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

October 23, 2023

43rd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2023-Oct-23 vol. A (PDF)

L100A - Mon 23 Oct 2023 / Lun 23 oct 2023

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Monday 23 October 2023 Lundi 23 octobre 2023

Orders of the Day

Member’s conduct

Opposition day motion

Convenient Care at Home Act, 2023 / Loi de 2023 sur la prestation commode de soins à domicile

Members’ Statements

Margaret Robertson

Government accountability

The Refuge Youth Outreach Centre

Conflict in Middle East

Doug Hunt

Labour dispute

School facilities

Development in Essex

Royal Agricultural Winter Fair / Aggie Armstrong

Introduction of Visitors

Question Period

Government accountability

Government accountability

Government accountability

Transportation infrastructure

Home and community care

Labour dispute

Ontario Place

Government accountability

Skilled trades

Hospital services

Skilled trades

Pride Toronto / Public safety

Seniors

Skilled trades

Public transit

Nursing agencies

Visitors

Deferred Votes

Member’s conduct

Notice of dissatisfaction

Opposition day motion

Introduction of Visitors

Introduction of Government Bills

Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act, 2023 / Loi de 2023 pour mieux servir les consommateurs et les entreprises

Motions

Committee sittings

Petitions

Health care

Access to health care

Labour legislation

Firearms control

Environmental protection

Ehlers-Danlos syndrome

Long-term care

Northern Health Travel Grant

Labour legislation

Opposition Day

Government accountability

Orders of the Day

Convenient Care at Home Act, 2023 / Loi de 2023 sur la prestation commode de soins à domicile

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Member’s conduct

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 19, 2023, on the amendment to the amendment to the motion regarding the censure of the member for Hamilton Centre.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): When we last debated this motion, I understand the member for Peterborough–Kawartha had the floor.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m sorry; my mistake, as usual. Further debate.

Ms. Sarah Jama: Thirteen days ago, I called for an immediate ceasefire and de-escalation over the horrific siege which had begun on the Palestinians in Gaza, and I would like to share some thoughts today about the censure vote.

Since I made that statement, Israel has only escalated its assault on millions of Gazans. The Israeli Defence Forces have killed thousands of Palestinians, destroyed residential areas and ordered the evacuation of at least 20 hospitals in northern Gaza. Israel is telling people who are already injured, sick and dying in hospitals in Gaza to leave. Since I made my statement, Israel has bombed refugee camps, United Nations schools, hospitals, airports and the Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt. The unspeakable destruction continues and represents collective punishment against all Gazans in retaliation for attacks by Hamas.

The Ford government has done nothing meaningful to say about these atrocities and has now targeted me to distract from its own scandals. Those of us committed to Palestinian life refuse to be distracted. I restate my call for an immediate ceasefire by Israeli forces and for the immediate restoration of food, water, fuel and electricity in Gaza.

I applaud the many elected officials in Canada who have joined this call in recent days and I hope even more of you will speak out. I ground my words in the reality of the Israeli apartheid and Israel’s ongoing domination and occupation of Palestinian lands.

Governments and institutions in Canada are trying to use their voice and weight to silence us—to silence workers, students, educators and peace-loving people who dare to support Palestine. To every person who is taking a risk to speak up for Palestinian dignity and safety, I see you and I hear you and I am with you. They try hard to silence us, but we know that our words are powerful. And we must continue to speak up, no matter the cost.

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: What about the hostages?

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

Hon. Charmaine A. Williams: I will be sharing my time with the member for Carleton.

Mr. Speaker, the attacks on Israel earlier this month shocked the world. We heard over 1,400 people were murdered one by one; over 3,500 people wounded; almost 200 people taken hostage. The elderly, men, women, children and babies in arms were murdered. They were mutilated. They were raped. They were burned. We should call it by its name: It was

an act of terror. And we call for the immediate release of the hostages.

Speaker, these attacks are not just another conflict on the other side of the world. The impact is being felt throughout the country, including here in Ontario. There is no excuse, no justification for the horror we’ve seen. As the Premier has said, “This is terrorism in its darkest form.”

Israel was founded not just as a homeland for the Jewish people but as a sanctuary of safety and security to ensure that what happened in the Holocaust could never happen again. One reason this attack is so shocking is that it is a fundamental challenge to any idea of coexistence, which is essential on the pathway toward peace and stability in the region. Israel has an unalienable right to defend itself, to go after Hamas and rescue hostages, to deter further incursions and to strengthen its security for the long term. That must be done in line with international humanitarian law while recognizing that Israel faces a vicious enemy who embedded themselves behind civilians.

That is what brings us to the discussion on the motion today. Simply put, all forms of hate and discrimination against any faith, including those of Jewish and Islamic background, are wrong. Hate is hate. I think the member of Hamilton Centre is fully aware of the impact that her statement would have. The fact that the member’s statement is still online and has now been pinned to the top of her profile is evidence of her intentions. It is increasingly clear that the member is unwilling to apologize because it was meant to be hurtful.

No one questions the inappropriateness of the statement made by the member of Hamilton Centre. The member’s statement received almost immediate condemnation from the people of Ontario, and I believe it is beneficial to review some of the condemnation so that members of the House can be fully aware of how the member has brought into disrepute the reputation of this House.

Andrea Freedman, CEO of the Jewish Federation of Ottawa, says:

“It is appalling that that particular MPP is choosing to blame the victims in all of this. Hamas is a terrorist entity, labelled a terrorist entity by our government. They conducted a massacre of civilians. They went into people’s homes, murdered and slaughtered entire families. They took babies captive. They took senior citizens, ill people, captive to the Gaza Strip. This MPP should be ashamed, and she should be censured by her party.”

Hershl D. Berman, 40-year-old member of the NDP, former federal and provincial NDP candidate:

“This week” the member “caused great harm to the Jewish community in Ontario. While Hamas was attacking our friends and family, she posted remarks on her ‘X’ page that were inappropriate and deeply hurtful. She was asked to withdraw them but she did not, and her subsequent statements were inadequate and unacceptable.

“This is the latest incident in a pattern of anti-Semitic behaviour that predates her election to the Ontario NDP caucus. Her actions demonstrate that she is neither fit to speak for the New Democratic Party nor to hold elected office.”

Now, Mr. Speaker—Madam Speaker, sorry—ultimately, that is what this motion before us would have us do. It would recognize that in Ontario’s parliament we are held to a higher standard. As public servants, we must clearly and without hesitation condemn this hatred, and we must continue to draw on our shared values—our freedom, democracy, human rights and the true rule of law—to send a clear message that we will not be divided.

We are fortunate to live in a nation that values these ideas. But freedom of religion is not just simply a Canadian Western value; it is a fundamental human right, and people should be free to worship without fear of violent persecution. Here in Canada, we don’t just tolerate differences—we celebrate them. Every day we celebrate them.

We recognize that our diversity is one of our greatest strengths; that no matter the colour of your skin or which part of the world you come from, what language you speak, whether you attend mosque on Friday, synagogue on Saturday, church on Sunday, every distinct element of who we are as people comes together to form that mosaic that is Canada.

As elected representatives of the province of Ontario, our voice has influence. Your voice has influence. Further still, in our democratic system, when one member speaks and offers a public position, it is a de facto position of the entire party and all of its elected caucus members and electoral candidates.

So, not seeing the leader of the NDP take control and tell the member from Hamilton Centre, “If you’re going to have this hate-filled opinion, and because that hate-filled opinion is out there for the world to see, you cannot be part of our party, because we’re supposed to be a party that represents all people in Canada”—but clearly, as my eyes see and my eyes work, the member from Hamilton Centre still sits amongst the benches of the official opposition after a whole week of condemnation from all corners of the province, and the party still counts amongst its caucus a member that has marched in rallies where anti-Semitic and hateful language is at the forefront and leaves pinned to her profile with the emblem of the province a statement that ultimately supports the objectives of terrorists and the terrible outcomes they have.

That the New Democrat Party continues to take

part in proceedings shoulder to shoulder with the member of Hamilton Centre is disappointing. The member for Hamilton Centre and her hurtful comments need to be universally condemned.

To that member: You are a representative of our great Canadian democracy. You took an oath and it has weight. When you support or choose the side of terrorists, you are supporting war.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bhutila Karpoche): Comments through the Chair.

Hon. Charmaine A. Williams: War has casualties. Innocent lives are taken. Death and destruction become commonplace.

Madam Speaker, I’m stopping because I know how difficult it is for many of us to be in this House, to get to the point of being in this House. So I will keep going. I just feel like our words have so much weight, and our words, when we do not speak in a position of peace and support of all, it endangers our ability to do this humanitarian work effectively.

Clearly, the NDP are not fit to lead on the world stage or on our stage, and the member from Hamilton Centre should not be afforded the opportunity to speak in this House until an official, proper apology is issued. If the leader of the NDP will not have her member sit as an independent and leave her party, then clearly she supports the opinions of the member from Hamilton Centre.

So where is the accountability and the integrity now? We have been back in this House for a whole week, and the member is still allowed to be in this official position with these statements. Well, we will do what she won’t, which is to ensure that the member doesn’t get to speak in this House again.

We cannot jeopardize Ontario’s position as the largest contributor to Canada’s economy, our diverse and multicultural mosaic, with hostile and hateful remarks. That is the language that drives away jobs and economic prosperity.

Again, your voice has weight, and what you say can cause harm and can destabilize countries. Madam Speaker, inflammatory remarks, insensitive sentiments and attending marches of hate do nothing to advance the cause of peace, and peace should be the chief aim, chief pursuit and objective of all parties affected by this conflict.

As elected officials, we have a duty and responsibility to weigh our words and be held accountable when we fall short of that standard. That’s why, Madam Speaker, I will be voting in favour of today’s motion to censure the member from Hamilton Centre.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bhutila Karpoche): Further debate?

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: When my parents immigrated to Canada in 1986, I was a year old. The reason that they immigrated to Canada from Iran is because in 1979 there was an Islamic revolution, and our once free and democratic country was taken over by radical Islamists, was taken over by terrorists and was taken over by fascists, who actually executed over 40,000 Communists in the late 1980s. So my parents escaped in 1986 because they wanted to live in a free and democratic society.

I was a year old at the time. We were blessed to be able to come to Canada to escape that hatred, to escape that radical, fundamentalist, Islamo-fascist ideology. That’s the same regime, Madam Speaker, that denies the Holocaust. That’s the same regime that spreads anti-Semitic information and propaganda, not just inside the Islamic regime of Iran but around the world and through its proxies, like Hamas, Hezbollah and others.

When we came to Canada, my parents raised myself and my younger sister always telling us how blessed we are to be Canadian and we should always put Canada first: “Never forget your heritage. Never forget your culture. Never forget your background, but always remember that you are first and foremost a proud Canadian.” What that means, Madam Speaker, is that you come here to embrace culture and diversity and accept people for who they are, and you leave the problems of your home country behind.

