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

March 5, 2024

43rd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2024-Mar-05 (PDF)

L130 - Tue 5 Mar 2024 / Mar 5 mar 2024

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 5 March 2024 Mardi 5 mars 2024

Orders of the Day

Enhancing Access to Justice Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 visant à améliorer l’accès à la justice

Members’ Statements

Lambton College women’s basketball team

Craig Connell

Government investments

Climate change

Health care

Association des étudiantes et étudiants francophones

Bishop Garfield Racicot

Coldest Night of the Year

International Women’s Day

Government investments

Introduction of Visitors

Question Period

Highway tolls

Forest industry

Indigenous children’s services

Education

Highway tolls

Taxation

Public transit

Municipal planning

Taxation

Replacement workers

Northern Health Travel Grant

Taxation

Child care

Taxation

Consumer protection

Reception

Independent members

Visitors

Introduction of Bills

Removing Red Tape for Homeowners (No More Pushy, High-Pressure HVAC Scams) Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 visant à éliminer les formalités administratives pour les propriétaires (fin aux escroqueries de la part de vendeurs de systèmes de CVCA insistants et adeptes de la vente sous pression)

Petitions

Emergency services

Social assistance

Adoption disclosure

Health care

Tuition

Northern Health Travel Grant

Health care

Prescription contraceptives

Addiction services

Labour legislation

Winter highway maintenance

Orders of the Day

Enhancing Access to Justice Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 visant à améliorer l’accès à la justice

Get It Done Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 pour passer à l’action

Adjournment Debate

Affordable housing

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Enhancing Access to Justice Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 visant à améliorer l’accès à la justice

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 4, 2024, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 157,

An Act to amend various Acts in relation to the courts and other justice matters / Projet de loi 157, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne les tribunaux et d’autres questions relatives à la justice.

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

Mr. Robert Bailey: Speaker, it’s an honour to be here before you today and speak on behalf of third reading to the Enhancing Access to Justice Act. Our government commends itself for successfully bringing in the Community Safety and Policing Act because—before I go too much farther, I’m sharing my time with the member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore.

Our government commends itself for successfully bringing in the Community Safety and Policing Act because it truly does benefit the police who serve Ontario and the people of all walks of life in this province. We know this monumental legislation will be a living document and therefore be something that will adapt to policing through generations.

Although it is not perfect, the Enhancing Access to Justice Act we are vouching for today will amend some of the gaps and loopholes that can be found within the CSPA. Some of these changes will revolutionize the level of public safety in such a positive way that Ontarians will be able to see immediate change in their communities. This act, if passed, is the key to CSPA’s success.

For example, the fire marshal changes: The act aims to amend the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997. In almost 30 years, this legislation has not been touched, until now. We are taking key issues that fire stakeholders have been advocating for and making it happen. Under Premier Ford and the Solicitor General’s leadership, we are taking safety to a new level.

It is no secret that Ontario has undergone significant changes over time, necessitating adaptations, and legislation needs to address new challenges. Evolving issues and shifting circumstances underscore the need for legislation to remain pertinent and efficient in addressing contemporary fire-related needs and realities. Without doing so, we put ourselves in an outdated critical circumstance where old legislation does not correlate with current events.

We are devising a new mechanism to enhance enforcement and compliance with the act and its regulations. There exists a deficiency in the array of enforcement tools available under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, and our government is acting. The main objective is to bridge this gap by introducing new tools to promote adherence to the act and its regulations.

Many Ontario statutes, such as the Highway Traffic Act and the Municipal Act, 2001, incorporate administrative monetary penalties, otherwise known as AMPs, to incentive compliance. AMP frameworks allow authorized individuals to levy monetary penalties for violations of requirements outlined in

an act, regulation or bylaw.

What is interesting is that an authorized individual also may issue an AMP upon discovering a violation. This is something that will bring more public safety into effect, because we can respond to violations in real time. AMPs are viable as they foster compliance without necessitating the initiation of legal proceedings. Enhancing access to justice is just that, without backing up our courts and going through an entire lengthy process to ensure that the violation is reprimanded.

Currently, there are no provisions whatsoever for an AMP framework under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997. This needs to change because of the vital necessity of AMPs to partake in fire situations. I am proud to say that we have listened. The Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs and other stakeholders who long advocated for such a compliance tool will be getting this through the Enhancing Access to Justice Act, if this bill is passed.

In response to sector feedback, Bill 157 and this amendment to the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, enables future development with fire stakeholders, furthering public safety even more so. We need to be listening to those who do this job every day, and our government knows how much value our front line adds to keeping Ontario safe.

This amendment furthers our commitment that the government will engage in consultations with municipalities regarding this AMP framework. This is an opportunity to discuss the different avenues and opportunities that AMPs can have for every specific region. These include identifying violations for which administrative monetary penalties could be issued; determining the penalty amounts and ranges; enforcement and collection procedures, including administration in unincorporated Ontario; and establishing a framework for assessing associated impacts during the regulatory process.

The proposed amendment does not alter existing requirements under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997. Changes can have unforeseen consequences, potentially leading to unintended outcomes or negative impacts. By not altering the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, our government mitigates the risk of these unintended consequences. We are simply adding to it.

I want to be clear, Madam Speaker: Through this act, our government can refine and enhance existing laws to improve their effectiveness in achieving their intended objectives. This will inherently expand protections or streamline processes to better serve the people of this province. It is evident that the front line often relies on the consistency and reliability of legislation around them. Altering something without justification can undermine trust and confidence in its integrity, and we are here to have their backs.

This amendment within the proposed Enhancing Access to Justice Act epitomizes a more efficient and streamlined justice system. AMPs are more efficient and cost-effective to administer, alleviating unnecessary burdens on the courts and simplifying the process for all involved parties. Concurrently, they effectively deter violations of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, and its regulations, conduct that will not be tolerated in Ontario any longer.

Both the public safety and justice systems aim to prevent and deter crime and misconduct. This is why we have come together on this issue to get to the roots of the problems faced at a legislative level. Effective legislation, regulations and interventions contribute to maintaining public safety by deterring individuals from engaging in any unlawful activity. Whether civilian, fire or policing, we know justice systems uphold the rights and freedoms within communities. For this, protections in the frameworks are essential.

Ensuring justice means protecting all parties from harm, discrimination and injustice, which, in turn, promotes our goal of maintaining public safety by fostering a sense of security and trust in the legal system. This is why we are here today, because the Enhancing Access to Justice Act approaches focus on repairing harm caused by deeming behaviour and reintegrating offenders back into society in a fair way. By addressing the underlying loopholes in legislation, we are upholding the principle of accountability.

More importantly, judicial decisions and legal

interpretations can shape the implementation and understanding of laws. With the integration of tools and resources, we’re allowing for new opportunities to minimize accusations and misinterpretation of a violation. Amendments being discussed in the House today are necessary to clarify legislative intent, reconcile conflicting

interpretations and address unforeseen consequences arising from court rulings. Holding individuals accountable for their actions through AMPs not only serves the interests of justice but also reinforces public trust in the legal system, which is essential for the province of Ontario and for its citizens to have faith in their fire service and the justice act.

The Enhancing Access to Justice Act is something that needs to be passed for the benefit of Ontario. This is a piece of legislation that, if passed, will ensure that the CSPA will be performed in a just way so that there’s no room for mistakes. Our commitment to public safety is so deeply embedded with the public that we will pull out all the stops to ensure everyone stays safe.

With that, I will be sharing my time with the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): The member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore.

Ms. Christine Hogarth: I’m honoured to join in this debate today on Bill 157, the Enhancing Access to Justice Act.

