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

November 20, 2024

43rd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2024-Nov-20 (PDF)

L183 - Wed 20 Nov 2024 / Mer 20 nov 2024

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 20 November 2024 Mercredi 20 novembre 2024

Orders of the Day

Safer Streets, Stronger Communities Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 visant à accroître la sécurité dans les rues et à renforcer les collectivités

Members’ Statements

Benji Covant

Trucking industry

Remembrance Day

School transportation

Health care

Gender-based violence

St. Clair Saints football team

Trans Day of Remembrance

Ethel Côté

Government investments

Remembrance Day

Trans Day of Remembrance

Introduction of Visitors

Question Period

Government accountability

Government accountability

Government accountability

Taxation

Child care

Taxation

Child care

Health care

Immigrants’ skills

Health care

Health care

Small business

Health care funding

Sports and recreation funding

Visitor

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Introduction of Government Bills

Cutting Red Tape, Building Ontario Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 visant à réduire les formalités administratives et à favoriser l’essor de l’Ontario

Petitions

Environmental protection

Orders of the Day

Safer Streets, Stronger Communities Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 visant à accroître la sécurité dans les rues et à renforcer les collectivités

Private Members’ Public Business

Community safety

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Safer Streets, Stronger Communities Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 visant à accroître la sécurité dans les rues et à renforcer les collectivités

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 19, 2024, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 223,

An Act to enact two Acts and to amend various Acts with respect to public safety and the justice system / Projet de loi 223, Loi édictant deux lois et modifiant diverses lois relatives à la sécurité publique et au système judiciaire.

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

MPP Lisa Gretzky: It is my honour to be able to rise in this place and discuss the legislation that is before us. I want to point out that there are several schedules to this bill, most of which are supportive.

There is one

schedule in this bill that is incredibly problematic, not just for those of us on this side of the House, but for health care workers, for people in my community, in Ottawa, in Sudbury, in Thunder Bay, in Toronto, in ridings all across this province. It’s a

schedule that we see further stigmatizes individuals with addiction and will ultimately, regardless of what the Minister of Health seems to think, claiming that no one will die because of that particular schedule—evidence shows otherwise. That particular schedule,

schedule 4, is simply something that I cannot support in good conscience. I would ask the government why they put that in this bill with so many other things. Why not pull it out of this bill and let us actually debate the science and the evidence and the health care related to

schedule 4? Why not let us work together to actually save lives, rather than further stigmatizing people with addictions?

Before I get into that part of my comments, I’m going to touch on the

schedule that talks about sexual assaults and those who have been found guilty of sexual assault. On the surface, this seems like a really good piece of legislation, talking about not allowing convicted sex offenders to be able to change their names, to try to become someone else and to avoid continued accountability for a crime that they have committed. The government is trying to make it sound like they are tough on crime, like they are serious about issues—specifically, this particular issue largely impacts women who are sexually assaulted, women who are targeted by gender-based violence, by femicide.

We’ve just recently seen a femicide in Oshawa. It is not an anomaly. It is happening in every riding across this province. This government will not declare gender-based violence or femicide for what it is, which is an epidemic. They seem ideologically opposed to actually being accountable for having to actually do something about it. They’re great with words; not so great with follow-through.

I ask the government, when we’re talking about people who are convicted of sexual crimes and are put on the registry and not being able to change their names, why is it that the government did not include my colleague’s bill, Lydia’s Law? Why was that not included in this? Why has the government—since May 14, months ago—chosen to leave that piece of legislation to languish at committee?

I want to be clear to the people who are listening to this or who will see this later: The government has a majority. They control the committees. They decide what gets called at committee. So while they’re here trying to sound like they’re really tough on crime and they’re really supporting the victims of sexual assault—again, it’s largely women impacted—they chose to play games with my colleague’s bill, Lydia’s Law. They wouldn’t let it be heard here in the House.

The day before it was to be debated, when there were hundreds of people, families, survivors of sexual assault, who were coming to this place to be heard, to be part of that debate, the government House leader—a man, I will point out—decided that it was best to just shut down that debate altogether. It wasn’t going to happen. Without consulting with my colleague who brought that bill forward, or the survivors of sexual assault or their family members, the people who were going to come here, the government said, “We’re not even going to hear about it.

We’re just going to send it right to committee.” The government House Leader said, “I don’t understand why all those ladies are upset, why all those women are upset. We’re doing what they want. We’re taking this seriously. We’re rushing this through the legislative process. We’re sending it to committee so that we can get it through that process and back into the House for third reading and get that law passed.” That turned out to be horse hockey, because it has been sitting at that committee since May 14.

So I ask the government: Why will you not pass that bill? Why will you not honour the young woman that bill was named after? Why will you not honour Emily, who had a day in court where she had to go and relive the trauma of being sexually assaulted, only to find out that the case was going to be thrown out of court because the time limit had elapsed, because this government is grossly underfunding and under-resourcing the justice system?

Speaker, it is absolutely unconscionable that this government would play games like this—absolutely unconscionable. These are real people who are impacted.

Between 2022 and 2023, there were nearly 3,000 sexual assault cases either withdrawn or stayed because they didn’t have the resources in the courts to hear those cases. Nearly 3,000 victims of sexual assault did not have a remedy; they didn’t have a day in court. They do not get justice. And this government’s decisions continue to excuse these heinous offences and to further traumatize and try to silence the victims of sexual assault. I just wanted to make sure that I got that on the record.

While saying that those convicted of sexual assault should not be able to change their names—that’s something agreeable. But what are you actually doing now for the women all around this province who are facing gender-based violence, who are being sexually assaulted and are being revictimized by a court system that this government refuses to properly resource?

I’d ask this government, for all the victims who have not seen justice and for, unfortunately, future victims—because there will be, because this government is not really doing anything substantive to educate and to prevent those assaults. We’re going to see more and more people in this province, especially women, who are going to be failed by this government. They can’t even deliver the basics when it comes to the safety of women in this province.

Speaker, I only have 10 minutes left, and as you can see, I have quite the pile of notes here.

I want to point out that the government ran a study on consumption and treatment services—and I want to be clear that that’s what it is: consumption and treatment services. These sites connected people to primary care physicians, to wound care, to social workers, to therapists, to health care workers. On a very personal and basic level, they built relationships with the people who accessed their supports and services. They built trust with these people, and in return—and in some cases, it absolutely took time. But in many cases, after building that trust with people with addictions—they got into treatment; they got the supports that they needed.

It’s a broken treatment system, because this government is grossly underfunding mental health and addictions. For the people who are seeking support, who are ready to seek treatment, it is a disjointed system. They go in for detox, and then they could wait months for rehab, for withdrawal management. The evidence shows that because of those delays, oftentimes they relapse. But there’s nothing the government is doing about that. “We’re just going to put some words on paper.”

The Premier himself said that it was not about evidence, it was not about data, it was not about proven treatments that work; it is his personal opinion—his personal opinion—that these services should not exist.

We hear fearmongering from the other side, and that is dangerous, because as you stigmatize and you fearmonger, people who have addiction don’t want to come forward and seek help, because of the way you are stigmatizing them. How is that helping the growing crisis that we are facing today?

In their own study into consumption and treatment services, the recommendation from their study—they are the ones who commissioned the study—said that it was wrong-headed and dangerous to be closing these sites.

I know the argument on the other side is, “Oh, we’re talking about banning them 200 metres from schools or daycares.” Then explain to me why the one in Windsor had to close. It is well outside the 200 metres from any school or any daycare. We had no incidences where there was police involvement. The crime rate dropped. Lives were saved. People were connected to supports and services that they needed.

When people have access to clean, safe supplies to use, we see a drop in the spread of diseases, such as HIV and hepatitis. But the government doesn’t want to acknowledge that. We know, based on the government’s own study that they choose to ignore—not surprising, because that is what we see with this government time and time again.

Look at their own housing task force. They did the same thing—their own commissioned report. When their report doesn’t say what they want it to say, they then try to discredit the very people they hired to do the report and just do what it is they want to do, based on their own personal beliefs rather than on evidence.

Speaker, we have health care workers, we have workers who work in harm reduction—and it is harm reduction. I know the government talks about HART hubs. I’m not saying HART hubs are a bad thing; they are no substitute for consumption and treatment services. These HART hubs will not be able to provide clean supplies for people who have an addiction. Again, what we’re going to see is an increase in infection. We’re going to see a spread of HIV. We’re going to see a spread of hepatitis C.

When the government wants to talk about, “This is about needles on playgrounds and in parks”—consumption and treatment services sites actually took people off the streets to use. They used in a controlled environment with health care workers and mental health and addictions experts. They had an ability to discard used paraphernalia in a safe manner so that it wasn’t on our streets, so that it wasn’t in playgrounds or the parks. But the government doesn’t talk about that.

What the government is doing is fearmongering. They’re fearmongering. They’re stigmatizing people. I love that the government talks about, “We need to reduce stigma to encourage people to come forward.” But what they are doing is further stigmatizing people who use drugs. The Minister of Health herself said yesterday—yelled it across the floor, actually—that it was about stopping people from using illicit and illegal drugs. That’s what she said it was about.

I’m not going to argue that there are people who are using illicit drugs—we are in a crisis. But taking away health resources that would actually save their lives—because if they are dead, they’re not getting into treatment. You have to save their lives first.

Talking about them as though they are less than other people in this province, like they are dirty and should be discarded and that we would be better off without them—that kind of language that this government is putting out there to the public is absolutely shameful.

If it isn’t someone in your family yet, if it isn’t your neighbour yet, if it isn’t someone you care about yet, it could very well be. So I want you to think about that, in the language that you choose when you are talking about people with addiction.

They only talk like that about people who use drugs. They have no problem when it comes to alcohol addiction; in fact, they pour all kinds of money into it, to make it available wherever people want to have it. Alcohol addiction, for the government, is okay. It’s just those who use drugs who are the problem.

I don’t have a lot of time left, and I had a lot that I wanted to read, but I’m going to build on something that I just said, on the language that we hear from the government side, the fearmongering that we hear from the government side. And they’re going to try to spin it like we don’t care about community safety over on this side. That is absolute garbage. They’re going to say that we think it’s okay that people use drugs and we just want to keep them on drugs. Absolute garbage. Absolutely. It’s shameful that they would politicize it that way.

Speaker, I want to tell you a story in the last three minutes that I have left, and it’s based on what the Minister of Health was yelling across the floor yesterday about illegal and illicit drugs—that these people are bad, bad people because they’re using illicit or illegal drugs; that that is the only thing contributing to the crisis that we see in this province. I want to tell you about someone named Dan. Dan was a young man who played in a band, loved music, played guitar, played the drums, had a job.

Dan was a passenger in a vehicle that was T-boned by another driver—I will point out, a driver who was intoxicated—and Dan sustained a back injury. He was given prescription medication to deal with the pain from that injury, and he became reliant on that medication.

I would argue that there are probably people in this House right now who have struggled with that themselves or who have had family members struggle with that.

Over the years, as the pain meds weren’t working as effectively and he would need more and more of that prescription drug, he turned to other drugs to deal with the pain. He used heroin. He used crack.

Ultimately, he sought help. He would go to the methadone clinic every morning and get his methadone, like many people who are trying to manage their addiction, with the hopes of beating that addiction.

