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

April 23, 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-Apr-23 vol. A (PDF)

L150A - Tue 23 Apr 2024 / Mar 23 avr 2024

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 23 April 2024 Mardi 23 avril 2024

Orders of the Day

Supporting Children’s Futures Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 visant à soutenir l’avenir des enfants

Members’ Statements

Porchlight Counselling and Addiction Services

Autism treatment

Police

Land use planning

Chad Bark

Affordable housing

Kawartha Lakes Dairy Producers annual banquet

Land use planning

Government investments

Pharmacists

Introduction of Visitors

Question Period

Wearing of kaffiyehs

Land use planning

Municipal restructuring

Taxation

Government accountability

Taxation

Affordable housing

Office of the Premier

Taxation

Public transit

Climate change

Taxation

Retirement homes

Taxation

Infrastructure funding

Petitions

Air and water quality

Road safety

Public transit / Social assistance / Health care

Missing persons

Opposition Day

Affordable housing

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

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

Orders of the Day

Supporting Children’s Futures Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 visant à soutenir l’avenir des enfants

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 22, 2024, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 188,

An Act to amend the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and various other Acts / Projet de loi 188, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2017 sur les services à l’enfance, à la jeunesse et à la famille et diverses autres lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): When we last debated Bill 188, the member for Ottawa Centre had the floor. He still has some time, if he chooses to use it.

Mr. Joel Harden: I’ll begin with a brief reflection on how this ended yesterday. This was a very emotional debate for me. I did not want to draw attention to myself in debate, but the issue of child protection is an urgent one.

I want to reiterate my thanks to the great Cindy Blackstock from the First Nations Caring society and Irwin Elman, who served the province with distinction for many years, for providing with me with the information to know my province a little bit better and to know my city of Ottawa a little bit better.

We all have those moments, I think, in this place where we reckon with the fact that the decisions we make have incredible gravity, particularly for people at risk.

I also want to note for the record a remarkable story running today in the Ottawa Citizen. It talks about the fact that thanks to a precedent in law known as the Gladue precedent, there’s a young man—young; the gentleman is 46 years of age—who has remade his life. Randy Kakegamick has remade his life thanks to a Gladue ruling. A Gladue ruling, if you’re not familiar, Speaker, is a way for Indigenous people who are caught up in our incarceration system as a result of lived trauma and behaviours negative to themselves and to the community—they’re given a new chance on life.

I want to salute Sofia Donato and Ali Adwan, two Carleton University journalism students who wrote about Randy’s life and who suggest to us that there’s a different way for us to reorient our child protection system so people are given the opportunities that we all deserve. I’m mindful of the fact, too, as I say that, that this, particularly, is a matter that the member for Kiiwetinoong has brought into this House a number of times—the fact that there remains a double standard in the funding of child welfare agencies.

Child welfare agencies, particularly as they function on-reserve, represent the latest form of colonialism that we have to reckon with, the fact that there are many children right now, as I speak these words, who are not being given the opportunities that many of us take for granted in our society.

I also want to say that, insofar as this bill is a step towards allowing people who have interacted with child protection to speak their truth, I want to salute the government for that; I want to salute the minister responsible for that.

I want to salute, in particular, Jane, working as Minister Parsa’s chief of staff, who herself, through lived experience, has walked this road and has decided to take the power available to her to push rights for people who have interacted with child protection and to have those stories guide our decisions. I think that’s a remarkable choice. I think it’s a terrific choice.

What I would implore this government to reckon with is the fact that Ontario, as a jurisdiction in our country, still ranks last on a per capita basis in how much we fund the children’s aid societies and child protection services; that we still are not doing enough to help, particularly, kids with disabilities, kids who interact with the criminal justice system, kids with violent behaviours, kids who come from families inherent with violence, who fall into a different category that is too often forgotten.

I’ll end—again, with the benefit of a little bit of time, and less charged with the emotion I had yesterday—to talk about David Roman, who we lost on February 19, 2019, when his life was taken by another youth at a Barrie for-profit group home. I want to reflect on the tragedy of not just David and the loss of David’s life; I want to reflect on the fact that Jordan Calver, the 23-year-old foster person assigned to that home, was given absolutely inadequate training to manage the behaviours in this group home.

Speaker, if you can believe it, Mr. Calver was hired over coffee in Barrie, was promised that all of the youth who were going to be admitted into this group home would not be exhibiting untoward, extremely violent behaviours. And that is absolutely not what happened.

David Roman’s parents are suing those responsible. Mr. Calver has a lawsuit before the province because of what he was put through. But none of that will ever bring David back. I salute anyone’s opportunity to find redress in court if they have been harmed. But none of it will bring David back.

What would bring people who are walking in David’s shoes right now—keep them in our province and keep them safe, is more funding towards non-profit, properly resourced child protection workers and real homes.

The foster families that exist all over this province, who do great good every single day—those homes deserve to have the resources they need. I believe every single person who puts themself forward to welcome someone into their home, to include them in their family, to give them a second shot at life, as one of the members said in debate yesterday afternoon from his experience—these are people performing some of the most exceptional modes of citizenship I can think about.

But I feel we are failing, quite frankly—and it has been remarkable for me to discover in debate—particularly Indigenous youth, Indigenous families, but also those who are put into situations that are unnecessarily harmful and violent.

So while I salute the government’s work to make sure people who have interacted with child protection can tell their stories, and I salute, in particular, those like Jane inside the minister’s office who have driven that change, I want to make sure that the province is putting the resources necessary to make sure we do not have tragedies continue in our child protection system.

I thank you for the opportunity to participate in the debate.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We’ll now have questions to the member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: Thank you to the member from Ottawa Centre for that passionate speech. You shared your personal story, and you also shared your friend’s story with us yesterday. Thank you for that.

This bill, the Supporting Children’s Futures Act, 2024, is all about protecting the children and youth in our great province. I know we not only have a legal responsibility; we have a moral responsibility to protect children and youth in our custody.

My question to the member—the higher rate of compliance would mean that young people in out-of-home care receive a consistently higher quality of care that is safe, supportive and responsive to their needs. Does the member opposite support stronger oversight and accountability for those providing care for Ontario’s most vulnerable young people in this province?

Mr. Joel Harden: I thank the member for his questions and his kind words.

Of course, we support, on this side of the House, more accountability and serious consequences for people who would harm children in our child protection system.

But I would invite a response from any of the members opposite, in this opportunity for debate: Why is it that we have a for-profit motivation in the child protection system? That is the question I’ve heard the member from Kiiwetinoong ask—and the member from Windsor West, and the member for Hamilton Mountain.

I believe, frankly, we are setting ourselves up for more tragedies if we allow for-profit operators to shortchange children, to harm children. And we now have incredible amounts of disturbing evidence that suggests it’s continuing to happen.

While I agree with the member’s question and I agree with what he’s seeking to do, if we don’t change the motivation of some of these homes in the system, we’re going to have more problems, and I invite reflection on that now.

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

Mr. Jeff Burch: I’d like to ask my friend from Ottawa Centre what is really missing in this act. There are so many things that could have been done to make life better in Ottawa Centre and across Ontario. What’s really missing that could have been addressed in this plan?

Mr. Joel Harden: Yesterday, I spoke about Amy Owen, who took her own life on April 17, 2017, in an Ottawa group home. She was relocated from her home at Poplar Hill First Nation. When I think about what could have been added to this bill to give Amy a shred of hope—it was services, it was support. She begged for help repeatedly. That’s what the APTN investigative journalism has uncovered in Amy’s tragic story. She begged repeatedly for help, but we were not there to help her.

I want to reflect on the fact that it is 2024 and we have a child protection system that continues to fail kids—particularly Indigenous kids—in need.

To the member’s question: We need to stop failing those children, and we need to make sure there are preventive resources ahead of time, so every community in this province has the capacity for people to heal. More punitive measures are not going to solve that problem.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Questions?

Ms. Jessica Bell: Thank you to the member for Ottawa Centre for your presentation. I want to raise some concerns that the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies raised. They talked about how, while this bill does something to improve people while they are in care, there’s nothing in the bill that addresses why children end up in care in the first place.

Can you speak to what you’ve heard from stakeholders or from your own experience in your riding about what we can do keep kids safe and loved in their families, in their homes?

Mr. Joel Harden: Thank you to the member for University–Rosedale for the question.

When I consider what Cindy Blackstock has said about this from an Indigenous perspective, it involves us doing right by our reconciliation treaty obligations. We’re failing those, too. Insofar as there are purposeful measures done by the federal government to this day that continue to underfund child protection in communities and allow people opportunities to heal—I believe that is a major failure that not only our province but the federal government has to share.

I would also say that in a context where one out of every seven kids is going to school hungry; in a context where so many people, as the member knows very well because she has spoken about it many times, cannot find housing, particularly supportive housing to go to when you’re trying to flee a context of violence—that is also a situation in which our housing policy impacts our ability to help children who are most vulnerable.

We need to do a lot more to make sure people can feel safe.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Questions?

Mrs. Robin Martin: Thank you to the member opposite for his statement this morning.

Yesterday afternoon, we heard in the Legislature from the member for Hamilton Mountain, who said that this legislation has taken a number of steps in the right direction, that this area has been neglected for years, and that we are doing good things in the legislation.

With that, I want to ask if you thought new enforcement tools proposed in the bill and more information about the track record of service providers with a history of non-compliance posted on the government’s website is a good step in the right direction, if you would support that, and if you want to tell us about any other parts of the bill that you think are worth supporting and a step in the right direction.

Mr. Joel Harden: Thank you for the question from the member for Eglinton–Lawrence.

One of the things that I particularly support in this bill, given the work that was done by the chief of staff to the minister from lived experience, is the fact that folks who have interacted with the child protection system can now feel absolutely no penalty to speak their truth. It’s remarkable, when you think about it from a legal perspective, that we’re asking people who have interacted with the child protection system to sign away their charter rights of expression. That is a remarkable thing, and I commend the minister and I commend this bill and I commend his chief of staff for bringing that forward, because it was unconscionable that that was allowed to happen in this province.

Do I support harsher penalties and more oversight of agencies falling afoul of our rules and regulations? Absolutely. But what I would like—listening to the advice I’ve received for the debate—is for us to be harder on the preventive end. When I heard the member for Kitchener Centre, who worked as a social worker before she came into this place, that’s what she said—she said that social workers are leaving the child protection system on the non-profit and public side because of what they’re seeing and because of the lack of compensation and support.

So there’s a lot we can do on the preventive side, in my opinion—to answer the member’s question—to make sure that those tragedies don’t happen and to make sure that people don’t fall down the hole of neglect that, sadly, exists in our child protection system.

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

MPP Lise Vaugeois: First of all, I want to thank my colleague for his words, and I also want to thank him for pointing out that for-profit has no place in the child welfare system. It’s a poor motive for providing the really important help.