With the Premier’s leadership, our government is dedicated to creating a safer Ontario. Bill 157, if passed, furthers our commitment to law enforcement initiatives aimed at deterring criminal behaviour; probing accusations; capturing perpetrators; and bringing justice to Ontarians that are affected by broken laws.

Our signature framework, the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019, also known as the CSPA, will have its gaps closed. If passed, this bill will be implemented April 1, 2024. As we prepare for this date, it is important we address crucial topics within this legislation to ensure it serves its purpose to the strongest capacity.

As we debate the third reading of the Enhancing Access to Justice Act in the House today, I would like to take the opportunity to highlight some of the amendments that the Solicitor General’s office is responsible for crafting. One of the most important parts of this legislation is how terms are defined. We want to make sure the language for this bill is crystal clear, because misinterpretations, both in courts and out on the streets, are not acceptable.

Our justice system needs the confidence required from well-crafted legislation to adequately perform duties by judges all the way to the front-line officers working in our community. The laws, regulations and directives need to be clear in both official languages, and that is what this legislation does. This standard of accurate bilingual legislation is something we hold dearly in the government, under the leadership of Premier Doug Ford. Critically accurate translation is essential in preserving the original meaning and intention behind a word. This attention to detail is crucial for front-line workers and courts as it maintains the authenticity and style of the CSPA.

Each situation is unique and no two public safety confrontations are alike. Variables such as environment, involved parties and response can be influenced by the precise definition of terms both in the courtroom and on the street. These contextual factors shape the dynamics of a situation and affect its outcome. This is why we are not only ensuring consistency in this regulation but also providing clear

definitions for terms.

Let’s begin with the term “special constables” and translation. Special constables play a critical role in ensuring the safety of Ontario’s communities and public areas. Premier Ford, the Solicitor General and all my caucus colleagues have the utmost respect and support for our front-line officers.

Interjections.

Ms. Christine Hogarth: Yes, absolutely. Shout-out to 22 Division—thank you for your work.

Currently, the French translation of the Ontario statute states “special constables” as “agent spécial.” This term, “agent spécial,” is also displayed on special constable uniforms, crests and badges. Not only does this differ from the French translation of “special constable” used in Quebec and New Brunswick, but it can also create confusion in public spaces. The term “special agent” will be eliminated entirely, and “special constable” will be defined in French as “constable spécial” with the help of this act.

This is especially important because “agent spécial” is utilized in addition to the CSPA, which underscores the need for action to address this inconsistency. If passed, the amendment will change the term in all Ontario statutes within the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019, coming into force on April 1 of this year. There is no room for confusion when it comes to law. That is why we’re eliminating the inconsistencies in the French terminology.

Next, I want to discuss the coroner’s amendments. I’d also like to thank our chief coroner, Dr. Huyer, who attended all the committee hearings just to hear what people had to say. I thank him for his work.

Madam Speaker, the terminology is a big part of the Enhancing Access to Justice Act and so is the groundwork. The Enhancing Access to Justice Act is updating legislation that will, if passed, allow the Office of the Chief Coroner to run more efficiently. The chief coroner oversees the provincial death investigation system, ensuring that deaths occurring in Ontario are appropriately investigated to determine cause and manner. We are extending tools through death investigations that help to identify public health and safety risks, trends and patterns related to causes of death. This information can inform public health policies, interventions and initiatives aimed at preventing future deaths.

Our government’s amendments to the Coroners Act will specifically improve the timeliness of construction-related death investigations. This will help save lives because as these investigations become more efficient, more data can be used to help inform public safety precautions and possibly prevent these accidents from happening in the future.

Speaker, I think we can all agree with the Solicitor General when he says that everyone deserves to go to work and come home safely. We can all agree with that sentence.

Without construction workers, we are not able to build infrastructure in Ontario. We had a lot of deputants from the construction industry who were very supportive of this amendment in the bill.

In a time when Ontario needs a government to step up and get it done, we cannot afford to lose workers on the job or have future potential workers leave because of unsafe workplaces. Nobody here wants that. Our government has a strategic plan to build more homes in Ontario, which we cannot do without these strong men and women out on the job. The harsh reality is that working in construction has a great amount of risk, and workers are faced with dangerous situations every single day.

In my own riding on Etobicoke–Lakeshore, we have development projects worked on by hundreds of construction workers every day—we just need to drive down the Queensway—everything from condos being worked on by electricians to houses being framed. We need them more than ever to continue their work. And they deserve to feel safe.

During a public health crisis, natural disasters or other emergencies, the chief coroner’s role becomes indispensable. They are the ones who take charge of coordinating and supervising the response of the death investigation system. Because of this, the responsibility of deploying resources, coordinating efforts with other agencies and ensuring the timeliness and appropriate handling of deceased individuals falls upon their shoulders.

As of now, the Office of the Chief Coroner investigates every single death related to construction incidents. However, this process is often time-consuming, leading to delays in providing answers to grieving families. Currently, it takes approximately three years for an inquest to be scheduled, which may be perceived as inactivity, especially by a loved one awaiting closure. This delay can cause frustration, particularly in cases where there are no imminent deadlines due to an investigation of natural—sorry, I can’t read this.

The delay can be frustrating, particularly in cases where there is no imminent deadline due to the investigative nature of the incident. Additionally, this process can only commence once all regulatory investigations and prosecutions under the Occupational Health and Safety Act have concluded.

Through the Enhancing Access to Justice Act, we aim to isolate construction fatalities to potentially identify root causes that could prevent further deaths. This was also brought to our attention during the committee meetings.

The proposed Enhancing Access to Justice Act includes an amendment to the Coroners Act that, if approved, would mandate coroner-led annual reviews for accidental construction-related deaths. This amendment alters the current practice of conducting single mandatory inquests for incidents resulting in one or multiple deaths. The review process will involve industry representatives and experts, with a coroner’s inquest remaining an option where and when appropriate.

We are also introducing the concept of having families becoming a significant role in the mandatory review process. We want to allow the families, if they wish, to request an inquest if they require additional review. Actively involving family members in these situations will help build stronger bonds and deepen relationships within the community. Spending time together, engaging in meaningful conversations about incidents will foster trust between family members and the coroner’s office. This is crucial in a province like this, because our government is stepping up to the plate to ensure that Ontarians get closure and partake in understanding a situation that is life-changing.

While our goal is to prevent all construction-related deaths, the proposed amendment would lead to a comprehensive examination of safety issues within specific construction sites and the industry as a whole.

These recommendations, if passed, will make a difference to families who need closure. These will help expedite processes when necessary and help bring people home when it’s necessary. At the end of the day, all we want is people to come home safe from their job. That’s all we can ask. The government of Ontario wants a safe Ontario where accountability is key.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): We’re going to move to questions.

Ms. Jessica Bell: My question is to the member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore. Just this week, we learned that the Metrolinx project at the Mimico station has been cancelled, which means local residents have been waiting 10 years now for the GO station to be upgraded and for over 2,000 homes to be built in the area. Now what they’re looking at is a hole in the ground.

To the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore: What is your plan to ensure that your residents get a station upgrade?

Ms. Christine Hogarth: Well, it has nothing to do with this bill, but I’m happy to respond about the Mimico GO Station because it’s very important to my community. It’s a 10-minute walk from my house, and I take it all the time.

The Mimico GO Station—we are working with the Ministry of Transportation. What I’d like to see is—the company is no longer utilizing the location. So we need to find somebody else to build that GO station. There is a GO station; you can use it. What I’d like to see is us opening up some of the parking so more people can have some parking at this moment. But right now, what we do need is someone to take over the property. Metrolinx is dealing with it. I’m on top of it. My team is on top of it.

I appreciate the question, because I’m able to get that out to the constituents in my area, because it is extremely important that we’re able to take transit when we can and where we need it. But my goal is to get some more parking over there. So thank you for the question.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): Next question?

