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

September 16, 2020

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2020-Sept-16 (PDF)

L181 - Wed 16 Sep 2020 / Mer 16 sep 2020

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 16 September 2020 Mercredi 16 septembre 2020

Orders of the Day

Legislative reform

Members’ Statements

Long-term care

The Dads of Milton

Jane-Finch community hub

Education

Public space

Education / Éducation

COVID-19 response

Rural Ontario

Clēan Works and Pure Life Machinery

Unionville seniors affordable housing development

Wearing of pins

Private members’ public business

Decorum in chamber

Question Period

Long-term care

Long-term care

Education funding

Personal protective equipment

COVID-19 response

COVID-19 response

COVID-19 response

Indigenous affairs

COVID-19 response

Economic reopening and recovery

COVID-19 response

Manufacturing sector

Education funding

Amateur sport

Introduction of Bills

Soldiers’ Aid Commission Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 sur la Commission d’aide aux anciens combattants

More Than a Visitor Act (Caregiving in Congregate Care Settings), 2020 / Loi de 2020 déclarant que les aidants naturels sont plus que de simples visiteurs (prestation de soins dans les habitations collectives)

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Human trafficking / Traite des personnes

Petitions

Rémunération du secteur public

Education funding

Education funding

Long-term care

Gasoline prices

Documents gouvernementaux

Northern Health Travel Grant

Education funding

Public sector compensation

Winter highway maintenance

Education funding

Multiple sclerosis

Orders of the Day

Legislative reform

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Legislative reform

Resuming the debate adjourned on September 15, 2020, on the amendment to the amendment to the motion regarding amendments to the standing orders.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): When we last debated this matter, I understand the member for Oakville had the floor. He’s in the chamber, and I’ll recognize him to continue his remarks.

Mr. Stephen Crawford: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It was a pleasure to speak yesterday to this motion put forward by the government House leader. We only had a few minutes to speak, but I’m happy to finish up today. Again, it’s an honour to rise here today and be back after the summer. I want to welcome everybody on both sides back to the Legislature. It’s most important that everybody is in good spirits and healthy going through this pandemic. I want to start with that.

I did want to just start with some of the changes that our government has put forward and go back to why we’re making these changes and a little bit of history, and then go through some of the specific changes. First of all, in terms of the Legislature here and the standing order changes, not unlike society, we evolve and we make changes. The changes to the standing orders here—I think we can certainly thank the British parliamentary tradition that we have here in Ontario. It’s a system we inherited, which allows for these kinds of adjustments. Speaking of adjustments, today I’ll be addressing the changes that the government House leader put forward in the proposed motion.

The first significant change to the standing orders pertains to order 35, regarding independent members during question period. The proposed change for this 42nd Parliament is that the House Speaker may allot the independent members the fourth and fifth questions during question periods that are currently being asked by government members. In total, members on this side currently can ask six questions.

The current procedure is, “The Speaker has the discretion to permit an independent member to place a question and one supplementary question during question period.” This is an important amendment, because it expands the opportunity for members to pose questions that their constituents want answers to.

For me, this is my first term as MPP, and as with everyone, we put ourselves forward to run so we have the voice of our communities here at Queen’s Park. I understand the importance of my role in representing the people of Oakville, having their input directed to me to be reflected here in this House. The independent members take their roles as seriously as I do, and they have the duty to represent their constituents. This amendment will enable urgent local concerns to be raised more often and to be addressed in question period.

Question period spans 60 minutes each day that we sit, and this is the only time that we have reserved for members of the opposition to hold the government to account. Most days, I hear questions from the opposition members that quote from their constituents directly, and, on times that I do not hear quotes, constituents are still referenced. This is the very essence of democracy, and constituents are always reminding each of us who we represent here.

Every part of this province is different, so, of course, there are high-level concerns, but ridings are diverse. The independent members require more of an ability to speak and ask questions regarding unique issues that impact their ridings. With the longest question period of any province, here in Ontario, we have that benefit that governments are committed to be held to account in answering questions.

In this time period, independent members should have more questions allocated to them. Enhancing the ability to fulfill their representative role matters. I believe this is something that every member of this House can support: providing more occasions to bring forward constituent concerns and inquiries after hearing input.

The independent members opposite received almost 25% of the vote in the last election, yet they have very little time allocated to them. It’s unfortunate—I know, the member who was speaking yesterday from Hamilton Mountain was referencing that we were quashing democracy in not allowing the opposition to be able to speak, when, in fact, we’re giving them more time. We’re providing two questions from the government to the independent members, so I would hope the loyal opposition would support us.

My only thought as to why they have not been supportive is that they’re afraid that the independent members—perhaps there will be a shuffling in the next election of who will be the official opposition. Because allowing them more time I think is critical to democracy. I don’t know why you wouldn’t want them to be able to speak more.

Amendments to question period are not the only changes that are being made that benefit the independent members. There is currently a provision to allow independent members to substitute for each other on committees, as members of recognized parties can. But this is only temporary. The proposed change will make substituting permanent when there is an agreement between members. I think this is particularly important. I was on the SCOFEA committee this summer which met for many, many weeks throughout the summer, and the independent members had the opportunity to change position.

We had a lot of time, so having few members, their entire summer would have been pretty much on the committee. Allowing them that flexibility I think is important for the independent members to get full interaction and full involvement on committees, so I would encourage the loyal opposition to support that as well to allow the smaller independents that flexibility.

Now, with respect to private members’ public business, I’d now like to address the private members’ public business amendments that this motion will make. We are bringing changes that would allow more focus on the private members’ public business by considering one item from Tuesday to Thursday. Moreover, we are adding a fourth private member’s bill to the House’s consideration each Monday at 9 a.m., until 2021.

Additionally, there will be a requirement for all recorded divisions on private members’ bills to be deferred to after the next day’s question period. This will allow much more participation in private members’ bills. The current practice is having the three private members’ bills considered on Thursday afternoon, with the votes immediately proceeding. The fundamental change is spreading our consideration on the bills over several days, starting Tuesday, instead of loading Thursday with three bills. There will also be a fourth bill that will be added on Monday mornings.

These amendments are timely considering the changes we made during the pandemic. Over the past months, through the uncertainty of COVID-19, we suspended our regular sittings. We had diverted our attention to pandemic relief, and all parties worked together to enable swift action to be taken to help those who needed it immediately. As a result, there is now a backlog of private members’ bills that should have already been considered in the spring session.

Around 27 bills were delayed to the fall session, so what we need now more than ever is the ability to bring these bills forward in a timely manner for their consideration; hence, the ability to bring this fourth day in to end of June 2021 to play catch up to where we should have been if we did not make the adjustments at the outset of the pandemic.

It’s important that the work members have put into their private members’ bills are considered before the House. I think we all agree that private members’ bills are critically important to this House, although I know the member from Hamilton Mountain yesterday belittled private members’ bills, but I think it’s an important part of being a legislator here in the House.

What I’m getting at, Speaker, is these bills can make a positive impact on our society when they’re considered and passed, and not stuck in this backlog we have right now—to no fault of anyone here. Private members’ bills are another way for members to express the changes their constituents want, by fixing an issue or introducing something entirely new.

Furthermore, the bills will be the final item of the day at 6 p.m. from Tuesday to Thursday. This is important, because it offers stakeholders the chance to attend and engage in the process after their workday. Moreover, the province of Ontario is large, and for the members who have long car rides back to their ridings, or perhaps even plane rides, this offers them a better opportunity to be present when these bills are brought forward, as they are currently only on a Thursday afternoon.

The changes to the private members’ public business proposals and the adjustments to voting also have significance. The result of the deferring of votes of recorded divisions to the following day allows more of our colleagues from both sides of the House to vote on these important bills. A crucial aspect of our role is to vote on bills here in the Legislature. That’s why we’re here: to vote. Expanding on this fundamental right to receiving input from members, these adjustments are needed to promote the status of private members’ bills that have been on hold.

I know we have a number of bills right now that are before the House from both sides. Let’s get this moving through the House in a timely fashion. I know there’s a couple of interesting bills from the opposition members as well as from our government side. I know the member from Mississauga East–Cooksville had a bill on cyberbullying, and there are a few heritage days and weeks that I know opposition members have. Let’s get these through and get them through the Legislature.

Now, with respect to committee debate, extending debate on legislation is occurring by introducing additional days for private members’ bills. Still, it is not the whole extent of increasing the opportunity for debate within this motion. This leads me to comment on another change for establishing more debate. Presently, there is no debate on bills that are received back from committee. The proposed change is to add a 30-minute debate after a piece of legislation is reported back to the House from committee.

Again, with this provision, independent members are benefiting: six minutes will be allocated to the independent members from the 30 minutes, and the remainder is split between the recognized official parties, being the government and the official opposition.

I think this benefits the House as a whole to have discussion after bills are put through committee and there are changes. We should have that final opportunity to be able to debate and discuss bills that have gone through committee, and that currently is not being done, so I think this is, again, further encouraging openness and democracy and transparency in this House, which our government has always been supportive of.

The purpose is clear: to provide moments for members of all sides to have their say on legislation and participate in the legislative process. We all have a range of perspectives and this should not be suppressed from bills that will affect this province. This amendment is especially important when the bill has undergone significant amendments during the committee phase, or where new information is received. Implementing a debate would allow for the information to be shared with everyone, instead of the bill going straight to voting.

I do hope the opposition supports this, along with the other changes proposed, again, as this benefits all members of the House, and I think the public at large here in Ontario.

The next issue I would like to touch on that’s proposed are the reasoned amendments. I’d like to bring attention to this amendment which would remove non-substantive reasoned amendments. The reasoned amendment tool allows up to two days of delay. As such, currently it’s been used by the official opposition simply as a delay tactic. Looking at the recent history of this tool, between 2011 and 2014 there were no reasoned amendments used in the entire session from any party. Between 2014 and 2018, in the legislative session before this one, there were six, and that’s over four years that the House sat.

Contrast that to this Parliament, which started in June 2018: It’s only been a little over two years, and there have already been 26 used. In just two years, 26 times bills have been delayed before being presented for consideration. Specifically, the official opposition members in the last two years have used 17 reasoned amendments, more than the previous 20 years combined. This is an increase of over 400% from the 41st Parliament.

This tool is meant to raise substantial concern at a very early stage before a second reading debate begins. But as previously stated, its history does not seem to match the function it was designed for. It is being overused on important legislation and has no practical purpose. The tool has been used on recent legislation such as Bill 195, Reopening Ontario (A Flexible Response to COVID-19) Act, and Bill 171, the Building Transit Faster Act. Ontarians rely on public transit to commute to work, and we need to get shovels in the ground and build even more as our population grows and grows.