He had another injury happen and was prescribed, by a doctor who knew that he had an addiction—he was the one sending him to the methadone clinic every day. That doctor prescribed him morphine to be able to take at home, unsupervised. Dan died of an overdose, alone in his apartment. It was not illicit drugs. It was not illegal drugs.

He was not less than. He was not a nameless, faceless person. He was someone who was loved, who was cared for, who wanted to be better, who wanted to get better, who wanted to beat the addiction. His problem was not illicit and illegal drugs; it was prescription medication.

Dan, that person I’m talking about, was my brother.

It is highly insulting when the Minister of Health and others on the other side of the House speak about people struggling with addiction as though they are dirty and they are less than and they are a scourge on our society. Speaker, I would argue that the folks on the government side who talk like that and think like that and refuse to look at the evidence are the scourge.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): I’ll remind our speakers to use parliamentary language when referring to members in the House.

Questions?

Mr. Anthony Leardi: The member made reference to getting court cases through the court system faster.

Schedule 7 of this bill refers specifically to allowing retired provincial court judges the ability to come back after retirement and hear more court cases and to essentially expand the amount of time they’re allowed to do that. Sometimes what happens is that a judge retires and they’re not replaced right away, or judges get sick and they cannot show up for their court cases. This is a very useful way to get judges back in the courtroom—experienced judges, very talented judges—and to get those court cases heard and through the system. That’s in

schedule 7 of this bill. I think it’s a very practical and very useful way to get things done.

I am wondering if the member across supports that section. And will she vote for it?

MPP Lisa Gretzky: If the member for Essex was listening to the beginning of what I said—I said every

schedule of this bill is supportable, except for

schedule 4. My request is that you take

schedule 4 out of this bill, and let’s actually debate data and evidence when it comes to

schedule 4.

I will put this back to the member from Essex: Are you prepared—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Through the Chair.

MPP Lisa Gretzky: —and when are you properly going to resource the court system so that there aren’t these delays, so that we don’t have 3,000 sexual assault cases being withdrawn or stayed because your government is not properly resourcing the system?

We have courtrooms that sit empty while we have victims of sexual assault who will live that for the rest of their lives, and they are being revictimized because they cannot get their day in court.

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

Mr. Joel Harden: I want to thank the member for Windsor West. She reminded me of a teaching from an Algonquin elder, Albert Dumont, back home, who has often said that healing begins now. When Albert tells me that, he’s reminding me that we can use these platforms, sure, to fight amongst each other, because we’re going to disagree—but also to offer up something personal sometimes, if it helps people get that rung of hope on the ladder that can help them out of a difficult spot.

When you talked about your brother, that took a lot of courage. Thank you.

I want to offer you another opportunity to speak to the government, because this has impacted my family too.

While we may disagree here about how to help people suffering from mental health and addictions, I want to believe that that should be a foremost priority for the government.

I’m wondering if you can talk about how expensive it is to not only have to be picking up needles in our streets but to be walking over dead bodies. That’s what I’m hearing people talk about at home. If there isn’t a safe place to consume, it’s going to be in parking garages, it’s going to be in alleyways, it’s going to be in backyards. People have problems, and there’s a cost associated to not having opportunities for those problems to be resolved.

MPP Lisa Gretzky: I thank my colleague.

I think that’s the heart of the matter. We are seeing a government that is not putting the resources in to properly deal with the crisis that we are seeing.

The government likes to talk about setting records. Well, congratulations, we have record numbers of people accessing food banks. Some of them are working people and seniors. We have record-high poverty. Toronto alone has the highest rate of child poverty in the entire country. We are seeing housing starts at the lowest they have been in 70 years.

We are hearing people talk about the gaps in actually accessing supports and services for addiction within the health care system.

So I would ask the government, what is the moral cost—

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

Mr. Anthony Leardi: Returning to

schedule 7 of the bill: The member quite rightly would observe that from time to time, a courtroom sits empty because there’s no judge. That happens because judges call in sick. There aren’t a lot of judges, so when a judge calls in sick, you have a whole list of cases that can’t be heard that day, sometimes because there’s no other judge available to hear that case. That’s why it’s so important to have back-up judges. As the system currently stands, a judge who is retired can only do a certain amount of time and they can’t do any more. This

schedule proposes to change that and to allow retired judges to come back for more time when and if they’re needed.

It sounded like the member is not going to vote for this. Why not?

MPP Lisa Gretzky: I don’t know if the member needs to put his earpiece in and turn it up, but clearly, he’s not hearing what I’m saying. I’ve said it three times now, so let me be clear: Everything in this bill is supportable, except for

schedule 4, which you should pull out of this bill. Pull it out.

I’m going to ask the member from Essex again, when we don’t have court clerks, when we don’t have other court staff—not just judges—to be running the courtrooms, how is that one particular issue going to stop 3,000 sexual assault cases from getting tossed out of court because they can’t get heard within the time frame?

I’m talking about

schedule 4. I’ve said I support everything else. Pull

schedule 4 out of the bill.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I want to thank the member for an excellent presentation on this bill.

I would like to ask the member if she could talk about the consequences expected when consumption and treatment sites are shut down. I’ve heard a lot of concerns from health care professionals, from families, and from people who actually use those services about the consequences in terms of health and, frankly, in terms of mortality. I would appreciate an expansion on the part of the member on that issue.

MPP Lisa Gretzky: I’d have to go through the notes to find out for sure, but I believe there were 22,000 Ontarians who have died of overdose and lack of access to health care—because this is health care—since the Conservatives formed government in this province. Speaker, 22,000 people have died—family members, loved ones, neighbours, friends, community members.

So I ask the government, what price do you put on those people who have died?

I believe the number is, when you invest in consumption and treatment services and harm reduction—that every $1 invested is $7 in savings to the health care system, to the justice system, to first responders.

So invest in people in the first end. Make sure they have the supports and services they need. Save lives, and you can save money at the same time.

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

Mr. Brian Saunderson: My question is to the member opposite.

I’m going to quote the member from Toronto–Danforth, who asked a question about a shooting that took place in his riding. He said, “The shooting at Queen and Carlaw has caused people to question the presence of a consumption and treatment services (CTS) site for drug users at the South Riverdale Community Health Centre (SRCHC). Many people fear that the presence of the site attracts drug dealers and that this may be related to the recent shooting.” That was, in fact, before it was determined that the shooting of the employee at Riverdale was by an alleged client.

Does the member opposite now dismiss the concerns of your colleague and turn face and deny the safety issues that these sites pose for our residents?

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Response? Please make your questions and responses through the Chair.

MPP Lisa Gretzky: To the member opposite: I have a copy of the government report, a commissioned report, that actually talks about how crime is reduced. It’s specifically talking about that particular consumption and treatment service. It’s very clear to me that either the member opposite has not bothered to read this lengthy and fulsome report, or he has chosen to pick and choose some items out of it.

If he would like to actually read the report that the government commissioned, that’s talking about how these consumption and treatment sites, with the right tools in place—working with experienced health care workers, with law enforcement, with community—actually reduce crime, save lives and get people down the road into treatment—if he would actually like to read the fulsome report, I would be happy to send it over to him with a page.

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

We’re going to move on to further debate.

M me Lucille Collard: It is an honour, of course, to rise on behalf of my constituents in Ottawa–Vanier to speak about Bill 223, the Safer Streets, Stronger Communities Act, 2024.

The ByWard Market in Ottawa is a popular tourist destination in my riding. But what you may not know is that just outside the market, there are three safe consumption sites within 700 metres of each other. Two are just actually 200 metres apart, which is far below the ministry’s guideline of 600 metres. This concentration of services has a negative impact on the Lowertown community. Residents see drugs and paraphernalia in parks; they see the drug dealing, the drug use, the crime, and, yes, the overdoses.

Bill 223 proposes to ban consumption and treatment sites within 200 metres of schools and daycares. While I’ll support this, it will result in 10 sites across Ontario closing, including the one at the Somerset West Community Health Centre in Ottawa Centre. The question is, where will those who rely on these services go? That centre is the only one outside of my riding. So most likely, they will come to Lowertown, exacerbating the existing challenges and increasing the burden on local residents.

To reduce demand for safe consumption sites and their negative impact, we need to connect people to mental health care, housing and primary care services. Safe consumption sites save lives. They are a vital harm reduction tool to keep people alive until they can access treatment, but they only work if treatment options and social supports are also available.

I’ve spoken with the organizations running the sites in my riding, and they’ve told me, clearly, that the treatment options are lacking. Even when people are ready for treatment, there’s not enough support. They don’t have housing, food and basic needs during and after treatment. If they don’t have that, they will return to the streets and their addictions.

We need a holistic approach, with wraparound services including housing, health care and employment.

The government’s proposed shift to homelessness and addiction treatment hubs sounds good, but there are two key issues.

First, these hubs cannot provide harm reduction services, making it harder to get people through the door and into treatment. Harm reduction services are essential for reaching people who are ready to get help. Without them, we miss the opportunity to get people into treatment. It’s as simple as that. By offering harm reduction services, organizations gain access to the patients who need the treatment services at a moment when they may be willing to use them. By not offering those harm reduction services, we lose the opportunity to get people into treatment. As one expert put it, “It’s like investing in a brand new, state-of-the-art hospital and then not putting in doors.”

Second, the hubs will only work if the necessary wraparound services, like primary care and housing, are available. Unfortunately, this government has a poor record on those fronts.

After six years in power, the housing crisis has worsened, and affordable housing options remain scarce.

When it comes to health care, well, unfortunately, this government has failed again and again to provide the access to primary care services that Ontarians need. In my riding, over 22,000 patients don’t have a family doctor. When a group of nurse practitioners proposed a new primary care clinic that would include services for those struggling with mental health and addictions, the government only gave them a quarter of the funding they requested. Instead of the $10 million they requested, the government decided to give them $2.5 million in funding.

The impact is that the clinic has to downsize from 12 nurse practitioners to four, and that’s denying thousands of residents access to the primary care they desperately need.

If this government is serious about addressing the mental health and addiction issues facing this province, then they have to put their money where their mouth is and actually fund the primary care and treatment services that Ontarians need.

Many sex offenders and traffickers manipulate their victims, often using relationships and influence to break down their self-worth. These individuals are rarely strangers, and their tactics are not physical force necessarily, but rather manipulation. I’ve met with survivors of human trafficking, and I can tell you that they not only need to heal from physical wounds but also from deep emotional and psychological scars. Rebuilding their self-image and learning to trust again are part of their journey.

The measures in this bill help to prevent offenders from finding new victims, and we must continue to take steps to protect vulnerable individuals.

Education is a key factor. That’s why I introduced Bill 133, the Kids’ Online Safety and Privacy Month Act. We need to equip young people with the knowledge to recognize online dangers, including child pornography and grooming, and understand how offenders manipulate their victims. We must also educate parents on better supervising their children’s online activity, which Bill 133 would help achieve.

Furthermore, we need to support the victims and survivors of sexual exploitation.

A year ago, this House passed Bill 41 to protect human trafficking survivors from coerced debts, yet it has still not been brought into force. These debts perpetuate the trauma that survivors face, preventing them from moving forward with their lives—whether it is applying for loans, renting apartments, or getting a credit card. Survivors are still waiting for the relief they deserve. I urge the government to implement this bill without further delay.

