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

February 18, 2021

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2021-Feb-18 (PDF)

L223 - Thu 18 Feb 2021 / Jeu 18 fév 2021

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 18 February 2021 Jeudi 18 février 2021

Orders of the Day

Workplace Safety and Insurance Amendment Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 modifiant la

Loi sur la sécurité professionnelle et l’assurance contre les accidents du travail

Report, Financial Accountability Officer

Workplace Safety and Insurance Amendment Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 modifiant la

Loi sur la sécurité professionnelle et l’assurance contre les accidents du travail

Members’ Statements

Poverty

Hazel McCallion

Hospital funding

Seniors in Isolation

COVID-19 immunization

Employment standards

YWCA Hamilton’s Women of Distinction Awards

Government’s agenda

Animal protection

Farmers’ mental health services

COVID-19 deaths

Members’ comments

Question Period

COVID-19 response

COVID-19 response

Personal support workers

Waste water monitoring

Small business

COVID-19 response

COVID-19 immunization

Seniors

Employment standards

Hydro rates

Long-term care

Environmental protection

Manufacturing jobs

Long-term care

Employment standards

Business of the House

Introduction of Bills

Recovery Month Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 sur le Mois du rétablissement

Notice of dissatisfaction

Orders of the Day

Workplace Safety and Insurance Amendment Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 modifiant la

Loi sur la sécurité professionnelle et l’assurance contre les accidents du travail

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers/Prières.

Orders of the Day

Workplace Safety and Insurance Amendment Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 modifiant la

Loi sur la sécurité professionnelle et l’assurance contre les accidents du travail

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 16, 2021, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 238,

An Act to amend the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 / Projet de loi 238, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur la sécurité professionnelle et l’assurance contre les accidents du travail.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Further debate? I recognize the member from London West.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I rise today to participate in the debate on Bill 238, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Amendment Act. Speaker, I recall when this legislation was introduced back in December, the final day of the fall session of this assembly, it was introduced just prior to the introduction of Bill 239, the Stay Home If You Are Sick Act, which is a private member’s bill that I introduced and that has generated widespread support across the province.

I mention my bill, which was introduced that same day back in December, in the context of this bill, because both of those bills claim or purport to do the same thing: (1) to support workers; and (2) to help small businesses with their costs and their workforce. But it’s interesting, Speaker, when you look at the actual impact of those two bills and what Bill 238 will achieve compared to what Bill 239, my bill, the Stay Home If You Are Sick Act, could have achieved.

The Minister of Labour, when he spoke to Bill 238, the bill that is before us this morning, took some time to talk about paid sick days in the context of what this government is doing to support workers and businesses. Therefore, Speaker, I want to focus on some of the things that the minister said about paid sick days as a workplace safety measure that this government is implementing—or actually not implementing.

The minister said that there is a program—his words, Speaker: “There is financial help for workers who need to stay home. Thanks to an agreement between” the Prime Minister, the Premier, “there is over $1 billion available for workers to access two weeks of paid sick days.” Now, Speaker, I have to note that the federal program that the minister referred to in his remarks is not two weeks of paid sick days for Ontario workers. It is a temporary program that provides $500 a week of income replacement, $450 after tax, which is below minimum wage and, for many workers, does not come close to income replacement.

It requires a worker to have missed at least 50% of their work week in order to be eligible, and it is only available on a weekly basis.

This is not a program that was designed in any way to support a worker who wakes up one morning, goes to have breakfast, and notices that they have lost their sense of taste or smell. They may be running a mild fever. They may have a cough—some of these classic symptoms of COVID. They may want to go and take the day to get a COVID test and wait for the results. They want to do the responsible thing: to stay home—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Order, please.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: —to stay home and not go to work and risk infecting their co-workers and the customers that they serve.

Unfortunately, Speaker, the reality is that many workers don’t qualify for the federal program because they may already have some access to paid sick days through their work. If you already have access to paid sick days through your work—there are 40% of workers in Ontario who do have some access to paid sick days—you don’t qualify for that federal benefit.

I want to share with members of this House an email that I just received yesterday from a resident of the city of Guelph. He said that his son tested positive for COVID-19. He did the responsible thing: He told his work immediately that his son had gotten a positive test. They told him that he had to get a positive test and not to return to work for a minimum of 14 days. He did test negative, but his employer asked him to do another COVID test, which also came back negative, but he was still required to self-isolate for that full period of 14 days.

The paid sick time that is available through his employer was not available to him for the purposes of self-isolation. He is one of the lucky few in this province, the 40% of people who do have paid sick time, but because he had that available through his work, he’s not even eligible to apply for the federal benefit, because that’s one of the requirements that you have: You don’t have access to paid sick time through your work.

Now, this resident of Guelph who emailed me is in a situation that many health care workers in our province are experiencing. Let’s acknowledge the heroic, unbelievable efforts of health care workers over this past year to help us through the ravages of this pandemic. We know in our community of London—I see my colleague here, the member for London–Fanshawe. We have heard from nurses at St. Joseph’s Health Care in London, at LHSC.

If they have a COVID-positive result that can’t be linked to their workplace, they are required to stay home from work and they are not permitted to use their sick time that’s available to them. They have to use holidays, if they have holidays available, or stay home on their own dime.

Speaker, they want to do the responsible thing. Of course they do. They’re a health care worker. They don’t want to go into the workplace and risk spreading a virus to their co-workers or the patients that they work with. And yet they are expected to use their own resources to do the responsible thing, to stay home if they are sick.

That’s two examples that I’ve just shared of people who have access to paid sick days who aren’t supported by the federal benefit, but the reality is that there are 60% of Ontarians who do not have any access to paid sick days at all. When you look at who makes up that 60% without any paid sick days, we find that of the people who are least likely to have paid sick days, about 90% are racialized and immigrant workers. These are the workers who are working in warehouses. They are working in transportation facilities. They’re working in delivery services.

They’re working all around the GTA, the regions of Peel and Brampton, where we know that COVID-19 is such a concern that the mayors have asked the province to not lift the lockdown, to keep those regions locked down because they are so concerned about reopening the economy when the virus continues to spread, and in particular, the new variants.

We just have to look at the experience of Newfoundland as a cautionary lesson in how quickly those new variants can spread, and particularly in workplaces where workers are congregated, as in warehousing and transportation and manufacturing and many of those essential jobs that so many workers in the GTA must go into to continue to work.

We know from WSIB data—and we’re talking right now about a workplace safety and insurance amendment act—that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board has reported that 15,000 people in Ontario have been infected with COVID-19 as a result of work-related exposure. The risk of contracting COVID-19 at work, Speaker, is very real. In fact, workplaces are second only to long-term-care homes as the most frequent source of COVID-19 transmission. I have to say, Speaker, that even when you think about that statistic—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Come to order, please.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: —you have to recognize that long-term-care homes are also workplaces. We have heard many examples of staff in long-term-care homes who have also been infected by COVID-19 because of where they work.

Speaker, the government had an opportunity in Bill 238 to do something meaningful with the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, to make meaningful changes that are actually going to deal with the real issues that workers in this province are facing. What this bill does is it reduces—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Sorry to interrupt the member. I recognize the member from Essex on a point of order.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Pardon me, Madam Speaker. I hate to interrupt my colleague, but I’ve heard you, from the chair, ask for order five times already in the first 10 minutes of the session. I appreciate that the member across the way is a well-known baritone, but his voice is really distracting in the building.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Thank you. I do recognize the point of order that all members do need to allow debate to continue. I have asked for order several times. I haven’t individually noted the members, but I would ask that the side conversations cease or quiet down. It’s difficult to hear each other over the masks, I recognize, but it’s very disruptive. Thank you.

I return to the member.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Thank you very much, Speaker. What Bill 238 does is it legislates the freezing of WSIB premiums paid by employers for 2021. We heard the Minister of Labour, when he was speaking to this bill, talk about how important this would be for small businesses in this province. But I have to tell you, Speaker, that what I am hearing from businesses, what the government must also be hearing from businesses, is that paid sick leave is what would actually support businesses to make it through the pandemic and ensure that they are able to survive and remain open with their workers still on the payroll.

There was a media conference last week, on February 10, from the Better Way Alliance. This is an organization of small and medium-sized businesses that came to tell the government that paid sick days are good for their business, their employees and their communities. They pointed out to Conservative MPPs that “paid sick days are not only a public health imperative, but also make good business sense.” They said, “The cost of providing paid sick leave is minimal compared to the cost of outbreaks or the cycles of lockdowns and restrictions, which will continue as long as workers without paid sick days have no choice but to go into work sick.”

One business owner here in Toronto, Sam Conover, said, “If someone comes in sick, everyone gets sick and it’s a horrible cycle. Providing paid sick days protects against this. It means a better experience for customers and employees.”

Those businesses understand that paid sick days are a support that would help them keep their workers healthy, keep their workers on the payroll and keep their business going after the pandemic is over.

But it’s not just the Better Way Alliance, Speaker. When I tabled my bill back in December—the same day that Bill 238 was tabled—the Ontario Chamber of Commerce issued a statement. In their statement, they said, “Public health and safety are priorities for us all. Ensuring people, particularly during a pandemic, can afford to stay home, is both the right thing to do and an economical thing to do. When a worker protects themselves, they protect their colleagues and employer and in turn, they safeguard the entire business.”

It’s not just the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. There was an editorial earlier this month by the senior business columnist for the Globe and Mail—not known typically as a bastion of left thinking. The senior business columnist for the Globe and Mail wrote an opinion piece entitled, “Politicians Must Realize Paid Sick Leave Isn’t About Entitlements, It’s Smart Economic Policy.” She points out, “It’s unconscionable that our provincial legislators are still treating essential workers as if they’re economically expendable....

“Our premiers need a reality check about this humanitarian crisis and the potential for more economic destruction before Canada’s stalled vaccination efforts get back on track....

“Stopping the spread is key to easing lockdowns. Simply telling vulnerable people to call in sick” is not going to keep them at home. It’s not going to reduce workplace transmission.

I’m disappointed that—the government, you know, in December had an opportunity to introduce amendments to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act that would have made a meaningful difference for workers in this province. They could have also—at the same time, there was—I introduced my bill in December. The government could have recognized a good idea when they saw it. They could have worked for the rest of December, when we were in recess, for all of January that we were in recess, for the first three weeks of February that we were in recess.

They could have worked to incorporate my PMB into government legislation, if they wanted to take credit for it. A good policy idea is good policy, regardless of which party brings it forward. I would love to see the government bring a paid-sick-days program forward in a government bill, but they chose not to do that. They chose not to do that.

The first day we returned to this Legislature after a period of lockdown that we hadn’t seen for months prior, as COVID-19 caseloads spiked, in the face of dire warnings from Dr.