The final change I would like to touch on is the take-note debate, and I would like to raise this as an amendment to add a provision for take-note debates. These are long debates on issues of substantial importance. This is yet another opportunity for members to express their views on government policy. These debates last up to four hours and are a chance for members to debate. There is no vote at the end of a take-note debate. The purpose is simply to listen and note the issue of significance. With the COVID-19 pandemic, creating this provision is of a practical importance.

Looking into this pandemic and the uncertainty everyone felt across this province, it could happen again, and as a government, there needs to be a course of action.

I know this particular debate is used in the federal Parliament and has been used a number of times over the years. This type of debate allows members across both sides of the House, not just the government side, but the opposition, to be able to speak for 10 minutes and make an impactful speech before—and I stress before—the government decides on a path forward. Since these are grand discussions on significant issues, notably, they are less partisan and allow for discussion of the best possible solution. We have worked together as a province in dealing with COVID-19, as seen by the important measures we’ve introduced so far.

As I wrap up my discussion, I want to highlight the importance of this motion. This motion, in proposing these amendments, is very timely. Yes, we are proposing changes to the standing orders. Still, we have all adapted personally to the current situation over the past several months, and the Legislature should be no different. The system that we have inherited here, this parliamentary system, is one that is set up for evolving and change. That is what the government is doing.

We are not to be static and fail to make changes for the better, but rather we are meant to evolve to the current challenges and overcome them together. Giving a voice to independent members, giving more time to speak before decisions are made by government to the opposition I think encourages discussion, democracy, and working together collaboratively as a Parliament. This pandemic has increased our awareness of the need to streamline the process to make government more efficient to get our business completed.

In the process, we are strengthening democracy in this province by providing more say to members of this House as they represent their constituents.

Legislation needs to be passed, the hold on private members’ bills needs to be resolved, and this motion aims to achieve just that. We are making time to add another day for these bills to be considered so they can finally get the attention they deserve.

So with that, I hope the opposition will support us in this motion.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate? Further debate?

Ms. McKenna has moved the following amendment to Mr. Rasheed’s amendment to government notice of motion number 88 relating to changes to the standing orders:

“That the amendment be amended by deleting the word ‘Break’ and substituting the word ‘Recess’”.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour will please say aye.

All those opposed will please say nay.

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: On division.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Carried on division.

Further debate on the amendment, as amended? Further debate? I recognize the member from Ottawa South.

Mr. John Fraser: Sorry; I’m—nobody sent me the memo.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate? Further debate?

Mr. Rasheed has moved the following amendment, as amended, to government notice of motion number 88 relating to changes to the standing orders:

“That the motion be amended by adding the following in the table depicting the Thursday meeting

schedule of the House in standing order 9(a):

“A row in the ‘Time’ column between ’10:15 a.m.’ and ’1:00 p.m.’ containing the words ‘Following morning routine’; and

“A row in the ‘Proceeding’ column between ‘Morning routine’ and ‘Afternoon routine’ containing the word ‘Recess’”.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour will please say aye.

All those opposed will please say nay.

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Interjection: On division.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Carried on division.

Further debate on the motion, as amended? I recognize the member from—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Timmins.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): —Timmins.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: It used to be Cochrane South, then it was Timmins–James Bay, and now it’s Timmins. So it does get a bit confusing after a while. That’s what happens in 30 years.

I’m pleased to be able to speak on the main motion—because, as you know, I was able to give my lead speech on the amendment and the subamendment. What I want to do with this particular part of the speech is to, first of all, move an amendment that we wanted to put forward yesterday—but the government had moved an amendment and subamendment, which we’ve now dealt with.

Prior to my reading this motion into the record and giving it to the Clerks, I just want to thank Kevin Modeste and his trusty assistant Jasmine, who put these together—and I have to say, they’re not simple amendments; they’re fairly complicated. They did so, gave them to the Clerks, and they came back completely in order. I think there aren’t a lot of people in this place who could do that. I want to thank Kevin and Jasmine for their fine work in putting this together. You’ve got to give the credit where it’s due, man. I can’t take all the credit. That would not be right.

I move that government notice of motion 88 be amended as follows:

Standing order 39 is deleted and the following substituted:

“39(

a) Every bill shall be introduced upon a motion for leave for introduction and first reading, specifying the title of the bill.

“(

b) Prior to the introduction of a government bill, 48 hours’ notice shall be required, with the full text of the bill tabled pursuant to standing order 57.

“(

c) The motion for introduction and first reading shall be decided without amendment or debate, but in the case of a public bill, the mover may make a brief explanation of its purposes.

“(

d) On the introduction of a government bill, a compendium of background information shall be delivered to the critics of the recognized opposition parties.

“(

e) No bill may be introduced in blank or imperfect form.

“(

f) If a recorded vote is requested, the division bells shall be limited to five minutes.

“(

g) The period for ‘Introduction of Bills’ shall be limited to 30 minutes.

“(

h) No introduction of a single bill shall last more than five minutes.”

Further, “The following new standing order is added:

“47.2(

a) A member of the assembly may table a request with the Speaker for the House to convene an emergency debate for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration. The request must be submitted to the table in writing by 12 p.m. on the sessional day prior to being raised in the chamber.

“(

b) The request in clause (

a) shall include a motion for the House to consider and set out a suggested time for the debate to take place

“(

i) upon the commencement of orders of the day on Thursday afternoon; or

“(ii) at the ordinary hour of adjournment on another sessional day.

“(

c) At the conclusion of oral questions on the sessional day after the request is tabled, the Speaker will grant the member who tabled the request the opportunity to present without argument the written request of the matter proposed to be discussed.

“(

d) Emergency debate requests

“(

i) shall contain the text of a non-amendable motion to be debated

“(ii) shall not be a motion for second or third reading of the bill

“(iii) shall not be a motion for want of confidence in the government.

“(

e) The Speaker shall decide, without any debate, whether or not the matter is proper to be discussed. In determining whether a matter should have urgent consideration, the Speaker shall have regard to the extent to which it concerns the administrative responsibilities of the government or could come within the scope of ministerial action and the Speaker also shall have regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the House within reasonable time by other means.

“(

f) The Speaker may defer the decision upon whether the matter is proper to be discussed to a later date, but shall provide a ruling in a timely fashion.

“(

g) In awarding an emergency debate, the Speaker shall consider other proceedings of the House and reserves the right to

schedule the proceeding at a time and date that differs from the one specified by the member’s request.

“(

h) No member shall speak longer than 10 minutes during debate on any such motion.

“(

i) The Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and declare the debate concluded,

“(

i) at 6 p.m. for a debate that takes place pursuant to clause (b)(i)

“(ii) after no more than four hours of debate that takes place pursuant to clause (b)(ii).

“(

j) When an emergency debate is designated to be taken up at the ordinary hour of adjournment, an extension of the meeting hours of the House under standing order 7(

c) shall not apply.

“(

k) When an emergency debate is designated to be taken up at the ordinary hour of adjournment on Tuesday or Wednesday, the adjournment proceedings under standing order 36 shall not apply.”

I’m going to give this to our usher who’s going to bring it to the table and to the Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Mr. Bisson has moved government notice of motion 88 be amended as follows:

“Standing order 39”—

Interjection: Dispense.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I heard “dispense.” Dispense? Dispense.

Further debate on Mr. Bisson’s amendment to the motion, as amended?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I realize that was a bit of long motion to read, and I want to thank the House for its patience in giving me the opportunity to read that into the record.

Now we’re debating the amendments, so I want to quickly go through what these amendments are all about. I think they’re a reasonable way to come at what the government is trying to do in these standing orders. I heard the government members get up and make the arguments about why the standing orders have to be changed, and about how reasoned amendments were used frivolously and were used too often and all of those kinds of things. Well, the reality is that there’s a legislative process that allows a pause on the introduction of a bill at second reading so that, if necessary, not only can you amend that bill in some way, but you can actually pause the process for two days.

That becomes very important for two reasons. The first reason is that the public and the media need the opportunity to be able to see that bill, so that they are able to feed back to us in the House—on both sides of the House, government and opposition—any concerns that they may have in regard to the bill. If the bill is introduced, let’s say, on Tuesday at 3 o’clock and we have a debate at 9 o’clock on Monday, as proposed in these standing orders, the public is never really going to have a chance to look at the bill and to put their comments in as to what they think is good and bad about the bill.

With the new standing orders, which have now been changed a number of times by this government, the process to pass the legislation through the House happens fairly quickly. Depending on the day, you can get it done in two days. You could be done second reading in two days, depending on the day the debate takes place, along with a time allocation motion that decides that there are going to be no committee hearings—and the government has done that on controversial bills like Bill 176 and Bill 178—and then send the bill right to third reading for a one-hour debate. Then we’ve cut the public out entirely.

If the government has the tool in its toolbox to time-allocate legislation so that there would be no time for public hearings, it’s incumbent upon the government to give the public and the media and members of this House the ability to have a pause when bills are introduced, so that we are able to look at the bill, study the bill, think about the bill and come back with some thoughts about what’s good and bad about the bill.

Contrary to what the government likes to say, in every Parliament, the opposition doesn’t always vote against every bill. When the Conservatives were sitting across from the Liberals, they voted with the government, I believe it was, 50% of the time. They always used to say, “Oh no, no. The NDP are out there propping up the Liberals.” Well, even the Conservatives, who were opposed in opposition to Ms. Wynne and Mr. McGuinty, voted for government bills about 50% of the time; I think it was 52% of the time. We were around 57%.

We were pretty close, the two opposition parties, and the reason for that is very simple: Not every bill that the government brings into the House is one we’re all opposed to. There are some bills—as you know, Mr. Speaker; you’ve sat on both sides of the House—that are bills that we agree with in the opposition. You either let them go quietly or you get up and say a couple of things about how this is a good idea, and you move on to the next bill.

But there are bills that are contentious. Speaker, I remember well when you sat on this side of the House in the official opposition. You were vehemently opposed to some of the bills that Premier Wynne and Premier McGuinty put forward, and that was your right. You represent a constituency that saw it differently, you represent a party that saw it differently, and you came to the House and exercised your right as a member to debate the bill and to put your points forward. But you needed the time, as we all need the time and the media needs the time and the public need the time, to be able to look at the bill and to understand it.

To have a bill—let’s say something like an omnibus bill like we had last August, which was introduced in the House. Under these new rules, it would be introduced on a Wednesday, debated on Thursday morning and would probably be done by Thursday afternoon because of the way the timing now works, because we have a longer time for debate for the government bills on Thursday when we got rid of private members’ bills on Thursday afternoon. The public will never get a chance to get their heads around any of this legislation, and neither will the media.