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

Mr. Anthony Leardi: The member made brief reference to schedules 2 and 3. I’d like to ask a question about that.

Schedule 2 makes a change to the Change of Name Act, and

schedule 3 refers to a sex offenders registry. The effect of these two schedules is to make it far more difficult for people who have been found guilty of a sex offence to essentially change their name and hide. That’s the effect of these two schedules.

My question to the honourable member is, does she support the provisions set out in schedules 2 and 3 and will she be voting for them?

M me Lucille Collard: Thank you to the member for Essex for the question. The obvious answer, if you’d listened to my comments, is yes, I support schedules 2 and 3. Those are good measures.

We always think that the government doesn’t go far enough to protect those victims. I think the IPV motion and the work that’s being done around that needs to be more aggressive. We need real relief.

Again, I mention my Bill 41, on protecting survivors of human trafficking from coerced debt. It has been almost a year, and it’s still not in force. We need to move forward with that. Survivors are waiting for that relief. They were so hopeful when we moved that process to the House. They were at committee, just praying that we were going to deal with that—

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

M me Lucille Collard: It’s taking too long. I really urge the government to do what’s necessary to bring that into force, to bring real relief.

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

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: I thank the member for her presentation.

People across Ontario are saying that this government has stooped to a new low, conflating those fighting addiction with sex offenders.

My question: Will the member support our official opposition push to support all of the schedules in this bill except for

schedule 4, and to remove

schedule 4 from Bill 223?

M me Lucille Collard: I do have reservations about

schedule 4 as well. I think I spoke about this particular

schedule at length.

The problem of removing safe consumption sites is real. We do know that those sites save lives and that if we don’t replace them with treatment, then we’re just setting up people to die on the streets. I’ve seen that first-hand. I’ve been on patrol with police services, and what you see happening on the streets is just heartbreaking. Treatment is not happening fast enough.

The minister said that they’re working on building hubs. This should have been done before we decided to close sites, because treatment is truly the only alternative to closing those sites.

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

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Thank you to the member and my colleague for sharing your story with us, and for your speech.

You seem to have lots of knowledge on this particular topic of supervised consumption sites. I’m just wondering what you are hearing from your riding of Ottawa–Vanier.

M me Lucille Collard: Madam Speaker, what’s happening in the downtown-area core is having a devastating effect on the businesses, on the community. Like I said, we see heartbreaking stories. People have to deal with the impact of not having enough support and not enough treatment.

Unfortunately, I know of this first-hand, because my own brother died on the street, because he didn’t have access to treatment. So, yes, this is an issue that is really something I care about.

When I go to these safe consumption sites and I talk to those vulnerable people, it’s very clear that all they need is that little push to get access to treatment. But the treatment is not there. The government needs to invest serious resources to address this.

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

Mr. Anthony Leardi: As everybody knows, this government is proposing to introduce HART hubs. HART hubs are hubs where people can go to seek treatment, counselling. They can also, in a spoke-and-wheel model, get access to home services.

I’m proposing that the HART hubs are probably a very good $378-million investment, and I would like to invite the member to share her observations regarding that.

M me Lucille Collard: As I said, those hubs sound really good. My question is, when will they be implemented? What kinds of resources are going to be made available? Are they going to be sufficient to help the increasing number of people who need help? The minister talked about 19 hubs; that seems a very low number when we consider the increasing number of people who find themselves on the streets struggling, in need of support.

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

Mr. Anthony Leardi: Speaker, we are debating several schedules in a bill today. One of those schedules deals with what I will describe as drug injection sites; some people will choose to use other language to describe these locations.

Almost all of my comments today are going to be directed on something called the Community Engagement Report. The Community Engagement Report was a companion document to the South Riverdale Community Health Centre Consumption and Treatment Service Review.

As members of this House will recall, the South Riverdale location was a drug injection site which was related to—some people might even suggest linked to—a deadly shooting which occurred. This particular report was prepared by Unity Health Toronto, and it’s dated February 28, 2024, so it was finally finished only a few months ago. It’s very current to our discussion today. Again, it’s the Community Engagement Report, the companion document to the South Riverdale Community Health Centre Consumption and Treatment Service Review, prepared by Unity Health Toronto, dated February 28, 2024.

I’ll make one more comment before I start referring to the report: This particular drug injection site was commenced after the community health clinic. The community health clinic pre-existed the drug injection site. That’s an important fact.

I want to provide the House with the first quote from this document:

“Several people reported incidents of harassment, including threats, and physical assault from CTS clients. Neighbourhood residents, business owners and employees emphasized that these experiences, which have been directed towards adults, teens and young children, have taken place when walking by the CTS, in nearby alleyways or when walking on streets close to the CTS.”

My first observation is that this Community Engagement Report documented these incidents and that these particular sites were of grave concern with regard to these kinds of threats and physical assaults.

I want to quote further from this report:

“Many respondents, including service users ... were concerned about crowding and loitering outside of the CTS, when individuals outside of the CTS are visibly intoxicated, belligerent, and acting erratically.

“Many respondents were concerned about public drug use, including people overdosing in public (fatal and non-fatal). Drug use was observed directly outside of the CTS, in alleyways, on the street, in parks and other public spaces in the neighbourhood.”

If that weren’t concerning enough, the report went on to say this: “Schools and daycares have found people using drugs in their parking lot or in their entryways.”

That’s all in the Community Engagement Report. That, of course, is interesting information, because theoretically speaking, these drug injection sites are supposed to prevent all of that from happening. Theoretically, the drug injection sites are supposed to prevent people from taking drugs in public, but clearly they are not. Theoretically speaking, the drug injection sites are supposed to prevent people from overdosing in public, but clearly they are not. Theoretically speaking, the drug injection sites are supposed to prevent people from overdosing in public, but clearly they are not.

Theoretically speaking, the drug injection centres are supposed to keep the drugs away from our schools and away from our daycare centres, but clearly they are not.

People are tired of this. It doesn’t mean that people do not have empathy for others who are suffering from addiction. It does not mean that people do not want these addictions cured or solved. On the contrary, people want people who are suffering from addiction to get back on the road to recovery. That’s what we all want. That’s what all 124 members of this House want. But what we don’t want is people consuming drugs near our schools, at our schools, or, as this report clearly indicates, in parking lots and in the entryways to schools and daycare centres.

Let me go on to quote the report again: “Respondents have also observed garbage, excrement, used condoms, discarded needles and substances in the neighbourhood, including on the streets, alleyways, schoolyards, daycare property, soccer fields and near residents’ private garages and driveways.” That’s a direct quote from the Community Engagement Report.

Once again, the theory that has been presented is that these sites are supposed to prevent all that from happening, but clearly it continues to happen. In particular, it seems to be happening where the sites are located at a greater rate—that is to say, greater than in the general community. We’re referring to not just anti-social behaviour, but real, real threats to health and safety; real, real threats to the health of the community, including some of the youngest and most vulnerable members of our community.

To quote the report again: “Residents and daycare staff have witnessed individuals fornicating, defecating and urinating in public and on daycare property.”

Imagine that. Imagine you’re a mother or a father and you’re on your way to work, and you pack your kids into the car—maybe you’re driving a minivan, a quality vehicle built by a North American automobile company—and you drive your children in your minivan to the daycare centre, and you’re confronted with people defecating, urinating or fornicating on daycare property. Imagine that. And imagine the effect on you as a parent. Maybe your children won’t see it because you’ll shield them from that.

But imagine the effect on the person who is running that daycare, who thought that they were going to open up a daycare centre and take care of children and serve the community and serve parents, serve mothers and fathers. Instead of having to do what they want to do—that is to say, run a business, take care of children—now they have to deal with this kind of behaviour occurring right on their property.

I’ll quote the report further: “Many respondents were concerned about the effects on children of public drug use, disruptive behaviour, and discarded equipment and drugs. Respondents reported children picking up bags of drugs.” Again, that’s a direct quote: “Respondents reported children picking up bags of drugs.”

Nobody wants that happening. Nobody wants that happening near our schools. Nobody wants that happening near our daycare centres. That’s why, if this legislation is passed, we’ll take steps to prevent that from happening.

One of those steps, I would suggest, is to impose a 200-metre protection zone around every school and daycare centre in the province of Ontario, because we don’t want this behaviour and we don’t want this garbage anywhere near our schools, and we don’t want it anywhere near our daycare centres.

Here’s another quote from the same report: “Others described children as being desensitized to seeing people injecting and consuming drugs.”

Again, that’s another reason why we should be imposing a protection zone around all of our schools and all of our daycare centres. We don’t want our children being exposed to this kind of activity. There are people who will say that, theoretically, these sites are supposed to prevent that from happening; well, it’s clear that they’re not. We don’t want our children to be exposed to this. We don’t want them to be desensitized to it. Rather, we want them not to be exposed to it. That is a very good reason for us to impose a 200-metre protection zone around every school and daycare centre in the province.

I’ll quote further from the report: “Several residents and businesses have experienced home and car thefts, property damage and break-ins. Theft has ranged from small items, such as delivery packages, to large items in stores. Several businesses have been burglarized multiple times, repeatedly suffering financial loss.”

Criminal behaviour is not strictly isolated to drug injection sites. There’s criminal behaviour in other places, too. But the significance of this appearing in this report is that it is being associated with the drug injection site.

Let me carry on with another quote from the same report: “Most business owners and employees felt that safety problems are acute, specific to the Leslieville neighbourhood, and not explained by city-wide trends.” That addresses the point that I just made.

“Business owners who live outside of Leslieville compared the lack of sense of safety they experience at their business location with that in the broader Leslieville neighbourhood, which they attribute to the CTS.”

That is the point I was making. While crime exists everywhere, these business owners had businesses located near the zone of the drug injection site, and they also lived or had experiences outside the zone, and they could speak personally to the experience that they were going through, observing that the level of criminal activity near the drug injection site was markedly greater than elsewhere. That was observed through their own experience, because they had locations, or several locations, both near and far from the drug injection site. And we’re listening to those business owners.

Another quote from the same report: “Many respondents emphasized that there is a noticeable presence of drug selling both outside the CTS and in the neighbourhood. For some, the presence of the CTS ‘attracts drug dealers and drug users, and diverts them from the downtown core.’” That’s a direct quote. Again, it’s dealing with the same point that I was making just now, that these are people who have direct experience and are speaking from the direct experience.

Another quote: “Respondents also fear that sellers are armed and ‘directly’ responsible for an increase in guns and violence in the neighbourhood.”

I note that there will be some police officers here today. I understand that there are police officers from the Windsor Police Service—Kent Rice, Rick Derus and Shannon Tennant—and I understand that there are also police officers here today from the region of Durham.

I would suggest that we could all take an opportunity to speak to our police officers, as some of us do on a regular basis, and ask them about their personal experience in dealing with these issues. It is, of course, often the case that police officers are called in when business owners and mothers and fathers experience the things that this report is talking about, and it’s the police who have to deal with this. They would rather be dealing with keeping people safe and, quite frankly, not inviting further drug activity, not inviting further drug trafficking and not inviting gun violence, which these drug injection sites seem to attract.

