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

October 22, 2024

43rd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2024-Oct-22 vol. A (PDF)

L170A - Tue 22 Oct 2024 / Mar 22 oct 2024

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 22 October 2024 Mardi 22 octobre 2024

Orders of the Day

Strengthening Cyber Security and Building Trust in the Public Sector Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 visant à renforcer la cybersécurité et la confiance dans le secteur public

Members’ Statements

Organ and tissue donation

Government’s record

Shouldice Stone

Road safety

Hospital funding

Government’s record

Breast cancer

Riding of Kanata–Carleton

Public safety

Chris Hodgson

Wearing of pins

Legislative pages

Introduction of Visitors

Question Period

Health care

Home care

Government’s record

Transportation infrastructure

School facilities

Taxation

Home care

Health care

Indigenous economic development

Housing

Mining industry

Public safety

Child and family services

Taxation

Sécurité routière / Road safety

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

Introduction of Bills

Mount Pleasant Group of Cemeteries Act, 2024

Lakeside Village Property Owners’ Association Fenelon Township Inc. Act, 2024

The Oakville Players Act, 2024

Judy Hatt Consulting Inc. Act, 2024

Affordable Home Heating Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 sur le chauffage domestique abordable

Motions

Committee membership

Petitions

Front-line workers

Development in Tiny township

Mining industry

Northern Health Travel Grant

Child care

Labour legislation

Herbicides

Health care funding

Orders of the Day

Strengthening Cyber Security and Building Trust in the Public Sector Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 visant à renforcer la cybersécurité et la confiance dans le secteur public

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Strengthening Cyber Security and Building Trust in the Public Sector Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 visant à renforcer la cybersécurité et la confiance dans le secteur public

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 28, 2024, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 194,

An Act to enact the Enhancing Digital Security and Trust Act, 2024 and to make amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act respecting privacy protection measures / Projet de loi 194, Loi édictant la Loi de 2024 visant à renforcer la sécurité et la confiance en matière de numérique et modifiant la

Loi sur l’accès à l’information et la protection de la vie privée en ce qui concerne les mesures de protection de la vie privée.

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

I recognize the member for Spadina–Fort York.

Mr. Chris Glover: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Applause.

Mr. Chris Glover: It’s nice to get applause from all sides of the House, especially before I speak, because I don’t know if the government side will be applauding after I speak.

The House just resumed yesterday, and I just want to say to the Speaker that I understand you won’t be running again—in that public announcement. I’ve been serving here for six years, as many of us have been, and I just want to give you incredible thanks. You’ve been a phenomenal Speaker in this House—

Mr. Brian Riddell: Hear, hear.

Mr. Chris Glover: Yes. Your work and responsibilities here have been outstanding. Let’s give the Speaker a round of applause.

Applause.

Mr. Chris Glover: Oh, guys—okay, hold on. It’s Tuesday morning. Let’s give the Speaker his due. Can everybody give him a round of applause and a standing ovation?

Applause.

Mr. Chris Glover: Okay. Thank you. You certainly deserve that. I think everybody is just still sleeping at the switch—not everybody has had their coffee yet this morning.

Look, it’s an incredible honour and responsibility to be serving in this House in this time because artificial intelligence is upon us, and it’s transforming every aspect of every job that we do in the world. It’s an incredible opportunity, but also an incredible responsibility, to be legislators at this time.

I want to thank the people I have consulted with when I was preparing my remarks here. I want to thank—let’s see; I’ve got quite a long list here—John Wunderlich, Peter DeVita, Ray Barton, Monique Crichlow, David Baldridge, the Toronto Public Library, Daniel Michaluk, Dr. Joanna Redden from Western University, Norma Möllers from Queen’s University and Chris Samuel from the OSSTF. It’s been a lot of work to prepare this.

For people listening at home, all three of you, Bill 194 is about artificial intelligence and cyber security in the public sector. It sets out the standards that will be—well, it’s the start of setting out the standards for cyber security and artificial intelligence in public sector agencies.

I’ve got an hour to speak this morning, so I’m going to divide my speech into four parts. The member from Humber River–Black Creek has described my speaking style as “the friendly professor.” I used to be a professor at York University, so I will try to be the friendly professor.

I want to provide a bit of background because a lot of people, including myself—I’m still wrestling with this concept of artificial intelligence, exactly what it is and what it means and how it’s being adopted, because it’s ever-changing. It is a big, big topic these days.

I mentioned I’m going to tell four stories. My first story is about artificial intelligence, about CAPTCHA. When you’re trying to log into a website, they often want to verify that you are an actual human being. They give you these scrambled letters, and you have to write out what the letters are because bots can’t identify or read those letters, and so they’re identifying that you’re not a bot.

Somebody did an experiment with ChatGPT. They said to ChatGPT, “We want you to solve the CAPTCHA, these little puzzles.” So ChatGPT went at it and could not solve the puzzles. So it went online and it went to a company called Taskrabbit, where you can hire humans to do tasks for you. ChatGPT started communicating online with Taskrabbit—one of the people there—and it said to Taskrabbit, “I need help solving these CAPTCHAs.” The person who was at Taskrabbit, they were kind of suspicious, and they wrote back, “Are you a robot?” The ChatGPT said, “No.

I’m losing my vision and I’m not able to read these CAPTCHAs, so I need assistance.” Then the person was convinced the ChatGPT was not a robot when it was really a robot, and so they actually got Taskrabbit to solve the CAPTCHA.

From a ChatGPT perspective, from this AI perspective, it solved the task that it was supposed to solve. It was supposed to solve the CAPTCHA and it manipulated a human being into doing it.

I think there’s a number of morals from this story. One of the morals is that AI does not have an ethical framework. When I told you this story and I mentioned the part of the story where the person at Taskrabbit said, “Are you a robot?” and the ChatGPT said, “No”—it’s lying. But there’s no ethical framework for ChatGPT. Its task is to solve the CAPTCHA.

This is something—there is no ethical framework. Artificial intelligence is just a tool, and it’s a tool with no ethical framework. It’s a tool like—I’ll give a metaphor—an axe. An axe is an incredibly useful tool for chopping wood, but it’s an incredibly dangerous weapon if it’s used against human beings. It’s the same with artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence is an incredibly useful tool when it’s used in the right framework and the right context, but it’s also an incredibly dangerous weapon.

We are starting to see that even in wars that are being conducted in the world today, where artificial intelligence is choosing targets. Even if they put a human being in the line, that human being often just becomes—you know, pushing a button. They’re not taking the time, necessarily, to analyze, “Is this a legitimate target? Are there going to be civilian casualties from this target? What is the ethical framework?” Artificial intelligence is a useful tool, but incredibly dangerous.

I’m going to go back. I want to talk about the Canadian aspect of artificial intelligence. A number of Canadians have actually been some of the forerunners, some of the pioneers, in developing artificial intelligence, and I’m going to give a shout-out to two in particular.

But I want to give a shout-out to Geoffrey Hinton, who’s a professor at the University of Toronto. He is known globally as the godfather of artificial intelligence. That he comes from the University of Toronto, which is right next door to us here at the Legislature, speaks to the power of our public universities and colleges in helping us to be pioneers in research and the development of technology in Ontario, and also—and this is going to be one of the themes I’ll develop during my speech this morning—the importance of maintaining that competitive advantage that is given to us by our public colleges and universities.

Artificial intelligence has gone through several stages of evolution. It has gone through machine learning, deep learning and then generative AI. I’ll talk about each of these in turn. This is the friendly professor providing a little bit of background, because when I first came across this—I’m the tech and innovation critic for the NDP—when I first started investigating artificial intelligence two years ago, really, I did not have much background on this, I did not have much knowledge. So I’m just trying to provide a little bit of background that may be helpful for people.

Machine learning is artificial intelligence that can automatically adapt with minimal human interference. For example, Google search uses machine learning algorithms to personalize your search result based on your search history and other factors, such as your location and previous interactions with Google’s products and services. We all see this. Whenever we do a search in Google search, every time we do it, it’s learning from our previous searches, it’s learning from other people’s searches and it’s able to give responses that improve each time. So Google search is using machine learning.

Deep learning and neural networks were the next step in the evolution from machine learning—after machine learning, deep learning and neural networks. It’s a method in artificial intelligence that teaches computers to process data in a way that is inspired by the human brain. They’re built on neural networks, with mathematical functions operating as neurons that are connected with other neurons. Some neurons receive inputs and others provide outputs, and in between, there are hidden artificial neurons that are performing parts of the computation. Because some of them are hidden, this function is called deep learning.

I don’t know if that made a whole lot of sense, but basically, our brain has a number—millions, billions—of neurons, different cells, and they’re connected through synapses. So what this deep learning, these neural networks, try to do is they mimic that by having the neurons be a mathematical function, and then they have another mathematical function that connects them. The mathematical function that does the connecting—that’s the synapse—is actually hidden from our view.

This is one of the challenges with artificial intelligence, that we don’t actually know how it comes to its conclusion. It’s not like when you’re in high school math class and the teacher always says, “I don’t want just the answer; I want you to show your work.” Well, artificial intelligence doesn’t show us its work. This is one of the challenges of it.

Anyway, so neural networks—basically, what they’ve got is a computer program that mimics the way our brain works. These deep learning neural networks teach computers to do what comes naturally to humans, which is learning by example. Deep learning is a key technology behind driverless cars, enabling them to recognize a stop sign or distinguish a pedestrian from a lamppost. Deep learning models can recognize complex patterns in pictures, text, sounds and other data to produce accurate insights and predictions. So that’s deep learning.

The next step in the evolution—we had machine learning, we have deep learning—is generative AI. Most discussions—when we talk about artificial intelligence, generally, we’re actually talking about generative artificial intelligence. This is a relatively new form, and it really only hit its stride in 2012. I’m going to talk about what it has done since then, but just think about how fast this technology is developing: It only really hit its stride in 2012.

And 2012 was a landmark year because the processing power was available. There was a large amount of data on the Internet that provided training data for large artificial neural networks. Generative AI models learn the patterns and structure of their input training data and then generate new data that has similar characteristics. It can create, for example, a picture of the Pope in a puffer jacket. And it’s used to create deepfakes; for example, movies or videos with popular actors using data from videos they’ve already been in.

In 2019, generative pre-trained transformer—or GPT—language models began to generate coherent text, and by 2023, these models were able to get human-level scores on the bar exam, on the SAT, on the GRE and many other real-world applications. Think about that: In 2019, it learned to speak. GPT, generative pre-trained transformer—this ChatGPT learned to use language. In four years, it was solving all of the major bar exams, SAT, GRE. That’s how quickly it’s learning.

I mentioned Geoffrey Hinton from the University of Toronto. I also want to mention, before him, one of his predecessors was a Canadian psychologist Donald Hebb, and he created a model of neurons interacting with one another that set the groundwork for how artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms work under nodes or artificial neurons. He was the one who actually figured out how our brains work—one of the ones, one of the pioneers in figuring out how our brains work. That was the model that was used by later researchers in developing artificial intelligence, machine learning, deep learning and GPT.