Now, it doesn’t mean you can’t speak up. It doesn’t mean you can’t attend rallies and protests. I do it all the time, in support of the people of Iran who are fighting for freedom and democracy against the brutal and terrorist Islamic regime in Iran. But what I don’t do: I don’t go to protests calling for genocide. I don’t attend protests where I say, “From the river to the sea”—I can’t even finish that sentence because it is abhorrent and vile.

To anyone who says these are peace rallies, it’s appalling that I have to put this in Hansard, but it needs to be done so that the world will always remember what these hate rallies were about. This is a message from the Palestinian Youth Movement one day after the horrific October 7 genocidal massacre of 1,400 innocent Jewish people. It says:

“Toronto: All out for Palestine.

“Join us Monday, October 9th at 2 p.m.

“An unprecedented series of events has taken place by our heroic resistance in Gaza—with over 30 Zionist hostages captured, the fall of settlements surrounding Gaza, and the prison break that destroyed the fence that has been entrapping Gazans for over 17 years. The resistance’s offensive attack has shaped a new precedent for our national liberation struggle and we remain steadfast in our right to resist by any means necessary.

“We call on our people in the far diaspora in Toronto to uplift and honour our resistance and our martyrs. Join us this Monday, October 9 at 2 p.m. at Nathan Phillips Square and celebrate our steps closer to liberation.” Shameful.

I was in Toronto on Monday, because Monday was Thanksgiving. I was walking my dog and I happened to come across this pro-Hamas celebration, this pro-Hamas rally. It was the first time in my life that I had ever felt uncomfortable as a Canadian. The hate, the anger, the way they were marching, the chants they were making—that’s something you see in the Islamic regime in Iran. You do not see that in Canada. That’s the kind of behaviour you see in radical fundamentalist countries, not in Canada. That is not the Canada that my parents immigrated to. That is not the Canada that we were raised in. That hate does not belong in Canada.

What was even more shocking to me—and I didn’t realize this until a few days later—is that the member from Hamilton Centre marched in that parade, participated in that very same parade, rally, celebration, whatever you want to call it. The pro-Hamas rally that supported the genocide—the member from Hamilton Centre marched in that. She can try to explain away her statement, she can try to say whatever it is she wants to say, but silence is louder than words.

Even prior to this, when I had the unfortunate opportunity of having to hear her voice in this Legislature again, she spread misinformation. She accused the State of Israel of bombing a hospital, even though it was debunked right away. It was the Palestinian jihad organization, and Hamas was using it to spread propaganda, to fuel more hate rallies around the world. She also failed to mention anything about the 1,400 innocent civilians. She failed to mention that the Hamas terrorists must release the hostages.

You cannot negotiate with terrorists, Madam Speaker. You cannot. As someone who comes from a country that is ruled by Islamic regime terrorists, we know you cannot negotiate with them. They have no problem killing people.

There’s someone who is named Mosab Hassan Yousef, and I encourage everyone to look him up. Mosab Hassan Yousef is the son of a Hamas leader. He defected. He knows what happens on the inside, and he has some fascinating interviews. He even wrote a book called Son of Hamas. In that book and in his interviews, he writes, “Hamas does not care if you are Israeli or Palestinian, Arab, Jew, Bedouin. They do not care. They will execute everyone. They do not care about the people. They use Palestinians as human shields.”

He said that every few years what the Palestinian Authority does, the Palestinian leadership, is they will just create a war because they know what’s going to happen is that Israel will retaliate, and then the world will be outraged and then they will get money through donations. That’s what he says. This is someone who was born and raised in Hamas, and he defected.

Another thing that was very shocking for me, and I can’t fail—I have to mention this. The hate and the violence at these pro-Hamas rallies are getting worse. Yesterday—I believe it was yesterday, or possibly the day before—Cafe Landwer in Toronto was surrounded by pro-Hamas supporters who were at the rally, and they all started chanting, “Boycott. Boycott this Zionist cafe.”

Madam Speaker, what does a Jewish-owned cafe in Toronto have to do with the conflict in Israel and Palestine? We are being faced with full-on hatred, full-on anti-Semitism. This is not 1933; this is 2023. And what’s horrifying is that, in 1933, Cafe Landwer fled Berlin because of the anti-Semitism they were experiencing then, and now, 90 years later, they’re experiencing it once again in Ontario, in Canada. It is horrifying. And this is what the member from Hamilton Centre supports. This is exactly what she supports.

We all—we all—our hearts bleed for all the innocent lives lost, including Palestinians, but if you cannot call out terrorism, if you cannot have the moral clarity to understand that the root cause of this is terrorism that’s funded by the terrorist and illegitimate Islamic regime in Iran, if you are out there spreading a message of divisiveness instead of caring for people, then you should not be in this Legislature.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bhutila Karpoche): Further debate?

Mr. John Jordan: I always appreciate the opportunity and privilege to speak in this House. It’s an honour. But today I am troubled by the need to speak on a motion to censure another member. But there is a need, and I rise to speak in support of motion 39, the censure of the member for Hamilton Centre.

We are all aware that on October 7 the terrorist organization Hamas launched a massive and unprecedented unprovoked attack against Israel. The images we have seen are both shocking and horrifying. Young people scrambling for safety, not knowing what was going on—that is one image that is stuck in my head. We all agree that these actions were horrific and can only imagine the terror and pain suffered by the Israeli Jewish people. There was a lot of emotion in this chamber last week. And we know that pain went around the world and was felt by all Jewish people.

That is why when there is a statement put out that attempts to justify this terrorist attack, we need to act. That is why we have this motion before us to censure the member for Hamilton Centre. All members hold varied and sometimes unpopular opinions. We’re all capable and do make mistakes from time to time. Sometimes we are misinformed, sometimes misunderstood. But when we make a mistake, even if we are just misunderstood, we must do our very best to correct that mistake and mitigate any damage that may have resulted.

To censure a member of provincial Parliament is a strong action and is not taken lightly. As the member for Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston, I know this only too well. It reflects poorly on the Parliament, it reflects poorly on the member, it reflects poorly on the riding—but, as a last resort, necessary. It could have been avoided: Take the statement down, retract, apologize.

This government must act. To not act would only further the pain inflicted on our Jewish community. Parliaments have a responsibility to swiftly exercise their disciplinary powers to protect this Parliament and maintain the respect it commands and deserves. To serve in this Parliament is a privilege; it’s not a right. It is not an opportunity to move personal agendas forward. When I heard of the terrorist attack by Hamas, I was shocked and, like many of you, glued to the TV in disbelief. When I heard that a member of this Parliament put out a statement in defence of this action, I was confused. With my limited Parliament experience, I thought: What’s going to happen? What are we going to do?

So I thank the government House leader for his leadership in bringing forward this motion. Having listened to all of the debate, I fully support this motion.

Speaker, I move that the question now be put.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bhutila Karpoche): Mr. Jordan has moved that the question be now put. I am satisfied that there has been sufficient debate to allow this question to be put to the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion that the question be now put, please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion that the question be now put, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote being required, this vote will be deferred until after question period today.

Vote deferred.

Opposition day motion

Mr. Trevor Jones: On a point of order, please.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bhutila Karpoche): Go ahead.

Mr. Trevor Jones: I’m seeking the Speaker’s ruling on the orderliness of the motion proposed for consideration on opposition day number 3, filed in the name of the member for Davenport and scheduled to be debated this afternoon. It’s my contention that the motion is in violation of the sub judice convention to which our Parliament adheres, as well as our Parliament’s unique codified rules regarding sub judice found in standing order 25(g).

Speaker, I submit that the motion itself is actually out of order and that any relevant debate of such a motion would also be out of order. A decision to permit this motion to be considered would be unprecedented and set a dangerous new standard for the conduct of future business of the House as it intersects with the judicial branch of government and will negatively affect the delicate balance that is the constitutional separation of powers. With your indulgence, Speaker, I do have several points for your consideration.

The unamendable motion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition includes a significant amount of

preamble related to various government policies and initiatives, and alone, that subject matter would be in order for consideration. However, the thrust and crux of the motion, the resolution itself, seeks to have the House adopt a position which would directly insert itself into a matter presently before the Information and Privacy Commissioner, which is a quasi-judicial body constituted under the authority of

an act of the Legislature.

Further, adoption of the motion, and the requisite references to the subject matter in debate, would create a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceedings presently before the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The subject matter of the opposition leader’s motion is an appeal presently being considered by the Information and Privacy Commissioner, an officer of the Assembly and an office established under

section 4 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act passed by this Legislature.

While I acknowledge that the Speaker cannot be aware of every proceeding before every court or every quasi-judicial body or its status, in the case before us the Leader of the Official Opposition has set out the fact that there is a pending proceeding before the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s adjudicative division directly and clearly within the text of the motion. I quote the motion’s last line: “Therefore, the Legislative Assembly calls on the Premier to cease his access-to-information appeal and disclose the contents of his personal phone and email accounts to the Information and Privacy Commissioner.”

Further, I will table a Global News

article written by Colin D’Mello, Global’s Queen’s Park bureau chief and member of the Queen’s Park press gallery, and Isaac Callan dated August 15, 2023. This

article sets out that a Global News access-to-information request on the subject had been denied and makes clear they are pursuing an ongoing FOI, or freedom-of-information, appeal. As FIPPA sets out, such appeals are to the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

Part IV of the act sets out an appeal process to the Information and Privacy Commissioner in cases of disputes between members of the public and heads of branches of government over the disclosure of information. This part of the act establishes the quasi-judicial nature of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and parts of his or her office by establishing an adjudicative process for the resolution of appeals. The IPC is empowered, under

section 52 of the act, to conduct inquiries and hearings related to appeals, to examine records, to summon persons, to examine them under oath, to apply rules of evidence and make orders to resolve appeals, which clearly establishes the commissioner’s quasi-judicial nature.

Further, the IPC’s own materials acknowledge the commissioner to have “quasi-judicial duties and powers” and the commissioner maintains a tribunal and dispute resolution division. I will table a number of references for your review.

Now, I will address the application of the sub judice convention and our own codification of it within our standing orders. House of Commons Procedure and Practice notes the convention “is first and foremost a voluntary exercise of restraint on the part of the House in which restrictions are placed on the freedom of members to make reference in debate to matters which are sub judice, that is, awaiting judicial decisions.” It goes on to say, “It is also understood that matters before the courts are also prohibited as subjects of motions, petitions or questions in the House” but not to legislation or the rights of Parliament to legislate.

Speaker, I’m sure you recall, you ruled to this effect related to the sub judice nature of content of the bill back on September 17, 2018, as several Speakers have before you. What we have before us now is not a piece of legislation. It’s a motion. Its adoption or defeat cannot alter the state of the law in Ontario, but it can serve to prejudice the ongoing appeal before the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice goes on to note that “no distinction has ever been made in Canada between criminal courts and civil courts for the purpose of applying the sub judice convention. It has also been applied with respect to certain tribunals other than courts of law” but that “the precedents are not as consistent where civil cases are concerned. The convention has been applied on some occasions and not on others” and that “although nothing resembling a settled practice has developed in relation to civil cases, the Chair has warned on various occasions of the need for caution in referring to matters pending judicial decisions whatever the nature of the court.”