I’d just like to mention Feathers of Hope, a program that Irwin Elman had in northwestern Ontario. This was where Indigenous kids who had been in care had a safe place to come together and talk with each other, and they also presented to the leadership of the community and told us their stories. It was extremely important.

Can you tell us anything else that a child welfare advocate would bring if we were to have that position again?

Mr. Joel Harden: I want to thank the member for Thunder Bay–Superior North for giving me the opportunity to underline the fact that something very positive the government could do to support this bill is to bring back an independent child care advocate in this province, as we had for many years. Feathers of Hope and other initiatives like that allowed youth the opportunity to speak in their own voice to heal—and I think you’re right; that is the most powerful thing.

Sometimes we can be penny-wise and pound foolish in politics. Sometimes we can think we are saving money on the front end, but we don’t realize all the things we are losing as a consequence of eliminating the office of the child advocate, which we have done.

So while I am happy with a lot of the thrust of this bill and what it does positively to make sure that the resources are given to the youth who need the help, bringing back the office of the child advocate and bringing resources right to the community so youth could speak their own truth to heal is critically important.

I thank you for the question.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Further questions? I recognize the member for Brampton North.

Mr. Graham McGregor: Good morning, Madam Speaker. It’s great to see you this morning.

Thank you to the member opposite for the speech earlier today.

My question is around some professionals in Ontario—teachers, physicians, social workers—who have an ongoing duty to directly report a child suspected to be in need of protection, which includes children who may have been harmed or neglected by their parents or caregiver. This bill proposes adding early childhood educators to that list of professions that should be reporting this when they suspect it. Does the member agree with that, and is that a good change being put forward?

Mr. Joel Harden: Yes, absolutely. That is an obligation that everybody who interacts with children and youth takes very seriously. My own partner is a psychiatrist. This is something that everybody should take seriously. We have to remember that the province is the parent for youth interacting with the child protection system. We’re the guardians. We’re the ones who have to make sure the resources go where they need. So, yes, the ECEs, as a result of this legislation, will have an obligation, but ultimately, it’s us—we have the obligation.

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

Mr. John Fraser: It’s a pleasure to speak to Bill 188, the Supporting Children’s Futures Act.

It’s always hard to follow my colleague from Ottawa Centre, and I’m sorry that I missed his debate yesterday.

I want to start with a little story. My dad worked with the Family Court in Ottawa in the 1960s, when I was growing up. He was what they called a probation officer. He was involved a lot with children in care and families struggling and children in trouble with the law. When I was about two years old, my mom and my dad decided that they would take up residence—that they would be the residential caregivers—in what was called the juvenile detention centre, which is now Eugene Forsey Park on Bronson Avenue. So I always like to say I was in the youth detention centre when I was two.

I remember the stories that my dad told me about the children in care and children who had run into trouble because they had no parent, they had no guardian. They were on their own, and they were at risk. When he talked about his career—he worked in criminal justice and parole—he spoke very fondly of the work that he did with families then and with children without parents, wards of the crown, and how important that work was. It was formative for me in understanding that there were children in the world who didn’t have parents like I did, didn’t have a family like I did. I was very lucky. In coming here, I keep that in my mind.

This bill is a good bill. I commend the minister for bringing it forward. Everything in here is supportable. I do want to raise a couple of things, though, that I think are important for us to remember.

First of all, my colleague from Ottawa Centre mentioned for-profit homes and for-profit agencies operating in this sphere.

We put forward these things that are a signal of our intent as to how important the care of a child who is in care, or a mom and dad who are in care in a long-term-care home—we put these things forward, and they’re important; they’re an expression of how strongly we believe people need to be treated. The problem is on the enforcement end—and again, this is all of us, all governments. We don’t do the job. It doesn’t get done. I’m not saying they’re empty promises because it’s a desire that we have to do the right thing, but we don’t go far enough.

And then the next problem with the enforcement is, we don’t put enough to prevent the things that we’re not enforcing; we don’t put enough resources towards it.

My colleague from Ottawa Centre, again, mentioned that social workers in the not-for-profit and public sector are not paid very well. This is really important work. These children in care are at great risk, and all of us here are responsible for them. We make the laws. We fund the services. We’re all responsible for them. So we all need to do a better job, and the government of the day, right now, has to say, “We put these things forward. We’re going to make sure that they work. We’re going to make sure that there’s enough there to stop the situations” like my colleague from Ottawa Centre mentioned that happened, that are so tragic. It’s really important that we do it.

The second thing I want to mention, because I think this is really important, is that in 2007, the province of Ontario established the office of the child advocate. When you hear “child advocate,” you think they are advocating for all children. Well, yes. But do you know who they were really there for? They were really there for children who didn’t have anyone else to speak for them; children who didn’t have anyone else. That’s what the office of the independent child advocate did. The government at the time thought it was wise to axe the child advocate.

Interjection.

Mr. John Fraser: Well, I’m sure. I guess you can probably give the Premier a call and ask him about that, because that’s what happened. They axed it.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Please direct your comments through the Chair.

Mr. John Fraser: Thank you.

Mr. Graham McGregor: You’ve been here long enough to know that.

Mr. John Fraser: I know. Thank you very much.

Interjections.

Mr. John Fraser: Speaker, I’d like to speak through you, but there’s this noise in the corner over here that’s very, very distracting.

I know it’s hard to hear, folks, but there’s a remedy. You can fix it. It’s not broken forever. Here’s the reality: We don’t like criticism. I don’t like the criticism I’m hearing right now. Nobody likes to be criticized. No one likes somebody shining a light on us coming up short. But do you want to know what, folks? All governments are going to come up short when it comes to this. We’ll never do enough, ever, ever, ever.

So we need people like an independent child advocate to speak up for children who don’t have a voice, and that’s their only job—not the rest of government. And kudos to the Ombudsman’s office for taking it on, but we need somebody whose job it is just to do that, nothing else. That’s why it was established. That’s why it was important. And that’s why it would be a really good thing, as my colleague from Ottawa Centre said, to re-establish an independent child advocate. I think we could all agree on it. Yes, we’re going to hear some things we don’t want to hear.

We’re going to hear some things that will make us uncomfortable—not just the government, but all of us. We need that. We need that because those children don’t have a voice.

The measures in this bill to make sure that children have the language of their choice in terms of being communicated to—that’s great. That’s really important. But what about hearing their voice? How do we hear their voice? We only will be able to hear their voice if we actually are intentional about ensuring that they have one, and that they have an independent one, and it’s one that reports to all of us.

I think what happened with axing the Child Advocate was something that was done in haste. You got rid of the Environmental Commissioner and anyone else who, at the time, would say something that would tell the government what they didn’t really want to hear or anybody else to hear.

It’s healthy to have critics. It’s healthy to have people who shine a light on things. It only makes us better.

I am going to support this bill. We’re going to support it. It’s a good bill.

Two things that the government needs to remember: All these new penalties, all these new laws don’t mean anything if we don’t enforce it, if we don’t put money behind it, if we don’t put money behind preventing the things that are happening from happening, if we don’t pay social workers enough, if we don’t ensure that there’s enough support—I don’t want to use the word “supervision.” We don’t supervise our children growing up, as parents. I don’t know what the right word to use is. Here’s the reality: Children in care—we’re their parents. We’re responsible for them. So if we’re going to put this law forward, we better put something behind it, all of us.

Number two: Children in care across this province need an independent voice. They need an independent child advocate because they don’t have a voice. I shouldn’t say they don’t have a voice. They have a voice, but they’re not heard. They need somebody whose only job is to say, “Here’s what’s happening over here. Here’s what’s happening to kids who are in our care. And here’s what needs to be done.” We may not like what they say. We may not like what we see. But it will only work if we force ourselves to listen and see those things that need to be fixed, even though they make us feel uncomfortable and coming up short.

I’m happy to take any questions.

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

Mr. Lorne Coe: I’m pleased to rise and ask a question of the member of Ottawa South.

One of the features of this legislation is that it creates new tools to ensure compliance, which will apply in every licensed out-of-home care setting. The new tools include orders to return funds, administrative monetary penalties and increased fines to ensure that it simply will not be possible to make a profit by providing poor care to children.

To my question, though, to the member from Ottawa South—Bill 188 proposes to entrench rights for youth overall. How are they doing that—the past relied on the Ombudsman Act. This particular legislation now would put that right within the Child, Youth and Family Services Act to remove any lack of clarity on the rights youth have with respect to the Ombudsman—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Response?

Mr. John Fraser: I thank you for the question.

As I said, we’ll be supporting this bill.

There was something you said that kind of stuck in my head, and that’s that people can’t make a profit from delivering poor care to children. Well, I’m not sure getting a profit in caring for children who are wards of the crown is something that we should be encouraging or doing—and again, that’s all of us. I’m not trying to point a finger over there. Governments have done that—started to do that. I think we have to not do that anymore and ensure that we’re working with people who aren’t making a profit, or we’re delivering the services ourselves.

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

Mr. Joel Harden: To my friend from Ottawa South, thank you for the remarks.

I’m wondering if, in this question and answer, we can brainstorm about other ways in which we can encourage people to become foster families, to encourage the creation of non-profit, safe homes for kids interacting with the child protection system.

Just as a thought exercise, I think about our great pension plans that exist in the province of Ontario and the fact that they need more contributors to survive, and that these huge pension plans—be they OMERS or HOOPP or teachers—need more contributors. So instead of having a for-profit element to the child protection system and thinking of incentivizing people to get involved on the basis of a money-making enterprise, what if we told foster families that they could be part of an established pension and benefits program maintained by the province of Ontario?

What if we brought that to Indigenous communities so people who made that sacrifice of opening up their family homes could enjoy a dignified retirement, thanks to their service, and the province had their back? That’s a way in which we can reward people who do this kind of caring profession. I’m wondering what the member thought.

Mr. John Fraser: I think that’s a very thoughtful and interesting idea. People need support. One of the things when you’re raising a family is—people look to have a pension. You work hard raising other children, often, on top of your own children. It’s a lot of work, and people do it out of love, but sometimes it becomes too hard. So, yes, I think that’s an idea that’s worth exploring. I think that’s very thoughtful. I hadn’t thought of that. Maybe that’s something that somebody on the other side can raise—and whether they think that’s a good idea or not.

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

Mr. Brian Riddell: I’d like to commend your parents for what they did. It’s wonderful to hear something like that.

This bill proposes a modern and flexible suite of tools that will empower the ministry inspectors to improve compliance rates among licensed providers of out-of-home care to children and youth. A high rate of compliance would mean that young people in out-of-home care receive a consistent, high quality of care that is safe, supportive and responsive to their needs.

Does the member opposite support stronger oversight and accountability for those providing care for Ontario’s most vulnerable young people?

Mr. John Fraser: Yes, I do; I just want to add in more prevention and enforcement.

I thank you for the question and your kind words.

I want to say something about my mom. My dad would not be there all day, so my mom was there. There was a cook, but she had three children under three. At the same time, there were a whole bunch of children who required care and required a parent—like a parent and someone there who was in residence. I sometimes romanticize it, but I’m sure, for my mom, with three kids under three, it was sometimes a lot to handle. I’m glad they did it.

