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

March 1, 2022

42nd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2022-Mar-01 vol. A (PDF)

L037A - Tue 1 Mar 2022 / Mar 1er mar 2022

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 1 March 2022 Mardi 1 er mars 2022

Orders of the Day

Legislative reform

Members’ Statements

Mois de la Francophonie

Coldest Night of the Year

Health care

Bluewater Health Community Addictions Hub

Long-term care

Invasion of Ukraine / Invasion de l’Ukraine

Olympic and Paralympic athletes

Child care

Markdale hospital

Home care

Resignation of member for Elgin–Middlesex–London

Visitors

Wearing of pins

Stuart Lyon Smith

Question Period

Health care funding

Home care

Employment standards

Economic reopening and recovery

Hospital funding

Climate change

Ontario economy

Affordable housing

COVID-19 immunization

Manufacturing jobs

Child care

COVID-19 immunization

Education funding

Government’s record

Small business

Notice of dissatisfaction

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Introduction of Bills

Protecting Ontario’s Religious Diversity Act, 2022 / Loi de 2022 sur la protection de la diversité religieuse en Ontario

No COVID-19 Evictions Act, 2022 / Loi de 2022 interdisant les expulsions pendant la COVID-19

Petitions

Water extraction

Tenant protection

Northern Health Travel Grant

COVID-19 immunization

Celiac disease

Climate change

Front-line workers

Post-stroke treatment

Celiac disease

Optometry services

Orders of the Day

Fewer Fees, Better Services Act, 2022 / Loi de 2022 pour de meilleurs services et moins de frais

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Before I ask for the orders of the day, I’ll remind the members that if they wish to be recognized by the Speaker, they have to be in their designated seat, as of today.

Orders of the Day

Legislative reform

Hon. Paul Calandra: I move that the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario be amended as follows:

Standing order 7(

a) is amended by deleting subclause (

i) and substituting the following:

“(

i) In a spring meeting period from the Tuesday following Family Day to the first Thursday in June, except that when an election is to be held pursuant to subsection 9(2) of the Election Act, the spring meeting period shall end on the fifth Wednesday preceding the first Thursday in June.”

Standing order 9 is amended as follows:

(1) By adding “Introduction of government bills” after “Reports by committees” in all instances where it appears.

(2) By adding the following subclause:

“(g.1) No later than 12 noon on any Thursday that the House meets, the government House leader may indicate in the House, or may deposit written notice with the Clerk of the Assembly, that a temporary change in the weekly meeting

schedule of the House is required, and in such case the House shall commence at 9 a.m. the next sitting Monday with the proceeding ‘Orders of the day’.”

Standing order 12(

b) is amended by deleting the number “5” and substituting the number “10” in both instances.

Standing order 27 is amended by deleting “to which less than 10 minutes is allotted” and substituting “of less than 10 minutes.”

Standing order 35(

a) is amended by deleting “and points of order.”

Standing order 39(

f) is deleted and the following substituted:

“(

f) The period for ‘Introduction of government bills’ and ‘Introduction of bills’ shall be limited to 30 minutes collectively.

“(f.1) Only government bills may be introduced during the proceeding ‘Introduction of government bills.’

“(f.2) Government bills may be introduced during the proceeding ‘Introduction of bills’.”

Standing order 61(

a) is amended by deleting “Introduction of bills” and substituting “Introduction of government bills.”

Standing order 62 is deleted and the following substituted:

“62(

a) When a budget has been presented, the main estimates shall be tabled in the House no more than 12 sessional days later. During those 12 days the budget debate shall be completed. If no budget has been presented by the first sessional day following Victoria Day, the main estimates shall be tabled at the next available sessional day.

“(

b) Upon tabling, the estimates shall be deemed to be referred to the standing committees to which the respective ministries and offices were assigned pursuant to standing order 114(b).

“(

c) Notwithstanding clause (b), upon tabling, any estimates or supplementary estimates approved by the Board of Internal Economy shall be deemed to be concurred in.”

Standing order 63 is deleted and the following substituted:

“63(

a) The consideration of estimates shall not take precedence over consideration of a government bill.

“(b)(

i) The order of consideration of the estimates of the ministries and offices referred to each committee shall be determined by selection of members of the committee, such that the members of the party forming the official opposition shall select first, followed by the members of the other recognized parties in decreasing order of their membership in the House, and the members of the party forming the government shall select last.

“(ii) With each turn, the members of each party may choose the estimates of one ministry or office.

“(iii) If, when their turn to select occurs, the members of a party decline to make a selection, the selection process proceeds to the next party in rotation as provided in subclause (i).

“(

c) The estimates of the ministries and offices shall be considered in the order in which they were selected. The subcommittee on committee business of each committee may, by unanimous agreement, alter the order of consideration.

“(

d) The time for the consideration of the estimates of each ministry or office shall be determined by the respective committee.

“(

e) No estimates shall be considered in a committee while any matter, including a procedural motion, relating to the same policy field is being considered in the House.”

Standing order 64(

a) is amended by deleting “the Standing Committee on Estimates” and substituting “each committee.”

Standing order 65 is deleted and the following substituted:

“65(

a) Upon tabling, all supplementary estimates shall be deemed referred to the standing committee to which their ministry or office has been assigned pursuant to standing order 114(b).

“(

b) Each standing committee shall consider supplementary estimates of the ministries and offices selected within the time allocated pursuant to standing order 63(

d) for the consideration of the main estimates.

“(

c) All other supplementary estimates shall be reported back to the House. The report of each committee shall be deemed to be received and the supplementary estimates for the ministries and offices named in the report shall be deemed to be concurred in.”

Standing order 66(

a) is amended by deleting “The Standing Committee on Estimates” and substituting “Each standing committee.”

Standing order 66(

c) is amended by deleting all the words after “referred” and substituting “to the appropriate committee as they are presented to the House, shall be deemed to be passed by that committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House.”

Standing order 66(

d) is deleted and the following substituted:

“(

d) There shall be an order for concurrence placed on the Orders and Notices paper for each of the estimates reported from each committee. There shall be two hours, apportioned equally among the recognized parties, allotted to the debate on the orders for concurrence, at the end of which time the Speaker shall without further debate put every question necessary to dispose of the order for concurrence in supply for each of the ministries and offices named in the committees’ reports. No amendment to any question may be moved. If a recorded vote is requested by five members, all divisions shall be stacked and disposed of in one single vote, and the division bell shall be limited to 10 minutes.”

Standing order 67 is amended by adding “62,” after “standing orders.”

Standing order 68 is amended by deleting “Standing Committee on Estimates” and substituting “respective standing committees.”

Standing order 69(

a) is deleted.

Standing order 85 is amended as follows:

(1) By deleting subclause (b)(ii).

(2) By deleting “Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills” wherever it appears and substituting “Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.”

(3) By deleting the word “when” in subclause (e)(

v) and substituting “if.”

Standing order 86 is amended by deleting “the Legislative Assembly” and substituting “Procedure and House Affairs.”

Standing order 88 is amended by deleting “considered by the Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills” and substituting “given first reading.”

Standing order 89 is amended by deleting clause (

a) and substituting the following:

“(

a) Subject to standing orders 90 and 91, every private bill when read a first time shall remain ordered for second reading, unless a request is filed in writing to refer the bill to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with the Clerk of the House by,

“(

i) a permanent member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs; or

“(ii) five members of the assembly not of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, in which case the order for second reading of the bill shall be discharged and the bill shall be deemed to be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

“(a.1) If no such request is received within 16 sessional days of the bill being read a first time, the order for second reading of the bill may be called at the discretion of the government House leader. When such order is called, the Speaker shall without debate or amendment put all questions necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill. A private bill given second reading shall be ordered for third reading, and the order for third reading shall then immediately be called and the Speaker shall put the question forthwith without debate or amendment.”

Standing orders 89(d), 90(d), 91(

e) and 92, respectively, are amended by deleting “Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills” wherever it appears and substituting “Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.”

Standing orders 93 and 94 are deleted and the following substituted:

“93(

a) The Speaker shall advise the House of any notices received by the Clerk of the House pursuant to standing order 85(e)(

v) and all submissions related to the bill shall stand referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

“(

b) Any person whose interest or property may be affected by a private bill, when required, shall appear before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to express his or her consent or objection, or may consent in writing, proof of which may be demanded by the committee.

“94. Private bills when reported by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs shall be placed on the Orders and Notices paper for second reading, which orders may then be called by the government House leader, and the provisions of standing order 89(a.1) shall then apply.”

Standing order 96 is deleted.

Standing order 101(

a) is amended by adding at the beginning, “Except on the 12 sessional days immediately following the speech from the throne,”.

Standing order 101(

c) is amended by deleting “on the Thursday of the week preceding the week in which the item of business is to be considered” and substituting “eight sessional days prior to the earlier of the two dates on the order of precedence determined in clause (b).”

Standing order 101(

e) is amended by deleting “appear on the Orders and Notices paper two weeks” and substituting “be designated on the Orders and Notices paper eight sessional days” and by adding at the end:

“In the event that a member fails to designate business for consideration by this deadline, the first eligible public bill to appear on the Orders and Notices paper standing in that member’s name shall be designated for consideration. Should that member have no public bills standing in their name then the first eligible motion to appear on the Orders and Notices paper standing in that member’s name shall be designated for consideration.

Should that member have no business standing in their name on the Orders and Notices paper by this deadline, the member shall lose their place in the order of precedence and the House shall not conduct a Private members’ public business proceeding on that date.”

Standing order 111(

c) is deleted and the following substituted:

“Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy.”

Standing order 111(

d) is amended by deleting “Estimates” and substituting “the Interior.”

Standing order 111(

g) is amended by deleting “Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly” at the beginning and substituting “Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs,” and by adding at the end “and to be the committee provided for by

section 33 of

part III, Regulations, of the Legislation Act, 2006, and having the terms of reference as set out in that section, namely: to be the committee to which all regulations stand permanently referred; and to examine the regulations with particular reference to the scope and method of the exercise of delegated legislative power without reference to the merits of the policy or objectives to be effected by the regulations or enabling statutes, but in so doing regard shall be had to the following guidelines:

“(

i) Regulations should not contain provisions initiating new policy, but should be confined to details to give effect to the policy established by the statute;

“(ii) Regulations should be in strict accord with the statute conferring of power, particularly concerning personal liberties;

“(iii) Regulations should be expressed in precise and unambiguous language;

“(iv) Regulations should not have retrospective effect unless clearly authorized by statute;

“(

v) Regulations should not exclude the jurisdiction of the courts;

“(vi) Regulations should not impose a fine, imprisonment or other penalty;

“(vii) Regulations should not shift the onus of proof of innocence to a person accused of an offence;

“(viii) Regulations should not impose anything in the way of a tax (as distinct from fixing the amount of a licence fee, or the like); and

“(ix) General powers should not be used to establish a judicial tribunal or an administrative tribunal,

“and the committee shall from time to time report to the House its observations, opinions and recommendations as required by

section 33 of

part III, Regulations, of the Legislation Act, 2006, but before drawing the attention of the House to a regulation or other statutory instrument, the committee shall afford the ministry or agency concerned an opportunity to furnish orally or in writing to the committee such explanation as the ministry or agency thinks fit.”