When discussing the sub judice convention, these procedural authorities must be considered carefully and the House of Commons context distinguished from our assembly.

Itis important to note that the House of Commons, from which the procedural authorities I have referenced originate, has never made any attempt to codify the convention within its standing orders, while this assembly partially has. While the uncodified convention is acknowledged to apply beyond criminal courts to tribunals, which have status as courts of record, our House, under standing order 25, which has existed in some form since 1970, has chosen to go further and specify that matters that are the subject of a proceeding before any quasi-judicial body constituted by the House or by or under the authority of

an act of the Legislature are considered sub judice and must be avoided. It is true that standing order 25 respects matters which are out of order in debate. You noted this, Speaker, in your September 2018 ruling, but you noted it to distinguish debate on legislation from the effect of the legislation itself.

You correctly noted that the convention and our standing orders do not and cannot “operate to limit the superior and pre-eminent right of the Legislature to legislate in the first instance.”

It is critical, however, to note that this situation is not precisely the one which was before you in 2018. The NDP leader has not put forth legislation, but a motion, a motion seeking to establish a position of this House directly respecting a matter that is sub judice. In this particular matter, it is also clear that the wording of the motion necessitates that any substantive debate of it would have to discuss the matters which are sub judice.

Certainly, it would be an absurd

interpretation of our standing orders that they could allow for a situation in which a motion may address matters which are sub judice when the very debate on that motion would be out of order.

If this House were to adopt this motion, especially in an area where the assembly has, in statute, delegated a specific authority to an officer of Parliament, it would create an extremely dangerous precedent.

If allowed, would it then be permissible in the future for the assembly to consider and adopt motions which sought to take a position in a case before Ontario’s Landlord and Tenant Board? Would it be permissible to take a position in a case before the Human Rights Tribunal? What would distinguish any of these scenarios from a minor criminal case or a civil trial? In any of these cases, permissibility aside, would it be advisable or will we have firmly charged that through the constitutional separation of powers into the domain of the courts?

This motion before us does not seek to assert the assembly’s legislative superiority or pre-eminence, it seeks only to insert the House politically into the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s statutory sphere of competence.

There is another important distinction from the House of Commons. In June 1987, Speaker Fraser considered a similar point of order to the one I am raising today: an opposition day motion respecting a civil matter that was before the courts. The Speaker also noted that there was no settled practice respecting matters of the subject of civil cases and referenced Beauchesne in noting that the convention has historically applied after the matter has reached the trial stage.

The Speaker ruled allowing the opposition day motion to stand as that case had not yet reached the trial stage and further referenced Beauchesne, pointing out that “the opposition prerogative is very board to use the allotted day and ought not to be interfered with except on the clearest and most certain procedural grounds.”

The case before us today is different than the one before Speaker Fraser for several reasons: one being that the House of Commons had not codified any part of the sub judice convention, as we have; a second being that this is not strictly a civil case before a court, it is an appeal before a quasi-judicial body, which is clearly sufficient under our standing order to make its consideration problematic.

Also distinguishing is that the IPC appeal process does not include a formal trial stage; instead the adjudicative part may include an inquiry and hearings which may not be open to the public. Thus, this House has no way to know if they are occurring until a resolution has actually been reached. In such a case, the House ought to show restraint in the spirit of the convention and restrict its deliberations until such a time as an IPC appeal has been settled.

It’s even more problematic that the quasi-judicial body responsible for this matter at hand is headed by an officer of this Parliament, unlike a court, which exists entirely outside the jurisdiction of the Legislature, the Information and Privacy Commissioner is hired on the recommendation of an all-party panel of members of this assembly followed by the adoption of a motion in this House.

Despite the statutory powers granted by this Legislature to the commissioner to adjudicate certain matters, the commissioner is independent of only the government but is not independent of this assembly. If this House were to adopt the NDP leader’s motion, is there not a real risk that the commissioner and the commissioner’s office could take such

an act of the assembly as a signal from us of a desired outcome in this particular appeal?

We, as an assembly, maintain the ability to remove the commissioner, and even reduce or eliminate the office’s funding. This intersection of authorities is exactly why the member’s motion is out of order and why it would be so dangerous to set the precedent that the House should consider any such motions.

By considering this motion, this House creates a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceeding before the IPC, the outcome of which would not be risk to an initiative of government, but potentially significant invasion of the Premier’s personal privacy.

I submit that the NDP leader could possibly have rephrased the motion to make it more orderly and achieve her political objective. With matters sub judice, I admit there has typically been a balance between the legitimate objectives of a Parliament and the need to respect the constitutional separation of powers.

I have mentioned the right to legislate cannot be subverted. Looking to the Laurentian University Speaker’s warrants which were issued by this House in the last Parliament, I can imagine a situation in which further action of the House was warranted while the matter remained before another court. In that case, I believe several motions and debate would have been justified despite the sub judice convention and standing order because the Speaker was, in fact, party to those matters on behalf of this House.

In preparing these documents, I have reviewed all of the opposition day motions considered by this House since 1989. In some cases, the House has come quite close to crossing the boundary set by the convention and our standing orders but has not crossed it.

In June 1997, the House considered a motion calling for an independent inquiry into the events at Ipperwash and mentioned the death of Dudley George; however, the House waited to consider this until after the criminal matter was settled at the trial stage and concluded consideration before the matter was appealed.

Another motion related to the very same matter was considered in May 2001 prior to the resolution of a pending civil case. However, that motion did not refer to the civil case in any way and called only for a public inquiry, not action of this House in the lawsuit or desired action of any parties to it.

In May 2002, the House considered a motion with respect to the sale of Hydro One. While there was an appeal in a civil case pending from April to June of that year, the government had simultaneously tabled legislation. The motion called on the government only to withdraw its legislation or to call a general election on the issue. It did not mention the civil case. In this case, it was certainly within the jurisdiction of the House to consider its position on a piece of legislation before it.

Other similar examples exist, and it is to some regret that, on occasion, the House treaded as close as it has to the fundamental constitutional boundary between Parliament and the courts; but of key importance is that it has not made a practice of crossing the boundary as this motion does. Even if the House had crossed this boundary in the past, the intentional or unintentional disregard for a rule does not forever abrogate it.

Where the subject of opposition day motions has treaded near the judicial sphere, the record shows that the thrust of such motions have dealt with a more general public policy position and that members have generally shown restraint during debate when departing the policy discussions and approaching the case-specific subject matter. However, no motion has so directly sought to improperly enter the judicial sphere as this does by specifically calling on this House to take a direct position in a pending case.

If the sub judice rule does not apply to the thrust of the motions when they are so clearly offensive to it, then this rule may as well be entirely disregarded as we will have confirmed it to be a mere platitude which, when challenged directly, is swiftly dispensed with. This is not only the opposite of restraint described in Bosc and Gagnon, but it invites the courts to gradually make such similar incursions into the parliamentary sphere of competence.

I would also submit that there is nothing exceptional about the proposed debate which justifies a change to precedent, a departure from the application of the standing orders or the risk of sending a signal to one of our own parliamentary officers that the assembly as a whole desires any particular decision in the case before him or her.

Speaker, the arguments I have made have demonstrated the following:

Our codification of the sub judice convention in standing order 25 clarifies that the subject matter of this motion is clearly sub judice as it remains before the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s adjudicative division.

Any consideration of the motion would require or encourage members to reflect upon the matter, which is sub judice.

Given the nature of the quasi-judicial body which is responsible for the matter as an officer of this Parliament, it is certain that the motion and consideration of it “would create a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceeding.”

The House of Commons procedural authorities are insufficient alone to provide complete guidance on the matter because the House of Commons has not codified the sub judice convention as our House has.

The most relevant Speakers’ rulings from this place and the House of Commons are not sufficiently analogous to the situation before us to serve as precedent.

The overwhelming practice of this House has not been to directly test the boundaries of the sub judice convention.

Finally, I would like to address the application of standing order 1 to this matter. That standing order states that the purpose of the standing orders is to ensure that proceedings are conducted in a manner that respects the democratic rights of all members to do several things.

The first is to submit motions, resolutions and bills for consideration. We know that right is not unlimited by the simple fact that a motion must be in order to be submitted for consideration and determined by vote. Similarly, not all members are entitled to submit all types of motions for consideration. The opposition cannot submit substantive government motions nor routine motions, and similarly the government cannot submit motions for consideration on opposition days. As well, the subject matter and phrasing of motions follows very specific rules, as you know.

The second, to debate, speak to and vote, is also not unlimited given that we maintain rules which limit the subject matter of debate such as those listed under standing order 25.

The third, to hold the government accountable for its policies, does not apply in this case given the thrust of the motion relates to a quasi-judicial matter of a personal nature for the Premier.

The fourth, to collectively decide matters, is limited by the need for such matters to be proposed within the confines of the rules of this place.

I would also urge you, Speaker, in considering the democratic rights of all members to consider the democratic rights of our Premier, in this case, but of any member of Parliament or member of the public who in the future might have a pending matter before a court or quasi-judicial body and ought to expect fair and impartial consideration of that matter without the undue influence of this House outside its jurisdiction.

Given these conclusions, I submit that the opposition day motion violates the sub judice convention and standing order 25 and does so, in the words of Beauchesne, on the “clearest and most certain procedural grounds.” As such, the motion must be ruled out of order and the debate set aside.

Speaker, thank you for consideration.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bhutila Karpoche): Thank you. I will reserve my ruling. Orders of the day—

Mr. John Vanthof: Speaker, I would like to respond.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bhutila Karpoche): I recognize the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane for a response.

Mr. John Vanthof: Thank you, Speaker. Before I begin, I would also like to—having just heard the government’s argument on this—also reserve to submit more on paper later.

First, the government is saying that this motion shouldn’t be allowed under

section 25. We submitted the motion, I believe, on Wednesday. It was ruled in order by the Clerks’ table. We are now several days later.

But before we go further, I would like to read the motion into the record:

“Whereas the government is under criminal investigation by the RCMP for their removal of lands from the greenbelt; and

“Whereas the Auditor General is in the process of reviewing whether there has been mismanagement and abuse of ministerial zoning orders; and

“Whereas there are outstanding questions about an inappropriate relationship between a former government minister and a land speculator, and incorrect information provided to the Integrity Commissioner about this relationship; and

“Whereas there are outstanding questions about whether there was preferential treatment given to a foreign company to build a private spa on public land at Ontario Place; and

“Whereas there are outstanding questions about preferential treatment given to government donors and personal friends of the Premier with respect to the building of Highway 413; and

“Whereas there are outstanding questions about unqualified patronage appointments to public agencies, boards, and commissions; and

“Whereas the Premier has admitted that he regularly uses his personal phone to conduct government business and those communications might be relevant to these inquiries;

“Therefore the Legislative Assembly calls on the Premier to cease his access to information appeal and disclose the contents of his personal phone and email accounts to the Information and Privacy Commissioner.”