I’ll quote further from this report: “Residents led an initiative to complete an alleyway cleanup of discarded needles, garbage and condoms.”

In other words, the problem has gotten so bad that residents have to take matters into their own hands and start cleaning this mess up. Remember, the drug injection site is not supposed to cause all this, yet this is what’s occurring around the drug injection sites. Theoretically, the site is supposed to prevent this from happening, but rather, the opposite is happening; it is actually intensifying around the drug injection site that is being described in this report.

A further quote: “Many children have been avoiding the alleyway behind the CTS when walking to school and some parents do not allow their children to walk in the neighbourhood alone. Some parents no longer feel comfortable sending their children to the local elementary school and have pulled their children out of the local daycare.” Again, that is a direct quote.

This is occurring at the drug injection site that is described in this report. It is having a negative effect on the local school. It is having a negative effect on the local daycare centre. That is yet another justification for us to impose a 200-metre protection zone around every school and every daycare centre around the province of Ontario. These schools are losing students because of the drug injection site. This daycare is losing clients because of the drug injection site. That is the upshot of this Community Engagement Report that was prepared only in February of this year.

Further quotes from the same report:

“Parents gave examples of their children avoiding playing and spending time in the neighbourhood, taking different routes home from school, and avoiding eye contact with people outside the CTS.

“Some daycares have implemented safety measures and programming changes. One daycare has changed the location of their evacuation site to be farther from the CTS. Staff now inspect and sweep their property for needles before bringing children outside, such as for fire drills”—again, another example of the residents and the business owners of the community having to pick up after the drug injection site, having to clean up after the drug injection site.

The theory is that this is not supposed to happen, that the site is supposed to prevent this from happening, but clearly that is not occurring. The opposite is occurring. The drug injection site is intensifying this type of behaviour and activity in the neighbourhood.

Another quote: “Businesses have installed security cameras and many avoid keeping their doors open in the summer. Some businesses are picking up and disposing used needles on their own. Survey responses shared several accounts of individuals who have stopped visiting businesses near the CTS because of safety concerns.”

It’s perfectly understandable, when this kind of activity is occurring and your business happens to be unfortunately located near one of these sites, and you are subject to all of this negative activity, where you have to pick up needles and pick up garbage and put up with all sorts of what I will describe quite euphemistically as anti-social behaviour. It’s no wonder that people are avoiding going to those businesses. It’s no wonder that people are pulling their children out of those schools. It’s no wonder that people don’t want to drop off their children at those child care centres.

As a mother or a father, you don’t want to expose your children to that kind of stuff. As a business owner, you suffer. As a child care operator, you suffer.

Madam Speaker, I’d like to remind all members of this House that all of the information I presented today is not conjecture; it comes straight out of the Community Engagement Report. This is the Community Engagement Report which is the companion document to the South Riverdale Community Health Centre Consumption and Treatment Service Review. It was prepared by Unity Health Toronto. Those are the facts. There’s no denying that.

I’m glad we’ve introduced this legislation today. I look forward to further debate and to passing this legislation, because every school in Ontario and every child care centre needs to be protected from this kind of activity. That’s why we need a 200-metre protection zone around every school and every child care centre in Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Before we move on to questions, I’d like to recognize one of the members in the Speaker’s gallery: Cheri DiNovo, member for the riding of Parkdale–High Park in the 38th through 41st Parliaments.

Welcome.

Applause.

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

MPP Lisa Gretzky: While my colleague from Essex did refer to some things in the report, there was an awful lot that he chose to totally disregard from the report that he was quoting from.

In fact, that report, which the government commissioned and chooses to ignore, explicitly states that we need to be expanding consumption and treatment services; that there needs to be community engagement; that there is a role for the province to play—whether we are talking about needle boxes for safe disposal of needles. I have talked about the fact that you are potentially going to increase the number of people in parks and playgrounds, on the streets—the increase in HIV and hepatitis spread.

So I’m going to ask the member opposite: Why is it that you wilfully choose to ignore the advice of your own expert panel who are telling you that when you engage in health care professionals and law enforcement—

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

Mr. Anthony Leardi: In fact, needle boxes are located not only inside the drug injection site, but also immediately at the entranceways and exit ways of the drug injection site. That’s where the needles are supposed to go. So you’re not supposed to find needles on the sidewalk. You’re not supposed to find needles in your child’s playground. That’s the theory. But it’s just not working. The drug injection sites have needle disposal boxes, and they’re not being used. Rather, the opposite is happening: The incidents of needles appearing in playgrounds, close to these drug injection sites, is actually intensifying.

It’s happening more and more and more. That’s why we need the 200-metre protection zone.

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

Mr. Robert Bailey: My question is to the honourable member from Essex.

For a long time, advocates have been saying that there have been no deaths linked to supervised consumption-of-addictive-substance sites. How do you respond to that assertion?

Mr. Anthony Leardi: I think all 124 of us can take it as obvious fact that cocaine use leads to death, that heroin addiction leads to death, that hard drug use leads to death. Anyone who suggests otherwise is not dealing with the facts.

I used to appear before a judge in the provincial courts who was a very excellent judge. When she was dealing with drug traffickers, she would have an excellent line that she would use. She would say, “When you are dealing with drugs, you are dealing with death. Those who deal drugs deal death. That is the result. Hard drugs lead to death.”

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

Mr. Joel Harden: I want to ask the member for Essex a question by way of a metaphor. I want the member to imagine that he can see people flailing about in the water and there are weights around their ankles and they’re struggling to stay afloat. I feel as if

schedule 4 of this bill is asking those people to stop drowning or to drown in a more polite and less-recognizable way.

I want to invite the member to consider that instead of thinking about the consumption and treatment services we have as being flawed and problematic—how can this government, this province, work with them to be better? How could we pair the HART hub opportunities the member talks about with what we have, so people could get treatment, housing and employment and renew their lives, so we’re not telling people who are drowning, “Could you please drown with more dignity?”—because that’s not the Ontario I want to live in. I want to live in an Ontario that gives everybody an opportunity to succeed, particularly people who are struggling.

Mr. Anthony Leardi: To carry on with the honourable member’s metaphor: If somebody were drowning, I would not throw a child in with them. I would not throw a student in with them. I would not throw somebody else in with them.

That is why the drug injection centres do not belong near our schools and they do not belong near our daycare centres. That is why we need a 200-metre protection zone around every school and every daycare centre. None of this should come anywhere close to the children of this province, or to our schools, or to our child care centres.

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

Mr. Brian Saunderson: I want to thank my colleague for his excellent presentation this morning, which was based on factual community input and a cogent argument about a safety zone around our schools and daycare centres.

I also want to commend him on his comment that it is a common theme in this House that we want to help those who are suffering from addictions.

I’m wondering if my colleague could please tell this House what this government is doing to provide supports and programs for those who are suffering from addictions, to help them through.

Mr. Anthony Leardi: I thank the honourable member for this question.

Of course, this government has introduced the concept of the HART hub. HART stands for homelessness and addiction recovery treatment—a hub where a person can go if they are seeking a path to recovery. These HART hubs will not give you needles. These HART hubs will not give you hard drugs. We will not be dispensing those at a HART hub. A HART hub is a place where you can go if you want to get back on the path to recovery. There are great, great people in this province who will help you do that. They’re talented, they’re experienced, they’re trained, and they’re professionals. We’re going to invest $378 million in these projects, and I hope that people will take advantage of them and use them.

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

MPP Lisa Gretzky: To the member for Essex: Then explain to me why you closed SafePoint. Why did you close SafePoint? They weren’t giving out drugs to people. They were letting them use inside, where it was safe, where they could have clean paraphernalia to use, where they weren’t spreading HIV and hepatitis and other diseases. The needles were not being discarded anywhere except for on the site. We had not a single—not a single increase in crime. In fact, it decreased. It is nowhere near a school or daycare, and yet your government still closed that site.

The experts will tell you—you are entitled to your own opinion; you are not entitled to your own facts. Data shows that when you do not provide this type of health care service, more people will use in community. They will use in parks. They will use in our streets. They will die. They will have more interactions with police, more interactions with firefighters, more interactions with paramedics, which is an increasing cost to community.

So explain to me why you keep going back to this false narrative that these—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Back to the member for Essex for a response.

Mr. Anthony Leardi: Madam Speaker, I know that the member from Windsor West dearly, dearly wants to believe that these sites are working, but I just spent 20 minutes quoting from a report which continuously reported on the experience of the community members who flatly contradict everything that the member from Windsor West says. These sites attract drug trafficking. These sites attract crime. These sites attract violent behaviour.

It is all set out very, very clearly in the Community Engagement Report, which I have read very carefully and shared with the members of this House, and have been very, very fair in making sure that everything set out in the report was accurately quoted—which, I might add, several times members of the NDP have not accurately quoted—by members of the government side.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): We have time for one quick question and answer.

Mr. Robert Bailey: My question is to the honourable member from Essex.

Can you explain a little bit more how the HART hub model, which focuses on addressing addiction, will help to cure and prevent addiction and help people on the way back to recovery?

Mr. Anthony Leardi: I thank the member from Sarnia–Lambton for that question.

I understand that his community might be interested in submitting an application for one of the HART hubs. I would suggest that that’s a good thing to do.

The HART hub model is set up in what we like to call a wheel-and-spoke model, where somebody can go to the centre, and if the service is not immediately available there at the centre—it should be immediately available, but if it is not immediately available there at the centre, then it will be made immediately available at one of the partners which have partnered with the particular centre in question.

HART, again, stands for homeless and recovery treatment. If you are suffering from an addiction and that has caused you to become homeless, you might go to the centre and they might connect you with somebody who can give you temporary shelter, for example.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): We’re now moving on to members’ statements.

Members’ Statements

Benji Covant

Ms. Laura Smith: Last August 6, Thornhill experienced an unimaginable tragedy with the loss of a bright, young life. Seventeen-year-old Benji Covant tragically passed away from anaphylactic shock while at camp. This unexpected loss has left a deep void in the hearts of not just his family, but throughout our entire community.

Benji was known for his radiant smile and his genuine kindness, qualities that touched everyone around him. His warmth and generosity made a lasting impact on all who had the privilege of knowing Benji, and his joyful spirit will be deeply missed.

To Benji’s parents, Lisa and Neal, siblings Brooke and Brayden, and the entire family: My heart is with you.

Lisa and Neal are here today in the gallery.

The Covant family has shown incredible strength in turning their grief into a powerful force for good. They’ve created “Benji’s Impact,” a project dedicated to raising awareness about food allergies.

This tragedy serves as a reminder of the fragility of life and the profound impact of food allergies. We have to continue to raise awareness, educate, and be prepared to respond to these allergic reactions.

And we remember Benji. Let his honour, his memory be the embodiment of the compassion and love he shared with everyone around him, and may his legacy inspire us to spread kindness and support one another in any way we can.

Trucking industry

Mr. John Vanthof: Last week was constituency week, and I went to tour a local trucking company. Wayne Lafrance Logging has about 40 employees, and he has another 60 brokers working for him. We spent a lot of time talking about trucking. One of his biggest issues is that he can’t get drivers because insurance costs are so high. For a new driver, it’s $60,000 or $70,000. It’s ridiculous.