Again, in coming here, there are a lot of things that we have to remember. That’s why the child advocate is important. We need to remember we have these children who are wards of the crown—that’s us, folks. That’s our job, so we have to strive to do better all the time. And as I said earlier, we’ll always come up short.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Question?

MPP Lise Vaugeois: Thank you to the member from Ottawa South.

I also want to thank the member from Ottawa Centre for your words earlier.

I want to put out a problem that I’ve encountered. I don’t know whether you can answer this or not. I’m aware of a family who was raising kind of an adopted niece—so it was sort of family. The niece got in trouble eventually, as a teenager, and needed addiction services, but the only way the family could get access to those services was to make her a ward of the crown. They could not access those services as the family who was actually caring for her. I’m wondering if you can speak to that, or perhaps this is something that could be discussed when this goes to committee.

Mr. John Fraser: Those are really terrible, awful situations that people find themselves in, and they’ve found themselves in it for a long time—as long as I’ve been working in this business, 25 years. We haven’t fixed that yet.

We have to do more to give families the support with regard to mental health and addictions. Again, it’s something we’ll come up short in.

Yes, it’s heartbreaking when you think that you turn any child over just simply because you couldn’t give them what they needed.

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

Mrs. Robin Martin: Thank you to the member from Ottawa South for his comments.

I appreciate the fact that you said it’s a good bill and you’ll be supporting the bill. We don’t have enough of the support that I would like to see coming from the other side of the Legislature on some of our bills, so I’m glad you like this one and you’re going to work with us.

In that regard, I think that the bill proposes a number of things that are very useful. One is that any appeals of the Licence Appeal Tribunal to the Divisional Court will not automatically result in a stay of decision. The Divisional Court would need to be satisfied that a stay would not pose a risk to the health, safety and welfare of a child. I would imagine the member agrees that the welfare of children and youth must always come first when considering matters of administrative fairness for service providers. I know you said that the money has to be there to make this a reality.

But I do think some of these changes, like this one, can also make things better. That’s what we do here in the Legislature—improve the legislation. Would you agree?

Mr. John Fraser: I know it’s important to improve the legislation, and it’s important to establish how seriously we take the care of children whose care we’re charged with. That’s why it’s a good bill.

The point I was trying to make about it—and it wouldn’t force me to vote against the bill—is that there are things that are missing in terms of the support that we need to prevent and to enforce. That’s not pointing a finger. It has been the constant problem with governments, not just in here, but across this country. That’s what my point is. We need to do better at that.

And it really would be good for all of us, no matter what side we sit on, to have an independent child advocate. Those children need a voice. Their voices are really hard to hear.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): We have time for further debate.

Mr. Brian Saunderson: It’s a pleasure to join the debate on this important legislation this morning, on behalf of the residents of Simcoe–Grey.

Bill 188 is titled Supporting Children’s Futures Act. I ask this House, what can be more important to our collective future than the well-being of our children? This question encompasses all children, including those at risk of abuse and neglect—in fact, probably particularly those children. It is said that a society can be judged by how it treats the most vulnerable, and I think we can all agree that our children at risk are among our most vulnerable. I appreciate the comments that I have heard from both my colleagues from Ottawa and their support for this legislation.

It is an ongoing and evolving sector, and this legislation is part of this government’s effort to continue to improve our services for our most vulnerable.

Protection services are mandated under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and these services are provided by children’s aid societies.

Licensed out-of-home care refers to the provision of care to a young person in a home or setting that is away from the home of their parent or guardian.

Children and youth are placed into out-of-home care for a range of reasons in addition to child protection concerns, including being in conflict with the law, human trafficking, complex special needs or mental health and/or addiction treatment needs.

Care may be provided in foster homes, children’s residences or staff-model homes. Most children placed in out-of-home care are cared for in foster care.

Children’s aid societies are also responsible for Ontario’s public adoption system, adoption planning, recruiting adoptive parents, training, matching, facilitative adoption placements and providing supports. Private and intercountry adoptions are managed by licensees under the CYFSA of the Intercountry Adoption Act.

Over 7,000 children and youth in care in Ontario are served by 424 licence holders, and 301 group homes serve approximately 1,680 children, and 4,038 foster homes serve approximately 5,700 children.

Speaker, our government has undertaken a comprehensive redesign of the child welfare system in Ontario, and we did this because every child and youth deserves a decent start in life and a safe and stable home, regardless of their circumstances. Through the redesign, this government has introduced new initiatives to improve the quality of care in out-of-home settings which include:

—developing a new framework for what out-of-home care looks like;

—increasing and enhancing oversight and accountability for out-of-home care;

—supporting that oversight by adding 20 new positions across the province to support the management, inspection and oversight of out-of-home care for children and youth; and

—launching the Ready, Set, Go program, which provides youth in the care of children’s aid societies with the life skills they need, starting at 13, and financial support when they leave care, up to the age of 23, so that they can focus on post-secondary education, including the skilled trades, or pursuing employment.

In addition, we’ve implemented these initiatives after consulting widely in the community and with these service providers to better serve children and youth and understand their needs; and bolstering customary care arrangements to focus on family-based options, like kinship and foster care, to ensure children, youth and families have a strong voice in decisions about their care.

We have worked extensively on improving the quality of the child welfare data to establish a baseline of common measures across children’s aid societies that can be reported publicly. We all know that data is important to measuring our evolution and our progress, and what gets measured gets accomplished. And along with that, we have developed an outcomes-based performance measurement framework.

Speaker, we have also updated the Child, Youth and Family Services Act to better protect youth in care from human trafficking. Through those changes, we have made the role of children’s aid societies clear so they can intervene in situations where a child is a victim of sex trafficking or is at risk of being trafficked—and we know this is an ever-present and ever-growing trend. We have allowed child protection workers and police to remove 16- and 17-year-old victims of child sex trafficking, to voluntarily access protective measures and supportive resources.

And we have increased penalties for traffickers who interfere with or harbour children who are subject to an order of supervision or care by a children’s aid society. These changes have strengthened children’s aid societies’ ability to intervene in child sex trafficking, made the role of societies in these cases more clear, and promoted consistent responses across the province.

With the Supporting Children’s Futures Act, we are continuing this hard work to build on what our government has achieved, and moving forward towards an Ontario where no one is left behind.

Speaker, as part of the development of Bill 188, this government consulted across the child welfare sector to develop the measures contained in this bill. Ministry staff held over 30 virtual engagements with various stakeholder groups, including youth with lived experience. We have also engaged stakeholders through the Ontario Regulatory Registry, where we received over 35 written submissions on the proposed changes.

As a result of this consultation process, Bill 188, at its core, is about protecting children and youth in Ontario’s care today, through new measures for safety, service, oversight, accountability and privacy, and providing better opportunities for children and youth who are in care in Ontario today to thrive as the adults of tomorrow, as they grow.

Speaker, if passed, this bill will protect children and youth in care and provide them with a better future by strengthening oversight and enforcement tools for out-of-home care, protecting privacy of youth formerly in care, and updating the Child, Youth and Family Services Act with lessons learned since it became law. The proposed changes in this bill will improve safety and independence for children and youth in care and assist them in moving on from care. In the short term, these measures will ensure safer and more consistent services for children and youth who need to live away from home.

In the longer term, these measures will ensure these children and youth will be better prepared for adulthood and for success in their lives.

We are strengthening oversight for a number of critical reasons. To make sure applicants are fit to provide quality care, this bill proposes a more thorough application process and new powers to refuse a licence on several grounds, most importantly in the public interest. To ensure all children and youth in care receive safe, high-quality services, this bill proposes to increase accountability for all operators. This includes requiring inspectors to take certain actions when they find non-compliance.

In addition, we are introducing a better range of penalties, including compliance orders, administrative monetary penalties, and enhanced charges with larger fines.

All members of this House have seen the shocking instances where some providers have failed to provide high-quality care. And our government has been very clear that there is no room in our province for these bad actors who do not operate in compliance with the law.

As a result, this bill proposes new, high impact enforcement tools to root out bad actors, such as:

—an order for funding to be returned where a licensee has failed to use funds in accordance with the terms of service agreement for a child;

—an order for new management for an out-of-home care setting; and

—restraining orders which would restrain individuals employed or otherwise engaged by the licensee to provide direct care to or supervise a child or a young person in a children’s residence where there are reasonable grounds to believe that there’s an imminent threat to the health, safety and welfare of any child or young person by that care setting.

We’ve also introduced a new type of order, compliance orders, which would instruct the licensee to do something or refrain from doing something to achieve compliance.

We are creating new provincial offences for people in the sector who violate a youth’s rights to be free from corporal punishment, physical and mechanical restraints, and detention.

And we are enhancing the penalties for provincial offences under the act to fines of up to $250,000, imposing imprisonment for a term not more than one year, or both; and for a corporation convicted of offence, fines of up to $250,000. We are also introducing new administrative monetary penalties of up to $100,000.

Bill 188 proposes a number of important procedural changes to existing processes which include the following:

—for inspectors to follow certain steps when they find instances of non-compliance during inspections;

—for inspectors to conduct an investigation with a warrant when there’s reason to believe an offence has been committed;

—changes to the appeal process for licensing decisions, conditions, suspensions and revocations, and ensuring that any appeals of these decisions will not automatically result in a stay of the decision; and

—changes to the appeal process to require the applicant or licensee to file more information with the ministry, to clarify what constitutes evidence before the tribunal, and to clarify the orders that the tribunal can make following an appeal.

These changes are crucial new tools to uphold service providers to the high standard of care that our children and youth deserve and our government expects. These new and enhanced penalties give ministry inspectors a more responsive and useful range of tools to use when they find a service provider that isn’t consistently complying with the requirements and providing the best care for their wards. The offences are new. The fines are new or enhanced. The amounts are raised by orders of magnitude sufficient to deter service providers from thinking they can profit by providing poor or dangerous care.

Speaker, this act also strengthens the privacy of the individual children and youth. To protect the privacy of the children and youth once they leave care, this bill restricts access to records held by the children’s aid societies about a child or youth once they are no longer in care. These changes aim to enhance the privacy of children and youth with a history in the child welfare system by restricting access by others to their child welfare records, through regulations to be developed.

This bill will also enable adults with a history of child protection involvement to publicly identify themselves and speak about their experiences.

These are important changes. It is important that children who grow up in these types of environments have the same rights as others to talk about their past, to talk about their experiences and to move forward in their lives. This change clarifies an ambiguity in the CYFSA that permitted the

interpretation that former children and youth in care were breaching their own privacy by talking publicly about their past experiences in care. This clarification aims to better protect the privacy of adults who were former children and youth in care by restricting access to their records by others, while permitting them to speak freely about their lived experience, as can any of us in this House. This clarification gives former children and youth in care the same right to speak about their childhood as everyone else.