Let’s be very clear: The Premier made this the realm of the Parliament when he said his personal phone number, gave it to Ontarians. He basically told people to call him and that he would fix their problems. The government House leader responded several times that that’s what people expect. Then, when he said that, it stands to reason—and I will back up a second: I’m not a lawyer or a standing orders expert. Perhaps I should be to be making this argument, but I’m not.

But when you give your personal phone number and say, “I’m doing business on the personal phone number, and it is the business of the public,” then it stands to reason that those phone records should also be public. Are we talking about the courts? No. But the Premier, in the Legislature, gave his phone number and made no bones about it that he was doing public business on his personal phone—public business, taxpayers’ dollars, on his personal phone—in this room.

A motion is a serious thing, but it’s not a binding motion. It doesn’t direct the courts and nor does it direct the integrity and privacy commissioner. It doesn’t direct the commissioner. We are trying to get information to be made public, that should be made public so that the public can find out what happened, right or wrong.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bhutila Karpoche): Does the member for Chatham-Kent–Leamington have a point of order?

Mr. Trevor Jones: Speaker, point of order: The member opposite is arguing the merits of the motion, not the actual point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bhutila Karpoche): I’m going to ask the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane to continue his remarks.

Mr. John Vanthof: Thank you.

Actually, the merits of the motion—the point of order is that the motion shouldn’t be brought forward. So I think it is part of the argument that you have to debate the merit of the motion.

Just from the public perspective, this is the House of the people. So we brought a motion forward that the Premier’s phone records—which do include public business; that is not under dispute here. The Premier said it. The government House leader said it. That’s not under dispute at all. We, in this opposition motion, are trying to convince the government and the Premier to release those records, to be open and accountable to the people of Ontario.

Your point is that this motion shouldn’t be discussed here, that public business and public dollars on the Premier’s personal phone shouldn’t be part of the public record. We very strongly disagree. If the government feels that this motion shouldn’t be—I’m going back up for a second. If this motion goes forward, the government has every opportunity to make their argument that this motion shouldn’t go forward.

Also, because it’s a majority government, you can also vote this motion down. You have a majority. There is no question that, if the government decides that they don’t want this motion to pass, this motion will fail. You have a majority, one which you use—rightfully so—on a regular basis. The last opposition day motion, you chose not to vote; you chose to ring the bells to eliminate the vote. With this motion, your motion, you’re basically trying to eliminate debate. You can use all the legal terminology you want, but at the end of the day, that is what you’re trying to do.

And, quite frankly, Ontarians should be even more interested, right now, in what’s on the Premier’s personal phone—even more. They should be, because had you just let this motion go through, made your argument—but now you’re using procedural tactics to try and prevent information from coming to the floor.

We will provide more information once we’ve had time to actually study your long-winded legal arguments—and I get along great with the member personally, so he’s not taking this personally. But for the government to have had this motion on Wednesday and waiting until the morning of the day it’s going to be debated, that also puts out some red flags that the government is doing whatever it can not to be put on record regarding the Premier’s personal phone.

Now the people are realizing that those records should be part of the public record, need to be part of the public record, have to be part of the public record. And eventually, they will become part of the government record, regardless of what this government is trying to pull. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bhutila Karpoche): I will reserve my ruling.

Orders of the day.

Convenient Care at Home Act, 2023 / Loi de 2023 sur la prestation commode de soins à domicile

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 16, 2023, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 135,

An Act to amend the Connecting Care Act, 2019 with respect to home and community care services and health governance and to make related amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 135, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2019 pour des soins interconnectés en ce qui concerne les services de soins à domicile et en milieu communautaire et la gouvernance de la santé et apportant des modifications connexes à d’autres lois.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bhutila Karpoche): Further debate?

Mr. Joel Harden: So the government, as I understand, in this bill—well, they move very quickly, so it’s hard to sometimes understand everything they want to do with this bill. But I want to begin on a charitable note and assume that the government, like the members of this opposition, care about the people who raised us; that we assume that every single part of this building, every single facet of this province, exists because elders have paid their taxes, they have gotten up in the morning and they have put one foot in front of the other and they have built our communities; and when the time comes that they get an opportunity to retire, they want to live with dignity.

And every single person I talk to from our community who talks about home care—it is not just a frill. Home care should be one of the most important things that the province of Ontario funds and cares about on a regular basis. And why? Because people want to live in the homes they have built for themselves and their families for as long as possible—that’s why. They deserve the right to live in the homes they have built for themselves and their families.

But what are we currently doing in the province of Ontario with home care? Absolutely clear, it’s on the record; the Auditor General previous to the current Auditor General issued two reports on the problems in home care in Ontario. We are losing, depending upon the agency hired by the Ministry of Health, between 27% to 32% of every taxpayer dollar we invest in home care to for-profit operators that care more about investors and the bottom line than the well-being of seniors and persons with disabilities.

It’s why it’s so hard for so many families to find appropriate home care. It’s why when persons with disabilities and seniors have some kind of a critical incident in their home—it could be a fall; it could be an injury of some kind—and they get admitted to hospital, they cannot be brought back to their home. Why? Because it’s unsafe for them to be there. So they get trapped in this awful cycle of emergency room admissions, being put into beds which emergency room staff need to deal with emergencies.

But they get trapped into this cycle, and they get trapped into that cycle after a lifetime of caring for children, paying taxes, doing what everybody in this province says you have to do to lead a decent and meaningful life.

I’ve always thought, as someone middle-aged—I’m 51 now—that part of that social contract I have with elders in this province is to stand by them when they want to live in their own homes for as long as possible. But that’s not the case. We line the pockets of ParaMed, of CarePartners, of Bayshore. Linda Knight, a fantastic example of this: $140 million of contracts currently—CarePartners—with the Ministry of Health and the province of Ontario. We are losing 30% of every one of that $140 million we invest in CarePartners to profit, to investors.

There was a time in this province when there was an NDP government. We had a Minister of Health, and her name was Evelyn Gigantes, member of provincial Parliament for Ottawa Centre, someone I’m very proud to call a friend. Evelyn told me that when she stood in this esteemed House as the Minister of Health, 81% of the contracts signed with the Minister of Health for home care were with non-profit entities, by and large the Victorian Order of Nurses, a historic agency which now is called Carefor. Carefor still exists in Ottawa.

It still plays a critical role in looking after people with disabilities and seniors, not just in my community. I see the member for Glengarry–Prescott–Russell over there, my friend east of where I serve. I know many seniors who benefit from home care services provided well outside of downtown Ottawa thanks to Carefor.

But what has happened over time when the Victorian Order of Nurses and non-profit care was 81% of home care? What has happened over time is the Conservative government of the mid-1990s introduced a market model for a competition for contracts for home care. That has driven down working conditions and it has driven down the standards of care, so seniors, people with disabilities and families cannot get the care they need.

Let me switch to the other critical part of this puzzle, and that is the largely women and men who work in this sector. If you can believe it, Speaker, their travel is not compensated when they work for a big company like Bayshore or ParaMed or CarePartners. Their travel is not compensated, so when they head out to Glengarry–Prescott–Russell and when they head out to Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke or when they head out to one of the rural areas of eastern Ontario, my neighbours, they are not compensated between destinations. Their compensation is between clients.

Just recently when I was at the grocery store, I had occasion to talk to a rural community care PSW who works for different agencies, piecing together a full-time employment. This gentleman called the care coordinator at Bayshore and said, “Do you know I’m being given 30 minutes to look in on somebody in Smiths Falls? I know the senior has not had a bath in a week, and I want to give that senior a bath, a very personal process—older lady.” The Bayshore care coordinator said back to the com-munity PSW, “Well, what can you do in half an hour, Paul?”

How revolting is that? Not only do you not pay Paul for his travel to Smiths Falls from Ottawa—he’s an Ottawa Centre resident; proud to call Paul a friend—you put the senior in the situation where they’re not bathed for a week—what is going to be, two weeks? Three weeks?

This government has a close relationship with for-profit home care agencies. They believe and they’ve said in this House for the five years that I have served here that they have to work with Linda Knight, with Bayshore, with ParaMed. We are losing 30% of investments in home care to for-profit agencies, and nowhere in Bill 135 is there a provision to deal with that—nowhere. People keep putting their Mercedes in the driveways and people keep dishing out dividends to shareholders, and people with disabilities and seniors continue to suffer. It’s not right.

Do you know what’s coming up soon? I’m proud to stand beside my friend from St. Catharines here. Remembrance Day is coming very soon. Everybody in this House is going to be putting on a red poppy because we honour the service of our veterans. But what about the veterans right now who need home care? What about them? Do we care about them when we get up and we hold our hand over our hearts, and we remember epic moments like D-Day or Vimy Ridge, or the sacrifices or the PTSD that veterans come home with after serving in the field in places like Afghanistan or elsewhere?

I know those celebrations by members in this House are heartfelt. I know we all share them, and we believe them. But it can’t end after Remembrance Day. We have to remember that the elders who built this province deserve every single cent that we can put in their hands to ensure dignified home care.

So if Bill 135 is about dignified home care, connected home care, but you are leaving intact a home care system that is bleeding out incredible amounts of money for profit, I believe you are failing seniors, persons with disabilities and caring members of families.

Speaker, I’ll never forget what it was like for me when I was a graduate student in this city and my grandparents, within five months of each other, both passed away—they went through that moment where they had to leave that family home and had to be in 24/7 assisted long-term care. They went to Maxville Manor, a wonderful, wonderful non-profit organization in Maxville with a social justice mandate that does incredible work. They looked after both of my grandparents, my grandmother who had dementia and my grandfather who had Lou Gehrig’s disease.

They did the best they could to keep them together in that long-term-care facility, even though my grandma, who never met a bully she didn’t want to stare down in her entire life and wreaked fear and havoc in my town for any reason she believed was unjust—so when she was being asked to stay in the dementia ward for her own protection, she didn’t take kindly to that.

As a family caregiver, I ceased my studies and I went back home to live in Vankleek Hill with my mom for a bit and was in and out of Maxville, and I remember thinking, “How lucky is my family that there’s enough affluence in my family that I can just put my studies on hold and come down from Toronto and look after my grandparents, who spent their life looking after me?” But that’s our luck, our fortune. I was able to do that. My dad ran a very successful business. My mom was a music teacher. They both did whatever they could. But I came home. So did my brother. So did my mom’s second cousin. But not every family has that ability. Not every family can do that.

So many people in this province are struggling pay-cheque to paycheque to make ends meet today. It’s hard. Life out there is hard. So that’s where the province has to step up and offer consistent home care to every single person in this province who needs it. That’s our social contract with the elders who built this province. But instead, we’re lining the pockets of Linda Knight, we’re lining the pockets of Bayshore, we’re lining the pockets of CarePartners, and I think it’s a shame, Speaker.