Standing order 111(

i) is deleted.

Standing order 114(

a) is amended by deleting “standing orders 111(a), (

b) and (c)” and substituting “standing orders 111(a), (b), (c), (d), (

e) and (g).”

Standing order 114(

b) is amended by deleting “Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly” and substituting “Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs” and by adding after the words “standing order” the words “and for the purpose of consideration of estimates.”

Standing order 118 is amended by deleting “and Vice-Chair” and substituting “and Vice-Chair(s).”

Standing order 119 is amended by deleting “and Vice-Chair” and substituting “and Vice-Chair(s).”

Standing order 120(

b) is amended by deleting “Standing Committee on Estimates” and substituting “Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.”

Standing order 120 is amended by deleting clauses (d), (e), and (

f) and substituting the following:

“(

d) When there are two recognized parties, where the Chair of a standing committee is a member of the party forming the government, the Vice-Chair shall be a member of a recognized party in opposition to the government or an independent member; and where the Chair is a member of a recognized party in opposition to the government, the Vice-Chair shall be a member of the party forming the government.

“(

e) When there are three or more recognized parties, there shall be two Vice-Chairs of each committee, chosen as follows: where the Chair of a standing committee is a member of the party forming the government, the First Vice-Chair shall be a member of the official opposition and the Second Vice-Chair shall be a member of a recognized party in opposition to the government other than the official opposition; and where the Chair is a member of the official opposition, the First Vice-Chair shall be a member of the party forming the government and the Second Vice-Chair shall be a member of a recognized party in opposition to the government other than the official opposition; and where the Chair of a standing committee is a member of a recognized party in opposition to the government other than the official opposition, the First Vice-Chair shall be a member of the party forming the government and the Second Vice-Chair shall be a member of the party forming the official opposition.

“(

f) Failing the appointment of a Vice-Chair, First Vice-Chair or Second Vice-Chair, as the case may be, pursuant to clauses (

d) or (e), any other member of the committee may be appointed.”

Standing order 128 is amended by deleting “Vice-Chair” and substituting “Vice-Chair(s).”

Standing order 129(

a) is amended by deleting “standing order 111(a), (

b) or (c)” and substituting “standing orders 111(a), (b), (c), (d), (

e) and (g).”

Standing order 141(

f) is amended by deleting “Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills” and substituting “Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs;” and

That the Clerk is authorized to renumber the standing orders as required, and to make such other consequential, editorial or other minor changes as may be required to ensure a consistent form of expression throughout the standing orders; and

That this motion comes into force on the sitting day after this motion is adopted, except:

(1) Amendments to standing order 101 shall come into force on the eighth sitting day following the day this motion is adopted; and

(2) Amendments to standing orders 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 111, 114, 118, 119, 120, 128, 129 and 141 shall come into force at the dissolution of the 42nd Parliament.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Mr. Calandra has moved government notice of motion number 10. I’ll return to the government House leader if he wants to lead off the debate.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Thank you, colleagues, for your patience. I know that was a very long motion, and I do appreciate your patience.

This series of standing order amendments, of course, is the conclusion of what has been a four-year process of updating, modernizing and, I would suggest, improving the functions of this House to the benefit of the members. I think that is always our primary responsibility as members. What we want to do is ensure that the jobs that we do represent the new realities of the work that we are elected to do, and I think the final package of standing orders, as presented today, really helps us do that. I’ll get into them individually a little bit more as my time proceeds, Mr. Speaker.

But as I said, really, this is not to suggest, of course—I want to make very clear—that somehow this Parliament wasn’t working effectively, wasn’t working in a proper fashion prior to 2018. Just the opposite, Mr. Speaker: I think we can always be very proud of how well this Legislature has worked on behalf of the people of the province of Ontario. What we have done, though, reflects how much things have changed. We recently brought in, as you will know, unanimously, I believe, in the House, changes to the broadcast act.

That hadn’t been done for a number of years here, and obviously inserting streaming and other things that didn’t exist when the broadcast act was first considered is about modernization. Some of the other things that we’ve done here by adding committees reflect today’s reality, Speaker.

But I want to just, if I can, because we have some time, reflect on some of the other changes. I guess perhaps before I do that, I’ll just recognize that today is the first day that we are all back in a more normal fashion in this Legislature, and I think it’s, again, very important to recognize all of those who helped ensure that this Parliament during COVID could continue to function in the way that it has. I know I said this yesterday, but I just wanted to express this again.

I think this Legislature, and all of us on both sides of the House, can take satisfaction in how well our table officers and everybody who helped this place work over the last two years—how well and how quickly they moved in order to allow us to continue functioning to allow for bills to continue to be introduced, private members’ business to continue, to allow for the opposition to hold the government to account and the government, frankly, to continue on, not just on COVID but on other initiatives that we were sent here to do, Speaker.

I know I’ve received many calls, really from across North America, with respect to what we were doing here, guiding some other government House leaders and leaders in other jurisdictions, in American states, with what the process was here. Again, I took great pride in that, always recognizing the fact that ultimately, we worked together to ensure that we could do that.

But I want to go over some of the other changes that we’ve made, Speaker. I think it really informs, when you take a look at all of the changes that we’ve made, why these last series of amendments are so very important. In 2019—I’ll go over some of the changes that we made then, colleagues—a modification of the daily order of business to increase the profile of members’ statements by moving them from the afternoon to the morning, before question period: I know that might seem like a little thing, and we’re still trying to work that out, because it wasn’t around for that long before we went into COVID protocols.

But this was a change that I thought—and I hope colleagues feel the same way—was really important. Often, we would do members’ statements in the afternoon, when the House was empty, the galleries were empty.

But by moving them to before question period, you have a full house, the galleries, under normal circumstances, are full, and I think it really elevated the opportunity for members to not only recognize important events in their riding, important people in their riding, but also for the opposition to give voice to issues that might be bothering them, that might then come forward during question period, to set the table as such. We’ve seen that operate. So I was very, very excited by that.

Mr. Speaker, you know, of course, the reciting of the royal anthem during the monthly singing of the national anthem, the addition of that, and how more poignant can that be in this, Her Majesty’s 70th year on the throne, that we really led the way. Now we’re seeing other Canadian provinces follow suit on that.

Again, one of these updating provisions explicitly permitting the use of laptops, tablets and smart phones in a non-disruptive manner in the chamber, that was a standing order change. All of the members were actually doing that already but that had to be changed.

Outlining the formal Introduction of visitors in the chamber: Again, I think colleagues will all remember that it was taking a very long time to get through the introduction of guests. It’s really a unique feature of Ontario. It’s a nice one, but often three or four members would rise and recognize the same person. I think we were all feeling a little bit of frustration on that.

We also eliminated the need for a minister to verbally refer a question to a colleague during question period, Speaker. This was unique to Ontario, and frankly, it always favoured the government to ask a question of the Premier. Then the Premier would get up and slowly refer the question to a cabinet minister or somebody else who was going to answer. Then the Speaker would have to recognize that person, and the cabinet minister would get up slowly, and you’re halfway through your minute and question period goes pretty quickly. So it was something that we did.

Again, Speaker, it’s one of those times when you have to, as a government, say, “How can we help make the opposition’s job better? How can we go across party lines and help them?” It’s part of what I always talk about, that bridge-building that we had been doing in this place, and that this Premier has been so well-known for. So we took a look at it. We thought, it’s not fair that by doing the referring—and I looked at it before I came here. My gosh, I was watching—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: You can see the excitement, sir—it really is. You can see the excitement and it’s okay because it really has liberated the opposition in a very real way, as you know, Speaker.

I was watching question period before I was elected here, and oh, my gosh, watching the slow pace at which the previous government would do this referral and this nonsense. We knew that we had to get rid of that. We were in opposition for 15 years and we knew how much of a delay tactic it was and how much it ate into question period. Those who were here in opposition said, “Look, we have to make sure that the opposition doesn’t run into the same thing with us. We are different. We’re a different government. We’re going to behave differently.

We’re going to be more accountable, and we have got to get rid of that part of the standing orders that allows that reference.” I congratulate my other colleagues who were here before who really took that spirit of co-operation and bridge-building and reaching out to a new level and making sure that that was one of the first things that we eliminated, Speaker. I know many of the members opposite have certainly reached out and thanked me for that modest but, I think, important change.

Speaker, this one was amazing to me: eliminating the requirement for written authorization of a parliamentary assistant to answer questions during question period when the minister is absent. We have parliamentary assistants who are every bit as capable as ministers, who get all of the same briefings as ministers, who are as accountable to their files as is the minister, or subject to the same regulations and rules that ministers are, but they weren’t allowed to answer questions in this place unless the Speaker was given written authorization by the Premier to do so.

Ms. Donna Skelly: Wow.

Hon. Paul Calandra: I know. The member for Flamborough says “Wow,” right? I know. What a frustration, Speaker. Again, recognizing when we were in opposition, it’s one of those things that we did to make it easier for the opposition to hold the government to account. It’s just part of that giving. We keep giving, right? It’s important to us that Parliament works better and that the opposition have every opportunity to hold the government to account. As part of that giving, we ensured that parliamentary assistants could answer questions on behalf of the minister when they were absent so that it wouldn’t then be referred to somebody else.

Imagine this, Speaker: Before these last two changes, somebody would ask a question, let’s say of the Minister of Health, the Minister of Health’s PA was there, but they would ask it to the Premier.

It was a health question, and the Premier would have to get up and he would refer it—or she would refer it, in this case, because it was the previous government—to somebody else, to the Minister of Labour, who couldn’t give an answer in any way, shape or form because they didn’t know anything about the file, while the parliamentary assistant is sitting right there and is able answer, is able to be accountable to the ministry that he or she is responsible for, Speaker, but they weren’t allowed to do so. It was a tool that was used to avoid accountability.

Again, we said that that’s not how a proper functioning Parliament should work. We have to make sure, again, that the opposition—because we were in opposition for a long period of time, and we had to make those changes. We made that change, and I think it has really helped the opposition hold the government accountable, because that is their role, that’s how Parliament should function. And, of course, I’m not going to say it has improved parliamentary assistants, because they were always exceptional, they were always good—at least our parliamentary assistants have always been exceptional.

I’ve got to tell you, I was watching some question periods before this government was elected—well, anyway, I’ll leave it at that, Speaker. I’m certainly proud of our parliamentary assistants.

Now another update: allowing—again, Speaker, you’ve got to think to yourself, “How is this possible that it took to 2019 to do this?” A small thing, but, think about this—allowing electronic distribution of background materials to ministerial reports and sessional papers tabled in the Legislature. Speaker, honestly, everybody always talks about the environment and how important it is, and we were still printing up and distributing all kinds of paper and documents in this place when email has existed for a very long, long time. So we made that change.