Steini Brown from the scientific advisory table that if the government doesn’t take strong measures now and proceeds with its irresponsible reopening of the economy, we could be looking at 4,000 to 5,000 cases before the end of March; and we could be facing an even longer, deeper lockdown in April that will be necessitated because of this government’s failure to implement the measures that are widely acknowledged as absolutely essential if we are to actually curb the spread of COVID-19—and that starts with curbing the spread of COVID in workplaces.

This legislation that was brought forward will do nothing—nothing—to deal with protecting workers in their workplaces from COVID. It will do nothing to enable a worker to stay home if they are sick when they know that that would mean taking a couple of days’ loss of pay. And for the lowest-income workers, that could mean not being able to make the rent that month, not being able to buy groceries. Those workers should not have to be forced to be economically penalized for doing the right thing. In many cases, it’s not a choice. Doing the right thing is not a choice. We shouldn’t put that on the worker.

We have an obligation to support these workers. If we’re going to give these public health messages, “Stay home if you are sick,” we have to actually enable that to happen. That’s why we called on the government on Tuesday to give unanimous consent to my PMB, the Stay Home If You Are Sick Act. The government chose not to do that. Even though they had many weeks to study that bill, they chose not to do that. They will have another opportunity on February 25 when my bill comes forward for second reading debate.

I hope that every member on that side of the House is listening to the phone calls and the emails that they are receiving from public health experts, from workers, from business owners who are calling for this government to do the right thing and pass paid sick days legislation now for workers and businesses in this province.

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

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: I would like to thank the member from London West for her brilliant presentation. My question is, with public health experts, leading scientists, epidemiologists, boards of health, municipalities and even the Ontario Chamber of Commerce endorsing Bill 239 for paid sick leave, why do you think this government is shirking its responsibilities under the ESA and wanting the federal government to do all the heavy lifting?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I think that what we have seen from this government throughout the pandemic is that they are more interested in protecting corporations than protecting workers. We saw that in the legislation they brought forward to absolve long-term-care-home operators, for-profit chains, private sector chains, from any liability for negligence in their treatment of residents under COVID-19.

Speaker, this is a pattern that we have seen from this government. They are not actually interested in supporting workers. They had an opportunity. There’s much more that needs to be done with the WSIA. They had an opportunity to make amendments that would have been meaningful, and they chose not to.

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

Ms. Donna Skelly: This proposed bill clearly provides a win for both employers and employees. I’m sure that there are many family businesses from the honourable member’s riding of London West that would greatly appreciate any and all forms of support from the provincial government. I’ve heard from many small business owners who appreciate the grants that this government has put forward, and they need help. Why would you oppose the supports for businesses in this proposed legislation?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I want to be clear to the member across the away: The NDP has been the party on the front lines of advocating for supports for businesses. We did that back in the spring during the first wave with our Save Main Street plan. We have continued that advocacy and we will remain committed to supporting small businesses.

Speaker, as I feel that I outlined in my remarks, paid sick days are the actual supports that small businesses need so that they don’t have to worry about all of their employees coming down with COVID-19. They don’t have to worry about sick employees transmitting the virus to customers. They can keep their workers healthy and on the payroll and their business going.

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

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It’s my pleasure to ask a question of my colleague from London West about the bill before us, Bill 238, the workplace safety and insurance amendment. I sat and listened intently, even over the noise coming from the other side of the House, and I know that in this bill, which is barely a page long, there is no provision for paid sick days for workers. There is no presumptive legislation, something that my colleague from Niagara Falls introduced that this government could pass so that workers that become ill with COVID-19 and have to file for WSIB, it is automatically a given that they got COVID at work, rather than having to fight WSIB and be denied.

The member from Flamborough–Glanbrook says something in this bill supports businesses. Yes, it’s giving them a break on paying into supporting sick workers. So I’m just wondering if the member for London West can tell me what in this bill she sees that actually directly supports the workers in this province.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I appreciate the question from the member for Windsor West. There’s nothing in this bill, Speaker, that supports workers despite the comments that we heard across the way from the minister when he spoke to this bill. This bill helps employers by freezing WSIB premiums, but it does nothing to help workers. You know, businesses may welcome a WSIB premium reduction; I’m sure they do. But more than that, businesses are looking for paid sick days to keep their workers healthy and their workplaces safe.

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

Ms. Jane McKenna: First of all, I just want to address this. There’s no other province or territory in Canada that is looking to duplicate what the federal government is already doing, including the NDP in BC. I also want to point out that two provinces that did do that, Saskatchewan and Quebec, cancelled it when CERB came in, and also five days after that. So just so we’re clear.

I also want to say that there’s $800 million there; 73% is unspent that people can call on. I just want to reiterate to say there is a 1-800 number, 959-2019, but clearly people are not obviously being able to do that. The Minister of Labour, Training and Skills Development’s explanation of this proposed legislation and the large numbers of supportive stakeholders that will help the people of Ontario—my question is, why does the member from London West still believe this change would cut workers’ benefits? That is obviously not true.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I’m sorry, the member will withdraw.

Ms. Jane McKenna: Withdraw.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Response? The member from London West.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: The federal minister responsible for the CRSB actually wrote a letter to Minister McNaughton and she clarified that there would be nothing duplicative between the federal program and a provincial program.

I would also want to point out to the member that Ontario has the most cases of COVID right now than anywhere else in Canada, and so the urgency of paid sick days is particularly—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Northumberland–Peterborough South, come to order.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: —important in our province at this time. It’s not just me saying that, Speaker. It’s municipal councils, it’s mayors, it’s health care experts, it’s boards of health, it’s union leaders, it’s labour, it’s workers, it’s businesses—

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: We’re talking about WSIB and how important it is that we protect our workers when they are injured or they become sick. I want to highlight the agency workers and the contract workers that aren’t covered by WSIB. In particular, there’s an example in London. Yassin Dabeh was a 19-year-old contract worker that went to a long-term-care home and contracted COVID-19. As a result, he died. I just wanted the member from London West to expand why are—WSIB is broken; we need to fix it, and the vulnerability around workers who aren’t covered at all.

They wouldn’t even be accessing sick days under an agency or contract work. What about those workers? What are we doing for them under this WSIB bill?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I really appreciate the question from my colleague the member for London–Fanshawe. Look, all of us hear, I’m sure, on a regular basis from injured workers in our ridings who either don’t have access to WSIB, are shamed by WSIB or are deemed to be able to work in a phantom job as an excuse to be cut off from WSIB. WSIB has failed injured workers in Ontario—there’s no question—and in particular throughout COVID-19.

In December, we saw an investigation that showed that more than 7,600 workers at that time had contracted COVID-19 on the job. There were thousands of workplace safety inspections across the province, but only two fines were issued, Speaker—two fines for the 7,600 workers, and one of the fines was to a worker. One business was fined for not protecting their workers, after 7,600 workers had contracted COVID on the job.

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

Further debate?

Mr. Mike Schreiner: Good morning, everyone. I rise today to speak on Bill 238, a bill to protect employers from sudden increases in Workplace Safety and Insurance Board premiums in 2021. On the surface of it, yes, this bill is fine, and I understand why the government might want to add some additional supports to struggling businesses, because there are a lot of businesses struggling out there. But I would say the number one thing we can do for struggling businesses, in addition to providing them with direct financial support—which this government is not doing enough of—is to actually contain the spread of COVID infections so we can protect people’s lives and be able to reopen our economy.

I think a discussion about workplace safety is an essential discussion about how to contain COVID, because we know that’s where most of the outbreaks are happening. But unfortunately, this bill doesn’t really offer much of a discussion about workplace safety, even though it’s in the title.

I want to take a few moments to talk about the motion I put forward to actually address workplace safety. Yes, it begins with guaranteeing 10 paid sick days for all Ontarians so they don’t have to choose between going to work or staying home, but it’s beyond that, Speaker. It’s about mandating increased inspections and fines for non-compliance. It’s about mandating proper PPE so when workers go into the workplace, they’re actually safe. It’s about introducing an awareness campaign so workers know how to complain about unsafe workplaces.

It’s about providing immediate funding to roll out rapid testing with the staffing available to actually administer those tests in vulnerable workplaces, especially our long-term-care homes, schools and warehouses and food processing places. It’s about outlining a rollout strategy for the vaccine that shows how essential, vulnerable workers will be prioritized and providing them with paid time off to actually go get their vaccine shot.

Speaker, if we’re going to update the WSIB act and bring it up for debate, why don’t we have amendments so it expands coverage to people who are currently not covered, such as developmental support workers and those working in residential care facilities, including retirement and group homes? Why don’t we stand up and protect injured workers by ending WSIB’s practice of deeming workers? I believe there’s a bill that’s on the order paper to do exactly that.

So Speaker, if we’re going to stand up and call essential workers heroes, let’s provide them with safe workplaces so they’re treated like the heroes they are.

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

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: My question to the member—I was listening to his speech—is that I talk to my constituents and the business owners and the employers, and every little bit helps and it goes a long way. So I just want to ask, why would you—if every little bit helps and your businesses are going to be impacted, what are you telling your businesses that are looking at this change and saying that this is a sigh of relief for them, they can take on more employees, and they don’t have to be worried about their payroll taxes being increased because of other policies?

Mr. Mike Schreiner: Thank you for the question. I appreciate the member’s question. Madam Speaker, what I tell those businesses is, yes, I support things that provide businesses with some relief right now, but I also am going to come into this House and advocate for a comprehensive safe workplace plan, because I know that is vital to containing the spread of COVID. What businesses need right now is a provincial government who’s going to provide them with the financial support they need when they’re forced to shut down and put the protections in place to avoid future lockdowns.

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

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Good morning, Speaker. It’s a pleasure to see you there this morning.

My question to the member from Guelph—you talked about finances. To those of us who are perplexed as to why paid sick days weren’t put into this bill, in your opinion, do you believe it’s because the government doesn’t have the money to pay for that? Just a simple question.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I appreciate the member’s question. It’s been clear that this government’s been sitting on money that’s been provided primarily from the federal government throughout this pandemic, which, unfortunately, has meant that we haven’t acted as aggressively as we should be acting to contain the spread of COVID. In particular, over the summer, if money had been spent on more LTC staff, more testing, more workplace safety measures, we could have reduced the spread of COVID during wave 2. To me, those types of investments, especially in safe workplaces, are absolutely critical to staying ahead of this virus and avoiding a third wave and another lockdown.

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

Ms. Jane McKenna: I just want to be very clear when we’re sitting here in this House: First of all, the health and safety of the people and workers of Ontario is our top priority, full stop. Second of all, we are all on the same side: employers, employees and government, working together to put the health and safety of all our workers—make sure everybody’s safe.

But I want to say a couple of things, just because you were talking about health and safety. The minister has been out—total inspections to date are 39,000; total orders issued are 40,000; stop work orders are 67. We are making sure that everybody is safe in their work environment. Everybody deserves to go to work and come home safe, and we have done a phenomenal job making sure that that continues to happen. Yes, there are bad actors, but we’re making sure that we continue to do that.