I invite my friends in government to consider amending this bill to make sure we finally go back to the NDP legacy in this province where we had every or most of every dollar going directly into care and not into profit. That would be a proud day. I would love to work with this government to introduce them to organizations like Carefor, organizations back home like Hillel Lodge on the west end of the riding, a jewel in the crown of Jewish Family Services Ottawa that is there offering compassionate care—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I apologize to the member for Ottawa Centre, who I have to now interrupt because it is 10:15, and it is time for members’ statements.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Margaret Robertson

Ms. Donna Skelly: Good morning, Speaker. This morning I would like to recognize a member of my riding. Last week, the city of Hamilton held its 28th annual Senior of the Year Awards and Flamborough–Glanbrook resident Margaret Robertson was the nominee.

The Senior of the Year Award program celebrates seniors aged 65 and older who contribute their time and their talents in service to enrich the social, cultural or civic life of those in our community.

Margaret’s commitment to the Flamborough area has been evident for years. She established and maintained Pause Awhile Tea Room for 32 years, a place enjoyed by so many in our community. She was chair of the Waterdown BIA, where she led the growth of the Victorian Festival. Margaret is also a founding member of the Rotary Club of Flamborough AM, an organization that provides so much service around our area.

Along with these various roles, Margaret has also volunteered her time to work with Flamborough Connects and the Food with Grace Waterdown Food Bank. She has truly been influential and much loved in our community.

My congratulations go out to all of the nominees, and a special thank you to Margaret for all that you have done and continue to do.

Government accountability

Mr. John Vanthof: I guess I’ll call this a tale of two phones. We all remember the day the Premier got up and gave his personal cellphone in the House: “If you have a problem, call me.” That’s a great marketing strategy. But everyone, especially on the government side—especially Premiers and ministers—also have government phones, and government business should be done on government phones. That’s a pretty simple concept.

But now it’s come to light that there are long periods of time where the Premier of this province did not use government phones. I don’t think the Premier of the province would not conduct any business in those periods, so there is business being conducted, it stands to reason, on his personal cellphone.

We are bringing a motion forward this afternoon to try to push the government and the Premier to release his personal cellphone records so he can be open and accountable to the people of Ontario, which he promised to be. The government has now moved a motion to try to stop that. But let’s be clear: Government business, whether it’s on a personal or a government phone, should be viewed by the people. We implore the Premier to do so.

The Refuge Youth Outreach Centre

Mr. Lorne Coe: The Ontario government is providing over $4.9 million to help create 27 supportive housing units at The Refuge in Oshawa that will support youth experiencing homelessness. Located at 357 Simcoe Street South in Oshawa, the two-storey converted school building will include studio apartments as well as four accessible units.

I believe that affordable, accessible and suitable housing is essential for healthy communities within the region of Durham. It underpins the quality of life for people in Durham at every stage of their lives. I look forward to continued collaboration with the members of Durham regional council as together we ensure that local communities within the region continue to be safe, healthy and caring, as well as sustainable for future generations.

John Henry, the regional chair of Durham region and chief executive officer, had this to say about the new funding for The Refuge: “On behalf of the region ... I would like to extend a sincere thank you to the province ... for this investment. It signifies our shared vision of creating safe, welcoming and caring communities for all.”

Conflict in Middle East

Mr. Joel Harden: I have a message this morning for Prime Minister Trudeau about ongoing horrors in Gaza and in Israel. I believe the Prime Minister must join those around the world demanding the release of all hostages and demanding a ceasefire now. Without question, those responsible for the unspeakable atrocities committed against 1,400 Israelis on October 7 must face justice. But justice is not achieved by levelling entire Palestinian neighbourhoods, bombing border crossings, health care facilities and critical infrastructure, killing entire extended families, including heart-rending numbers of children.

Over the weekend, 19 families in Ottawa were grieving loved ones lost in Gaza. One woman, Hala Alshaer, was grieving 77 relatives, from ages one to 61. This is madness, Speaker—pure madness.

Half the population of Gaza are children. They never voted for Hamas, and they weren’t even born when Hamas was elected in 2006.

Prime Minister Trudeau, do those children deserve to die? Will you speak up for them? That’s what thousands of people were saying in my city yesterday, in the streets of Ottawa. Will you call for a ceasefire, for the release of all the hostages, for the siege of Gaza to finally end and for the immediate start of negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis so they can live in peace? They deserve to. Please speak up, sir.

Doug Hunt

Mr. Will Bouma: I am very pleased to rise in the House today to talk about Doug Hunt, a pillar of the Brantford–Brant community and new Guinness Book of World Records holder.

Known to many in Brantford–Brant as Doug the Great, Doug managed to take 14 continuous forward steps atop stilts measuring 55 feet and weighing 125 pounds apiece. This achievement marks Doug’s third stilt-walking Guin-ness record.

Doug the Great broke the record on Saturday to mark the 10th anniversary of the new and upgraded Wayne Gretzky Sports Centre. His walk was one of the main events of the anniversary ceremony, and he had a huge crowd cheering him on.

In addition to making history once again in Brantford, Doug’s stilt-walking team used the walk to raise money for Participation Support Services, an incredible organization that supports adults with physical disabilities and complex needs to live as independently as possible.

Despite challenges from dangerous winds, Doug stuck by his motto of never giving up and always taking that next step. Doug the Great is a shining example of perseverance and tenacity and a true role model for Brantford–Brant to try to emulate.

All of Brantford–Brant is proud of you, Doug, although I’m not sure you needed 55-foot-tall stilts to be taller than me.

Labour dispute

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: It’s now been a year and a half since 9,000 ACTRA commercial actors have been unlawfully locked out of work by the ICA, the Institute of Canadian Agencies. As I’ve raised in this House, the ICA wants to cut wages up to 60% and eliminate benefits and retirement plans. They are not bargaining in good faith and are using scab replacement labour.

The Ford Conservatives talk a lot about the affordability crisis. What about locked-out actors whose livelihoods have been taken away from them? How do you expect them to survive?

The Ford government refuses to ban scab replacement labour, which is getting in the way of a fair bargaining process. Not only that; the Conservatives are giving business through government-paid advertising to the very agencies that are treating commercial actors so poorly. The government says they are working for workers, but their actions show otherwise.

There’s more: TVO CMG workers have been on strike for fair wage increases for nine weeks. After a decade of their real wages falling due to the rising cost of living and inflation, workers simply cannot afford to see their real wages fall anymore, yet they’re being asked to accept another three years of below-inflation wage increases. TVO is a public broadcaster, so the government itself is the employer here. They have the direct ability to intervene, and yet they don’t.

And here’s the thing no one understands: The workers are asking for binding arbitration, a neutral third party to resolve this, and even that the government refuses. Binding arbitration has been offered to other groups. Why not TVO CMG?

School facilities

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: October has been a very exciting month in my riding of Carleton, particularly in the communities of Riverside South and Findlay Creek. The Ottawa Catholic School Board broke ground on not one but two new Catholic elementary schools that hope to have their doors open by September 2024.

Even before I was first elected in 2018, it was made very clear to me on the campaign trail how badly the communities in my riding needed schools to keep up with the rapid growth. It was by far the number one issue in my riding of Carleton, and since the 2018 election, we have received more than $211 million in funding for the building or expansion of nine schools in Carleton alone. These new schools in Findlay Creek and Riverside South will each provide 507 student spaces and 39 daycare spaces.

But a new school is more than a building with capacity and state-of-the-art technology; it will be a place where children will learn and feel comfortable, make lifelong friends with their peers, forming relationships with dedicated staff and teachers and creating a foundation of childhood memories that will stay with them forever.

A groundbreaking for a new school is exciting, but it will be even more exciting to visit two new schools full of children as their local MPP in September 2024.

Development in Essex

Mr. Anthony Leardi: Mr. Speaker, I have an update on all of the fantastic building that’s going on in Essex county. In Belle River, we’re building a 160-unit seniors’ home. It’s a state-of-the-art home. It’s going to allow people to age in place.

In Kingsville, we’re building a JK-to-grade-12 school. When it opens up, it’s going to welcome hundreds of happy students.

In Amherstburg, they’re building lots of residential units—not one, not two, not three but four brand new residential complexes that are going to make it possible for people to retire in Amherstburg and also for people to start a family in Amherstburg.

And in Essex, we’re expanding Highway 3 from two lanes to four lanes. That’s going to help commuters get from one part of Essex county to the other safer and faster. It’s going to help our greenhouse growers get their product to market faster and help grow our industry.

There’s so much building going on in Essex county, Mr. Speaker. I can’t remember a time when so much excellent progress was being made.

I want to thank the Premier for his policies and for investing in Essex county. Let’s keep it going.

Royal Agricultural Winter Fair / Aggie Armstrong

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: The Royal Agricultural Winter Fair is a time when farmers, growers, producers and homesteaders from all over Canada descend on Toronto to celebrate the best in farming, agriculture and local food.

Each year, an artist is commissioned to create the official poster for the fair, and I’m proud to rise today to congratulate Oxford artist Aggie Armstrong on being chosen to create this year’s poster. It is truly an honour and a privilege for Aggie, who moved to Oxford county when she was 18, from Manila, Philippines. It’s no surprise why she was chosen. With her experience in both Manila and rural Norwich township, along with her distinctive artistic style, she is a perfect fit for the 101st fair poster. It’s entitled the Magical Voyage to Celebration.

In her words, she wanted to show how growers and producers “take their vocation with pride” and how “the fruits of their labour need to be elevated and celebrated by everyone.” She hopes that “people see the beauty of agriculture and husbandry” and that farmers [should] be proud of all the work they do.”

I believe this is the spirit of agriculture in Ontario, and I encourage everyone to take a look at Aggie’s poster and previous work.

The 101st agricultural winter fair will take place from November 3 to 12 at Exhibition Place.

I once again would like to congratulate Aggie Armstrong for her beautiful work of art and making Oxford proud.

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

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Before I ask the members to introduce their guests, I’ll remind them to please keep their introductions brief and devoid of political commentary or statements.

Introduction of visitors?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: I’d like to welcome some guests from Italy this morning: Dr. Stefano Giorgilli; his wife, Ornella Giorgilli; and a journalist from Italy, as well, who’s here with them, Iolanda Russo, from ExtraTV. Welcome to the Legislature of the province of Ontario.

Mr. Brian Saunderson: It’s my great pleasure this morning to rise to introduce to the House a great Olympian from Canada. He competed at three Olympics, he was a member of the IOC, he was the president of the World Sailing Federation, and he’s a member of the Canadian Olympic Hall of Fame. He’s also known as the “Pope of Sailing,” Paul Henderson.

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: Good morning, Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity. I’d like to welcome visitors to our House: the executive director from Pride Toronto, Kojo Modeste, as well as the co-chairs of Pride Toronto, leZlie lee kam and Grant Gonzales. And to the entire board and the set of volunteers and staff, it’s wonderful to have you here.

Mrs. Robin Martin: I just noticed and I wanted to welcome my very good friend Clare Michaels to the Legislature this morning.

MPP Jill Andrew: Good morning, Speaker. I would like to welcome my mother who is joining us this morning, Josephine Andrew. I’m really glad that she’s here and that she’s still with us.

I’d also like to take an opportunity to welcome leZlie lee kam, one of our wonderful St. Paul’s constituents and community members who is beloved, and also everyone from Pride Toronto. Thank you for being a second home away from home for so many folks.