What really struck me was, on my way home, MTO was doing another blitz of commercial cross-country truck traffic. Thank you, MTO, for doing this, but the trucks were pulled over—I went back a little while later—and there was Kal Tire repairing the tires. What is wrong when the local trucking company that is doing everything right, runs really good equipment and can’t get insurance for drivers—yet on Highway 11, commercial truck traffic goes by. The last time that we saw documentation from the blitz, of 72 trucks pulled over, 36 didn’t pass inspection—36. What is wrong?

It’s the Ontario government that is letting this happen. I thank the MTO people who are out doing the blitzes. But what is wrong with our trucking industry that is regulated by the Ontario government? Who is letting this happen?

Remembrance Day

Mr. John Yakabuski: I participated in my 22nd Remembrance Day last Monday, and each and every one of them would count among the most moving experiences of my time as an MPP. Remembrance Week, of course, falls under that category as well. All the similarities, the reverence and the respect for those who have fallen and those who returned, is still front and centre in all of its fullness. The ceremonies and those in attendance have certainly changed over the years.

Focusing on two of those events—the veterans’ dinner in Petawawa, which I have attended many of those years, has a crowd that is vastly different from my first such experience in November 2003. While some of the veterans I’ve been honoured to join on those special evenings are still attending, many have joined their comrades in the next life.

The Remembrance Day service in Pembroke shares the same characteristic of fewer veterans able to attend and participate in the service. What has not changed is the support of the community. It continues to be a gratifying and emotional experience to see thousands of citizens, both military and civilian, lining the area around the cenotaph and, indeed, overflowing onto the adjacent streets. They are there to pay their respects and honour those who have served and continue to serve.

For my wife, Vicky, and I, the privilege and the honour of meeting and getting to know so many of these veterans will be one of the most lasting and impactful memories that we have. We think of them, not just on Remembrance Day, but every day.

Lest we forget.

School transportation

MPP Lise Vaugeois: The education ministry knows full well that the school transportation formula does not work for students in northwestern Ontario. I have letters from parents, afraid for their children, who must now walk in the dark along highways, cross major intersections and, once the snow flies, stumble along ice-covered streets without sidewalks, at risk of frostbite and easily hit by cars when the snow is piled high. And as the ministry was warned, 38% of students no longer eligible for busing are missing school.

Why is this happening? The Conservative government has significantly cut funding for school transportation. And yet, they claim to have increased funding—a claim that can only be made by using creative accounting, by ignoring inflation, by not budgeting for vans needed to bring special-needs students to school, and by basing costs on rates from 2018. Boards have $1,500 less per student because of cuts to education. The costs to parents and the risks to students are enormous, but this government is all about manufacturing a crisis in education to create demand for private schools.

A responsible government would remove barriers and prioritize funding our public schools so that every child can travel safely to school, have the supports they need, and receive the world-class education they deserve.

Health care

Mr. Robert Bailey: It’s an honour to rise in the Legislature and share some exciting news from Sarnia–Lambton.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the government of Ontario, under the leadership of the Premier and the Minister of Health, has been taking bold action to ensure that Ontario has a strong physician workforce today and for many years to come.

One such action taken by our government was to increase the number of residency positions available in Ontario for physicians completing their medical training. This important initiative is set to have a profound impact on Sarnia–Lambton, thanks to the historic increase in residency positions made available by our government and the strategic partnership between Bluewater Health and Western University’s Schulich school of medicine.

Beginning in September 2025, Bluewater Health will host five new medical residency positions annually, for physician training at the Sarnia and Petrolia hospital campuses. Through the immersive residency program, these new doctors will gain in-depth experience in the many departments of the hospital, build meaningful relationships with staff and the community, and gain a better understanding of all the benefits of setting down roots in Lambton county.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate Bluewater Health CEO Paula Reaume-Zimmer; the hospital’s chief of staff, Dr. Michel Haddad; and the entire team at Bluewater Health for pulling together this important program for the hospital and our community.

I look forward to sharing more great news from Sarnia–Lambton with you again soon.

Gender-based violence

M me France Gélinas: November 25 is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women.

In Sudbury, many community organizations work to support women and children who have experienced violence. Organizations like the Sudbury Women’s Centre, Centre Victoria pour femmes, YWCA Genevra House, Voices for Women, victim services, and Réseau Access Network all provide essential services like counselling, shelter, legal advocacy and community outreach. These organizations are part of the solution. They deserve our support.

On November 26, the 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence will start. It is a global campaign that calls for an end to violence against women. This period, which runs until December 10, Human Rights Day, brings us together to raise awareness, advocate for systemic change, and show support for survivors.

The Wrapped in Courage campaign also starts on November 26. The YWCA will launch their Threads of Action purple scarf campaign. Each purple scarf represents our shared commitment to fighting violence and supporting survivors.

On December 6, we will mark the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women with a candlelight vigil to honour the victims of gender-based violence, to remember those we’ve lost, and to commit to ending violence. This commitment requires action.

We have a duty, as legislators, to declare intimate partner violence an epidemic. Let’s get the bill out of committee and take action to protect every woman.

St. Clair Saints football team

Mr. Andrew Dowie: November 9 was truly a proud day for Windsor-Essex. For the first time in 25 years, the St. Clair Saints men’s football team delivered an incredible win at the Canadian Junior Football League national championships. I was privileged to join over 2,500 fans at Acumen Stadium as St. Clair hosted the 115th edition of the Canadian Bowl. It was the first Canadian Bowl win for Windsor since 1999, when the team was known as the AKO Fratmen. The team has now won the Canadian Bowl four times out of their eight appearances dating back to 1952.

This game was looking dicey. The Saints went into halftime down 15-6 to the visiting Okanagan Sun. But after allowing one more touchdown by the Sun in the second half, they exploded in the third quarter, scoring 28 unanswered points to beat the Sun 37-22, to secure the Canadian Bowl title.

I want to thank the CJFL for having me for the ceremonial coin flip for this incredible night.

Finally, a special congratulations to the general manager of the team, Mike Morencie. He was named a CJFL Life Member for his hard work and dedication to the championships.

To everyone who’s a Saint and a wannabe Saint, thank you for making our community proud.

Let’s let our call be heard across the country: Go, Saints, go!

Trans Day of Remembrance

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): It being 10:29 a.m., as per the requirements of the Trans Day of Remembrance Act, 2017, the assembly shall now pause and observe one minute of silence in honour of trans people who have died as a result of anti-trans violence.

I’m going to now ask the members to rise and observe the moment of silence.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. Members may take their seats.

We will now continue with members’ statements.

Ethel Côté

M me Lucille Collard: Aujourd’hui j’aimerais rendre hommage à un des piliers de la communauté francophone ici en Ontario, qui s’est malheureusement éteinte le mois dernier.

Ethel Côté était une femme remarquable qui a travaillé chaque jour pour bâtir une communauté francophone plus forte et résiliente ici en Ontario. Ayant reçu plusieurs honneurs, y compris l’Ordre du Canada, l’Ordre de l’Ontario, l’Ordre de la Pléiade, le prix Saphir et l’ordre des caisses populaires, Ethel a servi sa communauté avec passion, vision et compassion.

Ethel portait beaucoup de causes importantes, et c’est elle qui m’a contacté pour soutenir le Centre espoir Sophie, la seule halte-accueil francophone pour les femmes à Ottawa. Sa fille Marissa a d’ailleurs rendu un vibrant hommage à sa mère lors de la levée de fonds du Centre espoir Sophie vendredi dernier, auquel j’ai assisté. Le centre est une des centaines organisations à but non-lucratif qu’Ethel a soutenu par son travail.

Ethel croyait profondément dans le pouvoir de l’économie sociale où notre effort collectif mène à des réalisations importantes pour la communauté. Sa vie remarquable est, pour moi et pour tant d’autres, une inspiration, et je sais que son héritage durera longtemps.

Son service commémoratif aura lieu samedi prochain, le 30 novembre, à La Nouvelle Scène Gilles Desjardins dans ma circonscription.

Government investments

Mr. John Jordan: I had the privilege of attending many events over the summer and constituency week in Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston, announcing funding from this government to some of our dedicated organizations.

My thanks to Minister Flack in agriculture, food and agribusiness, as this government invested in local farms like Indian Creek Orchard Gardens in Pakenham and Clarence Fulton Pure Maple Products in Almonte.

The town of Carleton Place received just under $35 million through the Housing-Enabling Water Systems Fund from Minister Surma and the Ministry of Infrastructure. The funding will support the expansion of the town’s waste water treatment plant, while enabling the addition of 1,605 housing units.

And through Minister Stan Cho in sport, tourism and gaming, some of our youth centres received funding for their after-school programming, including YAK Youth Services in Perth and Lanark Highlands Youth Centre. The ministry also provided funding through the seed grant stream to organizations like Big Brothers Big Sisters of Lanark County and ConnectWell Community Health.

These are just a few of the amazing organizations that received funding through this government, as we continue to invest in the programs and services needed for our growing communities.

Remembrance Day

Mrs. Robin Martin: I rise today to reflect on this past Remembrance Day and to recognize what it requires us to remember: that democracy and freedom are not free. We often speak of freedom as a right, but it is also a responsibility. Our society is founded on the courage and very real sacrifices of those who came before us—generations of Canadians who went to war and sometimes made the ultimate sacrifice, to protect our way of life, freedom and democracy.

As Jordan Peterson recently noted, the West is built on the idea of voluntary self-sacrifice, not the idea of power or the pursuit of hedonistic ends. This vision finds virtue in the idea of giving something for something of greater value. Our society is built on courage and personal sacrifice in the service of our children, our family, our community, our country and our future. Notably, this vision respects the history of the sacrifices made by our forebears to build a better world and is antithetical to the post-modern idea that power rules.

On Remembrance Day, we recognize that courage and voluntary sacrifice in the service of what is highest secured for the West our cherished values and the democratic system that is built upon it.

But we must acknowledge that this struggle is not over. As Rory Gilfillan wrote recently in the Financial Post, “The despots haven’t stopped. Evil and tyranny did not die in a bunker in Berlin and those who would take the freedom of others did not disappear.”

Even as we remember those who sacrificed for us, we must in turn be courageous, prepared to make personal sacrifices, and ever-vigilant to propagate and protect this rich legacy for future generations.

Trans Day of Remembrance

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I understand the member for Hastings–Lennox and Addington has a point of order that he wishes to raise, and I recognize him.

Mr. Ric Bresee: Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to allow members to make statements in recognition of Transgender Day of Remembrance, with five minutes allotted to His Majesty’s loyal opposition, five minutes allotted to the independent members as a group, and five minutes allotted to His Majesty’s government.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Mr. Bresee is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to allow members to make statements in recognition of Transgender Day of Remembrance, with five minutes allotted to His Majesty’s loyal opposition, five minutes allotted to the independent members as a group, and five minutes allotted to His Majesty’s government. Agreed? Agreed.

I recognize the member for Toronto Centre.

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: Good morning to all the good colleagues and all those in the gallery today. Today is the Trans Day of Remembrance. On the Trans Day of Remembrance, we gather to mourn the trans, non-binary and two-spirit community members we have lost, and we celebrate those who are still with us.

As a member of the trans and non-binary community, a person who uses “they” and “them” pronouns, and the very first MPP to do so, I am honoured to bring our Trans Day of Remembrance remarks on behalf of the official opposition Ontario NDP.