Again, it provides another measure of accountability, right, Speaker? Because, as government, you’re drafting these bills, you know what’s in these bills, you know what’s in the statements. It is an advantage for you. But by allowing electronic distribution, the opposition is able to get that much quicker, they’re able to plow through it much quicker and they’re able to really start holding the government accountable or providing suggestions right away. I think that is an important change.

Another change was providing time to reply to an opposition day motion for independent members. I am actually particularly proud of all of the work that we have done to give voice to independent members in this place. They are elected by their community and they should have the opportunity to participate in debate, and a lot of the changes that we have made have really elevated the role, also, of the independent members to hold government to account, to participate in debate, and we felt that they should also have an opportunity to participate more broadly in opposition day motions.

We allowed for the co-sponsoring of private members’ bills for up to four members, including members belonging to the same party. There’s one member who came up to me on this and said, “Look, we’ve got to do it. It was the member for Sarnia, Bob Bailey—sorry, I’m not supposed to say his name. Now, this is a guy who has got, I don’t know how many, seven or eight or nine—he’s just the king of PMBs. I know there’s somebody over there too who’s very—I think maybe it’s Paul Miller, if I’m not mistaken, the member for Hamilton East. He is also just an effective bridge builder who can work across party lines very effectively. He works very hard in his community and he has done a lot of good work.

Of course, the member for Sarnia–Lambton came to me and said, “Look, I want to be able to have even more people on this.” And there are a lot of times when opposition members want to help co-sponsor a bill, but there’s more than one. The Emancipation Month Act was one of those bills, where a member from each party and independents were able to come together on something that we all agreed upon, that we all wanted to move forward and were able to pass unanimously. But before this amendment, we could not get representation from all people in this House. So I think it was a very, very important change.

We’re still on 2019, Speaker—think of how much, just on these ones, things have changed. We’re allowing debate of the same bill in the one-hour morning session as in the afternoon session. I know all members found this frustrating. You would introduce a bill in the morning, and by the old rules, you then couldn’t debate it again until the next day—or you could debate it in the afternoon, but had to spend an hour in the morning doing something else.

I know this would frustrate a lot of members, because they would come prepared—they did their work—they were prepared to be seized with an item, and the clock might run out and then they would have to wait until the next day. They might not be in the Legislature at that time. There might be all kinds of other things happening. So it really hurt the flow of how this place worked. I thought it was very important that we made that change.

Ostensibly, again, it was something that is a mechanism that we thought, “This will help the opposition hold government accountable. It will help them.” Look, of course, when you’re in government and you’re in a majority, you have lots of people. You can bring a lot of people to speak to bills at any given time. Obviously, there are going to be fewer in the opposition benches. They have to cover committees, the same as the government has to cover committees. But, ultimately, when you chop up the day, the way the previous standing orders were, it is something that favours the government, obviously.

I heard, again, from our member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound who said, “Look, that’s something that was really, really frustrating in opposition.” He said to me, “I can’t in good conscience sit here now on the government side and suggest that we can’t make improvements that not only make Parliament work better but also give better tools to the opposition to hold government to account,” given the fact that we were there for a spell, Speaker. So I can’t thank him enough for that.

Interjection.

Hon. Paul Calandra: And I thank the member for Hamilton Mountain, because she has been encouraging the entire time. When you talk to the member for Hamilton Mountain—and look, I know we all have troubles, but when you talk to the member for Hamilton Mountain or others, it’s about: How do we effectively, as an opposition, hold government accountable? Now, I would say this: Given the fact that they’re always in opposition, they really have mastered the art of opposing, right? They have mastered the art of opposing.

They had gotten it to a level where I think they had reached the peak of their abilities to oppose, given the rules that were in place in this place. So they needed more help to bring it to another level. And it wasn’t just for us that we were making these changes. We knew that the opposition party needed more tools, so we started to make some of these changes to assist them in holding government to account. I thank all the members who reached out.

There is a recognition that they’ll probably be in opposition for a long period of time, so that’s why they need additional tools, but it is also important to note that this Premier and this caucus that have been here for a long period of time said, “Look, there are cases when we may be over there,” and what we wanted to learn from the time that we spent over there was not to do what the previous Liberal government had done and start reducing powers constantly—reducing the power of the opposition to hold government to account. We wanted to make the Legislature work better, and that’s what we did.

It brings me back to—I talk about it often: The NDP, as colleagues over there will know, had one opportunity to serve in government, from 1990 to 1995. They became the fathers, Speaker, as you will know, of the reduction in powers of members of provincial Parliament. It was the NDP who brought in the draconian measures that we have virtually eliminated in this Parliament with respect to the time allocation motions that you would get. It was they who brought in this theory of time allocation in the province of Ontario.

Ostensibly, they had to bring it in at that time because not only was Parliament opposed to everything that they had done, but Ontarians, for the most part, were very much opposed as well. But since then, they have understood the error of that and the importance of Parliament and elevating the role of parliamentarians, and I have valued their advice.

Some of the other things in 2019: permitting temporary committee substitutions for afternoon sessions of committees with at least 30 minutes’ notice—a small thing, but again an opportunity to make committees work a little bit better—and establishing a time for question and answer following each speech given during debate on government bills, replacing the two-minute comments from members—Speaker, I don’t even know what to say about this particular one.

This is a Legislative Assembly. This is a debating chamber, where we’re supposed to debate each other back and forth, but the standing orders had been changed to eliminate the ability to debate. It’s not something I could ever understand—why parliamentarians would have ever allowed that to happen. You give a speech, and then you give what they call the two-minute hit or the two-minute wrap-up, as opposed to debate back and forth. That, obviously, was eliminated. We went to a question-and-answer period after each speech, and I think it has elevated this place.

You really start to see the quality of members as well and the work by members on both sides of the House. Often, you’ll see one or two members take the focus of the questions on a particular bill. You see how the opposition critic has become expert on a bill and is able to really hold the government accountable, or a parliamentary assistant or a caucus member are able to fight back and explain why those changes being proposed are important.

That was just 2019. We didn’t want to do everything all at once; it had to be a gradual progression. We had to bring people with us. You can’t be a bridge-builder, you can’t be somebody who works across party lines effectively if you’re not going to take the time to consult and do it in a way that brings people with you.

In the fall of 2020, here are some of the additional changes. We enhanced the focus on private members’ public business by considering one item per day on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. Now, that might seem again like a small—and colleagues who were here for the years when we were in opposition and before this change happened will remember on Thursday afternoon we would do private members’ business, and that would be the end of it. What we did is we changed it so it would be Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. The House would be seized with one bill each day, and—it comes down here later—we also allowed the vote on that to be deferred until after question period the next day.

Think about that, Speaker. Think about that. Each bill’s vote deferred until after question period, when all the members are here; the galleries, typically, in the normal time period, are full; and that member’s bill, that individual bill, would be voted on by all members of this House, giving very special attention to that one private member’s bill. Of all of the changes, that is one of the changes that I’m actually most proud of, because I think it really elevates the work of members who bring private members’ business to this chamber.

It also helped lead us to the ability to pass so many private members’ bills in this place. We’re not talking about what previous governments did—Conservative, Liberal and maybe even NDP—where you cut a deal at the end of a session to pass, like, five or six private members’ bills. We’re not talking about that.

We’re talking about bringing substantive bills to this House from members on all sides, things that are important to them, that are important to their community, debating it in this House, the government giving up some of its time so that bills could be debated in this House during government orders, passing it, getting it through to committees, making changes in committees and then bringing it back to the House for third reading debate, again with the government giving some of its time in order to debate and move private members’ bills through this House.

The reason you’re able to do that is because once you change the private members’ business, colleagues will know on both sides of the House, when you’re then changing it so it is being your bill that is the focus of the day, your bill will be the focus of a vote the next day, it is in your interest to bring something to the House that all of us can digest and pay special attention to.

The results by the members to this, on both sides, have been spectacular. The Speaker, of course, will recall the poet laureate bill, which was great, which sat on—the Speaker worked through two Parliaments, if I’m not mistaken, to try to get that bill passed. He persevered. He didn’t stop until he was able to get it done, and he got it done, but so have so many other members. The member for Richmond Hill—we just celebrated non-profit appreciation week, and I know I saw members all over really taking the opportunity to take time out and to show their appreciation for the work that has been done by our not-for-profits.

We have other special bills that came to the fore. The member for Parkdale–High Park brought a bill forward—and we’ve seen a number of these—it was Tibetan Heritage Month. Some people might think, “Well, we have a lot of days.” I know the member for York South–Weston brought a Somali Heritage Week. But think of this for a second, Speaker: These are two members who represent the first in their communities to be elected to this place, able to stand in this place and get bills passed to recognize their communities, not by a deal of government House leaders, but by giving government time, by allowing it to go through the process and the entire House recognizing each of those people individually.

I look at our member for Scarborough–Rouge Park. He is somebody who fled war in Sri Lanka. He, along with the member from Markham–Thornhill, is the first Tamil Canadian elected to this place. He was able to work for two years to bring a bill forward to this House, a private member’s bill to help people better understand the genocide that was taking place. It was really an educational bill. He worked for two years. He was able to go through the process. He made changes where they needed to be.

We were able to bring that to this House, and he was able to get the consent of all parliamentarians to get that bill put on the order paper. Now think about that for a second, Speaker: Here is a person who fled a war at 25 years old, is elected to the Ontario Legislative Assembly, is able to get a bill that is so important to his community debated in the House, through committee and passed at third reading. He’s able to stand in front of Her Honour, get royal assent. A lot of us couldn’t even imagine that level of success, but that’s what some of these changes have allowed us to do.

Sorry, I get really passionate about the PMBs, because I think it’s very important.

We also added, you will remember—because of the COVID restrictions, we had all agreed that we would sit Tuesday and Wednesday—or I think it was maybe Tuesday and Wednesday. But, anyway, we were missing private members’ business, so we had to make up the PMBs, the private members’ business, that we lost, so we added private members’ business on Monday mornings so that we could catch up for the bills that we had lost because of COVID restrictions. And as I said earlier, we required all PMBs to be deferred.

We made adjustments to the length of questions and answers to five minutes for any speeches shorter than 10 minutes. We allowed more time for debate on legislation by extending the sitting day if the afternoon routine lasts longer than 60 minutes. Again, it brings the sitting day later into the evening. But we heard loud and clear from the members who are here. The member for Oxford had talked about it, the member for Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, certainly the member for Renfrew talked to me constantly about how the previous Liberal government would bash through bills in this place in record time.

He would chop his desk and talk about the time allocations that they would do constantly. And we would hear from the opposition that they want more time to debate government bills. They want more time to debate the bills. That’s what they’re here to do. By extending the time when routine proceedings go long, it gives us more time. Mr. Speaker, I will say, the use of time allocation in this place under this government, under this Premier, has been almost non-existent since we were able to make this change.

By and large, when it happens, when we do get things passed in this place quickly, it is because it’s something that is an emergency that we all want to get done together. So I think that was a very, very important change.