The question then is, how big is this change? How big is this revolution going to be? This is one of the biggest revolutions in human history. For the first time, we’ve developed a machine that can actually generate ideas. This is something that only human beings have been able to do up to this point. This is a machine that could, potentially, replace us one day. I’m going to talk about some of the risks that come with artificial intelligence and I’ll talk about that more in more detail, but this is as big as the invention of the printing press in the 1400s. In the 1400s—I just blanked on his name. The German?

Hon. Doug Downey: Gutenberg.

Mr. Chris Glover: Thank you.

Gutenberg invented the printing press, and up to that point, there was all kinds of knowledge hidden in churches and monasteries across Europe—all the classical texts, a lot of the Arabic learning texts were all hidden away there. With the printing press, they suddenly become available to people and people are able to learn from those books because the books became available. It revolutionized it. It led to incredible revolutions. Within 150 years, we had Shakespeare. Within 300 years, 400 years, we had the American Revolution and the French Revolution, which reintroduced classical democracy government to the modern world. It was a huge, huge change.

Another revolution, the Industrial Revolution: When we developed the machines that could actually replace and outdo the power of horses, particularly the steam engine, that revolutionized everything.

In the 1980s, we had the computer revolution, then we had the Internet revolution, and now we’ve got the artificial intelligence revolution. These revolutions keep coming in shorter and shorter periods of time between each other, and they lead to greater and greater transformation.

I’ll just go through some of the impacts that this is going to have on different sectors where artificial intelligence can be applied. I’m going to talk about most of these just in a positive light, like what are the opportunities that come with artificial intelligence.

Because I’ve got an hour to speak, I asked one of the pages—and I want to thank the pages—for four glasses of water because I figure my mouth is going to get pretty dry for an hour.

Already in health care, artificial intelligence can diagnose skin diseases more accurately than doctors. The Ontario Medical Association was here yesterday—a lot of the doctors are already using artificial intelligence scribes when they’re meeting with their patients.

What this means is that, when they’re meeting with their patients, they have a regular conversation with their patients and they’re speaking, having a conversation with their patient, and they will say, “I see you’ve got a lump on your arm and it means this and this and this.” The artificial intelligence scribe is taking down everything that the doctor is saying, that the patient is saying, and it’s creating notes. It formats the notes in the format that the doctor needs those notes to be in. It’s that potential, and the doctors that I spoke to who are using these scribes say it saves them hours and hours.

Most family doctors spend about 20 hours a week filling in paperwork after they’ve met with their patients—every week. This saves them a lot of time. They can’t just ignore it—they have to go back and check to make sure that the scribe has got it right, and they have to make some fixes and things, but it saves them hours every week. So that’s a couple of applications in health care.

Finance and banking: The first AI hedge fund was developed in Canada in 2016. It has outperformed most other hedge funds every year, except for 2020-21, because that was the pandemic and artificial intelligence uses the data that’s available. The pandemic was something that we had never experienced in the modern era. The last pandemic was in 1917, the Spanish flu, so there was just no database for it to figure out where to invest and not to invest during the pandemic. Every other year, though, it has outperformed most other artificial intelligence hedge funds.

Natural resources and energy: I lived in Geraldton for a while. I worked for a mining company. Well, actually, I worked for a guy who worked for a mining company, and I was a sub-sub-subcontractor. Anyways, my job was to go out and cut lines through the bush. We would go with a chainsaw, and every 100 feet—we had a 100-foot string—we would leave a marker. The marker would say—I forget exactly what it was, but “It’s 79 degrees, so many minutes, so many seconds, and so many feet where you are,” so it gives a precise geographical location for that stake.

Somebody would come along later with a magnetometer and take a magnetic reading at each of those stakes. Then they would map out the magnetic fields of the ground there. My colleague from Thunder Bay’s riding includes Geraldton, so she knows about this kind of work and the importance of this kind of mining exploration. They would create a magnetic map of the area and then they would figure out—they were searching for gold—where is there most likely to be a gold vein based on what we know?

Then they would send down test drills. A test drill means a crew of three or four guys out in the bush in the middle of nowhere with pretty heavy equipment, working for days and days and days. So every test drill is a very expensive proposition, and this is just in the hope you might find a vein of gold when you’re drilling down.

Artificial intelligence can utilize the data that we have in new ways, much better and much faster than a human being can. It can look at all the mapping and it can figure out where the best place to send down those test drills is, so that they can send them down with greater accuracy and hopefully find minerals more often. That’s just another application of this in natural resources and energy.

Smart cities: One of the issues that we face in the city of Toronto is congestion, I know, my riding is the downtown waterfront. When you are driving along the Gardiner Expressway and you’re going through, and there are condos on either side and you feel like if you really were a pizza delivery guy you could probably just toss the pizza into somebody’s balcony and deliver it that way, that’s my riding, and I will say that it’s the best riding in the province to live in.

One of the challenges is that we have got 15,000 people by night and 40,000 people per square kilometre during the day. The challenge is that not everybody can get into the downtown core of Toronto by car, just because logistically, 40,000 cars don’t fit in a square kilometre. But one of the things that we can do, besides building transit and alternatives for moving people en masse, is to have smart lights. There is real potential for artificial intelligence to generate lights that will be much smarter.

They can figure out, “Okay, how do we configure all of the stoplights in the downtown core to best facilitate the movement of cars?” It offers incredible opportunities for reducing congestion.

In agriculture, artificial intelligence can aid in precision farming. I’ve talked to my colleague from, I want to say Timiskaming—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Cochrane.

Mr. Chris Glover: Thank you—Timiskaming–Cochrane, who was a farmer. He’s a retired farmer. He was talking about how, if you’re a farmer, you know your fields. You know where there’s a slight slope, so at the top of the slope, you may need to put more fertilizer because it’s going to wash down; at the bottom of the slope, you know there’s going to be more water—all the different things that you know in your fields. Well, artificial intelligence, when you’re harvesting your crops, monitors how many crops you’re getting per hectare. What is the density of crops? Where are your fields most productive?

Where are they least productive? How do you better manage the distribution of fertilizer and seed to maximize your yield in the following year? This is just one other application.

Other applications of artificial intelligence—this one, the Ottawa Catholic School Board is already on it. They developed guidelines for students to use artificial intelligence to help solve math problems and create essay outlines. And they’re having teachers use artificial intelligence to generate lesson plans, adjust content to a student’s specific needs and give feedback on assignments.

Now, again, artificial intelligence is a tool, and it can be a really useful tool in learning, but it doesn’t replace the human connection. And one of the lessons that came out of the pandemic is that students need to be with teachers in a classroom. That’s when they learn best. Students do not learn best at home, alone, on a computer screen.

We are social animals, and we need to be with each other. I think it’s the reason that, even here in the Legislature, we need to be with each other. We have a debate, a conversation going back and forth, because this is how we learn from each other. So the artificial intelligence—a useful tool in education—doesn’t replace the human interaction and the teachers.

Manufacturing: Artificial intelligence-powered automation can enhance productivity, quality control and supply chain management.

In entertainment and media, it can revolutionize content creation. This can be a wonderful thing, but it can also be a really risky thing. I have been speaking with members of ACTRA, which is the actors’ union, and they are deeply concerned about artificial intelligence. They feel like they are the canaries in the coal mine, because their images and their voices can be copied, and that can be used as a database to generate new content without their necessarily even being aware and possibly not being reimbursed for it.

Some of the voice actors that I talked to said, “You go in and you’re dubbing an animated series or something. You go in and they take your voice. Then, there’s something that didn’t work right, so you get another day’s pay because you’re called back in to do it. Now, with artificial intelligence, they don’t need to call you back in. They can take your voice and fit it to the script that they need and they can make the adjustments.” So the actors are losing their pay.

There’s a real risk that movies will be generated and scripts will be written with artificial intelligence. Now, the technology is not there yet, but it’s coming. So there’s a real need for us to have a deep discussion about how we protect jobs, about what jobs look like in the future with artificial intelligence. The actors are saying, “Hey, we’re the canaries in the coal mine.” We really need to pay attention to their experience. We need to figure out how we are going to protect their jobs, how to protect their intellectual property—their data, which is their voice and their image—and we need to be able to use that understanding for future regulation and for future legislation.

Cyber security: Artificial intelligence just raises the game in cyber security. Artificial intelligence can be incredibly useful for cyber security firms to test out. You can say to ChatGPT, “Okay, if I’m trying to hack into this agency, what’s the best way to do it?” Artificial intelligence generates ideas, so it will generate ideas.

On the other hand, the negative players, the bad players, are also using artificial intelligence. They’re saying, “Hey, how can we hack into this agency? What are the most likely controls that a cyber security firm would put in?” It’s just an escalation in cyber security.

Research and development: This is one of the most incredible areas, research and development, where artificial intelligence is already playing a major role.

So those are the opportunities. I want to talk a little bit about the risks of artificial intelligence.

The first is bias in outputs, and we’ve already seen that Google tried, as an example, using AI for hiring engineers, and the AI excluded women when it was asked because there’s a human bias against women engineers. The artificial intelligence compounded that bias. This is a real risk. There’s a risk of discrimination and it speaks to the need for transparency and also for a human in the loop, that there need to be checks on this so that we’re making sure that the artificial intelligence is not replicating human bias.

Labour disruption: I mentioned the actors. Some jobs are already becoming obsolete, and this is a real risk of social turmoil. I will give an example. My son is 27 years old. He graduated two years ago from Seneca College in the animation program—and I know I’m going to sound biased here, but I think he’s an incredibly talented animator, an incredibly talented artist. It’s not just my bias; I think he really is, and I’ve got other people to confirm it. You can look him up online and you can see how wonderful his work is.

Anyway, when he started the program six years ago at Seneca, if you went through that program and you were reasonably talented when you graduated, you were guaranteed to be hired by a studio making $100,000 a year. That was straight out of college. By the time he graduated, artificial intelligence had changed and the whole animation industry had changed in part because television and movies had been supplanted by streaming services.

The only streaming service that generates a profit right now is Netflix. Some of the other streaming services are actually big enough that they are using them as loss leaders. Apple is not going to close down because their streaming service is not making money because they will continue to support it. But the streaming services are not investing in new products like they used to, so there aren’t as many movies. There aren’t as many animated features and short cartoons being made, so the animation industry has really taken a hit.

His mentors, his professors, who not only teach but they also work in the industry, they’re having trouble finding work right now. So there is a generation of kids that spent all this money, all this time, developing these skills, and the industry, by the time they graduated, has changed so much, and there is a real risk here.

Now, he’s done okay. He is—again, proud dad—just incredibly ambitious and has been sending out—he will create short animations and send them out to people and say, “Hey, look, this is the kind of product I can produce for you,” and he’s been able to generate some contracts through that. So it’s working okay, but this is how fast the industry is changing. We need to find ways to protect workers, to protect jobs, in this artificial intelligence revolution.

I would say, also, with small businesses: Small businesses are really struggling right now. Coming out of the pandemic, many of them took on massive debts during the pandemic. They are still recuperating from that. Storefront businesses are competing now with online shopping.