Hon. Michael Parsa: I’d like to welcome my good friend Ted Leider. Among other great work that he does, he also co-founded the Shining Through Centre for children with autism. Thank you very much for being here and for the great work you do, and welcome.

Mr. Wayne Gates: I’d like to welcome Tim Jennings from the Shaw Theatre. I’m looking forward to the reception tonight and our meeting later today. Welcome to Queen’s Park, my friend.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: I want to welcome a very good friend of mine and many other MPPs, Ish Van Der Rassel. He serves on many boards and commissions in North Bay.

Mr. Matthew Rae: I would like to introduce Peter and Beverley Maranger, great community leaders from my riding of Perth–Wellington. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Question Period

Government accountability

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: A question to the Premier: Environmental advocacy groups have joined our efforts to uncover information about the backroom deals that have been directing the government’s policies. Environmental Defence and Ecojustice filed a freedom-of-information request late last year to “find out what kind of influence developers had on the Ontario cabinet and Premier in its greenbelt decision.”

This government unlawfully ignored this request, so the Information and Privacy Commissioner ordered the government to comply with the law. But the government ignored this order again. Now, Environmental Defence and Ecojustice are suing to enforce this order.

Why is the government breaking the law to avoid disclosing these requested records?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: In fact, the department is seized with a number of freedom-of-information requests. We’re compiling those and will be prepared to provide them as soon as the department has completed its work.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to caution the members on the use of their language.

The supplementary question.

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Back to the Premier: We still don’t have the full story on how the government selected lands for removal from the greenbelt. The freedom-of-information requests submitted by Environmental Defence and Ecojustice might fill in some of the remaining gaps.

But this Premier is ignoring freedom-of-information law and the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s orders. He is wasting more public money fighting in court to keep this information a secret. What is the Premier trying to hide here?

Hon. Paul Calandra: As I just said, Mr. Speaker, just the opposite: The department is compiling information with respect to a number of freedom-of-information requests and once they’ve completed the work, they will provide the information through to the IPC.

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

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: The Information and Privacy Commissioner, again, had issued multiple orders this year about the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing refusing to comply with the freedom-of-information laws, including ones related to decisions by the ministry that enriched favoured speculators, including changes to the greenbelt and the forced expansion of the urban boundaries. On October 13, the IPC ordered the ministry to recover records that may have been deleted or destroyed in relation to one of these requests.

Again, Speaker, will the Premier release all records on the greenbelt grab, or do we have to wait until they come out in the RCMP investigation?

Hon. Paul Calandra: As I’ve said twice and I will repeat a third time for the member, we are seized with a number of freedom-of-information requests—the department is. We are compiling the requests for information and when that is completed, we will transition that information through to the IPC for release.

Government accountability

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Speaker, my question is, again, to the Premier and I hope he’ll take this opportunity to answer.

For weeks now, we’ve been asking questions of this government on what exactly happened over the three days in September when this government did a 180 on their greenbelt policy, from a rough policy framework on the greenbelt to specific properties that they identified for removal. The Premier told the Integrity Commissioner he did not recall the meeting.

I want to give the Premier one more opportunity to take some responsibility here: Did the Premier have a meeting to discuss the greenbelt on September 15, 2022?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: Speaker, as I’ve said on a number of occasions in this House, we made a public policy decision that we thought would be in the best interest of the people of the province of Ontario. Mainly, it was guided by the desire to build 1.5 million homes across the province of Ontario as quickly as possible, recognizing the fact that there are people in this province who feel that they may never have the opportunity to own their first home or to rent a place.

We also said that decisions on the greenbelt were not ones that were supported by the people of the province of Ontario and that is why the Premier took the step that he did in September to announce that we would be reverting back to the previous policy and that all lands taken out of the greenbelt would be restored.

I have a bill in front of this House, Mr. Speaker, that will soon come again before this House, which transitions those lands back into the greenbelt, which adds thousands of additional acres to the greenbelt, but goes a little step further—in fact, a big step further, Mr. Speaker—by codifying the boundaries of the greenbelt in legislation.

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

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Speaker, I’m going to go through a timeline here because it’s important.

Day 1: a dinner with developers where greenbelt packages were exchanged with the minister’s chief of staff.

Day 2: an alleged meeting with the Premier, his chief of staff, Mr. Amato and Minister Clark, following which Mr. Amato said the Premier and his chief of staff were “very serious” about greenbelt swaps.

Day 3: Mr. Amato informs the ministry that they will be going forward with site-specific removals and identifies three properties, accounting for 91% of the land this government attempted to remove from the greenbelt. Two of them were provided at the dinner just days earlier.

Speaker, back to the Premier: Did the Premier attend the meeting on the greenbelt on September 15, 2022?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Speaker, I trust what the Integrity Commissioner wrote when he highlighted the fact that the Premier had no involvement in this particular public policy decision that wasn’t supported by the people of the province of Ontario. We’ve been very clear on that.

But make no mistake about it. We want to build 1.5 million homes across the province of Ontario. We think it is a priority. That is why, since 2018, we have introduced a number of bills, in fact, to move us along on that, whether it’s transit-oriented communities, whether it’s building our transit system faster so that we can get homes around that.

The reality is, we want to build more homes because it is inappropriate that a full generation of Ontarians should feel that they can’t afford a home; that a generation of Ontarians should think that they are going to spend the rest of their lives in their parents’ basements. I’ll let them argue why they think that is proper. We’re going to double down, Mr. Speaker. We’re going to do everything that we can to remove obstacles, to put more money back in the pockets of hard-working Ontarians and to ensure the dream of home ownership is available to everyone.

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

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Well, Speaker, I think a non-answer is an answer in a way.

When we asked this question in committee, the government House leader recommended that we FOI that information, so we took his advice. Meegwetch for that. Thank you for that. In fact, the Premier’s calendar has a meeting on September 15, 2022, at 1 p.m. with former Minister Clark, presumably his chief of staff and Jamie Wallace.

What direction did the Premier give his minister and staff regarding the greenbelt?

Hon. Paul Calandra: I don’t even know where to begin with that. Shocking—a Premier would speak with a cabinet minister on policy issues.

The overriding policy of this government since day one has been to build more homes across the province of Ontario. Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? Because under the policies—in fact, I wish that the previous Premier, the Liberal Premier, didn’t speak as often with the NDP, because had they not have spoken as often, then we might have had more shovels in the ground.

But since day one, we have been focused on building more homes, removing obstacles, building more transit and transportation, improving our school system, building more long-term care. So when the Premier speaks to his cabinet and his caucus colleagues across the province of Ontario, it is about moving the province forward.

The NDP have figured out how to do an FOI. Congratulations to you. Good job.

Government accountability

Mr. Jeff Burch: Speaker, through you to the Premier: Last year, the city of Hamilton proposed an official plan that would focus development within its urban boundaries, growing up instead of out. But the former Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing ignored the people of Hamilton, and on the same day he announced the greenbelt grab, he also announced a massive expansion of Hamilton’s urban boundaries. The first developers to take advantage included those we know now received preferential treatment with the greenbelt grab.

This morning, the minister announced a sudden reversal of that decision. Did the former minister give preferential treatment to favoured insiders when he approved Hamilton’s urban boundary expansion, yes or no?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: When I was appointed to the job, I wanted to ensure that I reviewed everything that had been done, with the focus of ensuring the utmost in accountability. When I reviewed the urban boundary expansions in the official plans that had been previously approved, I wasn’t satisfied that it met the test of accountability that I think brings public trust along with it.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I am completely focused—as are my municipal partners and as are home builders—in ensuring that we reach that 1.5-million target for the people of the province of Ontario. We’re making a decision to work more closely with our partners. I have to give a lot of credit to Mayor Sutcliffe; when I went to speak with him, he said, “Look, work with us. Start a new relationship with us, because we’re on the same page. We want to build more homes, and we can do this with you.” I thank Mayor Sutcliffe for his work.

That is why we will reverse some of those decisions, but—make no mistake—we’re going to move forward and we’re going to get the job done.

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

Mr. Jeff Burch: Through you, again, to the Premier, Speaker: An internal ministry document submitted in court and obtained by the Narwhal and the Hamilton Spectator shows that the former minister had no legitimate basis for expanding Hamilton’s urban boundaries the way he did. However, the former minister’s decision enriched favoured speculators, just as his greenbelt decision did. Despite this morning’s announcement, the people of Ontario still have questions.

To the Premier: Will this government give us some answers, or should the RCMP be investigating Hamilton’s urban boundary expansions, as well?

Hon. Paul Calandra: The answer is this, Mr. Speaker: We want to work more closely and better with our municipal partners so that we can do the thing that matters most for the people of the province of Ontario, and that is build more homes so that everybody can have the dream of homeownership. I’m not prepared as Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to live by decisions that won’t allow us to meet that goal for the next generation.

I worked very closely with my municipal partners at this point, and they have said, “Look, give us the opportunity to suggest things that allow us to meet that goal.” So that is why we are accepting those municipal official plans as submitted and that, over the next 45 days, we will take additional recommendations from our municipal partners in these areas so that they can identify areas where we could actually build even more housing. But we’ll be guided by the requests from our municipal partners on this. I’m very excited by the opportunity to work more closely with them, with homebuilders and with the broader community to ensure that we achieve this goal.

Transportation infrastructure

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Every day, thousands of people use Highway 401 to travel across the GTA and beyond. I hear from the people and businesses in my riding of Mississauga–Erin Mills that they are tired of being stuck in traffic. They are frustrated with endless gridlock that is causing delays and disruptions that negatively impact their productivity and quality of life. That’s why our government must urgently invest in new road infrastructure that will help keep goods and people moving.

Speaker, can the minister please provide an update on how our government is expanding the highway network in Mississauga?

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: Thank you to the member from Mississauga–Erin Mills for his tireless advocacy for the people of Mississauga. After decades of inaction, under the leadership of Premier Ford we’re finally building the infrastructure that we need for our future. We’re building new highways, roads, bridges across the entire province, including the great city of Mississauga. In our 2023 budget, we announced that our government is committing to $27.9 billion over the next 10 years to connect communities, fight gridlock and keep goods moving.

I am pleased to share that our government has completed construction on the widening of Highway 401 between Mississauga and Milton. This provides an additional 18 kilometres of new lanes. Drivers will spend less time in traffic and more time with family. Speaker, we’re building Ontario for generations to come.

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

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: Thank you to the minister. Widening Highway 401 is an excellent step forward in our government’s plan to build a stronger Ontario. Our province needs more transportation infrastructure to help support our growing population, connect communities and improve economic productivity. Unfortunately, these facts are something that the NDP and Liberals don’t seem to understand. They say no to building vital transportation projects that will help to reduce gridlock and improve our quality of life. Mr. Speaker, Ontarians deserve better from their elected officials.

Can the minister please explain how investments by our government into roads and highways will help to build up Ontario?