Mr. Andrew Dowie: I want to thank both the speakers for their speeches today. My question revolves around construction workers. I know there are some impacts in this bill that may be of use to them. Unfortunately, in my career, I’ve witnessed two construction deaths on projects that I have been involved with.

Our construction workers are building roads, highways, schools, hospitals and homes and, really, I know that our government wants to support the safety and well-being of construction workers across the province. So one aspect that has received attention in this bill, especially by the industry and many of my constituents, involves the recommendations for construction-related death investigations. Madam Speaker, may the members please explain what those changes could look like?

Mr. Robert Bailey: Thank you to the member for that question. Having worked in the construction sector for a number of years before I came to this place, I certainly understand the importance to the families, to the companies and, of course, to society as a whole.

One of the goals in the upgrade is that we want to know that workers are able to come back home safely at the end of every day, as my colleague from Etobicoke–Lakeshore said. This review would identify issues, trends and ensure recommendations that come from an inquest are provided on a timely basis, not four years, not 10 years after the incident. It currently takes approximately three years, as the member said, from the time of a death to complete an inquest. That’s way too long. Sometimes there are delays for a legitimate reason because of ongoing investigations. This will encapsulate all that—and hopefully, no more than 18 months from the time of an occurrence for a report.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): Next question?

Mr. Jeff Burch: A question for the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore: Recently, the Premier made some disturbing statements about his desire to increase political influence over judicial candidates. His comments have caused alarm in the legal community and lowered the public’s trust in Ontario’s justice system. During committee, this government could have taken a step to reverse this damage by voting for an NDP amendment that would improve the independence of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee.

Does this member agree that this government should be doing everything it can to improve public trust after the Premier’s disturbing comments?

Ms. Christine Hogarth: I think our Attorney General and our Premier have both been very clear on this. We do have an independent system. It is a board that is chosen. It’s not chosen all by the government; it is chosen—there are people there. What was brought forward in committee hearings is—actually, we were insulted by some of these comments. There is a non-partisan board that chooses judges. You cannot say that our judicial system is partisan or non-partisan. Once you’re a judge, you are a judge, and you will make that determination of a court case when you are there.

Once again, you have to look at the judicial system as it is. They are impartial. Every judge is impartial. That’s why they take their job.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): Next question?

Mr. Will Bouma: I love it, folks, when the NDP—they can’t say anything bad about a piece of legislation, so when we’re debating that piece of legislation they talk about anything else other than the piece of legislation. I’m looking forward to their full support on this bill that we’re discussing today.

What I wanted to ask the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore about, because I know what a fierce advocate she is for victims and access to justice: I was wondering, getting back to the bill that we’re actually talking about—they could just not stand up and ask questions at all if they don’t want to talk about this—what it means to her and what it will mean for victims of crime, some of the changes that we’re making in this piece of legislation.

Ms. Christine Hogarth: Thank you to the member. I don’t mind talking about Mimico or my riding, because I love to talk about my riding and the great work that we do there building schools, building hospitals, so that’s okay.

This bill is actually extremely important because we have seen more trends of hate-related crimes, human trafficking and car theft. Car theft is rampant. Most recently, police services, including the Toronto Police Service, have reported an increase in anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, hate crimes driven by, obviously, the conflict in Israel and Hamas—against Israel and Hamas.

We’re proposing changes to the Victims’ Bill of Rights that has made changes in regulation to allow more victims to sue convicted offenders for emotional distress and related bodily harm for more crimes, including terrorism, motor vehicle theft, hate crimes, religious officials who have been targeted or people who are disrupting religious worship, as well as far more sexual offences and human trafficking than in the past—

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): Thank you.

Next question?

Miss Monique Taylor: Thank you to the members for their debate this morning.

We definitely have seen a court system in crisis. We’ve seen many cases being thrown out due to the lack of staffing in the courthouses, and we know that this is due to—

Ms. Donna Skelly: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): Excuse me—

Miss Monique Taylor: You can’t do a point of order in the middle of a question.

Ms. Donna Skelly: Madam Speaker, this is the third time that the opposition has risen to deal with something that has nothing to do with this bill.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): I will allow the member to finish her question, which needs to be about the bill.

Miss Monique Taylor: The bill is definitely about access to justice. Access to justice means being able to get into court in a timely fashion. When we’re talking about women with intimate partner violence, we know that there’s underfunding in the system.

So what are they doing to ensure that there is actual true access to justice for these women who have fallen through the cracks due to a court system that is clearly not working for them?

Mr. Robert Bailey: Thank you to the member for Hamilton Mountain for the question. A number of the changes that are looked at here are going to make it easier for victims of crime, such as terrorism, vehicle theft, human trafficking and targeting of religious officials. They will also protect children and youth by banning the growth of recreational cannabis in homes that offer child care services and, even more important, limit interruptions to child protection trials that happen when a judge is appointed to another court.

They will improve the safety and well-being of construction workers and also enhance access to justice for women who have been either trafficked and/or victims of intimate partner violence. These are all things that are intimated and expected to come from this bill.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): We don’t have time for another round of question and response. We’re going to move to further debate.

Mr. Chris Glover: It’s an honour to rise today to talk to Bill 157, the access to justice act. I’m going to talk about two different aspects of access to justice. Access to justice is a fundamental democratic right. It’s actually enshrined in our democratic Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There are a number of legal rights. Number 11 is actually about access to justice, so I’m going to talk about that. I am the critic for democratic reform, so I am taking this issue from the democratic rights perspective.

There have been by this government a number of attacks on our democratic rights in this province. Because of those attacks—including the changing of the rules of Toronto’s municipal election; they changed the rules midway through the campaign—when that came back from the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that Canadians do not have the right to democratic municipal elections. Most people don’t know that. That’s why I keep repeating it in this Legislature, because people need to be aware that we do not have the right to democratic municipal elections.

This is something that we need to get restored, because I think for the last 160 years that we’ve been a country, when people go to the polls in a municipal election, they’re assuming that the X that they mark on the ballot is the highest law in the land and that it cannot be overruled, but that’s not the case in Canada. That’s not the case in Ontario. That’s something that we need to restore.

The other action from this government is that once they got that—that was in 2021 that the Supreme Court decision came back—once they got that decision, they passed what were called strong-mayor bills. And those strong-mayor bills stripped the majority of municipalities of the right to majority vote democracy. So in the majority of municipalities, the majority of Ontarians do not have the right to majority vote democracy any more.

The other thing that this government has done that’s an attack on our democratic rights is that they have introduced three bills in this Legislature that utilized the “notwithstanding” clause. It’s a bit of a euphemism, the “notwithstanding” clause. The “notwithstanding” clause is from

section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I was talking to my colleague from Humber River–Black Creek and he said that when I speak, I often sound like a friendly professor. That’s the attitude that I’m trying to have today, the friendly professor, because I really want people—

Interjection.

Mr. Chris Glover: The member for Niagara Falls says that I actually look like a friendly professor, and I was a friendly professor before I got here. I was teaching at York University.

I just want people to be aware of how important our democratic rights are and how they’re being attacked and being taken away under this government, including our right to access to justice.

Section 33, the “notwithstanding” clause, actually reads that a provincial Legislature or the federal government can pass a piece of that “shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in

section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this charter.”

Section 2 of the Charter of Rights: What they’re doing is they’re saying a provincial Legislature can pass a piece of legislation that overrides

section 2, which is our fundamental freedoms: our freedom of speech, our freedom of religion, our freedom of conscience, our freedom of association. All those fundamental freedoms have been overridden by this government three times, with three separate pieces of legislation.

Sections 7 through 15 of the charter include our equality rights.