It is vital to honour the trans people—friends, neighbours, co-workers, family members—and to remember their impact on all our lives and our communities. It’s important to listen to trans people, especially trans people of colour, when they say, “Give us our roses while we’re still here.”

Today is the 25th anniversary of the first-ever Trans Day of Remembrance, organized in 1999 by transgender advocate Gwendolyn Ann Smith. The very first Trans Day of Remembrance was held in Boston, in the form of a vigil to honour the memory of Rita Hester, a transgender woman who was killed in 1998.

I’m grateful to be surrounded by so many community members, including Rev. Cheri DiNovo, whose private member’s bill is the reason why we’re here to recognize Trans Day of Remembrance and have our moment of silence today.

Being trans is beautiful, and gender expansiveness has existed across time and culture. There is nothing that politicians can say or do, or fail to do, that can erase trans people, no matter how hard they try.

Being trans has always been an experience that has been fraught, but after several seasons of progress, we are now seeing right-wing backlash that is targeting trans people. It’s scary right now—especially how trans people are being used in America, in the American election, by Donald Trump, who stoked hatred and fear in order to secure a win.

In Ontario, we can do better. Horrifying legislation is being passed in Alberta and New Brunswick which will result in trans children taking their own lives. We know this because it has happened in other places, under similar laws. Many people are making safety plans, taking legal and other steps to protect themselves and their loved ones in the face of these new laws and threats. In Ontario, we can do better.

But we are not immune to transphobia here in our province. This very government voted against my bill to improve and expand access to gender-affirming health care in Ontario. I am worried that people in Ontario are being misled and fed false narratives about what it means to be trans and what gender-affirming care is.

The truth is, most people who receive gender-affirming care are not trans people; they are cisgender people, those whose gender assigned at birth matches up with their internal understanding of their gender.

Men and boys who are diagnosed with gynecomastia or abnormal, but not harmful, breast tissue and growth are eligible for surgery to flatten their chests.

Women who undergo mastectomies, lumpectomies and other breast surgeries as a form of cancer treatment are immediately eligible for breast reconstruction surgery. It’s discussed as a part of the cancer treatment plan.

Most people who receive hormone replacement therapy or puberty blockers are not transgender people but cisgender people who need hormone support.

These are types of gender-affirming health care, and there is no need for them to sign petitions, to table legislation, to fight for funding, or even to debate it at Queen’s Park. Those medical interventions and others offered by OHIP are not offered because they are necessary for the physical survival of the patient. They are offered because they affirm the gender of the patient and alleviate very present mental distress that they experience, which can be life-threatening. These procedures are funded, and they should continue to be, just like the gender-affirming care and surgeries that many trans folks require.

Most people in this room remember when radical conservatives were trying to tell us that gay marriage was something immoral; that our society would crumble if you allowed gays and lesbians to marry, if you allowed us to adopt children, allowed us to have children, allowed us to be legitimate family members. But we know that all that has come to pass. Society has not crumbled. We are flourishing as a province because of that equality.

This is the same thing that we want for trans communities. We will continue to strive for it.

Today, we will be raising the transgender flag at 2:30, sponsored by the Friends of Ruby. This is a 33-bed shelter in my community, one of the first ones ever set up in Ontario. I welcome all members of this House to join us, followed by a 3 p.m. reception. As we like to say in our community, all are welcome.

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

Mr. John Fraser: It’s my honour to speak today on the Transgender Day of Remembrance. Today, we remember the trans and gender-diverse lives which have been lost and the violence that has been done to people over the years and right now—heartbreaking things that are just too common, still. We have to continue to raise awareness. Today is really important—that we’re doing this in here. There are not many opportunities that all of us have to do something that lasts, that goes beyond us, that stays here.

I know that Cheri DiNovo is here. I want to recognize her and all the people she has worked with to make today possible, and all the other work that she has done. It’s just incredible. I’m glad and proud to have called her a colleague, and I consider her a friend.

I spent some time in North Carolina in October. I said the other day that I watch a lot of football. I watch a lot of TV. I saw a lot of ads there too. The ads were pretty hateful, were pretty cruel. Even in talking to people in the supermarket, I’d hear ads repeated verbatim. I’m not going to repeat them here—discouraging and disheartening, to say the least. If there’s a message that I want to leave you with today, while we remember, while we recognize, while we acknowledge, while we commemorate, it’s that we’re not immune.

We sometimes like to think of ourselves as totally different, but we can look around Canada and see where it has happened in other places not too far away. The thing that we have to remember today, next year and every day: We are not immune. We have to stand up for people, provide them a voice, protect them, keep them safe and get them the health care that they need, because we are not immune.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Kitchener Centre.

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: Today, I rise on Transgender Day of Remembrance with a heavy heart but also with a commitment to stand up and remember two-spirit, transgender and gender-diverse individuals across our province and country who have tragically lost their lives to hate. They lost their lives for no other reason than trying to be who they are and living their lives as their authentic selves. These are our friends, our family members, our neighbours, our colleagues, and each life lost leaves a wake of grief.

According to the 2SLGBTQI+ Action Plan Survey, 39% of 2SLBGBTQIA+ Canadians experienced violence due to discrimination in the past five years. Over half of two-spirited individuals and trans women report experiences of physical and sexual violence. And 91% of these incidents go unreported for fear of mistrust and inaction.

We must all collectively push back against all forms of hate and rhetoric online and in our communities.

I want to say thank you to the leaders of my community and across this province who work tirelessly to support the lives of our 2SLGBTQIA+ community members.

And to the transgender community: We see you, we grieve with you, and we are committed to standing with you, celebrating you, not just today, but every day.

Speaker, it is our responsibility to ensure that our words and actions in this chamber and online never perpetuate hate but instead work to dismantle the systemic inequities that put transgender lives at risk, because trans rights are human rights.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Hastings–Lennox and Addington.

Mr. Ric Bresee: I’m pleased to rise today, on behalf of the government, to acknowledge Transgender Day of Remembrance, a day when we honour the memory of transgender individuals who have lost their lives due to acts of anti-transgender violence. Today, we remember those who have suffered simply for being who they are, and we reaffirm our commitment to justice, equity and respect for all.

Ontario is home to a vibrant and diverse transgender community, including transgender women and men, non-binary, gender-queer and two-spirit individuals who come from all walks of life and enrich our province in countless ways. Their courage, their resilience and their contributions make Ontario a better place for all of us.

Incidents of hate and discrimination against the transgender community have no place in Ontario and do not represent the values that we hold dear.

As you all know, I’m a very proud father. One of my children is a transgender adult, and through her, I have come to understand some of the concerns and the challenges and the threats faced by her and others in the transgender community. Their struggles are not abstract to me; they’re the lived experience of my own family. And although I was an ally for decades before, this personal connection fuels my dedication to advocating for equity and inclusion within this assembly and across all of government.

As this is a day of remembrance, I feel it right to highlight some of the people we need to be remembering. Julie Berman was a well-known transgender rights advocate based in Toronto for 30 years, and in 2019, she was tragically murdered. Sumaya Dalmar was a Somali Canadian transgender woman and activist who faced significant discrimination and adversity due to her gender identity and her race. In 2015, Sumaya was found dead. These are two tragic examples of too many more Ontarians being discriminated against, facing barriers and fearing for their safety.

Maya Angelou once said, “We all should know that diversity makes for a rich tapestry, and we must understand that all the threads of the tapestry are equal in value no matter what their colour.”

I say to you, Speaker, that to reach true equality we need to acknowledge and address the barriers faced by the transgender community.

Over the past century, we’ve witnessed tremendous progress in human rights. And yet, it’s important to recognize how recent many of those protections for transgender individuals are. It was only in 2012 that Ontario passed Toby’s Act, amending the Human Rights Code to include gender identity and gender expression as protected grounds. These advancements are significant milestones, but they also highlight that the journey toward full inclusion is still under way. Policies protecting transgender rights are only a decade old. I’m reminding us that these rights are both precious and, unfortunately, still contested by some.

Along with policy changes, our government has made considerable investments to keep the 2SLGBTQIA+ communities safe, recognizing that action must accompany words.

We have allocated $25.5 million over two years, through the Anti-Hate Security and Prevention Grant, to enhance safety and security measures for community events and spaces. This funding is crucial in ensuring that spaces celebrating diversity are protected from those who seek to undermine them.

Through the Anti-Racism and Anti-Hate Grant, we’ve funded projects around intersectionality and online hate.

And under the leadership of the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Gaming, we’ve invested over a million dollars last year alone to support Pride organizations across this province.

Speaker, education plays a pivotal role in fostering understanding and acceptance. Our schools must be places where diversity is celebrated and where all students feel safe and included. Our government updated the curriculum to promote the inclusion of diverse family structures, relationships and identities, and enacted the Safe and Supportive Classrooms Act to ensure a safe and inclusive learning environment for all students.

But let us be clear: Funding and policies are necessary, but they are not sufficient on their own. We must work to shift societal attitudes. This means challenging transphobia wherever and whenever it appears, whether in overt acts of discrimination or in subtle, everyday interactions.

Speaker, incidents of hate and discrimination against the transgender community have no place in Ontario and do not represent the values we hold. Let us commit today to building a province where equity paves the way for true equality—a place where everyone has the opportunity to thrive regardless of their gender expression or identity.

On this Transgender Day of Remembrance, we honour those we’ve lost by dedicating ourselves to the ongoing work of creating a more inclusive and equitable society. Let their memories inspire us to action, to compassion and to unwavering support for the rights of all. Together, let us build a future where every person is celebrated for who they are.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I want to thank the members for their eloquent tributes, as we have come together this morning in recognition of Trans Day of Remembrance.

Introduction of Visitors

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Today the Minister of Sport and I had a great opportunity to play bocce ball with some incredible athletes who are here with Special Olympics Ontario. I would like to say hello to Stephen Graham, who is from my riding of Simcoe North.

I would also like to introduce representatives from the South Simcoe Police Association of Ontario: President Jon Day, Trish Milligan, and Jon Ellis.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Marit Stiles: It is always a good day when the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care is in the House. The halls here have been filled with young parents and babies, and I want to welcome them here today, along with public policy coordinator Carolyn Ferns and Davenport resident Brynne Sinclair-Waters.

I also want to recognize and say it is always a pleasure to see and welcome my friend and, of course, former MPP Rev. Dr. Cheri DiNovo, here for Trans Day of Remembrance.

Thank you for all you do and continue to do, and welcome to your House.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: Speaker, I have a number of introductions today, starting with Jason and Karen Fitzpatrick from KJS Print Service in Guelph, who are here in support of the Rotary Club of Guelph.

I’d also like to welcome all members of the Police Association of Ontario, especially Guelph Police Association members Phil Perrins, Matt Jotham and Jaime Groff.

Finally, I’ll like to welcome my friend Nicki Ward and other trans advocates who are here at Queen’s Park today.

Mr. Will Bouma: Later today, a couple of Brantford–Brant paramedics will receive the Governor General’s Emergency Medical Services Exemplary Service Medal. I’d like to welcome, later today, Russell King, for 30 years; Neil Vanderpost, for 30 years; Michael Polgar, for 30 years; Vito Tuori, for 30 years; and David Dungey, for 40 years.