Through Bill 188, we are also updating the Child, Youth and Family Services Act to make it clear and consistent across the sector. Bill 188 proposes to establish clear and consistent practices in the Child, Youth and Family Services Act through a number of new measures. This bill has provisions that will permit information-sharing between children’s aid societies, the College of Early Childhood Educators and the Ontario College of Teachers, to enable timely action when there is an allegation of a risk to children involving a teacher or an early childhood educator. This information-sharing would support investigations or hearings by the professional colleges.

Speaker, this change will also expand the current list of professionals who can receive personal information from children’s aid societies, beyond regulated child professions, social workers and social service workers, to include teachers and ECEs.

If passed, this bill will clarify that ECEs are a profession with a duty to report children in need of protections. Currently, under our system, only ECEs working in designated roles have an explicit duty to report. This change will also mean that ECEs who fail to report a child in need of protection may be subject to penalties, like the other professionals who have this obligation.

The bill will also enable the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers to share information about its members with bodies that govern other professions and with others such as children’s aid societies. Currently, the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers is not permitted to inform other parties that an investigation against a member is under way unless the member consents or until the investigation concludes. The college itself has requested this change, to be more consistent with other health professionals whose professional colleges are able to disclose information in a timely manner to reduce or eliminate the risk of harm.

Another important aspect of Bill 188 is to clarify the circumstances when children and youth must be informed about their rights to complain to the office of the Ombudsman. Currently, the Ombudsman Act guides how and when children and youth in care are informed about the office and the role of the Ombudsman. Currently, service providers rely on the CYFSA and not the Ombudsman Act to determine their responsibility to children and youth in care, and this creates a gap so that not all service providers, let alone children and youth, are aware of their right to contact the Ombudsman.

We believe that by clarifying these obligations in the CYFSA in Bill 188, we are ensuring that all licensees will be aware of their obligations and able to utilize them if necessary.

Bill 188 will enhance transparency in reporting by allowing sector workers to file enabling offence declarations, to ensure that everyone who needs to provide a police record check as a condition of their employment is able to notify their employer if there is any change in their record between the required updates.

Speaker, there are also a number of actions that are not in this bill but that are contained in recently filed regulation changes. Our government has been clear that Bill 188 is an important step in the child welfare design process. That is why, in tandem with introducing this bill, we filed two regulations—namely, O. Reg 155 and O. Reg 156—that will come into force on January 1, 2025, containing a number of new measures, including the following:

—mandating information-sharing between children’s aid societies and the ministry about specific health and safety risks to children in licensed out-of-home care settings;

—requiring information-sharing between different children’s aid societies, as needed, to support service planning of children placed by one children’s aid society into the jurisdiction of another;

—requiring children’s aid societies to visit children in their care placed in out-of-home care more frequently, so every 30 days instead of every 90 days;

—requiring unannounced in-person visits by children’s aid societies in certain circumstances; for example, if a visit cannot be scheduled because the society was unable to contact the child or the caregivers, or if there are concerns related to the well-being of the child; and

—clarifying and enhancing rules prohibiting certain methods of discipline in licensed settings, like rules prohibiting the use of derogatory or racist language directed at or even used in the presence of the child;

—requiring licensees, their staff, and others to report to the ministry where there are reasonable grounds to suspect the use of prohibited methods of discipline in a licensed setting;

—requiring that licensees ensure that staff and foster parents providing out-of-home care do so in accordance with the licensee’s program description set out in their application;

—enhancing rules for record-keeping of financial arrangements with respect to the provision of licenced out-of-home care for the child;

—requiring bedrooms in children’s residences to have doors, to provide a reasonable degree of privacy;

—requiring bedrooms in a foster care home to have a physical or visual barrier, to provide foster care children with reasonable privacy;

—providing clarity in cases where there is a conflict between the regulations applicable to licensees and recommendations made by the local medical officer of health;

—enhancing rules on financial reporting to be prepared by licensees;

—clarifying the rules governing the use of physical and mechanical restraints by foster parents; and

—adding new provisions to set out offences for contravention of rules specific to the use of physical and mechanical restraints, prohibited methods of discipline and intervention that may be used in licensed out-of-home care settings, and nutrition and food to be made available to residents in licensed children’s residences.

Speaker, these are all changes that are part of our evolution ensuring that all children in this province have the best start to set them up for a successful and prosperous future—and from the conversations we’ve had this morning, we all can agree that is of critical importance.

I want to thank Diana for sharing her lived experience. It’s part of the evolution, and this government is committed to—

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

Ms. Jessica Bell: Thank you to the member opposite for your presentation.

I would like to draw attention to some feedback that the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies gave on this bill. While the overall intent of the bill is certainly supportable and there are some wise changes here, the society raised the issue of how we stop children from ending up in this situation in the first place.

What steps is this government looking at taking to ensure that children don’t need to end up in care?

Mr. Brian Saunderson: Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

As we heard in earlier discussion, from the member for Ottawa Centre, these types of issues become very difficult. We know that parenting is not an easy thing and there are many stressors—mental health, addictions, financial—that often compromise families’ abilities to care for their child, so this government is working on supports, through mental health funding in our schools, working on funding other support services.

But ultimately, in the case where a child needs protection and needs be put in foster care, this legislation is designed to ensure that we have a fulsome and robust system.

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

Mr. Lorne Coe: In this legislation, we’re proposing changes that would, if passed, further restrict access to the child protection records of children and youth formerly involved in the child welfare system.

Could the member from Simcoe–Grey—through you, Speaker—provide more detail about those proposed changes, please?

Mr. Brian Saunderson: I want to thank my colleague for the question.

This is a very critical piece of this legislation. It is enhancing protections of privacy for children who grew up in foster care, while at the same time permitting them the freedom to speak about their lived experience in the system, which is a critical part—and it’s a right that all of us enjoy. So at the same time, we’re increasing the protections to make sure that only those who are authorized have access to records in specific circumstances, while allowing the individual to speak about their lived experience in the system.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I thank the member for his presentation.

Like my colleague said, it is very important to keep people out of the care system in the first place.

The member referred to investments in mental health care as a way of keeping children safe and in a situation where they can stay at home.

Could you tell us what scale of funds are being invested and what results have been seen from the work that you’ve done to this point?

Mr. Brian Saunderson: I thank the member for the question.

We know in this House that things like human trafficking and sexual exploitation are growing concerns. This government passed all-House legislation to make sure that those suffering, who have been exploited and have been trafficked, are able to have debt released so that they are no longer controlled by the offender, and we have expanded the Victims’ Bill of Rights to allow those to pursue their traffickers. And we are working, through a number of mechanisms, through the Associate Minister of Mental Health, through the Minister of Education, to ensure that there are supports to help those who are at risk deal with their issues, before having to be transitioned into this system.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Question?

Ms. Patrice Barnes: Thank you to the member for the presentation.

I think the point of this bill is that the health, safety and well-being of children is paramount whether they’re in care or not. It’s crucial that as a Legislature and a society, we do everything in our power to ensure that’s the case. This bill proposes to take many steps towards that goal.

Could the member please expand on what regulations are currently in place to ensure those who work with children at risk are qualified to do so?

Mr. Brian Saunderson: Thank you very much to the member for Ajax for her question.

As I indicated, in parallel with this legislation, we have introduced two new regulations, O. Reg. 155 and O. Reg. 156, that are enhancing these protections and making sure that we are putting in place better application processes to vet those who are applying to be foster parents, that we are better monitoring their actions. And through enhanced inspection procedures through this bill, if passed, we will be making sure that we’re inspecting homes every 30 days, as opposed to every 90, and that we continue to work to monitor.

As has been indicated, while putting these kinds of provisions in place is a good start, without the corollary of enforcement to make sure that people abide by those new measures—we have enhanced penalties significantly to make sure that youth are protected and served properly.

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

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Thank you for the presentation.

There is an overrepresentation of Indigenous children in the child welfare system in Ontario, but also across Canada.

Are there any plans to update the 1965 welfare agreement?

Mr. Brian Saunderson: I want to thank the member opposite for that question.

We know, in our past, that those situations were not handled well.

And I know that, currently, the Indigenous children’s aid societies make their own placement decisions without interference from the province, and that the law requires children’s aid societies to place children in safe and culturally appropriate settings.

In response to the question, I can indicate to the member opposite that the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services has indicated that he has been in discussion with chiefs and that they are working on those very issues.

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

M me Dawn Gallagher Murphy: We know that children and youth involved in the child welfare system have already faced a lot of challenges, well before the time that they interact with the children’s aid society. Unfortunately, a lot of these youth often experience worse outcomes as they move through their lives. Our government has put in a year’s worth of work to reverse that trend.

My question to the member is, how will these proposed changes actually help our children and youth?

Mr. Brian Saunderson: Thank you very much for that question.

The aspects of this legislation are very far-reaching in terms of—yes, as I indicated—the O. Reg. changes, making sure that the applicants are vetted so that the homes are appropriate and the care that they’re going to receive is constantly monitored, and increasing inspections and increasing the number of inspectors across the province. We’re also enhancing our fines to make sure that there is punishment and consequences for the bad actors. We’ve enhanced the penalties significantly, and we’ve changed the appeal process.

So this legislation is doing things right across the spectrum, from vetting applicants, to the care that the child receives while in foster care, as well as making sure that there are enhancements to penalties to punish those bad actors.

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

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Remarks in Anishininiimowin. Good morning. It’s always an honour to be able to rise in this place to represent the people of Kiiwetinoong, but also the people who do not have a voice, such as children, such as people who do not have an opportunity to be able to say anything in this place.

I want to acknowledge what many of the people who live in Kiiwetinoong, 65% of whom are Indigenous, might think of when you mention the child welfare system. Earlier, I asked a question to the other side, to the member who did their 20 minutes—that there is quite a bit of representation of our children, of our people, in this place.

I know, when I see this legislation, to me, growing up, but also the teachings that we have—we’ve always, as First Nations people, as Anishinaabeg, Anishininewuk, had our own laws. Before settlers arrived, as First Nations people, as Anishininewuk, we did not write a lot of things down, but it was through stories; it was through talking to people, that those were our laws. I know that sometimes nowadays we try to create our own laws.

And I remember when the minister came to KI last year around February or March, when he became the minister, when he signed off the agreement with the Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug Onaakonikewin. That was a good trip. It was the first time I saw the feds but also the provincial government, the First Nations—where they recognized Indigenous laws, First Nations laws, on how they are going to take care of their own children. They had their own laws. So I think it’s important to acknowledge that.

Every day, I talk about the impacts of colonialism, the impacts of oppression, the impacts of racism on Indigenous people. Every day, it’s the children who suffer first. I think, when we talk about the First Nations within Ontario, the care system represents the continuation of a history of colonial governments taking our children away, whether to force them to go to Indian residential school or placing them for adoption in mostly non-Indigenous homes.