Section 11 is our rights in legal proceedings. Specifically, in

section 11 it says the right to an independent and impartial judge. We have a charter right to an independent and impartial judge if we have to go before a court. This government has passed three pieces of legislation that strip Ontarians of that right.

Now, what’s most concerning: Over the last couple of years, the Conservative Attorney General and the Conservative Premier have taken steps to strip us of that right to an impartial and independent judge. It started in 2019 when the Attorney General said that he wanted to appoint like-minded judges. He wanted to have judges who had similar values to his own.

Then, in 2020, we found out through the media that the Attorney General was actually interviewing Chief Justice candidates. These people were applying to be the Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice, and the Attorney General was personally interviewing them.

Then, in 2021, the government passed Bill 245, which stripped the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee of their power. This Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee are the ones who make recommendations. They’re the ones who are supposed to interview judicial candidates. They’re supposed to make recommendations to the Attorney General, and the Attorney General is supposed to choose one or however many they need from that list. But instead, the government passed a piece of legislation that stripped that independent committee of most of their powers. So this government is now appointing the judges directly—

Ms. Donna Skelly: Madam Speaker, a point of order?

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): We have a point of order.

Ms. Donna Skelly: Madam Speaker, again, this has nothing to do with the bill in front of us.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): I have to say, since the beginning, I asked for a copy of the bill because I was trying to find what you were talking about in relation with the bill. I will just warn you to focus your comments regarding the bill.

Mr. Chris Glover: That’s fine. The bill is called the Enhancing Access to Justice Act. One of the amendments that the NDP presented in committee was to restore the powers of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee, and the Conservative government voted that down. Some of the arguments that I’m making are that that amendment should be part of this legislation, that they should restore the impartiality and the powers of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee so that we have independent and impartial judges in this province. That’s an important principle of access to justice. It’s not just an important principle; it’s actually enshrined in

section 11 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This part about this principle of having impartial and independent judges—I asked the Attorney General in question period a few days ago. I said, “When you were interviewing candidates for the Chief Justice position, what questions did you ask?” I was thinking about this because, last week, the Premier said that he did not want to appoint NDP or Liberal judges; obviously, he wants to appoint Conservative judges. The Attorney General reports to the Premier, so what questions is the Attorney General asking these judicial candidates in this interview process?

I asked him that. I said, “Do you ask the judicial appointments, ‘Which party do you vote for?’ Do you ask, ‘What donations have you made?’”

Ms. Donna Skelly: Again, a point of order on the content of the debate: Again, it has nothing to do with the bill that we’re debating this morning.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): I will allow the member to continue, as the bill refers to judicial appointments.

Mr. Chris Glover: Yes, it’s back to that amendment to restore the powers of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee. That’s what I’m considering about.

I also asked the Attorney General: Did he think that it was appropriate for a government that’s under criminal investigation to be appointing judges? And I will read his response. He said, “There were four candidates who applied to become the Chief Justice, and as I’m charged with making that decision—the establishment thought that maybe they should make the decision for me and give me a recommendation.” Well, that’s not what the establishment thought; that’s the role of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee that the NDP is fighting to have restored through this legislation.

The Attorney General said, “I thought that wasn’t really the appropriate way to go forward. I sat down with each candidate for an hour. Politics never came up. It’s not appropriate. The opposition may not understand. Judges don’t take direction and it would be foolish to try. It would be crossing a line.”

So I just want to harp on this for a second. The Attorney General, who was interviewing candidates because he wanted candidates, in his own words, with similar values and views to his own, and who is reporting to a Premier who wants Conservative and not NDP or Liberal judges appointed, said in these interviews, “Politics never came up. It’s not appropriate.” So there’s a contradiction. There’s a hypocrisy here, in that if we are to have access to independent and impartial judges, then he should not be interviewing them. He should not be asking them questions.

In his own words, “It’s not appropriate.” His actions and the words of the Premier are not appropriate. So he should be saying to the Premier, “The actions, the words that you said were not appropriate.”

Interjection.

Mr. Chris Glover: Exactly.

The other response that the Attorney General made to a question about these judicial appointments and the powers of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee was that he said that the Liberals appointed Liberal judges.

I used to be a high school teacher, and often kids do things that they’re not supposed to do. It’s part of being a teenager. And then when you call them in, they sit before you and you say, “Look, you did this thing. You weren’t supposed to do it. You broke the rules,” they’ll often say—their first response is often, “Well, Jimmy did it first.” Okay.

I’ve got to say, the Attorney General’s response that, “Yes, we’re trying to appoint Conservative judges, but the Liberals did it first,” it’s sort of like Jimmy’s response. The response that every teacher gives is, “If Jimmy jumped off a cliff, would you jump off a cliff?” If the Liberals appointed partisan judges, should you appoint partisan judges? No. In the words of the Attorney General, “It’s not appropriate.” It’s not appropriate to be appointing partisan judges. It’s not appropriate for the Attorney General to be interviewing, having private interviews with candidates for the Chief Justice position.

And the most recent twist on this, on how we are going to get independent and impartial judges, is that yesterday the Attorney General said in the media that the judges become independent after they are appointed. So they go through a process where the Attorney General interviews them. He determines whether they have appropriate Conservative credentials. He determines whether they have values that align with his own. Then, after they’ve been appointed, they become independent. But what he’s missing there is that, in

section 11 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it doesn’t just say that the judge has to be independent. And I don’t know that you become independent after you’ve been vetted, chosen and hired by somebody who’s asking you about your values and trying to align them with their own—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): Order.

Mr. Chris Glover: The Charter of Rights and Freedoms also says that they have to be impartial.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): Can you stop the clock, please? Can I ask the members to refrain from speaking across the aisle in a loud way, because I have a hard time hearing the member who’s speaking? Thank you.

Start the clock. The member for Spadina–Fort York can continue.

Mr. Chris Glover: The reason that it is so important that we have an independent and impartial judiciary is because we need to be able to rely on it. We need to know what questions and what values the Attorney General was asking those judicial appointments about, those potential judges about. Was he asking about abortion rights? This is something that has come up in the United States. Roe v. Wade was just overturned down there.

The reason that I bring it up here is that we’ve already seen bias, or evidence that seems to point to bias, in some of the tribunals and the tribunal appointments by this government.

There’s the Ontario Land Tribunal. The Ontario Land Tribunal is where community members or municipalities who think that a developer—or when a developer tries to build something that’s beyond what’s allowed within the official plan of a community, they can go to the Ontario Land Tribunal. The community members and the municipality can take them there. This government has appointed a bunch of those overseeing the tribunal, and the Hamilton Spectator said that 97% of the decisions are now in favour of developers. This is the kind of bias.

How independent are those tribunal appointees after they’ve been appointed if 97% of the time they’re actually favouring developers? It’s scary. It’s scary because it shows the kind of bias that can creep into a system if the government is making partisan appointments. We do not want to see that happen in our courts.

The other thing that this government has done, when we’re talking about access to justice: They cut our legal aid. When they got into power in 2018, one of the first things they did was they cut legal aid by 30%, or $133 million, per year. The shame of this is that it means that low-income people do not have access to a lawyer. Even the cut-off for legal aid is $17,000 per year. If your annual income is beyond $17,000 per year, you can’t even access legal aid.

When you think about all the challenges—whatever issue that people have to go to courts about, if they’re being renovicted or demovicted or illegally evicted and they need to go before a tribunal, they’re not able to access legal aid if they make more than $17,000. Well, if you’re able to survive in this province on $17,000 per year, then you’re doing something incredible. You sure as heck do not have another $10,000 or $20,000 to hire a lawyer if you’re being illegally evicted from your place.