Speaker, we created a provision for take-note debates. With a take-note debate—we’ve used it on a couple of occasions—it’s an opportunity for the House to be seized on an issue of great importance, and we’ve used that very, very effectively, I would say.

We allowed the deferral of closure votes.

We created more opportunity for debate in the Legislature by adding provisions of a 30-minute report-stage debate when a bill is reported back from committee. Again, here, Speaker, this is very important. A report gets reported back from committee. We do allow the opposition or any member, frankly, to stand in their place and demand that we enter into debate on a report. Some will say, “Well, why would we want to do that if we just digested it at committee? Why would we want to talk about it again?” It reflects the fact that many of the independents don’t get to sit on some of those committees.

This gives them an opportunity to have a say, if they’re able to carry 12 members to request this debate.

It also does another thing, Speaker. It also gives the opposition—and we’ve heard this from them, and it was from us too when we were in opposition—an opportunity to again highlight some of the things that they might have brought forward and, for one reason or another, the government didn’t agree with, an amendment that they brought forward that they might have thought important but we, as government, may have turned down. It is something that they feel is very, very important, they want to express that in a more public fashion here in this House, we allowed that to happen.

Look, it’s certainly not in the government’s interest to delay passage of bills, it’s certainly not in the government’s interest to relitigate things that you hear at committee, to give the opposition more opportunity to hold you accountable, but it is in Parliament’s interest that we do that—that is why that change was made.

I forgot about this one, Speaker: We gave more questions. The government unilaterally decided that we would take some of our questions that we have and give them to the independents.

Interjection: It’s generous.

Hon. Paul Calandra: It’s generous in many ways; the member is quite correct. It’s generous in many ways.

I will say I was surprised at this one, Speaker. I tell you what, I thought that this would be something easily done, right? We could just get an agreement and that would be the end of it. It wasn’t this House leader, but the previous House leader of the official opposition didn’t want anything to do with us giving our questions to the independents and was not going to be supportive of it unless we gave our questions to the opposition. We said, “Look, you get most of question period already. We have to give voice to the independents. They are important as well.

They have a role to play in this place.” We couldn’t come to an agreement so we put it in the standing orders, Speaker. Again I think that is an important enhancement of the role of the independents.

We allow independents to substitute on committees and to work together to more effectively organize their own business, and there was a bunch of consequential amendments that we made as well.

In the spring of 2021, we eliminated deferral slips, causing all recorded divisions to be automatically deferred. Again, a small thing, Speaker, but you always knew the deferral slip was coming to you. In every instance it was coming, so we just eliminated that.

The ability for committees to recall themselves when the House stands adjourned: This was something I could never understand. Committees are so important in this place. You’ll see in these standing order changes that we have given even more voice to committees.

We said, “Look, there has to be an opportunity for committees to recall themselves should something of importance happen while the House is not sitting; there has to be a way.” So we made changes to the standing orders whereby a majority of the members on the committee can ask that the Chair of the committee recall that committee and the committee would have to meet. Obviously, Speaker, this is something that probably should have been done a long time ago.

We did that in this because it’s all part of the process of elevating committees, elevating the role of the members of Parliament, ensuring the independence of all members of Parliament, whether they’re sitting on the government side or the opposition side. So we made that change.

Here’s another one, Speaker—I’ve got to tell you, this one threw me for a loop. I know all of my colleagues will remember the debate on this. This really started that bridge-building—I was starting to question myself on that outreach that the government members had been doing and that spirit of co-operation that had been so important to us, bringing people together in a frenzy of fellowship in the importance of elevating the assembly.

I have to say, we instituted bipartisan leadership on committees by requiring that Vice-Chairs of committees be elected from a party other than the party that was chairing, that had the Chair. You would think, Speaker, that if the government is the Chair of a committee, and we are the Chair of the majority of the committees, then it could be a government Vice-Chair. Well, that certainly doesn’t add to accountability. So we unilaterally decided that we would make the Vice-Chair come from the opposition. It just seemed to be a better way of running our committees.

It would seem to be common sense that if you’re giving up a position of responsibility for the better functioning of Parliament it would make this place better, it would elevate the role of committees. Obviously, you would expect the same thing from the opposition: where they’re chairing a committee, the Vice-Chair would come from the government party. It just would make this place—I have to tell you how hurt I was; I still bear the scars of the motion brought forward by the opposition House leader. She’ll know this; we’ve talked about it a lot.

I bear the scars of the accusation of being too bipartisan—too bipartisan, Speaker. Now, look, I’ve been in politics for a while. I’ve never been accused of—I’ve never had such an accusation levelled at me of being too bipartisan.

This came on the heels—Speaker, you will know that the Liberals introduced a motion of confidence in the government, so this place was being turned upside down. The government and the House leader and the Premier were accused of working too well with the opposition and they wanted us to stop. They brought a motion that we debated in this place to try and stop me from being too bipartisan. I said, “No, of course not; I’m going to continue in that spirit of co-operation and make this place a better place to be, to make it more effective for generations to come.” I’m not going to stop being bipartisan.

I’m going to forge through, I’m going to do everything that I can to break down the walls of partisanship that we see across the aisle and make sure all members have this opportunity, because I know that maybe 15, 16, 17 or 20 years from now we might be back over there, right? You never know. It’s doubtful, but you never know. You don’t know, right?

Then, as I said, that came on the heels of the Liberals—I mean, the independents get so few opportunities to hold the House—colleagues will know this—very few opportunities to hold the House, and the very first private member’s business that they bring to this chamber was a motion of confidence in the government. It wasn’t just a motion of confidence. I didn’t know what to do. I was thinking to myself—I had to read it twice—is it possible that the Liberals have already conceded?

They conceded the last election before it happened; now they were conceding the next election before it happened, because they knew we were doing such a good job. They made us vote to—“Golly gee, you have to stay in government until the very end.” It’s a motion of confidence. To my even greater surprise, the official opposition joined the Liberals, and joined us, in confirming their confidence in the government in begging us not to go to an election earlier.

Now, I will say this: If that isn’t the spirit of bipartisanship then I don’t know what is. I would say we broke down that wall, we explained and we showed why working in a bipartisan fashion was important, and what it led to was this spirit of, “Yes, this government is doing such a good job in cutting taxes, it’s doing such a good job of rebuilding hospitals, it’s doing such a good job in reopening manufacturing—it is the first government to work on doing this for the north—that it had to continue.” So we did that.

There were a number of other things that we did during COVID. I just want to give one. We talked about all of the COVID restrictions and the things that we did during COVID. Of course, we did things like voting in the lobbies—there was some controversy over that. I know that the opposition did not want to vote in the lobbies at the beginning, but I think they came around to it. I think they could see the importance.

It would be easy for me to take credit for that one, but let me just say—I think he deserves a round of applause—it was actually one of my longest-serving assistants, my then-deputy chief of staff, now-chief of staff, Owen Macri, who took on that charge. So when the Premier said to us that during COVID, we have to make sure the opposition can hold us to account, he found a way to get it done and we were all able to do that. So let the record clearly show that it was his idea and not mine. Again, that spirit of bipartisanship—I could not understand, at the beginning, why the opposition was so opposed to that. But, ultimately, you came around, so that’s all that matters.

Speaker, I want to go over some of the other things that we’re doing in this set of proposals. The estimates committee: Currently, all estimates, when introduced, stand referred to the Standing Committee on Estimates. What we’re proposing is that all estimates, when introduced, stand referred to the respective policy committee for their ministry or office. So this will mean that the Standing Committee on Estimates is eliminated—absolutely, it means that.

But what it also means is that the estimates will then flow to each of the policy committees, the standing committees of this Legislature, so that more estimates can actually be reviewed by committees. It means that the members of these committees can become subject-matter experts in the fields that they are responsible for on committee. Those who have served on estimates here, we get through very few of the estimates. I don’t know that it is the beacon of accountability that we would all want to have happen in an estimates committee. We are reverting back to the way it was pre-1999.

We are still allowing the opposition, of course, to lead off in the selection of those estimates when it comes to the specific policy fields. We’re allowing the committee to decide how much time it wants to spend. The committee itself, as they are, should make those decisions as to which estimates they want to review, how long they want to spend on those estimates and who they want to call, Speaker. I think you will find that it works significantly better than it has been.

I understand why it was done, why the change was made back in, I think it was, 1989, but that is not—I think what they were trying to do was not accomplished, and this is why, by moving it back to the standing committees, it elevates, again, the importance and the role of committees in this place. Committees will be constantly active now. As I said, members will become subject-matter experts on the ministries that are assigned to each of those committees. I think you will find it a far better use of the Legislature’s time.

Now, we are changing the committees in the motion. I know the motion is very technical, but here is, in essence, what we are proposing on committees.

There would be the Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy, and the ministries that they would be responsible for would be citizenship and multiculturalism; heritage, sport, tourism and cultural industries; infrastructure; transportation; municipal affairs and housing; the Premier’s office; and Cabinet Office. They would review the estimates of those ministries as well.

Just for a second, Speaker: It also reflects the fact, when you have the Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy, it respects the fact and highlights the fact of how important arts and culture are not only to this government, but how important they are to this province. Billions of dollars of economic activity, thousands upon thousands of jobs, and now there will be a committee specifically geared towards them.

The Standing Committee on Justice Policy will handle intergovernmental affairs, the Attorney General, francophone affairs, government and consumer services and the Solicitor General.

The Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs will be elevated to a policy committee; it is not right now. So its authority will be elevated by these changes. It will handle the Management Board; economic development, job creation and trade; finance; labour, training and skills development; and the Treasury Board.

The Standing Committee on the Interior: This is a brand new committee that we are proposing here. The Standing Committee on the Interior would have agriculture, food and rural affairs; environment, conservation and parks; northern development, mines and natural resources; Indigenous affairs; and energy—again highlighting the fact that we believe, and I think all parliamentarians believe, that these are very, very important areas and deserve a sole focus and sole understanding. There is no government that has paid more attention to the north than this government has. A lot of other governments talk about the environment—colleagues, you know this. We hear this all the time—

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: Lip service.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Lip service to the environment. But it is clear, we all know that it was Mike Harris and Ernie Eves who eliminated the coal-fired plants, which allowed us to bring down our GHG emissions. There’s so much work that has continued to be done. But we wanted them to have a specific focus.

And then we’re creating the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The chairmanship of that will go to the opposition. We think that it’s very important that the opposition lead that. That committee will deal with private bills, because we are eliminating the committee that was otherwise responsible for that. But we’re also putting within that legislative affairs, and they will continue on the regulatory process.

The reason we’re doing that is because as we look at decanting this place, as we look at moving towards the renovation of this place over a number of years, it is important that the opposition also have an ability to hold government to account for the decisions that we make. That’s why we thought it was important to have an opposition Chair there.

The PR bills: This is a big change. The committee that had previously been seized with that will be eliminated, and the procedure and House affairs committee will be seized with that, should it be needed. What we are proposing is that after first reading, PR bills are required to remain on the order paper for four weeks, but before they can be called for second reading, any member of the procedure and House affairs committee or five members not on the committee may file a request with the Clerk that the PR bill be referred to committee.