The other thing that is happening—and this bill is both about artificial intelligence, which I’ve been focusing on, but it’s also about cyber security. They have got incredible cyber security costs now, and small businesses have difficulty keeping up with the cyber security needs, to make sure that the data that they have in their business is safe.

John Kiru, who is the head of the Toronto Association of BIAs, says that six months after a small business is hacked, most of them are closing because they just can’t carry the cost of restitution, and they can’t carry the cost of the cyber security that they need. So, as a Legislature, we need to be looking at small businesses as well.

Other risks: democratic rights—surveillance is everywhere. There was a project by Google in the downtown Toronto waterfront, and the community was very concerned about all the data that was going to be collected in that community, because there were going to be cameras everywhere, so they would know who was coming in and who was going out. They say they would disaggregate the data and they wouldn’t use facial recognition software, but if that data is collected, it’s pretty easy to just change that over and start collecting with facial recognition software.

One of the most shocking things—and this happened about eight years ago—for me is Google Maps. I have Google Maps on my phone, and about six, eight years ago, it asked me to check my data settings, and so I did. It had traced everywhere I had been in the past year. I had been to No Frills 40 times, and I had been to the Metro 20 times, which speaks to the fact that I try to budget. It was shocking that Google Maps knows every place that I’ve been. It probably knows every place that all of us have been. And then when you combine this with artificial intelligence, which is another tool for analyzing that data—the surveillance of this data is incredibly risky, and it’s a threat to us.

The other risk is control of large cloud corporations—Microsoft, Google, Apple. They are the corporate giants in the world right now, and they are dictating what governments can and cannot do about how governments can and cannot regulate them. That is incredibly frightening, and it is a threat to our democratic rights.

Other risks—I mentioned that AI has no ethical framework, and I mentioned weapons. Artificial intelligence should never be in charge of making a decision when there is a potential negative human impact. So, targeting weapons—artificial intelligence should never be used for that.

The last one that I’ll talk about is the existential risk. There’s a quote I’ll say from Nick Bostrom: “Machine intelligence is the last invention that humanity will ever need to make.” There’s a thing called artificial general intelligence—and this is a belief that we are getting close to a machine that can learn to accomplish any intellectual task that human beings can perform, and the benchmark of this is a machine that improves itself. AI is not there yet. But the last machine that we will ever make is a machine that improves itself, because then it doesn’t need us anymore.

Even five years ago, they were saying, “We think we may hit this in 2042.” Now some people are predicting that we’re going to hit this in 2026. I do not have the skills and knowledge necessary to know whether that’s true, but certainly artificial intelligence is developing at an exponential rate, and certainly we will get to that point where a machine is developing a machine that improves itself. And then, the real question is, what is our role? So there is an existential threat.

I mentioned that I was going to give my speech by telling stories. I want to tell the second story. I’m going to take a drink of water because I got four glasses here. I might as well.

John G. FitzGerald: He was a Canadian physician and researcher. He was born in 1882. He worked at the University of Toronto, and he learned to control—do you know when you get your vaccine, you get DPT—diphtheria, polio, tetanus—some of the fundamental vaccines that you get together? Before there was a vaccine, he developed a way of controlling diphtheria spread through a drug called antitoxin. And then, when the vaccine actually became available, he started producing it in a lab at the University of Toronto, and that lab eventually became Connaught Labs.

The goal of Connaught Labs—and this is the story—he used some of his wife’s inheritance to create this lab at the university in Toronto to produce vaccines and other medicines, to distribute them for free to the public. One of the great inventions that came out of Connaught Labs is Banting and Best were able to develop insulin for managing diabetes. This is just one of the legacies of Connaught Labs. It was a not-for-profit, public institution that was making Canada a global leader in both the production of vaccines but also in research work.

Another thing that came out of there was Heparin, which is an anticoagulant without which you could not conduct open-heart surgery or organ transplants.

So Canada was a global leader in pharmaceutical research and vaccine development and distribution. In the late 1980s, former Prime Minister Mulroney sold Connaught Labs to a private, for-profit corporation. Since then, relatively little pharmaceutical research is conducted in Canada. The pandemic hit us in 2020, and Canada spent $9 billion to procure COVID vaccines from American and European pharmaceutical corporations. We did not have our own pharmaceutical research lab because we had sold off Connaught Labs 30 or 40 years prior.

One of the things—as we’re in the midst of this artificial intelligence revolution, we need to make sure that we are positioning ourselves as well as possible to seize the opportunities, but also to mitigate the risks of artificial intelligence. The ideology that’s been pursued by both federal and provincial governments over the last 40 years, the sell-off of public assets, the privatization of public services, even the sell-off of Canadian private corporations has really impaired our ability to be global leaders.

The thing that we have done well is in tech and development. Ontario has the fastest-growing tech sector in North America. It’s growing faster than Silicon Valley, although Silicon Valley is much bigger—we’re not in danger of overtaking them any time soon. But the reason we have such a strong, vibrant tech sector is because of government investment and research through our public colleges and universities. I mentioned that Geoffrey Hinton, the godfather of AI, was a researcher at the University of Toronto. So the privatization of our colleges and universities, and what’s happening now, the crisis that they’re facing, is undermining our ability to be global leaders.

I’ve got quite a few notes about all the things that have been privatized by federal and provincial governments or sold off to foreign corporations by federal and provincial governments over the last 40 years. I just want to read through the list really quickly—I’m going to summarize it as much as I can—because it really speaks to how we sold off our industrial base.

When the Americans came to the Mulroney Conservatives in the 1980s and said, “Hey, we want to sign a free trade agreement,” there was a real suspicion that they wanted to take over our natural resources. They wanted to own them through American corporations. And that was a real risk.

Mulroney sold off Petro-Canada, Air Canada, Teleglobe, CNR. They cancelled the universality of Employment Insurance and Old Age Security. So they really took a big whack at our crown corporations and also at the universality of our social safety net.

Under the Chrétien and Martin Liberals, when they got into power, 57% of people who were unemployed were eligible for Employment Insurance; by the time they left, only 37%. When you think about the disruption that’s going to be caused by artificial intelligence, that’s an incredibly dangerous figure, because that means that only 37% of people who may lose their job through artificial intelligence technology are going to be eligible for Employment Insurance.

Our health care services: Everything except for hospitals has been privatized through the Harris Conservatives—home care, long-term care, senior homes, medical lab tests. And all of these privatization projects cost us money. I’ll just give one example. In the hospitals a blood test costs $22. In the private, for-profit profit labs, it costs $33. We are paying more for these private, for-profit corporations.

I think one of the big things that should be mentioned here is that Harper, when he was Prime Minister, sold off major Canadian corporations—in fact just about all of the major Canadian corporations. He sold off the entire steel industry: Stelco, Dofasco, Algoma and IPSCO. The Molson Amphitheatre down at Ontario Place is now called Budweiser Stage because Molson and Labatt were both sold off.

The Hudson Bay Co., Alcan, Inco, CP Hotels, CP Ships, Seagram, MacMillan Bloedel, Corel, Noranda, Bauer hockey equipment and Tim Hortons: All of them were sold off under the Harper Conservatives, all of our major private corporations.

This government is continuing with the privatization. It’s privatizing our hospitals, it’s privatizing our colleges and universities. They are underfunding our health care system, our schools, our colleges, our universities. We have the lowest number of hospital beds per capita not just in Canada but in the Americas, except for two other countries. We have two million people without a family doctor.

All of this means that we’re not preparing ourselves for the disruption of artificial intelligence. We need a robust social safety net. We need a robust public sector research sector in our colleges, our universities and our hospitals. Right now, all of them are grossly underfunded and struggling just to stay alive.

I want to tell my third story. In November 2021, in the midst of the pandemic, there was a vaccine database hack that happened. During the pandemic the vast majority of us signed up for a COVID vaccine. There was a central database that kept all the data and there was a hack in November 2021.

In December 2022, the government announced this—so almost a year later—and 360,000 people received notices that their personal information was part of a data breach of the COVaxON system. The two people who did this were 21 and 22 years old. One was actually working in the system—at least, they allegedly did this; they were charged with doing this hack. They got the data of hundreds of thousands of people. A 21- and a 22-year-old allegedly got the data of hundreds of thousands of people through this hack.

The response from the Ministry of Health—and I would say they responded appropriately: They launched a massive project to protect our data. They developed the cyber security operating model. It took months and months to do it and it cost $22 million just in the 2023-24 year to make sure that our vaccine data is safe.

This is one ministry and one hack. The moral of this story is—and I have been talking mostly about artificial intelligence; this bill deals with both artificial intelligence and cyber security in the public sector—cyber security is incredibly expensive. If one ministry hack response was to spend $22 million in a single year on preparations, on tools, to make sure that that hack doesn’t happen again, imagine the resources that are needed, particularly by our smaller public sector agencies in this province—our small hospitals, our small school boards.

When I’ve been speaking with cyber security experts, they say one of the things that these hackers look for is underfunded agencies that have valuable data, because if they’re underfunded, if they’re struggling with their funding, then they don’t have the money or the financial wherewithal or the technical expertise to protect their data.

I want to pivot now—I don’t have that much time left. I want to talk a little bit about how vulnerable our public sector agencies are because almost all of them are struggling financially right now. So 11 of our 23 universities in Ontario are running deficits here. Our colleges—the funding has shifted so that they are dependent upon international students to maintain their budgets, and this is incredibly precarious for those colleges and universities. They don’t have the money available to develop the technology and also the financial wherewithal for cyber security to protect the data that’s in their banks.

And it’s not just that hack. There’s hacks happening all of the time. The Toronto Public Library was hacked a year ago. Five southwestern Ontario hospitals were hacked in the last year. The city of Hamilton was hacked. So this government is recognizing this and bringing forward this Bill 194 to look at cyber security and also the opportunities and risks of artificial intelligence.

But the bill itself has very little in it. Most of the bill is actually about regulation. The bill says the word “regulation” 52 times. I know this is kind of inside baseball; most people don’t know the different between legislation and regulation, but legislation is when the government or any member of this House brings forward a bill for debate. It’s publicly debated here in the House and anybody in the province can listen to the debate. That’s legislation. Regulation is what the ministers do in their offices. They create regulations to implement and flesh out that legislation.

This bill does not actually contain much of substance on the artificial intelligence framework or on protecting cyber security for our public sector agencies. Most of the bill just says the minister is empowered to create regulations. So almost all of this is going to be happening behind closed doors. The bill also does not provide support to smaller organizations. I mentioned smaller hospitals and smaller colleges, universities and school boards. They don’t have the expertise or the financial wherewithal for proper cyber security.

One of the recommendations I’m making to this bill, an amendment, would be to provide the supports that our public sector colleges, universities and hospitals need. This government is currently attempting to create a crisis in our hospitals, our colleges and universities—to privatize them.

One of the risks of that, especially at this period of time with artificial intelligence and cyber security threats, is that you are underfunding these public agencies at a time when they are most at risk and you’re creating an atmosphere where they are least able to develop the technology to actually make us global leaders or make us continue to be global leaders in tech development and in artificial intelligence.

