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

October 7, 2021

42nd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2021-Oct-07 vol. A (PDF)

L004A - Thu 7 Oct 2021 / Jeu 7 oct 2021

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 7 October 2021 Jeudi 7 octobre 2021

Orders of the Day

York Region Wastewater Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 sur les eaux usées dans la région de York

Members’ Statements

Indigenous languages

Police service dogs

Gun violence

South Common Community Centre

Autism treatment

Land use planning

Prescription drugs

School safety

Cyprus Independence Day

Hospital funding

COVID-19 deaths

Question Period

Personal support workers

Autism treatment

Gasoline prices

Workplace safety

COVID-19 immunization

COVID-19 immunization

Economic development

Optometry services

Affaires francophones / Francophone affairs

Tourism

COVID-19 immunization

Fiscal accountability

Small business

COVID-19 immunization

COVID-19 response

Business of the House

Notice of dissatisfaction

Introduction of Bills

Autism Awareness Day Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 sur la Journée de sensibilisation à l’autisme

Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccinations in the Education and Healthcare Sectors Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 sur la vaccination obligatoire contre la COVID-19 dans le secteur de l’éducation et celui des soins de santé

Supporting People and Businesses Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 visant à soutenir la population et les entreprises

Time to Care Act (Long-Term Care Homes Amendment, Minimum Standard of Daily Care), 2021 / Loi de 2021 sur le temps alloué aux soins (modifiant la

Loi sur les foyers de soins de longue durée et prévoyant une norme minimale en matière de soins quotidiens)

Connecting Care Amendment Act (Patient Bill of Rights), 2021 / Loi de 2021 modifiant la Loi pour des soins interconnectés (Déclaration des droits des patients)

WSIB Coverage for Workers in Residential Care Facilities and Group Homes Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 sur la protection à accorder aux travailleurs dans les établissements de soins en résidence et les foyers de groupe par la Commission de la sécurité professionnelle et de l’assurance contre les accidents du travail

Petitions

Optometry services

Mental health and addiction services

Optometry services

Optometry services

Optometry services

Optometry services

Optometry services

Optometry services

Optometry services

Optometry services

Optometry services

Correction of record

Orders of the Day

Select Committee on Emergency Management Oversight

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers / Prières.

Orders of the Day

York Region Wastewater Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 sur les eaux usées dans la région de York

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 6, 2021, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 5,

An Act respecting York Region Wastewater / Projet de loi 5, Loi concernant les eaux usées dans la région de York.

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

Mr. Michael Mantha: As usual and always, it’s an honour to take my seat on behalf of the good people of Algoma–Manitoulin to try to relate some of the context of this bill,

An Act respecting York Region Wastewater, Bill 5, to Algoma–Manitoulin. The best way for me to do that is to bring it down to individuals in my riding. That’s where I’m going to start this morning, talking about that. I will come back to the bill, so I’m asking the Chair for a little bit of indulgence, because these individuals have been outspoken about the importance of water for a very long time. Their initiatives, as far as what they’re trying to accomplish, are really key and important, so I would ask the Chair for your indulgence.

I want to start by talking about Autumn Peltier. Autumn Peltier is a fabulous, bright water protector who has been recognized not just in Ontario, not just in Canada, but globally. Her knowledge as a young woman—it dumbfounds me. I’m in awe every time I see what she’s accomplished and what she is doing.

I know the government, within the context of this bill and their description, talked a lot about bringing an expert panel group together. I might suggest you reach out to Autumn Peltier, because I think she may have something to offer to your expert panel with regard to what she sees and what she understands and what she believes in, not only for herself presently, but for generations to come. She’s a very bright, articulate young woman, and I would encourage you to reach out to her.

Another couple of ladies that I want to talk about are two ladies who took out to raise awareness of the importance of water—not just water, but water within First Nations communities. Their names are Lue Mahaffey, who’s from Thessalon, and Paige Simon, who is from Sault Ste. Marie. Paige’s grandmother is from Eabametoong First Nation and her grandfather is from Thessalon First Nation. The two canoed from Shingwauk residential school, the site in Sault Ste. Marie, to the Spanish residential schools.

Anyways, we took to the waters, and the waters were very nice—there’s a lesson that I learned in this and I will touch on that at the end of my story, and then I will get back to the bill. So please be patient with me, Speaker.

I took off with them and I was kind of being the guy in the back, holding on, making sure everybody was progressing safely and so on. Paige and Lue were in their canoe—a beautiful canoe, an “Every Child Matters”-painted orange canoe. They were in the front and just leading everybody onward. We got into some rough waters and, lo and behold, I found out that my kayak wasn’t really intended for rough waters; it was more intended for streams and calm waters. Well, I flipped, not just once, not twice, not three times, not four times, but five times.

Now, during the times that I had flipped, there were individuals who came over and said, “Hey, Mike, do you need some help?” “Oh, no, no, I don’t need help. I’ve got this.” But it was probably the third or fourth time when I got to a different area where the waters were pretty rough and they were pushing me against some rocks that I had to walk my kayak along the shores in order to get to a safe area to actually, first, empty my kayak, sit into it and then take off again. While I was walking, I hit my shins on every stone under the water that I couldn’t see.

So anyways, there are a few things that I learned there, Speaker.

Knowing that these girls were doing this for the residential school survivors and the children who had been found in the unmarked graves, it made me think of a few things while I was there in my pain, because while I was walking on shore, believe it or not, I was a little sketchy and scared myself, although I put on a brave face and said, “No, I don’t need help.” I thought a lot afterwards about what lesson it was that the Creator was trying to tell me, because he obviously made this opportunity available for me to go out there. What he was trying to tell me is a lesson in humility.

Although I’m a big, burly boy and think I can take care of everything, the next time somebody offers me help, I’ll accept it. And the next time that I think about the children who were running away from residential schools, who were swimming away or who were scared, who were hitting their legs on the sides of islands, who were trying to escape the turmoil that they were in, I’ll remember that. I’ll remember as well how lonely you feel at times, sometimes when you think you’ve got everything under control and think you know where you’re going, but, really, you’re kind of lost. I’ll remember that.

The lesson that I learned that day, I hadn’t shared with anybody until this moment right now. I had told, that morning, Lue and Paige—there were roughly about 20 of us who gathered that were doing the paddle—that every opportunity that I have I jump at when it comes to doing something to raise awareness with First Nations people, because I’m always gifted—and I say “gift” because it’s a lesson that you always learn. Well, my lesson was humility that day, and it’s one that I’m not going to forget anytime soon.

I want to thank Lue and Paige for having invited me and permitting me to join them. Overall, their cause was to raise $75,000. They’re almost there. They’ve reached the $38,000 mark. You can all reach out and buy yourself that T-shirt if you want to help them raise the funds for it.

Thank you, Speaker, for giving me a little bit of latitude to talk about that. It’s something that I definitely wanted to raise here in the House, the importance of our waterways.

Now, back to Bill 5. Speaker, it’s always an honour to rise in this House and try to bring things back to Algoma–Manitoulin and how they relate to us. People in Algoma–Manitoulin are asking me, “How is the waste water in York region going to affect us?” Well, where water affects one, it affects all.

The people in my riding have a lot of pride for the pristine bodies of water that we get to enjoy. Whether it’s swimming, fishing, canoeing, kayaking or just sitting on the dock, people in my riding recognize the importance that clean, well-managed waterways play in our everyday lives.

I’m lucky to have had the privilege of meeting with dedicated organizations in my riding who shared their passion for protecting and rehabilitating streams and wetlands. Here’s another suggestion to the government: Although it’s not within the context of this bill, when you’re putting in this expert panel, I would encourage you—and I want to introduce you to this next group. The group in mind that comes to me is Manitoulin Streams. This is a not-for-profit that is committed to restoring streams, enhancing water quality and restoring fisheries on Manitoulin Island.

I often reach out to them for advice on projects or issues that are happening not only on Manitoulin Island, but across the North Shore and across my riding.

In just a decade, Manitoulin Streams has leveraged over $5 million in funding and completed more than 69 major projects across Manitoulin Island. This summer, Manitoulin Streams took

part in the restoration of the Smith Bay Creek, which goes through the heart of Wiikwemkoong Unceded Territory. Part of their work in Smith Bay included restoring stream beds and reducing erosion around critical fish spawning habitat and planting 300 native trees and 300 shrubs, as well as introducing 100 milkweed plants on the river banks.

Manitoulin Streams also does amazing work at engaging local communities in their work. Staff there are present at every community event, ready to share their passion for their work. They take dozens of school groups out every year to show them how they can protect streams and fish habitats. So not only do they do the work, but they promote the work by bringing out the next generation who will actually protect our environment. This is just one example of the thousands of projects that go on on Manitoulin Island every year.

The projects Manitoulin Streams undertakes happen because they are willing to work together in good faith with community members and stakeholders, which is something I would encourage this government to do when they are looking at this particular bill and how they’re proceeding. It’s bringing everybody to the table, not just the stakeholders or partners, but recognizing the true principles of bringing First Nations to the table as an automatic, not as a, “Oh, this is a checkbox.” But you have to do that. It’s a recognition that must be done, not just some, not just select, but all of those that are affected by it.

And that’s what is missing from the government’s approach here in Bill 5. When the environment minister took this project, it included a responsibility to engage the public on what the Upper York Sewage Solutions will mean for the environment. The government using this bill to indemnify themselves from lawsuits in regard to their “representation” or “conduct” on the project doesn’t sit well with groups who were hoping to work together on protecting waterways and the environment. And yes, that is raising eyebrows of people across my riding.

That is not a way to build trust in communities. Decisions like this signal to stakeholders that they may not be given the full story on an issue that is so vitally important to those it affects. The government needs to show to communities that they are going to work out in an open method to address all issues. It is beyond concerning for communities, who have already spent millions of dollars and years waiting for a decision, to have this government giving itself such extraordinary latitude to act without recourse.

Speaker, as I said earlier, projects will only be successful when we engage with each other and build that level of trust and understanding that allows for meaningful conversations.

My colleague, the member from Wiikwemkoong—oh sorry, my colleague the member from Kiiwetinoong, and I wish he was here because he would probably have a chuckle at that, raised the issue of the government upholding their duty to consult with First Nations about this project and any project the government undertakes on traditional territories of a First Nation.

It has already been made abundantly clear by the Chippewas of Georgina Island that they will not and do “not give their free, prior and informed consent to use the lands and resources.” Let me read that again: They will not and do “not give their free, prior and informed consent to use the lands and resources” on their “traditional territory for the purposes of the Upper York Sewage Solutions.”

The leadership of the Chippewas of Georgina Island have expressed clearly that Lake Simcoe is an area of significant spiritual and historical importance. There is a great deal of concern that this project would increase the level of contaminants present in Lake Simcoe, affecting the water quality and the sustainability of fisheries on the lake.

