the Premier finally support workers in this province—these workers in particular—pass anti-scab legislation, and fight back against the outsourcing of union jobs?

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

Hon. Monte McNaughton: I’m obviously aware of the situation down in Windsor.

Mr. Speaker, we always encourage employers, labour—workers—to sit down and get a deal at the table. We’re proud of our labour relations in this province; 99% of deals are done at the table.

We’re working every single day to ensure that workers in Ontario have better jobs and bigger paycheques. I think of the Windsor-Essex region and the amount of young people getting into the skilled trades, joining those unions down in Windsor to build better lives for themselves and their families. We’ll continue, every day, putting forward worker-friendly policies so they earn better jobs and bigger paycheques.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Maybe if the minister actually believed in collective bargaining, the government, as the biggest employer, would not have brought in Bill 124 and Bill 28.

Speaker, in Leamington, Highbury Canco workers, members of UFCW Local 175, are also on strike, and the company is busing in scab workers.

This government talks about working for workers, but time and time again, they have attacked workers’ collective bargaining rights with Bill 124 and Bill 28. In fact, they supported the Liberals with Bill 115, another unconstitutional bill.

Will this government actually work for workers, stand up for collective bargaining rights and pass anti-scab legislation?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: Mr. Speaker, we’ll continue working for workers every day in this province. That’s why, in the June election, we had the endorsement of eight labour unions in this province, representing hundreds of thousands of workers.

We believe that government, labour and business have to work together. That’s how we’re going to improve the lives of people in this province and build stronger communities.

That’s why I’m proud to say that under the leadership of Premier Ford, we introduced the Building Opportunities in the Skilled Trades Act. We introduced the Working for Workers legislation that ensured that gig workers, for the first time in history, get minimum wage—that we increase fines to those companies that are breaking the law, that we ensure that there are naloxone kits in workplaces. The opposition NDP voted against these measures in Working for Workers.

We’ll take no lessons from a party that, years ago, abandoned the working people of this province.

That’s why we elect Progressive Conservatives in Windsor-Essex.

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

Mr. Graham McGregor: I ask the NDP, what would workers do under an NDP government? You don’t support highways, you don’t support jobs—

Interjections.

Mr. Graham McGregor: —you don’t support investment—

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

I guess I need to point out to the House that you can’t ask questions of the official opposition. You need to address your question to the government.

Start the clock.

Mr. Graham McGregor: I’m sorry, Speaker. I had the wrong notes in front of me.

Emergency preparedness

Mr. Graham McGregor: My question is for the President of the Treasury Board, the minister responsible for emergency management. He’s a fellow Brampton boy; I expect a straight answer.

First, I’d like to recognize the dedication and tireless efforts of all those who are involved in Ontario’s emergency planning, preparedness and response network. They’re heroes, and we’re all grateful for everything they do in caring for the people of our province.

The need for local and provincial declarations of emergencies can arise for a number of reasons, and it’s essential that response plans are current and reflect best practices.

We know that our government values the safety of all individuals and communities. However, more can be done in safeguarding Ontarians from unanticipated emergencies.

Can the minister please explain what action our government is taking to strengthen its emergency management response operations?

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: I want to thank my colleague—Brampton’s finest—from Brampton North for that great question and his tireless advocacy on behalf of the people of Brampton and across this province.

He’s absolutely right: There’s nothing more important than the safety and well-being of our families and loved ones, and Ontarians across this province are counting on our government to get emergency planning right. That is why, earlier this month, our government released Ontario’s first ever Provincial Emergency Management Strategy and Action Plan. We are the first province in the entire country to put forward a plan.

Our new plan establishes a framework for emergency management in Ontario. This sets out a one-window approach to coordinate emergency response across this province. It’s a proactive planning and monitoring tool to keep Ontarians informed, and we set out practised and prepared emergency response with training and education across this province. We will—

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

Supplementary question.

Mr. Graham McGregor: Thank you, Speaker, and thank you to the minister for his fantastic response. The importance of ensuring that our province is as prepared as possible for any potential emergency cannot be understated. Sadly, the previous Liberal government, backed by the NDP most of the time, left us with gaps in our emergency response system, leaving our province vulnerable and ill-prepared.

Under the leadership of the Premier and this minister, it is reassuring that our government is spearheading a comprehensive emergency management plan for all of Ontario.