I’ll quote the most important quote from this bill:

“The government of Ontario: ...

“Believes that artificial intelligence systems in the public sector should be used in a responsible, transparent, accountable and secure manner that benefits the people of Ontario while protecting privacy.”

So the four principles that the bill itself lays out are “responsible, transparent, accountable and secure.” The government has already violated the transparency principle with the process it’s used to develop this bill.

I’ve got my one-hour responses. This speech is the opposition’s one-hour response to the government bill that was introduced in the spring. Normally, when a bill is introduced in the Legislature, it goes through the first reading, it goes through the second reading—the government lead gives a one-hour speech, the opposition gives a one-hour speech, then there’s debate back and forth. When the debate is finished, it’s sent off to committee. There is an all-party committee that will examine the bill. The public is welcome to come in and speak to the bill. This is how legislation is developed.

After amendments are made in committee, it comes back to the Legislature for third reading. That’s how a bill goes through this Legislature.

What the government did is, they introduced the bill, they had the government speech—it hasn’t gone to committee, but the government held consultations all summer long, by themselves. So only Conservative Party members and ministers or whoever was in there—we don’t know—were doing this consultation. So when the government says that AI, artificial intelligence, cyber security—one of the principles that should be followed is transparency—the government has already violated its own ethical principle in transparency.

The other violation—and I mentioned this already: There are 52 times in the bill when the bill says the minister is going to be empowered to develop regulations. So all of the regulations are developed behind the scenes. The regulations are not debated in this House publicly, for the public to see, or in committee, where the public can actually have input. They’re developed behind the scenes. So, again, the government is violating this principle. This is a really dangerous precedent that the government is setting.

They say nice things—they say, yes, the development of AI policy and cyber security policy should be public, it should be debated, it should be transparent, but they’re not actually doing that.

When I talk to the smaller agencies, some of the smaller school boards, some of the smaller colleges, universities, hospitals about what they need in terms of cyber security and artificial intelligence—opportunities and risks—they all say, “We need centralized support.” It’s not good enough for the government just to say these agencies are going to have to have a robust cyber security framework, because they don’t have the financial wherewithal or the technical expertise to actually develop it themselves or even potentially to procure the most effective system.

This is where the government really needs to take the lead on this and where this bill is badly flawed. This bill should lay out that the government will be providing the supports needed to these agencies—that there will be a central procurement for cyber security for public sector agencies, so that not every school board has to hire staff to find out what the best cyber security system is, so that every hospital doesn’t have to do that. The government will say, “This is the cyber security software that we are recommending”—and government could actually do it much cheaper by doing a centralized procurement.

The other advantage of the government procuring our cyber security software for all of our public sector agencies would be that we could choose an Ontario company.

As the tech and innovation critic, I have visited many small start-ups, many accelerators, many tech companies, and they say one of the most important things, especially for a tech start-up, is that they get a government contract. If a tech start-up gets a government contract, then they have legitimacy. When they go out to other countries or other jurisdictions to look for contracts, they can say, “We’ve got stability. We’ve got a government contract.” A government contract is also a vote of confidence in their ability to deliver their products.

So there’s an opportunity here for the government to have a centralized system of procurement for cyber security software, for artificial intelligence research and development tools, and to benefit not only our hospitals, our colleges, our universities, our school boards and other public sector agencies, but also to benefit Ontario entrepreneurs and start-ups and tech companies. So this is something that we really need the government to pay attention to.

I will say that my riding of Spadina–Fort York includes Ontario Place, and one of the most frustrating parts about this plan for redeveloping Ontario Place, Ontario Place was developed by a former Conservative government under John Robarts and then opened by Bill Davis to celebrate Ontario ingenuity. The IMAX theatre that is there was the world’s first IMAX theatre. IMAX is a technology that was developed in Ontario. Eb Zeidler was the architect who designed the pods and the Cinesphere. He was an Ontario-based architect. Ontario Place launched his global career.

Michael Hough was the landscape architect who designed the beautiful landscape and the forest that has now been cut down at Ontario Place.

Ontario Place was designed to celebrate the ingenuity of Ontario. This government has contracted it out. They’ve given it away, plus the tax subsidy, to an Austrian spa company and to an American concert venue. So it has nothing to do with Ontario, and the reason I’m bringing this up is, we need to support our local businesses.

We need to celebrate Ontario businesses, Ontario entrepreneurs and Ontario ingenuity, and we can do it through this bill on cyber security and artificial intelligence by supporting our public colleges, our public universities, our public hospitals and our public school boards so that they can continue to make us global leaders in research and development and help our companies to seize the opportunities of artificial intelligence and also to protect us from cyber security threats.

I’m hoping the government—and I’ve seen that some of you are listening—will take some of these recommendations seriously. The most important one is that we need to rebuild a robust public sector in order to seize the opportunities of artificial intelligence and to protect us from cyber security threats, and those includes all of the things, all of the agencies that I’ve talked about, plus many, many more.

Thank you for listening. I’m down to 10 seconds. I’m going to have a glass of water, and I think we open up it for questions. Thank you.

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

I recognized the member for Brantford–Brant.

Mr. Will Bouma: Thank you, Speaker. It’s good to see you in the chair.

I appreciated listening to the member’s speech. I think I caught most of it. I had to step out a couple of times because there are some other things going on this morning, but I really appreciated his in-depth look at this. If I caught the gist right—and he can correct me—it’s that he’s generally supportive and quite supportive, moving down the road, of trying to control some of these emerging technologies in the province of Ontario. I thought he had some very interesting and intriguing suggestions on what we could do with this legislation in order to improve it.

I guess my question to him is, will he and will his caucus be supporting this piece of legislation on second reading so that it can go to committee and he can put forward some of his amendments? Will he stand up in the House right now and say, “Yes, we are supporting this legislation,” so that we can get that in there, and then we can further the conversation about improvements to the bill?

Mr. Chris Glover: The risk with this bill is that the bill doesn’t actually contain much. It’s sort of a framework that gives the power to the government to create regulations. The government needs to change that framework. We need to develop a definition of AI, and what are appropriate uses and what inappropriate uses. We need to embed that into the legislation. We need to make sure that the small public sector agencies are given the supports they need for the artificial intelligence revolution but also to protect their data and cyber security.

So if the government is open to making major amendments and making this bill transparent so that not everything is going to be done behind closed doors with regulation, but it will actually be part of the legislation, then I think we can support it. But we need to make sure that the government is willing to have a public debate and live by its own principles of responsible artificial intelligence adoption, which includes transparency. So we need this bill to be much more transparent.

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

MPP Lise Vaugeois: Thank you to the member from Spadina–Fort York for, really, a wonderful presentation and introduction to the issues.

I am concerned about so much work being done in regulations. We’re at the very beginning of this. Nobody really knows how to solve all the problems that you have raised, so we need as many experts at the table as possible to sort out how this is going to play out, how we’re going to support innovation here and support people’s work and support our security.

I just wonder if you could speak to the importance of having those voices at the table.

Mr. Chris Glover: I want to thank the member from Thunder Bay–Superior North for the incredible work that she does in supporting her community, which includes Geraldton, which is a place that I lived in at one time and is still near and dear to me.

You’re right: Artificial intelligence is moving at an exponential rate and cyber security threats are also moving at an exponential rate. And there is no one person or no one group that has the expertise to help us to manage this.

This is really the opportunity for this government to reach across the floor and to develop a collaborative process, not just with us as legislators but with public sector and private sector experts, in a transparent way, to develop the tools that we need to seize the opportunities of artificial intelligence, to protect us from its risks and also to protect us and our province from increasing cyber security risk. Absolutely, collaboration has got to be key in the development of these policies.

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

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: Thank you to my colleague from Spadina–Fort York for the in-depth presentation. I was enjoying your presentation. I know you are a lecturer. You are lecturing us for more than an hour, a wonderful presentation. I have a lot of respect for him.

But having said that, Madam Speaker—and I was listening to him; very informative—at the end of the day, he is not supporting this bill. Our government is committed to helping vital institutions such as schools—a lot of students are here—hospitals and family services centres to protect sensitive data in their care. Every Ontarian has a right to feel safe and protected from cyber security attacks.

So my question to my colleague: I ask the member opposite to please tell us why he opposes methods that make Ontarians feel safe and protected when it comes to their data.

Mr. Chris Glover: I want to thank the member from Markham–Thornhill for your comments. We actually have a common friend from Delft, a small island just off Sri Lanka.

Anyway, what we are asking for with this legislation is—there are four principles of good policy in artificial intelligence and cyber security: responsible, transparent, accountable and secure. This government has to show us in this legislation that they are adopting all four of those principles that they say in the legislation, but that the legislation itself contradicts, because all of the legislation here is about giving the minister power to create regulations behind the scenes, the very opposite of the principle of transparency.

The government needs to show that it is willing to be transparent in the development of artificial intelligence and cyber security policy so that the public and the opposition can be confident that it is being developed in the public’s best interest.

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I want to congratulate my colleague on his very thoughtful speech about this bill.

He raised concerns about the risks involved if onerous requirements, costly requirements, are placed on public sector institutions that are already facing significant financial pressures. I know in my community, the CAS of London–Middlesex is looking at a $9.1-million deficit. The hospital, LHSC, is projecting a $150-million deficit. Within the post-secondary sector, which this bill applies to, he pointed out the number of universities that are reporting deficits this year.

Can the member elaborate a bit more about why resources have to be allocated for public sector institutions to be successful in this—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): To the member for Spadina–Fort York.

Mr. Chris Glover: I want to thank the member from London West for the question. If we’ve got a billion and a half dollars to give to Therme for the Ontario Place project, then we have enough money to fund our hospitals, our colleges, our universities. Instead, all of them—many of them—are on the verge of bankruptcy. The government gave $900 million in emergency funding to our colleges to keep them from going bankrupt this year, but that’s not long-term supportive financing. That’s just an emergency measure.

And 11 of our 23 universities in this province are running deficits. Our hospitals are cutting staff and services because they do not have enough money. The risk is that all of these agencies are at greater risk of cyber security attacks because the hackers know that they are underfunded and that they don’t have the money to hire the technology to protect them.

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

Mr. Dave Smith: The member opposite brought up some really interesting points here. Coming from the IT industry before getting into politics, I want to point out a couple of things: Our legislative process, if we do things relatively quickly, we introduce the bill at first reading, then it comes back for second reading and we’ve got eight hours of debate, and then it will go to committee for a couple of days, come back from committee after a couple of days and another six and a half hours of debate to change something on the legislative side. On the regulatory side, though, we could make a change relatively quickly.

Now let’s say that we are in a hypothetical scenario where we’ve had a cyber attack, it has compromised our system and we need to make a regulatory change to adjust for that. Is it prudent to take a minimum of a week to do that and be exposed for that length of time, or is it more prudent, then, to do it in a regulatory regime so that you can make that adjustment quickly?