Speaker, I’d like to remind the House: During the Sixties Scoop, around 16,000 Indigenous children were taken away from their families. They were taken away from the teachings. They were taken away from the ways of life and the ways of being. That is an example of the assimilationist policy that has caused repercussions and intergenerational trauma to this day. I see it. I see it when you see children that go missing.

I remember I was at this chiefs’ meeting one time, and there was First Nation leadership from my riding—they were under the child welfare system. She had five children under the age of four. She had no idea where they were—somewhere in Ontario; that’s all she knew. As a First Nation leader, she had no idea where those children were, and that should not happen—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): I apologize to the member, but we are out of time right now. It is time for members’ statements.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Porchlight Counselling and Addiction Services

Mr. Brian Riddell: Today, I would like to speak about Porchlight Counselling and Addiction Services. What began in 1940 as a community support group for families who suffered losses during the Second World War has become a beacon of hope for many individuals and families in Cambridge and North Dumfries.

Porchlight Counselling and Addiction Services offers a wide range of support to those young and old in need of help with addictions, family relationships, anxiety and depression. Led by executive director Cameron Dearlove, Porchlight is a safe space where counselling and addiction services are improving the lives of countless people in my riding.

Porchlight has many funding partners to assist in the delivery of its programs, but it still counts on the generosity of donors and successful fundraising events.

This coming Saturday, Cambridge Moves for Mental Health will be held in support of Porchlight. The event will kick off at Cambridge Civic Square, followed by a walk through historic downtown Galt. Those who can’t participate can still donate by contacting the centre.

In my role as MPP, I’ve witnessed first-hand the good work that Porchlight does for Cambridge and North Dumfries, as well as the level of support it has among our residents.

I want to thank Cameron and his team and wish them good luck in raising the $25,000 goal they have set for this weekend’s event.

Autism treatment

Mr. Jeff Burch: April is Autism Awareness Month.

According to the Ontario Autism Coalition, there are over 60,000 children waiting for core services. After six years of broken promises, so many children are now aging out of the eligibility requirement for the Ontario Autism Program after receiving no core services.

Just the other week, I spoke to Thorold resident Angelo Dosa, whose autistic son Jonathan, 18 years old, has now aged out of the program. As we sat at Angelo’s kitchen table, he told me that Jonathan was diagnosed with low-functioning autism when he was three years old. He has turned 18, is now considered an adult, but cannot care for himself. Angelo says Jonathan is now on Developmental Services Ontario’s housing list. The waiting period could be anywhere from two to 10 years.

Speaker, the Ontario Autism Coalition is here at Queen’s Park tomorrow. It is my hope that government members will listen and meet with delegates and parents like Angelo to educate themselves on the resources and investments needed to address this crisis. We can do better for Jonathan and his family.

Police

Ms. Patrice Barnes: Today, I want to welcome Inspector Shaun Carter and Detective Sergeant Michael Baggio in the audience today.

I would like to take this time to acknowledge the life-saving efforts of Durham regional police and the officers who work in west division.

On January 16, fire and police responded to a fire in a two-storey home in Ajax where three individuals were trapped inside. Officers arrived on scene, scaled the backyard fence and heard a woman calling from the second floor who was holding a three-year-old child. The officers communicated with the mother in a very chaotic situation and encouraged her to drop the child to the officers below. One of these officers was there to catch the toddler amid toxic smoke and flames. Luckily, the child only suffered minor injuries. Unfortunately, the father remains in hospital, and the mother is recovering from her injuries.

This is just one example of the dedicated and heroic actions that our police officers perform day after day.

The Solicitor General and I had the opportunity, with MPP Coe, to visit west division to say thank you to these officers.

I want to give a shout-out to the team: Constable William Woodstock, who caught the child; Constable Josh Brown; Constable Nathan Fulford; Constable Joseph Lang; Constable Jacob Ohara; Constable Hasan Shafiq; Constable Mark Alarcon; Detective Constable Hannah Elkington; and Constable Richard Armstrong. Thank you for all you do every day.

Land use planning

Ms. Catherine Fife: I am honoured to rise today to speak about a very important issue that is setting a dangerous precedent here in Ontario: the expropriation of prime farmland in Wilmot township.

Back in March, Wilmot farmers were told of the region’s plans to purchase 770 acres of their land. If the landowners refused to sell, they were told that their land would be expropriated.

Remember that Waterloo region’s official plan accommodated all anticipated growth in the region until 2051 without significant farmland loss.

This government’s current legislation makes it possible for what is happening in Wilmot to happen anywhere in Ontario, with no transparency and no community consultation.

The region is actually, right now, operating under an NDA. There are no answers, no information coming from the regional level of government.

Stewart Snyder, a landowner and farmer says, “Something’s not right. We’re not just being mistreated as farmers and landowners, but the whole community is being left in the dark about what’s going on.”

On Friday, the NDP leader and other NDP MPPs, including myself, held a town hall in Wilmot, and almost 500 people attended.

This is very clearly greenbelt 2.0. We the official opposition will get to the bottom of this, just like we did with the greenbelt, and we will continue to fight for farmers in Wilmot.

Chad Bark

Mr. Brian Saunderson: I rise this morning to salute and pay tribute to a distinguished resident of Simcoe–Grey, Chad Bark, who passed away this month at the age of 99. Chad was a true member of our greatest generation; he was a gentleman, an accomplished athlete, a decorated World War II veteran, a devoted husband and father, and a friend.

Chad; his wife, Lyn; and their four children, Barbara, Susan, John and Don, were family friends and our neighbours in the Toronto neighbourhood that I grew up in.

In 1944, at the age of 18, Chad enlisted, hoping to be a pilot. However, he was deemed ineligible because he was colour-blind, and he joined the army corps. He was shipped to England in the spring of 1944, arriving on May 6, one month before the D-Day invasion.

Chad was assigned to the signal corps and the cipher group, where his job was to create and decipher codes to ensure communications were secure on the front lines.

After celebrating VE day in Manchester, England, he returned home to work in his father’s business, marry his sweetheart, Lyn, and raise four children.

A proud Canadian, Chad was a candidate in the 1974 federal election, running as a Progressive Conservative under the leadership of Robert Stanfield—the best Prime Minister we never had. I am so proud to say that I worked in his campaign, putting up Chad Bark signs. It was my first foray into politics and, clearly, it made an impression. I had the great fortune to reconnect with Chad 48 years later, when campaigning in the last provincial election. He was a constituent living in Alliston, and he returned the favour by campaigning vigorously in his seniors’ home, where he organized a meet and greet.

Speaker, my condolences to the Bark family on the passing of this remarkable man.

Farewell and Godspeed, Chad.

Affordable housing

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Everyone has the right to an affordable home, but in my community, it’s harder than ever to find that affordable home. Oshawa has experienced some of the most dramatic rent increases in the province. Between 2014 and 2023, the cost of renting increased by 61%. That’s more than Toronto, and nearly four times the government’s rent increase guideline.

My office regularly hears from families, students and seniors who are struggling to find safe and suitable housing that fits their budget. The money people used to be able to spend in our community or save for the future is now going towards keeping the roof over their heads.

This affordability crisis has left too many people out in the cold. The region of Durham has reported a 67% increase in homelessness over the past year.

The John Howard Society of Durham Region has worked with our unsheltered neighbours for years. Their director of housing services, Geralda Bray, told the CBC, “We were able to find housing in the past and we were able to house at least some people. But now, we’re finding it just so difficult to house people because they can’t afford it.”

We have to do better. People deserve safe, clean, accessible homes that they can afford. We need public, non-profit, and co-operative housing. We need non-market housing. We need fourplexes and real rent control.

The Ontario NDP is calling on this government to get back to building homes, not just talking.

People in Oshawa want to see government do something real about this housing crisis.

Housing is not a developer wish list. Housing is a human right.

Kawartha Lakes Dairy Producers annual banquet

Ms. Laurie Scott: I was happy to attend the recent Kawartha Lakes Dairy Producers annual banquet and awards at the Woodville Legion. We got to honour and thank our local farmers for producing such high-quality milk, most of which is delivered directly to Kawartha Dairy, where it is made into their famous product, Kawartha Dairy ice cream, which we’ve all enjoyed right here in the Legislature and across the province.

Our featured speaker was Kawartha Dairy’s general manager, Brian Kerr, who highlighted their plans for continued expansion in Ontario. With 11 stores across the province, the most recent in Burlington, where their first month sales projections were met in just eight days—not surprising. Two more stores will be opening soon, one in Cobourg and one on the Danforth.

Their success is not only about the taste, but the experience shared by generations of families—the best marketing tool you can have.

Kawartha Dairy is in their 87th year, 100% owned by the Crowe family, embodying the legacy of quality and service.

Kawartha Dairy was also named Canada’s safest manufacturing employer and Canada’s safest employer for young workers in 2023. They’ve developed extensive training and mentorship programs. They employ 225 full-time staff and provide jobs to 200 students annually.

I’m always proud to be the MPP who represents Kawartha Dairy.

Land use planning

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: On Friday, hundreds of residents from all across Waterloo region gathered in Wilmot to speak for farmers, to protect our farmland.

With the Get It Done Act, we are getting it done wrong—disrespect to our farming communities through policies that encourage expropriation, threaten good planning that prevents sprawl, and override regional planning. They threaten our groundwater, making it saltier and threatening the recharge. And it has the speculators circling, making farmland prices explode and threatening the future of this $50-billion economy.

The 500 people who gathered in Wilmot rallied together in support of our farming community.

Government investments

Ms. Donna Skelly: It is my absolute pleasure to rise today to discuss a recent funding announcement in my riding of Flamborough–Glanbrook.

On April 12, alongside the Minister of Education, I announced that our government is investing over $31 million in the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board for the new Waterdown Bay Elementary School and an addition to Mount Hope Elementary School. This investment will support the creation of 682 student spaces and 176 licensed child care spaces for my community. Parents and representatives from the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board have been influential throughout the process. They have been strong advocates for our community and demonstrated our need for this funding.

Due to its unlimited potential, Flamborough–Glanbrook is one of the fastest-growing communities right across Ontario. By investing in early learning, we are laying the foundation for the next generation of leaders and innovators to build on this success.

Schools and access to child care are important for Ontario’s students and parents. Our students deserve to learn in state-of-the-art, modern facilities.

Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes the importance of getting new schools and expansions to existing schools built as quickly as possible for our growing communities.

Pharmacists

Mr. Anthony Leardi: On Sunday, I had the pleasure of going to a brand new cafe in my riding, the King Street Café. It’s in Harrow, Ontario, and it’s being opened by my constituents Lisa and Geoff. On my way, I got a call from one of my constituent friends who was supposed to meet me there. She said she got pink eye and she couldn’t make it. She was going to go see a doctor to get a prescription for her pink eye. I said, “You don’t have to do that. You can go straight to a pharmacist.” She said, “Are you sure?” I said, “Of course, I’m sure. You don’t need a prescription from a doctor for pink eye.