Can the minister please provide more details about how our government is approaching the vital work of safeguarding and protecting our province?

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: The member is absolutely right: The previous Liberal government left many gaps in emergency management, whether it was freezing hospital budgets, firing nurses or leaving stockpiles of PPE empty. Our government committed to making sure that would never happen again.

We are also taking a role of collaborating with our emergency management partners across this province. With an increase in wildfires, floods and other potential emergencies that threaten Ontarian’s safety and communities, it is critical that we have a plan in place to respond to these crises quickly.

That is why, as a government, we have worked across this province with partners, including municipalities and First Nations partners to develop a plan that highlights the actions that our government is taking to keep Ontarians safe and in a constant state of readiness and preparedness across this province. Our commitment to communities across this province is to ensure we are emergency-ready.

Health care

Mr. Joel Harden: My question is to the Premier. Good morning, Premier.

A private, for-profit surgical clinic is operating for the second time this Saturday at the Riverside Campus of the Ottawa Hospital from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Meanwhile, there is a long backlog of orthopaedic surgeries—over 2,000—to members of the public who are waiting for the public health care they were promised. This is another example of our public operating rooms being closed to the public who paid for them but open to the profit of a select few.

A question to the Premier: Will this government get public operating rooms fully up and running for everyone?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Deputy Premier and Minister of Health.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: This question gives me an opportunity to highlight some of the things that our government has been doing to deal with surgical backlogs that, I might remind the member, existed prior to the pandemic.

We have, as a government, invested with our hospital partners over $800 million for surgical recovery to deal with exactly that: the surgical backlog that resulted as a result of the pandemic.

I can tell you that there are some innovative models that are happening in the province of Ontario that are leading to successes. This is not an either/or. This is an expansion. This is an opportunity for people who have been waiting far too long to get those necessary surgeries to happen in community and in a timely manner so that they can go back to work, back in their community and back with their families. It is a good-news story, and we will continue to invest in those innovative models.

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

Mr. Joel Harden: Back to the Premier, or perhaps that infomercial we just heard from the minister. I mean—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to caution the member on his language. That’s not helpful. Please place your question.

Mr. Joel Harden: I understand your warning, Speaker.

It is a sad day when there are nurses in this building who work very hard for us every single day, we ask serious questions about the attack on the funding of our public hospitals, and we get talking points back.

What we know in Ottawa today about this clinic is that nurses are being offered, inside our public hospitals, twice the salary to work in these for-profit, private clinics. We know it’s going to get harder to keep nurses in our public system as a result of your efforts to hand over these surgeries to for-profit clinics.

A serious question, Speaker: Is this government going to invest in our public operating rooms instead of selling them off or renting them out?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Mr. Speaker, this is a member who is encouraging and actually participating in protests in front of community surgical units. I will not take lessons from a member who doesn’t understand that there are people who are waiting for surgeries who want to have access.

Clinical surgeries in community have existed in the province of Ontario for decades, and, I might also remind the member opposite, approved by Progressive Conservative governments, by Liberal governments and, yes, by NDP governments, because they understand the value of ensuring that people have access to publicly funded services where and when they need them.

Occupational health and safety

Mr. Vincent Ke: My question is for the Minister of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development.

Strong workplace health and safety practices ensure that all workers and employers are safe and protected on the job. In the construction sector, workers deserve access to hygienic washroom facilities. The regulations for construction projects under the Occupational Health and Safety Act are clear: Workers must have access to clean workrooms. Thanks to the leadership of the Premier and this minister, there is a record number of building projects under way in the communities across our province.

Speaker, can the minister please explain what our government is doing to ensure that all workers have access to clean and safe washroom facilities?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: Thank you very much. This is a really important question that the member for Don Valley North has asked this morning. The member has hit the nail on the head: Clean bathrooms are essential to respecting the hard-working men and women who are building the homes, schools, hospitals and transit that our communities and families rely on. Everywhere I go, I hear from workers about the state of bathrooms on some job sites, in factories and in retail. In 2022 alone, my ministry visited worksites more than 23,000 times to inspect bathrooms and issued nearly 2,000 orders for bathrooms in poor condition.

Speaker, my message to workers is clear: Our government has your backs. We stand with you, the workers who are out there building Ontario and all of our communities every single day.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Supplementary question?