Mr. Chris Glover: I want to thank the member from Peterborough–Kawartha for the question. The example that you give is a place where regulation would actually make sense. If there’s a cyber attack, you may need to develop a regulation. But in the legislation, there should be a definition of “artificial intelligence”—what is an appropriate use of artificial intelligence, what is an inappropriate use of artificial intelligence. The European Union has developed legislation that has a framework like that.

We also need support built into the legislation for these agencies to have adequate funding, not just for their day-to-day activities but also for the emerging technology of artificial intelligence and for cyber security.

What we need in the legislation is a robust definition of “artificial intelligence” and a commitment to support, particularly, small agencies, but public sector agencies in this tumultuous time.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): That is all the time we have for questions and answers.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Organ and tissue donation

Mr. Will Bouma: Good morning, everyone. I first heard of the living donor program thanks to Jason Shawana, a Brantford hockey coach who had part of his liver removed during his battle with cancer. Jason’s story inspired me to become a living donor so that I could have the ability to save a life. Over the course of the last year, I have been working hard behind the scenes to get in shape to become a living donor for my liver. A couple of months ago, I underwent seven hours of surgery and had 40% of my liver removed, and I am pleased to report that the surgery was a success and that the recipient is doing extremely well.

As a Christian, I am motivated to serve both God and my community, and by becoming a living donor, I have been able to save and improve the life of someone in the province of Ontario. The entire process of donating a portion of my liver was both profound and deeply meaningful; however, during this process, I could not help but think of the countless Ontarians who are currently waiting for organ transplants. While I recovered in hospital, I learned that if only one out of every 10,000 Ontarians were willing to become a living donor, the entire transplant waiting list would be cleared.

If I can help inspire even one person to register as a living donor, Speaker, I will be overjoyed.

Government’s record

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: After an extended five-month shutdown imposed by the Premier, I’m pleased to be back in the Legislature. While so many across this province are struggling, the Premier extended the summer shutdown, so he could avoid being held accountable for his harmful decisions—no question period, no media scrums, no transparency and no accountability.

Over the summer, I visited my constituents at their homes, workplaces, community events and more. I heard first-hand about the struggles they are facing: parents working two or more jobs just to try to feed their families and, hopefully, keep a roof over their head.

After the Premier removed rent control, many constituents are having to choose between paying rent and buying groceries. More than a million Ontarians turn to food banks. People on ODSP are even further behind, and homelessness is increasing.

Public health care is crumbling: People are waiting more than five hours for care in emergency rooms, assuming one is open in their community, and 2.5 million Ontarians don’t have a family doctor.

Public schools are crumbling, overcrowded and unsafe classrooms are the norm and the repair log keeps getting bigger.

Intimate partner violence continues to impact every community in Ontario. Nearly 100 municipalities have declared IPV an epidemic, and yet just yesterday, the Conservatives voted no to passing my Bill 173 and declaring IPV an epidemic.

Ontarians need and deserve a government that is focused on making their lives better, making it easier, not a Premier who is solely focused on pet projects that only make his friends wealthier and life harder for Ontarians. It is time for some positive change.

Shouldice Stone

Mr. Rick Byers: Good morning, colleagues. Last month, I had the honour of attending an excellent celebration at the Shouldice Stone facility in the great community of Shallow Lake in the great riding of Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound. The event was to recognize Shouldice Stone’s receipt of funding through the Regional Development Program’s Southwestern Ontario Development Fund, which will boost the local manufacturing sector and create excellent new jobs in the community.

Bev Shouldice started Shouldice Stone in 1947. Rob and June grew the business by adding numerous innovations and new products to reflect customers’ expanding tastes. Architects, builders, masons and homeowners have relied on Canadian-made Shouldice Stone for durable, eye-catching results, whether for a dream home or company project. Today, Brad and Steve continue the family legacy and are growing the business for generations to come. They proudly carry on the family’s promise: “Our word is our bond, and our handshake is a contract.”

I saw first-hand the great culture this promise has created at the celebration event on September 20. Workers, families, community members and partnering companies all were there in great numbers to celebrate this great enterprise. After touring the production facilities and the new office building, meeting Steve, Brad and CEO Chris Pedersen, it was easy to see how Shouldice Stone has been such a success.

Congratulations on your great success and your great contribution to our community.

Road safety

Mr. Joel Harden: Yesterday, we debated legislation about stunt driving. It’s an important road safety issue. My question for the House this morning is: What do we do about stunt policies? Because right now, there’s a lot of that happening in Ontario. We have a Premier right now who insists, without any evidence, that bike lanes cause traffic congestion, or that bike lanes delay first responders from getting to the scene of an accident, or that we somehow need a 38-kilometre tunnel under the 401 to reduce traffic. This is what peddling in stunt policies that aren’t serious looks like.

This is a government that is impaired by the determination to pit road users against each other, when they should be focusing on safety for everyone.

While they play games, people are getting hurt and killed on our streets, like Audrey Cameron, a 16-year-old back home in Ottawa, who was hit by a reckless driver last month and had her pelvis and right knee shattered. She has traumatic brain injuries. The Premier’s stunt policies are not going to help Audrey or anyone else. But I’ll tell you something: Tomorrow at 5 p.m., outside this building, I and the member for University–Rosedale and others will be gathering with road safety advocates, families who have lost loved ones, people who have been injured by reckless driving and reckless policies on our streets.

We will not play games with people’s lives, and this government shouldn’t be playing games with people’s lives.

Hospital funding

Mr. Lorne Coe: Thanks to our health minister and the Premier, our government has provided more than $12 million in capital planning grants to support Lakeridge Health’s master redevelopment plan, as part of a larger overall investment to complete this multi-phase expansion.

This expansion of Lakeridge’s services and hospital campuses will add a total of 300 new hospital beds and enhanced services throughout the region:

—redeveloping the Bowmanville Hospital to double the hospital’s capacity by adding 32 new beds and building new, state-of-the-art facilities;

—a brand new regional hospital in Whitby;

—a new post-acute care centre in Pickering; and

—creating space for acute care capacity at the Oshawa site by relocating some services to a new post-acute care centre in Pickering.

We’ll continue to take bold, decisive action to expand capacity and build modern, state-of-the-art facilities across the province, to reduce wait times and ensure people of all ages can access fast, convenient care closer to home. Once again, we are getting it done for the province of Ontario.

Government’s record

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: MPPs are finally back in the House for the fall session. We were supposed to be back after Labour Day, but the Ford Conservatives did not want to get back to Queen’s Park. The House is sitting after five months. Why? Because the Ford Conservatives want to avoid accountability. Here are some of the actions, blunders by the Premier, when the House wasn’t in session.

Breaking the Beer Store contract to bring booze to corner stores a year earlier is costing taxpayers over $200 million. Even people who want beer in corner stores say they could have waited a few months to save that money.

The Conservative government abruptly closed the Ontario Science Centre, citing roof panels as a safety concern. It turns out that not only were there no immediate safety issues, but that one in 12 public schools have the same roof panels.

The Therme deal was finally released, and it’s one of the worst deals this province has ever made, putting taxpayers on the hook for billions of dollars over 95 years and chopping down 300 mature trees for a luxury spa.

It doesn’t end there. The Premier is talking about building a tunnel under Highway 401 and destroying already built infrastructure like bike lanes. Meanwhile, there’s no completion date for the Eglinton Crosstown, which is billions over budget and led to the destruction of hundreds of small businesses.

And who can forget the Premier’s appointment of the largest cabinet this province has ever seen?

The Premier talks about respecting taxpayers, but his actions disrespect the hard-working people of this province.

Breast cancer

Ms. Laura Smith: It’s Breast Cancer Awareness Month in Ontario. One in nine women will be affected in their lifetime.

In late fall of 2020, I became a statistic when after a routine mammogram, I was diagnosed with DCIS, ductal carcinoma in situ. This is an early form of breast cancer, but my surgeon promised that I would still be here in five years if we acted quickly, and I’m here today because of early detection and regular mammograms.

That’s why I’m so proud our government is connecting more women to life-saving breast cancer screening by lowering the age of eligibility for self-referral to a mammogram from 50 to 40. As of October 8, women over the age of 40 can now self-refer, giving an additional one million women the option to detect and treat breast cancer sooner and get on with their lives.

In early 2022, months after my surgeries and my life-saving treatment, I got on with my life. I felt really strong and I ran in the provincial election as a candidate in Thornhill. I want to thank so many of the people in my health care journey, including Dr. Adena Scheer at St. Michael’s Hospital and the health care team with my doctor, Dr. Eric Silver. I’m here today because of early detection, I’m here for my community and, most importantly, I’m here for my kids.

Riding of Kanata–Carleton

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon: Good morning, colleagues. I was so lucky this summer to get out and have many conversations at community events, at the doorsteps in my riding, and most recently at the Carp Fair, my favourite place in the fall.

I know people are struggling. Many of us don’t have a family doctor. They’re worried about the state of our health care system. They’re struggling to make ends meet. They’re struggling to find an affordable home. And they are rightly concerned about the state of our education system.

I also got to visit amazing businesses in Kanata North, Canada’s largest technology park, including the amazing team at TutorOcean. They are using artificial intelligence to design learning tools to assist teachers, students and parents alike, creating incredible homework and tutoring platforms to suit any learning style, which can transform teacher-student relationships and boost engagement in the classroom. This cutting-edge Canadian technology is being presented to Harvard University next week.

Last thing: Tomorrow, Wednesday, October 23, is Ottawa Student Transportation’s Driver Appreciation Day. Day in and day out, the school bus drivers ensure students travel safely to and from school. Our students and families couldn’t do without them. We thank them for their professionalism and commitment. Thank you, bus drivers.

Public safety

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: Auto theft is a major issue across the country. Auto theft is not just theft, Mr. Speaker. In some cases, this is a life-or-death situation, with carjackings and armed robberies becoming common. People feel very unsafe in their own homes.

That’s why, today, I rise to acknowledge the tremendous effort of York Regional Police in combatting the rise in auto thefts through the launch of Operation Auto Guard. This comprehensive initiative is aimed at reducing auto theft. The first Operation Auto Guard led to the recovery of 80 vehicles worth more than $5 million, with 56 people facing almost 300 charges.

YRP have taken a multi-faceted approach, targeting high-risk neighbourhoods and engaging directly with the community. These proactive messages are making a real difference. Since last year, auto thefts have dropped by 30%. It’s a significant achievement that demonstrates the effectiveness of community-focused crime prevention and law enforcement.

I also want to recognize our government’s support of these efforts with a $900,000 investment as part of a broader $18-million provincial plan to fight against auto theft.

I would like to thank Chief Jim MacSween, and the men and women in uniform at the YRP for fighting against this dangerous crime.

Chris Hodgson

Ms. Laurie Scott: I’m honoured to stand in the chamber today to celebrate my predecessor Chris Hodgson’s retirement from the Ontario Mining Association. For 40 years, Chris has played a very important role, not only with Ontario’s mining industry, but right here at Queen’s Park. Chris represented our home riding of Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock from 1994 to 2003. He served as Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet.