Now, who gets the advantage with that? Well, Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to pick on you because you’re a government member, but the government is the one who is going to have the advantage, because if they have a controversial bill, that’s what they’ll do. They’ll introduce it in such a way that will limit the amount of time that the bill will stay in the House. There is a Monday and a Thursday when we have those long sessions from 1 in the afternoon to 6 o’clock at night, which could conceivably give the government about four and a half hours of debate, right? You can quickly get through legislation by having those bills timed in such a way that we do it in those longer sessions.

In the last 18 days of the House, the government can sit until midnight. So literally, on the introduction of a bill, the government could introduce the bill on Monday, introduce it for night sitting on Tuesday, get six hours of debate, be at the threshold the next morning, time-allocate it and skip the committee process, and you’ve gone through the entire legislative process in about two and a half days. That’s why we in the official opposition, Andrea Horwath and the NDP, are suggesting there needs to be a pause.

This concept exists in a different form in Ottawa. In Ottawa, there’s a rule—I know that the government House leader is fond of all that is Ottawa. I sometimes wonder, does he miss Ottawa, and is this a signal that he’s running federally? I just wonder. I’m just speculating. But my point is, he likes things that are in Ottawa. I understand that he came from there, and there are things in Ottawa that we can all like; for example, how much they’re paid and their pensions. I just would put that on the record. The interesting thing is they never froze their pay for 15 years. A lot of people don’t know that. Anyway, time for another debate.

The point is, if we’re going to bring the concepts of the federal House of Commons here to the province—fair enough—well, let’s bring some of those concepts all the way. Let’s use the 48-hour rule that they have in Ottawa and adjust it in a way that brings the 48-hour rule and respects what we’ve traditionally done in Ontario, which is to have two sleeps. In other words, you have two sleeps before you get to the actual debate.

Now, in Ottawa, it’s different. It’s only an amendment. It’s like in a motion. The government has to table the name of the bill. It’s two days that it’s tabled, but you don’t actually get the text there. What we’re proposing is you get the text of the bill. In other words, it’s tabled on Monday, and you have two days that it can’t be called, which would be Tuesday and Wednesday, so the first day they can call it would be on Thursday. At least that way, the public and the media can look at the bill. They can read it.

Like I said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, it’s not as if the government can’t time how they’re going to pass their legislation through the House in a fall or spring session. They know what they want to pass through this House, by and large. There are things that come up, yes, that adjust that, but you put it into your schedule. So you say, “Okay, I’ve got six or seven bills that I want to pass in a fall session. Here’s how I’m going to deal with managing them through the process so that we’re able to get them done within the session.”

Now, when I first got here, Speaker, a bill was introduced in the fall. You got second reading done in the fall. You went out in committee and travelled the bill in the intersession in the winter, and then you came back in the spring and did third reading. Very, very seldom, when I got here, did a bill go through an entire process of first, second, committee and third reading in one session. That was the exception. It was only when there was unanimous consent to do something.

So that’s the first amendment. Our first amendment is what we call the 48-hour rule, and we think that’s just a reasonable thing to do to make sure that the public and the media get an opportunity to look at this legislation, because the government is going to be time-allocating much of this legislation, and if it’s controversial, they will time-allocate it in a way that there will be no or little committee time for the public to come in.

The other one, which is the new standing order that we add under 47.2, is what’s called an emergency debate. This is something that they have in Ottawa. The government is bringing to this House a concept from Ottawa, which is a take-note debate. That’s not a bad thing. Nobody is arguing against take-note debates. But the issue is, it is up to the government House leader to decide if that take-note debate is going to happen—yes, in consultation with the official opposition House leader, but I don’t have the say on when it’s going to get called, or if it’s going to get called. That’s up to the government House leader. Fair enough: That’s the way that system works.

But what they have in Ottawa is an interesting one, where they have emergency debates where any cabinet minister, or any member of the House on either side, can table with the Speaker a motion that they want to have debated in the House. The motion has to be an emergency. In other words, you can’t just do something for the sake of doing it. It has to be something that is pressing, and there are criteria as to what you can debate in regard to how it affects the government in regard to their own authority as a government. But the point is that you file it with the Speaker.

After question period, the member who moved it gets up and explains quickly what it’s all about and why the member is asking for that—he or she—and then the Speaker decides if there’s going to be a debate, not the House leader.

Now, there are less of those emergency debates than take-note debates in the House of Commons, but they do happen from time to time, because there are times when governments don’t want to have debates on certain things. For example, I’m sure that we’re going to want to have a debate, either in private members’ or as a take-note debate, on what’s happening with the return to school. The government may not want to have that happen. This would give the opportunity to a member of the government or the opposition or a cabinet minister—you never know—to be able to get up and ask for an emergency debate.

When the emergency debate takes place, it would be four hours, and everybody would get 10-minute slots for debate in that thing. It allows a way of being able to bring things to the floor that’s not entirely controlled by the government. I think that’s the point here.

I’m just going to end on this point, because we only have a couple of minutes, and I’m looking forward to hearing what other people have to say: Over the years, from the time I came here in 1990, we have seen a diminishment of the role of the House when it comes to policy-making. We have very little in the way of what used to happen here when it came to public input for legislation. In the past, it was always—especially controversial bills—that the government just couldn’t pass a controversial bill easily, because the rules allowed for long debate, allowed members to speak for multiple days if they wanted to.

There was no time allocation, something that I was a part of when that happened. I look at it now and say, “Boy, new government members should be aware of what they’re asked to do, because sometimes it ain’t for their benefit.” I learned that in a hurry with that one.

But anyway, my point is, it used to be that the public was very involved. There was a lot more participation at the committee level from the public and I would argue there was a much more engaged public when it came to the creation of provincial policy.

The committee process used to allow people to participate; and because the process was longer—in other words, you introduced a bill in the fall; there was a lengthy debate, or maybe not even a lengthy debate; it was referred to committee in the intersession for travel, because we never travelled bills during sessions, spring or fall; and it would come back in the spring. There was lots of opportunity for it to be written about by the media in the papers. As a result, the public was much more involved.

This is really what’s sad about what the government is doing with the standing orders. You’re diminishing the role of the public in the legislative process. We can’t allow that to happen because this is the Legislature of the people. We don’t own it; the government doesn’t own it. This is a Legislature where representatives come in and represent the people of Ontario on the questions important to us on a day-to-day basis.

I urge the government to support these amendments, as we see these as friendly amendments to your main motion.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate?

Mr. John Fraser: Thank very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Ha! He’s up.

Mr. John Fraser: I’m up. Thank you very much for this time. I want to thank the member for Timmins for bringing forward that amendment. I haven’t had a chance to take a look at it. I think it’s a great idea.

I won’t be supporting this, and that’s not to say that there aren’t some things in here that I think are good. The main reason is the reasoned amendment, and I’ll get into that a bit later, but first I want to talk about what I think is good in these standing order changes.

Before I do that, we’re making a lot of standing order changes and keeping the table officers pretty busy changing the standing orders. I know governments do this frequently, but not as frequently as we’re doing it right now. Most people outside don’t care about what the rules are that we have in here. They don’t understand them. To be frank, most of us don’t understand them either. They need to be explained to us. When we change these things, they impact the quality of debate and the ability to actually make legislation better, so we have to keep that in mind when we do this.

I appreciate that the government House leader closed the loophole that allows a bill to be debated three times in one day. That was something that was unintended, and I think it’s good that that can’t happen. That’s a measure of good faith. I think that we need to ensure that we take the time and don’t rush legislation through. If we take the time, it makes it better. I know all governments have an agenda and they want to get things done quickly.

We appreciate the two extra questions. I don’t want to look a gift horse in the mouth and I say I do appreciate that very much, but it’s not the basis on which I could support this amendment. I think it’s a good thing that we are getting more participation here. The twelve of us would actually form an official party, a recognized party in the Legislature, but our interests are different. We’re being treated as individuals, and I think more participation is something that’s due to us.

If you can remember back in 2003, when the NDP were under that status, there was an amendment that was put forward to the standing orders that allowed for a change. I’m a bit disappointed that there was so much effort to raise the bar and not allow all members, no matter what colour they were, to be able to participate.

The other thing, too, is, I’ve got to say this about the extra questions: We’re relieving the government members of the “feared friendly.” I’ve been there. I’ve been doing friendlies on the other side, where they hand you a question and the question is, “How good are you, Minister, and what wonderful things have you done?”

Really, at the end of the day, here’s what I don’t understand—and even when I was in government. A member on the other side should be able to stand up and say—ask a question about the thing they’ve been asking a minister for. Even if the minister isn’t prepared to do it, that member has to be able to stand up and say, “I’m fighting for my community”—because I know that some of you are doing it. The same thing happened when we were in government. So we’ll take that question, relieve you of that burden, and we’ll use that as best we can.

Also, the subbing of independent members on committee: I appreciate that very much. That change makes it easier. We work very co-operatively here, and now we can sub in on committees, because there are different interests and, as I say, a relatively small number of us.

The main reason I can’t support these amendments is the removal of the reasoned amendment. I understand the government’s reasoning for doing it. It actually predated the government House leader. There was a point in this Legislature in their first year where things were coming fast and furious and hard. The changes that were being proposed—I don’t want to use the word “draconian,” because it gets used so much, but it was like things were being torn down. The natural reaction was, “Slow down and make sure you know what you’re doing.”

Quite frankly, it would have been good if the government had slowed down, because there were a whole bunch of things that they ended up having to reverse on, or a court ruled against them on. So the reasoned amendment is something that we use to pause, to think about what it is that’s being put forward. It’s a tool for the opposition.

This is one less tool for the opposition. Let the opposition be prepared to do our job, which is to say, “Did you think about this? Did you think about this? Did you think about this?” That’s what our job is. The less time that we have to do that job, within reason, it’s not good for this place. It’s not good for making legislation. The removal of that is not the end of the world, but it’s just one more thing that makes us less effective in here. So I can’t support this, solely on that basis.

The other thing is, now that we’ve extended the day—and I appreciate that. I mean, from my perspective, I’m here. If we’re working at night, we’re working at night. But not everybody in this Legislature has the privilege I have, which is to not have the responsibilities of home when I’m here. I mean, I would like to be at home, and I’d like everybody at home to know that, but there are families here.

I know the intent of the government House leader, and I take him at his word, is that we don’t want to sit at night, but I’m concerned that if we make this change that it will happen. We’re not always going to have the same government House leader. It’s not always going to be the same intent.

It’s the erosion of the family-friendly Legislature. That’s something that was brought in back in 2003. I remember the member for Nepean–Carleton, she said she was very much in favour of it and a proponent of it. Here’s what she said to Ottawa: “In Ontario, making the Legislature more family-friendly did not mean we overhauled our parliamentary system or disrupted over 200 years of parliamentary tradition. Nor did it mean eroding government accountability tools, which are vital for good governance and effective opposition.”