Mr. Vincent Ke: Thank you to the minister for the response. The dignity of workers is of paramount importance to me and my constituents in the riding of Don Valley North. I am pleased to know that ministry inspectors are attending worksites to ensure that washroom facilities meet health and safety standards. We know that the benefits of safe workplaces include higher productivity, healthier workplaces, better recruitment and retention, and fewer fines and workplace disruptions.

Speaker, can the minister please elaborate on how the government is supporting the health and safety of workers in Ontario?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: Thank you again to the member for this really important question. Speaker, let me say this very simply: Everyone has a right to clean and safe bathrooms at work. Workers deserve better.

I’m pleased to report that my ministry is currently conducting a workplace bathroom blitz to ensure that those out there building Ontario have access to clean bathrooms. In February of this year, as part of the ongoing blitz that’s going to be run until March 31, ministry inspectors issued about 130 orders related to construction worksite washrooms, ensuring that the workers who are building our province have access to facilities they deserve.

Speaker, we’ll continue working for workers and make sure that everyone going to work has a healthy and safe workplace.

Natural gas rates

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: Speaker, through you to the Premier: Seniors and young families are being pressed to the limit as your government has allowed Enbridge to pass along increases in gas prices that are making life very hard for Ontarians.

The Ontario Electricity Support Program provides immediate on-bill relief for families who struggle to pay their electricity bills, but there is no similar program for families struggling to pay natural gas bills or other heating bills. Will this government establish such a program in its upcoming budget so every family who struggles to heat their home can get support?

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

Hon. Todd Smith: My goal, as the Minister of Energy, is to ensure that we have a reliable and affordable and clean energy system in the province of Ontario. We’re doing that under the mess that was left for us by the previous Liberal government. We have brought electricity prices under control and we’re doing the same thing with natural gas prices, Mr. Speaker. There are programs in place through Enbridge that the member should be passing along to her constituents to be aware of.

But it is interesting to get this kind of a question from the NDP, a party that believes in the highest carbon tax not just in Canada, but in the world. This party is supportive of the federal carbon tax, which on this Enbridge bill that I have here right now is $50, Mr. Speaker, on a—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): No props. Conclude your answer.

Hon. Todd Smith: I will be happy to hand that prop over, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: For a month now, I’ve been seeing that prop come across my desk in my office. That doesn’t say anything to Ontarians that are dealing with rising inflation costs on their heating bills. They deserve solutions—to the minister.

Back to the minister: Last week, Niagara had another large ice storm. People have to heat their homes and there is no way around it. Prices to heat your home are going up and up. People are in desperate trouble.

Charles Christenson, a 67-year-old retired manufacturing worker from St. Catharines, showed me his bill: an increase of $100 from six months ago. This is a senior on a fixed income, making only $1,500 a month. We owe it to our seniors that built our province and to all Ontarians to have a solution, especially when it already exists for electricity.

Speaker, to the Premier: Does the Premier, or anyone else on that side of the aisle, believe that it’s okay to stand by and do nothing as gas rates double in the middle of the winter and continue to push seniors and young families right to the brink?

Hon. Todd Smith: Mr. Speaker, I think it’s important for the member opposite and all members of the Legislature to understand that the commodity price for gas has gone up significantly over the last year, in large part because of the unprovoked invasion by Russia in Ukraine. However, gas prices are coming down; natural gas prices are coming down in Ontario.

It’s pretty rich, though, for the NDP to talk about affordability when it comes to energy prices. This is a party that wants us to get rid of natural gas. It thinks that natural gas is a bad thing, when more than 76% of homeowners out there are heating their homes with natural gas. This is a party that also supported the previous Liberal government every step of the way in their Green Energy Act, something that was driving up electricity prices by 10%, 11% year over year. We brought that to an end.

It’s also a party that doesn’t believe in nuclear, Mr. Speaker. It’s a party that believes that the source of energy in our province providing 60% of our electricity every day should be phased out.

We’re not going to take any lessons—

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

The next question.

Health care

Mr. Ted Hsu: I want to ask the Minister of Health about her plan to use for-profit clinics to deal with the backlog of surgeries. It seems to me, looking at Bill 60, that a crucial linchpin is the director, who checks licence applications, does inspections and revokes licences for those who break the rules. But

whereas in the existing legislation, the director has to be a public servant, an employee of the ministry, under this government’s new Bill 60, the director could be anybody or any “entity.” It looks like Bill 60 is setting up to have this government delegate oversight of this industry to some unspecified entity.