But I’m a bit perplexed, because we keep talking about the paid sick days. We have 73% of the monies unspent, and no other province has done this—two have, but then they stopped after the federal government came in. There’s $800 million. My suggestion to you is: What do you suggest, then, when there’s money there—$800 million—and no one else is talking about this but you people? It’s confusing everybody that’s out there.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I appreciate the member’s question. First of all, on workplace safety: Do you know what? The inspections have actually pointed out that a fairly high—and I would say a dangerously high—percentage of workplaces were non-compliant, and yet there have hardly been any fines administered to those workplaces. So if we’re going to be serious about it, then they need to be fined for non-compliance.

Secondly, when it comes to paid sick days, one of the reasons a lot of workers are not accessing that is because it’s not part of—

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Because they don’t know about it.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: No, they know. Everyone knows there is a federal paid sick leave benefit. The problem is that it falls far short of what is needed. Everyone is saying that. Mayors are saying that, former PC Party leaders are saying that, public health officials are saying that: The federal program is insufficient. It’s in the best interest of all of us to work together to strengthen that program, so why don’t we do that here in Ontario?

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate? I recognize the member from—sorry, just a moment.

Report, Financial Accountability Officer

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I beg to inform the House that the following document was tabled: a report entitled Ontario’s Labour Market in 2020: COVID-19 Pandemic Causes Record Job Loss, from the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario.

Workplace Safety and Insurance Amendment Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 modifiant la

Loi sur la sécurité professionnelle et l’assurance contre les accidents du travail

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate? I again recognize the member from Peterborough–Kawartha.

Mr. Dave Smith: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s good to see you in the Chair today. I always enjoy it when you’re Speaker. We get to have a little bit more fun at times, it seems.

We’ve had—

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Hey.

Mr. Dave Smith: That is not meant as disrespect to any of the other deputy Speakers. It’s simply, you’re my favourite Speaker in the Chair today.

We’ve had about four and a half hours or so of debate on this. There have been a lot of things that have been said. I can repeat a lot of it, and I probably will end up repeating a lot of it, but there are a few other things that I’d like to talk about that emphasize, really, what this bill is all about.

I’m 50. Back in the early 1990s, I owned a pizzeria. I know that there are a lot of other people who have been small business owners. I know that there are a lot of people who understand how all of that works. But there also are people who don’t know how that works.

For every dollar that I spent on labour, I was paying about 20% more in other fees. When someone comes forward to their employer and they say, “I’d like a raise,” and they ask for $1 more, it’s not costing that employer $1 more; it’s costing that employer about a buck twenty more. We don’t think about that as employees. We look at what is it that we make, what is it that we take home, how much value do we think that we put into the company. But every employer, small or large, is going to have to look at it and say, “What’s the total cost, then, of me having someone work here?

How do I get to the point where everybody who’s working for me is happy and I’m satisfying their needs, and I am still able to keep the company open?” Those are all things that get taken into account when you’re running a business. Again, it’s something that most employees don’t know about.

So what can the government do to help with that? This is one of those things. WSIB premiums are something that get tacked on as an employer cost with every employee. It’s not a lot of money, and I will freely admit that: It’s not really a lot of money for a company in the grand scheme of things. If I’ve got a small company with two or three employees, I’m probably paying $150,000, $160,000 in salaries, maybe $200,000 in salaries. The WSIB premium, when you’re comparing it to the $200,000 that you’re paying out, is not that big of a deal. It’s not a huge amount.

The problem is that there are a lot of these little things that got added on—a little bit here, a little bit there; a little bit here, a little bit there. When people are making the argument that you should be adding to this or you should be adding to that or you should put these additional costs on, they always say things like, “It’s only a little bit.”

We have a previous Premier who once stood up in a press conference, talking about the Green Energy Act and how it was only going to add $3 or $4 a month to somebody’s hydro bill.

Hon. John Yakabuski: A cup of coffee.

Mr. Dave Smith: The example was a cup of coffee. Two coffees a month: That’s all it is. You can go to Tim Hortons. Two coffees a month: Surely, to have a green energy, we could afford that.

At face value, it’s probably a legitimate statement. The problem is that it’s $5 here, it’s $7 here, it’s $3 there, it’s 20 bucks here, and at the end of the month you’re adding up and it’s hundreds of dollars, or in the case of a lot of businesses, hundreds of thousands of dollars. It becomes unsustainable.

The approach that we have been taking as a government, then, is how do we mitigate that? How do we start to lower some of those costs—just a little bit here and a little bit there, because those little bits make a big difference. I’ll say it again because I think it’s really important to recognize: Those little bits make a big difference.

How much of a difference? Well, I’ll use that Tim Hortons analogy. I’ll probably get pushback for saying the name of that company because, for some reason, it’s a bad company now to say when we’re talking. It’s about three bucks; let’s say $4. You go in and you have a coffee and a doughnut on your drive through. You do that once a week and it’s 200 bucks a year. You do that every day and it’s a thousand bucks a year. It’s only $4; it’s not a whole lot. It’s a thousand bucks a year.

I do date night Friday nights with my wife. I don’t get to see her an awful lot because of what our jobs are. I’m not complaining about that. I’m not saying that I regret it at all. But I try to make Friday night something that’s special for my wife. I take her out to dinner or we order in for dinner right now. It’s not uncommon to spend $50 or $75 on a nice dinner now. But when you put that over the course of the year, it’s a fair bit of money. It’s only 50 bucks or 60 bucks. It’s a nice thing to do. But when you take that little bit—and it is just a little bit—and you expand it over the course of the year, it becomes a lot. You can’t just look at, what is that little bit?

We had the egg farmers here before COVID, and they had a campaign. What they were looking for was one egg more per week. Just eat one more egg per week. That’s all they’re asking for because, at the end of the year, that’s four dozen eggs. That is a massive increase for them.

What we’re looking at with this WSIB bill is something that makes a small adjustment to what the cost is going to be for the employer. It’s because of the pandemic. We can do all of our planning based on historical data. We know historically that the increase in the average wage is about 2% per year. It’s not a huge amount. It’s something that you can count on year after year after year. It might be 2.5%, it might be 1.9%, but it’s going to work out to about 2% per year.

We’re in a pandemic. It’s not that wages have gone up. The problem is—and I’ll talk about my area in particular—last month we had 13.9% unemployment. The people who are hit with that unemployment are not the six-figure salaries; it’s the average person. In my riding, the average family income is only $63,000. Some 13% of them have been hit by COVID-19 by losing their job. That means that the average salary or average wage has gone up. It hasn’t gone up because we’ve given increases or the companies have made massive amounts of money and they’re sharing it with their employees.

The average wage has gone up because the essential workers, the front-line people, are the ones who are working, and they’re good-paying jobs. It’s the police officers, the firefighters, the nurses and the tradespeople. Those are the people who are there still working because of what the need is.

The hospitality industry and the tourism industry have taken a massive hit. That’s a big part of what my riding is. Those aren’t super-high-paying jobs. And when you lose all of those people in that employment field, it means that the average wage goes up, but it goes up because so many people lost their jobs. Some 7.8% is what the increase was this past year—a 7.8% increase, then, in the premiums for an employer who’s struggling right now because their revenues are down. It’s not something that’s sustainable.

We want to have healthy businesses. We want to have companies that are able to open and go full bore once COVID is over, and we’re doing things to help, to make sure that we do have those employment opportunities for people. You just have to look at the grant program that we put out. When we went into the lockdown, we knew that there were going to be companies that had zero income—none whatsoever. How were they going to survive?

So what did we do? We introduced a grant—not a loan; a grant: grass-level support for those small businesses, the mom-and-pop shops, your next-door neighbours. They qualified for $10,000 to $20,000, because we knew that with no income, they weren’t going to be able to cover their rent. They weren’t going to be able to cover their hydro bill.

And then we added to it. We reduced the cost of electricity during the lockdown, not just for employers, but for the average person, because we were in a lockdown and we knew people were going to struggle and we had to give them that hand up. We had to help, and we took those definitive actions. This is just another tool in the toolbox. It’s one more thing that we can say, one more thing that we can do, to help those businesses weather this storm, and it is weathering this storm.

Now, the opposition have come out and said, “Well, you could have done this. You could have done that. You could have done all of these other things.” I find that kind of ironic, because whenever we have introduced a bill that has had a lot of things in it, they stand up and they slam their desk and they yell and scream and say, “How dare you put all this stuff in there? We’re only going to debate it for six hours, it’s going to go to committee and we have only got two days of committee work. We can’t get everybody in there. It’s too much.”

So now we come out with a bill that is very targeted, that hits the point directly. What do we hear? “It’s only two pages. You could have done so much more. Why didn’t you add this, add this, add this, add this?” Pick a lane. Pick a lane: Either put a lot in, which you get mad at, or target it, but you get mad at that as well.

Whatever we do—I have been here almost three years now. It doesn’t matter what we do; the opposition stands up and says, “That’s wrong. You shouldn’t do that. That’s wrong. Too complicated; don’t do that. Too simple; don’t do that.” You have got to pick a lane, guys. Come on.

Either we follow some of your advice, we target these things and we make it so everybody can understand exactly what we’re trying to do—we make it simple, we target what we’re supposed to be doing, we help people and we help businesses—or we make it really, really complicated and we add a lot of stuff to it because we’re trying to get a lot of things done. But you have to pick a lane. You have to decide: Which way do you want to go? Is it that you want it simple? Is it that you want it complicated? Because apparently you don’t want it simple and you don’t want it complicated.

You don’t want a lot in a bill and you don’t want a little bit in a bill. You don’t want something focused and you don’t want something that is broad-based.

We’re trying to put something forward now that is very focused, that is going to help businesses. We’re trying to show that we are all weathering this storm together. We’re trying to find ways of making it so that every business out there can be successful and can reopen, because the only way that Ontario’s economy is going to rebound is if we have businesses that can be open. The only way our consumers can get product, can buy product, can support businesses is if there are businesses there. The only way people have jobs so that they can pay their bills is if businesses are there.

We have taken a number of steps to do everything possible to make sure that businesses are still there so that when we’re able to reopen, when we can come back to what was the old norm—and there’s a lot of things about the old norm I would love to have again. There are some things I don’t want, but there’s a lot of things about the old norm I’d love to have again. When we get to that point, we have to have companies that are able to survive.

We offered the grants—$10,000 to $20,000. That helped during the lockdown. That made it so that companies were able to stay open. We changed the rules around temporary layoffs so that someone could remain temporarily laid off for a longer period of time so that those businesses have the opportunity to recover and bring back their employees, because if the business doesn’t recover and doesn’t bring back their employees, we have what we have in Peterborough right now, and that’s 13.9% unemployment, which isn’t acceptable.

We’re doing all of these measures. We’re stepping forward. Hydro bills, property taxes, WSIB: These are all small, incremental things that make a big difference. It is small, incremental things that make a big difference. There is no home-run hit that we can make during COVID-19. But if we can hit singles every time we’re up to bat, if you score a run every inning, at the end of a nine-inning game, you’ve scored nine runs, and there aren’t too many games in baseball that you will lose if you score nine runs. It’s about finding balance. It’s about helping people.