Go straight to your pharmacist and get treatment.” Well, sure enough, 20 minutes later, that constituent called me back. She said she got her treatment. She was very happy that she didn’t have to go to a doctor, and now she is recovering from that very minor ailment.

In fact, in Ontario, you can get treatment for 19 common ailments, including pink eye, diaper rash, insect bites, hay fever and acne. It’s all about getting convenient care closer to you, where and when you need it.

That’s important for my constituents in Essex county, because we live in a rural area, and we would rather go to the pharmacist than waste a trip to the doctor for something simple like that.

I would like to thank the Minister of Health for introducing this very practical and useful program that makes health care more accessible and easier to get for my constituents in Essex county.

Introduction of Visitors

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: I’d like to introduce and acknowledge Audrey Lo, a page from my riding, as well as her mom, Nicole, who is visiting today, as well as the grade 5 classes from Maurice Cody public school in my riding.

Mr. Andrew Dowie: I’m wishing a warm welcome to a tremendous leader from Windsor-Essex, a true role model for so many in our community and someone who truly keeps on giving back, through and through, through her community leadership. I’d like to welcome Helga Reidel to the chamber today.

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: Today, I’m so proud to welcome my constituent Fikayo Aderoju, recipient of the Ontario volunteer medal for founding his amazing organization, Project Impacting Lives, which has helped countless individuals and families experiencing homelessness in the GTA and beyond.

Welcome again to Queen’s Park, my friend.

Mr. Kaleed Rasheed: It is an honour to welcome today’s page captain, my daughter Mariam Rasheed. I’m so proud of her and the great work she is doing at Queen’s Park.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: I want to welcome the Rehman family, who are with us today. Thank you for your leadership with Humanity First. We welcome you to the people’s House.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s very important. Today, in this Ontario Legislative Assembly, someone is turning 43. It is the member from Windsor, who worked on my first campaign in 2006. He doesn’t look a day older than when he was at Carleton University—

Mr. Andrew Dowie: Ottawa.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: —University of Ottawa. I just made the biggest fatal mistake that anybody could make in the city of Ottawa.

Happy birthday, Andrew Dowie.

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: I just want to wish all those of the Jewish faith a celebratory beginning of Passover.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Introduction of visitors? That concludes our introduction of visitors.

The Leader of the Opposition has informed me that she wishes to raise a point of order.

Ms. Marit Stiles: I seek unanimous consent that this House acknowledge that the kaffiyeh is a culturally significant clothing item to many in Ontario’s Palestinian, Muslim and Arab communities and should neither be considered an expression of a political message nor an accessory likely to cause disorder, and should therefore be permitted to be worn in the House.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Ms. Stiles is seeking the unanimous consent of this House that this House acknowledge that the kaffiyeh is a culturally significant clothing item to many in Ontario’s Palestinian, Muslim and Arab communities and should neither be considered an expression of a political message nor an accessory likely to cause disorder, and should therefore be permitted to be worn in the House. Agreed? I heard some noes.

The member for Ottawa South has informed me he has a point of order he wishes to raise.

Mr. John Fraser: I seek unanimous consent that, notwithstanding standing order 100(a)(iv), five minutes be allotted to the independent members as a group to speak during private members’ public business today.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Could I please have a copy of the request for unanimous consent?

Mr. Fraser is seeking unanimous consent of the House that, notwithstanding standing order 100(a)(iv), five minutes be allotted to the independent members as a group to speak during private members’ public business today. Agreed? I heard a no.

Mr. John Fraser: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Ottawa South, I believe, has a second point of order.

Mr. John Fraser: I seek unanimous consent that, notwithstanding standing order 45(b)(iv), eight minutes be apportioned to the independent members as a group for debate on opposition day motion number 4.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Once again, could I have a copy of the request for unanimous consent?

Mr. Fraser is seeking unanimous consent of the House that, notwithstanding standing order 45(b)(iv), eight minutes be apportioned to the independent members as a group for debate on opposition day motion number 4. Agreed? I heard a no.

It is now time for oral questions.

Question Period

Wearing of kaffiyehs

Ms. Marit Stiles: This question is for the Premier.

Calls and messages are pouring in from all across Ontario from Ontarians who are shocked to learn that people are being prevented from wearing cultural attire in the Legislative Assembly.

After the Premier publicly acknowledged the ban on wearing the kaffiyeh was unnecessarily divisive, we gave him a chance again today to do the right thing and reverse it. Yet again, his Conservative members have said no.

Will the Premier stand behind his words and compel his caucus to support the freedom to wear cultural attire at Queen’s Park?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: I think the Premier was abundantly clear in how his views were on that.

I will say to the Leader of the Opposition, it is not in the tradition of the Conservative Party to compel its members to do anything. There was a free vote, and members expressed—members on whatever side of the House expressed their opinions on that. So I can assure the member opposite that we will not be compelling our members to do anything. It’s not what Progressive Conservatives do. We allow them to represent their communities.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, Ontario is a place where different cultures are celebrated—celebrated. We work to uphold the values of diversity and to understand the pain that communities feel when they are not represented.

We observe truth and reconciliation day to acknowledge the impact of colonial oppression and the erasure of and, at times, criminalization of cultural symbols.

Will the Premier support the freedom of cultural expression and stand with thousands of Ontarians who want to see the reversal of the kaffiyeh ban?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Again, the Leader of the Opposition opposite will know that this is, of course, a decision that was made by the Speaker.

Interruption.

Hon. Paul Calandra: At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I’ll continue on.

We have amongst us the most diverse caucus in the history of this province—

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): This House stands in recess for 15 minutes.

The House recessed from 1040 to 1055.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: This morning, I planned to meet with the Arab Canadian Lawyers Association, but as they walked into Queen’s Park they were barred from entering this building because of their cultural attire.

In this week alone, the Premier made a public declaration about the need to reverse the kaffiyeh ban, but his members blocked it. He has admitted he thinks his own post-secondary legislation is an overreach, but his minister doubled down and forced him to recant. Question period is just not long enough for me to capture the full list of this Premier’s policy reversals and flip-flops.

Ontarians are the ones who are paying the price here.

Is the government caucus losing faith in their Premier, or has the Premier lost faith in his caucus?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition shows today why she can never lead the province of Ontario, because what she has chosen to do is to attempt to divide Ontarians.

I come from a caucus that is the most diverse caucus in the history of this province.

I don’t take any lessons from the Leader of the Opposition when it comes to how marginalized people feel. I’m an Italian Canadian who, in the 1970s, was spit on for being a “wop.” I don’t need any lessons from her on what it means to stand up for marginalized people. I do it every single day, and so do the rest of my caucus mates. We bring people together; we don’t divide them.

Ms. Marit Stiles: I’m pretty sure we were the ones who weren’t divided, but there you go.

Land use planning

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, this question is for the Premier.

Ontario’s agri-food sector not only feeds us; it adds $48 billion to Ontario’s economy. But to this Premier, rural Ontario is just empty land to punch holes in or pave over, especially when his friends stand to profit.

I asked the Premier three times yesterday why farmers in Wilmot are being threatened with expropriation if they don’t hand over their land for some sort of secret industrial development. The Premier didn’t answer, and his minister couldn’t even bring himself to use the words “farmer” or “farm.”

Why is the Premier repeating the mistakes of the greenbelt scandal with this latest attack on Ontario’s farmers and prime agricultural farmland?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply, the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, we know that farmland is critical to the success of our agri-food industry. That’s why we’re taking a balanced approach, working with communities to find the right balance.

Just look at what happened in St. Thomas: 1,500 acres of land was assembled with no expropriations. That allowed Volkswagen to announce their gigafactory—3,000 jobs, 30,000 indirect jobs. To get there, we introduced Bill 63, and that was able to change the way municipalities were handling the real estate in their areas. It facilitated Volkswagen coming here. The bill was supported by both parties.

Why are they not supporting us today?

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, I’ll point out to the minister that those were willing partners.

There are lots of places in Ontario that would be excellent sites for a new industrial facility. But the Premier wants to put it right in the middle of some of Ontario’s most productive farmland. There is no planning study to justify this. There is no agricultural impact assessment. And the Premier has no idea what impact an industrial site will have on groundwater or the surrounding agricultural systems, or how much it’s going to cost to run infrastructure out there.

Speaker, with so little information available to the public, can the Premier tell us why this site was chosen over all of the available sites in the province, and who stands to actually benefit?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, again, I refer back to the deal that was made with Volkswagen—1,500 acres.

Bill 63 was supported by both opposition parties. It’s very unclear why they’re so dead against advancing today.

Look at Windsor as an example. They made sure their land was assembled, and as a result, NextStar, there, invested $5 billion in their plant. That’s bringing 2,500 good-paying jobs to the Windsor region and tens of thousands of indirect jobs. I flew over Windsor, took a photo of that massive site, landed and toured that plant. There are 1,400 Ontario men and women working inside that plant, to build that plant today. That’s the result of being proactive and looking for these lands.

The Premier has asked these municipalities, “Assemble your land, and be part of the success of Ontario.”

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: How is it that some people seem to know what’s going on here, but the people who are going to lose their livelihood, their farms, aren’t given any information? It’s outrageous.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture says that we’re losing 319 acres of farmland every day in this province, and here’s this government, doubling down with their anti-farmer sentiment and a new land grab in Wilmot—

Interjections.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Oh, yes, it is.

People are tired of this.

The Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario and the Ontario branch of the farmers’ union have called the government’s decision “shameful” and “short-sighted.”

Why does the Premier keep attacking the province’s farmers and prime farmland?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Again, we know how critical farmland is, and that’s why we are taking a balanced approach.

The members opposite have opposed every economic development in our province at virtually every opportunity they got.

We have tens of billions of dollars of new job-creating investment in our pipeline. The Premier said to municipalities, about a year ago, “Start assembling land in your regions if you want to be in on all of the jobs that are coming to Ontario,” and communities all across Ontario are assembling land. We put a template together. Municipalities are eager to get in and list their property, list the development sites that are available. They’re hungry for these jobs. They’re hungry to assemble shovel-ready sites.

Speaker, we’re decades behind our biggest competitor in the US, and for that reason, we have a dedicated team who are taking all of these responses from municipalities.

Municipal restructuring

Mr. Jeff Burch: Speaker, my question through you, to the Premier, is around his government’s flip-flop on the Hazel McCallion Act, an ill-conceived and poorly-thought-out plan by the Premier to dissolve Peel region—a plan that resulted in chaos and an exodus of qualified staff.

Yesterday, taxpayers in Peel region were outraged to learn from the Toronto Star that they’re on the hook for a $1.5-million bill from the Peel transition board for “efficiencies.” Local leaders who only met with the four-person board once said it has been a “non-transparent process,” and residents are now being forced to pay for the indecisiveness of the province.

Does the Premier feel it is fair for property taxpayers in Peel to pick up a $1.5-million tab for his poor performance?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: I appreciate the question from the member opposite, because it further highlights just how out of touch the NDP are with the priorities of the people of the province of Ontario.