It’s just a process that reflects the fact that it is not always necessary for this entire House to be seized with the reopening of a numbered company that has gone dark. That should not be something that the entire House is seized with. But there are some times when the House should be seized with that, and it reflects that.

We’ve made some changes to the PMBs again to make them better. We want them designated earlier. Right now—it’s on both sides; it’s not just one side or the other—you could go to the night before and really not know what it is that you’re debating. I think that really reduces the effectiveness of PMBs. So we’re saying that we need to know two weeks ahead of time of your ballot date what you will be debating so that we can properly prepare. As you know, at the start of every session, we always delay PMBs by unanimous consent, because members usually aren’t ready because the bills haven’t been drafted, and we are moving that.

Again, in the spirit of making sure there’s more time for debate, we are allowing the House to be recalled on Monday mornings. We did this for PMBs in the last session, and I thought it worked very, very well, but we also heard people want more time for debate. There are those instances where something is so important they want more time to debate. They absolutely love the fact that we have virtually eliminated time allocation, this government, in comparison to the previous Liberal government. More often than not, we get to a point where there’s been so much debate that we are able to move on, because so many members have participated in that debate.

There is some other housecleaning with respect to a fixed election date, changes to the spring meeting period, obviously. The current Legislative Assembly calendar has us sitting into June. Well, that obviously is not going to be the case this year, because there is a fixed election date. It is probably an oversight that should have been changed when the fixed election date came in.

In addition to the bipartisan wall that we broke down with respect to Chairs and Vice-Chairs, we are adding a Second Vice-Chair, again so that the third party or independents can be better involved. And then some other housekeeping amendments, which will, again, allow this place to function better.

Really, Speaker, there has been a lot. I can appreciate there has been a lot of change in a very short period of time, given how often standing orders are changed. You say over three years; that’s not a short period of time. But given how often standing orders are changed—and they shouldn’t happen frequently. Let’s be honest. Every generation or two, you have to take a look and see what makes sense, what doesn’t make sense and then make the changes to reflect the Parliament of this generation and the ones going forward. That’s what this has done.

But what we had seen when we came to office in 2018, what our members who had served here for so long—maybe with the exception of the member for Sarnia–Lambton, who was so successful in getting private members’ business passed even in opposition. And look, I’ve got one last shout-out. I said this yesterday in speaking: Again, it’s part of those breaking down walls, Speaker. One of the walls that we had in this place for so long was the NDP’s opposition to those who served in the oil and gas sector and those who help build a strong economy.

Again, in that spirit, the member from Sarnia–Lambton was able to break down that historic wall and, if not just temporarily, get the NDP to recognize how important oil and gas—

Mr. Bill Walker: And the Green Party.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Well, no, I think the Green Party stuck to the principle that he had had and voted against.

So I want to thank the member for Sarnia–Lambton for that. There are very few members who stand up for a community quite as well as the member for Sarnia–Lambton. I know I learn a lot from him. I take a lot of notes from him quite often.

Look, this is all about making the place function better, Speaker, and you’re seeing that. Even just yesterday, colleagues—I know I don’t have a lot of time. Even just yesterday, we were debating Bill 84. I think it’s going to be coming up for debate. We were debating Bill 84 yesterday, Speaker, and I can’t tell you—it’s rare in this place that you get to a point where the opposition, while you’re debating, they have changed their mind, right? They changed their mind. This is a credit to the minister. It’s a credit to the people who spoke yesterday.

They started out in opposition to Bill 84 and then by the time our members participated in questions and answers—a change that we made through the previous standing orders—by the time debate had occurred, by the end of the day, they had decided that not only was this bill great, they didn’t even want it to go to committee. Now, had it gone to committee, they would have found a more robust committee, because of the changes that we made. But they didn’t even want it to go to committee.

At the beginning of the debate, they were talking about the budget. Make no mistake about it, Speaker: Bill 84 is a confidence motion. It is absolutely a confidence motion, because it has an impact on the budget. It is a confidence motion, because it returns money to people through the stickers that you had to put on the back of your car. You’re going to get 120 bucks back on that. The 412 and the 418—I always remind people that it was only the Liberals and the NDP who have ever put tolls on the people of the province of Ontario, and it is only the Conservatives who have ever taken those tolls off.

But who cares, Mr. Speaker? Here we have again this week another vote of confidence in the government. I am very confident, unless something has changed again, that when we vote on Bill 84, it will be a vote of confidence in the government once again. And I suspect it will be a unanimous vote of confidence—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Thank you. I interrupt the government House leader to say that we’re out of time for debate on his notice of motion this morning.

Debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Mois de la Francophonie

M. Guy Bourgouin: En tant que Franco-Ontarien, j’ai l’honneur de me lever aujourd’hui pour souligner le Mois de la Francophonie. Le mois de mars est un temps pour célébrer, pour fêter ensemble la vitalité linguistique et la diversité culturelle de la communauté franco-ontarienne.

Mais il faut également comprendre que si nous ne restons pas attentifs, nos droits peuvent s’évaporer comme de l’air. Sous le gouvernement conservateur, nous avons été témoins :

—des points de presse et des publications techniques offerts en anglais seulement durant la pandémie, ce qui laisse des milliers de francophones sans accès aux informations pertinentes dans la langue officielle de leur choix—les bureaux de santé, par exemple;

—des journaux et des radios francophones qui ne font pas

partie de la campagne publicitaire du gouvernement de la province;

—ou même avoir accès aux tribunaux dans la langue officielle de notre choix.

Aux francophones et aux francophiles de la province, célébrons notre vitalité, mais restons attentifs pour faire valoir nos droits linguistiques que nous avons obtenus par notre vigilance. Nous sommes, nous serons. Bon Mois de la Francophonie.

Coldest Night of the Year

Mr. Will Bouma: I rise in the House today to acknowledge a wonderful event which took place in Brantford this past Saturday. I was able to participate in the Coldest Night of the Year walk with my family. Across Canada, tens of thousands of Canadians stepped out into the cold February evening and walked to raise awareness and funds for those in our community struggling with homelessness, hunger and abuse.

I just have to take a second to say thank you to a former member here, Phil Gillies, who organizes our team every single year.

What is unique about this fundraiser is that funds raised are focused on services at a local level. In my riding of Brantford–Brant, we walked for the Why Not Youth Centre. This organization works with high-risk youth in our community to stabilize their lives, build skills and provide a sense of community and belonging, with the overarching goal of preventing homelessness. In a one-month span, Why Not sees 750 to 1,000 visits from local teens in need. More than $50,000 was raised on Saturday and will assist this organization in empowering our local youth.

Nationwide, Coldest Night of the Year raised over $11 million. I will end with the objective of the Coldest Night of the Year as it provides an excellent

summary: “Each step we take brings someone closer to safety, health and home, as together, we raise funds for organizations whose commitment and work transforms people’s lives.”

Health care

Ms. Judith Monteith-Farrell: Thunder Bay and Atikokan are home to three excellent hospitals, doing excellent work caring for our communities. These include the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, St. Joseph’s Care Group and the Atikokan General Hospital. Thank you to them for all the work they do. I also want to thank all the health care workers throughout my riding and in northwestern Ontario who provide care and healing to so many residents.

Today, though, I want to highlight that our health care system and our health care workers need our help. Many Ontarians are waiting for surgery. There is a major backlog. Our province and our region has a shortage of nurses and doctors. Emergency room staff are in crisis. Health care workers are exhausted after two years of a pandemic, and recently the Ontario Health Coalition raised the alarm about private operators potentially running hospitals in Ontario.

I am very opposed to this. Privatization would be the worst possible policy for our hospital and health care sector. Every dollar wasted on private profit is a dollar not spent on public health care. All of us have a right to public health care. Rather than privatizing, Ontarians need pharmacare and dental care. We need to expand our system and improve it with public health care investment. We need to be paying our nurses and personal support workers more and working to end staff shortages. Everyone in this province deserves access to universal, non-profit and public health care.

Bluewater Health Community Addictions Hub

Mr. Robert Bailey: Thank you, Speaker, and it’s a privilege to be here today with you. It’s my pleasure to rise in the Legislature today and update the House on a very important investment in Sarnia–Lambton by the government of Ontario. On February 1, 2022, it was my great pleasure to join the Premier, the Minister of Health and the Associate Minister of Mental Health and Addictions to announce that our government is investing over $12 million in a new, permanent mental health and addictions hub at Bluewater Health in Sarnia–Lambton.

Bluewater Health’s new Community Addictions Hub will include a permanent 24-bed facility: 10 withdrawal management beds, eight observation beds and six stabilization beds. In addition, it will include clinical space for programs, treatments, all existing Bluewater Health addiction outpatient services and consultations with allied health partners.

After more than 15 years of advocacy by so many in my community, I couldn’t be more proud of our government for investing in such an important resource to the people of Sarnia–Lambton. This new mental health and addictions hub will benefit so many individuals in our community who are struggling with the disease of addiction.

Thank you to all the members of the community who participated in helping this dream become a reality. This is another example of how the government of Ontario is working with communities across the province to find solutions to big problems and delivering on our commitment to end hallway health care. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to sharing future updates with this House on this exciting new facility in the weeks and months ahead.

Long-term care

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Under the watch of this government, over 4,000 senior citizens died in long-term-care homes during the pandemic. We must never forget them. And we must never forget people like Innis Ingram who stood up to protect them. During a horrific outbreak at a long-term-care residence, Innis chained himself to a tree outside the home to bring attention and help to his mom and to all the seniors who were confined and suffering in unimaginable circumstances.

Innis died too young this past year. I was lucky to have met him. He was big-hearted, fearless and kind. I salute his bravery and mourn his short life. To his family, his two wonderful children: May his memory be a blessing to you.

The lack of action to fix systemic problems in the home care and long-term-care sector following these tragic deaths is unforgivable. We continue to see a profit-driven, underfunded long-term-care system. We should be fighting for a system where every dollar goes directly to residents’ care, not to corporate profits.

Home care is in crisis. Seniors are receiving below-standard care from overworked and underpaid home care nurses and PSWs. We should be fighting for quality home care to give seniors the help they need to stay in their homes longer.

Like Innis, we should all be fighting to protect our loved ones, to ensure that our seniors receive the care that they have earned. Our parents and our grandparents deserve the very best.

Invasion of Ukraine / Invasion de l’Ukraine

M lle Amanda Simard: Mr. Speaker, we may disagree on many things in this chamber, but if there’s one thing on which we’re united, it’s our commitment to the principles of democracy, freedom and respect for the rule of law. Last week, Russia began an unprovoked, full-scale further invasion of Ukraine. Since then, Ukrainians have been fighting bravely. Yes, they’re fighting for their freedom and homeland, but they’re also fighting for us.

Cette invasion est non seulement une attaque contre l’Ukraine, c’est une attaque contre la démocratie et contre l’ordre international fondé sur des règles qui nous protègent tous. C’est une menace majeure, non seulement pour la sécurité de l’Ukraine, mais pour celle de l’Europe, de nos alliés, et pour notre sécurité.