We’re proposing a cap of 2% on the WSIB premium, not the 7.8% that has been the increase in the average wage. Why 2%? Because 2% is historically what we have seen. Businesses can plan for that. Businesses have a little bit of certainty then, and they can figure out how they’re going to make that adjustment. But the key to it is that we’re not lowering any of the coverage. The coverage is still going to increase by 7.8% because we recognize that there are people this is going to affect. Again, we’re finding the balance.

We’re reducing the cost to what has been the historical average so that businesses can survive, so that businesses can absorb that, so that businesses can continue to employ people.

I’ve been disappointed by some of the rhetoric that has been brought forward today, disappointed with some of the rhetoric that came forward on Tuesday. It’s pitting groups against groups. I’ve heard things like, “Commercial-industrial landlords are bad. They do all these things.” I’ve heard things like, “You’re not supporting this group.” I’ve heard, “You’re giving an advantage to large corporations.” I can’t say it enough: This is a storm that we’re all in, weathering together. We are all in this storm together. It’s not just Ontario; this is a global pandemic.

We’ve made mistakes, absolutely. Everyone is going to make a mistake. But we’ve also done a lot of very, very good things. We get attacked by the opposition fairly frequently, saying, “You’re not doing enough. You should do this. You should”—sorry. What we usually hear is, “You shouldn’t do that.” Very rarely do we hear, “Here’s another idea.”

If you take a look at what has happened in some of the other jurisdictions—and I’m going to use New York state as a perfect example, because New York state is just across the lake from us. It’s separated by a natural barrier. They’re 25% larger than we are. We have just over 6,000 people who have passed away as a result of COVID-19 here in Ontario. They have just over 45,000 people who have now passed away because of COVID-19. They’re about 25% larger than us. We’re down to a daily seven-day rolling average of about 1,000 infections a day. They have been successful in bringing their rolling average down to about 9,000 infections a day.

We don’t get everything right, but we’re getting a lot of things right. What we’re doing is we’re trying to make sure that most businesses in Ontario can stay open, because the more businesses that we have open, the more people we have employed. And the more people that we have employed, the more people who can pay their bills. And the more people who pay their bills, the more things they’re buying, and it builds the economy back up again. It puts Ontario back in a place where we can become again the economic engine of Canada, and we can be the economic engine of Canada because we’re doing the things to support businesses, employers and employees.

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

Mr. Michael Mantha: I just want to jump on a comment the member from Peterborough–Kawartha just mentioned. Sometimes, we look at the dirt that we have in our own backyard. When we start digging, we start finding out where the real issues are and where the priorities are. This government coming with this particular piece of legislation doesn’t really show the real priorities.

I’ll give you a target. The member from Niagara put in presumptive legislation. He also put in to end deeming. Those are targets that are not included in your bill. When we start digging in our own backyards—I know if we look in our own backyards, we find out that there are cancer clusters of workers that are working over at General Electric who would benefit and really want these priorities as far as presumptive legislation and ending deeming. Here’s a target: Can you shoot at it?

Mr. Dave Smith: That just goes back to exactly what I had been saying. We have a bill that’s very targeted, that is focused on something that we know is a challenge. We heard so much over the past two and a half years that we’re putting out too many bills that are too broad-based, that have too much that’s going on in there, and “We can’t focus on this.” So now we’ve introduced a bill that is very focused, and what does the opposition come forward with? “You need to put more in that. You need to have a whole lot more involved.”

Pick a lane. Either you want a lot or you want something to be focused. We’re focusing right now on WSIB premiums to help all businesses.

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

Ms. Donna Skelly: Thank you to the member from Peterborough–Kawartha. As you mentioned, we hear often in this Legislature comments from the opposition that there is too much in a piece of legislation, a bill that we’ve brought forward, or there isn’t enough. We’ve also rarely heard anything from the opposite side of the Legislature about true support for business. There seems to be a constant attack on small business in Ontario from members of the opposition.

This is one element, one of the many programs that we’re putting forward to help small business so that we can keep jobs. People in Ontario not only want to be paid, they want to have a job to go to. Can the member please share how this will help small businesses keep their doors open?

Mr. Dave Smith: Thank you very much for the question, because I think it’s an excellent one. How does this help small businesses?

As I said in my speech, I was a small business owner at one point. Twenty per cent, roughly, of what I would pay in salaries I had to pay in other source deductions and expenses for that individual employee. We’re trying to make sure that we’re reducing the cost to have employees, because the less cost to the business to hire people, the easier it is for them to hire more people.

My riding has 13.9% unemployment. The more people that we can have employed, the better it will be. This is one small tool in the tool box to help, to relieve some of those pressures that those small companies, those small employers, the true economic drivers of the province—it’s one tool to help them.

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

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: I’d like to turn to the comments that there are certain pieces of legislation that have too much and some that don’t have enough. This government has offered us omnibus pieces of legislation where there are a couple of cherries in an arsenic pie, and they expect us to eat the arsenic just to get to a couple of cherries.

Now, the member says that he has focus, yet I would consider this to be myopic, considering that it does not involve concepts such as deeming and concepts such as presumptive legislation to help protect workers.

The opposition has brought forward a number of different propositional elements that this government has really chosen to shut its eyes, shut its ears to and ignore, such as Save Main Street, rent subsidies, paid sick days, four hours of hands-on time for seniors, as well as rates for essential caregivers. How can this government say it stands with workers and stands with Ontarians when it deliberately leaves them out and ignores positive solutions from the opposition?

Mr. Dave Smith: I would like to thank the member for that, because he absolutely makes my point. My point is that when we put forward legislation that has a lot in it, they complain. If we put in legislation that is very focused on something—this is a need that we need to address right now because the WSIB premium changes will happen. We need to put this forward now so that we make that adjustment, so that businesses have that certainty. And what does the opposition say? “When you have a bill that has too much in it, we don’t like it. You’ve got too much. Don’t do that.

When you have a bill that doesn’t have enough in it, because it’s focused, we don’t like that. We want you to do a lot more. Unless you do a lot more, we don’t want you to do that much.”

Again, I say the same thing to them, because it needs to be repeated: Pick a lane. Either you want things to be done expediently or you don’t.

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

Ms. Jane McKenna: Government has a responsibility to listen to employers and employees. We’re all in this together. It’s unprecedented times. So we had this bill. Two things that were pointed out, and I just wondered if you could agree with me, with this: Employees came to say they wanted to make sure that they could rely on WSIB to receive the financial support that they needed in these times, and employers came to us and said they didn’t want to be negatively impacted by higher WSIB premiums at these uncertain times by going to 7.8%. Do you think we did this in the bill?

Mr. Dave Smith: I’m going to agree 100% with that statement. We had employees who did come forward and say they need that support from WSIB. They need to make sure that WSIB coverage is there for them when they need it. And we’ve had employers who have come forward and said, “We believe the WSIB can work, and we need to have some cost certainty involved with it. Can you help?”

This bill accomplishes both. It provides the increase in coverage for the employees, and it provides the certainty, based on historical norms, for the employer. Again, I’ll point out, the employer is the one who pays the employee. If we make it difficult for employers to hire people, we have very high unemployment. We need to do things that help the employer and help the employee, because we are all in this same storm together.

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

Mr. Wayne Gates: I would like to talk real quickly. You don’t get a lot of time here.

You could have included paid sick days. You can say what you’re saying, whatever you want, but you could have had paid sick days in a pandemic. But when you talk about priorities, are you trying to tell me this bill was a priority over presumptive coverage for our front-line heroes, who are being denied WSIB when they get COVID on the job? They’re being denied. Is that not more important than what you guys are doing here?

How about deeming? You know all about deeming, and you don’t include it in the bill. That deeming bill has been out there for a year and a half, and you come forward with Bill 238. And you know, because I’ve been to your riding and I’ve talked to you about this issue, that General Electric, which has a cancer cluster, which had people die—a number of people died, but you also know they’ve been denied WSIB; spouses who were left without a husband or a wife have been denied WSIB coverage. That could have been in the bill. Why wasn’t it?

Mr. Dave Smith: It seems to be Pete and Repeat coming up here now from the NDP, because it’s the same thing: “In some bills, you have too much. In this bill, you don’t have enough. Add more. If you add more, we’re going to complain. Don’t add as much to it.” Repeat, repeat, repeat—the record is on skip. We have to reset it and get back to, really, what we’re trying to do.

What we’re trying to do is something that is very focused, that helps both employers and employees. Why? I will repeat it again; the message seems to be lost on the opposition: We are all in this storm together. We all need to work together to get through it. This bill approaches the needs of the employee and the needs of the employer, and it makes it so that we find that balance. We give the support that the employee needs and the certainty the employer needs.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate? The member from Windsor–Tecumseh.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Why, thank you, Speaker, and good morning, again. This debate is taking us in different directions. The member from Peterborough–Kawartha was saying he enjoys you being in the Chair, because we have more fun on those days.

I was thinking, when the member told us about his small business experience, that he must have been really rolling in the dough when he was a pizza maker. Then he talked about the cost of adding little things to his business: “‘If an employee asked for a raise,’ I thought, ‘Well, that’s the same as if I’m making a pizza or I’m ordering the pizza and I want anchovies and green onions. Everything I add is going to add to my cost as well.’” He wanted to find ways to lower his cost, and I hope he was doing that, but not at the expense of health and safety.

The member also spoke about the higher expense that he has on Friday night, on date night. I trust and I believe, in between the lines, that he was saying, “Whatever the cost, it’s worth every penny, because it’s a good night out.” I was thinking that to the worker, whatever increase they get after a request for a raise is worth every penny, because their costs keep going up. Without a little bit here and a little bit there, they’re not getting much ahead at all.

The value that we place on the worker, to me, is as important, if not more important, than the extra little cost to the business owner. That’s why, as my friend from Niagara Falls has just said, when it comes to this bill, there are things that could have been added at a little bit of extra cost. Presumptive legislation was just one of them, and that’s a bill that the member has been working on for some time.

I listened the other day when the minister and his parliamentary assistant first introduced Bill 238. A word that struck me as I was listening was when the minister said he had “recently” held consultations with groups of small business owners. I said to myself, “Recently? Buddy, where have you been?” We’re a year into this this, and you have just recently met to talk about these issues with small business owners? To me—and words are important to me—it’s a little late to talk about “recently.”

So we’re limiting premiums that business owners pay to the WSIB, and we’re doing that with the hope that the savings will trickle down, as the minister said, to investments in jobs, technology and better health and safety programs. Well, in America, not that many years ago, they had this theory about trickle-down economics. That usually means that it’s the workers who are being trickled on, in trickle-down economics.

The minister made mention that coupled with this was that there were no premium payments from last March, which was a $2-billion bonus to employers. With 300,000 workplaces, around average, he said the savings was about $760, and—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I’m sorry to interrupt the member. We will have the opportunity another time to continue his debate.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): It is time for members’ statements.