For these reasons and others, the project outlined in Bill 5 has raised major concerns with environmental groups, who have expressed many times that the Upper York Sewage Solutions project poses a threat to the environment. These groups have told the government constantly and clearly that any approach adopted for the treatment and disposal of sewage and waste water must not result in increased nutrient loading in Lake Simcoe or Lake Ontario.

This morning—or yesterday morning, I should say—we heard from the member from Barrie–Innisfil and the member from Kitchener–Conestoga about the importance of the fisheries to this government. Yesterday, my office was informed by commercial fishery licence holders that their quotas for lake whitefish are going to be halved for the north this coming November.

I had the opportunity to speak to the member from Kitchener–Conestoga yesterday and I want to thank him for providing me with some information, because certainly the ministry has not been as forthcoming in putting out that information so that we could start a dialogue and start looking at solutions for some of those licensees in my riding. Also, just to give some type of a response to my staff is really key and important, so I actually want to acknowledge that and thank him for that.

We were also informed by MNR staff that the government would start closing the lake whitefish season in November starting in 2022. When I spoke with these operators, they were dumbfounded. The government had caught them completely off guard, informing them of this change with just over three weeks to make accommodations.

The owners of the licence here in my riding are Purvis Fisheries, which operates off the south shore of Manitoulin Island. They told me they would have to lay off staff to make ends meet because of this decision. They fear that with the increased strain placed on them, they won’t be able to hire those staff back again in the next year.

The fact that such an important economic and cultural pillar of the Lake Huron region doesn’t warrant extensive engagement and consideration is extremely concerning. Commercial licence holders have been trying to meet with the ministry to get a full explanation of this decision, with no result.

I bring this issue forward because within the context of this particular bill—again, we’re talking about waterways and the importance of consulting and bringing individuals together—I repeatedly heard this government talking about this expert panel that is going to be brought together, with no details as far as who that expert panel is going to be, the timelines, or whatever. How I’m relating this to the issues that are going on presently with the fisheries on Manitoulin Island and along the North Shore is exactly this point: The words are coming out of this government, but the details—the meat—is not in the context of this bill.

I want to say clearly to the people of Algoma–Manitoulin, as you’re listening to this debate, you will continually hear this government talking about a select committee, an advisory committee, processes and timelines and investments, but I need to stress to the people of Algoma–Manitoulin that this bill is explained in one sentence, and here it is: “The minister’s decision-making on the Upper York Sewage Solutions undertaking is suspended and all actions by the regional municipality of York related to that undertaking are prohibited.” The bill is comprised of five sections.

There are four sections on page 1, and here—that’s it. There is nothing in here to demonstrate the willingness of this government to come and listen to how the engagement process is going to take place or what scientific evidence they’re going to be bringing to the table and be considering. It’s not in here.

I heard all day yesterday about these select committees, but it’s not in here. They say, “Oh, it’s going to come through regulations.” They’re not in here either, Speaker, so you cannot blame Ontarians at this point in time for having their doubts about the direction this government is going in, because essentially all this bill does is protect the government from any decisions that have happened, could happen or will possibly happen. That’s what Bill 5 does, and that’s all it does.

So when I’m standing here—and again, it is always an honour to take my seat on behalf of the good people of Algoma–Manitoulin, and I try my best to relay the issues as I see them, and how it will have an impact on the good people, I stand here and I try to bring their voices forward. There are a lot of other things that I would like to raise right now, but it would probably be ruled out of order or not within the confines of this bill.

Again, I want to thank the Speaker for giving me the opportunity to talk about Autumn Peltier and to talk about Lue and Paige at the beginning. But I’m asking this government—I’m pleading with you—that when you are debating the bill or you’re bringing that bill forward, it would give you a lot of credibility if you would provide that within the context of the bill, so that people could actually sink their teeth into it. What’s missing from your bill are the details that you claim that this government is doing.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Questions?

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: If you look at the bill, it does have to do with environmental assessments, and as we know—environmental assessment 101—it’s evidence the ministry has to look at or has to review. Now we’re expanding that, to be actually even better, to also consult with First Nations communities, so it does achieve the purpose that the member is speaking about. I know his fellow colleagues have said they’re not supporting this environment bill, but will he support this environment bill?

Mr. Michael Mantha: Speaker, I want to make it very clear: I will support initiatives and legislation that would actually do what it claims to say that they’re going to do. I will work with this government in order to achieve better environmental projects. I will follow the science. I will listen to individuals like Autumn Peltier. I will engage not because they are referred to as “stakeholders” or “people of interest;” I will sit, acknowledge and, as I said, discuss with free and prior consent with First Nations how we proceed with projects such as this one.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Questions?

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Thank you very much to the member from Algoma–Manitoulin. I think you’ve managed to turn kayaking from an individual sport to a spectator sport.

My question this morning: This government keeps presenting or trying to pass this bill off as a bill that’s about the environment, but there’s nothing in there. It doesn’t mention the environment. In fact, it’s probably more about protecting the government than it is about protecting the environment, about protecting Lake Simcoe or Lake Ontario.

So my question to you is, why would people in the province of Ontario believe anything this government says when they’re walking around with a one-page bill, saying it’s going to protect the environment, when there’s absolutely nothing in it? This government has a poor, abysmal track record when it comes to the environment. What would you say to the people in Ontario who are looking for our government to protect the environment, to take climate change seriously, especially the young people today who are so concerned about this?

Mr. Michael Mantha: I want to thank the member from—from—

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas. My God; I heard that said so many times yesterday afternoon. My friend, by the way, I have many nicks on my shins to remember, and I won’t soon forget that kayak trip.

That’s exactly what people are expecting from—whether it’s a Conservative government, an NDP government or other governments, they’re expecting for governments to provide the vision to go forward. They’re providing them to let them know that we will have your back, we will make sure that we have the best scientific evidence, we will make sure to engage with individuals. That’s what people are asking for.

There is so much of a dark cloud over politics as a whole—not just in this province but across this country, and globally as well—and we have to step up. We have to be better. We have to engage. That’s one of the reasons why I decided to step up and become a public servant: to get that explanation and make sure that we can connect with people once again.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Question?

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: I disagree with the opposition colleague here, talking about, “This government’s not looking at anything environmental,” when our government, every step we did, I think we are trying to preserve the environment—not like any other plans which are just, “Pollute as much as you can, but pay us some money.”

I think the approach this government took to protect the environment—and my question for the colleague who did the speech earlier is, after 10 years or more from the time this project was introduced, don’t you think, in 10 years, there are many factors that get changed, and we have the right at least to figure out: Is everything still the same? Better technology, a cost difference, a better solution—any of that? We are not saying that the project is not going; we are saying that we need some time to do the right study.

Mr. Michael Mantha: I want to thank the member for asking the question. Again, I have to go back to the government’s record. When you look at what legislation they have presented inside the House and who it actually benefited, have some of their decisions benefited the environment? Has it benefited developers? Have those actions to benefit the environment gone through expeditiously and quick? Or have we seen more and more evidence of MZOs that are being approved by this government to help developers?

I don’t have to restate that. The province—you at home see the evidence yourselves. I will say to the member that we need to move forward with the best scientific evidence. People in this province deserve a government that will actually do that.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Question?

Mr. Jeff Burch: I thank the member from Algoma–Manitoulin for his presentation. He spoke about the issue of transparency and mentions that there was some difficulty getting information from the ministry. We have a verbal commitment to an expert panel, but there’s nothing in the bill about an expert panel. In his experience, does this bill pass the sniff test when it comes to transparency and consultation?

Mr. Michael Mantha: I want to thank the member from Niagara. No, it does not pass the sniff test. Again, for the last two days, that’s what we’ve been talking about. The government has been highlighting a couple of—other than waste water in the York region, they’ve been talking about everything else but what’s in the context of this bill, which is not a heck of a lot. Because within the context of this bill is, basically, a government that is looking to protect what could have and what could and what might happen. This is what this bill does. In essence, that’s what this bill does.

So look it up, folks. Look it up at home. Read it for yourself. Grab a look at it. If you have any questions, you can reach out to my office or any of the MPPs. But essentially, that is the bulk of what this bill is doing.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Questions?

Mrs. Daisy Wai: Thank you to the member opposite for sharing your personal story. You don’t have to plead with our government. Our government—part of our plan and commitment is to really do exactly what you have been asking.

As an MPP for Richmond Hill and a municipality in York region, I am pleased that our government, if the bill is passed, we will pass the York region environmental assessment application and give time for the advisory panel to provide the government with advice on the options to address the waste water servicing capacity, exactly what we have been asking.

The panel will bring together experts in a variety of areas, including land use planning and waste water infrastructure. It will also consult with the people, as you’ve asked, from First Nations and provide recommendations to the people who are the key stakeholders. So your concern will—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Thank you.

Response?

Mr. Michael Mantha: I want to tell the good people of Algoma–Manitoulin: There is a majority Conservative government, so it’s not if this bill will pass; it will pass. The government will get its way and it will get through.

I want to go to the member who just finished speaking and thank her for her question.

Can she point out to me where, within the context of this bill—if it’s in the explanatory note, if it’s on page 1 under sections 1, 2, 3, 4, or on page 2 under

section 5—is the expert panel that you are talking about? It’s not within the context of this bill, and I just finished saying that for the last two days, I’ve been hearing about this expert panel.

I’ve made, actually, some suggestions this morning to the government in regard to who you might want to invite or be a part of this expert panel: community leaders, municipal leaders, First Nations, stakeholders, organizations that have a vested interest in these waters.

Again, what page is it on?

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): We don’t have time for another back-and-forth.

Further debate?

Hon. David Piccini: It’s always an honour to rise in the Legislature. I would just like to start by thanking the incredible ministry team at MECP and the incredible staff at the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks for all of the work that they do for Ontarians through the pandemic and each and every day, and, of course, the incredible people of Northumberland–Peterborough South, who elected me here.

Speaker, I’m pleased to rise before the Legislature today to again speak in support of Bill 5, the York Region Wastewater Act. I introduced this bill in the Legislature on Tuesday.

Yesterday, my wonderful colleague the member for Barrie–Innisfil provided the honourable members with an excellent review of the proposed act. She and the speakers who followed shared with this Legislature our government’s commitment to ensuring the project is done right for the people of York region, ensuring that our decision-making and that of the municipalities can be based on the best and latest science, the latest data and the projected needs of a growing community. They also shared our commitment to environmental protection, which is a core part of any infrastructure that is created in Ontario.

Our high ethical and environmental standards are a big part of what makes this such an exceptional place to raise a family and to grow a business.

I think of some of the incredible projects under way today: one of the largest freshwater cleanups of its kind on Lake Ontario; a day of action on litter; continued investments into waste water monitoring and waste water infrastructure, just to name a few.

In fact, it’s our government that has launched the first-ever climate change impact assessment, to build resiliency against the impacts of climate change and better position our municipalities for the next decade and years ahead.