We’ve done that today, by removing the reasoned amendment. I know we’ve added the take-note debate and that’s great, but it has no force, in fact, in law. It’s just an opportunity for us to air our differences or different opinions or similar opinions. But it doesn’t change the laws. I appreciate very much that the government House leader is doing that. I recognize that there’s a lot of the image and likeness of Ottawa in some of the changes that are made. I’m not opposed to that. I think we can always look at how we want to change the rules to make this place better.

There are some things that I think will be helpful, but we’ve also taken away tools and put ourselves in a position where we’re making it less family-friendly. I don’t want to overstate it, but we’re going in the wrong direction, and there’s a risk that it’s going to keep going in that direction.

I want to finish by saying that we all have a responsibility to play our part here. Our job over here is to ask a lot of questions, and I know that’s not comfortable, but we have to do it. If we don’t do it—and I know, because I’ve been on the other side and I’ve listened to the questions on this side. It made me ask questions of the people who were making decisions inside government. So although it seems that we’re criticizing you—and I think sometimes we do try to assign motive, which is a wrong thing—we’re really helping you.

I know it doesn’t feel like it, but if you listen, you can find out that there are things you can do to make your legislation better, and there are things that are happening in the community that you need to know about. That’s why we’re here. When we reduce the ability of the opposition to do that, when they have less time—as with the reasoned amendment. It’s a day, it’s not the biggest thing in the world, but it’s one less thing, and I can’t support—even though there are things in this bill that I think are good and important.

It reminds me of one thing: family-friendly. Late shows are going to be the late, late shows now. They’re going to be around 7 o’clock.

Mr. Mike Harris: Are you hosting it?

Mr. John Fraser: Well, I’ll tell you about an experience I had with a late show, and the Minister of the Environment would remember this. I got called for a late show, and the Minister of the Environment was the health critic. He got up and gave a fantastic speech. I got up to do mine—no critic, wasn’t there to listen. That’s not something that should happen in here. You’ll never see me do that, or any other member in this Legislature. Those late shows are important. I’ve never forgotten that.

Hon. Jeff Yurek: No kidding.

Mr. John Fraser: Yes, I’ve never forgotten that. I’ve never forgotten that because it’s about respect in this place.

Hon. Jeff Yurek: I’ve never forgotten about what you did with the gas plants.

Mr. John Fraser: It’s about respect. We can talk about policies here, but it’s about respect for each member. I only mention that because I think it’s a good demonstration of how we need to treat each other in here. If we’re going to be here until 7 o’clock at night, stick around and support your members, stick around and listen to the other side. It’s not just a dog-and-pony show. This place is important. Whatever we do in here is important. People send us here to take care of the things that are most important to them. It’s important that we treat each other with respect and listen.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate?

Mrs. Robin Martin: I’m happy to be speaking today to the proposed changes to the standing orders and the amendments proposed by the member from Timmins.

I was here yesterday, as well, listening to the debate. We all should have respect for each other, as the member from Ottawa South was just saying. Certainly, that’s an important part of debate. I always listen to what everybody else is saying, even though sometimes it’s hard to listen. Yesterday, at some points, I found the debate was hard to listen to, but I sat here and listened to it in any event. Sometimes it is hard to listen to because some things tend to be caged or worded in a personal kind of way. We were having a discussion not a few days ago about bullying and how hard that is for people to listen to.

Some of our debate can sometimes feel like that. Like, it’s bullying in some ways, so for certain people, it hits them and it hurts.

I remember on one of the first days here, one of the members of the opposition suggested that we should read books over here, as though people in this caucus do not read books, which is ludicrous. I don’t like being lectured by anybody. I think we should all have open minds and listen to each other, because that’s how we learn, frankly. It’s really important.

I wanted to start by talking about the standing orders, because some people may have noticed that I have a great affection for the standing orders. In one of my first days sitting in this House, you would have seen me browsing through my standing orders. I was pretty excited about it. Okay, I admit I’m a bit of a procedure nerd, and it could be because I practised law for several years and so the procedure interests me. You would have found me flipping through my standing orders. I think the Leader of the Opposition even, when I rose and called her on what I thought was a breach of the standing orders, called me a “little brainiac” at the time, which—

Mr. Mike Harris: What a compliment.

Mrs. Robin Martin: It didn’t hurt, because I don’t mind being called intelligent. I think that’s what she meant, so that was okay. But I was so obsessed with them that I was looking through them quite a bit, and I really did embrace them.

I have listened carefully to some of the discussions about standing orders that we’ve had. I certainly listen when the Speaker gives a ruling on some of these orders to clarify things, because I think that’s all very, very important and interesting to how we’re going to operate here. I do think the standing orders are important.

After I memorized my standing orders, then our government House leader brought forward in the spring some changes to the standing orders. Well, you can imagine my consternation, because I’d spent all that time memorizing the existing ones and now they were changing. So I had to be a little flexible, but they did change. With delight, I have learned that the changes actually improved the procedure in the House, and so I’m kind of excited about that, too.

Sometimes, of course, the procedures we have are arcane. They might exist for this reason—you’ve heard this before—because it has always been done that way, and that isn’t necessarily a good reason to keep things the way they have been. We should look at things and see if they can be improved. Lo and behold, in the spring our standing orders, I think, were improved.

These are important things to be talking about. I actually heard yesterday the member from Hamilton Mountain saying that instead of having this debate and instead of spending the entire afternoon the day before debating a private member’s bill, we could be debating things that are really important to people today. Well, the cyberbullying private member’s bill, I think, was very important to people, and I was surprised that she had that kind of cynical attitude—both towards private members’ bills and cyberbullying, frankly—that she expressed yesterday.

I was also kind of surprised that the opposition House leader, the member from Timmins, was also deeply cynical in a lot of the comments he was making yesterday. One of the things he did—which he has done before in my time here, and I’ve only been here a short while—is lecture us about history. He was quoting Churchill, I think, or trying to quote Churchill and bring Churchill into it.

In my experience, the people who study history and learn lessons from history, which is what he was suggesting we do, have by and large been conservatives. In fact, I remarked how a lot of the young people who volunteered on our campaigns were studying history, which I find very interesting,

whereas my colleagues on the opposition benches, the ones I know who studied history, studied history with the Marxist mantra that you can’t learn lessons from history because it’s all random. So it was interesting to hear the opposition House leader suggesting that we needed to learn history and pay attention to it. We certainly do pay attention to history.

He also said that no change in the standing orders is ever made to help anyone other than the government. He said that, and I think that’s kind of cynical. It’s certainly not true for what is happening with the standing orders here. The member from Lanark—

Mr. Mike Harris: —Frontenac–Kingston.

Mrs. Robin Martin: Thank you. The member for Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston mentioned that he thought that the changes to the standing orders that we made in the spring were not just for the benefit of the government, but for the benefit of all the members. He was certainly pleased with them, and we just heard from the member from Ottawa South and also from the opposition House leader that there are things in these amendments to the standing orders that are good for other members of the House, not specifically good for the government.

For example, it doesn’t really help the government to help the independents have substitutions on committees, for example, or to give more questions to the independents. Those are not things for the government; they are things to make the House function in a more democratic fashion—which also gets me back to another thing that the opposition House leader was talking about yesterday, which is that somehow democracy is at stake here; somehow, democracy is at stake. This is where he was reaching. I think it’s a slight overreach, but he was talking about democracy with great passion.

Nobody feels more passionately about democracy, I would say, than I do. It’s my favourite topic, and certainly something that I studied. I did my master’s degree on it. It’s something that I care very much about. I read everything I can find about democratic theory. I even read, in French, De la démocratie en Amérique by Alexis de Tocqueville, a great work, so I think it’s really important.

So he was giving us a little talk about that, speaking about Churchill and how democracy is at stake in these standing order changes. I think the member for Ottawa South may be a little more accurate, that it’s not the end of the world, whatever happens, but this is what the opposition House leader was saying. He was saying that the public sends us here to do their work, and of course they do. They do send us here to do their work, and we are all here for the public and representing our constituents, and that is completely appropriate.

The opposition House leader also said that these changes in the standing orders were polarizing politics in Ontario. That’s what the opposition House leader said, which I think, again, is a bit of a stretch. Now, when you say something is a bit of a stretch in political discussion, what you mean is they’re trying to polarize things, so I thought it was quite funny that he was polarizing debate in accusing us of polarizing. But anyway, these are some comments just on some of the things that were said yesterday.

But look, I’m happy to talk about these. I think that the changes brought forward in the spring have had a big and, I dare say, a very positive impact on how debates have happened in this House. I and many other members of the House had first-hand experience with this new format, and we debated critical legislation in the spring. We debated the Connecting People to Home and Community Care Act and the Reopening Ontario Act, and I think everybody agrees that the 10-minute period of questions to each member, in particular, has proven to be a significant improvement over the way we used to do things here.

I just want to stop and comment that our government House leader has had experience in Ottawa, which I think the opposition House leader mentioned this morning, and he has brought some of what he learned in Ottawa about how procedures work there to this House. I think it’s good, because we’re learning a little bit about how things can be done differently, and better in some ways, and that’s what he has brought forward.

Our experience operating under the new standing orders in the spring and summer has also helped us to identify, of course, some challenges, and some of them have been inadvertent challenges because of the new standing orders. One of those was the 10-minute question-and-answer period. Under the rules, every speech was going to be followed by a 10-minute question-and-answer. It makes sense if it’s a 20-minute speech, but it doesn’t make as much sense if a person speaks for three or five minutes and then has 10 minutes of questions and answers. So that is something that will be changed and addressed in these standing orders.

We’ve proposed that the 10-minute question-and-answer period would be reduced to five minutes if a person speaks for less than 10 minutes, which I think again is an improvement. So we can make improvements without threatening democracy, improvements that actually make things function more clearly and better and in a fairer way, actually.

Seeing as how I’m speaking a little bit about the flow and the pace of debate, one of the measures that was adopted in this House was an amendment to the standing orders that ensured that the government could not, without unanimous consent, pass legislation in this place in just one day. This was done by ensuring the same bill could not be called in the morning session, afternoon session and evening session.

During the summer, it did become apparent that there was an inadvertent loophole in the standing orders that allowed a bill to continue being debated if there was no break between the afternoon and evening sessions. To maintain the spirit of the original change, this motion proposes to close that loophole by explicitly stating in the standing orders that the government is not able to bring reconsideration of a bill in the morning, afternoon and the night, regardless of how a motion is drafted by the government or members.

As the government House leader said, I think it was yesterday morning, the original amendment to the standing orders was put forward by the member from Guelph and supported unanimously by all parties. I’m sure everyone will agree that it’s an appropriate change, and perhaps even necessary, to maintain the intent of the original amendment.