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: Gridlock has a real cost. When our trucks are stuck in traffic, it only makes the cost of goods more expensive. Gridlock already costs the economy $11 billion per year, and it will only get worse if we don’t build more. That’s why, unlike the Liberals and the NDP, we won’t sit by as gridlock gets worse. In the last election, the people of Ontario voted overwhelmingly for our government to continue building highways. We’re not afraid to do the right thing. That’s why we’re committed to investing in Highway 413 and building the Bradford Bypass. We’re going to keep our economy moving and build the infrastructure we need to support Ontario’s growing population.

Home and community care

MPP Lise Vaugeois: My question is to the Premier. I am very concerned about this government’s plan to further privatize home and community care services. In Thunder Bay and across the province we have seen the devastating consequences of turning over critical services to private corporations: missed appointments, staffing shortages and, ultimately, worse outcomes for Ontarians.

To the Premier: Will you ensure there is publicly available home and community care for all Ontarians?

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

Hon. Sylvia Jones: What our government will ensure is an expansion of home and community care with a billion-dollar investment. We are stabilizing home and community care because we understand how critically important it is for people to be able to access care close to home and, yes, sometimes in home. That investment of a billion dollars is going to ensure that we have a stabilized home and community care system that includes lots of partners, including organizations like Meals on Wheels, to make sure that we are able to support and provide care for people close to home and in home.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

MPP Lise Vaugeois: When private, for-profit companies are involved in essential services, they don’t suddenly change their business models. Up to 30% of every taxpayer dollar that could be going into care is instead going into shareholder profits.

To the Premier: Will you listen to home and community care workers and clients and stop the privatization of essential services for seniors and people with disabilities?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: We have listened, and we will continue to listen. This is something that the home and community care system has been asking for, for years. We are finally acting to make sure that no matter where you live in the province of Ontario, there is going to be a consistent approach, a consistent opportunity for individuals to be able to be served in community. What does that mean? It means that Mrs. Brown, when she is recovering from hospital, can go home, get the physio support she needs in home, get the support she needs to be able to continue on her treatment path and do it in a safe way—exactly what they want.

We need people to be able to have those treatment options in home, in community. Individuals want that opportunity to be able to be with their loved ones in community. A billion-dollar investment means we can action that, something that the system has been asking for, for literally decades.

Labour dispute

Mr. Will Bouma: My question is for the Minister of Education. Speaker, parents in Ontario need certainty. They need certainty that their children will be in school learning the foundations of reading, writing and math, uninterrupted by the threat of strikes. I, like many parents, was disappointed to hear that some teacher unions have rejected our plan to keep students in schools by way of interest arbitration. Instead, some teachers’ unions have chosen a strike mandate that has left Ontario parents in a state of uncertainty and threatens their children with disruptions to their education.

Speaker, can the minister please explain how our government is standing up for our students and working to keep our students in class?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: I want to thank the member for Brantford–Brant for his question, his leadership, his commitment to keeping kids in class in this province. It’s disheartening that some of the unions have rejected this opportunity, a deal that ensures stability for their members and for all kids. A Leger poll came out last week; when seven in 10 Ontarians agree with binding arbitration but not one New Democrat has the courage to urge the unions to sign this deal and get on with it so we can keep kids in class.

This government and our Premier are unequivocally clear on our mandate: keep kids in class; back to basics in classroom; stand up for the rights of children to learn. Mr. Speaker, 400,000 high school students now have that stability because we signed a deal with OSSTF. We’re going to keep working hard. We’re going to urge the unions to get to the table, get a deal, provide predictability and help ensure kids stay in class in this province.

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

Mr. Will Bouma: Thank you, Minister, for your response. All children are best served by remaining in their classrooms, learning the knowledge and skills that they need to succeed. Speaker, the people of Ontario clearly expect that our students must continue their school year without disruption. Nothing should matter more than students being in class and benefiting from uninterrupted learning over the next years, with an enhanced focus on reading, writing and math. Students across our province deserve to complete their school year uninterrupted, especially after the last few years of uncertainty.

Speaker, can the minister please explain how our government is ensuring that students have the support they need for a school year free from any disruption?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: It is important that we get back to basics in Ontario’s schools. It’s important these kids stay in school as a basic principle, which clearly only Progressive Conservative accept.

Mr. Speaker, when we brought forth a budget that increased funding for this school year by $670 million, New Democrats and Liberals opposed it. When we increased math supports and literacy supports and hired 2,000 teachers, New Democrats and Liberals opposed it. When we increased mental health funding by 550%, New Democrats and Liberals opposed it. They have opposed progress in this province when it comes to enriching the lives of students, of ensuring accountability on school boards. Parents know they can depend on this Premier to stand up for children, for better quality education and for the right to learn in this province.

Ontario Place

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: My question is to the Premier. People across Ontario are being asked to pay $650 million to subsidize a private luxury spa at Ontario Place. There are questions about the fairness and integrity of the procurement that gave Therme control of public land for 95 years. These questions remain unanswered.

The Ontario Place call for development said very clearly that bidders needed to work with the existing parking and that government would not pay for additional facilities. Why was Therme preferentially offered a publicly funded parking garage when other bidders were specifically told to use existing parking?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply, the Minister of Infrastructure.

Hon. Kinga Surma: Honestly, I cannot believe that I’m answering this question again. Every single tourist destination has parking. Why? To make it as accessible for people as possible. What a shocking circumstance that we’re creating a world-class destination with attractions and things for families to do, and government considers parking; of course, government would consider parking. Every single other tourist attraction offers parking so that the mom from Scarborough with three kids can get down and enjoy Ontario Place.

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

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: Back to the Premier. We know this government had been secretly planning a publicly funded parking garage for Therme nearly two years before the public found out. The call for development said very clearly that bids requiring additional publicly funded facilities would not be considered. If Therme’s bid required a government-funded parking garage, it should have been rejected. Last week, we asked whether Therme’s bid required a publicly funded parking garage, and the minister refused to answer.

So I’ll ask again: Did Therme’s bid require a publicly-funded parking garage, yes or no?

Hon. Kinga Surma: I’m more than happy to speak about how Therme also was a leading contender in a procurement that took place in 2018 when we weren’t even government. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member that’s opposite to me would like to speak about that in this House.

What we hope to achieve here, of course, is to create a wonderful site that families can enjoy, with a brand new science centre, with more exhibition space, with a wellness and water park facility, with 50 acres of public grounds space, and a brand new Budweiser Stage. If that doesn’t require parking, honest to God, what does?

Government accountability

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for the Premier.

Speaker, does the Premier believe that Ontario taxpayers should pay for his lawyer in the RCMP’s criminal investigation of the $8.3-billion deal? Yes or no?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, of course we’ll follow all government guidelines when it comes to that, and the member knows that. I will actually probably seek advice from the member since the Premier he worked for was under investigation for the balance of his time in office.

Despite the musings of the member from Ottawa and the opposition, we’re going to continue to focus on what matters to the people of the province of Ontario, and that is building more homes for people; that is putting more money back in their pocket; that is reversing some of the difficult decisions that have been foisted on Ontarians by his cousins in Ottawa, which has led to higher taxes, which has led to a carbon tax, which ultimately has led to high inflation and out-of-control interest rates.

I note that the Premier, again, has led the nation today, calling on the Bank of Canada—by writing to the Premier say, “Keep interest rates down.”

That is what we’re focused on. We will continue to get the job done, because 700,000 people who have the dignity of a job today, who didn’t when they were in office, are depending on us to do even more, and we will.

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

Mr. John Fraser: I thought it was a fairly simple question and simple answer, but apparently not.

Speaker, I saw the government’s response that it’s a long-standing practice to cover legal fees for politicians and political staff. Well, that might be the case in civil litigation, but the difference about this is, this is a criminal investigation—a criminal investigation by the RCMP; a criminal investigation into this government’s attempt to give an $8.3-billion advantage to wealthy, well-connected insiders and, by his own admission, the Premier’s friends and fundraisers.

The legal costs for politicians and staff caught up in the RCMP’s criminal investigation of the $8.3-billion backroom deal should be paid for by the individual or the Ontario PC Party. Does the Premier agree? Yes or no?

Hon. Paul Calandra: I’ve already answered the question.

At the same time, we’re going to continue to do what is important to the people of the province of Ontario, and focus on things that, really, as a result of the inability of the opposition, the Liberals in particular, over 15 years—to accomplish anything. It’s hard to imagine, but the Liberals left us the most indebted, most highly regulated, highest-taxed jurisdiction literally in Canada, if not the world. And what do we have to show for it? Literally nothing. They weren’t able to get transit built, so we had to do it. Our hospitals were left crumbling, so we’re fixing them.

They built no long-term-care homes, so we’re building them. Our students were left at a disadvantage in comparison to every other jurisdiction, and now finally we’re starting to see, because of the work of this minister, improvements in our education system.

We’ve reduced red tape to the tune of billions of dollars—$8 billion back into the pockets of our small, medium and large job creators. And 700,000 people have a—

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

Skilled trades

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development.

The skilled trades are important to Ontario’s economy and our everyday lives. Skilled trades workers are the ones who build our homes, keep the lights on and help to move our province forward.

The demand for skilled tradespeople continues to grow. That’s why our government must continue to demonstrate leadership in attracting more people towards these fulfilling and good-paying careers. The reality is that we need to be doing more to help get people into the skilled trades. We need to have the best workforce in the world in order to keep attracting investments to build a stronger Ontario.

Through you, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister please explain what actions our government is taking to support Ontarians to enter the skilled trades sector?

Hon. David Piccini: Thank you very much to that member for that important question. We’re taking the challenge of unlocking the lost potential under the previous Liberal-NDP coalition of actually getting people into the trades, supporting—

Interjections.

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, they’re laughing, but wait till I get to the stats.

Getting people into the skilled trades, the 300,000 jobs that go unfilled every year—that’s why we created Skilled Trades Ontario, a new crown agency which has a mandate to streamline registration and certification in Ontario’s 144 skilled trades, breaking down the stigma and getting more people in. That’s just one of the many changes we’ve taken on as a government.

The stats speak for themselves: We’ve seen a 25% increase in apprenticeship registration this year over last and a 30% increase in women in the skilled trades—and wait till we get into the specifics in the supplementary, Speaker.

It’s working to build a stronger Ontario. We need the men and women in the trades to get the job done, and we’re doing just that.

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

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: I’m pleased to hear that our government is taking the necessary steps to build up our skilled trades system. Our province is experiencing a generational labour shortage. It is a fact that nearly 300,000 jobs are going unfilled across our province, including in my riding of Carleton. By 2025, one in five job openings in Ontario will be in the skilled trades industry alone. That’s why our government must continue demonstrating leadership and implement an all-of-government approach to address this ongoing labour shortage.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, can the minister please elaborate on how our government is attracting more Ontarians into careers in the skilled trades?

Hon. David Piccini: That member is right; I’m glad she highlighted the labour shortage. When the previous government failed to build schools—in fact, they closed them in rural Ontario—when they failed to build public transit and failed to build hospitals, it wasn’t just that they failed to make those commitments; they did nothing to address the labour shortages that we’ll need to actually build them. But thanks to the leadership of this Premier, we’re getting the job done: building hospitals, building schools, building public transit.