At its core, that is what this bill is about: better positioning municipalities for planned growth and supporting the growing needs, so that moms and dads in this great province can have the dignity of a roof over their heads and the ability to raise a family.

As Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, these commitments that we make to the environment are commitments I take very seriously. In my ministry, our efforts to protect Ontario’s air, water and land and to reduce litter in our communities and greenhouse gas emissions are all driven by a commitment to sound and evidence-based decision-making, which is exactly what this bill seeks to do.

We are supporting clean tech and innovation—new solutions that change the game for generational challenges that we face today.

Speaker, I’d like to begin with a few words for this bill on York region, which is why my colleagues in this Legislature know—this region is one of the fastest-growing communities in Ontario. Consistent with its unique mix of urban centres and farmland, York region has a diverse economy that ranges from high tech to agriculture, including a large portion of the Holland Marsh.

As part of the greater Toronto area and the Golden Horseshoe, the economic engine driving the province, it’s not surprising that the region is experiencing significant growth, with the population forecasted to grow from over 1.1 million people today to more than two million within 30 years. That’s almost double the number of people we have in the region today.

The regional municipality of York understands that municipal planning is a long game. They understand the need to start planning well in advance to meet the needs of the residents. In anticipation of the infrastructure needs associated with such a rapidly growing population, York region has been planning to meet its future waste water requirements for more than two decades.

The investments originally led to the proposal of a new facility that would be connected to the York-Durham sewage system shared with Durham region. It is a series of pumping stations, force mains and over 120 kilometres of sewer pipe that service the municipalities of Newmarket, Richmond Hill, Aurora, Markham, Vaughan and Pickering.

Under the proposal, waste water would be treated at the existing Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant in Pickering. That plant currently treats more than 80% of the waste water generated by homes and businesses in York region. The regional municipalities of York and Durham jointly own the plant, which discharges treated effluent into Lake Ontario.

To look at the wide-ranging issues involved in York region’s project, the Minister of the Environment at the time required the region to undertake a full environmental assessment of the proposal, including an assessment of alternatives to the proposed infrastructure.

The proposal provided by York region in 2014 calls for a new waste water treatment facility to be built in the town of East Gwillimbury. It would treat about 40 million litres of sewage per day. York region refers to this facility as a water reclamation centre and its process would involve four levels of treatment for waste water, including microfiltration and reverse-osmosis waste water treatment technology. This is leading-edge technology and its use in the Upper York Sewage Solutions project would be a first for Canada.

The project also involves off-setting programs for phosphorus to reduce phosphorus through a variety of stormwater measures, such as retrofitting existing stormwater management ponds through the Lake Simcoe watershed.

The Upper York Sewage Solutions environmental assessment application has been the subject of consultation since its submission. Of particular note, Speaker, there have been lengthy discussions, or a lack thereof, over the last decade with the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation. They have significant concerns about this proposal, and they and the residents of all regions impacted by this project need to be confident that their water resources are protected now and into the future by good decisions, based on the best and most up-to-date information. Looking at the outdated information this is riding on, I and our government do not believe they can have that confidence.

As we know, Speaker, this dates back into the early 2000s. In 2009 and 2010, the then minister at the time decided to change the terms of reference with zero consultation with Georgina, with Chief Big Canoe and her community. I had the opportunity to speak with her yesterday, and I think an important commitment we all in this Legislature must make and continue in the very real discussions we’re having around reconciliation today is to meaningfully engage not just at the ninth hour, but from the beginning. I made that commitment to the chief. I’ve only been in this portfolio three months.

It’s an important commitment I take as minister and that we take as a government. To proceed without this level of public confidence would be a great disservice to the people of York region and to the stakeholders, including Indigenous communities, that have very real questions and concerns.

Madam Speaker, what I’ve just shared with you and the data behind it was left to go stale by the previous Wynne-Del Duca government. They had the application, sat on it so long, and made that change in 2010 with very little to no consultation. It’s been stale for a decade, Speaker. Our government will not compromise on our commitment to fixing this wrong.

My predecessor, the honourable member from Elgin–Middlesex–London, introduced the York Region Wastewater Act, 2021, on June 3 of this year. We know it’s clear in this past decade that any solution is significantly complex and it requires further examination. If passed, Bill 306 would have put a hold on the Upper York Sewage Solutions environmental assessment. The pause would have provided more time for information to be collected—current information that would give an accurate look at the situation on the ground, and science- and evidence-based decision-making.

I recognize, as does Parliamentary Assistant Khanjin, the work that has been done by staff at the regional municipality of York, and we thank them for that. They are skilled and dedicated professionals who are determined to find the best solutions to meet the needs of York residents, and I speak on behalf of the government of Ontario for our appreciation in their efforts.

Madam Speaker, I will again say that the situation that was allowed to drag on by the former Liberal government necessitated the bill that we are debating here today. As we can all see, the York Region Wastewater Act, 2021 is brief and to the point. Its intent is simple: It proposes to pause the York region’s nearly 10-year-old environmental assessment so that we can gather up-to-date information on environmental, social and financial implications of any waste water solution for the region.

In my just three months on the job, I’ve seen incredible solutions, worldwide and within Canada, that must be looked at. It must be looked at because we owe that to the people of York region, we owe it to the people of Ontario and, most importantly, real and meaningful engagement and a dialogue is needed to be had with the Indigenous communities in the surrounding area.

Protecting our water resources, now and into the future, is a top priority for the government, and certainly for myself and my ministry, and listening to some of the comments, I think it’s important to underscore a few things, Madam Speaker. As I said, the intent and clarity of this bill—it’s very clear. But members have also brought up what must the government do to protect source water protection. Well, it’s this government that launched one of the largest freshwater cleanups of its kind, Pollution Probe in Lake Ontario.

I would encourage the members opposite to visit my community, for example, and the harbour in Cobourg—or forget mine, any other community along Lake Ontario—and see the litter traps. See the source water microplastics, the partnerships with our research institutions and the incredible work being done by scientists in this province to study source water pollutants.

If that’s not enough, maybe look to our budget 2020, which these members voted against, which included historic commitments to water monitoring. And what really, really concerns me—listening to the member from Hamilton, knowing the discharges that are happening in her own community, why would that member vote against commitments that this government is making to monitor discharge, and investments we’re making to improve infrastructure? Because we know that protecting Ontario’s water resources now and into the future matters, and we know that we must rely on the best technology.

We must engage in robust consultation. That’s what we’re doing with this bill. If passed, this bill will lay the framework, and this government will establish an expert advisory panel to dig into the options and their associated bodies of water and advise on the best possible solutions. I look forward to the expertise they will bring in a variety of areas, including land use planning and waste water infrastructure.

The panel will assess the sustainability and efficiency of the Upper York Sewage Solutions undertaking and any alternatives, including consideration of the use and optimization of existing—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I apologize for interrupting the minister, but pursuant to standing order 50(c), I am now required to interrupt the proceedings and announce that there have been six and a half hours of debate on the motion for second reading of this bill. This debate will therefore be deemed adjourned, unless the government House leader directs the debate to continue.

I recognize the deputy government House leader.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: Thank you, Speaker. Please continue.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Okay. I will invite the minister to continue, should he so choose. You have the floor.

Hon. David Piccini: Thank you, Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to continue.

I look forward to this panel engaging with municipalities, key stakeholders and potentially impacted Indigenous communities. Protecting the water, as I said, is the goal of this project, so impacted Indigenous communities must be key contributors on this path forward. As I mentioned, the government is aware and listening to the concerns of the Chippewas of Georgina Island. The panel will want to hear from this community so that we can ensure their input is reflected in options for the path forward for this project.

And I want to say, consultation with First Nation and Métis communities is a key part of environmental assessment applications we process as a government. We take the duty to consult very seriously, and respect Aboriginal treaty rights, established and asserted.

Our government’s work to provide the strongest possible community, water and waste water protections, as well as stringent water quality safeguards, is absolutely essential to protecting our incredible water legacy going forward. Ontario is known for this over the world, and no body of water is more important to life in York region than Lake Simcoe, which features as a major site of significance for this project.

Lake Simcoe is the largest inland lake in southern Ontario. The lake provides drinking water for seven communities and generates millions in annual revenue from agricultural activities. More than 450,000 people live in the Lake Simcoe watershed as of 2017, and the population is expected to grow significantly by 2041. The Lake Simcoe watershed is under many environmental pressures—most notably, high levels of phosphorus and chloride pollution in streams and rivers as in the Holland Marsh.

For decades, the runoff of phosphorus from fertilizer used on farms in and around Lake Simcoe has been problematic for the area, and as a government, our actions to care for the lake are being guided through the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan—which I encourage all members of this place to look at—which focuses on the lake’s water quality, reducing pollutants such as phosphorus, caring for natural heritage and addressing the impacts of invasive species and other emerging threats. I’d especially like to thank Parliamentary Assistant Khanjin for doing incredible work as an advocate for Lake Simcoe and engaging the communities in and around.

As a result of our collective actions over the last 30 years—because this is not a partisan issue, this is a focus of successive governments. We understand the value of Lake Simcoe, and we’re working to take decisive action to protect that body of water. Because of actions of this government and previous governments, we’ve seen levels of dissolved oxygen in the deep water of the lake continue to increase, which indicates improved water quality. The amount of algae has also decreased over time, leading to improved water quality. Signs of naturally reproducing cold-water fish continue to be observed, a positive step towards restoring and sustaining a cold-water fish community.

But even with these encouraging developments, we recognize that much more work needs to be done. When the environmental assessment applications were submitted in 2014, phosphorus loads were 71 tonnes per year, much higher than the goal load of 44 tonnes per year as set out in the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. As of the last minister’s 10-year report on Lake Simcoe, released in 2017, those loads had risen to 131 tonnes per year. The ministry is now working with the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority to calculate the 2018 to 2020 base-load levels.

Our government has a strong commitment to helping protect Lake Ontario. It’s a changing aquatic environment, and there is a need for current facts and figures. Looking south, Lake Ontario—which you, Madam Speaker, I know, know well—is at the heart of countless communities in southern Ontario that we have the honour of representing, and is core, of course, to our province’s water legacy.

As a government, we recognize our enormous responsibility as a protector of Lake Ontario. We are backing up this recognition with a comprehensive Great Lakes strategy, which sets the province’s economic, social and environmental priorities for the Great Lakes basin. The current strategy incorporates Great Lakes priorities from across 14 ministries, with a focus on sustainable development, creating climate change resiliency and protecting water, species and green spaces.

We’ve seen a historic commitment to expand the greenbelt. We’ve seen, as I mentioned, clean water projects in the litter bins across Lake Ontario. We’ve seen the climate change impact assessment—all done under this government. And we are partners in the ninth Canada-Ontario Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality and Ecosystem Health.