In fact, the councillors and the regional councillors in the area have been kept well-informed. The mayors, of course, in those areas are very supportive of what we are doing, which includes downloading municipal planning to the lower tiers. But the highlight of what the transition team is doing is helping us inform the work that is being done by the parliamentary assistant on governance reform, which I thought the members opposite were in favour of.

What it ultimately wants to accomplish is to ensure that we can do the number one thing that matters to the people of the province of Ontario, and that is build the infrastructure that is needed so that we can build not hundreds of homes, not thousands of homes, but millions of homes across the province of Ontario. I know the member opposite is opposed to that, because in his own area, when they had the opportunity to approve housing, a council stood in the way of it, said no to affordable housing, and he stood quiet and said nothing. But I’ll provide an MZO and make sure it happens.

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

Mr. Jeff Burch: Speaker, as reported by the Toronto Star, the board billed the region with two invoices, one for $858,000 and a second for $635,000. Councillor Medeiros said that it’s unclear who is getting paid and for what. “We don’t know how these board members were selected. How much are we paying them? Now they apparently hired consultants. How much are they getting paid, and for what? We don’t know anything.’”

Speaker, through you to the Premier: Will he admit there is nothing efficient about this fiasco, and will his government pick up the tab for hard-working Peel taxpayers so they are not on the hook for his mistakes?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, do you know what Peel taxpayers want? What they’re getting. Do you know what they’re getting? They’re getting a 413 because of the Minister of Transportation. They’re getting a brand new hospital because of the hard work of the members of this caucus from Peel region. That’s what Brampton is getting and Mississauga is getting—hospitals; they’re getting long-term care; they’re getting transit and transportation.

Do you know who never delivered any of that, Mr. Speaker? The Liberals and the NDP, who stood in the way of everything to help improve Mississauga, Caledon and Brampton.

So what are we doing? Millions of dollars in infrastructure—we’re repairing the infrastructure that was so damaged by the previous government. We’re building roads, highways, universities—I forgot about the university campus, the medical school that we’re building.

I think we’re delivering for Peel. And do you know who’s doing it? The members of this caucus from Peel region.

Taxation

Mr. Stéphane Sarrazin: My question is for the Minister of Energy.

At a time when people in our province continue to face high interest rates and rising cost of living, the federal Liberals plowed ahead with their plan to hike the carbon tax by a staggering 23%. It was a cruel April Fool’s joke to play on Ontarians, but it was one that we will all remember.

The dire effects of the carbon tax are felt by our agriculture and trucking industries. When farmers who grow the food and truckers who transport the food are taxed, these extra costs are passed on to our consumers as they purchase daily necessities.

This is ridiculous. The federal Liberals need to eliminate this tax today.

Can the minister tell the House how the federal carbon tax hurts farmers, truckers and families in Ontario?

Hon. Todd Smith: The minister from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell is right again this morning, and as a matter of fact, it was a cruel joke on April 1—but it was no joke. The federal carbon tax, supported by the queen of the carbon tax, Bonnie Crombie, and her Ontario Liberals, went up by 23%—which, incidentally, is where they’re at in the polls, 23%. The worst part of this story is that on April 1 next year, the carbon tax is going up again.

We don’t need a carbon tax. We have a plan, as a matter of fact. We’re refurbishing the Pickering nuclear station. We are refurbishing Darlington. We’re refurbishing Bruce Power. We’re building small modular reactors at Darlington.

As a result of all that, last week I was at a great announcement at BWXT in Cambridge with a couple of my colleagues, and the Premier was there later in the day—an $80-million investment creating over 200 million jobs.

We have 76,000 people working in our nuclear sector in Ontario, and it provides almost 60% of our baseload power every day that is emissions-free.

We don’t need a carbon tax. It’s time to scrap Justin and Bonnie’s tax.

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

Mr. Stéphane Sarrazin: Thank you to the minister for his response.

The escalating fuel costs are burdening individuals and families across every community in Ontario.

With summer quickly approaching, it’s not fair that Ontario families have to worry about taking children to sports practices and enjoying road trips.

The people of this province have had enough of the Liberals’ fiscal mismanagement. The federal Liberals and their provincial counterparts continue to push forward ideas that cost Ontarians.

Unlike the Liberals, our government remains committed to making life more affordable and protecting people’s hard-earned money.

Can the minister tell us more about what our government is doing to counteract the federal carbon tax and bring Ontarians real financial relief?

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks very much again to the member.

We’re doing a lot. We have reduced the cost at the pumps by 10.7 cents a litre until the end of this year. We’ve brought in One Fare—the minister here is outstanding, saving those who ride transit $1,600 a year. We’ve scrapped the tolls. We’ve scrapped the licence plate fees.

We are doing everything we can to ensure that life is more affordable for the people of Ontario, but the queen of the carbon tax, Bonnie Crombie, and Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh—the NDP and the Liberals teaming up again to make energy more expensive.

We have a plan. It’s called Powering Ontario’s Growth. I talked about the nuclear investments we’re making.

Last week, I was in Niagara Falls at the Sir Adam Beck facility, announcing a big refurbishment there: 1.7 gigawatts of clean, reliable, affordable water power that’s going to power our province for the next 40 to 50 years; new transmission lines that are better connecting the north to the south, to those in Indigenous communities, so those in northern Ontario can participate in our energy sector.

We have a plan. It doesn’t include a punitive carbon tax.

Government accountability

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Premier.

Speaker, this government’s scandals didn’t start with the greenbelt. A few years ago, the government was embroiled in controversy when they attempted to get accreditation for a private evangelical school led by the Premier’s close friend Charles McVety, who was well known for his anti-LGBTQ and Islamophobic statements. The government even put forward legislation to allow the school to be able to hand out bachelor degrees. Today, that same school is one of the very few private colleges that will get international students under the new cap.

Can the Premier tell us whether McVety’s insider connections played a role in his allocation of international study permits?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: Speaker, I remind the member opposite that this House and this government turned down that application. But what you’re seeing again today is a continued effort by the NDP to divide people.

What we’re going to continue to do, on this side of the House, is focus on the things that matter to the people of the province of Ontario: job creation, economic growth, giving people the homes and the housing that they need so that they can prosper, and bringing people together, because that is what we have done since day one.

In 2018, when we assumed office, Ontarians were more divided than ever before. We inherited a province where people were choosing to eat or heat their homes; 300,000 people had lost their jobs. Our budget was out of control. We were the most indebted sub-sovereign government in the history of the entire planet.

We are bringing people together, making investments to create jobs—700,000 people have the dignity of a job who didn’t have that before. We’ll continue to focus on bringing Ontarians together, leading the country in economic growth so everybody can prosper.

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: What divides this province is giving international study permits to a private college whose president is well known for his hateful rhetoric, at a time when this House is planning to dictate anti-hate policies on public campuses.

Speaker, a lawsuit on the matter of McVety’s school revealed a recorded call with a Conservative minister who said that he would guide McVety through the process of accreditation and ensure that McVety got where he wanted to go.

We now learn that McVety’s school is the beneficiary of another favourable decision by this government.

Again, to the Premier: Was preferential treatment involved in the government’s decision about which private colleges would receive international study permits?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Colleges and Universities.

Hon. Jill Dunlop: The member knows that we turned down that PEQAB application.

But I think what’s more important here is that this government is standing up against anti-hate on campuses across Ontario and ensuring that all students have access to safe campuses across the province.

Mr. Speaker, what I want to talk about and what I think we need to focus on are the huge, historic investments that are being made in post-secondary education—$903 million to ensure that our institutions have a financial path forward, and ensuring that students are supported along that way.

The bill reflects on the anti-hate measures but also on the mental health supports that are available on our campuses.

We are making investments in additional STEM seats. We are supporting our schools. But I think more importantly, we’re not doing it on the backs of students.

Unfortunately, under the Liberal leadership, we saw the highest tuition in all of Canada.

This Premier and this government stood up to support students by decreasing tuition by 10% and ensuring that it was frozen.

Taxation

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade.

We know that the people of Ontario are finding it difficult to deal with the rising cost of living. That’s why our government has taken action to put more money back into people’s pockets, through cutting the gas tax and introducing the One Fare program.

Our hope is that all levels of government will join together and be aligned with our approach as a government.

Instead, the federal government is doing the opposite of what our government is doing. The Liberal government is taking more money out of people’s pockets because of their federal carbon tax. And yet, Bonnie Crombie and the Liberals who are in this chamber continue to refuse to stand up for the people of Ontario and tell them to scrap the tax.

Minister, can you outline to the House how the carbon tax is hurting the progress we’ve made for Ontarians?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, when businesses look around the world today, they see these heightened geopolitical tensions, lots and lots of uncertainty all around the world. But when they look at Ontario, they see this sea of tranquility; they see this endless opportunity for hope. They know things have changed now that the Liberals are gone.

Ontario is no longer the high-tax, uncompetitive jurisdiction it once was when the Liberals were in government. We’ve lowered the cost of doing business, we’ve reduced red tape, and we’ve made sure that the conditions are there for businesses to succeed. As a result, companies from around the world have flooded into Ontario to set up shop.

The Liberal carbon tax is an attempt to take us back to those days when the Ontario economy was staggering. We ask that they listen to the workers, listen to the businesses.

Scrap the carbon tax today.

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

Mr. Steve Clark: The Ontario Liberals are exactly the same as the Trudeau Liberals. They both endorse the same high-tax policies that chase jobs and chase businesses out of our province. They’re happy to take more money out of the pockets of workers who earned it, and they’ll do it at every opportunity that presents itself. That’s exactly what they’re doing with the federal carbon tax. It’s driving up the price of everything. As a result, workers will be left with less money in their pockets. Despite calls from across Canada to scrap the carbon tax, their budget, last week, reaffirmed that they’re going to proceed with hiking the tax each and every year.

Can the minister outline and highlight our government’s position on taxes and the fact that it’s much, much different than the Liberal government approach?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, there is a fundamental difference in our approach and the Liberals’ approach. We believe that a dollar left in the pocket of workers who earn it is better than a dollar in the government who taxes it.

For families, more money in their pockets means the opportunity for their kids to enrol in recreational activities; for young people, it means being one step closer to their dream of home ownership; for entrepreneurs, it means more money to scale up their companies and hire more of our trained workers.

The Liberals are ramping up their carbon tax because they think they know how to spend money better than the people who earned it.

Speaker, we’re asking the federal Liberals to give the people of Ontario a break and scrap the carbon tax today.

Affordable housing

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Meegwetch, Speaker. Remarks in Anishininiimowin . Good morning.

There is a housing crisis in the north. Kiiwetinoong and other areas need 1,500 housing units to clear the wait-list for affordable housing.

So I ask, why is Ontario putting the federal funding that can help the north with new affordable housing at risk?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: I do appreciate the question from the member opposite, but Ontario is actually not putting the federal funding at risk. What has happened is, the federal government has unilaterally changed its mind on what we should fund.