Members’ Statements

Poverty

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: I rise to speak to a profoundly serious issue that is currently happening in my riding of Windsor West. The two largest shelters for people experiencing food insecurity and homelessness are facing massive COVID-19 outbreaks. Between the Salvation Army and the Downtown Mission, there are 65 COVID-19 cases among guests and staff, with more tests pending.

The city of Windsor’s isolation and recovery centre is full as of Tuesday this week. The Downtown Mission’s executive director, Reverend Ron Dunn, was left scrambling to find a temporary shelter space for our most vulnerable in the face of a wicked winter storm that swept through our region Monday night. The mission receives no sustained funding from the province or the city. They raised $4 million from the community, but this is not a sustainable practice, especially during the pandemic. Shelters must be given the proper supports to help vulnerable people survive during this pandemic.

Many Ontarians have been left without any additional supports during the COVID-19 pandemic, often living with food insecurity, precarious housing, chronic illness or a disability. Social assistance rates remain well below poverty level and recipients aren’t receiving any additional support from this government to buy what is needed to keep them safe. Social assistance rates must be increased to reflect the rising housing and living costs across the province; instead, this Conservative government is enabling evictions at record speed, pushing more people into homelessness.

We need an eviction ban. We must invest in helping and protecting those that are being left behind in this pandemic.

Hazel McCallion

Mr. Kaleed Rasheed: This Valentine’s Day, Mississauga’s very own Hazel McCallion turned 100 years young. Hurricane Hazel, even at 100 years old, remains an unstoppable force and an engaged contributor in her community. From her earliest days in office, Hazel was a remarkable leader. In 1979, newly elected Mayor McCallion led the city of Mississauga through the events of the shocking derailment of a CP train and corresponding explosions that released deadly liquid chlorine, requiring 200,000 homes to be evacuated but resulted in no casualties. She has had, and continues to have, a lasting impact on what makes Mississauga such a great place to live and work.

Hazel’s leadership is apparent through her ongoing mentorship of new parliamentarians such as myself, inspiring me to be a better leader, communicator and public servant for the people of Mississauga and Ontario. I am privileged to have had many great talks with Hazel, who is always happy to share her wisdom and experience. I’m certain I speak not only for myself when I wish one of Ontario’s finest a very happy birthday and many happy returns of the day.

Hospital funding

Mr. Percy Hatfield: When I got back to my office this week, I had a number of Christmas cards in my mailbox. They came in after we broke for the holidays. I sent cards to the Premier and key cabinet ministers back in December, and, in those cards, I wrote, “All I want for Christmas is funding for the next planning phase for a new regional hospital in Windsor and Essex county.”

In case those Christmas cards were never passed along to the Premier and the key cabinet ministers from their constituency offices, I’ll put the issue back on the table again this morning. About 10 years ago, we saw the need and began the planning for a new regional hospital. We knew the band-aids and temporary fixes we kept paying for wouldn’t do for the long-term. Committees were struck, a location was chosen and the health ministry approved funding for phase 1. In December 2017, the previous Liberal government approved moving us to phase 2, but didn’t allocate the funding.

Since the Ford government was elected, we’ve answered a ton of questions, but have yet to receive the funding—it hasn’t been approved. The ask is simple: $10 million to move ahead with the essential hospital planning process.

Since there are no public consultations on the spring budget, this is as public as it gets. I call on the government to finally recognize the need and commit the necessary funding for this in Ontario’s spring budget.

Seniors in Isolation

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: It’s an honour to rise today for my first statement of 2021 to share a truly heartwarming story from my riding of Ottawa West–Nepean that displays the Ontario spirit.

Debbie Abfalter, owner of Seniors Solution in Ottawa, started the Seniors in Isolation Facebook group, encouraging members to write to seniors in the area who are feeling increasingly isolated during the pandemic.

Everyone loves receiving a surprise letter, and that was certainly the case for some of my constituents at Stirling Park Retirement Community. Bob Ford was one of those residents. Before long, Mr. Ford was writing back and even sent flowers to the family that had let him know that although they had never met, they were thinking of him and doing what they could to keep him safe. He told CTV News Ottawa, “I didn’t realize the significance of it, and how much I enjoyed it.”

More than 6,000 Ottawa-area seniors have received cards so far. Let’s keep it going. I encourage everyone who sees this to reach out to a senior in their community and let them know that you care.

If you would like to send a card, you can get in touch with Debbie and Cards Etc. for Seniors in Isolation through her email: debbie@seniors-solution.com. Thank you for your work demonstrating the Ontario spirit.

COVID-19 immunization

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: This government’s sluggish vaccine rollout has left seniors and their families in my riding feeling anxious, uncertain and confused about when they will be able to access their vaccine. Some seniors have gone months without seeing their grandkids or loved ones. They’ve sacrificed, followed public health advice, and now, they deserve answers.

This government talks about protecting the vulnerable, and yet seniors are finding it impossible to obtain basic information such as, when will they be eligible for the vaccine? How will they be contacted? And where will they get their shot? Too many of these questions remain unanswered.

One of my constituents, Merna, asked me to think about how seniors suffer from many ailments that make them even more susceptible to COVID. Others have pointed out that seniors with mobility issues are being forgotten. How will seniors with mobility issues obtain the vaccine? Will all vaccination centres be wheelchair-accessible?

Ben and Judy Goldberg, who are 90 and 91, asked Jane Sims from the London Free Press, “‘How are they going to find us? Are we supposed to put a flag out front?’

“Judy said they wonder if their age group’s last-minute addition to phase 1 was made just to shut down the criticism.”

On behalf of London seniors, I’m asking this government to finally release answers to these essential questions about the vaccine. After months of enduring this pandemic, often in isolation, it is the least this government can do for them.

Employment standards

Mr. John Fraser: Paid sick days save lives. Virtually everyone in this province—medical officers of health, municipal councils, doctors, nurses, public health experts and even the government’s own experts—says paid sick days will save lives. That’s the message they’re sending.

The majority of low-wage workers, workers with precarious work, don’t get paid sick days. In 2018, when this government came in, one of the first things they did was take away a raise to the minimum wage and take away equal pay for equal work, and then they took away—wait for it—paid sick days. That was a mistake, and we can now see how clearly that was a mistake in this pandemic. It was a big mistake. People are struggling to make ends meet. They shouldn’t have to decide between putting food on the table and going to work sick.

On this side of the Legislature, we’re all agreed that Ontarians need paid sick days—all of us. It’s fair to workers and, most importantly, it’s going to save lives, especially as we’re heading into a third wave.

My colleague from Don Valley East has put forward a bill—just yesterday—and I’m so proud to support that. I encourage all members of the Legislature to support that, and I encourage the government to reverse its opposition to paid sick days for Ontarians.

YWCA Hamilton’s Women of Distinction Awards

Ms. Donna Skelly: This morning, I want to recognize the incredible women nominated for the 2021 YWCA Hamilton’s Women of Distinction Awards. This year’s awards are particularly significant because they shine a light on the extraordinary efforts of women who have shown courage throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Women have been disproportionately impacted by COVID. Women have been on the front lines of care and contact throughout the pandemic.

The YWCA of Hamilton reimagined the award categories this year to acknowledge individuals on the front line of this battle. The awards recognize the courage of front-line workers, innovators, advocates, change-makers, community champions, young trailblazers and everyday heroes. There is also a lifetime achievement award. There are 97 nominees this year, representing a wide range of ages, backgrounds and experiences. They are women who have shown courage and leadership on the front lines. They have improved and enriched the lives of others.

The 2020 awards ceremony was held a year ago, just before our world was turned upside down by COVID. The event was one of the last large gatherings in the city before everything was shut down. This year, in keeping with COVID protocols, the awards are going online. All of the nominees deserve recognition for their contributions to their communities and their courage in the face of challenges caused by the pandemic.

Government’s agenda

Mr. Michael Mantha: To the good people of Algoma–Manitoulin, I left Algoma–Manitoulin on Sunday, and left with a list of priorities, some of the priorities that my leader, Andrea Horwath, and our caucus have been coming forward with. Some of them included paid sick days, the Time to Care Act, More Than a Visitor Act, a return-to-school plan.

Surprisingly, this was the priority of the government: to present legislative reform, a non-substantive motion, which means—catch this—it enables the standing committees to sit while the Legislature is recessed or adjourned. It gives the government House leader the chance to start on Wednesdays from 3 p.m. to 1 p.m. and for the deferral slips to be delivered from where I stand to the Clerks’ table. God forbid there was a tripping hazard there that would happen. Those are the priorities of this government.

We didn’t talk about the real priorities that you have been relaying to me, in regard to small businesses and tourism, them losing 95% of their clientele in their business. We didn’t talk about a PSW recruitment program. We didn’t talk about northern shortages in regard to doctors. We didn’t talk about the pandemic in long-term-care homes. We didn’t talk about the northern highways and the fact that people are dying on the roads. We didn’t talk about broadband. We didn’t talk about autism services. We didn’t talk about the mental health or opioid crisis, or disabilities, WSIB, ODSP, and OW workers.

It’s all about priorities, folks. This government doesn’t have them.

Animal protection

Mr. Dave Smith: With all of the focus we have had on COVID-19, it would be very easy for us to forget about some of the random acts of kindness that still occur. On January 14 of this year, one such act of kindness occurred in a hamlet in my riding. A neighbour spotted a deer that had wandered out onto the ice on Lower Buckhorn Lake, and as I’m sure you can guess, the deer fell through.

Rob, a local resident, grabbed his kayak and a rope and ventured out onto the ice and eventually into open water to rescue the deer. Rob was able to rope the deer and pull her alongside his kayak and paddle back to the ice. After repeatedly struggling to get onto the ice on her own for almost an hour, Rob decided he needed to lift her out himself. So he climbed out of his kayak, laid down on the ice to distribute his weight and pulled the deer up.

Of course, the deer was exhausted, because it had been in cold water for that long struggling to get out, so he picked her up and carried her to shore, dried her with towels, and his wife wrapped the deer in warm blankets. After resting for about three hours, the deer stood up and was on her way.

It’s nice to know that throughout all of the stress of a pandemic, there are still people like Rob willing to help simply because they can.

Farmers’ mental health services

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Last fall, I recognized Ontario Agriculture Week. I thanked farmers and agri-food workers for growing some of the best food in the world.

This morning, I want to acknowledge that many are struggling. There’s a growing conversation around mental health and agriculture. As someone who farmed for a number of years, I can say that mental health is not always a familiar conversation. However, mental health affects every one of us. A national survey of farmer mental health found 35% of farmers surveyed met the criteria for depression, 45% reported high levels of stress and 58% met the criteria for anxiety.

But many organizations are supporting them. They include the Perth County Federation of Agriculture, the Wellington Federation of Agriculture and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, just to name a few. I also want to acknowledge the tremendous work of CMHA here in Perth and CMHA Waterloo Wellington. These organizations are working around the clock to help those who are in crisis.