The Canada-Ontario agreement, also known as COA, sets out specific actions that the federal government and Ontario government will take as we work together to restore, protect and conserve the Great Lakes. In fact, it was just two nights ago, I was speaking with former environment minister Jonathan Wilkinson. Perhaps he may, this month, continue in that role. But we share in the commitment for the Canada-Ontario agreement, which marked its 50th anniversary.

The ninth COA agreement outlines new and ongoing actions to safeguard the world’s largest freshwater lake system. This includes improving waste water and storm water management—I’ve already outlined some of the fiscal commitments this government has made to do that; managing nutrients; reducing plastic pollution—again outlined in my speech; restoring native species and habitats; and increasing climate resiliency—again, another thing I outlined with our climate change impact assessment.

This agreement also includes a new focus on protecting Lake Ontario, supporting nature-based recreation opportunities and strengthening engagement with First Nations and Métis in the implementation of the agreement.

I hope all here today can see what’s at stake. You can’t drop a pin on a map for York region’s waste water management. Whatever the solution, it will impact not only development and growth in York region but the infrastructure, creeks and lakes downstream, each with its own characteristics and sensitivities.

Lake Simcoe and Lake Ontario are jewels of this province that we all enjoy. The species and communities that call their shores home deserve any decision that impacts them to be sound, well-researched and based on current information that Ontarians can be confident in.

We heard members from the opposition say yesterday that they don’t want us to pause, they don’t want the best data, they don’t want us to look at new and emerging solutions. From one member in particular, we heard the message loud and clear that they just don’t want it in their backyard, where their votes come from.

I would submit to you, Madam Speaker, that we owe it collectively to the people we represent—something I take seriously in this ministry; it’s no longer just the people of my community, but all the people of Lake Ontario, Lake Simcoe and this great province—to get the best possible solution forward for the people of York region. That’s why this panel, as I said, will lean on expert advice and will be done in a 12-month period.

It’s part of our broader strategy to ensure the quality of life in Ontario communities and that Ontarians can continue to count on the best possible protections for their health, prosperity and quality of life.

This act is short, but it will have a long-lasting impact on York region’s ability to meet its waste water servicing needs. By pausing the EA for the Upper York Sewage Solutions project, we are enabling everyone to take a step back from the plan that was left to fall flat, that was left stale by the previous government, and looking at proposed options with a fresh eye and in the spirit of a renewed and engaged discussion, a very real discussion, on reconciliation with Indigenous communities, a strong scientific lens that takes into account the widest possible range of impacts on the local environment and the economy, as well as ensuring that social needs are met in the region.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand before this Legislature to encourage all of my honourable colleagues in the strongest possible terms to support this important piece of legislation.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Questions and responses?

Ms. Sandy Shaw: My question to the Minister of the Environment: I am incredibly proud to be the official opposition environment critic in this province. That’s why I wish that this bill was actually about the environment, but it is not. Nothing in this bill mentions the environment.

Instead, we can only look to your government’s abysmal track record when it comes to the environment. Your first act as a government was to cancel renewable energy projects and pass legislation to indemnify yourselves, just like in this bill. You ripped out charging stations from the ground. You kneecapped conservation authorities and their ability to protect our waterways. You issued an MZO to build a warehouse on a protected wetland. You voted down a motion to declare a climate emergency in this province. You have absolutely no credible climate plan.

We need a Minister of the Environment every day, not just on litter day. Will you please withdraw this one-page bill and bring something forward that protects the environment?

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): A reminder to all members that you direct your comments through the Chair and not to the members on the other side.

Response?

Hon. David Piccini: I didn’t hear one solution offered in those regressive comments. I heard a shot taken at my proud colleague, the PA and member from Barrie–Innisfil, because that member is void of solutions—not a single solution, not a solution for the people of Hamilton. Well, we’ve got one. We’re monitoring waste water effluents into Lake Ontario. We’re increasing the stringent water monitoring and we’re asking municipalities to work with us on that. We’ve invested in the budget, into improving waste water infrastructure. I didn’t hear it—in fact, it wasn’t supported—from the member opposite.

We have engaged in the largest freshwater cleanup of its kind—again, void of any solution from that member.

Before you stand up in this place, you have a duty to the people you represent, a duty to the people of this province: Work together, bring forward solutions and don’t just nag and rag on people on this side of this House trying to make a difference for their communities.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): All members are reminded, politely, to address their comments to and through the Chair, full stop. Thank you.

Further questions?

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Madam Speaker, science and best practices are at the core of every decision this government makes. For the environmental assessment at the heart of this decision for York region, this means building a panel of experts who will be bringing their significant expertise to examine the needs of the region, needs that continue to evolve and grow as population and development expand.

Could the minister share with me the role that the government envisions the York region waste water advisory panel will play?

Hon. David Piccini: That was an excellent question on what we envision this panel to do and where they will go. So leaning on expertise in land use planning and expertise in waste water and scientists who have expertise in water quality and water management—and leaning on their expertise, again in a defined time period, because we know we can’t lag and we can’t have a decade of inaction like we saw under the previous government. We’ve got to move swiftly and quickly on this.

That’s why we’ve given this panel a 12-month window in which to look at alternative solutions, one that will engage both the communities of Durham that you and I have the honour of representing, the communities of York and Indigenous communities in the renewed spirit that we see across this nation to engage in the very real, challenging, difficult, but important discussion that we’re having—renewed discussion—with Indigenous communities. We’re going to lean on their expertise in that 12-month duration, and I look forward to the work that they’re going to do.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Questions?

Ms. Judith Monteith-Farrell: I rise today with the spirit of Sheila DeCorte, who is a water walker from Thunder Bay. We live by the greatest Great Lake, so our commitment to the water in our constituency and our passion about keeping it pristine is very, very deep-rooted.

My question to the minister today is one that I think is very important that we understand. This bill, purported to be one that we want to have a clear understanding of moving forward to keep water safe—in this bill, though, we do not have that transparency. If we had the assurances that this advisory committee, that is not in the bill, was in fact going to be one that was robust, there might be something. So please explain why the details are not in this bill.

Hon. David Piccini: Two important points to that question. And I thank the member for the work that she does and enjoyed hearing about the important commitment that she has for Kakabeka Falls and some of the things we discussed over the summer.

A few things: The government has provided substantial investments for the ICIP program for water and waste water to improve the water quality in Indigenous communities. We’ve provided over $10 million to improve transparency around monitoring and public reporting of sewage overflows that I mentioned earlier. This bill is the legislative tool that we need to use to put a pause on the environmental assessment.

I’ve also, as I mentioned, put forward a panel that has a 12-month duration and will be composed of experts to provide high-quality advice to this government, utilizing the latest technology and solutions, leveraging what we’ve seen worldwide, with a jurisdictional analysis of the latest technology to guide planned growth for York region and Durham region, and one that engages all communities.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further questions?

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: I thank the minister for, actually, some vision that we finally hear on the environment in this Legislature. Certainly we don’t hear any other visionary ideas.

You had touched upon the terms of reference and how that was obviously changed and how we need to go above and beyond and not just rely on our great experts, like Sarah who works in the environmental assessment unit—I’m sure she’s watching—but many others. But we’re going above and beyond—and why it’s so important to go above and beyond, and to even go above and beyond the duty to consult, to engage even more with the First Nations communities.

Hon. David Piccini: Thank you for the shout-out to the incredible staff at MECP. I think, as we look at these solutions—and I understand; I’m three months into this role—and speaking with the incredible staff in the ministry and looking at some jurisdictional analysis of what they do with waste water worldwide, that necessitated this legislation today, which takes the stale approach from the early 2010s—one, to be frank, that wasn’t open and transparent and one that led to significant concerns.

When I spoke yesterday with Chief Big Canoe, I was open and honest, in the things I did know, in the things I didn’t, but appreciate what she’d said. I heard her message loud and clear: Continue that engagement and continue it through, not at the ninth hour. I think the regressive delays from the previous government necessitated this bill today which is going to, as I say, pause the EA assessment, but then we’re going to have that panel and their important advice.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Question?

Mr. Joel Harden: I listened intently to what the minister had to say this morning. A question for him, based upon what you said, which—I’m happy to hear about the ongoing discussions you’re having with Indigenous leaders in the province around this particular project. Yesterday in debate, I brought forward the story that is breaking news back home in Ottawa about the remediation of Victoria Island, Speaker, that is being done through a shared governance model with Algonquin leadership; in fact, the first time ever an Algonquin-owned company, Decontie Construction, is going to be involved in a major infrastructure project in the city of Ottawa.

My friend the member from Kiiwetinoong mentioned yesterday in debate as we discussed this that Indigenous folks in this province are not stakeholders. They are the original keepers of this land. So I would love the minister’s reflection, as you want to go above and beyond, which I think is a laudable goal: Would you entertain that idea of having them beyond being stakeholders, beyond being members of an expert panel, but helping Ontario make sure this project is in keeping with our commitment to the water?

Hon. David Piccini: Thank you to the member opposite for that very important question. Yes; in short, the answer is yes. On this panel that we’ve put forward, we stipulated there must be an Indigenous member on the five-person panel, and I think it’s because we share in the need for robust engagement. I have, in fact, reached out via letter to your colleague who you mentioned who is an important champion for Indigenous communities, an important partner—as you said, not stakeholder, but partner.

I know in conversations with Chief Hare that there were some concerns with respect to the legislation that was proposed. But what we agreed on together was that we can link arms, my ministry, and I’ve offered to the member opposite to have a seat at the table with us with Chief Hare on finding solutions for going forward. We’ve instructed OCWA and Walkerton to do important water consultation, to do important water training, and have seized them with the fact that you’ve got a working partnership with Indigenous communities. Thank you for the question.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Mr. Paul Miller: In regard to Bill 5, as a long-time resident of Hamilton East–Stoney Creek and having served as a local councillor for the city of Stoney Creek for two terms and being vice-chair of engineering, I can attest that the world of water treatment is not a simple one and it’s not an exact science. Hamilton is a good case study of the dos and don’ts of water treatment and city development, and I believe that the people of York region could learn a little from Hamilton’s history about the challenges that they may face that they may not have taken into consideration yet.

Before I begin, I would like to thank and give appreciation to the many hard-working professional waste water treatment operators in Hamilton and the rest of our province who help to ensure our water is clean and safe for drinking in this type of world. I know it’s not an easy job and many of the challenges posed by legacy infrastructure can lead to situations that are less than ideal for their purpose.

To speak to the purpose of waste water treatment, I see it as twofold: (1) to ensure that when a local resident turns on their tap at home, clean good-tasting water is available at all times; (2) to ensure that all water that passes through the treatment facility is returned to the water table cleaner than when it entered.

While nothing can ever be guaranteed in life, certain unfortunate events must be questioned when they go wrong. I will refer to a recent event in Hamilton that did not represent the normal operating procedure of our waste water treatment but nonetheless resulted in the failure of my second rule for water treatment. A CBC Hamilton

article posted on October 5 just a few days ago was entitled “Unknown Quantity of Untreated Sewage Released into Hamilton Harbour.” Most Hamiltonians are aware of the reputation our city has across the province as being an industrial town with polluters and unexpected accidents when it comes to water pollution. That being said, the residents of my community are beginning to wake up to the reality that these types of events are more commonplace than once thought, and there’s a growing resentment towards these failures and threats to our safety and well-being.