The government is talking about efficiency in this bill. The Enhancing Access to Justice Act is supposed to improve the efficiency of our court system. But the Chief Justice of Ontario George Strathy—this is from a newspaper article—said, “What we judges can say is that reducing legal representation for the most vulnerable members of society does not save money. It increases trial times, places greater demands on public services, and ultimately delays and increases the cost of legal proceedings for everyone.”

If the government wants to increase access to justice, the first thing that should be in this bill is not just a restoration of that 33% of legal aid funding that they cut but, actually, an increase in legal aid funding, so that people who need a lawyer can access a lawyer, so that they’re not going into courts without the proper documents, without proper representation, and they’re not clogging up our courts as the judge tries to navigate through somebody who is not prepared.

The other thing that the government needs to do in order to increase access to justice is to end the chaos that’s happening in our courts. I’ll give the case of Emily. This was in the media a little while ago. She was raped in her home. She took the rapist to court. She went to the hospital. She went to trial. She actually testified in the trial. You’ve got to think about the courage that it takes to go through all of those steps in order to have your day in court and in order to see justice.

What happened was, after she had already testified, the delays in the court case—and these were caused by staffing shortages in court and by the chaos created by this government in our court system—went beyond 18 months.

People have a charter right. The person charged has a charter right to have a trial within an allotted time, and that allotted time is usually 18 months. So when it hit 18 months, the judge threw out the case.

So this woman had gone through all of the trauma of having to relive that experience, of having to go to the police and go to the hospital and go to court and actually testify with the person that she’s complaining about in the courts, and then to have the trial thrown out on a technicality, on the fact that this government has not provided enough funding for our courts.

And one of the judges, Judge Jones, in this decision about this case said, “This case should serve as a chilling reminder that this inexcusable state of affairs must never be allowed to happen again.” He attributed it to the inappropriate funding for the courts, that there isn’t enough funding. And this government has actually just cut the base funding—in their fall economic statement, they just cut the base funding for our courts.

So when this government is talking about access to justice, they need to increase the base funding in our courts so that we have the staff in our courts so that trials can be heard on time, so that trials and cases like this are not thrown out.

They need to restore the funding for our legal aid services so that everybody who needs access to legal aid will have access to legal aid.

Most important of all, they need to restore the impartial and independent process for appointing judges. We cannot have partisan judges appointed in this province. It’s a violation of the rights of all of us under the charter to an independent and impartial judiciary.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): We’re going to move to questions.

Ms. Christine Hogarth: It was certainly an interesting perspective of something; it wasn’t really about the bill. So I want to continue on the questioning of transit. I know the member opposite lives in Spadina–Fort York. I know that area extremely well as I used to live in his riding.

It has the GO trains. We have Exhibition Station. We’re going to grow that. We have the 509 streetcar. You have so many streetcars. Everybody takes transit in that community because you don’t want to have a car in downtown Toronto. It’s almost impossible to have a car. There’s nowhere to park.

I’m wondering the NDP and the member opposite voted against historic investments into our transit system.

Mr. Chris Glover: I believe the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore is talking about the budget bill. And the budget bill—the way that this House works and the game that’s played is that they always say, “Oh, you voted against this. You voted against this.” Well, in a budget bill, there are all kinds of things.

There’s a gross underfunding of our public health care and our public education system. Under this government, there’s been an inflationary cut of $1,200 per student in our schools. That’s what’s in the budget. And there may be some good things—some funding for transit and things—in that budget as well, but we don’t get to pick and choose.

And so we voted against the budget because we believe in public education and public health care. This government was underfunding them in order to create a crisis, in order to privatize those systems.

So no, we’re not going to vote for the privatization of those services. We will hear this again and again. The government will always say, “Oh, you voted against this,” and they will cherry-pick something—

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): Thank you.

We’re going to move to the next question.

Mr. Joel Harden: Entertaining discussion, as always, this morning. I was intrigued, my friend from Spadina–Fort York, how often you’re interrupted because I’m starting to realize that the government really doesn’t like criticism. Really—they don’t like it internally. We’ve have had five people other there jump ship. There’s probably going to be more. We have a Premier under criminal investigation by the RCMP, and you keep getting interrupted.

My question is this, my friend from Spadina–Fort York: Why does this government have such a hard time hearing criticism? Do you think that might be why they want to hand-pick judges, they want to hand-pick people that mirror their values?

And on transit, I have to just say for the record, the member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore, right now, her crowning achievement is a hole in the ground at Mimico station. It’s not much to brag about.

Mr. Chris Glover: I think it’s frightening that the government is afraid of criticism. This is a democracy, and this is a Parliament. And Parliament means that you’re supposed to listen and talk. I will say that this government does not listen.

I’ve sat on committees for the last five years. Many times, we’ve brought in friendly amendments to pieces of legislation. There was a piece of legislation about expanding broadband to rural communities, and it was supposed to be—in their speeches, they all talked about rural, remote and Indigenous communities, but it was nowhere in the bill. We brought in amendments just to insert those words, and the government voted them down.

They do not understand that the role of the Parliament and the role of democracy is to listen to the other side and to take that into account so that you can improve the legislation so that you’re not making so many mistakes and that you’re not having to reverse every other bill that this government passes—

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): Thank you.

Next question?

Mr. Will Bouma: I listened with interest to the member from Spadina–Fort York’s speech. I noted with interest that while he had some suggestions on things that could have been put into the bill, he actually had no criticism of the bill. So my question is, will the member from Spadina–Fort York and his caucus be voting in favour of this bill when debate is finished?

Mr. Chris Glover: I’m going to leave you guessing on that one. But I will say, if you had made the amendments to restore the powers of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee, if you had restored the power to have an impartial and independent process for appointing judges in this province, then we probably would be supporting this bill because that is a vital part of our democratic rights. That you’ve taken that away and you have an opportunity to restore it and you’re not doing it is really shameful.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): The next question.

Ms. Jessica Bell: Thank you to the member for Spadina–Fort York. During committee for Bill 157, government members voted down a motion to increase access to legal aid. We know that when more people have access to legal aid, they get their fair day in court. It can speed up processes because people are not representing themselves. They’re not well informed, because they’re not lawyers, on how the process works.

How does a lack of access to legal aid affect residents in your riding?

Mr. Chris Glover: Actually, I was talking to a court clerk. She was telling me that one of the issues when they cut the legal aid services and cut access to legal aid—people come to court and they don’t have the proper docu-ments. You’ve got a judge; you’ve got a lawyer for the one side; but this person does not have a lawyer, so they’re not properly prepared. Then, the time in the court is spent trying to help this person to get the documentations, to understand what documentation they actually need in order to have their case heard. This is Family Court, so these are often cases about divorce settlements, about payments, and it’s also about child custody.

These things are urgent and need to be heard. But instead of having a lawyer so that the process can be heard and a decision made and people can move on, the court’s time is being taken up—

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): Thank you.

Next question?

Mr. Will Bouma: The member has explained that he’s going to keep us guessing on whether he will support this piece of legislation or not. We hear all the time the opposition say that we call them out for not having voted in favour of pieces of legislation. But I’ve heard no criticisms of this piece of legislation other than some additions that the opposition would like put into the bill.

We’re making it easier for victims of crime to sue an offender. We’re protecting children and youth in this piece of legislation. We’re going to limit interruptions to child protection trials. So many good things that I think we all agree on in this House are being put into this piece of legislation. I’m not going to put the member on the spot on whether he’ll support this or not, but if the opposition chooses not to support this piece of legislation, what would that member say to someone in his riding who asked him about why he didn’t support this legislation, seeing as the NDP has no criticism of the piece of legislation?