As the member opposite will know, the National Housing Strategy was a 10-year strategy which was guided by a couple of principles: building additional units and renovating old units. Ontario had a target of 19,000 new units over 10 years. We’ve hit 11,000 of those 19,000 units. We had a target of 23,000 renovations. Because of the horrific record of the previous Liberal government, we have had to spend an exorbitant amount of money renovating and rehabilitating stock that would otherwise have been taken out of commission.

We’ve done that in co-operation with the service managers, including many of the service managers in the north, and what we have done is renovate, rehabilitate and put back into circulation 123,000 units; that’s 426% of our target.

What we won’t do, though, is what the federal government is asking us to do right now—unless members agree, of course: to remove the power from our municipal partners and the service managers and direct what should happen in the north and in other parts of the province. We’re not there—

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

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Speaker, again, there’s a housing crisis in Kiiwetinoong, not only just in urban areas, but also on-reserve. The need for housing is very high across Kiiwetinoong. I have people who are living in canvas tents in the north. The housing supply in the north doesn’t meet the demand. As I said, there are 1,500 families waiting for affordable housing, and we cannot continue to play games with the federal government.

Can this government work with the federal partners to ensure that we get the funding needed to address the housing crisis, and that we make sure there is affordable housing in the Kenora district?

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

Hon. Greg Rickford: I won’t repeat what my friend has said in the previous answer, but I will say this: We are aware that some of the isolated First Nations communities’ populations are shrinking. Those folks are moving to towns and cities in the southern part of northern Ontario, the Kenora and Thunder Bay districts respectively.

That’s why we recognized that there needed to be an enhancement in our investments in the Indigenous Supportive Housing Program, and to the tune of nearly a 40% increase; that would be $41.5 million annually. We have really good relationships with administrators on the ground who are trying their best and, frankly, doing well at meeting those demands.

Back to the isolated communities: It’s our hope—and I hope it’s the same for the member opposite—that by improving economic prosperity in our isolated communities, by thinking about all-season roads and increasing the number of communities that have access to clean, affordable, green electricity, and advancing some resource projects throughout northern Ontario, we will be able to come up with alternative solutions to build affordable housing in isolated communities in northern Ontario. We will have a more equitable sense of economic prosperity for all folks who live in northern Ontario, especially in the isolated communities.

Office of the Premier

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: The spring budget plans spending $214 billion of taxpayer money, more than any government in Ontario history. Never has a government spent so much to deliver so little. And why is that? Because this Premier and his government are conducting a gravy train deluxe that delivers taxpayer money to their friends and insiders at the expense of the people of Ontario.

Speaker, who benefits from this budget? It’s not our public education system. Teachers spoke about that yesterday at the finance committee, during budget hearings. It’s not our public health care system. Doctors spoke about that too, yesterday. In fact, the OMA is so fed up with not being heard by this government about the crisis in family medicine that they are trying to get the government’s attention by saying they need to “prepare for the coming apocalypse,” all while this Premier spends money hand over fist in the Premier’s office on expensive staffers.

My question to the Premier: When will he take control of his own office and stop the gravy train?

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

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Oh, Mr. Speaker, where do I begin? This is incredibly rich.

Clearly in this budget, we have a path to balance, the only major province—and certainly, the federal government does not have a path to balance.

Mr. Speaker, coming from the previous Liberal government—they had 15 years. They racked up their spending. They racked up the debt.

I’m going to ask this House: Did we get more subways from their 15 years? Did we get more hospitals? Did we get more transit? Did we get long-term-care beds built? Did they build the houses? No, they did not, because they wasted taxpayer money.

That’s the difference between our government and their government. We’re getting it done for the people of Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Supplementary question.

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: We know the Premier loves to say, “Sorry, folks, I made a mistake.” The PCs are even running ads saying so. But the gravy train in the Premier’s office is about more than a simple mistake. It’s about more than doubling the number of friends and insiders working for him who make over $100,000 a year. It’s about more than the fact that he has 48 people working for him who make more than the average Ontario household. It’s also about the lack of transparency in his budget and his government’s reported spending on his office.

While the Premier has spent $4 million on expensive staff in his office for at least the last three years—$6.9 million this year—the budget does not show that. The budget has been exactly the same—$2,432,661. The math just doesn’t add up.

My question to the Premier: Where is he hiding the money?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. Order.

The Minister of Finance can reply.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Mr. Speaker, I’m going to do something her party never had the opportunity to do, when they closed 1,600 schools, for example. I’m going to praise this Minister of Education for building more schools faster for the people of Ontario.

I’m going to praise this Minister of Housing, who is getting all types of houses built right across the province. I’m going to praise this Minister of Economic Development, who is building economic prosperity right across the province. I’m going to praise this Minister of Health, who is getting more hospitals built and supporting our health care system. And then, I’m going to turn to my right, and I’m going to praise this Minister of Transportation, who is building highways, the 413, and transit right across the province.

But I’m not going to stop there. I’m going to go to the Minister of Energy, who is building nuclear—including Pickering, Darlington and Bruce Power—right across the province; and finally, the Minister of Indigenous Affairs, who is building the Ring of Fire in the Far North and bringing prosperity to the north.

Taxation

Mr. Will Bouma: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Speaker, access to reliable, affordable and clean energy continues to be a key driver for Ontario’s economic growth and electrification.

At the same time, our government is ensuring we are using every tool in our tool box to save Ontario households money, especially during a period when families are struggling as a result of the Liberal carbon tax.

On April 1, Ontarians woke up to the worst April Fool’s Day joke, as the federal Liberals hiked the carbon tax by 23%. This is just the next step in their disastrous plan to nearly triple this tax over the course of the next six years, making everything more expensive for everyone in our province.

Can the minister please tell the House how our government is ensuring that Ontarians have access to clean, reliable and emission-free energy, while the opposition wants to take a step backwards and lean on a terrible carbon—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

The Minister of Energy.

Hon. Todd Smith: Mr. Speaker, I can. We have a plan. It’s called Powering Ontario’s Growth, and it does not include a carbon tax. As a matter of fact, we are completely opposed to a carbon tax, especially the one that went up 23% on April 1, led by Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh and supported by the queen of the carbon tax, Bonnie Crombie.

We are bringing in clean, reliable, affordable and safe nuclear energy by refurbishing the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station, Darlington, Bruce. All of those major component replacements are ahead of

schedule and on budget, and they’re providing 50% to 60% of our electricity going forward—and not just that: Because of the work that’s being done on those refurbishment projects, we are very comfortable in moving Ontario forward as a world leader on small modular reactor development. As a matter of fact, we have the first SMR under construction at the Darlington site right now—something all of us in this Legislature should be very proud of.

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

Mr. Will Bouma: Thank you to the minister for his response.

Unlike the previous Liberal government, which saddled families with sky-high hydro bills, our government is taking a thoughtful approach that keeps costs down for people and businesses and delivers energy security.

I am proud to be part of a government that has been a strong advocate for Ontario’s incredible nuclear industry and the skilled tradespeople who work in it.

Speaker, it is disappointing to see the NDP and the Liberals in this Legislature completely neglect Ontario’s nuclear industry and, instead, support a carbon tax that burdens families not just in Ontario, but all across this great country.

Unlike the opposition, our government will continue to fight the costly Liberal carbon tax and put more money into people’s pockets.

Can the minister please explain how our government is supporting Ontarians and our nuclear industry?

Hon. Todd Smith: Speaker, we won’t be introducing a carbon tax.

As a matter of fact, every single Premier in Canada is against Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax, including the Liberals and the NDPers.

We won’t be bringing in a carbon tax. We’re giving people tax breaks, and that has resulted in the explosion that we’ve seen in new investments in our province—billions and billions of dollars in new investments.

We were talking about housing earlier, and the member from northern Ontario, from Kenora, was talking about the fact that we’re allowing northern communities to connect to our electricity grid.

One of the great projects that we have funded and that is almost completed is the Wataynikaneyap power project—1,800 kilometres of transmission line, connecting 16 different fly-in communities to our clean, green, reliable electricity grid that’s going to enable new houses to be built throughout Kiiwetinoong, North Caribou Lake First Nation, Kingfisher Lake First Nation, Pikangikum and all those great communities. And we’re moving forward on another project with the folks at Matawa. It doesn’t include a carbon tax. We can do it, and we’re getting it done.

Public transit

Mr. Joel Harden: My question is to the Premier.

Speaker, I’m sure all of us in this House enjoy the opportunities we get to take a vacation.

Unfortunately, last week, over 500 staff at GO Transit learned that they were not allowed to have vacation for the rest of this year, and why? Because, sadly, the government has not invested in staff appropriately to pay, to finance and to work with the 15%

schedule increase they proposed for the GO train that will go through Milton—coincidentally, the place I’m sure this Premier wants to win a by-election.

Metrolinx has a million-dollar CEO. Meanwhile, they have 82 vice-presidents at Metrolinx, and they have a marketing department of over 400 staff. But we aren’t hiring enough workers for GO trains, to make sure people can take vacations.

Can the Premier explain to this House if this makes any sense?

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

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: Mr. Speaker, what doesn’t make sense is the NDP’s consistent objection to building public transit. Every step of the way—whether it’s the Liberals or the NDP—when we invest in GO Transit, when we invest in GO trains, when we invest in building new lines, what do both the opposition leader and the Liberal Party do? They vote against every single one of them, whether it’s building the Hazel McCallion line in Mississauga and Brampton, whether it’s building the Ontario Line or the Scarborough subway extension.

We’re increasing service on the GO line by over 15%—the largest in over a decade. What do these members do? They stand against that growth in public transit.

We’re going to continue to build for this province. We’re going to continue to build for the next generations, because we saw what happened for 15 years under the previous Liberal government. They did absolutely nothing. We’ll continue to build.

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

Mr. Joel Harden: I feel bad for my friend opposite who has to answer the question in that way, because people on this side of the House know very well why we have the public transit system we do. It’s the taxpayers of this province and the transit workers who make sure people can get around.

Meanwhile, while this government is building the paycheques of 82 Metrolinx vice-presidents, 400 marketing staff, this government has nothing to say—not a word—about the fact that people can’t take a vacation for the rest of this year.

So I want to ask my friend opposite, seriously: Can he commit to this House that he personally will look into this matter? Will he flow the funds necessary from the treasury to make sure GO Transit workers can take the vacation they earned—and Metrolinx executives can finally be called to heel on their incredible greed and compensation at the taxpayers’ expense?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: Speaker, we appreciate the great work that all of our employees on GO rail, GO Transit—our GO train and bus drivers—do on the service. They are some of the most well-paid individuals, and we appreciate the work that they do every single day, whether it’s driving buses, whether it’s driving our trains or being ambassadors for public transit.

Could you imagine, whether it be the NDP or whether it be the Liberals, what Ontario would look like if they had their say? We have seen their record on public transit. Every single time we bring a new line or a new investment into this province, what do they say? “Absolutely not.” They’re not going to build it.

The Scarborough subway extension—the people of