The

article explains that during a significant rainfall event this previous Sunday, waste water was unfortunately discharged into Hamilton Harbour without treatment. The city of Hamilton went on to say, “At this time, the volume of waste water discharged is being calculated.” In other words, they don’t even know how much untreated water was sent flowing into Lake Ontario.

To make the point even more drastic, the water that was released from our water system was not just rain runoff from our streets and roads, it was a combination of untreated sewage from our homes and businesses that was released from sewer overflow tanks at Royal Avenue, Main and King streets, Greenhill Avenue, the Red Hill Valley pipeline, Pleasant Avenue, Edenbridge Court, Wellington Street, Wentworth Street North and Strathearne Avenue North. Apparently, this dangerous and disgusting event was the result of equipment failure. We are being told that this equipment is being repaired.

But the people of my riding are wondering when the next failure will occur. The last time something this bad happened was in 2015. And these are the incidents that we are all aware of; I’m sure that there are many more that aren’t reported. That doesn’t sound like a good track record to me.

It doesn’t sound like there has been a lack of funding to Hamilton water treatment either. According to the city’s website, $340 million from the federal and provincial governments to the Woodward waste treatment plant upgrades represent the largest investment in the city to clean up our harbour. While I could admit that much of these investments are still being implemented, I am left with the feeling that the technical errors of the past are still going to be the realities of our future.

My other colleagues have been bringing forward their concerns about Hamilton’s legacy and continued issues with the water treatment in the House for some time now.

Words and names familiar to everyone who is a resident of our community such as Sewergate and Randle Reef trip off the tongues of Tim Hortons patrons and Starbucks customers alike every day.

While it is easy to point out the failures of our waste water system, it is harder to discuss the reason behind the problem in general: development. Hamilton has been a densely populated municipality since the founding of this great nation. Industrialization and urban intensification resulted in major problems that needed to be addressed in 1854. A major cholera outbreak resulted in 550 people dying from this disease in our city. This water-borne illness quickly became a priority for the city of Hamilton’s first water treatment facility in 1859.

To imagine what lies beneath the streets of the older parts of our city is truly interesting and, at the same time, horrifying.

Wooden, clay and lead sewage pipes; coal gas lines; copper wire from the 1880s—it is truly a hodgepodge of underground human ingenuity, but it’s also a testament to how good people are at making a mess and sending it downstream for someone else to deal with. Sometimes when we send our problems downstream, it is noticed immediately by our neighbours or by our wildlife, but more often than not, it’s felt by our children and grandchildren.

By the 1860s, drinking water had become widely available to the booming city. Waste water was sent into the bay largely untreated. As times changed, so did our local water system.

Now, in 2021, barring the events noted earlier, the vast majority of the water entering Lake Ontario is cleaner than when it entered our system.

With that being said, Hamilton still has a major legacy of both industrial and municipal water pollution. Randle Reef, for example, was and still technically is the largest single source of concentrated industrial waste in the Great Lakes basin. With recent efforts to surround the area with steel walls and earth caps, the leaching of dangerous chemicals into our water table has been reduced. This has been achieved at great cost, and there are also concerns for the future, as we are simply passing the buck to future generations who will be responsible for the site’s inspection and maintenance.

The price that is often paid on the path to development is a compromise with the environment. Would the people of Hamilton, and Ontario more widely, have been better off without good jobs provided by our industrial sector? I, for one, am a living testament to the benefit of good jobs the steel industry can offer. The question is whether or not the environmental price we have paid for our industrial, commercial and residential developments has been too high.

Many in Hamilton would agree that we have paid too high of a price and that it continues to cost us, when we read about sewage spills that go on undetected for years or when we see a headline that basically says that our system wasn’t designed to deal with above-normal rainfall levels. We discuss the impact climate change will have on our lives in the future while it is forcing utility workers to choose between raw sewage in the lake or flooded basements in the city today.

I say all these things as a warning to those of us in less-developed parts of the province, during our pursuit of better lives with an ever-growing population. We have to make sure that when we decide to dig the foundations of new communities, business parks or industrial sites, we consider the impact it’s going to have on our environment.

The people of York region are asking themselves a question right now. As a growing region with interested investors from around the world, the leaders of York region have to listen to the warnings from the past as well as the warnings from the present. The proposed site for the Upper York Sewage Solutions treatment plant in East Gwillimbury with its effluent discharge plan to flow into East Holland River is located in an area that currently has around 24,000 residents.

This sparsely populated region will potentially become the end of the line for nearly 47 million litres of effluent water as it’s released into the Lake Simcoe watershed every day. I repeat: 47 million litres into the shallow Lake Simcoe watershed.

Residents and concerned groups have asked very relevant questions about the proposed water outflow, and they have yet to hear back on what will be done to prevent untreatable pharmaceuticals and microplastics from being included in the large volume of mostly clean water.

These concerns and others affect more than just the immediate areas around East Gwillimbury and Keswick; a little further east you will meet the people of Georgina Island First Nation. Based on a petition they have set up on which they have received over 35,000 signatures, they note concerns about historical and ongoing environmental concerns that have been on the agenda of the Ministry of the Environment and have yet to be properly remediated.

In this case, the people of the Georgina Island First Nation refer to the lack of attention by the ministry to Thane aluminum smelter site, which has been out of operation since 1997 but has been left instead as a contaminated and toxic industrial site after its closure.

Speaking as someone who has spent most of his life working in steel mills and knowing what chemicals are used in the steel-making process, I can only imagine what remains at this former aluminum smelting site. There is little doubt that the local watershed is being negatively affected by the site’s leachate and there is little surprise that previous governments, up to and including the present, have done nothing to clean up this mess.

To not take the experiences and knowledge of the people of Georgina Island First Nation into consideration when discussing the new water treatment facility is a disservice to the First Nation community and a disservice to all people who call the Lake Simcoe watershed their home. To have first-hand knowledge on an issue affecting a lake and to not be included as part of the environmental assessment process goes to show who the ministry is concerned about with this project. It goes to show this project may not be in everyone’s best interests and it is an insult to the people of Georgina Island First Nation, the great environmental stewards of this land, and they have practically been ignored.

I will end today by reminding everyone present and anyone listening that what we are dealing with here is the result of a major change to the landscape and watershed of this province. Lake Simcoe is a world-class tourist destination and also a traditional fishing ground for the First Nations. It may seem like an endless expanse of water to some, but, to me and others concerned about that project, I see a shallow and fragile ecosystem that needs to be protected as soon as possible.

Changes to water temperature, water volume, current, pH levels and salinity can fundamentally change the way fish and other wildlife behave. Changes to any system are often irreversible, and I can only wonder what a city like Hamilton was like before we showed up and bulldozed that paradise. We bulldozed it.

Hamilton’s first water treatment plant was initially designed to accommodate the needs of 40,000 people and now has to keep up with 600,000 people. It is a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation, and if you build it, they will come.

A new and scientifically modern water treatment plant feeding into Lake Simcoe would entice developers into the area resulting in new housing developments, new stores, new infrastructure and, in many cases, these are good things, but they must be done with an open ear to those who have a stake in these developments and who stand potentially to lose a livelihood or a way of life when a sleepy rural community becomes a bustling commuter hub, and I have not seen any plans to deal with heavy industry or mid-industry that will move into that area eventually and how they will deal with those discharges—interesting.

There is only one chance to get things right when the bulldozers and work crews begin to pour the concrete foundations of this region’s future. It is my hope that the former Minister of the Environment’s words are properly heeded, when Minister Yurek said, “This government wants to ensure that we have the most up-to-date information on the environmental, social and financial impacts of alternatives to provide waste water services appropriately.” There is a lot at stake here and with the number of historical, ongoing environmental—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I’m sorry to interrupt the member. The member will have time to finish his remarks the next time this bill is called.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Indigenous languages

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Meegwetch, Speaker. Anishinaabemowin, along with Cree, Inuktitut, Mi’kmaq and Dene, are a handful of Indigenous languages that are not currently endangered. Right now they are listed as vulnerable, according to United Nations language assessment criteria.

According to Anishinaabe language keeper Shirley Williams, we need to be doing more for Indigenous language education. In her words, she says, “The residential school system almost destroyed the Anishinaabe language and the Anishinaabe” ways of learning. “If we are going to move past the ... harms of the residential school system and towards reconciliation..., Indigenous languages need to be supported and we need to write and speak in the language as much as we can. We need to respect and accept each other’s dialect and encourage each other to learn and speak the language.

We need to love our Anishinaabe language no matter how it is said. We all belong because the Creator gave us all” our languages. Meegwetch.

Police service dogs

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: During the last session of Parliament, I rose to speak about efforts to raise money for Ottawa’s police service dog program. I am pleased to rise today to provide an update on the progress of some of the new puppy recruits that were sponsored in memory of detective constable Bruno Gendron. Labrador retriever siblings named Blue and Liberty have recently turned six months old. They are both making great strides in their training as they get more comfortable in public situations and learn to stay calm while meeting new friends.

The training is facilitated by National Service Dogs in Cambridge, Ontario, who have previously donated a facility dog named K9 West to the Ottawa Police Service. The memorial fundraiser covered the cost of training these puppies who could one day go on to help children with autism, veterans or first responders with PTSD, or help at police stations or courthouses like K9 West.

One of the program’s mottos is that each dog has their own unique path to greatness. Best of luck to Blue and Liberty as they continue down that path.

Gun violence

Ms. Suze Morrison: Gun violence in the Regent Park community is reaching epidemic proportions. A few weeks ago, I joined my community for a march to end gun violence. It was organized by several groups, including Mothers for Peace, which is a local community group that helps mothers who have lost children to gun violence. Local leaders, like Sureya Ibrahim, who is one of the co-founders of Mothers for Peace, are telling us that enough is enough. They want to know, how many people will die before these shootings stop?

Far too many people in our community have been taken too soon or been touched by gun violence in their lives. Many of them are young people who deserve to feel safe as they grow up in their community. Most recently we have lost Thane Murray, who was a beloved youth worker in Regent Park. His loss has just had a tremendous impact, particularly on the young people in the neighbourhood.

People are reeling and they’re asking why, after years of promises from government after government to respond to this crisis, these reckless killings are still happening. People are rightly concerned about the impact that hearing gunshots right outside their homes and losing friends and losing mentors is having on children in our community. No child should have to live through that trauma.

All levels of government must step up and tackle the root cause of gun violence today. We need substantial investments in poverty reduction. We need to see more resources and opportunities for youth, mental health supports and anti-poverty measures like improvements to affordable housing and education. It’s time for governments to listen and our communities to take real action to end gun violence.