Mr. Chris Glover: The government is talking about this access-to-justice bill as if it’s going to solve the safety crisis that we have in our communities across this province, and it’s not going to do that. The reason that we have a safety crisis in our province is because we have such high levels of poverty. We’ve got so many people—if you look at jurisdictions where there’s a great gap between rich and poor, they consistently have higher rates of violent crime. When you look at the TTC, when you’ve got people using transit as a shelter, when that’s their home, then you’re going to have issues.

When you don’t have mental health supports for people in mental health crises and there’s no place for them to go, then you’re going to have problems. So if the government wanted to make our communities safer, in this bill, they would—

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): Thank you.

Next question?

Mr. Joel Harden: I’m just wondering, in the time we have left, member for Spadina–Fort York, if you couldn’t impress upon this government that in fact you brought a very important message today, that if they want to actually preserve access to justice, you have to fund the court systems that we have, and in particular, as you mentioned, the victim support groups that can be there for families in their time of need.

Mr. Chris Glover: Absolutely. I’ve done a lot of work with victims of gun violence. One of the things that this government did is that they took out—for victims of violence, there was up to a $25,000 allotment that was given to them. This government took that away. And the disruption in somebody’s life, in a family’s life when somebody has become a victim of gun violence, whether they’ve been able to survive or not, is incredible. A lot of these people are in low-income families. They do not have the financial resources to actually weather that crisis.

So one of the things that the government should do is restore the victim allotment so victims of violent crime can get some funding to help them get through that period and that trauma.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): That’s time. We’re going to move to further debate.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I rise to speak to third reading of Bill 157, a bill with 19 schedules. There are some good schedules, like

schedule 18, that enhances victims’ rights. But I have an obligation to express some serious concerns with this bill, starting with

schedule 1, which changes the regulatory framework for architectural technologists. Since 1969, the AATO has been the statutory regulator for architectural technologists in Ontario. This was reaffirmed by the courts in 2022. Yet the government has made a change to this regulatory framework without any consultation with architectural technologists, who have raised serious concerns around this particular change.

Secondly, I want to raise concerns about

schedule 4 and, in particular, concerns raised by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario about the provisions in

schedule 4 that weaken the transparency and account-ability of the public consultation process for making changes to critical regulations governing the Community Safety and Policing Act.

I think it’s important to put into the record a quote from the privacy commissioner:

“Transparency around the regulation-making process under CSPA is even more compelling given:

“—the increasing adoption and deployment of emerging information technologies in policing (such as artificial intelligence and facial recognition) that put Ontarians’ access and privacy risk at heightened risk, and

“—the heightened public interest in enhanced transparency and accountability when it comes to both the governance of police powers and the mitigation of systemic discrimination associated with policing.”

Nothing that was changed in this bill at committee addresses these serious concerns by the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and it would be nice to know from government why they haven’t addressed these concerns.

Speaker, I want to close by saying that if the government was serious about enhancing access to justice, they would start by repealing Bill 245, which politicized the political process for choosing judges, especially through the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee changes, which the Premier has now quadrupled down on, saying he wants to appoint like-minded judges. The politicization and the Americanization of our judicial system is dangerous, it’s wrong, and the government needs to backtrack on these changes now.

We have heard over and over from legal experts saying that the process that was used to appoint justices was working fine until the Premier came along and brought in American-style politicalization to that process, which I believe is dangerous for people’s access to justice in this province.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): We’re going to move to questions for the member for Guelph.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I listened with interest to the brief remarks from the member for Guelph. He didn’t have much time.

Certainly we hear from constituents and Ontarians across this province that there are huge concerns about what the Premier is saying about the politicization of the judicial process. I wondered if the member would like to take a little bit more time to elaborate on why this is so dangerous to democracy and why the Premier should reverse his decision to appoint those partisan members to the judicial committee.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I appreciate the member from London’s question. I say we just have to look south of the border to see why this is so dangerous. We have a long tradition in Canada—unlike the US, where you have Republican and Democratic judges—of just having judges that apply the law—not what the Premier wants, but the law—so it is incredibly dangerous when a politician of any political stripe gets up and says, “We’re not going to appoint judges with this political affiliation or that political affiliation.

We’re going to appoint like-minded judges.” Well, the bottom line is, access to justice should be fair and equitable, and it should be based on applying the law, not what the Premier tells a judge to do.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): Next question?

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: I’ve noticed this government cuts first, instead of “measure twice and cut once.” Here, we’re seeing a layer of transparency in terms of changes in policing that affect already marginalized and racialized communities. Can you guess at how this might impact marginalized communities when we see proposed changes that aren’t made public and there is no stakeholder and community feedback?

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I appreciate the member from Kitchener’s question. I’m deeply concerned about

schedule 4, which the Information and Privacy Commissioner brought forward. When significant changes to police regulations are proposed—under the current act, they would be made publicly available for a comment period and the public could be engaged in commenting on these regulatory changes. But given the provisions in

schedule 4 of this bill, that’s no longer necessary, so the government is saying the public won’t have the opportunity to comment on these changes.

Rightfully so, the Information and Privacy Commissioner has raised serious concerns around this, especially as it relates to marginalized communities across the province.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): Next question?

Ms. Christine Hogarth: We talk about faith-based hate crimes, and they are on the rise. We hear about that everyday on the news. I was actually knocking on doors on Friday in my riding and was disappointed to hear somebody who said some things I thought were awfully cruel—not about me, but about others who I care about.

The Victims’ Bill of Rights already allows victims of hate-based crimes to seek civil damages for emotional distress and related bodily harm. One thing in this bill is changes to the regulations. They’ve added terrorism offences, which are often hate-motivated; hate crimes which are targeting clergy; and disruption of worship. As we hear about that more and more, I believe those changes are important, and now these victims can charge or sue for emotional distress.

Does the member support that, which is in this bill, and will you be supporting this bill—

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): Thank you.

The member for Guelph for a quick response.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I appreciate the question from the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore. If the member will recall my debate remarks, I opened by saying that some schedules in this bill, particularly

schedule 18, which is what this question refers to, are good parts of this bill. Absolutely, we should make it easier for victims of crime to sue an offender for emotional distress.

I also think we should make it easier for the public to comment on changes to police regulations, which is why I’m raising concerns in

schedule 4 of this bill along with the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): Further debate?

Miss Monique Taylor: It looks like I have about five minutes to be able to start debate on Bill 157, Enhancing Access to Justice Act. It is a lengthy bill, with many provisions affecting many parts of our court system: our Law Society Act, our Coroners Act, our Architects Act. It’s a hefty bill. But New Democrats have definitely taken the time and the position to focus on true access to justice and what that means to us, what it means to people of Ontario, and the things that we had hoped that we would have seen in a bill titled “access to justice.”

Speaker, you’ve been here for quite a few years also. We have definitely seen many bills put in front of this Legislature that have really great titles that intrigue the public into thinking that there could actually be something good in that bill for them. And then we see that it typically does quite the opposite and leaves the people of Ontario out. That is what we see time and time again with this government. It’s unfortunate. But so it is, the Enhancing Access to Justice Act.

I want to take the opportunity to talk about intimate partner violence in the province of Ontario and how people across this province are calling for funding, they’re calling for the word “femicide” to be used, to actually state that it’s an epidemic, and this government is refusing to do that. I know that New Democrats, during the committee portion, had put amendments on the table that the government voted against. They voted against ensuring that—what was it?

Government committee members voted against an NDP amendment that would have required the Attorney General to make a plan to increase the amount of funding to Ontario’s rape crisis centres, sexual assault support centres and domestic violence support centres.

The Ford government stopped renewing a $1-million funding boost to rape crisis centres in 2020. And they have been ringing the bells, saying they need support. They are not able to keep up with the growing amount of women who need access to supports, to safety. When we have a Premier who gets on his feet and continuously talks about the crime rates that happen in the communities and yet fails to support the women who need access to a safe place to get away from those perpetrators, it’s really, really, really unfortunate. And it’s clear. The underfunding, the lack of supports that these centres have seen for years have women in danger on a regular basis.