As it happens, the current Independent Health Facilities Program is run out of my riding of Kingston and the Islands. My constituents deserve to know how many experienced and qualified staff will lose their jobs to some as yet undisclosed entity?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Thank you for the opportunity to speak about Bill 60. If I understand the member’s question accurately, it is that we as a government are making an investment in community surgical and diagnostic units, and they are concerned that we are going to use fewer people to make those assessments, overviews and, ultimately, oversight. There’s a bit of a disconnect there.

I am happy that we finally are formalizing a process that patients have asked for for a long time, which is that we need timely access to diagnostic and surgery options in communities. We have, through Bill 60, a process that will ensure those applications will be assessed and reviewed based on needs, based on backlog, based on waiting lists, and they will be placed in appropriate communities that have those challenges. We will do that with oversight that ensures, through a licensing process and a renewal process, that oversight is there for the clinics, but most importantly for the patients.

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

Mr. Ted Hsu: Mr. Speaker, clearly this government hasn’t figured out to whom or to what entity it will delegate the management and oversight of the for-profit surgery industry. That’s a red flag for me.

How do we know that this government isn’t going to set things up so that people too close to industry are the ones in charge of licenses and inspections? This is a danger in so many industries. There’s a term for it: regulatory capture. It’s a lot easier to separate the regulator and the industry in the current situation, where the regulators are ministry employees—not anymore with Bill 60.

How can the minister ensure that there won’t be people going back and forth between the industry and the directorate in charge of licensing and inspecting for-profit surgical clinics?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: The member opposite is missing two very important pieces when he talks about the expansion of surgical and diagnostic in community, and that is, of course, that for-profit and hospital partnerships are a critical part of the application process. As we find the innovation—that is happening in Ottawa right now, as an example—we can see where hospitals working in community, with community partners, are actually providing a higher and faster level of service.

I’m proud of the work of Bill 60 that is going to ensure that oversight piece, and I look forward to the member’s insights and input during committee.

Public transit

Mr. Deepak Anand: As per the Toronto Region Board of Trade report, gridlock is a fact of life in the GTA, and if we do not address it, it is going to cost us over $15 billion by 2031 in lost productivity.

Efficient and convenient transit is essential to support economic and community growth in Ontario. For too long, people in my riding of Mississauga–Malton have not had the public transit they need and deserve. Well, Mr. Speaker, we would not have been in this position if the previous Liberal government had not ignored the transit needs of individuals and families across our province. With 300,000 new Canadians coming to Ontario, the situation is going to be even worse.

Thankfully, we have a government with an ambitious plan for transportation improvement, and we must continue to make strategic investments. Mr. Speaker, my question to the government is: Can you provide an update on the progress of the Eglinton Crosstown West Extension, which will better connect Mississauga to Toronto?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: I appreciate the question from the honourable member. Under the leadership of former Mayor McCallion, Mississauga really saw such explosive growth, both in terms of people who wanted to live there, economic prosperity. Unfortunately, the transit and transportation system in the region did not keep pace with the growth that happened there and continues to happen because of the hard work of the members of the Progressive Conservative caucus from Mississauga.

He is quite right: The previous government certainly let down the people of Mississauga. But I am very happy to report that the Eglinton Crosstown is doing very, very well, and actually reached a landmark just last week, with about half of the tunnelling done on the Eglinton Crosstown West Extension at Renforth.

Now, look: The people of Mississauga have every reason to be very excited by this. I know how hard the members of provincial Parliament in the Progressive Conservative caucus have worked to expand transit and transportation, because it is an important part of continuing the economic growth and prosperity for the people of Mississauga.

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

Mr. Deepak Anand: I just want to say thank you to the minister for your support for Mississauga. Team Mississauga absolutely appreciates it.

It is exciting to learn about the exceptional progress we have achieved. This speaks volumes to the strong leadership of the Premier and the Minister of Transportation and the Associate Minister of Transportation in delivering on major transit infrastructure in our province.

The area around Renforth Drive and Pearson international airport is the second-largest employment hub in the country.

Rapid, reliable and seamless transit is essential in supporting workers, as well as reducing gridlock and emissions.

Mr. Speaker, the Eglinton Crosstown West extension will effectively provide connections to other transit options. Residents of Mississauga–Malton expect that this project must remain a priority for this government and must be delivered successfully.

Can the government please explain how this transit extension will be