South Common Community Centre

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: Just this week, I spoke about the government’s dedication to upgrading the infrastructure of our province, a commitment which we have upheld even during the COVID-19 pandemic. Together with the Minister of Infrastructure, I recently had the pleasure to announce more than $45 million in provincial funding to support the reconstruction of the South Common Community Centre and Library in my riding of Mississauga–Erin Mills. When I was elected to represent our community, I made a promise to every single constituent.

It was to listen to their concerns and advocate for the progress of Mississauga–Erin Mills. I believe announcements like this are the perfect example of the promise being kept.

The South Common Community Centre has been essential to the lives of many in our community, from our youth to our seniors and all in between, and it has been a cornerstone of Mississauga–Erin Mills.

This funding will be used to build a new community centre that will have indoor and outdoor fitness spaces, an aquatics centre and a new gymnasium. This historic investment will help improve the well-being of the constituents I represent for decades to come.

By investing in local projects here in Mississauga and across the province, our government is helping to strengthen and protect communities, create jobs, and contribute to our province’s economic recovery and growth. As the COVID-19 pandemic has clearly highlighted, investments in the health and wellness of Ontarians are more critical than ever. And as our brilliant vaccination program is helping to protect Ontarians from COVID-19, we are working to secure a bright future for the youth of our province.

Autism treatment

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Madam Speaker, Monday’s throne speech offered absolutely nothing new to help Ontarians. And for families of children with autism, the message was loud and clear: The Ford government’s underfunding and lack of support for children with autism will continue.

This government promised to eliminate the autism program wait-list. Shamefully, it has ballooned to 49,000 kids under their watch. Families are left in despair.

On the national news, we all saw Stacy Kennedy, who was forced to camp out in front of Premier Ford’s constituency office to try to get answers for her son Sam.

In my riding of Dundas, the Nedoborskis and their little daughter Zoe are facing a devastating wait for services. Instead of help from this government, they are left on their own. As Zoe’s mom, Mary, said, “You’re using your Visa card instead of your health card....”

And Hamilton mother Nancy, who fought for her twins to access therapy after going into debt to pay for speech therapy, said, “I’ve watched countless families in our community be forced to end therapy prematurely with no plan and no hope. We live in constant fear.”

It is way past time for the government to fix this atrocious mess. So on behalf of all these kids and their families, I implore Minister Smith and Premier Ford to stop leaving tens of thousands of kids behind, stop leaving them languishing on the wait-list, and provide the support that they desperately need now.

Land use planning

Mr. Mike Schreiner: Yesterday, I tabled a motion to declare a housing affordability and climate emergency. These two connected and critically important issues—the government actually failed to even mention them in the throne speech. We must immediately recognize these issues for what they are: emergencies that require urgent action.

Speaker, I invite the government to work across party lines to implement policies that create a massive expansion of affordable housing; 15-minute neighbourhoods; and a freeze of urban boundaries, to reduce sprawl and permanently protect prime farmland and wetlands, the lands that feed us and protect us from flooding.

I once again call on the government to cancel Highway 413.

Instead of building highways that supercharge sprawl and pollution, we need to build livable communities where we can walk, bike and take a transit ride to work, shop and learn.

And we need to eliminate homelessness by funding the permanent supportive housing projects proposed for Guelph and in communities across Ontario.

Speaker, it is clear: We can grow our economy and improve people’s lives if we have the political will to take on the housing affordability crisis and the climate emergency.

Prescription drugs

Ms. Donna Skelly: I want to express how proud I am of our government for taking urgent action to provide coverage for a life-saving drug for cystic fibrosis patients. Trikafta is the latest and most effective treatment for CF, and because of our health minister’s rapid response, it’s now covered under our publicly funded drug program. Within days of clearing all the federal regulatory hurdles, our health minister initiated funding.

CF patients and their families have fought tirelessly for access to Trikafta. One of those advocates is Tammy Strong, who I introduced in the Legislature prior to the pandemic. Tammy and her husband have two daughters, Mikayla and Madison, who both struggle with cystic fibrosis.

Tammy sent me an email shortly after the funding announcement to say that her family is celebrating this decision. She thanked our health minister for moving at lightning speed to fund a drug that will improve the lives of Mikayla and Madison and the 1,500 other individuals in Ontario who live with CF every day. Tammy says this drug will literally change her daughters’ lives; it will give them a future. But it comes with a hefty price tag: $300,000 per year per patient. When her daughters first heard that the drug was approved, they were reduced to tears.

Because of the immediate action taken by our health minister, CF patients now have access to a drug that will ensure they will live longer and healthier lives and have a brighter future.

School safety

Ms. Marit Stiles: I want to talk about class sizes. I want to urge this government to once and for all step up for our kids and our classrooms. At 26 weeks, Ontario’s schools were closed longer than any other jurisdiction last year. That’s because this government took a piecemeal plan that put savings and saving money ahead of the safety and well-being of our kids.

As bad as it was, we and all the families out there had hoped that the government would learn from last year’s lessons and apply them today, but it turns out that was wishful thinking. Every single day I hear from families across this great province whose children are in classes that are larger than they were pre-pandemic, leaving absolutely no room to safely distance and less time for one-on-one support.

In the Toronto Catholic District School Board, students have been forced to combine into supersized classes to meet ministry funding restrictions, resulting in teacher layoffs and parent protests in the streets. A motion is going to the board tonight. It’s going to call for immediate funding assistance from the ministry to help reduce those class sizes in hot-spot areas.

So today, on behalf of students, of parents, of education workers across this province, I am calling on the Premier and the Minister of Education to stop cutting funding for our schools, lower class sizes and invest in keeping our kids safe.

Cyprus Independence Day

Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos: I’m pleased to rise in the House today to mark the 61st anniversary of the independence of the Republic of Cyprus on October 1. Since becoming independent, the people of Cyprus have worked hard to build their country’s economy and have seen their democracy flourish.

Cyprus is a member of the European Union, working together with other European countries, building peace and prosperity across the continent. Yet Cyprus remains painfully divided, with the northern part of the island organized as a separate state, recognized only by Turkey.

I had the opportunity to visit Cyprus before the pandemic and I saw the division of the country, but also how people in an independent Cyprus have built a thriving nation, as they hope to one day see their island reunited.

We honour the Canadian peacekeepers who sacrificed to maintain the peace in Cyprus and the 29 who lost their lives. Cyprus is a fellow member of the Commonwealth of Nations and has established its high commission to Canada under His Excellency Dr. Vasilios Philippou.

Cypriot Canadians have made and continue to make a tremendous contribution to our country and province, to our culture and our prosperity. The Cypriot Federation of Canada is a leader in the community.

We extend our province’s gratitude to all who share this great heritage and whose accomplishments, struggles and sacrifices continue to solidify Ontario’s position as a province renowned for our commitment to tolerance, diversity and multiculturalism. To all the people of Cyprus and to those of Cypriot descent here in Canada, may we join together in honouring this anniversary for a Cyprus that will always remain free and independent.

Hospital funding

Mr. Aris Babikian: For a long time, Scarborough has been ignored and left behind. Due to the hard work and the commitment of the government’s Scarborough caucus members, this has been changed. Scarborough is finally getting the attention and the care it deserves. Our government is laser-focused on improving the quality of life for our residents.

On July 28, I joined my Scarborough colleagues at the Birchmount hospital in Scarborough–Agincourt to announce the investment of $26.832 million to SHN under the Ontario financial stability and relief fund. This is in addition to the $4.718 million under the Health Infrastructure Renewal Fund. This funding will help SHN to provide high-quality care to the residents.

The health and safety of Scarborough–Agincourt is my top priority. Our government will leave no stone unturned to provide first-class health care to residents of Ontario. The renovation of the current 11,000-square-foot emergency department at the Birchmount hospital, and expanding it by 14,000 square feet, is another substantial commitment to enhance Scarborough–Agincourt residents’ health. The building of the Bridletowne Community Hub after 12 years of delay is more evidence that I am committed to help turn the tide and address the needs of Scarborough–Agincourt.

I am proud to have participated in the July 28 funding announcement to help SHN recover from the financial demands COVID-19 imposed.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the best is yet to come for the residents of Scarborough–Agincourt and Scarborough.

COVID-19 deaths

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Leader of the Opposition has a point of order.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This morning, I seek unanimous consent for the House to observe a moment of silence for the 959 Ontarians who have succumbed to COVID-19 since we last paid tribute to victims of the pandemic, on June 3, 2021.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Agreed? Agreed.

Members will please rise.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

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

Question Period

Personal support workers

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My first question this morning is for the Premier. We all know that PSWs and nurses have been the front-line health care heroes throughout this pandemic, but they work in absolutely terrible conditions that none of us would want to be working in.

Yesterday’s announcement, frankly, neglected these heroes. The pandemic pay bump for PSWs expires at the end of this month. My question to the Premier is, why won’t he say yes to a permanent pay increase for Ontario’s PSWs, the heroes of this pandemic?

Hon. Doug Ford: I want to thank the opposition for that ridiculous question because we’ve been there from day one for the PSWs. They voted no for four hours of extended care. They voted no to give them a bump of $3. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I’ve said from day one that PSWs are overworked and underpaid, and we’re going to make sure we make them whole. They’re always going to have that bump. We will make it permanent.

But I’ve got to ask the opposition, Mr. Speaker, why every single thing we’ve done, no matter if it’s increasing ICU beds to 3,100 beds, increasing the health budget by billions of dollars, it was no, no, no. Everything’s no, without a solution, from the Leader of the Opposition. We’re a party of yes. We’re supporting the PSWs. We’ll always have their backs.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, PSWs know very well who’s been fighting for them all along. But here we are again. Every few months, PSWs have to wait and see if this government will do the right thing, but this government has never done right by our PSWs. Let’s not forget they couldn’t even access PPE at the beginning of this pandemic—in fact, well into it—and people who are PSWs actually lost their lives as a result of this government’s negligence. The least this Premier could do is stop threatening that they will have their pay increase clawed back every couple of months, because that’s what they’re living with right now.

Why is it so easy for this Premier to say yes to his buddies and no to permanent pay increases for PSWs?

Hon. Doug Ford: Again, through you, Mr. Speaker, we invested $270 million yesterday. We’re investing $4.9 billion that the opposition voted against. They voted against that four hours of care. They voted against 27,000 new PSWs and nurses. We’re the first in the country, the first in North America to have four hours of care.

We’re the first to go in there to make sure that the environment is a lot better by making sure the filtration systems are clear. We’re putting air conditioning into every single long-term-care home across the country. But guess what, Mr. Speaker? It’s no, no, no with the Leader of the Opposition.

Do you know what the Leader of the Opposition does? She uses PSWs as a bunch of props. We care for the PSWs. That’s the difference between the opposition and our government, Mr. Speaker.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The truth is, in fact—and PSWs know it, family members know it and residents know it—that this government has no intention of getting to four hours of hands-on care until 2026 or later.