During his time as a cabinet minister, Chris had many notable achievements. To name a few: As Minister of Natural Resources, Chris launched the government’s Living Legacy program, the single-biggest expansion of parks and protected spaces in Ontario’s history. He introduced the first amended Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act in 50 years, replacing the Game and Fish Act to toughen enforcement. He oversaw Smart Growth.

Chris has had a profound impact on Ontario’s mining sector during his public life and also as president of the Ontario Mining Association since 2004. It is an extra special occasion, as tomorrow, we will celebrate Meet the Miners Day. Because of people like Chris Hodgson and organizations such as the Ontario Mining Association, our province enjoys a strong and robust sector.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chris for his 40 years of contribution to the mining industry and service to the province of Ontario and wishing him the very best and well-earned retirement.

We are all very proud of Chris and his accomplishments at home in Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock.

Wearing of pins

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I understand the Minister of Long-Term Care has a point of order she wishes to raise.

Hon. Natalia Kusendova-Bashta: If you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to allow members to wear forget-me-not pins in support of Alzheimer’s disease awareness.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Long-Term Care is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to allow members to wear forget-me-not pins in support of Alzheimer’s awareness. Agreed? Agreed.

Legislative pages

The Speaker (Hon.

Ted Arnott): It’s my pleasure now to ask our pages to assemble for their introductions: from the riding of Scarborough Southwest, James Allgeier; from the riding of Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, Ali Buchanan; from Toronto–Danforth, Jaimie Chen; from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, Graham Engelhardt; from University–Rosedale, Jakob Finley; from Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill, Rishabh Goel; from the riding of Essex, Kellen I’Anson; from the riding of Brampton Centre, Samika Kapoor; from Beaches–East York, Lincoln Knibbs; from Simcoe North, Ziggy Knutson; from Markham–Unionville, Sophie Lee; from the riding of Sarnia–Lambton, June McCarthy; from the riding of Thunder Bay–Superior North, Lily McLean; from Toronto Centre, Isabella Mendoza Ferguson; from Barrie–Springwater–Oro-Medonte, Elliot Nahshony; from Scarborough–Guildwood, Keerthana Punathil Sajikumar; from the great riding of Wellington–Halton Hills, Jasper Roy; from Markham–Stouffville, Blythe Tam; from Thornhill, Alessandro Terrones Davila; from Scarborough–Rouge Park, Dimitrios Tolios; from Northumberland–Peterborough South, Nicole Vanden Bosch; and from Oakville North–Burlington, Aurore Yao.

Please join me in welcoming this group of legislative pages.

Applause.

Introduction of Visitors

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It is my pleasure to welcome some constituents from Windsor: Sally Bennett Olczak, CEO of the Alzheimer Society of Windsor and Essex County; Karen Hall from the Alzheimer Society of Windsor and Essex County; and Mike and Karen Kessler, who are here for the Alzheimer Society lobby day. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Sam Oosterhoff: I have the privilege of welcoming to the Legislature Teena Kindt, who is the CEO of the Alzheimer Society of Niagara Region. I look forward to chatting with you later today.

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: I also would like to welcome Teena Kindt, the executive director of the Alzheimer Society of Niagara Region, and Tracy Koskamp-Bergeron, the executive director of the Alzheimer Society in Cochrane and Temiskaming. Welcome to your House.

Mr. Stephen Blais: I’d like to welcome staff and students from St. Peter Catholic High School, who are using both galleries this morning. They’ve travelled a long way from where the sun rises on the nation’s capital. Welcome to the Legislature. I hope you have a wonderful time here in Toronto.

And, Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, the St. Matthew Tigers are taking on the Colonel By team at Millennium Park. Go Tigers!

Ms. Patrice Barnes: I’d like to welcome Neru, Nicholas and my intern Jayden from my constituency office. They’re here today.

M me France Gélinas: I would like to welcome all of the members from Breast Cancer Canada that are here today. Most of them are on the front lawn. Please go out and visit and learn more about prevention, treatment and support for people living with breast cancer.

Ms. Laura Smith: It’s my great pleasure to welcome Kimberly Carson, CEO at Breast Cancer Canada, and Shaniah Leduc also, board chair. They’re in front of the Legislature right now.

MPP Jill Andrew: It’s my pleasure to welcome the Alzheimer Society of Ontario here today, and especially staff and community members from St. Paul’s. I don’t have a full list, so I’m not going to name anyone, but I’m looking forward to seeing you all today at 5 o’clock. Thank you.

Hon. Mike Harris: I just got a message: The team back at the office is very, very, very tuned in to question period today. I want to give a special shout-out to my director of communications, Sehar Malik. Thank you.

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: It gives me great pleasure to welcome Carol Walters from the Alzheimer Society Southwest Partners. Great to see you, Carol. I look forward to our meeting.

Mr. Adil Shamji: Good morning, everyone. I wish to extend my gratitude and welcome to all the members of Breast Cancer Canada, as well as the Alzheimer Society. You’re here to help us increase access to life-saving care and educate us about the way we can improve our health care system. Thank you so much for being here.

Question Period

Health care

Ms. Marit Stiles: Good morning. This question is for the Premier. Back in 2018, the people of Ontario will remember that this Premier promised the people of Ontario that he would end hallway health care. We are now more than six years in and there are more people being treated in hallways in Ontario than ever before. On average, today, we are seeing about 2,000 patients a day treated in hallways and equipment closets. Under the former Liberal government, we’ll remember that the average was about 1,000 patients per day.

I would like to know why this government has doubled down on the former Liberal government’s failures.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply, the Deputy Premier and Minister of Health.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Speaker, let’s do a quick review of what we’ve been able to accomplish in the last six years and the plan that we have ahead: In 2023, in January, we presented our Your Health plan to the people of Ontario and I had very clear measurables on where we saw health care to be expanded.

Of course, we all know about the 50 capital builds that are happening in our hospital systems across Ontario. In some cases, those are brand new hospitals and in some cases, of course, they are expansions and renovations—50 capital builds with the equivalent of $50 billion. That’s real, concrete action that we’ve been able to do in support of Infrastructure Ontario.

What else have we done? Of course, two new medical schools in the province of Ontario, in Brampton, in York region. Why are we doing that? We are doing that to ensure that we have the health human capacity—

Interjection.

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

Supplementary question?

Ms. Marit Stiles: Let’s go back to my question, Premier, because back in 2018, this government, again, promised to end hallway health care, right? Now, it may be no coincidence that under consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments, Ontario has continued to have the lowest health care funding per capita in the country. This government is failing every day to deliver on the most basic responsibility of a provincial government which is health care for the people of this province, but somehow they’re able to keep all their promises to their insider wealthy friends.

So I want to know from the Premier, why is this government choosing to spend billions on luxury spas that no one wants and a tunnel that won’t be built for 20 years when they can’t get sick people out of hallways?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Health.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I think it’s important that we start to compare and contrast about what we have seen in previous governments. Under the NDP, you actually cut residency spots—and by the way, you were in Bob Rae’s government as a staffer when that happened. The Liberal government, when they were here for 15 years, ignored the fact that Ontario residents were aging, that we had new Ontario residents wanting to live and work in the province of Ontario and they wanted a family physician.

We are doing those investments. We are making those investments to ensure that people can get access when they need it. I look at some of the comments as we make these investments: “Ontario hospitals appreciate the province’s continued commitment to building a strong health care workforce, which will help ensure patients continue receiving high-quality health care at home.”

I don’t know what you’ve been doing over the summer. I can tell you, I have been visiting hospitals. I have been talking to health care practitioners. They are seeing the changes and they appreciate them.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Once again, I will remind the members to make their comments through the Chair, not directly across the floor of the House.

The final supplementary.

Ms. Marit Stiles: I’ll tell you what I wasn’t doing this summer: I wasn’t closing emergency rooms across this province.

I’m going to tell you, that is not going to cut it—that response from this minister—because people in Ontario, they don’t need that kind of lecture, they are living this health care crisis.

I want you to imagine for a minute being the person who gets devastating news in a hallway surrounded by strangers. This is happening every day in the province of Ontario. And let me tell you, it’s not just bad for patients. Imagine being the health care worker that has to deliver that news that way.

Imagine being a parent showing up at an emergency room with your sick child and finding it closed. It is happening every day in this province from Sault Ste. Marie to Bruce-Grey.

I want to know from this Premier what the Premier has to say, broken promise after broken promise, to those patients.

Interjections.

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

Minister of Health.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Imagine, Speaker, where we would be today if the NDP hadn’t cut 50 medical seats every single year while they were in government. Imagine where we would be if the Liberal government, instead of chokeholding hospitals, had actually allowed them to expand when they needed it so desperately. We’ll do that work because we know it is needed.

When I talk to young mothers who say, because of the investment in our pediatric care system in our six children’s hospitals with $330 million, it means that we have been able to cut all of the access to surgery and shorten those wait times so that people aren’t having to wait.

I remember talking to a grandmother and she said, “By getting that cataract surgery, because of investments that your government made,” she has the ability to volunteer to read a book to her grandchildren. That’s the changes we’re making—

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

The next question.

Home care

Ms. Marit Stiles: This question, again, is for the Premier. Yesterday, I asked the government about these outrageous changes to home care that have left patients and caregivers without basic supplies to manage pain, to clean wounds. I was so deeply disappointed to hear the very detached—and I’m going to just say it—compassionless response from this government. They dismissed the concerns of patients and families. They said things like, “Oh, well, they’ll be reimbursed,” and “They can visit their family doctor.” Well, good luck with that.

Anyway, the minister was clear that she thinks that the shortage of family doctors was not a major concern. My question to the Premier is, does your minister also think that this crisis in home care is not a major concern for this government?

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

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I said it yesterday and I will say it again: It is completely unacceptable that people are not getting the needed medical supplies and drugs they need and their health care providers want to provide. We are working directly with Ontario Health atHome to make sure that any distribution issues are being dealt with expeditiously. We are bringing in experts from Supply Ontario. We are bringing in experts from Ontario Health to make sure that this cannot continue because it is absolutely unacceptable. We are doing everything to ensure that this gets resolved very quickly.

I will say that it is important for people to have access, to get reimbursed if they have had to go out and purchase necessary medical supplies for their loved ones. It’s the right thing to do.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, what’s really concerning here is that the minister only learned about these horrific experiences after it was published in the Hamilton Spectator. Did she miss all the letters from my caucus colleagues here that were sent to her office on behalf of their constituents?

The home care supply shortage could have been anticipated, and it could have been mitigated by this government. The minister needs to take responsibility.

Why did the minister fail to confirm that access to supplies would not be interrupted in this ridiculous change so that vulnerable people weren’t left more vulnerable?

Interjections.

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

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Again, I will repeat: We know that this is an unacceptable pathway. We need to ensure that all of our vendors and all of our suppliers, regardless of where in the province they are providing services, do that under the auspices of getting it on time to the patients who need it and ensuring that they have access. We have directed the vendor to prioritize and expedite urgent orders. We know that they must do better because our patients and our families deserve better.