On behalf of the Brantford Police Association, here in the gallery today is Dave Minutillo.

Thank you for your service to our community and the people of Brantford–Brant and for keeping us safe. Welcome to your House.

Miss Monique Taylor: I would also like to welcome the Special Olympians who have joined us at Queen’s Park today, with a special welcome to Hamilton students, with their teacher and coach, Linda Siena. The students are Lucas D’Onofrio, Jack Wiseman, Sebastian Carrara, James Wiseman, Klara Pasalic, and Avery Hedley.

Welcome to Queen’s Park. Congratulations on all your gold medals. We’re super proud of you. Keep up the great work.

I have one more, Speaker. Joining the Police Association of Ontario here are the Hamilton Police Association folks—so a special welcome, on behalf of my colleague from Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas and myself, to Christina Eisno, Petros Tremis, and our president, Jaimi Bannon.

I also see that our chief of police, Frank Bergen, is here with Special Olympics Ontario.

Welcome, everyone, to Queen’s Park. Have a great day.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Good morning, everyone. It’s a beautiful day.

I’d like to welcome some energetic east-enders: magnificent Melissa Hudson and notable Nicki Ward, founders of Trans Women’s Association. Welcome to your House.

I encourage everyone to go to the flag-raising today.

Mr. Andrew Dowie: I’d like to wish a warm welcome to three members of the Windsor Police Association: Kent Rice, Rick Derus, and Shannon Tennant. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: I would like to welcome Mark Chrabalowski, vice-president of external affairs for Brock University Students’ Union, and Carleigh Charlton, vice-president of university affairs for Brock University.

I want to thank all of the BUSU members for keeping the spirit of Brock University alive and well across our province.

I’d also like to welcome our Police Association of Ontario members here from the Niagara region, and members of the Niagara regional police. Thank you. Welcome to your House. I’m looking forward to the meetings later on this afternoon.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Assuming the House agrees, I’d like to continue with introduction of visitors.

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon: I, too, would like to welcome all the members of the Ottawa Police Association and their president, Matthew Cox. I look forward to our meeting this afternoon.

I’d also like to welcome Ranya Abdel Rahman, the aunt of my legislative assistant.

Welcome to your House.

Mr. Tyler Allsopp: As the former chair of the Belleville Police Service Board I’d like to take the opportunity to welcome everyone from the Police Association of Ontario, as my colleagues have as well.

A special welcome to my grandfather Bob and my uncle Rob, who are here today.

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: I’d like to welcome Ontario Student Voices, and in particular, the board members I had the privilege of meeting with this morning: Ajané Adams, Kara Mei Herrera, Vivian Evie, Rofiyat Olawoyin. Thank you very much for your attendance.

I want to also extend my personal thank you and welcome to Reverend Cheri DiNovo. Of course, many of you know her as a friend, but also just a reminder that she passed more 2SLGBT-friendly bills on this side of the House than any other MPP.

And, of course, I want to also extend my welcome to Melissa Hudson and Ward 13 Toronto Centre resident Nicki Ward.

Mr. John Fraser: November is pulmonary hypertension month, and today, the folks from the Pulmonary Hypertension Association are with us. Bear with me; there’s a lot: Brooke Paulin, Robin Latour, Jane Macleod, Duncan Macleod, Heather Rossi, Kirsty McGeown, Kathy Ilano, Cindy Waters, Aura Dholakia, Joel Dholakia, Robyn Kalda, Robin Martin and Stephanie Levee. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: I’d like to very warmly welcome Churchill Meadows Public School. They are in the House today. Welcome to your House. I would like to thank the principals and the teachers for all the jobs they are doing in Mississauga–Erin Mills.

And I would like to take the opportunity to wish our Premier, Doug Ford, a happy birthday. Today is his birthday.

MPP Lisa Gretzky: It is my privilege to welcome members of the Windsor Police Association: Shannon Tennant, Rick Derus, Pete Mombourquette and Kent Rice. Welcome to Queen’s Park. Thank you for all you do in our community.

Mr. Ted Hsu: I’d like to welcome Darcy Pettie and Cam Gough of the Kingston City Police Association, and Dr. Rajeev Suryavanshi of Mississauga. Welcome to your House.

Hon. Neil Lumsden: I appreciate the opportunity to rise here today to thank Special Olympics Ontario for their time this morning, specifically CEO Cody Jansma and all of the delegation.

I’d also like to thank all the athletes, because what they have done for me and everyone else this morning is light a fire under our butts to let us know what sport is all about. Thank you to the athletes and thank you to the parents.

And, Chief, great job in Hamilton supporting the Special Olympics.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I just want to welcome police officers from the Waterloo Regional Police Service. I’m going to be meeting with them later today. Welcome to Tim Reparon, Lorena Mills, Mark Egers and Mike Nagy. Welcome to your House.

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: I wanted to welcome all members of the Police Association of Ontario, and especially, from the Ottawa Police Association, President Matthew Cox, and Ottawa Police Association directors Staff Sergeant Barmak Anvari and Sergeant Chris Lavergne. Thank you for everything you do to keep Ottawa safe, and welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Donna Skelly: On behalf of the government of Ontario, I would like to welcome the men and women that we support each and every day, especially those who reside in my riding of Flamborough–Glanbrook and across Hamilton: Chief Frank Bergen; and from Hamilton Police Service, Jaimi Bannon, Christina Eisnor and Petros Tremis. Thank you on behalf of the government and on behalf of the Minister of Sport.

M me France Gélinas: I have three groups that I want to thank this morning and introduce. I’ll start with the Sudbury Police Association; I see their president looking at me right now, Matt Hall, with Travis Warnock, Jacques Roberge and Steve Train.

The second group is the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance. We had the pleasure to meet with Brodie Norwich from Wilfrid Laurier, Staysha Kasunich from Laurentian University, Onella Kulatunga from Waterloo and Carleigh Charlton from Brock University, as well as Rai Muhammad Ali from Ontario Tech.

The third group, the Pulmonary Hypertension Association of Canada—I had a very moving meeting with them this morning: Joan and her daughter Brooke Paulin, as well as Aura and Joel Dholakia, who are all here today. Welcome to Queen’s Park. Welcome to your House.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. I’ll ask the members to make their introductions as brief as possible.

The Minister of Finance.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: I would like to give a shout-out to page Jonah Martin-Nguyen from my riding of Pickering–Uxbridge, who is the page captain today. He’s hiding right to your left there. Jonah, way to go.

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: I have three groups I’d like to introduce. I’d like to welcome Detective Gary Bezaire and Kinga Wisniewska from the London Police Association who are here for the Police Association of Ontario lobby day.

I’d also like to welcome students from Fanshawe College for Ontario Student Voices: Siddarth Singh, Tal Sarig, Sara Ortiz, Chris Fullerton and Hish Clifford.

Thirdly, I’d like to welcome religious leaders from the Interfaith Social Assistance Reform Coalition, who are meeting from 12:30 till 1:30 in rooms 228 to 230. Thank you for the work that you do.

Hon. Graydon Smith: I’d just like to welcome Alex Pritchard, a constituent and child advocate from Parry Sound and the great riding of Parry Sound–Muskoka. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Laura Smith: From my statement earlier on, I would like to thank the parents of Benji, Neal Covant and Lisa Covant, and Jennifer Gerdts from Food Allergy Canada.

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: I would like to welcome from Niagara Falls virtually a very special little boy. Happy sixth birthday to my superhero, Greyson Uhryn. Grammie and PPJ love you. Happy Birthday.

Mr. John Jordan: I want to introduce Michael Touw, the CAO for the beautiful town of Perth, and his family: Janelle, Benjamin and Lincoln. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Also, it’s my pleasure to welcome the athletes from Bishop Tonnos, a school in my riding of Ancaster. I want to thank you so much for sharing your bocce skills and to your coach and teacher, Linda Siena. Thank you for bringing these amazing athletes to Queen’s Park today.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I’d like to welcome Donna and Humphrey Stephen from Whitby as they witness their daughter, Donnique, as our page captain today.

Hon. Nolan Quinn: I’d like to welcome the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance to Queen’s Park today, who are here for their student advocacy week. I see many of the students in the gallery—too many to name, Speaker. I encourage all members to meet with them, and I look forward to our meetings this afternoon.

As well, Speaker, I’d like to welcome Matt Dupuis from the Cornwall Police Association here today.

Hon. George Pirie: Good morning, Speaker. I’d like to welcome page Elissa Wakeford, who attends the École secondaire publique Renaissance in Timmins. Welcome, Elissa.

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: I’d like to welcome all of the faith leaders from ISARC who here today to talk about the homelessness crisis in our province.

Hon. Nina Tangri: I’d like to welcome Mississauga–Streetsville residents: Joan Paulin and Kimberley Brunelle and all of the advocates from the Pulmonary Hypertension Association of Canada to Queen’s Park. Welcome.

Mr. Stéphane Sarrazin: I would like to welcome some employees from Xpertek Construction: David Ryan, Mykola Dron, Leonid Zakharov and Vladyslav Zakharov. This company from Vars in my riding has received a grant of $498,000 through the Skills Development Fund from the Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills. They will be using that funding to address the labour shortage in the construction industry. Thank you for your commitment to strengthening Ontario’s workforce and economy, and welcome to Queen’s Park.

M me Dawn Gallagher Murphy: J’aimerais reconnaître Melinda Chartrand. Elle est une leader dans la communauté francophone, portant de nombreux chapeaux et représentant de nombreuses organisations, dont l’Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario. Bienvenue.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): On the off-chance there’s someone here who wasn’t yet introduced, I want to welcome them to the Legislature today and thank all the members for their patience as we’ve introduced our guests this morning.

Question Period

Government accountability

Ms. Marit Stiles: In early September, Tony Miele, the chair of the Conservative Party fund, sent cabinet ministers an email with fundraising quotas, requiring them to host a minimum of two to five fundraisers each by the end of the year. Folks might recall Mr. Miele; he solicited donations from greenbelt lobbyists and developers on behalf of the Premier’s daughter and son-in-law at a time when the government was considering changes to the greenbelt.

My question to the Premier is, did Mr. Miele or anyone else acting on behalf of the Conservative Party give anyone a reason to believe that a donation would provide access to government decision-makers?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply for the government? The Attorney General.

Hon. Doug Downey: Everybody knows that Ontario’s regulations level the playing field for all of us. All political parties, whether in power or otherwise, follow the same rules. This ensures the fundraising process is fair and is clear. Every donation is recorded. It’s publicly available, and voters can scrutinize the money behind political campaigns regardless of party. It’s legal, it’s transparent and it’s accountable.

Political fundraising ensures that all parties, from major to minor, can have a voice at the table during elections and between elections. That is how our system is built.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Let me be clear: New reporting from Global News today has confirmed that a lobby group, the Ontario Trucking Association, asked members to donate to an upcoming fundraiser that was hosted by the Premier and the Minister of Transportation. This association said these donations would allow the group to raise its concerns about the trucking industry directly with the minister at the fundraiser. In fact, the notice described these donations as “investments” and said, “This is the only way to win this battle.”

Can the Premier explain why this organization believes the only way to get the attention of his government is to fundraise for the Minister of Transportation?