Let’s be real about what’s going on here. Recruitment and retention of these workers is not going to happen without PSWs knowing that the government actually has their backs. In fact, here is what SEIU Healthcare, the union representing the front-line PSWs, says: “Absent in today’s”—yesterday’s—“announcement is any action to improve the abhorrent conditions of work that” still “exist within ... Ontario’s long-term-care homes. The time to stop protecting the greedy interests of the big nursing home chains, who simply want more discretionary spending, should have ended long ago.” I agree wholeheartedly with these remarks, Speaker.

The question to the Premier is, when will he actually say yes to PSWs and give them that permanent pay raise instead of boosting profits for his buddies that run long-term-care homes?

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

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know why the Leader of the Opposition won’t take yes for an answer. I think the Premier was clear. But she wants to quote some union leaders, so let me do that for her.

This is Jerry Dias, president of Unifor—you may have heard of him: The minister’s “announcement is a step in the right direction in helping long-term-care workers provide residents the adequate care that they deserve.”

This “announcement moves us closer to achieving a minimum of four hours of care.” That’s from Naureen Rizvi, the regional director of Unifor.

“We are encouraged”—this is Candace Rennick; she’s the secretary-treasurer of CUPE in Ontario; you know them—“to learn that this government is finally taking the necessary step of enshrining the four hours of hands-on care commitment into legislation. This is an important and long-awaited step.”

We will look for the Leader of the Opposition’s support for that part of the bill to come.

Finally, “it is crucial that the government acts fast to ensure the safety of our most vulnerable citizens and the front-line heroes.... We are glad to finally see a government that is following up on its words and doing something.” That’s Smokey Thomas, the president of OPSEU.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

Restart the clock. The next question?

Autism treatment

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Premier—but I can tell you, we await with anticipation the details of this government’s plan. Let’s hope it takes the profits out of long-term care.

My next question, however, is on the autism issue. Ontario families are still waiting desperately for autism services for their kids in this province. The throne speech didn’t even deign to mention helping children and families with autism. The wait-list for help continues to grow, and it has now reached over 40,000 children waiting for services.

Why didn’t the Premier even mention autism in the throne speech, and why are so many families still desperately waiting for services for their children?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Ottawa West–Nepean, parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: Thank you to the leader of the official opposition for that question.

Of course, our government is extremely proud that we took action to double the Ontario Autism Program’s budget from $300 million to $600 million. On top of that, Speaker, our government has been working to implement a new Ontario Autism Program that was designed by folks from the autism community—people with autism themselves, clinicians, researchers, agency directors. All of them came together on our Ontario autism panel to provide recommendations on this new program that we are in the process of implementing.

In the new program, families will have access to an expanded set of core services, including ABA therapy, speech-language pathology, occupational therapy and mental health services. This is the first time that families, through the OAP, will have access to this expanded list of services. I’m extremely proud of the work that our government is doing to reform this program.

I’ll be pleased to speak further in the supplementary.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the families who have children with autism are certainly very, very concerned about this government’s lack of action. The Premier continues to say no to helping them to ensure that their kids get the services they need.

In fact, we all saw when a mom named Stacy Kennedy camped out at the Premier’s office for six days. That was after four years of not getting services for her kid’s needs. Stacy’s words: “The system is broken and it needs to change.” The former child and youth advocate actually—finally, somebody came to help, because the Premier didn’t. He showed up to help, and she was very grateful about that. Only after Irwin Elman, the former child advocate, showed up to help Stacy did the Premier bother to even speak to her. But they didn’t help her. She still is without help for her child.

Moms like Stacy deserve better.

When will the Premier ensure that parents don’t have to camp out at his office to try to get some attention for their children?

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: Of course, our hearts go out to Stacy Kennedy and her son Sam. We want to make sure that all families with children with autism, like Stacy and her son Sam, are getting the support they need. I know that the Premier, Minister Fullerton and myself have all had a chance to speak to Stacy about some of the reforms that are under way to the Ontario Autism Program.

To expand a little bit further on this expansion of services that is under way, Speaker: Families, as I mentioned in the previous question, are going to be able to access core services. On top of that, families are also going to have access to a number of other pillars through the new Ontario Autism Program. They’ll have access to foundational family services, which we launched last year to help families support their child’s learning and development at home. They’re going to have access to early intervention services to help young children access services at critical points in their development. And they’re going to have access to urgent and complex—

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

The final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Families with children with autism need supports now, not sometime in the future. They’ve needed them for years and years and years.

I’ve got to say, in the last campaign, this Premier promised families they’d never have to come to Queen’s Park again. No, apparently now they have to go to his office to try to get some attention. That is not acceptable.

The problem keeps getting worse, and this government has made brutal cuts to autism. In March 2019, in fact, the wait-list was 20,000 people, Speaker—20,000 children waiting for service. Now it’s 40,000-plus children waiting for autism services in this province. Families are desperate. Moms are camping out at the Premier’s office. In Stacy’s words, and I agree with her wholeheartedly, it is “scandalous.”

Why is it always no for families like Stacy’s, for children with autism, from this Premier, but it’s always yes for his buddies?

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: Of course, as a brother of a young man with autism, I know how important it is to make sure that we are delivering these services. My family has been fighting for these services for over 25 years. And that’s why I’m incredibly proud to stand in this chamber with a government that doubled the Ontario autism budget to $600 million. Today, three times more children are receiving support than at any point under any previous government in this province.

That means 37,000 children are now receiving support through existing behaviour plans, childhood budgets and interim one-time funding, including the children who are currently being moved into the new Ontario Autism Program—a world-class program that will make Ontario a leader in autism services worldwide.

Speaker, there is still work to be done. We are on our way. We’ve got a solid plan designed by the community for the community, and we’re going to continue to implement that plan.

Gasoline prices

Mr. Michael Mantha: My question is to the Minister of Energy. More than three years ago, your government ran on a promise to lower gas prices for people living across the province, including those living in the north. In my riding, the town of Espanola saw gas prices as high as $1.479 per litre this week. This was also the average price of gas in Sudbury; White River, $1.579; Manitouwadge, $1.539. Gas prices across the province are reaching a 10-year high, and in the north we are still paying the highest price for gas in this province.

What is the government doing for the people living in northern Ontario to end price gouging at the pumps?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: The member will know that one of the first actions that we took when we came into government was to take away those extra taxes on the people of the province of Ontario that were causing gas prices to go up. Again, it was the opposition that said no. They wanted those gas prices to continue to go up. They wanted the people of the province of Ontario to continue to pay higher prices for gas. We said that was wrong.

We support those industries, Mr. Speaker. We know how important the oil and gas sector is to the economy of the province of Ontario, how important it is to the economy of the entire nation. That is why we support initiatives to expand exploration. That is why we have explored options to increase supply to the people of the province of Ontario. But on every single measure, it is the opposition that votes against it, that works against it.

We will continue to work for the people of northern Ontario and we will continue to work for those enterprises across this province that rely on this industry, Mr. Speaker, because it’s good for Canada, it’s good for Ontario, and it’s good for jobs and economic growth.

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

Mr. Michael Mantha: Back to the Minister of Energy: Winter is quickly approaching and northern families are facing higher prices for everything from home heating to gasoline to groceries. Not only are prices hitting highs in the north, they are rising across the province. Yesterday in Toronto, the average price of gas was $1.449 per litre, which is a record high for the GTA. This government has our bill, the Fairness in Petroleum Products Pricing Act, which would allow the Ontario Energy Board to regulate the retail and wholesale markup of petroleum products in Ontario.

Families in Ontario literally cannot afford the price of more talk without action. Will the minister commit to working with the official opposition to pass this legislation so that we can give a break to hard-working families across this province?

Hon. Paul Calandra: You know what will help hard-working families across this province? What will work for hard-working families across this province is continuing to support a government that reduces their taxes.

One of the first things that we brought forward here in this place was to fight the carbon tax. We said at that time, and continue to say today, that a carbon tax will cost the people of the province of Ontario, would cost Canadians on everything—whether they went shopping, whether they went to drop off their kids at soccer games, that that would cost people massive amounts of money. And we are seeing it every single day, the cost of the carbon tax to the people of the province of Ontario.

You want to help the people of the province of Ontario? The NDP want to help? Stop saying no. Start saying yes to helping hard-working Ontarians. Help us fight a carbon tax. When we said it would cost Ontarians, we are now seeing the impacts of those costs on every single thing that Ontarians do. So we will continue to fight that federal carbon tax. It is not the right approach for the people of the province of Ontario. And I ask the member to join us, not only for the north but for all—

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

The next question.

Workplace safety

Mr. Robert Bailey: My question here is to the Honourable Minister of Labour, Training and Skills Development. Minister, in my riding, I hear first-hand about the challenges smaller employers face when it comes to keeping people safe and staying open throughout this pandemic. They’ve done an exceptional job throughout COVID-19. Will the Minister of Labour, Training and Skills Development please tell this House how we’re supporting these businesses and helping them keep everyone safe?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: Thank you to my good friend the great member from Sarnia–Lambton for that excellent question.

Since the start of this pandemic, our government made a promise to keep all workers safe. Recently, we announced the hiring of 100 new health and safety inspectors, which brings the total to 507, which is the largest in provincial history. I should add that that is no thanks to the opposition members, who voted against this very important measure in the beginning of the pandemic. They voted against inspectors to keep workers safe when Ontario workers needed them the most.

Our government will always stand up for protecting the hard-working men and women of this province. We remain focused on keeping everyone safe. In fact, since March 2020, we’ve now completed more than 65,000 workplace inspections, issued over 80,000 orders and stopped unsafe work more than 100 times.

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

Mr. Robert Bailey: Thank you to the minister for that reassuring answer. We’ve made huge progress by working collaboratively with labour leaders, business and all levels of government. So I’m pleased to hear that this government is going to do even more to support the workers and businesses of Ontario.

Small businesses have been doing the best they can through this pandemic. I can think of many owners across Sarnia–Lambton who have pulled out all the stops to keep their workers and their customers safe. Can the Minister of Labour please tell us how his ministry is providing main street with the resources they need?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: Thanks again to the member from Sarnia–Lambton for that important question. I want to thank, on behalf of Premier Ford and our government, all employers, especially our shopkeepers and merchants, for stepping up during this incredibly difficult time to keep our economy going and preserving the dignity and livelihoods of the workers you employ.

I know many of these entrepreneurs don’t have large HR departments like big corporations do. That’s why I’m delighted to share that we have introduced a new, free online tool to help employers build custom safety plans for their workplaces. This portal will help hundreds of small businesses with confidence that they’re following the latest health and safety measures for their workers and customers. I encourage everyone to try out the tool for themselves at ontario.ca/covidsafety.