Just as we’re ensuring that the government cannot push a bill through in a single day with this amendment, we must also ensure that there is a genuine path for consideration of legislation by all members of this place. One of the ways we’ve been talking about to ensure that this happens is by taking a good, hard look at the use of reasoned amendments in this place.

A reasoned amendment is not at all what it sounds like, I have learned in my study of the standing orders. Currently, the reasoned amendment tool allows a member to lodge an objection to a bill at the earliest stage before the bill has even been considered, and the procedure allows up to two days of delay of a bill before it can be considered. This is, by the way, the practice in this House. My understanding is this is not the practice in other Houses in other Legislatures.

The fact that you can bring a reasoned amendment, yes, that happens, but the fact that the reasoned amendment comes with two days of delay, that is unique, I think, to our Legislature and probably a vestige of an earlier bygone day, and it should be gone, by golly.

In this motion, we are proposing the elimination of this delaying procedure. Speaker, I think it’s a simple and a logical change. We don’t expect every member of this House to agree with every single piece of legislation that is brought forward. The purpose of this place, after all, is for us to debate ideas and proposals on behalf of the people of Ontario, and that’s what we’re doing. What we have seen in the last few years, however, is that reasoned amendments—and I think I’ve already said, not very reasonable—serve no constructive legislative function.

Essentially, what happens, as I understand it, is they’re being tabled by the opposition, brought to the Clerks, and that delays the debate, but they’ve never been moved by the opposition. They’re so important that they don’t even bother to introduce them into the House; they just table them and get their two days of delay.

As Edmund Burke, one of the great theorists of democracy, said, “Politics”—and here we can substitute standing orders, if you like, specifically—“ought to be adjusted not to human reasonings but to human nature, of which reason is but a part and by no means the greatest part.”

Human nature, in this case is, “Oh, look, we can use this in a way that will delay the debate,” as opposed to, “We can use this to make more reasonable amendments and have a better debate,” which is what it should be about, but it’s not. The reasoned amendments, so-called, that have been brought in to this place have never actually been considered by the House, and are really just a delaying mechanism. The historical usage of reasoned amendments in this House, recently, suggests that their usage in this Parliament departs significantly from the precedent set in this place over many years before this.

In the current Parliament, reasoned amendments have been used 26 times to delay government legislation. This is an increase of more than 400%. That’s 400% since the last Parliament, in which six reasoned amendments were used. Speaker, it’s quite jarring, when you consider that reasoned amendments have been used by the official opposition in the last two years alone more than in the previous 20 years by all parties combined, and none of them have actually gotten to be debated. They weren’t moved; they were just tabled. I hate calling them “reasoned” amendments, because it doesn’t sound reasonable.

It’s really a delaying tactic, and it’s been done and done and done, and I’m not quite sure what the public gets out of that, honestly.

I know the opposition House leader was saying that they have a right to a pause over there. That’s what they would like to have, a right to a pause. But I don’t think that that is the only time media, the public or anybody else gets to consider the legislation introduced by the government, because we have hours of debate about that legislation. As I said, we have committee hearings; we have people coming to committee. This is not the only time that they get to discuss it or even think about it, if they choose to do so.

So I think we really have a totally different use of reasoned amendments that’s been going on over the last couple of years, and the purpose of it is simply delay. I do not think delay is really serving the public.

As the government House leader noted in his remarks also, the bill would have to be published before it could be debated. In practice, this would mean that no bill could be debated on the same day, so members would have the opportunity to review any new bill before it’s brought forward to the House for debate. But it would also allow a bill to be debated, at the earliest, on the next day, or otherwise, until it is published in the orders and notices paper.

Amendments can still be brought forward by the opposition at committee, and these amendments come after some debate on the bill, when they can be more reasonable and thoughtful. So I think we’re still looking forward to having all of that kind of debate and discussion, and hopefully seeing that legislation can be improved.

I just want to comment briefly, because I see my time is almost up, about the late night, if you will, for private members’ bills which is being proposed, up until 6:45. There’s some concern that this will keep people late and that some people maybe can’t stay late. It is possible that people will be kept a little bit later, and it is unfortunate. Of course, there are people who are not able to participate now in private members’ debates on Thursday afternoons because they’ve got to get back to their ridings as well. There’s always some inconvenience to some people. We’re just trying to find a healthy balance.

In practice, where debate during the day will conclude early by unanimous consent in the House, we can immediately proceed with the debate on private members’ bills. So I think that won’t be as much of a problem as people are anticipating.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): The time for debate how now expired, but it is time for members’ statements.

Debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Long-term care

Mr. Michael Mantha: I’m getting used to taking off the mask once in a while.

I want to give a big thank you to Nancy Johnson from the NorthEast Family Council Network and to the member from Mushkegowuk–James Bay for organizing a fabulous, informative meeting last night.

I can share words on how people felt last night as far as passionate. People care. There was lots of love. But there was also a lot of frustration, people who were frightened, and a lot of concerns that were raised by families that were there.

We participated in a Zoom meeting. There were well over 40 participants on the call, ranging from individuals from North Bay to Thunder Bay to Timmins, Sudbury, across the North Shore—all over northern Ontario, and their concerns were for their loved ones who are in long-term-care homes; their concerns were with regard to the testing process; the consistencies with protocols; how certain things are being done in certain homes where they’re not being done in others.

Overall, it was an eye-opening meeting for myself. It gives me the fire to re-engage and pursue once again the NorthEast Family Council Network across my riding. I would encourage all of the MPPs in this House to do the same, so that we can get down to the root cause of what’s happening and what is so worrisome for families in long-term-care homes.

The Dads of Milton

Mr. Parm Gill: I’m just going to start by removing my #miltonstrong mask with me here this morning.

Mr. Speaker, it is always incredible to see community groups helping one another right across the province, and that can’t be more true than in my riding of Milton. Started as a way to increase the feeling of community and involvement of those who live in Milton, the Dads of Milton has grown into a passionate group of over 700 members. Those 700 continue to organize fundraising events around town that support our local community.

I had the privilege to safely attend the Dads of Milton third annual Step Up to the Plate event and fundraiser at Lions Sports Park. The enthusiasm, dedication and commitment that the Dads of Milton bring to this event each and every year is something to admire.

This year’s Step Up to the Plate fundraiser raised over $5,000 for Food4Kids Halton. I want to thank Canadian singer/songwriter and Milton native Danny Fernandes for coming to show his support and hang out with dads all day.

I also want to thank all of the dads who help organize and put in many hours to make this event a reality each and every year. A special thanks goes out to Mario, Jeffrey and James for their dedication in leading this effort for the third year in a row.

I look forward to being a part of the fourth inning of this event next year, Mr. Speaker. Once again, I want to congratulate all of the dads in Milton. Thank you and God bless.

Jane-Finch community hub

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: Years ago, the community came together to design the plan for the Jane-Finch community hub, a vision that would see community members of all ages and from all walks of life enjoy a safe and enriching space, a physical manifestation of a dream in a community accustomed to challenges, barriers and, far too often, nightmares.

So when this government revealed it would be selling off the land to build the Jane-Finch community hub to the highest bidder, the shock and frustration was palpable. The Jane and Finch community mobilized in opposition to this betrayal and were joined by voices across the city and beyond.

I thank everyone who stood up to this government, urging them to reaffirm Metrolinx’s earlier agreement to give the lands to the city of Toronto to build a future community hub. Under this immense pressure, Metrolinx has now indicated they would reaffirm their earlier commitment to transfer the land.

Speaker, I will not breathe a sigh of relief until the lands are transferred, and I will keep up the pressure. We are in this mess today because the former Liberal government refused to come to the table and transfer the lands, as negotiated between the community and Metrolinx.

Promises can be broken and words are often just wind. Our community is done with false hope and we will continue to hold the government to account until the lands are transferred.

Do the right thing. Transfer the lands. The time is now.

Education

Mr. Mike Harris: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Welcome back to the Legislature. It’s great to see you in the chair after a short August break.

Like so many families across the province, the first weeks of September are always busy in my house with our kids returning to school. This week, all five headed back to the classroom, with my youngest starting junior kindergarten and my oldest going into his first year of high school.

This school year will be unlike any other for my children, their peers, their educators and our support staff, but under the careful guidance of our public health experts, including Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer, Dr. David Williams, and SickKids hospital, our province has been able to put a plan in place so they can safely return to school.

I want to thank our school board officials at Waterloo Region District School Board and Waterloo Catholic District School Board, who did a great job communicating with parents and students about how schools will look once they reopen, and our educators and support staff who worked tremendously hard to welcome our students back to school.

Returning to school during the middle of a global pandemic is an unprecedented challenge that we are all facing together. We all have a key role to play in keeping our children safe. But with our cautious and comprehensive plan that has been informed by medical experts and the work that has been done with educators and school boards, we’re ensuring the proper protocols are in place so our children can return to their desks and be with their classmates and friends, albeit at a distance.

To every student in Waterloo region and across this province, I hope you have a fun and safe return back to school this fall.

Public space

Ms. Marit Stiles: Over the last difficult six months, we’ve had the gaps that exist in everything from health care to education to employment laid bare by COVID-19. In Toronto and in urban communities across Ontario, the pandemic has also shown us how vital our shared spaces are to our quality of life. Parks and green spaces are seeing more use than ever before. The requirement to keep distance has forced a reshaping of our streets, with active transportation finally given the priority it deserves. In Davenport, new bike lanes, pedestrian-friendly quiet streets and expanded patio space have helped change our neighbourhoods for the better.

At the same time, the economic damage of the pandemic is visible on our main streets. Small businesses left to fend for themselves by a patchy series of government supports that were too little, too late have been shuttered by the thousands throughout Toronto. Without safe and affordable housing, people have been forced to live in tents wherever they can find space, and we are losing some iconic landmarks in our cityscape as well, as the government continues to put the interests of big developers ahead of our local communities.

Black-owned businesses in Little Jamaica, LGBTQ spaces on Church Street, the Matador in my own riding and even Sneaky Dee’s are all at risk. Tools that did exist to allow cities to enhance public spaces, like sections 37 and 42 funds, were stripped away by this government in Bill 108. Developers are seeing big gains from proximity to schools, but our school boards are starved of funds, the largest of them barred from using education development charges.

The pandemic has shrunk our worlds, reminding us just how important our local neighbourhoods are. For those neighbourhoods to thrive, we need affordable housing; walkable, bikeable streets; green spaces to stretch out; and diverse main streets where businesses can actually afford to operate.