Il est essentiel que nous fassions tout notre possible pour nous assurer que Poutine ne gagne pas.

Remarks in Ukrainian.

Nous sommes solidaires avec le peuple ukrainien.

Slava Ukraini.

Olympic and Paralympic athletes

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: While current circumstances may divide us, the Beijing Olympics 2022 brought Canada together to cheer on our athletes and celebrate their accomplishments. Canada brought home 26 medals: four gold, eight silver and 14 bronze. This is a testament to their hard work, dedication and passion for their respective sports.

I stand here today in the Legislature to say a special congratulations to a neighbour and a gold-medal Olympian, Foldens’s Ella Shelton. Ella is 24 years old and a member of the Canadian women’s hockey team. Ella played defence in all seven hockey games, including the gold-medal game against the United States. She recorded three assists in her first Olympic appearance. Congratulations again to Ella and Team Canada for an exceptional gold win in women’s hockey.

As we turn our attention to the Beijing Paralympics, which start this Friday, March 4, Oxford is also proud of Garrett Riley, a participant in the men’s para hockey team. Garrett’s passion for hockey started at an early age with great resiliency and determination. Garrett switched to para ice hockey after a cancer diagnosis 11 years ago and a leg amputation in 2017. Five months ago, while playing para ice hockey, Garrett took a hard hit which resulted in a compound leg fracture. However, he has not let that slow him down. With surgery, rehabilitation and training, he’s still slated to play in Beijing on the men’s para hockey team.

Ella Shelton and Garrett Riley, I want to thank you both for representing Canada and Oxford at the 2022 Olympics and inspiring future athletes to strive for their goals.

Child care

Mr. Peter Tabuns: This month, the clock runs out on $1 billion in child care funding that the federal government is willing to provide to Ontario families. By the end of this month, $1 billion that would have been available to provide $10-per-day child care will no longer be available. Families in my riding are spending in the thousands of dollars a month to provide daycare for their children—in many cases, as much as they’re paying for mortgage and rent. They need relief. They need it now.

At the same time, child care workers are pushed to the limit with low wages. They need a deal as well. If you google the words “Ontario” and “child care,” you come up with pages of results with common headlines: “Daycare deal near ... ” “We’re almost there ... ” “We have it within reach”—and those are the January headlines. At the same time, Speaker, we still don’t have a deal. People don’t have the relief that they need.

I call on the Premier to take decisive action now, put a comprehensive plan on the table, nail down an agreement and give families a break. Don’t wait. Don’t stall. Get it done.

Markdale hospital

Mr. Bill Walker: I rise today to recognize the recent launch of the community fundraising campaign for the new Markdale hospital. After many, many years of inaction from the previous government, our government stepped up and committed to building a new hospital in Markdale. Construction has begun and the community is thrilled that our government came through for them.

Like with any new hospital construction, the community has a responsibility to fundraise 10% to 15% of the cost of the project. I can say that Markdale and the surrounding community are up to this task. In October, the Centre Grey Health Services Foundation launched its Together in Care campaign with a goal of raising a total of $12.5 million for the new hospital. Planning for this new hospital has been under way for many, many years and the foundation has already raised $6.8 million for the project. The current campaign must raise $5.7 million, and I have no doubt they will be successful in this endeavour.

The community’s commitment to this project was already on display the day the campaign launched: Ice River Springs has committed $500,000 to the project; the Rotary Club of Markdale committed $300,000; the local Kinsmen Club, $100,000; and the local hospital auxiliary has also pledged $650,000 to this important cause.

I have no doubt that the entire community will rally and make sure this campaign is a big success. I encourage all local residents to contribute what they can to this important cause. Every dollar counts and will go a long way towards ensuring our excellent health care system continues to serve our community in future.

I look forward to the future when the new 68,000-square-foot Markdale hospital is complete and open, and the Together in Care campaign will play a major role in that milestone.

Home care

Mr. John Vanthof: There was recently an

article in one of our local papers. It was about Madame Jenny Begin, and she has ALS. She is living in Verner, and the

article was about how once in a while—actually, quite often—the home care nurse that she has the approval for doesn’t show up. Now, due to the

article and some work from other people, that situation is much better right now, but it is emblematic of what’s happening across—and specifically I’m going to talk about northern rural Ontario where often people who have approvals for home care, they’re not there. And we know what happens when home care isn’t there: Their condition deteriorates. The person’s condition deteriorates, and where they want to spend their lives, they can’t and they end up either in hospital or in long-term care and they don’t need to be there.

Home care workers and nurses are the lowest paid—they’re the bottom rung of the ladder. If you want to fix this system, pay them; pay them what they’re worth. You can’t recruit people without paying them a salary that’s actually going to be a career.

Resignation of member for Elgin–Middlesex–London

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I beg to inform the House that a vacancy has occurred in the membership of the House by reason of the resignation of Jeff Yurek as the member for the electoral district of Elgin–Middlesex–London, effective February 28, 2022. Accordingly, I have issued my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for a by-election.

Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): In the Speaker’s gallery today is Ontario’s Chief Electoral Officer, Greg Essensa, along with Elections Ontario staff Stephanie Lowe and Jo Langham. They’re visiting today in recognition of Provincial Voter Registration Month.

Civic engagement is key to maintaining a healthy society and it follows that a free and fair electoral process is a cornerstone of our democracy, and registering for the vote is the first step. It is fundamental.

We are very fortunate in Canada to have non-partisan offices committed to making voting easy and accessible for all electors, and I’m pleased to welcome Greg, Stephanie and Jo to the Legislative Assembly today to help us kick off Provincial Voter Registration Month. Please join me in showing our appreciation to the staff of Elections Ontario.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m also very pleased to inform the House that page Leah Elder from the riding of Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound is today’s page captain, and we have with us today at Queen’s Park her mother, Majesta Elder. Welcome to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. We’re delighted to have you here as well.

Wearing of pins

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I understand the government House leader has a point of order.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Speaker, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to allow members to wear pins in recognition of March being Provincial Voter Registration Month.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The government House leader is seeking unanimous consent of the House to allow members to wear pins in recognition of March being Provincial Voter Registration Month. Agreed? Agreed.

Stuart Lyon Smith

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The government House leader has another point of order.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to allow members to make statements in remembrance of the late Dr. Stuart Lyon Smith, with five minute allotted to Her Majesty’s government, five minutes allotted to Her Majesty’s loyal opposition and five minutes allotted to the independent members as a group.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The government House leader is seeking unanimous consent of the House to allow members to make statements in remembrance of the late Dr. Stuart Lyon Smith, with five minutes allotted to Her Majesty’s government, five minutes allotted to Her Majesty’s loyal opposition and five minute allotted to the independent members as a group. Agreed? Agreed.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’ll recognize the member for Flamborough–Glanbrook.

Ms. Donna Skelly: I am honoured to rise in the Legislature this morning to speak about the incredible life and legacy of Dr. Stuart Smith.

Dr. Smith was a former MPP in my hometown for the riding of Hamilton West. He was first elected in 1975, running against Tory Bob Morrow. Bob Morrow was a well-known name at the time—he was a city councillor, he sat on the board of control and he was running in a safe Tory seat. Everyone thought that Morrow would win. Expectations for Stuart Smith weren’t that high at that time. In fact, people had doubts that a psychiatry professor could wage a challenging campaign. Smith himself thought that being a psychiatrist was an obstacle because, as he said, “People believe psychiatrists are peculiar.”

But on the day of the election, Stuart Smith beat Morrow by more than 500 votes. Bob Morrow went on to serve as mayor of Hamilton for 18 years. Stuart Smith’s election is remembered in Hamilton political circles for being involved in one of the most exciting elections that the city has ever seen.

Dr. Stuart Smith had big political ambitions. He didn’t just want to be a member of provincial Parliament, he wanted to be leader, and within a year, Stuart Smith contested and won the leadership of the Liberal Party, defeating future Premier David Peterson by 45 votes on the third ballot.

Stuart Smith was just 37 years old. He led the party for six years, through two election campaigns. He served alongside Premier Bill Davis and NDP leader Stephen Lewis. Smith was determined to take the Liberals from being a rural party to one that had a solid presence in the urban centres, and it was under his leadership that the Ontario Liberal Party made inroads in urban Ontario.

As with many things in politics, it was a struggle. Many of his rural caucus members resisted. But Smith was a passionate speaker, especially on issues that were close to his heart, and his strength as a communicator made a difference. In 1976, when Canadians feared the country would be broken up by the Parti Québécois in Quebec, Smith brought a group of young Liberals in Burlington to tears with his emotional speech to keep the country united.

He felt strongly about keeping Quebec within Canada because he had deep roots in Quebec. He was the son of a grocery store owner in east Montreal. He grew up in the city, and by all accounts, he was a brilliant man. He attended McGill University, where he received his science and medical degrees. He was trained as a psychiatrist. He was president of the student council at McGill, where he organized the first strike on campus to force the government to launch a student loan and scholarship program. He represented Canada at international debates and won every top award for debating at McGill.

His love for debating led him to television, where he hosted shows on CBC and later at CHCH in Hamilton.

In 1965, while still living in Montreal, Smith sought the Liberal nomination for the riding of Mount Royal, but was asked to step aside for the then-unknown Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Two years later, Smith left Montreal and moved to Hamilton to take a position as professor of psychiatry at the new McMaster University medical school. He also ran the in-patient unit at St. Joe’s hospital in Hamilton.

Medicine was Dr. Smith’s profession, but politics was his passion. He led the Ontario Liberal Party through two elections before retiring from politics, and although he was a man who loved public service, he found the pressures of politics debilitating.

Protection of the environment was always a top priority for Smith. He served as chair of the Science Council of Canada and the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. In 1991, he headed up the Smith commission, an inquiry into the state of post-secondary education across Canada. He was a lifelong baseball fan, who adopted the Toronto Blue Jays as his team when he moved to Ontario, and he served as the commissioner of the semi-pro Intercounty Baseball League.

Dr. Stuart Lyon Smith was extremely intelligent and well travelled. He made significant contributions to his province and to his party. And although he never did become Premier, he opened a door that future Liberal leaders would walk through. Thank you.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Next, I’ll recognize the member for Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: While some of you in this House may have had the privilege of meeting Dr. Stuart Smith, I am not one of those lucky people. However, I do have the distinct honour of representing the same wonderful riding of Hamilton West that Dr. Smith served for three successive Parliaments.

Dr. Smith’s political journey began in 1965 in Montreal, where he sought the nomination for the riding of Mont-Royal. He eventually withdrew his nomination in favour of a then young upstart, Pierre Trudeau. In 1967, he left Montreal for Hamilton, Ontario, to become a professor of psychiatry at the new McMaster University medical school. We have Dr. Smith to thank for helping to design McMaster’s pioneering and innovative problem-based learning. This unique hands-on approach to learning continues to be used throughout the university and around the world and has helped to earn McMaster many global awards.