And we recognize the need for the talent pipeline to ensure young men and women enter the trades. That’s why we’ve made that investment in Skilled Trades Ontario.

We’re also investing $224 million to help through the Skills Development Fund Capital Stream. That’s helping build training centres for apprentices and tradespeople through that fund. This is just one part of our $1.5-billion commitment to the skilled trades to addressing the backlog, the neglect from the previous Liberal government, so that people can find a job in the skilled trades. Because we know that when you have a job in the trades, you’ve got a career for life.

Hospital services

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: My question is to the Premier. Today, I want to represent the voices of families in my riding. The Ferris family from Constance Lake First Nation had to go through a preventable tragedy overlooked by this government. On July 26, their family member passed in awful circumstances when an Ornge transfer failed to be efficient enough to bring Mrs. Ferris to the hospital to get vital treatment. Ornge protocol hasn’t been upgraded for decades, and there is a well-documented shortage of staffing.

My question: Considering Ornge performs approximately 20,000 air ambulance service or medical flights per year and is fully part of the Ontario health care system, will it take another coroner’s report to increase government oversight in Ornge operations?

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

Hon. Sylvia Jones: The member opposite would know that I cannot speak to individual circumstances without the family’s approval; it would not be appropriate. Having said that, the investments that we are making with and for Ornge have meant that a world-class service that we should be incredibly proud of here in Ontario—the ability for Ornge to be able to move around pediatric patients, adults and individuals who have to get out of remote and rural areas and access our world-class health care have the support of our government to do that work.

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

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: People are dying. People are not getting the service up north. You need to get up north and look at what’s happening.

On September 28, William Louttit received a diagnosis in Kingston and decided that he wanted to return home to Moose Factory as soon as possible after having been flown by Ornge. On October 3, Ornge informed him he would be transported home but was forced to stop in Moosonee.

Two days later, he was told by Ornge, upon arrival, that his transport would not occur before 7 p.m. due to staffing issues with the local Ornge base. William Louttit then had to, even with severe mobility issues, take a boat taxi himself from Moosonee to Moose Factory without Ornge.

Ma question, again to the Premier: Will it take another coroner’s report to increase government oversight over Ornge operations and protocols before more preventable tragedies continue to happen?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: While the member opposite will insert himself into clinical decisions, I will not. Having said that, I have and often communicate with and meet with air Ornge paramedics, who are truly world-class.

One of the reasons that we have invested in a Learn and Stay program that includes paramedics in northern Ontario is exactly because we have a plan, and it is working. We now have more paramedics being trained in northern Ontario who will then, in exchange for tuition and books being covered by the province of Ontario, practise in those areas that need a higher level of service.

We will make the investments. The member opposite and their party will continue to vote against those investments, but we’re getting the job done.

Skilled trades

Ms. Laura Smith: My question is for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Ontario is facing a generational labour shortage, particularly in the skilled trades. This is having a profound effect and impact on our economy as this is resulting in a supply chain challenge and higher prices for services.

In order for Ontario to remain a world-class leader, our government must ensure that we are making the right investments when it comes to post-secondary education. By strengthening our skilled trades and apprenticeship education systems, we can provide all Ontarians with the tools they will need in order to be prepared for the jobs of tomorrow.

Speaker, can the minister please explain what our government is doing to expand post-secondary educational opportunities in the skilled trades sector?

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Thank you to the member for asking such an important question. Our government recognizes that addressing labour shortages head-on starts with post-secondary education. That is why we continue to support and promote our Ontario colleges skilled trades and apprenticeship programs across the province.

To further enhance opportunities for college students to enter the workforce with job-ready skills, our government expanded the degrees that colleges can offer to now include new three-year degrees and more four-year degrees. Our government also invested over $60 million in funding to support Ontario’s first micro-credentials strategy and made them OSAP eligible, to help workers from all backgrounds upgrade their skills. All these measures were unsupported by the Liberals and NDP.

As Ontario faces a growing labour shortage in the skilled trades, we are making the necessary adjustments for students to enter skilled trades programs because, Speaker, when you have a job in a trade, you have a job for life.

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

Ms. Laura Smith: Thank you for the minister’s response, and for her dedicated work and advocacy for a positive university and college environment.

Mr. Will Bouma: Hear, hear.

Ms. Laura Smith: Yes. I am encouraged by the actions of our government and what we have done to help more young people start careers in the skilled trades.

That said, Speaker, we must recognize that opportunities to pursue a career in this field have not always been equal. In 2021, women represented less than 4% of the workers in automotive and construction skilled trades. This has to change. In order for our government to address the ongoing labour shortages in Ontario, we must create better working conditions for women to enter and succeed in the trades.

Speaker, can the minister please explain how our government is empowering educational institutions to help more women pursue rewarding careers in the skilled trades?

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Our government recognizes the vital role that women have in building a stronger Ontario. When we have more women in the skilled trades, we are not just strengthening the success of businesses, but also empowering women while bolstering economic prosperity in Ontario.

Speaker, that’s why events like Jill of All Trades, hosted at Centennial College, are so important. I am excited to be attending this event tomorrow for the second year in a row with my colleagues. These events provide opportunities for high school girls to experience rewarding career options in the trades and teaches them that the skilled trades are a promising option for them.

Speaker, it’s projected that one in five new job openings in Toronto is likely to be the skilled trades sector by 2025. That is why I am proud that our government is giving women and all students the flexible access they need to pursue innovative training that leads to rewarding careers.

Pride Toronto / Public safety

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: Pride Toronto released their 2023 economic impact report this morning. I had the pleasure of putting a copy on every member’s desk, at their request. Pride Toronto has generated $600 million in economic activity for Ontario, creating almost 7,000 jobs—very impressive. But because of the rise of hate incidents, insurance and security costs have now doubled. This government has cut Pride Toronto’s funding, and it is now sitting at 50% less than where it was in 2019. This is happening at a time as we’re entering into a recession. During a time Ontarians are now seeing rising hate everywhere, Pride festivals matter more than ever before.

I want to thank the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport for recently meeting Pride Toronto, but I understand that no commitments were made regarding funding.

The Premier is here today. I’d like to ask the Premier directly: Will his government commit to increase permanent, sustainable for Pride festivals across Ontario?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Brampton North and parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Graham McGregor: I want to thank the member for the question. As we know, Ontario’s strength is in our diversity and inclusivity. We’re home to a strong and vibrant LGBT+ community whose experiences and contributions have and continue to make our province a stronger and better place.

Our government believes that all Ontarians should be able to fully and freely express who they are and love whoever they want. As one of the world’s largest Pride festivals, the government of Ontario is proud to support Pride Toronto each year since 2018. We’ve provided close to $1.5 million in grants to support the work they do to celebrate Toronto’s LGBT+ community.

But I would ask the member that when we support the LGBT+ community we also support all of the members, including police officers who are members of the community as well. I hope that the member will speak to Pride Toronto and involve police officers in next year’s Toronto Pride Parade.

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

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: Under this government, we’ve seen a chronic underfunding of Pride festivals. This has now become an Ontario-wide problem. Grey Bruce Pride informs me that their local police service recently told them—and it’s shocking—that they cannot guarantee their safety, despite the fact that they’ve seen an increase of threats and violent protests.

So, speaking about safety, Speaker, I’m very interested in knowing why this government has not been able to develop an anti-2SLGBTQ-hate-crime strategy thus far. Windows are being broken, hateful graffiti sprayed on schools, Pride flags torn down and burned. Queer and trans families are being threatened and bullied, and yet we are seeing no action from this government.

Speaker, how much longer do two-spirited, queer and trans Ontarians have to wait before their safety matters to this government?

Mr. Graham McGregor: I’ll mention as well that the minister has met with Pride Toronto several times and, Speaker, our government respects and supports members of Ontario’s LGBT+ community. We have worked closely, the minister and myself, with community organizations. Actually, these discussions that we’ve had helped inspire the redesigned Anti-Hate Security and Prevention Grant, which includes now Pride and community and other LGBT+ organizations.

I’ll note that that’s a $25.5-million investment that the member voted against. And when we talk about what that means, colleagues—when an LGBT+ organization like OUTLoud North Bay, who is here with us today, invests in better windows or security cameras, that member voted against it. When we invest in measures to keep members of the LGBT+ community safe in Toronto or Brampton or other parts of Ontario, that member voted against it. So I think the member should look a little closer to home and stand up for the LGBT+ community and all communities that are victims of hate crimes.

Seniors

We often hear the minister speak about the importance of connecting seniors to programs right in their communities, like mine, so that they can remain independent and active. Events such as these are vital in supporting the health and well-being of our seniors. This is why our government must remain focused on advocating for seniors.

Speaker, can the minister please explain how our government is raising awareness about programs and services that are available to seniors in Ontario?

Hon. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: Thank you for that excellent question. The member for Windsor–Tecumseh is doing a marvelous job advocating for not only the seniors but all the residents in his riding.

These fairs are incredible ways for our government to partner with the Older Adults Centres’ Association of Ontario. The OACAO brings together these local seniors’ events. These seniors fairs are ways for our seniors to come together to learn about the programs and services that are available close to home. I’ve been to a number of these fairs and seniors are so happy to be with other seniors.

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

Mr. Andrew Dowie: Thank you to the minister for his response. It’s great to see how Seniors Active Living Fairs are helping Ontario’s seniors to feel more connected to their communities.

The risk of social isolation for seniors is truly a reality. Research studies have documented the detrimental effects that social isolation can have on the physical and mental health of seniors. With the winter months approaching, it’s even more important for seniors to have access to activities and programs where they can remain healthy, active and socially connected.

Speaker, can the minister please explain how our government is supporting the quality of life for seniors in Ontario?

Hon. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: Thank you again for that very important question. Speaker, not only does the OACAO provide seniors fairs, they also have 299 Seniors Active Living Centres, funded in partnership with our government. These centres are a great way for seniors to stay fit, active and healthy during colder months. With a wide variety of activities, from mah-jong, arts and crafts to pickleball and fitness classes, they have it all.

I encourage all seniors to visit a centre this winter and enjoy some fun activities with your friends.

Skilled trades

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Premier. Speaker, 60 students are about to graduate from Conestoga College in Kitchener, ready to become licensed electricians. But they can’t start—

Interjections.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Yes, but—wait for it—they can’t start working because of long delays writing their C of Q exams through the Ministry of Labour. In London, I heard from a carpenter who has an employer but is facing up to seven years to get Red Seal certification because he can’t get into the classroom.

Speaker, Ontario needs skilled trade workers if we are to get desperately needed housing built in this province. What—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for London West has the floor and I need to be able to hear her question. She’s not that far away from me. Thank you.

I apologize to the member for London West. She has the floor. Start the clock.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Why did this government do such little preparation to make sure that skilled trades workers in Kitchener and London and across this province can get certified?

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

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, there you have it. For the first time since I was elected in 2018, I heard it. The NDP finally recognize what we’ve known since 2018: We need men and women in the skilled trades in Ontario. I thank that member for the question and I will be happy to connect with that member off-l