Education / Éducation

Mr. Stephen Blais: The beginning of the school year always brings with it a special energy—a combination of stress, anxiety and excitement—and this year even more so. As parents, my wife and I have had many conversations over the summer about the return to school and what it will mean for our family. As an MPP, I’ve heard from many residents about their trepidation, their stress and their concerns. I’ve heard about the confusion caused by the ever-changing criteria, standards and start dates.

But now that school is here, I want to thank all of the teachers, early childhood educators, custodians, bus drivers and administrators for the hard work they’ve put in to try to bring some normalcy back to our children’s lives. I want to thank Jennifer Coleman, the principal at Cairine Wilson high school, for showing me and trustee Penny the amazing work her team has done to prepare for school. Jennifer had to prepare four different back-to-school plans because the guidance from Toronto continually changed. Her teaching and administrative teams have done an amazing job.

Je veux aussi remercier Jean Gauthier, directeur, et Jean-François Bard, surintendant, de l’école Notre-Place. Il est clair que leur engagement envers la sécurité de nos enfants est primordial.

It will continue to be a difficult time, and likely there is more change coming. But your efforts to bring professional, publicly funded education back to our children are very much appreciated. Thank you for everything that you do.

COVID-19 response

Mr. Daryl Kramp: This 42nd Legislative Assembly has been notable for many positive things, but I am proud to say that the greatest among them in the year of the pandemic is the way the people of Ontario have responded to our government’s actions.

For the most part, the 14 million-plus of us have acted with the warmth and the care of a small community: looking out for each other, caring for each other, and taking actions to minimize the risk to others as we face an invisible foe that experts say is at least three times more infectious than the flu that kills too many of us every year.

Today, I would like to thank the citizens of Hastings–Lennox and Addington for doing their part, and I pass on their thanks to the rest of Ontario for doing your part to keep us all as safe as possible.

As this fall weather settles in, we have reached another milestone along our battle route with COVID-19. The evidence so far is that recent cases have come from letting our guard down in large-scale social situations, not just from schools or restaurants. It’s no time to take our foot off the gas on the safety protocols that we have found have saved lives, whether it’s washing hands, covering our mouths and noses to stop incoming and outgoing infections, or social distancing about two metres apart whenever possible. So let’s beat this thing by doing more of what we’ve done already.

As one of the greatest race drivers of all time said, “You don’t take your foot off the gas until you’re over the finish line.”

Rural Ontario

Mr. John Vanthof: I’m sure we’ve all opened our Facebook and saw a picture of, “Here’s what you were doing last year on this day.” Today, I’d like to do this for the Legislature. Last year this week, all the legislators joined 80,000 other people and came to the little town of Verner, which happens to be in my riding, for the International Plowing Match—people from all over Ontario and from all over Canada. Now that we’re in COVID-19, that sounds like such a foreign experience. But those events are the events that build the fabric of rural Ontario.

Sadly, tragically, and rightfully so, the IPM has been postponed for this year, and it is our sincere hope that we will all be back there again next year to celebrate rural Ontario.

And it’s not just the IPM. This weekend is the second-biggest event that happens every year in my riding, usually the biggest event, the New Liskeard Fall Fair. The New Liskeard Fall Fair has gone virtual. Their board of directors has done everything they can to keep the passion alive. I commend them for doing that. But the fact that they’ve gone virtual puts salt in some of the wounds in rural Ontario—and it’s not their fault—because virtual for many people in rural Ontario with no broadband is more of a slap in the face than it is a solution.

Clēan Works and Pure Life Machinery

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: Niagara is one of the most innovative regions in the province, and a great example of that ingenuity has been the response of local entrepreneurs Clēan Works and Pure Life Machinery. Located in Beamsville, in my riding of Niagara West, Clēan Works is an incredible success story about an Ontario apple farmer, Paul Moyer, taking technology used to decontaminate produce and converting it into a device that can decontaminate personal protective equipment.

As announced by the Premier on his Niagara tour in August, Clēan Works and Pure Life Machinery have received $2 million from the Ontario Together Fund to help manufacture a one-of-a-kind sanitizing device called the Clean Flow Healthcare Mini. This Ontario-made device can decontaminate hundreds and hundreds of N95 masks per hour, along with many other things, including personal protective equipment. The investment by the Ontario Together Fund will help enable Clēan Works to scale up their production, triple their capacity, bring jobs to Niagara and ensure that those on the front lines have PPE and other equipment to continue the fight against COVID-19.

Clēan Works is a great example of the Ontario Together spirit and just another reason why our government is making targeted, effective investments to support homegrown trailblazers. By investing in Clēan Works, our government is not only supporting local economic recovery in Niagara, but ensuring that we are ready with necessary Ontario-made PPE and equipment today and into the future.

Unionville seniors affordable housing development

Mr. Billy Pang: It feels great being back to the legislative chamber, where I continue to serve and represent the riding of Markham–Unionville.

Mr. Speaker, while COVID-19 and the health and safety of Ontarians remain our government’s top priority, our government continues to work nonstop to serve, address and improve the lives of Ontarians every single day. In July, I was proud to join the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Honourable Steve Clark, and municipal and federal partners as Canada and Ontario announced their investment of over $4.2 million in the Unionville Seniors affordable housing development, to give seniors in Markham–Unionville and York region the support services they deserve.

As part of this social infrastructure fund, the new building will have 264 units, as well as a seniors’ hub and community space.

Our seniors helped build our province, and our government believes that every Ontarian should be able to find a home that meets their needs and their budgets. This announcement is critical for our community and will enhance the quality of life for many people, now and well into the future.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): That concludes our members’ statements this morning.

Wearing of pins

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister for the Environment, Conservation and Parks has informed me he has a point of order he’d like to raise.

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Thanks very much, Speaker. I’m seeking unanimous consent for the members of the Legislature to wear pins recognizing Childhood Cancer Awareness Month.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m sorry; I missed that. Could you repeat it again?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: You just approved my raise.

Laughter.

Hon. Jeff Yurek: But anyways, I’m seeking unanimous consent for members to wear pins recognizing Childhood Cancer Awareness Month.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of the Environment is seeking unanimous consent to allow the members to wear pins. Agreed? Agreed.

Private members’ public business

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I beg to inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 101(c), a change has been made to the order of precedence on the ballot list for private members’ public business, such that Mr. Oosterhoff assumes ballot item number 15 and Mr. Nicholls assumes ballot item number 54.

Decorum in chamber

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): As we continue to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, we now find ourselves at a point where wearing a face mask for large parts of the day has become common, even necessary, here in our building and including in the chamber. Essentially, our masks have become another piece of our daily apparel.

Pre-COVID-19, we had an understanding and expectation amongst members, as part of our dress in the chamber, that items of apparel not contain logos, slogans, advertising or other devices that convert them from clothing to vehicles of expression. Nothing has changed about that, so I’d ask all members to keep this expectation in mind when they choose the mask that they’ll be wearing in the House and, eventually, in committees. Thank you very much.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Timmins has a point of order.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is going to be here today. He wasn’t here Monday or Tuesday. We would ask that we stand down the leads and allow him to get here so that we can actually ask the questions.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Once again, I’ll remind all the members that it’s not appropriate to make reference to the absence of another member. It never has been.

The member for Timmins is seeking unanimous consent of the House to allow the official opposition to stand down their lead questions. Agreed? I heard some noes.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’ll ask the House to come to order, as question period is imminent.

Question Period

Long-term care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My first question this morning is to the Premier. Speaker, families are watching in horror as COVID-19 outbreaks rip through another for-profit, long-term-care facility, Extendicare’s West End Villa in Ottawa. Since first declaring an outbreak two weeks ago, the virus has infected 46 residents and 6 residents have died. This is a facility with a history of police investigations and class-action lawsuits.

The Premier repeatedly talks about lessons that have been learned and that long-term-care homes are protected and that for-profit operators would be held to account. Despite all that talk and being warned months ago that this was coming, why are families once again watching another deadly outbreak in long-term care?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Long-Term Care to reply.

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you for the question. I want to make sure that all of us understand that the long-term-care homes in Ontario are often a reflection of the community surrounding them. In fact, there was an

article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal with Dr. Nathan Stall indicating that the outbreaks are consistent with the public health unit rate of infection of COVID around those areas and is not reflective of the ownership of the home.

Some of our homes have struggled. There is no doubt about that. COVID is an invisible invader, and that’s why we have the testing processes we have. It’s why, once it’s into the home, we have to find it and we have to destroy it, and that’s why we have the infection prevention and control teams coming in. It’s why we have a coordinated effort with Ontario Health, Public Health Ontario and the Ottawa Public Health units. I’m in daily contact with Ottawa Public Health to make sure everything that is—

Interruption.

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: It’s not mine.

In any case, I would suggest that we look at understanding the area and the communities. This is why everyone needs—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, all I can say is thank goodness that the rates of death are not the same in the community as they have been in long-term care. That was a horrifying response.

The Premier talks about taking action, Speaker; he talks about it all the time. Two months ago—two months ago—after hundreds of residents had died in long-term care, the government’s own report on long-term-care staffing made very specific recommendations to address the challenges in long-term care, including funding to “urgently address the staffing crisis in long-term care.” Two months ago.

Why, then, has the government failed now to provide the additional funding that has long been needed to increase the actual staffing and prevent further outbreaks and deaths in homes like Extendicare West End Villa? When will it actually happen? When will his talk turn into action?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’ll ask the members to take their seats.

The Minister of Long-Term Care to reply.

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Once again, thank you for the question. In fact, we have been acting. As soon as we became the Ministry of Long-Term Care in the summer of 2019, the staffing crisis was very evident and we began working on that at that time. All throughout this, we are preparing and managing a staffing shortage with every measure possible. This is a combined effort between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care, understanding that more needs to be done, informed by our expert panel that did a study on staffing in long-term care to provide us with a map for a long-term-care staffing strategy, a comprehensive strategy. That’s exactly what we’ve been working on.

We have been absolutely working around the clock, dedicated to this, looking at every avenue for staffing and working with multiple ministries to address this issue. It is ongoing, and we will continue to work on this. Thank you.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, this government’s lack of urgency on fixing long-term care has now led to another six deaths in the last couple of days. That is unacceptable. It should be unacceptable for everyone sitting on the government bench.

The government’s own report also recommended increased standards in long-term care, calling on the government to mandate “four hours of direct care per resident as quickly as possible.” That was a couple of months ago. Where are the four hours of hands-on care?

Instead of establishing that minimum or taking any steps whatsoever to address staffing shortages, the government has done nothing and is allowing the horrific cycle of outbreaks, infections and deaths to continue in our long-term-care system. How many more outbreaks need to happen in long-term care before this Premier meets the staffing and care standards recommended by their own advisers, by their own reports?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. I am going to push back. It is absolute reality that we are actively, aggressively working on the staffing strategy. The sense of urgency is absolute, not only for the Ministry of Long-Term Care but for this entire government and all the good people who are working tirelessly, whether it’s in the public service, the front lines of our long-term-care homes or the hard-working MPPs and the people on your side as well who are working hard to do this.