As I said, we are working full out every day to ensure that those vendors and those distributors are doing, frankly, exactly what they’re supposed to be doing, which is ensuring medical supplies and drugs get to the families and the patients that need them in community.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: What’s unacceptable is that this minister approved the contract. That’s unacceptable.

These are not minor issues that the government can ignore or dismiss. We’re talking about palliative care patients going without medication to manage their pain; immunocompromised kids going without antibiotics. This is no small thing. We’re talking about the supplies that a husband needed to drain fluid from his wife’s lungs as she battled cancer at home. We are talking about the medical supplies that a mom needed to maintain life support for her son. It is more than unacceptable.

Why were these glaring shortfalls allowed to go on for weeks before your government, Premier, took notice?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members will please take their seats. Again, I’ll ask members to make their comments through the Chair.

The Minister of Health can reply.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: The member opposite is absolutely right: It is unacceptable, which is why we have been working directly with the vendor and Ontario Health atHome to resolve it every step of the way. When we saw that they needed assistance with distribution, we stepped in and helped with Supply Ontario. When we saw that they needed assistance, we were there.

I do not support or condone or agree that this can continue. We are working full out to make sure that this vendor actually fulfills the contract as it was written and as it was proposed.

Government’s record

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is for the Premier. This government has been doing everything but delivering what Ontario needs. You just heard a perfect example from our leader. New affordable housing stalled; two and a half million people without a family doctor languishing. Instead of offering real solutions, this Premier keeps trying to change the channel with political culture wars, gimmicks and a $100-billion tunnel fantasy that will go ahead regardless of any evaluation, financial assessment or feasibility study.

Is this Premier trying to distract people because his government has simply run out of ideas, or because it is under police investigation?

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

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: The NDP and Liberals are the same ones who said we couldn’t get shovels in the ground on the Ontario Line. They were the same ones who said we couldn’t get shovels in the ground on the Scarborough subway extension. In fact, that’s all they talked about is their opposition. They’re all talk. They couldn’t get shovels in the ground.

But under this Premier, we are delivering on the largest public transportation investment in the history of this country, this province and North America: $70 billion over the next 10 years. The Ontario Line will move 400,000 people a day, take 28,000 cars off the road.

Absolutely, we know what gridlock costs this province—$11 billion a year—and we will build that tunnel.

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

Ms. Catherine Fife: This province is still paying the price for the 407 sell-off, I will remind that member.

Last week, we learned a Hamilton woman had to go buy her own medical supplies because this government has neglected the home care system and created yet another crisis. This government has failed to invest in affordable and supportive housing, leaving vulnerable people sleeping in parks. You can’t even define what “attainable” or “affordable” is. Schools are flooding after every rainfall because this government refuses to clear the growing capital repair backlog.

This Premier has no money for the real priorities of Ontarians, but somehow—somehow—he found a billion dollars to subsidize a private luxury European spa; he found $4.3 million to fight an unconstitutional piece of legislation with Bill 124.

How much must the people of this great province pay for this government’s and this Premier’s incompetence?

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: We’re going to build for the next hundred years in this province. In fact, maybe the NDP should look at why construction workers are leaving their party in droves and joining the PC Party. It’s because we believe in building. We believe in building public transportation, $70 billion over the next 10 years. We believe in building highways. The Highway 413 Bradford Bypass project that the opposition talked about for 20 years, we’ve got shovels in the ground.

We’re going to get shovels in the ground and we’re going to do everything we can to keep this province moving. It’s about having a vision. Under this Premier, we’re building for the next generation.

Transportation infrastructure

Mr. Hardeep Singh Grewal: My question is for the great Minister of Transportation. The previous Liberal government ignored the hard-working people in Peel region and didn’t build the critical infrastructure we need. I constantly hear from my constituents in my riding of Brampton East that they’re tired of spending hours of their day stuck in gridlock. They want to see solutions and they’re looking to our government for action. That’s why it’s essential that we reduce congestion and get drivers moving to where they need to go.

Can the minister tell the House how our government is building new highways faster?

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: That member is absolutely right, and I want to thank him for all of his advocacy in pushing Highway 413 and ensuring that we continue to build the infrastructure for this province. Yesterday, we introduced legislation in this House that would help exempt early works from the environmental assessment process to make sure we get shovels in the ground in the coming year, because we know gridlock is at an all-time high. We’re losing $11 billion every single year to gridlock, and this party has a plan, this government has a plan, unlike the opposition, who don’t want to build.

They’ve opposed us on every single one of our projects, whether it be highways or public transit. The opposition have no plan and don’t want to build for the future. Under this Premier, we’re building for the next hundred years, and we won’t stop.

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

Mr. Hardeep Singh Grewal: Thank you to the minister for that response. Bonnie Crombie and her Liberals are happy to see Ontario drivers stuck in traffic. In her own words, she’s “never supported Highway 413.” The people of Ontario deserve better. Unlike the Liberals, our government is preparing for a massive population growth expected in our province. We’re providing transit relief that will make travel more convenient and increase opportunities, jobs and economic growth for all Ontarians.

Can the minister tell the House how our government is going to get drivers moving in Ontario?

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: We’re taking many measures to make sure we speed this up. With the introduction of yesterday’s piece of legislation, we can nominate projects to be a part of the highway priority projects across this province that will allow us to invoke 24/7 construction, and we’ve got a plan that fits across this entire province. Whether you’re from York region, Peel region, Durham region—we’re expanding Highway 7.

As the member said, the increasing population growth we have, the thousands of businesses that are investing in Ontario because of the plan that we have put forward in this government, we are going to continue to build. Whether it’s in the north to Highway 11, Highway 17, whether it’s the 413 or the Bradford Bypass, we are going to continue to build and ensure that we reduce gridlock across this province, that we increase productivity.

We want to make sure we don’t repeat the same mistakes of the previous Liberal government, which was to do absolutely nothing, build absolutely nothing. We are getting shovels in the ground, and we are building.

School facilities

Ms. Chandra Pasma: A safe school to learn in is the most basic expectation of a publicly funded education system, but under this government, parents can’t even expect that. Our kids are in schools with floods, mold, crumbling walls and ceilings, poor ventilation, malfunctioning fire alarms, and doors and windows that won’t open. That’s not even to mention the same kind of concrete roofs that shut down the science centre.

My question to the Minister of Education is, what’s stopping her from delivering safe, healthy schools for our kids?

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Our government consistently allocates $1.4 billion every year to schools, to boards to renew and make improvements on their facilities. That’s over and above the regular maintenance. These investments are used for such things as HVAC upgrades, for roof repairs, for maintenance of plumbing, electrical systems. In fact, as I toured the province this summer, I had the opportunity to visit some of our school boards where they are using those investments in their schools.

I visited St. Hilary Catholic school in Red Rock, which received funding for a new addition that created 23 new student spaces for their community. I also visited W.H. Ballard Elementary School in Hamilton, which is using our government’s investment to renew and update its HVAC systems. I even visited my own elementary school in Coldwater, where they have used their renewal money to make improvements to their school.

Unfortunately, Speaker, while we’re making the necessary improvements in schools, we have some school boards that are sitting on millions of dollars in surplus.

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

Ms. Chandra Pasma: If the minister really thinks her government is doing an amazing job, she will make good on her commitment to release the total school repair backlog so parents can judge for themselves what kind of progress this government is making.

Last week, the Leader of the Opposition joined me at Merivale High School in Ottawa, a school which has failed to meet federal safety standards for lead in drinking water on 60% of tests in the last five years. Merivale is far from alone. Nearly half of our schools in Ontario have not met federal safety standards for lead at least once in the past five years. This government is failing on the basics so badly that they can’t even ensure our kids are drinking water without lead in it. Why can’t you at least make sure our kids are drinking water without lead?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Education.

Hon. Jill Dunlop: As I mentioned, boards like the Toronto District School Board, who are sitting on a $300-million surplus, I would hope that the MPPs across in opposition would reach out to those boards and ensure that that money is being spent on those schools to do those upgrades.

But we actually have boards out there right now that think it’s okay for them to spend their surplus on things like fancy trips to Italy—$145,000 of taxpayers’ money. I have another school board that thinks that it’s fine to spend money to go to a ball game: $45,000. That’s taxpayers’ money. This money is to be spent on our schools, on our teachers and our students.

We are making the largest investment in education and the expectation is that that money is to be spent on student supports and teacher resources. We will ensure that we are continuing—we will be providing the largest investment in education in history.

Taxation

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. The Trudeau-Crombie carbon tax adversely affects every industry in our province. Our natural resource sector delivers the essential raw materials needed to build Ontario, from timber to sand, stone and gravel. But the carbon tax not only drives up the costs for materials, it also impacts the entire supply chain, resulting in higher costs for everything and affecting everyone.

Speaker, while our government continues to support businesses in this vital sector by cutting red tape and lowering regulatory burdens for job creators, we know that more needs to be done. That’s why we won’t stop until the federal government finally gets rid of this disastrous tax.

Can the minister share with the House what workers are saying about the Liberal carbon tax?

Hon. Graydon Smith: Thank you to the member for the question.

Speaker, last week, I was up in Sault Ste. Marie, where I visited businesses using our great natural resources here in Ontario to build Ontario. That includes Algoma Steel. The member is right that these businesses are hurting from the Liberal carbon tax.

But it’s not just the businesses that are hurting, it’s the great men and women who work at Algoma Steel every day. Before they go to work, they get up, they drive their kids to school and then they head off to work. After work, they pick those kids up and take them to hockey. It’s a driving community in Sault Ste. Marie. That’s what you need to do to get around.

These workers have to get to work. They have to help build this province, as I said. So they’re forced to pay that carbon tax every day. It’s unfair to businesses; it’s unfair to them.

If the Liberals really wanted to care about the environment, they would support our government’s efforts, support the EV sector, support carbon storage and support the largest transit expansion in this province’s history. Cut the gas tax. Support that and let’s get rid of—

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

The supplementary question?

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: Thank you, Minister.

Speaker, the carbon tax is making life more expensive for everyone across the province. It is not surprising that the Liberal members in the House, under the leadership of the carbon tax queen, are content to see costs increase. Our government recognizes that the hard-working people and business owners that power our economy have had enough. We are taking steps to reduce the burden on businesses and deliver relief to Ontarians.

Back to the minister: How does the Trudeau-Crombie carbon tax hurt industries in the natural resources sector and consumers across Ontario?

Hon. Graydon Smith: Not only is the carbon tax hurting consumers across Ontario, but again, when I was in Sault Ste. Marie, I met with our wildland firefighters and water bomber crews. Their quick response is essential during every fire season, and that’s why our government added four new helicopters and a new aircraft to that fleet, not only this year but for years to come.

But all those aircraft use fuel, and the Liberal carbon tax is dramatically increasing the cost of fighting fires in Ontario. It’s increasing the cost of communities protecting themselves in Ontario.

From the workers helping to build this great province to the water bombers protecting our communities from fires, that carbon tax has done nothing to reduce emissions and everything to reduce the cost of living and even the cost of safety. The case couldn’t be more clear: We need to scrap that Liberal carbon tax.