Our government is also supporting them, and I want to thank the Associate Minister of Mental Health and Addictions for his leadership on this issue.

Last year, the Listowel Agricultural Society launched the Farmers’ Toolbox. It’s an online resource created to connect farmers to local mental health resources. I would encourage anyone who’s struggling to visit their website, thefarmerstoolbox.com. I want to thank everyone who made this project possible, including Alanna Coneybeare, Steve Dolson and others.

To every farmer in Ontario who is struggling, please know that you are not alone. We hear you, we support you, we thank you and we want the best for you.

COVID-19 deaths

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, I seek unanimous consent for the House to observe a moment of silence to pay tribute to the hundreds of Ontarians who have succumbed to COVID-19 since December 3, the last time we were in the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Leader of the Opposition is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to observe a moment of silence to pay tribute to the hundreds of Ontarians who have succumbed to COVID-19 since December 3. Agreed? Agreed.

I’ll ask the members to rise.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

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

The member for Don Valley East has a point of order.

Mr. Michael Coteau: Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to move a motion regarding the immediate passage of Bill 247, the Paid Personal Emergency Leave Now Act.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Don Valley East is seeking the unanimous consent of the House for the immediate passage of his private member’s bill, Bill 247. Agreed? I heard a no.

Ms. Laura Mae Lindo: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Point of order, the member for Kitchener Centre.

Ms. Laura Mae Lindo: Mr. Speaker, I speak unanimous consent to move a motion regarding the immediate passage of Bill 196, the Seniors’ Advocate Act, to help better protect Ontario seniors from COVID-19.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Kitchener Centre is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion regarding the immediate passage of Bill 196, the Seniors’ Advocate Act, to help better protect Ontario’s seniors from COVID-19. Agreed? I heard a no.

The member for Essex.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: On a point of order: I seek unanimous consent to immediately pass private member’s motion 136, calling on the Ford government to provide assistance for small businesses not eligible for other supports.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Essex is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to immediately pass private member’s motion 136, calling on the Ford government to provide assistance for small businesses not eligible for other supports. Agreed? I heard a no.

Ms. Sara Singh: Point of order.

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

Ms. Sara Singh: I’m seeking a point of order here. I seek unanimous consent to immediately pass private member’s motion number 139 calling on the Ford government to address inadequate pay for PSWs and other health care sector workers.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Brampton Centre is seeking unanimous consent of the House to immediately pass private member’s motion 139 calling on the Ford government to address inadequate pay for PSWs and other health sector workers. Agreed? I heard a no.

Members’ comments

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Before I initiate question period, I have a short statement I wish to present to the House:

My responsibilities as Speaker of the assembly include presiding over the debates in this House and enforcing the standing orders. Standing order 25(

k) reads as follows: It is inappropriate to use “abusive or insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder.”

Once again, I will say no speech, no question and no response is enhanced by a gratuitous personal insult, at the best of times. This applies to all members on both sides of the floor.

I should not need to remind members that these are not the best of times. The pandemic is challenging all of us in ways we could not have imagined a year ago. I understand emotions at times come to the fore during debate, but I urge all members—in fact, I implore all members—to remember that the people of Ontario are looking to their elected representatives for leadership now, perhaps more than ever before in the last 30 years. We need to be up to that challenge and our behaviour in this chamber is part and parcel of the leadership that we can demonstrate.

By showing respect for each other, even across the floor of the House, we show our respect for the democratic process that gives each of us the legitimacy to walk into this chamber and represent our constituents. Let us reach higher and make them proud of their members of provincial Parliament.

Question Period

COVID-19 response

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Good morning. Speaker, my first question this morning is to the Premier. Every day it seems like more and more public health experts are imploring the Premier to slow down the reopening of our province and stop loosening the restrictions that will help us deal with the spread of COVID-19. In fact, just yesterday, we saw a couple of prominent medical officers of health do exactly that. They’re asking for the Premier to not end the stay-at-home orders and the lockdowns.

The medical officer of health for Peel, Lawrence Loh, says this: “I’m very concerned about the tenuous situation that we find ourselves in.” And Dr. Loh was backed up by the mayor of Mississauga, Bonnie Crombie.

Eileen de Villa, the medical officer of health for Toronto, says this: “I have never been as worried about the future as I am today.” And Mayor Tory, of course, backed up Dr. de Villa.

Dr. de Villa, Dr. Loh, Mayor Tory and Mayor Crombie are all imploring this Premier to do the right thing, to slow down the reopening. Will he finally start listening to them?

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

Hon. Christine Elliott: What we’re looking at is not a reopening. We’re looking at a transition back to the framework that we had before the stay-at-home order was brought forward. This has been contemplated with careful thought. We need to do this very gradually, very carefully, particularly with the variants of concern in operation right now. I know that they are spreading across the province, so we have to be very, very careful. We do have the emergency brake that we can bring forward in any situation, any part of Ontario where the cases are growing exponentially, particularly due to the variants of concern, that will then put that region back into grey or lockdown area zone.

But with respect to the comments made by Dr. de Villa and Dr. Loh, that is something that we are taking very carefully and considering very carefully. Dr. Williams is in frequent contact with both of those physicians. There is a new load of data that is coming in tonight that’s going to determine the recommendation that Dr. Williams will be making to the government with respect to the situation for both Peel and Toronto.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, Ontarians have been doing the right thing. They have been working so hard to stop the spread of COVID-19. Folks are absolutely exhausted. The last thing they need is a government that’s preparing to transition us into a disaster with the third wave.

The Minister of Health talks about the emergency brake, and yet nobody has any details as to what that looks like. What is the criteria? Why isn’t the government forthright about exactly what that emergency brake is all about? They refuse to do the things that we know will stop the spread of COVID-19, things like sick days for workers who are our essential workers that are still going to work and spreading the virus.

We know that the variants of concern are heading into Hamilton. We know that they’re in Simcoe. And those places are already coming out of lockdown. Dr. de Villa said this: “By the time the confirmed” variant “case counts are big enough to shock us, it will be too late to do anything.” Why isn’t the government acting now?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Protecting the health and safety of the people of Ontario has been our number one priority since the beginning of this pandemic, and always will be. That’s why we brought forward a very, very careful, thoughtful, slow transition back into the framework to protect the people of Ontario.

We are very aware of the variants of concern. We are very aware that the numbers are low right now, but they can increase exponentially. That was the purpose of the emergency brake. We are looking at that on a daily basis, and if the emergency brake needs to be brought forward in Peel, in Toronto or any other place in Ontario, we will not hesitate to use it to protect everyone in Ontario.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, it looks like this government is just going to make the same mistake again that it’s made twice already, and people are tired. They’re tired of the lockdowns. We have a third wave upon us. In the UK, the third wave was worse than the second. In one day, 1,500 people died in the UK.

Charles Gardner, the medical officer of health for Muskoka District Health Unit, said this: “Be fully prepared to put back in place the stay-at-home order and a shutdown.”

Dr. Michael Warner said this: “We’re being put in a position where we’re much more likely to see” a third wave. “We need to course correct.”

Why is the government ignoring the experts, ignoring the facts? Why is the Premier prepared to yet again have people get sick, have another lockdown and overwhelm our hospitals instead of doing the right thing and slowing down the reopening?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Speaker, I would say to the leader of the official opposition, through you: I’m not sure what mistakes you’re talking about since Ontario has the lowest level of cases per 100,000 in North America, other than the Atlantic bubble, at 75 per 100,000. So clearly we are doing some things right.

We also created a lab system to be able to test people, and we’re up to 100,000 people a day that we can manage. We can test up to a 100,000 people per day. We created all of that. We’ve created the vaccine immunization task force. We don’t have the supply of vaccines that we need, that we’re waiting for from the federal government, but notwithstanding that, we’ve already administered over 500,000 vaccine shots so far.

We are doing everything that we can. We are protecting the people of the province of Ontario. If we need to bring in the emergency brake across the province again, we’ll do it. But we are doing everything that we can to not have to do that. We are relying on the evidence and we are relying on the medical advice from Dr. Williams and the public health measures table, which I would remind the member opposite contains at least—

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

COVID-19 response

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. I have to say, that’s not what we’ve seen here in the Legislature. We came to this Legislature this week, the NDP, and put some hopeful, helpful proposals on the table to try to actually do things to help people get through COVID-19 and stop the spread. And it was shocking to see that here we are on the third day and the government has not brought forward a single action to help people get through COVID-19.

There are many things the government can and should do that experts are asking for, things like paid sick days for workers so the spread doesn’t happen in workplaces, things like lower class sizes in schools, things like the four hours of hands-on care for every person that is living in long-term care. Instead, the Premier comes with threats and insults and bad behaviour.

The people of Ontario deserve much better than that. When will they start listening to the experts and actually put in place things that will help us get through this next couple of months?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. The member for Don Valley East will come to order. The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry will come to order.

Start the clock. The Minister of Health to reply.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you very much, Speaker. We have taken action since the beginning of this pandemic to protect the people of the province of Ontario with expanding testing, lab capacity, case and contact management, and with respect to the variants of concern that I know Dr. de Villa and Dr. Loh are very concerned about.

We have started a six-point plan, which started with mandatory on-arrival testing of international travellers at Pearson airport. Despite asking the federal government to do this for many, many months, we finally moved that forward ourselves, because that’s how the variants of concern got into Ontario in the first place. We are waiting for the federal government to take further measures, but in any event, we knew it was necessary to do that screening, and we have caught over 2% capacity. We have caught a number of people who inadvertently have COVID-19 coming into Ontario, and they are being closely followed to make sure that we control the spread.

We also enhanced screening and sequencing to identify new variants. That is something where, with new testing capacity, we can now determine if people are coming in with known variants or if new variants are being determined. We’ve also maintained public health measures to keep people safe, strengthening case and contact management—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, just a few minutes ago, another suggestion that the NDP brought forward was shot down by this government, and that is to actually permanently increase the pay of PSWs in our province. Those folks work very hard. PSWs have one of the hardest jobs in Ontario, and yet they are not respected, nor are they well paid by this government. Sure, there’s a temporary increase in their wages; it’s going to end on March 31.

Look, the government’s own staffing study showed that the PSW wages need to be increased. In fact, we’ve known this for a very long time. But particularly in the context of COVID-19, those workers deserve a better pay packet each and every day for the work that they do to protect our seniors in long-term care. When will the government act and permanently increase the wages of PSWs?

Hon. Christine Elliott: We also recognize the incredible work that personal support workers provide in hospitals, in long-term-care homes and in home and community care. They are on the front lines. They come to work each and every day. They deserve our additional financial support, and that’s why we have increased PSW wages: $3 an hour to eligible workers in long-term care, $3 an hour to eligible workers in home and community care, $2 an hour for eligible workers in public hospitals, and $3 per hour for eligible workers in social services, providing direct care and support services for the activities of daily living.