All of us—all of us—must come together and collaborate and make sure that we do everything possible. That is exactly what we’re doing, and we will continue to work and take every measure.

I want to make sure everyone understands that these homes are our focus. Many of the homes that are in outbreak have one staff member self-isolating at home. There are two homes in the Ottawa area, and we are pouring all our resources into those homes to shore them up and make sure that we put the priority of the safety and well-being of residents and staff—

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

The next question.

Long-term care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Premier. Report after report from the front lines confirms that this government did nothing to prevent the COVID outbreaks that robbed Ontarians of their loved ones in long-term care. To those families, it looks like the Premier is doing all that he can do to protect a broken system. His government refused to hold a transparent public judicial inquiry into long-term care, instead trotting out their commission back in July. Two months later, families learned that the commission has only met in secret and will not commit to ever holding public hearings.

The Premier promised in July, in his own words, “a transparent, independent review of our long-term care system.” Does the Premier believe that a commission that has so far only met in secret is actually transparent?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Long-Term Care.

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you for the question. I take exception to the term “secret.” As a dedicated family doctor for many years who has come to this chamber to advance long-term care and make sure our most vulnerable people get care they need, I take great exception to that comment.

I can tell you that the commissioners are eminent people. They are highly skilled, highly qualified, credible, highly respected people. To say that meetings are being taken in secret is an absolute travesty.

The commissioners have the power to conduct hearings and deputations, and issue summons to any person to give evidence and produce documents as they conduct their investigation. They will uphold transparency and they will get to the bottom of what happened. They will provide guidance to our government as to what can be done differently. They will hear from residents, from families and from staff members. They will provide the transparency that is needed. I take great exception—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, that’s great, Speaker. Then I expect the transcripts of every interview that has been taken so far to be posted on the website.

Yesterday, the minister stated on the record that certainly, “there will be ... hearings, there is a public report,” only to be contradicted literally within hours by the commission itself. Families and front-line health workers who had been promised concrete action and a transparent investigation are now dismissing this as a cover-up and as meaningless as the Premier’s promise of an iron ring around long-term care—which we all know never occurred.

How can this Premier claim a transparent process when key interviews have been conducted in secret already, families have been left in the dark, there is no commitment to holding public hearings and the Minister of Long-Term Care can’t keep her story straight, by the look of things?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you for the question. The commission has the ability to conduct hearings and summon individuals or groups to gather information. It is an independent commission, and it needs to stay that way. We recognize the important part of getting up and getting going. That’s what they’ve done during the last month: establish a secretariat, establish a group of people to support them so that they can do their good work.

This is about transparency. We need to be informed as to what we can do differently. We need that objectivity. And what we will be providing is that avenue through the independent commission.

As minister, I am not in contact with the commissioners, because it must be independent, transparent and non-partisan. It’s absolutely critical. I respect the commissioners that have been appointed. They are highly respected in their fields. They are going to provide the trust that is needed—

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

The final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, I wrote to the commission about a week ago to ask about these issues specifically, and I got no response until this morning, after news broke that the commission was conducting key interviews behind closed doors in secret.

The Premier’s hand-picked commission won’t commit to public hearings, hasn’t reached out to a single family yet and won’t commit to providing any accountability or transparency. Will the Premier finally do the right thing today and call the fully transparent, independent judicial inquiry that should already be in place and at work?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Long-Term Care.

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you once again. We know from Justice Gillese, the public inquiry that she chaired and recommended many recommendations after, that it takes a long time for a public inquiry to be done. An independent commission will provide us with the necessary efficient timelines that we need to address any possible additional measures that we can take.

We cannot wait years. There are even some groups saying that we already know what happened with ward rooms, with the capacity in our long-term-care homes, the lack of redevelopment over decades of the previous government—15 years within which no essential significant redevelopment occurred. The neglect of our long-term-care system by the previous government, occasionally and sometimes frequently propped up by the opposition, makes a difference to our vulnerable—

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

The next question.

Education funding

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

Listening to claims made by the Premier and the Minister of Education this week, parents and educators could be forgiven for thinking they’d stumbled into some kind of alternate reality. Why else would the government repeatedly say they have reduced class sizes, when what’s happening on the ground is so clearly the opposite? Why would the government take credit for the enormously hard work that boards have done to reduce class sizes in a few—very few—areas of high need and claim that they’d done that across the province? In fact, what they’ve done is create utter chaos across this province.

The Premier owes parents and educators across the province an apology. He is leaving our buses and classrooms in chaos at a time when our children need more support and not more confusion. Will the Premier listen to the chorus of voices, including SickKids, and bring in class-size caps of 15?

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

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the member opposite for the question.

Our plan that we have unveiled has been fully endorsed by the Chief Medical Officer of Health of this province. It’s evidence-informed and it is fully funded. It’s comprehensive and it leads the nation in each and every realm.

In the areas of classroom sizes, it is under the Premier’s leadership that we have dedicated $200 million to enable school boards to, yes, hire more teachers, upwards of 2,000 funded by government and, funded by reserves, an additional up to 5,000 teachers could be hired through the unlocking of $496 million.

The point is in each and every school board in this province, urban and rural, school boards are taking leadership to reduce those classroom sizes. In Toronto, in the higher-risk communities—and I’ve always been specific that in those communities we’re seeing absolute caps of 15 up to grade 3 and absolute caps of 20 for grades 4 to 8.

We’ll continue to work with our boards to keep these classroom sizes safe and do everything we can to ensure the safety of our province.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: The Minister of Education’s response is utter fiction. The minister needs to go back and do the math on what this funding is covering, because it ain’t covering that.

Speaker, if you talk to any educator, custodian, principal, parent, you’re going to see classes are not being reduced to ensure physical distancing, because this government has not put up the funding to do it. This week, I heard from more parents—I’ve heard from thousands. One parent was shocked to find out that their child’s class was collapsed into a super-sized 28-person class. I’ve heard about 29, 35, 30—a grade 8 with a class of 35. Parents are trying to buy outdoor tents with their own money to help schools keep distanced. Some classrooms are being left empty. It’s absurd.

A bus driver told me yesterday she’s been driving a full bus of 60 children to five schools in two different boards since last week and only got her seating recommendations yesterday morning.

Again to the Premier: Will the government commit today to keeping our kids safe by capping class sizes at 15?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: In the Toronto District School Board to date, the director of education has informed us that they’re on track for hiring over 366 net new teachers to respond to this unprecedented challenge. In Toronto, for example, which the member opposite represents, there has been an additional 102 public health nurses, more than doubling the capacity to respond.

Mr. Speaker, what we’re seeing on the ground, notwithstanding some of the pessimism of the members opposite, is a real sense of unity of spirit in our province, of educators and principals and administrators and public health units coming together to confront this challenge. In the great tradition of our province, what we need now more than ever is a collective resolve to do our part and to work together in the public interest. That’s what our government will continue to do.

Personal protective equipment

Mr. Parm Gill: My question is to the Premier: Premier, not that long ago, during the darkest days of the COVID-19 pandemic, every country in the world was left scrambling for critical medical supplies and personal protective equipment. There was a worldwide shortage. Canada was left at the mercy of other countries for the PPE we desperately needed. A report by the province’s Auditor General completed in December 2017 found that more than 80% of the stockpiled equipment had expired under the previous Liberal government’s leadership

Can the Premier inform the Legislature about what our government has done to ensure that Ontarians are never left in the same vulnerable position ever again?

Hon. Doug Ford: I want to thank our great member from Milton. Now, I’ll never forget, Mr. Speaker, the day that the President decided to cut Canada off, their number one trading partner and number one customer. We called out for help, and the great, great companies of this province stood up; they ramped up, they switched over their lines, some of the largest companies, some of the smallest. Some people in their basements were making masks.

But I’m proud to say since everyone has stood up, we have dozens and dozens of companies making face shields, we have dozens of companies making face masks and hand sanitizer and surgical gowns and companies switching over again. Canada Goose—what a great company—switched over to surgical gowns. So I’m proud to say, in a short period of time, in less than three months, we are self-sufficient. We will never have to rely on a foreign leader or a foreign country ever again for our PPE. Not only—

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

Mr. Parm Gill: My question is back to the Premier: Premier, thank you for your strong leadership during some of the most difficult times that we’re facing. I remember, in the early days of the pandemic, stories about Ontario receiving contaminated products and having to fight with other countries for life-saving medical supplies. This demonstrated to everyone why Ontario needed to re-secure our supply chain and manufacturing strength once again.

Speaker, can the Premier please share with the Legislature about the partnership announced yesterday between our government and Linamar to secure additional medical equipment for my constituents in Milton and all Ontarians as we continue our fight against COVID-19?

Hon. Doug Ford: Thank you very much to our great member. I’m going to back up for a second. I’m going to talk about our first announcement with 3M in Brockville. Now we have a supply of over 25 million N95 masks, with a great partnership with 3M, the federal government and the province.

We had a phenomenal meeting at Linamar. Going back months, when everyone in the world was scrambling for ventilators, we were able to partner up with O2—what another great company—and Linamar. Linamar is one of the largest and one of the best auto parts manufacturers in the entire world, employing 9,000 people up in the great city of Guelph. We went over there, and again, I’m proud to say, with the co-operation, the collaboration of our government and the private sector, they’re producing 10,000 ventilators. We’ll never have to rely on any other country for ventilators again.

We will have a stockpile of ventilators, not just for us but for our great neighbours, our provinces across this great country.

COVID-19 response

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Premier. London’s two COVID assessment centres are completely overwhelmed. They are seeing the longest lineups in months, with people waiting four hours or more for a test, or forced to leave without one. One of the centres is within walking distance of three elementary schools, creating safety and traffic nightmares for children getting to and from school. The Western University mobile testing unit is turning students away because it can’t meet the demand.

Christine and Sue Zimmer told me their 87-year-old mother, who needs a test in order to get her cancer surgery, was forced to risk exposure to COVID by waiting in line for hours with people who were symptomatic.

Speaker, with the second wave upon us, what is this government doing to reduce the risk and make more COVID tests available to Londoners?

Hon. Doug Ford: I want to thank the member for the question. Mr. Speaker, I stood up there, day after day after day, begging people to get tested, and people were coming. We’re leading the country in testing. We have 38% of the population, and 52% of the tests. We have well over 3,200,000 test kits.

What we’re doing—it’s all hands on deck. We’ve reached out for help again, because we aren’t shy to ask for help from the great people, the 14.5 million people and the thousands of businesses. Again, the thousands of businesses are stepping up. Some of the top retailers in the entire country that I’ve called personally are stepping up, and they’re going to be doing the testing. We look forward to making sure that everyone has an opportunity to get tested.