Dr. Smith was first elected in the 1975 provincial election, defeating Bob Morrow, a city councillor and future mayor. But in addition to making way for Prime Ministers, Dr. Smith did become the leader of the official opposition in this provincial Legislature. He served alongside Premier Bill Davis and NDP leader Stephen Lewis.

Stuart led the Ontario Liberal Party through two elections before retiring from politics in 1981. He was succeeded by Dr. Richard Allen, who coincidentally passed away three years ago this week. I had the honour of paying tribute to Dr. Allen at that time, and I will note that they shared many of the same passions. They shared a love for academia, both having taught at McMaster, and they both shared a passion for working to conserve and protect our environment.

Hamilton West is a community blessed with many natural green spaces, like the Bruce Trail, the Niagara Escarpment and Cootes Paradise, so it is easy to see why Dr. Smith fought hard to give protection to our natural beauty. He had this to say about Ontarians’ right to a clean environment:

“What it comes to is this: Individual citizens have a right to a clean environment. They should be allowed to insist upon that right in the courts of the land. With such a law in place the ministry would be much more likely to act, knowing individual citizens could take things into their own hands if necessary.”

Dr. Smith would have been pleased to see Ontario enact an Environmental Bill of Rights under the New Democratic government of the day, with unanimous party support. This bill of rights continues to be an important law that gives individuals the right to have their voices heard on issues that impact our environment. We owe it to the work of legislators such as Dr. Smith to ensure this law remains and that we continue to improve protections for people and our environment in Ontario.

Stuart Lyon Smith passed away peacefully on June 10, 2020, at the age of 82. He was the devoted husband and life partner of Paddy, the much-loved and admired father and father-in-law of Tanya and Betsy, Craig and Sandra, and the adoring and adored grandfather of Kyle, Dylan and Alexandra Smith and of Michaele and Isaac Sloversmith.

As a brand new grandmother, I was particularly touched by Dr. Smith’s sage advice on the duty we owe our future generations. He had this to say:

“I say simply that some years from now, if the good Lord allows us to live some more decades we are all going to have to look at ourselves and our children and we are going to have to tell them, what we did to make this planet livable.... We are going to have to tell those children when they are adults and we are elderly what we did.”

I’d like to close with the beautiful words from Dr. Smith’s obituary: “Closest to his heart, though, was his love of family and friends. Throughout his life he always maintained the two most important things in life are love and learning. He learned very broadly; he loved and was loved very deeply.”

So I say to Dr. Smith’s family, thank you for sharing him with us in this Legislature and may his memory be a blessing to you.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Guelph.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I’m honoured to rise in the House today to pay tribute to the late MPP and leader of the Ontario Liberal Party, Dr. Stuart Lyon Smith.

Dr. Smith served as a professor of psychiatry at McMaster University while also leading the in-patient unit at Hamilton’s St. Joseph’s hospital. In that role, he established his lifelong goal of always being there to help other people—a goal he carried into his life as a politician.

I especially want to note his steadfast and unwavering commitment to protecting Ontario’s environment in his role as the leader of the official opposition when many of Ontario’s first environmental pieces of legislation were passed in this province.

I especially want to take a moment to talk about his post-electoral partisan political life. He chaired the Science Council of Canada and the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy and spearheaded the formation of Rockcliffe Research and Technology. The ideas he put forward to connect the economy and address the climate crisis in following the science are as relevant today as they were when he chaired the national council.

Speaker, last night I had the opportunity to meet with some first-year students at the University of Guelph. They talked about, “How can we have a sense of hope, addressing the mental health concerns we have, with the climate crisis we face and what seems to be the inability of politics to address it?” I was thinking of the tribute today and thinking: Oh, how I wish I could ask Dr. Stuart Lyon Smith to answer that question, because he would have a profound response to those students.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I recognize the member for Ottawa South.

Mr. John Fraser: It’s an honour to say a few words about the life of a true parliamentarian, a remarkable MPP, a leader, a father, a husband, a physician—Dr. Stuart Lyon Smith. Dr. Smith had a diverse career, and there’s not enough time to go through all the aspects of that career, or we might be into orders of the day. Most importantly, he was a devoted husband, father and grandfather.

Before coming to politics, he was a student activist. He graduated in medicine at McGill, became an associate professor of psychology at McMaster. When he was first elected as MPP for Hamilton West and won that election, Bob Nixon stepped down. He decided to run for the leadership, and he won that leadership in 1976, defeating David Peterson, who would later become Premier. He led the party in the 1977 provincial election, when our party displaced the New Democrats as the official opposition. He led the party in that election and in 1981, and he was up against a formidable opponent: Bill Davis’s Big Blue Machine—not an easy task.

During his leadership, though, Dr. Smith transformed our party. He came after Bob Nixon, who was kind of Mr. Ontario, and he knew everybody everywhere, but what he believed was that we had to have policies that were based in evidence, that were meaningful, that were going to work. And that work that he did led to the breakthrough in the 1985 election. As most of us here know, sometimes you don’t get to the top of the mountain, but the work you do is important for the people that come after you, no matter what party you’re in.

I had a chance to talk to my friend Charles Beer, who I worked with here, and who some of you may know. He worked for Dr. Smith alongside people like Gordon Floyd, our colleague here Mike Gravelle, Anne Golden. Charles said he was one of the brightest, most hard-working people he’d ever met.

I want you to think about this, for those of that are old enough: In the early 1980s, Dr. Smith told his Liberal caucus that all of them had to meet with the leaders of Toronto’s gay community—not optional.

He introduced a private member’s bill—actually with the help of Albert Roy, who was an MPP from Ottawa—which was the basis of what became the French Language Services Act here in Ontario, a really important piece of legislation.

Many people I’ve talked to said politics didn’t come easy to Dr. Stuart Smith. His staff would encourage him to go to events and would say, “Do what Bill Davis does. Go around and shake people’s hands, talk to them,” and his response was, “Well, I don’t want to bother them.” Charles also said when there was a big event coming up, they would pray that Paddy would be there, because he always did better when Paddy was there, and she was a real force in her own right.

After leaving politics, Dr. Smith was a devoted public servant as well. He served as chair of the Science Council of Canada, and from 1995 to 2002 the chair of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. I spoke to my federal counterpart, Dave McGuinty, who worked with him at that round table, and David said this: “He was renowned for his brilliance, his modesty and humble approach. He mentored hundreds of people. His work on science, sustainability and the economy is unmatched. Next to my father, he is the person who has had the most profound influence on my life.” And I don’t think, from discussions with people, that David’s the only person who felt that.

Dr. Stuart Smith believed that the two most important things in life are love and learning. His life clearly demonstrated that: a true public servant and an incredible human being.

To Paddy, Tanya, Betsy, Craig and Sandra and his grandchildren Kyle, Dylan and Alexandra, Michaele and Isaac, thank you for sharing your husband, father and grandfather with the people of Ontario and the people of Canada. It made a huge difference. Thank you.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We give thanks for the life and public service of Dr. Stuart Smith. Thank you very much.

Before I ask for oral questions, I’ll remind the member that if you wish to be recognized today, you have to be in your designated seat when you rise.

It is now time for oral questions.

Question Period

Health care funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My first question this morning is to the Premier. We know that Ontarians are not able to get the health care they need. Many are living in pain, with anxiety, with a quality of life that’s reduced. Wait-times were bad before COVID hit, but of course now they have exploded and they’re worse than ever.

The Ontario Medical Association estimates the following: 21 million patient services backlogged, one million surgeries, millions of diagnostics and preventative care, cancer screenings.

Just imagine being one of those patients, waiting and wondering why their government doesn’t care about the fact that their health is deteriorating. When is this government going to come up a plan and the appropriate investments to clear the backlogs?

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

Hon. Christine Elliott: We certainly recognize that there are many Ontarians who have been waiting for surgeries and procedures as a result of COVID, however, not to the degree suggested by member opposite. Nonetheless, we’ve prepared for that. We’ve invested over $5 billion into our hospital system to create 3,100 more beds since the pandemic began, to care, first of all, for the COVID patients but now to care for the patients who need to have those surgeries.

Now that we’ve been able to lift directive 2, we are expecting that hospitals are going to be able to continue with their volumes, and we know that with the additional money we’ve put in, we can now do weekend surgeries and evening surgeries. We’ve put half a billion dollars into accelerating those surgeries.

We know that people have been waiting. We’re ready to carry on with them. I can also advise the member that in 2020-21, the average Ontario hospital completed 88% of their targeted surgical allocations.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Perhaps the minister can correct her record. It wasn’t me that was raising these issues and these numbers. These numbers come from the Ontario Medical Association, a group of folks that I think have the information and wanted to provide it to all of us so that we could get on with these problems.

The backlogs have serious consequences for people. It’s heartbreaking to hear what’s happening out there. Nearly 50,000 undiagnosed cases of skin cancer is what the OMA estimates; two and a half years to catch up on knee replacements; a year and a half to catch up on hip replacements; 16 months for heart bypass surgeries; 12 months for MRIs. Speaker, this needs to be fixed, and it needs to be fixed now.

Look, people went through hell during the pandemic and then were told that their screenings, their procedures and their surgeries were being delayed. Some still haven’t gotten those appointments rescheduled. A million people are waiting in agony for surgery. Speaker, why won’t this government listen to the OMA, listen to patients who are suffering in pain, listen to what we’re asking for and provide a plan and the funding necessary to clear all the backlogs?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Our government is certainly aware that there are people who have been waiting long periods of time for orthopedic surgeries; in some cases, cancer surgeries or cardiac surgeries. But we’re putting the investments in place to make sure that we can relieve their discomfort and their anxiety.

Of the $500 million that I already spoke about in terms of the investments that we’ve made, in addition to the $5 billion for creating more beds, we’ve put in $86 million to allow hospitals to extend the OR into evenings and weekends, and almost $70 million for MRI and CT imaging. That’s going to represent a 19% overall increase in available hours for MRIs and a 30% overall increase in available hours for CTs.

We’ve already put $41.5 million into a Surgical Innovation Fund that’s letting a number—over 100 hospitals, 104 proposals put into hospitals to develop their own solutions for how they can increase their output of surgeries and procedures, and additional amounts for—$18 million in a centralized surgical wait-list.

There’s more to say, and I’ll go further in the next question.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The reality is that patients in other provinces fared much better because they had governments that were prepared to do the planning and make the investments. In BC, we know that 98% of their backlogs were cleared within the middle of last summer because they made the effort.

We can actually fix this here in Ontario as well. The FAO, in fact, identified the scope of this problem last May, and has recently called out this government for not making the investments necessary to appropriately clear those backlogs. It is absolutely clear: This government has no plan whatsoever. They won’t fix the problem because they do not believe in good public health care.

My question is, why does this government refuse to listen to the experts, refuse to listen to the OMA, refuse to listen to the FAO, refuse to listen to patients in pain, fix the problem and spend the necessary dollars to get rid of the backlogs?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Our government absolutely believes in excellent, quality public health care, and we’ve made the investments that absolutely prove that: $5 billion into creating more hospital beds, $500 million into allowing hospitals to expand their surgical facilities, dealing with each and every single hospital bed in the province of Ontario as part of a centralized whole and making sure that we can take advantage of every surgical wait time that we possibly can.