This is something that we know is very important. We know that we need to keep more PSWs. We know that we need to increase their pay. We are doing that to March 31, at which point we will re-examine that and see what needs to be done going forward.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, the government needs to assure PSWs that the value of their work is not going to go down suddenly on March 31.

But look, people have made tremendous sacrifices across our province. Folks have dealt with unbelievable loss: loss of loved ones, loss of businesses. It has been a very, very tough time. COVID-19 has really devastated our province. We saw 7,000 people evicted when the government raised the eviction ban last time around. We saw 355,000 people lose their jobs in 2020 because of COVID-19. Some 6,700 people lost their lives to COVID-19, 3,800 of those in long-term care, and yet the government continues to refuse to do the things that all experts are telling them they need to do.

Why is the Premier putting money ahead of public health? Why aren’t they putting lives ahead of profits and politics? Why will the government not step up and do the right thing to protect Ontarians?

Hon. Christine Elliott: From the beginning, the health and safety of the people of Ontario have been our priority. That is what we have addressed. We have dealt with it in terms of health. We’ve dealt with it in terms of supports for living, for housing, for every other aspect of people’s lives. But with respect to health, that has been first.

We’ve increased our capacity greatly. We’ve increased our capacity to make sure that people can be cared for in hospitals. We’ve put several billion dollars into doing that. We’ve put over $450 million into enhancing home and community care. We’re working every day to increase our supports, and we’re working every day to provide inoculations, vaccines to every person in Ontario.

I’m sure the leader of the official opposition is very well aware of the shortages and the shipments that we’ve not received from both Pfizer and Moderna. We expect to receive significant shipments by the end of this month. That’s what we’ve been advised by the federal government. We will be able to triple or quadruple our production of immunizations at that point, because we’re working with each of the public health units across the province.

Personal support workers

Ms. Sara Singh: My question is for the Premier.

The Premier should know, as we do on this side of the House, that front-line health care professionals like our personal support workers deserve much better recognition and much better pay than this government has been willing to provide. PSWs have been the front-line heroes of the disaster in long-term care from the beginning of this pandemic. They deserve more than just a temporary pay bump. They deserve a permanent pay raise.

Will the Premier support front-line workers and our motion to make the pandemic pay for personal support workers a permanent pay increase?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: As the Minister of Health highlighted just moments ago, we’ve actually already done that in a very significant way, with respect to the motion that the member just tried to pass through the House with unanimous support.

I think I was very clear yesterday that these types of motions should be dealt with by the entire House in the proper fashion that the House has put forward. If it’s a good motion, it will pass. If it’s not a good motion, it will fail. But I think trying to do such things with unanimous consent, without the opportunity for members to have their say, is just wrong—notwithstanding the fact that, of course, we have already made significant supports for PSWs. They are the heroes of this, and we’ve continued to support them, and we’ll continue to do that.

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

Ms. Sara Singh: What PSWs need is not empty platitudes from this government. They actually need permanent pay increases.

The minister and the Premier know that the pay increase is set to expire on March 31, but the crisis in long-term care is still under way.

PSWs have been lifelines for family members of residents in long-term care throughout this pandemic, but their pay bump was temporary.

The government’s own staffing strategy clearly urges the government to address the compensation disparities in the sector that drive amazing staff out of this workforce. The Premier can fix this today.

Will this government support passing our motion to make that pay increase permanent for PSWs?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Again, as I just said, when the members sought unanimous consent to do that—I think I’ve been very clear over the last number of days and since I’ve been in the House leader’s role that the House will deal with motions like this, private members’ business, in the time that is allotted for us to do so. I think it would be completely inappropriate for us to be passing items through unanimous consent.

I say to the member: When it is her opportunity to have a bill debated or a motion debated, the House will consider it. If it is a good motion, the House will pass it; if it is not, the House will turn it down.

Waste water monitoring

Ms. Lindsey Park: Governments around the world continue to work hard to respond to the wide-ranging and unprecedented impacts of COVID-19. As we continue to deal with the risks of new variants in Canada, it’s important that we continue to find ways to quickly identify, manage and monitor outbreaks of COVID-19.

In my riding, I’ve been really impressed with the work at Ontario Tech University—a recent project I learned about. They started research last June in the faculty of science on the early detection of traces of COVID-19 in waste water. This project has expanded. The city of Barrie is now sending samples to Ontario Tech as part of it; Durham region public health is sending samples.

So I just wondered if the Minister of the Environment—that’s who my question is to, Speaker—could tell the House what work his ministry is doing to support this kind of work in Ontario.

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Thank you very much to the member from Durham for that question.

Nothing is more important than the health and well-being of Ontarians. Under the leadership of Premier Ford and our entire caucus, we’ve worked hard to ensure that we contain the spread of this virus.

As we continue to respond to this pandemic, we invested over $12 million in a new COVID-19 waste water surveillance initiative. Monitoring waste water for COVID-19 gives us a choice for a real-time way to track the spread of the virus, even before people are experiencing the symptoms, Mr. Speaker. This initiative will help us prevent the further transmission of the virus and save lives. This data allows public health officials to take early action that could prevent further transmission, reduce the severity of outbreaks, and again, save lives.

We hope to build on the good work that is already under way in regions across Ontario and successfully use waste water sampling to detect and monitor COVID-19 throughout our communities in Ontario.

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

Ms. Lindsey Park: That initiative was announced in budget 2020, and I just want to thank the minister and the whole government for their support of this research. I know how appreciative Ontario Tech University is of that support.

Waste water monitoring is a tool that’s being used to identify populations at higher risk of outbreaks even before we’re aware that an outbreak is occurring. Scientists around the world are finding that the early detection of COVID-19 from traces of it in the waste water may provide public health authorities with an additional detection tool. This early detection can be used in tandem—not in isolation, but in tandem—with clinical testing and other public health data to help inform these real and complex decisions our public health units are making that are required for the ongoing management of COVID-19.

Can the minister expand on the benefits of water waste surveillance and how it’s being used in Ontario to fight COVID-19?

Hon. Jeff Yurek: Thanks again to the member beside me for that question, Mr. Speaker. Waste water monitoring has been used for years by scientists and public health officials throughout the world as a non-invasive way to monitor how diseases are circulating within communities. For example, waste water sampling has been used internationally to monitor the surveillance of polio.

Our government is partnering with academic institutions, in co-operation with public health units and municipalities, to create an integrated project that expands waste water sampling and analysis province-wide. Along with other clinical and public health data, waste water sampling results can help local public health units identify hot spots for the virus and can inform decisions on where and how to mobilize the resources to best deal with that response. Mr.

Speaker, this is an Ontario-led approach to waste water surveillance that we can help ensure that more public health units have access to waste water data management and enhance the ability of our public health agencies to provide timely responses to COVID-19 in many of our communities and continue to save lives throughout this province.

Small business

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Premier. Small businesses across the province are barely hanging on, and tragically, 10,000 businesses closed their doors forever last year. The CFIB says that one in six business owners are considering permanently closing their doors this year. But again here today, this government voted against a small business support package, voting instead to leave those businesses in the lurch.

Speaker, through you to the Premier: Main street businesses need help today, and they are going to need it fast to survive the third wave that is inevitable in this province. Why won’t the government give it to them?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The parliamentary assistant and the member for Willowdale.

Mr. Stan Cho: I appreciate the member opposite bringing up a very important issue. We recognize how difficult this pandemic has been on small businesses. Running a small business is hard at the best of time, let alone during this very difficult time. That’s why our government has been there for small businesses from the beginning with a series of supports, in conjunction with multiple levels of government.

Most recently, $1.4 billion was allocated to the Small Business Support Grant program. I’m proud to say that over 55,000 businesses have received money in hand of up to $20,000 apiece. Speaker, that’s $755 million in direct supports for businesses that were forced to shut down as a result of rising COVID-19 numbers.

We understand that there is more to be done, and I look forward to presenting, on or before March 31 of this year, our budget for further supports for small businesses.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: If businesses do end up surviving the crisis, it’s going to be in spite of this Conservative government, not because of them or anything that they did or pretend to do.

Last year, the Premier failed to give businesses rent relief or bring in an eviction ban, letting main street shops across the province go under for good. He ignored calls for grants and direct supports, instead telling business that their only option was to take on more debt and just hope for the best.

Speaker, again to the Premier: Business owners need more than a hope and a prayer to survive, because, honestly, most of them don’t even have hope right now. Why won’t the government join us and start fighting for small businesses today?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The parliamentary assistant, the member for Flamborough–Glanbrook.

Ms. Donna Skelly: Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes that small businesses have been severely impacted by the public health measures that we have put in place to keep Ontarians safe. That is why we launched the Ontario Small Business Support Grant: to provide a minimum of $10,000 and up to $20,000 in support of eligible small businesses.

In just a few weeks, we have approved grants for over 55,000 small businesses, with over $770 million to these small businesses. I work with small businesses right across—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for York Centre will come to order.

Sorry to interrupt. The member for Flamborough–Glanbrook.

Ms. Donna Skelly: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ve worked with small business owners right across the city of Hamilton, in the Leader of the Opposition’s riding. They’ve reached out to me. They are grateful for the support that helps them weather the storm through this pandemic.

This money can be used for whatever small businesses want. They may need support for paying employee wages or rent, while others may need support maintaining their inventory. It was designed to be flexible and to meet the various unique demands of individual small businesses—

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

The next question.

COVID-19 response

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: My question is to the Deputy Premier and Minister of Health. At the beginning of this month, the Scarborough ICU director was quoted: “We’re beyond capacity, and I expect it will only get worse.” Scarborough has remained a hot spot for almost a year now, with no break in the spread of the virus in our community. Hospitals are seeing whole families admitted as COVID-19 positive, and sadly, some members of the family don’t make it out, while others do.

You’ve heard that Dr. De Villa said yesterday, “I have never been as worried about the future as I am today.” How can the residents of Scarborough feel safe with the emergency orders ending and its medical officer of health so worried? We’re going headlong into a third wave of this virus, with unknown variants.

Deputy Premier, what are you doing to make sure that the people of Scarborough feel safe?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Since the beginning of this pandemic, we have taken every step possible to protect the health and safety of all Ontarians. That being said, we recognize that there are some areas where there have been particular difficulties.

We have made accommodations for that in allowing for things like testing during weekends; walk-in testing rather than having an appointment; mobile testing; working with local hospitals for going into neighbourhoods and helping out; working with community health centres while also having areas where—we have set up 1,500 isolation spots for people in situations where, if they have COVID, they can then go and isolate on their own, so that they don’t infect other family members.

These are all steps that we’re taking, recognizing that there are some areas that have particular difficulties. That’s what we want to do to keep the variants of concern at a minimum and not overwhelm our hospital capacity. But we certainly recognize that there are areas in Toronto particularly and in other areas—Peel as well—where we have to pay particular attention. We are on the testing side, and I can also—

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

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: Back to the Deputy Premier: Deputy Premier, we need one of those isolation spots in Scarborough that is family-friendly, because that’s one of the problems we have.