This letter is an open letter calling for a provincial declaration of intimate partner violence as an epidemic. This was on December 6—

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): I apologize to the member. I know you were expecting it, but I need to interrupt as it’s 10:15 and we need to move to members’ statements.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Lambton College women’s basketball team

Mr. Robert Bailey: It’s my privilege to rise today and inform the House that this past Sunday, in front of a capacity crowd of thousands of raucous fans in Sarnia, the Lambton College women’s basketball program won their first-ever Ontario Colleges Athletic Association championship with a convincing 78-56 win over the previously undefeated and number-two-ranked team in Canada, the Algonquin College Wolves.

With the historic victory in the provincial championship game, the mighty Lambton Lions secured the school’s first-ever invitation to the Canadian Collegiate Athletic Association championship tournament, being held next week at Lakeland College in Lloydminster, Alberta.

Led by coaching prodigy Janine Day, and conference player of the year and first team All-Canadian Breanna Pretty, the 2023-24 Lambton Lions utilized a smothering full-court defence and relentless, fast-paced offence to dominate on the hardwood this season, compiling a 19-2 record so far. The average margin of victory for the Lions this season is nearly 29 points per game.

As the Lambton Lions prepare to make the trip west to the national championship tournament, I want to say to all the coaches and the players at Lambton College, on behalf of the Ontario government and all the members of the Legislature, congratulations, and good luck. We will be cheering for you. Go, Lions!

Craig Connell

Mr. John Vanthof: On Sunday, I attended a celebration of life for Mr. Craig Connell. Craig made an incredible difference in my life and, judging by how full that room was, on many others.

I first met Craig as a fellow board member on the board of Dairy Farmers of Ontario. I can honestly say I have never disagreed with anyone as often and as vehemently as Craig Connell, and I have never enjoyed someone’s company so much.

Craig was the first person I told that I was going to run for MPP. We were standing at a bar at an event. He asked me if I was going to run for the board; I said, “No, I’m going to run for MPP.” He said, “Oh, you’d be great,” and as I was walking away, I heard him mumble, “My God, he might run for the NDP.” He came over to my table, and he stopped and he said, “I have an announcement to make.” He put his hand on my shoulder and he said, “John here is going to run for MPP, and if he was in my riding, I’d even vote for him, even if he’s running for the Communists.”

He leaves behind Moira; his daughter, Alison, and his son, Lloyd, and their families; and an incredible business legacy with Wicketthorn Farms. And he leaves behind an incredible legacy to all of us for all the things that he fought for. He emigrated from Scotland and brought his skills to this country, and made all our lives better, whether we know it or not. On all our behalf, thank you very much.

Government investments

Mr. Will Bouma: Last week, I was pleased to welcome the Associate Minister of Housing to the city of Brantford to announce a $3-million housing investment from our government as part of the Building Faster Fund.

This funding was awarded to Brantford because they were able to exceed their housing target by 8% last year. Brantford broke ground on a total of 788 new housing units, unlocking an additional $400,000. Brantford should be proud of the work that they have done to get shovels in the ground faster. I am honoured to represent a city that is dedicated to ensuring that residents have a place to call home, and I am appreciative that our government provides the necessary tools to help the city of Brantford to achieve their goals.

Brantford continues to grow at an unprecedented rate, and I am grateful to all those in the Brantford–Brant com-munity, including Mayor Kevin Davis, for working with our government to meet the development and investment needs of our community. I am thankful every single day for the incredible working relationship that I have with the city of Brantford. With the support of these provincial funds, our community will sustain its expansion, while creating new job opportunities and business growth. Brantford will continue to be the best place to live, work, play and raise a family in Ontario.

Climate change

Ms. Jessica Bell: It was beautiful weather yesterday—for May, not March. Toronto’s winter was the warmest on record. It is an extreme weather event, just like the Texas Smokehouse Creek fires, just like the fires across Canada that darkened our eastern seaboard for weeks last year, just like the warmest ocean temperatures that have ever been recorded that were recorded this January. These are terrifying signs about the health of our planet.

The Conservatives have set a completely irresponsible target of reducing emissions by 30% by 2030. This government is ideologically opposed to wind and solar and energy efficiency. They’re spending billions of dollars on a highway that we don’t need, and they’re doubling down on paving over farmland to build homes that people simply cannot afford. This is not the kind of leadership that an advanced industrial state like Ontario should be demonstrating; it is an example of failure.

Ontario needs to reduce its emissions by 50% by 2030. It needs to put in place the investments, policies and programs to deliver on that call, from retrofitting homes and buildings to investing in energy efficiency and to investing in public transit. We have the know-how, the technology and the workforce to act on climate. What we need from this government is the political will. To ready us for the future, it is time to rise to the challenge and act in a manner that meets the crisis we face.

Health care

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: February 22 was Heart Valve Disease Awareness Day, and at Turtle Creek Manor in Mississauga–Lakeshore I hosted a free stethoscope check event for local seniors with Ellen Ross and her team from Heart Valve Voice Canada. I want to thank cardiologist Dr. Gurpreet Parmar and nurse practitioner Cheryl Low from the heart team at Trillium Health Partners for all their help with this event and for everything they do to care for patients living with heart valve disease.

Again, I want to thank all members for supporting my private member’s bill, Bill 66, the Heart Valve Disease Awareness Act, which is now at the committee on social policy.

In 2021, I was proud to co-sponsor another bill to raise awareness for sickle cell disease with the Minister of the Environment. Lanre and the Sickle Cell Awareness Group of Ontario were the driving force behind Bill 255, and they’re back at Queen’s Park today. I’m proud to sponsor their reception and invite all members to join us tonight at 5 p.m. in rooms 228 and 230 to learn more about sickle cell disease.

Lastly, Speaker, Kidney Patient and Donor Alliance Canada will be here tomorrow, and I’m proud to sponsor their reception as well. I invite all members to join us for lunch tomorrow in room 228 after question period to learn more about kidney care from patients and donors from across the province of Ontario.

Association des étudiantes et étudiants francophones

L’AEF est une organisation située dans l’Université Laurentienne qui offre plusieurs services et un soutien incroyable à la communauté d’étudiants.

Cette occasion était très spéciale parce que l’AEF est l’une des premières associations étudiantes franco-ontariennes à rejoindre 50 ans d’existence. Pendant la fête, j’ai présenté à l’AEF un certificat de reconnaissance pour leur 50 e anniversaire.

J’aimerais souhaiter le meilleur pour les années à venir à Nawfal Sbaa, le président, à tous les membres du conseil, et à tous les étudiants et étudiantes qui sont impliqués avec l’AEF. Félicitations à l’AEF pour cette étape impressionnante.

Bishop Garfield Racicot

Mr. Kevin Holland: I rise today to recognize a good friend and colleague, O’Connor township councillor Bishop Garfield Racicot, who sadly passed away on December 30.

Bishop’s journey began in Sudbury, but through the twists and turns of life, he made his home in the township of O’Connor in 1993. Shortly after moving to O’Connor, Bishop embarked on a new

chapter in his life, dedicating himself to the betterment of his community by running as councillor, a role he fulfilled with unwavering commitment and integrity for the next 24 years.

Bishop’s passion for the township of O’Connor was evident in everything he did. He worked tirelessly to advocate for the welfare and prosperity of its residents, fuelled by a deep-seated belief in the potential of his community. Bishop was a friend to many, a beacon of kindness, compassion and generosity. His love of people drove him to open his food vending operation where he served up his own brand of hometown advice and conversations, along with hamburgers, hotdogs and poutine.