Hon. Doug Downey: As I said yesterday, the Premier gives out his phone number, he texts and he returns calls. He’s very accessible. I didn’t hear an answer to my question yesterday about the Leader of the Opposition and her personal phone number.

What I can tell you—I did forget. Sometimes you say something and then you think about it afterwards and you say, “I should have said that. I forgot.” I mentioned Fred Hahn’s 86 individual donations to the opposition, but I didn’t mention the $45,000 that adds up to.

So if you want to talk about access—the Premier is available regardless of fundraisers, but it is a way for individuals to show support for the great work that we’re doing here in Ontario.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Government side, come to order.

Ms. Marit Stiles: I will say, Speaker, the Attorney General should know that ministers of the crown are subject to different rules and standards. This isn’t about this specific group, even; the problem is that this government has broadcast that lining their pockets is the only way to get things done. That’s the thing.

Even to pass good legislation requires coughing up thousands of dollars. Tickets to this event are selling for between $1,000 and $3,375 per ticket. The goal, according to the association, was to sell at least 50 to 60 tickets to demonstrate their support for the government.

To the Premier: Do members of the public have to be prepared to donate thousands of dollars to be heard by this government?

Hon. Doug Downey: It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition thinks that there’s a difference for fundraising rules between the governing party and the opposition party. It wasn’t that long ago when the Leader of the Opposition—the previous leader, to be fair—was expensing clothing at Holt Renfrew, was buying chi-chi clothes, was buying T-shirts for 200 bucks. Here’s what the NDP said, “Like other political leaders, she is provided with party funds—not public dollars—to purchase ... attire.”

We treat all money like public funds, and that is the difference between these two parties and nothing else.

Government accountability

Ms. Marit Stiles: They’re really grasping at straws over there.

I want to get into this a bit further. The OTA notice, this association, asked members to let their association know about every donation, so that “we can tally up what our association has raised and present to the minister.”

I’m going to remind the Premier that earlier this week, we learned that the chair of the Conservative Party’s fundraising arm had assigned fundraising quotas to cabinet ministers.

So, Speaker, back to the Premier: Were stakeholders with business before this government, including the OTA, told to provide a tally of donations to the Minister of Transportation in order to be heard?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

The Attorney General.

Hon. Doug Downey: Mr. Speaker, the NDP are out of gas; that’s all I can say about transportation.

Look, I want to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition for her “fundraising blitz” this summer—10 weeks of fundraising blitz to raise $1.1 million. Congratulations on that hard work.

Speaker, on December 10—for those that are interested in supporting the NDP—they’re doing training sessions specifically on how to do fundraising, because that is kind of what political parties do. And so it’s a little bit disingenuous to have the Leader of the Opposition—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

I’m going to ask the Attorney General to withdraw the unparliamentary comment and conclude.

Hon. Doug Downey: Withdraw.

Sorry, Mr. Speaker, but the words of how they’re trying to portray to the public how politics works and that all parties have to raise money—the leader of the Liberal Party is doing a $3,300 fundraiser in December, Mr. Speaker. I haven’t heard anything about that.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Supplementary question.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Earlier this year, Speaker, we learned that the town of Brighton had hired the Premier’s friend—that’s Amin Massoudi, he of the good-luck ritual massages in Vegas. They hired him to lobby on their behalf.

The town’s council was very frank about this, right? We’ll all recall that. They needed “a lobbyist to work the backroom.” Otherwise, the government wasn’t going to hear their concerns. A town councillor said, “As much as it sometimes burns me that this government sometimes talks to its friends more than other folks, it might as well work for us from time to time.”

Can the Premier explain why so many people believe that the only way to be heard by his government is to make a donation or hire one of his friends as a lobbyist?

Hon. Doug Downey: Mr. Speaker, I don’t have the numbers at my fingertips, but I do know, when we were in recess, in our constituency offices, that we were doing hundreds and thousands of meetings with stakeholders, with constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I’ve heard members of the opposition say, “Oh, that was a great break that we had. That was a very long break that we had.” We were busy in our ridings and with stakeholders, doing meetings, Mr. Speaker, and there was no charge to do those. That is, in fact, our job.

Now it’s important that the opposition actually create some transparency in how they raise money and how things are done. They say that we’re not accessible; the Premier gives out his number to tens of thousands of people. People phone him. They text him. He responds. Things happen, Mr. Speaker.

The moment question period is over, keep the cameras rolling. They’ll be coming across the aisle to talk to us, and we’ll be talking to them.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Well, yes, Speaker: Ontarians have his number. They sure do.

Fundraising quotas, donor tallies—I want to remind everyone here that the Liberal government was brought down because of their cash-for-access schemes. Conservative cabinet ministers were in the opposition benches then, demanding resignations, but now they’re the ones cashing in, Speaker.

Pay for play, cash for access, backroom deals, RCMP criminal investigations—this is the legacy of this Premier and his Conservative government. Don’t Ontarians deserve better than this?

Interjections.

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

The Attorney General.

Hon. Doug Downey: Mr. Speaker, the moral superiority in that question—this from a leader who couldn’t find somebody to run against her because nobody else wanted the job. Beyond that, she’s now losing members to the federal party by the droves—three so far. I heard there’s a fourth, but we’ll see how that goes.

Here’s my question, Mr. Speaker, to you: When the Liberals were so bad that we caused the rules to change, their—I can’t say that word. The extremely expensive dinners, exclusive—the things that they were doing. Why in the world did the NDP prop them up when they’re so morally superior?

Interjections.

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

It’s getting louder and louder in here. I’m going to start calling members out by name if they are interjecting and they don’t have the floor. It’s against the standing orders to do so.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Start the clock.

The next question.

Government accountability

Ms. Jennifer K. French: My question is to the Premier.

Six months ago, the Ontario Science Centre was a world-class institution in a vibrant community. But today, because of this Premier, it’s locked up, boarded over and reduced to scraps in a strip mall.

Just hours after the government’s announcement in June, with school field trips still inside, the science centre was permanently closed. The government said it was because of new information they had learned, but internal emails obtained by Global News reveal that the government began working on the plan to close the structure and sell its story to the public at least 10 days before the closure announcement was made. The government suddenly stripped a community of its beloved institution, and that community deserves to know the truth.

My question for the Premier: When did the government decide to close the science centre?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply for the government, the government House leader.

Mr. Steve Clark: Speaker, through you to the honourable member: I think the Minister of Infrastructure has been very clear about investigations by the Integrity Commissioner.

I do want to say to the member, her line of questioning is very interesting, given the fact that she’s well aware of the engineering report associated with this facility. I want to correct her record: The decision to close the science centre came from the board of directors itself. The report, as we all know, highlighted critical safety concerns—structural issues with the roof of the Ontario Science Centre—deeming the building unfit for its continued operations. There were mitigation measures, but again, Speaker, the report is crystal clear on the challenge. The decision was made by the board.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Again, my question is to the Premier.

The Ministry of Infrastructure, pointing to this engineering report, has repeatedly stated that the closure was necessary due to the risk posed by panels in the roof of the Ontario Science Centre.

On June 11, the ministry had already begun preparing the communications material about the closure, and that was before they got the results of the engineering report that they keep enthusiastically citing.

Internal emails show the Minister of Infrastructure had ongoing correspondence with Infrastructure Ontario about the closure of the science centre. She knew, but she didn’t tell anyone.

So my question, back to the Premier: Why did the minister keep their plans to close the Ontario Science Centre a secret from the public?

Interjections.

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

Government House leader.

Mr. Steve Clark: Speaker, this government refuses to compromise the safety of Ontarians.

The government made a decision after the board decided to act upon the report. The opposition would be the first ones to howl if this board ignored the recommendations from this report. The government worked with the board, provided mitigation measures—but again, Speaker, the safety of Ontarians is of the utmost importance to this government. The board acted. Again, the opposition would be the first ones to howl and howl and howl that this board ignored the report. The board did not ignore the report, and the government did not ignore the report.

Taxation

Mr. David Smith: My question is to the Minister of Energy and Electrification.

Families are struggling to get by. The rising cost of living is hitting everyone. Groceries are more expensive. Filling up at the pump drains wallets. As we head into the winter, heating bills are becoming a real worry.

At the centre of all of this pain is the Trudeau and Crombie carbon tax. It makes everything even more expensive. Families shouldn’t have to choose between heating and eating.

Ontario needs affordability, not Liberal members who want to tax more.

Speaker, can the minister commit to fighting this harmful tax?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The parliamentary assistant and member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I want to thank the honourable member for the question.

He is absolutely right; the carbon tax drives up the cost of everything. Be it groceries, be it home heating, be it fuel—everything is driven up by the carbon tax. The members on the opposite side know that as well.

Our government has taken decisive action to lessen that burden on families. For example, we have reduced the cost of gas by 10 cents a litre, and we are extending that measure beyond, into 2025, to try to help people through this very difficult season. Additionally, our Affordable Energy Act focuses on practical, affordable solutions like expanding non-emitting nuclear energy, which is both cost-effective and reliable.

Speaker, if the Liberals across the way are truly concerned about cost and affordability for families in Ontario, they would talk to their federal cousins and convince them and suggest very strongly that it is time to axe the carbon tax.

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

Mr. David Smith: The Trudeau-Crombie carbon tax hurts people at the pump. It hurts people’s heating bills. It impacts everyone. Families feel it every time they go to the store. The prices of milk, bread, vegetables keep rising because of this tax.

Meanwhile, the Bonnie Crombie Liberals want to increase the carbon tax on everyone. They’ve had every chance to stand against this tax but refuse to do so.

Our government needs to take action that would provide financial relief to everyone.

Speaker, can the parliamentary assistant please share how we will help make life more affordable for Ontario families?

Mr. John Yakabuski: The member is absolutely right—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Yes, the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke may reply.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you. I jumped the gun there.

Speaker, the queen of the carbon tax, Bonnie Crombie, loves that carbon tax. But on this side of the House, we are committed to doing everything we can to get the federal government to do the right thing and scrap the carbon tax.

Our government here is putting affordability first. The people on the other side could learn from that lesson. In addition to reducing the fuel tax, we have ended tolls on the 418, the 413; we’ve added One Fare, which is going to save the average commuter in the GTA $1,600 per year; and we have scrapped the licence plate renewal fees.

Speaker, we are focused on the cost of living and affordability. It starts with the scrapping of the carbon tax. Let’s get rid of it and make it a happy Christmas for the people here in Ontario.

Child care

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: My question is to the Minister of Education.

Parents in my riding are scrambling after three for-profit child care centres announced they’re leaving Ontario’s $10-a-day program. Families are facing double and triple fee increases. They’re making agonizing decisions, like whether one parent will quit work to stay home with the kids. This is a direct result of the Conservative government’s failure to expand child care spaces to meet increased demand.

Minister, we’ve warned you for years. How are you going to fix this?

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

Minister of Education.

Hon. Jill Dunlop: When it comes to supporting parents in Ontario, we will take no lessons from the NDP. The NDP called on us to take the first child care deal; that would have been $10.2 billion over five years—a decision that would have omitted over 30% of Ontario’s predominantly female-owned businesses from accessing the program. And yet, they still voted against the program when we secured an even better deal of $13.2 billion over