COVID-19 immunization

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: My question is to the Premier. Ontarians still have concerns about the statistical curiosities over in the PC caucus. Dr. Moore said that too many people are saying that they’re exempt from vaccines. There are supposed to be only two reasons someone can get a medical exemption, and the exemptions are supposed to be few and far between: 1 in 100,000, not 1 in 35.

We asked yesterday if the Premier would commit to reviewing those exemptions, but the only response we got was a shrug. It appears that people can get exemptions for anything and no one is ever going to evaluate this.

Isn’t the Premier worried that people are going to take his silence as permission to break the rules? I ask the Premier to please give us a response.

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: I think I answered this clearly yesterday.

Obviously, somebody who requires a medical exemption will approach their medical professional to give that exemption. I think the Chief Medical Officer of Health has made it clear what those exemptions are. I don’t think it is for members of provincial Parliament to be deciding if somebody should be getting a medical exemption or not. I trust that the medical professionals are the best suited to be doing that work.

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Speaker, in Saskatchewan, Scott Moe fired one of his MLAs for not telling the truth about their vaccine status. Here, though, the Premier said it’s fine for folks not to tell the truth; you just need to have an exemption for it.

As MPPs, we’re supposed to provide leadership. We’re supposed to set the tone. The people of Ontario look to us for guidance. But instead of showing leadership and saying no to people who think the rules don’t apply to them, the Premier seems to be saying yes to special rules for PC MPPs. This is what happens when there’s no province-wide system for validating exemptions.

Why won’t the Premier do the right thing and ensure that everyone across Ontario is playing by the same rules when it comes to vaccine requirements and exemptions?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Speaker, I think we’ve been very clear. I know the Premier has, the Minister of Health has, and everybody on this side of the House has been very clear in that we think the best way to fight the pandemic is to be able to get the vaccines in your arm. We’ve showed remarkable progress on this. I think somewhat close to 87% of Ontarians have received one dose; a little over 82% have received a second dose.

But there are those individuals who require a medical exemption. The Chief Medical Officer of Health has advised what those exemptions should be.

I’m now just hearing for the first time that the NDP would seek to fire individuals who have valid medical exemptions from their jobs. That’s not something we are going to do.

We’ll continue to work with the Chief Medical Officer of Health, as we have done throughout this pandemic, to ensure that we have the best vaccination rates in the entire country and to make sure that we continue to support all of those people who are impacted by the pandemic.

But to be clear, we are not going to have a system in place where somebody with a medical exemption is fired from their job because the opposition has asked for it.

COVID-19 immunization

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

I do have to say, it’s really hard for families to listen to the answer on the Ontario Autism Program given that the wait-list has gone from 23,000 to almost 50,000.

Speaker, last week the government announced that COVID-19 vaccinations will become mandatory for everyone working in long-term care. While that’s welcome news, it comes months too late. We knew last spring that we needed to do this to protect vulnerable residents, and yet, inexplicably, the government waited too long. That allowed the disease to spread, outbreaks to happen and people to die.

For months now, Ontario’s nurses, Ontario’s doctors, Ontario’s hospitals and Ontario’s families have been asking to make vaccinations mandatory for all front-line health care workers in every setting.

Why is it that this government has to be dragged screaming and kicking to do the right thing, to keep people safe from COVID-19?

Speaker, through you, will the Premier do the right thing and make vaccines mandatory for front-line health care and education workers?

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

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, I do understand the member from Ottawa South’s interest in making things look worse than they may be. But what we all know—and through the great work of our front-line health care workers, our public health officials and Ontarians everywhere, Ontario has some of the lowest infection rates per 100,000, not just in Canada, but across North America.

Nonetheless, back in July, even though Ontario long-term-care homes also had the highest vaccination rates for staff, we did start to monitor on a home-by-home basis. In consultation with my colleagues, we decided that although vaccination rates were at 90%, there were some outliers. That’s why we made the choice, following the data, looking on a home-by-home basis, to expand vaccinations and ensure that we put the safety of our long-term-care residents who are at risk at the top of the priority list.

I’m happy to report at this opportunity that we also have 86% of eligible residents now with a booster dose in Ontario long-term-care homes.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are consistently taking the steps to protect long-term care—

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

The supplementary question.

Mr. John Fraser: Speaker, I’m certainly not going to minimize outbreaks happening, people getting sick and people dying, and I don’t think the minister should be doing that.

I understand that the Premier believes that making vaccinations mandatory is going to come at a political cost; I think he’s wrong. That’s why, this afternoon, I’ll be introducing legislation to make vaccinations mandatory for all front-line workers in health care and education, in all settings.

I’m doing that because I think families deserve to know that the person caring for their loved one in a hospital or at home, that that person’s been vaccinated; or that the person who’s helping their child in school, that that person’s been vaccinated too; or the child care worker who’s in the child care centre, that that person’s been vaccinated. I think that that’s all reasonable. It comes down to protecting those people who are most vulnerable to COVID-19: seniors and children under 11. That’s the cost.

So, Speaker, through you, what will it take for this government to do the right thing and make vaccinations mandatory for all front-line workers in health care and education, I ask you again, Premier?

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

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you for the question. Our government’s top priority from the beginning of this pandemic has been the health and safety of all Ontarians, and that’s why we introduced the vaccination program that we have, with some of the highest rates of vaccinated people in the world, not just in Canada. We’re continuing with that. We’re on our last-mile strategy to get to 90% on both first and second doses.

But the reality is that the people in our long-term-care homes are the most vulnerable. They are the ones where we have seen breakouts happen, where we need to make sure we can protect them. That is why the Minister of Long-Term Care has created a mandatory vaccine policy, to make sure those people are safe and to introduce the third booster dose.

But rest assured, should we see a similar situation unfolding—and we’re watching this very carefully on a daily basis—we won’t hesitate to introduce it elsewhere. Right now, though, the top priority is people in our long-term-care homes. Those are the people that we need to protect. We saw that the third booster dose was recommended for them. They are receiving the booster dose and we will continue to protect—

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

The next question.

Economic development

Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on Ontario workers and small businesses. For the past 18 months, business owners and workers have made tremendous sacrifices to keep our neighbours and communities safe. The people of Ontario have rallied together to get through this unprecedented crisis and, throughout, our government has been there for Ontarians. Can the minister please update this House on what steps our government is taking to support businesses and workers through this last mile of the pandemic?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Thank you to the member. Our government is making the necessary investments to support the people of Ontario during this crisis and into the future: investments like the $51 billion in our COVID-19 action plan, which included $23.3 billion to protect the economy and the good-paying jobs in Ontario; investments like the additional $50 million into the renewed Ontario Together Fund, with a focus on supporting home-grown manufacturing and innovation to combat COVID-19—this will provide goods critical to the health, safety and security of Ontarians beyond the pandemic.

Our government is doing what it takes to protect the people of today and into the future. After 18 months of fighting this pandemic, we owe the families, we owe the businesses the stability. Certainly, unlike the other parties, this is exactly what our government is delivering.

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

Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos: Thank you, Minister. We’ve come a long way since the early days of the pandemic, when the first cases of COVID-19 were identified here in Canada. Our government has never hesitated to do what was necessary to fight this pandemic, putting the health of the people of Ontario first.

With more and more Ontarians stepping up to get vaccinated, and as we turn our attention to the future, can the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade update the House on what our government is doing to ensure an economic recovery for individuals and families in my community of Oakville North–Burlington and in every part of the province?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Families can rest assured that our path to recovery will be fuelled by economic growth, rather than tax hikes or spending cuts. As we look beyond the pandemic, our government is working for the people of Ontario to ensure that we remain the economic engine of Canada.

We’ve already taken steps by reducing the cost of doing business in the province of Ontario by $7 billion each and every year. That includes lowering the WSIB premiums by over $2.4 billion without reducing benefits.

We allow same-year writeoffs for equipment, and that reduces the cost of business by a further billion dollars annually.

We took action to fix the Liberals’ hydro mess by lowering industrial and commercial hydro rates by 14% and 16%, respectively.

Our plan is working. Large-scale auto investments in places like Windsor, Oshawa, Oakville and others are proof that we are unleashing Ontario.

Optometry services

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Good morning, Speaker.

Remarks in Oji-Cree.

My question is to the Premier. Vision is key for development in children, as over 80% of children’s learning is based on vision. Dr. Sabri, a pediatric ophthalmologist at McMaster Children’s Hospital, tells us more than a third of Indigenous children have far-sightedness—more than three times higher than non-Indigenous children. Research also shows that Indigenous children experience very high levels of astigmatism and uncorrected refractive error.

Right now, parents across Kiiwetinoong can’t get their children the eye care they need because this government won’t negotiate a fair deal with the optometrists.

Will this government fund the optometry services that our kids need and deserve?

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

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you very much to the member for the question.

You’re absolutely right. Children across the province require the services of optometrists, as do many seniors. That’s why we were extremely disappointed that the optometrists have chosen to withhold publicly funded, or OHIP-funded, services for children and for seniors. This is something that is very unfortunate because we are not withholding services. The government is not withholding these publicly funded services; it’s simply that the optometrists have decided that they are not going to provide them.

We are ready, willing and able to return to the mediation table to discuss the issues that optometrists have. There is no question that they were not fairly dealt with by the previous government, but we are ready to remedy those wrongs. We are ready to go back to the table with them, to negotiate a fair deal, to listen to what they have to say, and we are asking for the optometrists to please come back to the table so we can do just that.

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

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Meegwetch to the minister for her response.

Children need your help. We know that eye care is health care.

In Kiiwetinoong, doctors have shared with me their concerns about the high incidence of eye disease and the extra care needed in the region. People in Kiiwetinoong are among the sickest in Canada.

Elders and seniors right across the north need regular eye care exams because of the diseases they have. Because of COVID-19 and now this, they have been waiting for two years now.

Why does this government say no when it comes to ensuring everyone can access the essential eye and vision care they need?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Our government is actually saying, yes, we want to come back to the table.

We recognize that Indigenous children, children across Ontario, need access to eye care. They’re back in school. Many of them require glasses, for example.

We also know that there are seniors who have cataracts and other vision problems and they need to be served.

That’s why we’re asking the optometrists to please come back to the mediation table. You can’t negotiate if there’s only one party there. We are ready to go there. We have agreed with the mediator’s requirements for considering going back into mediation. We want to do that. We want to address the issues of the past, which we have, with the payment of the $39 million. We want to go forward, starting with an 8.48% increase, retroactive to April 1, and we want to discuss the overhead issues that the optometrists wish to discuss. So we are ready, willing and able to proceed. We’re asking the optometrists to please come back to the table.

Affaires francophones / Francophone affairs

Monsieur le Président, le gouvernement peut continuer de répéter ses points habituels, mais la réalité est qu’il n’a absolument rien fait pour les francophones de l’Ontario, sauf les attaquer. Comment ce gouvernement conservateur peut-il nous dire qu’il fait des avancées lorsqu’il n’y a aucune substance à ses actions, justement, vides comme son discours du trône?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To