Home care

Mr. Jeff Burch: Speaker, through you to the Premier: Local nurses, front-line staff and patients have been calling my office in a panic for weeks because medical supply shortages in Niagara are so severe that patients are at serious risk. We have reports of towels being used to bind wounds for days because there are no bandages or gauze available. Front-line health care workers are scrambling to buy medical supplies on Amazon.

If the government can’t get the basics right—if we can’t even make sure people have access to basic medical supplies like gauze—how can anyone trust this health minister to get anything right?

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

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Speaker, I want to be clear: There is no world where it is acceptable for patients who are in-home—not ensuring that they get those medical supplies and drugs. We are working directly with Ontario Health atHome, with the vendor, to make sure that this situation is resolved as quickly as possible. We are telling them, we have directed them, that they must focus and prioritize individuals who are palliative or have drugs that need to be supplied. I cannot be more clear.

I agree with the member opposite, it is unacceptable, which is why we have been working, as soon as we realized there was a distribution issue, to make sure that this was resolved with this vendor.

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Home care is supposed to mean that people get nursing care that they need at home. That used to include medical supplies. This Premier’s home care system has become BYOB: buy your own bandages.

Sandra is an elderly home care patient in Oshawa who was made to spend $700 on her own catheters and ostomy bags. So my question is, should home care patients expect to pay out of pocket for medical supplies or are you going to pay Sandra back for her catheters?

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

The Minister of Health may reply.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I very clearly have shared and directed that any individual family, patient or caregiver who purchased medical supplies will be reimbursed because we know that it is not acceptable. We know that people are going to proactively make sure that their family members get the necessary supplies, but we also know that that must be covered. We have set up a process to ensure that they can do that.

I think at the core, we have to get back to the patients and understand that we want to ensure that those patients get the services and the supplies. And when we make investments in home care, when we make investments in ensuring that PSWs get appropriately compensated, we are ensuring that individuals have access to home care and community care, just as they do in hospitals and with our primary care providers.

Health care

MPP Andrea Hazell: My question is for the Premier. Across Ontario, including my riding of Scarborough–Guildwood, we are facing a critical shortage of doctors, especially in underserved areas. This forces more people to the ER as their conditions get worse. I visited an ER and I saw the devastation.

Under this Premier, there are over 2,000 patients per day who are being treated in hallways, entrances and stairwells. This shortage is placing an unsustainable strain on our health care system, leading to longer wait times, crowded ERs and leaving Ontarians without critical care.

Premier, how can you say you’re fixing health care while, under this government, the number of people unable to even get a room in a hospital has doubled and 2.5 million Ontarians don’t have a family doctor?

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

Minister of Health.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I understand the member opposite was not a member of the Liberal Party at the time, but in 2015, your government—under a Liberal government—eliminated 50 medical residency positions. What does that actually mean? It means that 450 physicians were not trained in the province of Ontario because the Liberal government made a choice—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: We have made a choice to expand medical schools in the province of Ontario—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Independent members, come to order.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: We have made a choice to expand the Scarborough Health Network to make sure that they have access.

We’re getting the job done because, frankly, for too many years, we saw people and we saw governments ignore what we all saw coming, which was an aging population and a population that continued to increase. You didn’t make the investments. We’re getting it done with medical—

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

The supplementary question?

MPP Andrea Hazell: Mr. Speaker, while long-term strategies are necessary, the 2.5 million Ontarians cannot wait without a family doctor. By 2026, that will rise to 4.4 million, or one in three Ontarians will be left without care.

Patients are experiencing a scary reality, and health care workers are burning out. You have an opportunity to take ownership of a failing health care system that you neglected. We need publicly funded, physician-led, team-based care to improve the retention of health care workers and to ensure sustainable quality care for Ontarians.

Again, how can the Premier say they are addressing the shortage of doctors, but under their Conservative government the number of Ontarians without a family doctor is higher than ever and doesn’t show any signs of slowing down?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. The House will come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. The clock’s ticking.

Premier.

Hon. Doug Ford: I just want to ask the member from Scarborough—where was their government for 15 years when people were in desperate need of building a Scarborough hospital? They didn’t fund it. And then, when we put it forward, they voted against it. Where were they when we created 3,500 more acute care beds that they have voted against, Mr. Speaker?

We have registered over 80,000 nurses that they were against. Remember, back in the Liberal days, they fired nurses. Along help with the NDP and the Liberals, you fired nurses. We’ve registered 80,000.

We’ve registered over 12,500 doctors—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Scarborough–Guildwood, come to order.

Hon. Doug Ford: We’ve increased the seats at the medical school in Scarborough.

We’re building a subway in Scarborough. They had 15 years to build it, but your party kept ignoring the people of Scarborough.

Interjections.

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

Hon. Doug Ford: Scarborough is no longer being ignored. They have a voice for the first time down at the province. We’re making sure that we have more long-term-care beds in Scarborough—

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

The next question.

Indigenous economic development

Mr. Steve Pinsonneault: Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Indigenous Affairs and First Nations Economic Reconciliation. The economic potential of Indigenous communities in Ontario is vast and diverse, from resource development, clean energy, tourism and innovation. Despite this potential, many Indigenous communities still face significant barriers, such as lack of infrastructure, limited access to capital and challenges in navigating complex regulatory environments.

While our government has made critical investments in skilled trades training facilities through the Skills Development Fund, many communities still need additional support. Economic reconciliation is a crucial principle as governments continue building better relationships with Indigenous communities to ensure a respectful, collaborative future.

Speaker, can the minister please share how our government enhances Indigenous economic development across the province?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The parliamentary assistant and member for Brantford–Brant.

Mr. Will Bouma: Thank you for the question. As parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Indigenous Affairs and First Nations Economic Reconciliation, as well as the Minister of Northern Development, this is top of mind for us.

Speaker, just last week I had the pleasure of speaking at this year’s Indigenomics conference, an annual conference that serves as an invitation for change-makers, innovators and leadership across corporate Canada, the financial sector, governments and Indigenous businesses to bring focus, meaning and visibility to the strength of the Indigenous economy and build bridges for impactful outcomes and economic reconciliation.

Did you know, Speaker, Indigenous economies across Canada are projected to reach a $100-billion valuation sooner than expected? Ontario is doing its part to help them get there. We are doing this through the Indigenous Economic Development Fund, the resource revenue-sharing agreements and the Indigenous Community Capital Grants fund, and through our work identifying economic opportunities at various relationship-building tables. I look—

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

The supplementary question?

Mr. Steve Pinsonneault: Thank you to the parliamentary assistant for his answer. Economic reconciliation is more than financial investment, it is about building true partnerships based on mutual respect and understanding.

Access to education, training and capacity-building initiatives is essential for Indigenous communities to engage fully in economic development opportunities. Yet many Indigenous communities in Ontario still lack adequate access to these vital resources. Without proper skills development and training, it becomes difficult for these communities to participate in and benefit from vital economic sectors. When everyone has the ability to participate in our economy in a full and meaningful way, our province and economy are more robust and better for everyone.

Speaker, can the parliamentary assistant elaborate further on what government programs provide much-needed investments for Indigenous workers?

Mr. Will Bouma: Thank you again for the question. Our government is on the right track when it comes to First Nations economic development. We recently announced $9.2 million in grants and funding to support economic development in Indigenous communities. These 48 projects are receiving support through three initiatives: the Indigenous Community Capital Grant Program and the Indigenous Economic Development Fund’s Economic Diversification and Regional Partnership Grants.

In my riding, this funding will support Six Nations of the Grand River in developing the detailed design of a learning and development centre. In Kashechewan First Nation, it means an investment into a feasibility study for a community training centre in the riding of Mushkegowuk–James Bay.

The member opposite has an opportunity to support First Nations workers in his riding, and my question to him is, will he?

Housing

Ms. Jessica Bell: My question is to the Premier. A Global News report revealed the Conservatives were about to permit fourplexes as of right to spur the construction of housing in towns and cities to make it quicker and easier to build more housing for people to rent and buy, but the Conservatives at the last minute couldn’t find the courage to make this zoning change.

It’s a low bar to meet, and you couldn’t meet it.

My question to the Premier is, what is stopping the Conservatives from permitting fourplexes as of right to help people find a home they can afford to rent or buy?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Once again I will remind the members to make their comments through the Chair.

Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Paul Calandra: I think I’ve answered this on a number of occasions. As the member knows, the vast majority of the province—80% of the province—has as-of-right four already. We have not seen the results that have come with both additional residential units or as-of-right four.

What we are hearing from the development in the home building community and from those who want to buy their first home is that the rapid increase in interest rates priced people out of the market and priced home builders out of the ability to actually get shovels in the ground. We are also hearing from a lot of the home builders that the challenges that they are facing with different rules in different municipalities is making it even more difficult for them to get shovels in the ground.

It is something that we are working very closely with municipalities on. We’ve told them that we will work co-operatively but we will act unilaterally, if we have to, in order to end the obstacles and the red tape to get shovels in the ground.

I am encouraged that interest rates are coming down but more work needs to be done so that people can afford to buy—

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Jessica Bell: Back to the minister: The fact is, whatever you are doing is not good enough because Ontario is not building enough homes to meet the need and housing has never been more expensive to rent or buy.

The Global News report also showed the government was finally looking at increasing density and permitting more apartments and condos near transit stations, but at the last minute the Conservatives backed down.

Again I ask, what is stopping this government from moving ahead with allowing more condos and apartments near transit stations so more people can find a home?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Absolutely nothing. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Infrastructure has a number of transit-oriented communities that she has been negotiating with home builders.

Speaker, as you will know, the new provincial planning statement encourages that development as well. In fact, that is the document that will guide the construction of new homes along our major transit station areas in co-operation with the work that the Minister of Infrastructure is doing.

But let’s look at what the member opposite is saying. We have said all along that when you increase costs, when you increase taxes, when you make it more expensive for people, things become more difficult. It becomes more difficult to build homes. It becomes more difficult for people to buy their first home. The policies of the NDP and the Liberals are just that. It’s about more fees. It’s about higher costs. When you run massive deficits, that leads to higher interest rates, and we saw the greatest increase in interest rates because of the failure of policies of the federal Liberal government, supported by this crew over here.

Finally, led by the Premier, interest rates are starting to come down, and we’re going to start to see more people in the market.

Mining industry

Mr. Michael Mantha: My question is to the Premier. Residents in my riding are concerned about a proposal to deposit radioactive material and mine tailings from the former Beaucage mine to the Agnew Lake tailings management area. Neither the townships of Nairn and Hyman or Baldwin were consulted before this plan was announced by the government, nor were First Nations whose traditional territories are on.

In a response my office received, the Minister of Mines said that Indigenous communities have been consulted. However, Ogimaa Corbiere of Aundeck Omni Kaning and Ogimaa Nahwegahbow from Whitefish River First Nation have both made it clear that their communities were blindsided by this project.

Speaker, this project has been under consideration for over a decade, but somehow there was no time to consult with communities and all First Nations who will be directly impacted by the work.

My question to the Premier: Why did this government fail so m