It’s been 11 straight months of battling COVID-19 for Scarborough’s hospitals, doctors, nurses, orderlies, admittance staff and front-line workers in our health care system, and they are exhausted. I thank them for their compassion and for their care. When it comes to this virus, and now with the new variants spreading in our province, there is a sense of dread. They don’t know what is coming through the door next.

Despite loud warning bells, the stay-at-home orders are coming to an end on Monday in Toronto. Schools have already reopened. The hospital workers in Scarborough know that there’s community spread. They know that these changes are going to increase their workload and that more people will die.

Speaker, through you to the Deputy Premier: Can you tell us specifically about the genomics testing, what variants we are testing and when you will report on this to the people of Ontario?

Hon. Christine Elliott: First, let me say we are also very grateful for the work that is being done by all of our front-line health care workers. They have really been put to the test over the last year. We’re certainly aware that many of them are exhausted, that they are working extra hours, that they are putting themselves in danger as well. We hope to have the vaccines available to make sure that all of our front-line health care workers can be immunized as quickly as possible.

We are aware of the stress in our hospital system capacity. That’s why we have put several billion dollars into expanding spots. We have created over 3,300 new beds since this time last year. We know that we need extra spaces. Just recently, we put another $125 million into creating 500 more spots—acute care and medicine beds—across the province to make sure that we can handle any surges in capacity. That is partly with the opening of the Cortellucci Vaughan Hospital and other spaces that are being created.

But we are certainly aware of the need for immunization and the screening and testing, which you were also asking about. We are testing every single sample now and screening it to—

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

The next question.

COVID-19 immunization

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: My question is to the Solicitor General. Earlier this year, as part of the initial rollout of COVID-19 vaccines in Ontario, our government announced that those in Ontario’s most remote First Nations communities would be among the first to receive a vaccine. COVID-19 poses an increased risk to these communities due to the long travel required to receive enhanced medical care.

We have heard some incredibly uplifting stories about planes filled with precious cargo that were sent north: Operation Remote Immunity, to bring the Moderna vaccine to 32 remote and fly-in First Nations communities in Ontario.

I am sure that this is no easy feat, given that many of these communities require long travel to receive this enhanced medical care. Can the minister please update the House on how this project is progressing in protecting Ontario’s remote communities?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Thank you to the member from Ottawa West–Nepean.

The city of Ottawa is not the only public health unit that is doing an excellent job on the vaccine rollout. Operation Remote Immunity is a truly excellent example. Given the remote nature of the fly-in communities, it’s wonderful to see how our teams—what they have achieved thus far.

Around this time of year, we start preparing, in the Solicitor General’s Office, emergency responses for remote communities in case flooding occurs as a result of the spring melt. We wanted to make sure that these communities were given an opportunity to be vaccinated early, to ensure that potential evacuation situations weren’t worsened by possible COVID-19 infections.

Working with Ornge air ambulance, the Nishnawbe Aski Nation, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, the Canadian Rangers and other partners, this program is seeing amazing success. This includes a large and diverse pool of health professionals to administer these vaccines. Our goal is to—

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

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: Well, thank you to the minister for that response. It is reassuring to hear about all of these partners coming together in support of this critical mission.

Throughout this pandemic, we have all witnessed phenomenal teamwork from local public health care teams. For example, earlier this year, in my community, the Ottawa Hospital showed tremendous leadership in the COVID vaccine rollout by piloting a project to move doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine outside the Ottawa Hospital and deliver them directly to long-term-care homes. I commend both Dr. Etches and Cameron Love for their leadership in Ottawa on this project.

The success of this community-based solution has been felt province-wide and is just one example of the success of our vaccine program. Getting the vaccines to those who cannot come to the vaccine is saving lives.

Could the Solicitor General offer the Legislature a little bit more detail on some early results on how Operation Remote Immunity is protecting these vulnerable communities?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I’m proud to say that, through the great leadership and support of Ontario’s vaccine distribution taskforce, Ornge air ambulance and Indigenous leaders such as Chief RoseAnne Archibald, we are making great progress. By the numbers: I’m proud to confirm that the first doses have been completed in 12 communities, with more than nine additional communities in progress. Over 7,000 first doses have been administered across 21 remote and fly-in communities. Adults in First Nations, Métis and Inuit populations living in remote or isolated areas are among the first to receive the vaccine.

Operation Remote Immunity is a great example of when we work together, even with limited supply, we are offering vaccines and getting communities vaccinated across Ontario.

Seniors

Ms. Laura Mae Lindo: My question is to the Premier.

COVID-19 has exposed a gaping wound in the seniors’ sector. The government has failed to deliver on the iron ring that they promised almost a year ago, and now thousands of seniors have lost their lives. Our call for a seniors’ advocate will help to ensure that this never happens again.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier: Will the government pass my bill to establish the first-ever seniors’ advocate in Ontario?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks to the member opposite for the question.

The health and well-being of the seniors in the province of Ontario is our top priority, and I think that has been illustrated by all of the actions that our government has been taking.

We’ve announced several very important initiatives to support seniors during the COVID-19 outbreak, and I’ll outline some of those in the supplementary.

We are committed to ensuring that our seniors stay healthy and active members of their communities.

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

Ms. Laura Mae Lindo: Doorknobs were taken off doors in retirement homes and there was nowhere for anybody to place their complaints.

I’m going to talk to you about somebody in my riding, Linda Perez. She’s struggling to make sure that her father, who’s suffering from dementia, has the quality of care that he deserves. Linda’s father is 76. He’s receiving some support, but unfortunately, some of the care is making it worse. He has been given the wrong dosage of medication. He has been subject to disrespect. And now his family is being put through the wringer trying to find him the care and the care workers he needs.

This is why we need a seniors’ advocate: to give these families hope that government will finally fix the care system for older adults in this province.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, and back to the Premier: Why is the government standing in the way of Ontario seniors getting the independent, non-partisan advocate that families are calling for?

Hon. Todd Smith: I can tell you there’s no greater advocate for seniors in the province of Ontario than Minister Raymond Cho. He’s doing an outstanding job. He really is committed. I wish people could see Minister Cho in our cabinet meetings when we’re talking about these very important issues.

Our government is committed to enhancing the lives of our seniors. We’ve committed $16 million to the Ontario Community Support Program, ensuring that vital services are provided to vulnerable populations, including seniors, when they’re self-isolating. We’ve also invested $4.5 million in the Seniors Community Grant Program, dedicated to creating more supports for seniors in all of our communities across the province. We’ve committed $61 million in infection control measures to protect our seniors in licensed retirement homes across Ontario.

We recognize that many seniors are forced to self-isolate, and that’s why there are many programs dedicated to the mental health of our seniors as well. I can tell you that there’s a free service available 24/7. If you don’t know all the services that are available to you, simply call 211. It’s a free call—24/7; over 150 languages—

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

Employment standards

Mr. Michael Coteau: My question today is to the Minister of Labour.

Minister, your government refuses to support paid sick days. You constantly refer to it as a duplication of a federal program, but your federal counterpart in Ottawa has been on the record saying that it’s not a substitute for paid sick leave, which normally falls under provincial jurisdiction. She also denied that a provincial program would be a duplication.

Minister, you have the power to put in place a provincial sick day program to protect workers, their families and the workplace. Will you reconsider your rejection of paid sick days and support one of the two bills in this House?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I will remind members to make their comments through the Chair, not directly across the floor.

To respond on behalf of the government? The member for Burlington and parliamentary assistant.

Ms. Jane McKenna: Speaker, for 81 years, governments of all political stripes at all levels have recognized that the federal government is best equipped to operate and manage these employment support programs. There is no reason for this province to duplicate an existing federal program.

Just to be clear: There is 73% unspent monies; there is $800 million waiting to be spent. It is our responsibility to let people know that workers can phone the Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit: 1-800-959-2019.

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

Mr. Michael Coteau: Minister, your Premier said that the federal government should add more money to the CRSB. He actually suggested that they double it from $500 to $1,000 per month. With all due respect, your government has not invested a single dime to put cash in the hands of workers during this challenging time. Meanwhile, the federal government has made up to $49,200 available for a family of four during this global pandemic.

Other jurisdictions in Canada—provinces, territories—have stepped up. In the Yukon, for example, a program has been put in place to rebate employers the cost of providing 10 paid sick days.

Minister, will you reconsider your position for paid sick days and provide the stability, the predictability and the protections that Ontario workers are looking for?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): One more time, make your comments through the Chair.

The member for Burlington.

Ms. Jane McKenna: There were two provinces that had paid sick days. They cancelled their programs once the federal supports were in place. There is no other province or territory in Canada that is looking to duplicate the federal government’s 10 paid sick days.

Again, people at home who are watching, so we’re clear: Please call over to the Canada Recovery and Sickness Benefit, 1-800-959-2019, so you can get your $800 million that’s waiting to be spent. Thank you so much.

Hydro rates

Mr. David Piccini: My question is to the Associate Minister of Energy.

We know that this pandemic has been hard hit for families, seniors and businesses across Ontario in recent months. I’ve heard from many of my constituents who have struggled to make ends meet. This is a plight felt across Canada, across the world.

As we look forward to a gradual and safe move to the response framework, regions across our province are wondering—and I’m asking the Associate Minister of Energy: What supports are in place to help businesses, to help individuals struggling to pay their electricity bills?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Once again, please make your comments through the Chair. The way you might phrase it is, “Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister” whatever you want to say. Make the comments that way.

The Associate Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bill Walker: Thank you to the member for that important question and for his incredible work on behalf of the people and businesses of Northumberland–Peterborough South.

Mr. Speaker, our government acted quickly and decisively to minimize the financial burden faced by Ontarians, while asking them to stay at home during the COVID emergency. We did this by holding the off-peak electricity rate to 8.5 cents per kilowatt hour, starting on January 1. This lower rate remains in effect 24 hours per day, seven days a week. We did this to give families, small businesses and farms stable and predictable electricity bills when they needed them the most. This rate will be in place until February 22, as more public health regions transition back into the COVID-19 Response Framework.

Providing this rate relief on electricity bills has helped all Ontario families and small businesses in a real and meaningful way, as we now look forward to a safe reopening and focus on economic recovery.

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

Mr. David Piccini: Thank you to the minister for that answer. We know the tough situation Ontarians were left in after the electricity mess the previous government left this province in. I know that the support for electricity relief is appreciated by the people of Northumberland–Peterborough South.

Through you, Mr. Speaker: Minister, can you inform this House about the COVID-19 Energy Assistance Program and additional supports available for businesses and individuals in Northumberland–Peterborough South and across the province of Ontario?

Hon. Bill Walker: Thank you again to the member from Northumberland–Peterborough South for the great question. We know that many small businesses have been struggling, and this is why supporting them has been an urgent priority for our government. Under our COVID-19 Energy Assistance Program, or CEAP, we’ve already provided he