We’re also making huge investments in health human resources, because there’s no point in investing in more beds if you don’t have the people. We are doing all of these things in tandem. It’s a significant investment of billions of dollars into our public health care system. If that’s not enough money, I don’t know what the member opposite would suggest.

Home care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: All she needs to do is read the FAO report. There’s a figure in there.

I want to talk about home care next—and this is to our Premier as well. Home care is in a complete crisis right now. It’s part of our health care system. Ontarians and their loved ones are the ones that are paying the price for the home care crisis. There is a severe staffing shortage in our home care system. The providers are there, but they have no staff, and so that means that Ontarians can’t get the home care services that they need. What does that mean? That means people who want to get care at home are not able to get it and they’re forced to go into long-term care. They don’t have the choice to stay at home, which is what folks want.

The staff shortage, of course, has been made much worse by this Premier’s low-wage policy, Bill 124. The Ontario Community Support Association of home care providers has said that they are sounding the alarm in the sector, and once again, this Premier is ignoring them.

My question is, why won’t the Premier listen to Ontario home care leaders and start fixing the problem now, beginning with repealing Bill 124?

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

Hon. Christine Elliott: Our government certainly recognizes the important role that home care plays in our health care system. It’s like a tripod: Along with hospitals and long-term care, if you don’t have a strong home care system, you don’t have a strong health care system.

That’s why, with the Connecting People to Home and Community Care Act, we’re modernizing the delivery of home and community care by bringing an outdated system that was designed in the 1990s into the 21st century, we are breaking down long-standing barriers that have separated home care from primary care and we’re working to bring home care into the Ontario Health overview and into the Ontario health teams to make sure that people are able to receive the home care that they need close to home.

We also recognize that many people who need home care services now have much more significant health concerns than in the past. And so, what we’re doing is working to make sure that they can get the support they need, whether it’s nursing services or personal support workers or whatever else they need, so that more people can stay in their own homes, which is where they want to be, have better outcomes for them and is where they—

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

Supplementary question.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: None of this minister’s long story rings true when we know that the staff is not there. The sector is begging—begging—the government to solve the problem. The staff is not there, and so people aren’t getting the care that they need, as the minister pretends. Nine out of 10 Ontarians, 90%, want to have home care instead of going into long-term care. But they’re left with no choice because this government refuses to solve the problem.

Deborah Simon, CEO of the Ontario Community Support Association says this: “Many have long wait-lists and no staff to service the clients. The shortage has led to longer wait-lists.”

Sue VanderBent, CEO of Home Care Ontario, says, “We need help. We are in a crisis.”

My colleague from Timiskaming–Cochrane told a story about somebody in his own community that does not have the home care that she needs reliably.

The home care sector is desperately calling for this government to step up and solve the problem. Our recommendation: Make pandemic pay permanent so they can keep staff—they can attract staff and keep staff. Will the government do that today?

Interjections.

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

The parliamentary assistant, the member for Mississauga–Lakeshore.

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: Thank you to the member for that question. Our government is incredibly grateful for the contribution of Ontario’s health care workers and the critical role that they have played throughout the COVID pandemic, providing patients with timely, safe and equitable access to health care and quality care.

The Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act is designed to protect public sector jobs and front-line service. Ontario’s public sector employees will still be able to receive salary increases for seniority, performance and increased qualifications, as they do currently.

Based on the ONA, nurses receive a graduated salary increase of an average of 4.4% per year, up to 7.1%, for each of their first eight years of work. This is on top of their graduated 1% annual raise.

Our government’s priority is the health and safety of all Ontarians. We have been focused on the response of COVID-19. As we continue to respond to the COVID situation here in Ontario, our government remains committed to working with our sector partners to support our valuable—

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

The final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the crisis in our home care system is compounded by the for-profit model that this government and the government before them prefer. And I think it’s pretty frightening to hear a member stand in this House defending a 1% wage cap when inflation is running at 5%. That means a 4% wage cut for those workers that are dealing with this Bill 124 low-wage policy.

Too often in the for-profit sector, wages are kept low and the quality of care is kept low so that profits can be kept high. Ontario should have public home care—period; end of story—public, not-for-profit. We should immediately increase the investments, though, in the interim, before we can transfer into that kind of a system so that home care gets the kind of funding that it needs. We should eliminate the wait-list so that people can get the care at home and not be forced into long-term care. We should rip up Bill 124 and make sure that the sector is able to hire the staff they need to care for Ontarians.

Why won’t the Premier make those changes, invest in home care and ensure that we get quality not-for-profit care and that Ontarians aren’t forced out of their homes unnecessarily?

Hon. Christine Elliott: We are making significant investments in home and community care. In 2019-20, we invested an additional $155 million more in home and community care. In 2021-22, we made additional supports of $111 million for the High Intensity Supports at Home Program to enhance care for high-needs clients, including hospital alternate-level-of-care patients and the expansion of community paramedicine.

Right now, we are working closely with the Ministry of Long-Term Care to make sure that the paramedicine that they offer to people who are waiting at home for long-term care, or who perhaps just want to stay in their own home, is matched with nursing resources and other personal support resources and paramedicine that we also have in the Ministry of Health to make sure that we can provide integrated, comprehensive care for all people at home who need that care.

Employment standards

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Premier. Last week, a Ministry of Labour investigator ruled that gig workers at Uber Eats are employees, just as the courts have been ruling in cases around the world. The ministry’s ruling ordered Uber to stop contravening the Employment Standards Act by misclassifying Uber delivery drivers and start recognizing them as the employees they are. Rather than enforcing its own employment law, however, this government decided to change the law instead by introducing a bill that will deny gig workers the basic employment protections they deserve.

Speaker, why does this government think that gig workers deserve fewer protections than other Ontario workers?

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

Hon. Monte McNaughton: Mr. Speaker, I’m proud of this government under the leadership of Premier Ford. Yesterday, we introduced yet another historic piece of legislation here at Queen’s Park, Working for Workers Act. For the first time in Canadian history, Ontario will be leading on this front to ensure that all workers have more take-home pay, more workplace protections and better opportunities for better jobs in this province. That’s why, as part of the Working for Workers Act, we introduced foundational rights for gig workers. We know that today in Ontario one in five people are working in the gig economy.

That’s why our legislation will ensure that they’re earning at least minimum wage, that they have a right to keep tips on top of their wages, that when they have a workplace dispute, it’s resolved in Ontario, not in a foreign country.

I look forward to talking more about our Working for Workers Act in the supplementary.

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: A $15 minimum wage that only applies when an app-based driver has a passenger in the car is like paying retail workers only when they are cashing out a sale. This is not even close to what gig workers have been calling for. Not only will most gig workers be unlikely to see a $15 minimum wage for the hours they work, but they will continue to be denied overtime pay, vacation pay, public holiday pay, termination pay, WSIB coverage and other employment protections.

Why is this government more interested in protecting the profit margins of app-based companies than in making sure that gig workers can actually earn minimum wage when they are on the job?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Labour to reply.

Hon. Monte McNaughton: We are the first place in Canada to bring forward foundational rights for gig workers. We know that the world of work is changing. That’s why we’re ensuring that gig workers receive at least minimum wage. They have the right to keep their tips on top of their wage. They have the right to know how and when they’re going to be paid, to bring transparency around their paycheques, including gig workers getting pay stubs for the first time in Canadian history.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to ensure that when there is a workplace dispute, the result is here in Ontario, not in a country somewhere around the world—if companies want to do business in Ontario, they’re going to play under Ontario law and play by Ontario’s rules.

I can tell you the world of work is changing. We all know that. The economy is changing. One in five people work in the gig economy. We will ensure that under the leadership of Premier Ford, we’ll work for workers every single day.

Economic reopening and recovery

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Over the course of the pandemic, I’ve been hearing from constituents about how much they appreciate the support this government and Premier Ford have provided to them during these past two years. For many businesses, the support they received has kept them afloat and allowed them to reopen safely.

Speaker, through you, could the minister tell us what this government is doing to support Ontario’s businesses?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Thank you to the member for Carleton for that great question. The member is right. I myself have heard from businesses that our supports have made a difference between keeping the lights on and closing them for good. Throughout the pandemic, we have made support available of over $300 billion for grants, we’ve provided rebates for property tax and electricity and we’ve provided cash-flow support to the tune of $7.5 billion for provincially administered taxes. Our government is also making money available for businesses in Ottawa impacted by the recent occupation.

Mr. Speaker, small businesses are the backbone of our economy here in Ontario and will be the driving force as we continue to recover from the pandemic and plan for our economic recovery.

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

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Thank you to the minister. I recall when the minister visited my riding of Carleton back in November to meet with some of the small businesses in my riding and to speak with them about the supports that we are providing to help them get through this pandemic.

As the government is phasing out COVID restrictions and workplaces and businesses are fully opening up, many in my riding of Carleton are feeling optimistic about the future and the direction our province has taken, but we also know that more needs to be done, and our businesses are relying on us.

Mr. Speaker, through you, can the minister tell this House what our government is doing to ensure we continue to recover from the pandemic and build a stronger Ontario?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Thank you again. Mr. Speaker, to be clear, there is still a lot of economic uncertainty here at home and around the world. Supply chain challenges, international geopolitical instability and of course the rising cost of living continue to be challenges for governments everywhere. That being said, our government has laid a strong financial and fiscal foundation on which we will continue to build Ontario.

Speaker, for 15 years, the Del Duca Liberals mismanaged this province and said no—no to transparency, no to building and no to growth. That’s why we have a plan for recovery that includes saying yes to new hospitals, yes to new highways, yes to supports for workers, for growth and putting more money in the pockets of families and making life more affordable. Ontario is getting stronger and we will continue to build Ontario’s long-term economic prosperity.

Hospital funding

Ms. Sandy Shaw: My question is to the Premier. Hamilton experienced 97 code zeros last year. This is a terrifying event that means there are absolutely no ambulances available to respond to an emergency call. This is a direct result of overcrowded and underfunded hospitals.

Last year, paramedics spent 32,000 hours waiting to drop off patients at backed-up emergency wards, and the problem continues to grow. Hamilton’s mayor stated, “It’s a vexing problem, but one that rests with the province. The Ontario government needs to address the associated problem of hallway medicine in hospitals.”

Through you, Speaker, will the Premier commit to addressing the root cause of code zeros in Hamilton, and end the continued underfunding of our hospitals?

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

Hon. Christine Elliott: There are several issues that the member has raised with her question. One is the issue of ambulance delays. There are several places in Ontario that are experiencing that, and that’s why we are committed to strengthening the dedicated offload nurses program: to help improve ambulance offload times and emergency patient care.

We’ve invested $16 million to 20 municipalities to help ambulances be able to return to the community faster and respond to more emergency calls. This funding is expected to support more than 164 equivalent nursing positions in 49 hospitals while increasing ambulance availability by 449,000 hours. That represents a return on investment of more th