I drove by Women’s College. I’m the first to acknowledge, there were lineups, but there was good news in that lineup. The good news is I saw a lot of young people in that lineup, because we know the majority of the cases are under 40 years of age, and also under 19 years of age, so I’m so proud to see everyone getting there and getting tested, and we’re going to have a very efficient system.

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: An effective and appropriate testing strategy requires more assessment centres, longer hours, more options for testing. Ron Quintillan and his sisters need tests every two weeks to visit their father in long-term care. They worry that lineups for testing mean they won’t be able to see their father and are planning to take vacation days in order to wait for the test. Brenda DeSousa told me that her elderly parents are scheduled to move into a retirement home but may have to delay their move because of long waits for a COVID test.

Speaker, with students back to school, the situation in London is going to get much worse very quickly. Will the Premier commit to providing the resources that London urgently needs to expand our testing capacity and help limit the second wave?

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

Hon. Christine Elliott: The good news is that more people are going for tests. That’s what we asked people to do, people who have symptoms and people who believe they may have been in contact with someone with COVID-19. We are very pleased that they’re coming forward, but they also deserve to have timely—

Interjections.

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

Please restart the clock. The Minister of Health to reply.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you, Speaker. But people also deserve to have timely access to tests, and we recognize that with people going back to work, with people returning to school, people needing to have tests to visit family members in long-term-care homes or retirement homes, we need greater access for people. We have expanded our testing capacity and our lab capacity considerably in very short order, to the point that we are now leading in testing across the country, with over three million tests having been conducted.

But we are looking to expand again—we’re looking to get to 50,000 tests per day—and we have a fall preparedness plan that is calling for that to happen. We are actively looking, at this moment, at ways that we can expand access to people, not just in London but across the province, because we know there are long wait lines in other places. But we’re very grateful, first of all, to our hospital partners—

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

The next question. The member for Cambridge.

COVID-19 response

Mrs. Belinda C. Karahalios: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s good to be free. My question is for the Premier.

In March, the government implemented emergency orders shutting down Ontario’s economy, including places of worship. Initially, we were told this would last for two weeks in order to not overwhelm our health care system. Six months later, we expect many businesses will close permanently as a result.

I have heard from many people across our province concerned with the lack of clarity provided with regard to the transparent benchmarks and objective criteria being used by the province and local officials in their imposition of emergency powers.

This week, the Premier stated that a second shutdown is being considered on specific regions of the province as a result of a week that saw an increase in the number of positive COVID cases being reported.

For the sake of transparency and clarity, has or will the government create a general framework that they can share with the people of Ontario, with objective criteria like the rate of increased cases and the duration the increase needs to persist, before a second shutdown is considered or imposed on the province or on specific regions, or will such a decision be made on a gut feeling?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I recognize the Solicitor General to reply.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: We’re going to continue what we have done since the beginning, and that is listen to experts and get that information from the command table, from medical experts who understand what COVID-19 is. As those emerging issues come forward, as we see that we are learning more about what COVID does, what the pandemic can do within our community—frankly, kill people—we need to make sure that we listen to those experts and act quickly, which is why Ontario was the first jurisdiction in all of Canada to declare the declaration of emergency, because we knew, and Premier Ford understood, the need to act quickly to protect our communities

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

Mrs. Belinda C. Karahalios: Bill 195 gave this Premier the unilateral ability for the next year, and possibly two, without debate amongst Ontario MPPs, to impose a second province-wide or regional shutdown at any time. The Premier could hold on to these powers right up until the next Ontario election. Therefore, it is important that the government provide consistency and clarity to the people of Ontario.

Just this week, the Premier stated that despite the source of the most recent increases in positive COVID cases being social gatherings and not activities related to workplaces, he was considering a second shutdown for affected regions. Yesterday, the Premier said that new measures were on their way. Earlier this month, the Premier stated that local officials are free to impose more restrictive limits on gatherings as they deem necessary.

My question for the Premier is: Is the government considering imposing a second broad shutdown of specific affected regions, even where the increases are due to social gatherings, or will the government’s new measures be more targeted and ensure that any tightening or furthering of restrictions will be done based on a framework with objective criteria?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I would have thought that the member opposite understood the legislation, that, in fact, it has a one-year time frame—unprecedented. I cannot think of another piece of legislation we have tabled in this province that has a timeline of one year. If it is deemed necessary to extend that, it would be voted on and debated in this chamber, as it should be.

I want to come back to how we need to listen to the experts. We need to understand how this is impacting our communities, our businesses, our friends and family. We need to make sure that we do everything possible to keep people safe and sound. It is, at its core, what government must do, and I’m proud of how we’ve been able to do that so far.

It’s an emerging issue. We’re learning more as the medical experts continue to share that information. We need to react and respond when they share it.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The next question. The member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore.

COVID-19 response

Ms. Christine Hogarth: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Nice to see you this morning.

My first question is actually for the Minister of Education. I want to say thank you for all of his generous time, twice speaking directly to my constituents, parents, teachers and students, who had questions with regard to the education system.

Mr. Speaker, I know that parents, students and teachers in Etobicoke–Lakeshore are tracking the daily COVID numbers in our province; we all are. But I also know that we have confidence in our government. Our government has created a robust return-to-school plan backed by $1.3 billion in investment to support a safe reopening.

A big part of that plan includes a comprehensive outbreak management protocol document. Can the Minister of Education please tell the Legislature why it is such an important tool in our fight against COVID-19?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: I want to thank the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore for her solid leadership for her community as well as for all students in this province who want to go to school and be able to do so safely.

Speaker, when it comes to our plan to keep schools safe, we have two aims: The first is to prevent the spread, and the second is to act decisively when cases arise. Obviously, our focus, part of that $1.3-billion allocation investment, a one-time investment to make sure schools are safe, is really premised on minimizing the risk to all children and maximizing their learning experience.

Part of the guidance we’ve provided makes very clear expectations that they’re constantly implementing these prevention measures; that they’re maintaining accurate records of staff, students and visitors; that they’re working with local public health authorities; and that they’re taking appropriate action when staff, students or visitors became ill during the day, including isolation, the use of PPE and, obviously, for students, going back to their homes.

Speaker, we launched a website in this province, ontario.ca/reopeningschools, to provide data to parents on the COVID cases. We believe in transparency. We will do everything we can in this province to make sure our students are safe.

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

Ms. Christine Hogarth: I’d like to thank the minister for his answer. I want to say how happy I am, especially as a parent of a daughter who is in grade 11, to hear the commitment of our government to such a strong plan to keep our children safe as they return back to school.

I take comfort in the fact that our government has taken a scientific approach to reopening our province to ensure that Ontarians remain protected. However, Speaker, we all have all seen the cases and how they have risen across this province over the last couple of days. I do feel reassured knowing that we do have a world-class public health system advising our government, and I thank them for their efforts.

Can the Minister of Health please tell this House how the government plans to continue to protect Ontarians’ health and well-being as the fall approaches and numbers continue to rise?

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

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you to the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore for your question and for your advocacy on behalf of your constituents.

Due to the hard work of the people of Ontario, our province continues to be a leader among many jurisdictions in the fight against COVID-19. However, there is no doubt that the latest trends in numbers have raised some concern, especially as we move into the fall months.

We know that the people of Ontario don’t want to see widespread lockdowns or shutdowns again. That is why we are taking a pause of four weeks before considering any further loosening of public health measures or opening any further businesses, organizations or facilities. Additionally, we will be releasing our comprehensive fall preparedness plan very shortly. This plan will continue to build upon the measures currently in place and introduce new and innovative actions that our province can take to continue to fight COVID-19.

The people of Ontario can rest assured that our government will do everything we can to protect their health and well-being.

Indigenous affairs

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Remarks in Oji-Cree.

It’s good to be back to represent the great people of Kiiwetinoong. My question is to the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, First Nations have been very clear: It is disrespectful to bury legislation that affects our rights and our lands in omnibus bills like Bill 197. It is very disappointing that while First Nations have prioritized keeping communities safe during this pandemic, Ontario felt it was an appropriate time to pass an omnibus bill violating constitutionally protected Aboriginal and treaty rights.

Mr. Speaker, why does this government conduct itself in a manner that disrespects and dishonours treaty relationships?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Attorney General.

Hon. Doug Downey: Thank you for the question from the member opposite. It is very important that we have our relationships and the treaty rights. Although I’m not particularly aware—maybe I’ll get it in the supplementary—about the specific issue that he’s raising, I can tell you that the Indigenous justice division within the Ministry of the Attorney General and, of course, the Minister of Indigenous Affairs work closely with our partners, whether it be Grand Chief Archibald—we’re talking regularly with them about a whole variety of issues. We value the relationship. We value the input. It’s critical that we move forward in that partnership and in the spirit of partnership.

I’m happy to chat and talk with the member opposite any time, either in the House or outside of the House, about how we can foster that relationship and how we can make it even better. Mr. Speaker, again, it’s critical to our government that we work with our partners. I look forward to the supplementary.

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

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Meegwetch. Name-dropping First Nations leadership is not partnership. As a treaty partner, this government must learn to respect the treaty relationship before it is damaged beyond repair.

I bring this up today because economic recovery from the effects of COVID-19 will not happen at the expense of our treaty rights and our lands. This is not open season on our lands. The forests and the land is more to us as First Nations than a source of money.

Most of our communities in my riding are still in lockdown. They could not participate fully in any consultation exercises or activities—if there were any—while this pandemic was happening. Will the government act honourably to ensure that all First Nations can participate in your economic recovery activities?

Hon. Doug Downey: I agree wholeheartedly that just using names and flowery language doesn’t actually make a partnership. It’s what happens on the ground. It’s the activities that we’re doing.

Just yesterday, the minister of northern affairs talked about the mining sector, about the things that we’re opening up, the partnerships that we have with First Nations. It’s proof in fact. It’s action. We’re not here to talk about things. We’re here to do things, and we’re doing that. We’re doing that in the justice sector with the ways that we’re reaching out and we’re partnering with NAN and Treaty 3 and the others.

I use names because I want to reinforce that there are individuals that we are working with very closely. There are dozens of names that I’m not using because that really isn’t the point. The point is that we’re taking action. It’s in justice. It’s in economic affairs. It’s in social issues. It’s in every way that we touch with First Nations and the challenges they have. I can tell you that through the justice system, the activities that we’re partnering with to solve long-standing issues—I’m very excited about it. This government is taking action, and the proof is—

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

COVID-19 response

Mr. Stephen Blais: My question for the Premier. For months, the Premier and his Minister of Health have been talking about the