His warm smile and genuine concern for others endeared him to all who had the privilege of knowing him. Whether offering a helping hand or a listening ear, Bishop was always there, ready to uplift and support those in need, even during very difficult times in his own life.

I extend deepest sympathy to Bishop’s wife, Linda; son, Mitchell; grandson, Bishop; and the rest of the family. Bishop’s legacy of service and compassion will endure for generations to come, and we shall honour his memory by continuing the work he began.

Rest well, my friend.

Coldest Night of the Year

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I want to thank the 600 Guelphites who walked in the Coldest Night of the Year on February 24, to raise funds for Hope House. Together we raised $193,592.

I was proud to walk on Team Orpha, led by Orpha Thrasher, who is 102 years young. Orpha is the mom of my constituency staff member, Shelley, and wife of the late Ivan Thrasher, MPP for Windsor–Sandwich from 1964 to 1967.

Hope House alleviates poverty by building community. Hope House feeds 2,400 people, supplies fully-stocked backpacks to 2,300 school children and provides services to meet the basic needs of over 1,500 people. Organizations like Hope House are trying to help people find a safe, affordable place to live.

I’m proud to say that my community in Guelph has mobilized to build a 32-unit permanent supportive housing project. I want to thank the government for contributing $3 million in capital funding for the project. Now, I urge the government to fund the health care supports needed to open up the permanent supportive housing project so we can ensure that we can move people from the streets and tents into a home.

International Women’s Day

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I rise today to commemorate International Women’s Day. This year’s theme is “Invest in Women: Accelerate Progress.”

There are many women here who have done that, and I wanted to acknowledge a few in my life who have been able to do that, like Louise Mercier, who has been a leader with the Navy League of Canada, who works with the Conference of Defence Associations Institute and has been on the executive of the foundation of the Rideau Perley long-term care facility; or Barbara Farber, who is a leader in our Jewish community, is involved in commercial real estate and is not only a philanthropist but an honorary lieutenant colonel of the Cameron Highlanders of Ottawa;

Sonya Shorey, as members in Ottawa would all know, has been leading Invest Ottawa, as the interim CEO, and just like any strong woman, she can hustle better in high heels and stilettos than any man ever could.

I’d like to congratulate Lynne Hamilton for her work at Equal Voice in prompting the voices of women—and of course, my own mother and my late aunt Ena, who despite the fact that it was my father who was elected six times, it was my mother leading my Aunt Ena’s campaign for election to school board that really got me involved in politics.

Of course, Speaker, I’d like to say thank you to all women in this chamber for showing their strength of leadership and character, as well as the women who support us, both inside this chamber and out, as staff of either yours or ours.

Finally, I would just like to wish one of our colleagues in particular well this International Women’s Day: Caroline Mulroney, our President of the Treasury Board. She was a former seatmate of mine, a friend and a valued colleague. I know this week has been very difficult for her with the passing of her father, the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney. But before he was the Prime Minister of Canada, he was Caroline Mulroney’s father. He dedicated his life to his family, her and her three brothers, and I know her grace, her kindness, her intelligence are all characteristics and traits that he passed on to her—as well as her mother, Mila Mulroney.

I want to say on this International Women’s Day that we will continue to invest in women across the province, and we will continue to accelerate their progress. To all women in this chamber, Happy International Women’s Day.

Government investments

Mr. Graham McGregor: Yesterday was a wonderful, wonderful day in Brampton North. I spent the afternoon down at Loafer’s Lake. If you haven’t had a chance to walk around Loafer’s Lake on a sunny day, Mr. Speaker, you really ought to try it.

Yesterday I had the pleasure of showing off Loafer’s Lake to Ontario’s terrific Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. We were joined by Brampton’s mayor and city council, as well as a ton of local community groups, namely the People Against Littering, the Brampton Environmental Alliance, Heart Lake Happenings, the Guru Nanak Mission Centre and, of course, the legendary Heart Lake Turtle Troopers.

We were happy to see the minister and even happier when she brought a big cheque with her. I’m pleased to report to the House that the Ontario government is investing in Loafer’s Lake and the surrounding wetlands through a wetland preservation grant to a total of $2.5 million. This money will be used for a few purposes: restoring the Loafer’s Lake shoreline, combatting invasive species, enhancing the natural flood mitigation around Etobicoke Creek, planting 6,500 trees up near Conservation Drive and more. All of this work will happen by the end of 2024.

Speaker, restoring the Loafer’s Lake shoreline is a task I’ve been seized with for literally a year and a half. I’m thrilled we’re getting it done this early in my term. Yesterday was a wonderful, wonderful day.

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

Introduction of Visitors

Ms. Catherine Fife: I’d like to introduce two constituents: Tracy MacDonald—she is the CEO of Trillium Mutual—and Julie Garner; she is the board chair with Trillium Mutual Insurance. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

M me Dawn Gallagher Murphy: I’d like to welcome, from my constituency of Newmarket, Kara and Max Bilo, who is also a friend of Skye Baker, a page from Newmarket.

I’d also like to give a warm welcome to Derek Rowland, who is from my hospital, Southlake Regional Health Centre. Welcome to your House.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: I had the pleasure this morning of meeting with representatives from the Sickle Cell Awareness Group of Ontario: Delaney Hines, Dr. Jacob Pendergrast, Fitz-Ann Howell and Simone Griffith, a fantastic representative from Hamilton. Thank you so much for educating me. I also want to thank MPP Cuzzetto for his support of that group. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Amarjot Sandhu: I would like to welcome the parents of our page captain, Paras Sodhi: his dad, Sandeep Sodhi; mother, Rajni Sodhi; and sisters, Akriti Sodhi and Kriti Sodhi. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: For International Women’s Day, I want to recognize and welcome some incredible women from Parkdale–High Park who are in the galleries today as my guests. We have Karen Allmen, co-founder and coordinator at the Bloor West Food Bank; Maggie Galloway, who joined the Bloor West Food Bank as a volunteer and now has moved into her current role as coordinator; and also Mary Anne Waterhouse, co-founder of Bloor West Food Bank, although she cannot be here today. Speaker, these women are devoted to bringing community together to tackle food insecurity and foster sustainable practices.

They have with them their guests: Maureen Sirois, Karen’s sister; Arthur Galloway, Maggie’s husband; as well as Angela Gei, Wendy Lyon and Carolyn Anne, volunteers at the Bloor West Food Bank.

Ms. Patrice Barnes: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature the parents of page Anushga Trivedi from my riding: her dad, Biren, and her mom, Truph.

M me France Gélinas: I would like to welcome members of the Sickle Cell Awareness Group that are here with us today: Lanre Tunji-Ajayi, who is the president; Corey Fletcher, a physician in training; and Lisa Tinker. Thank you for being here today, and hopefully everybody joins the reception this afternoon.

Hon. Stan Cho: I had lunch yesterday with today’s page caption, Niklas. He’s got to be the healthiest 14-year-old I have ever seen in my life. I want to welcome his parents, Teresa and Chad Low, to the Legislature today.

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Meegwetch, Speaker.

Remarks in Anishininiimowin.

I’d like to introduce the intern that we have from OLIP. Her name is Bridget Carter-Whitney, who will be working with us this spring. And also some guests from the riding of Kiiwetinoong from Cat Lake First Nation: Rachel Wesley and also Gordina Oombash. Meegwetch for coming.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s my pleasure today to introduce Derek Rowland to the assembly. Derek, of course, was my issues manager, he was my deputy chief of staff and director of communications while I was Minister of Community and Social Services, with responsibilities for women’s issues and immigration as well as heritage, sport, tourism and culture. Of course, because he was issues manager and I am me, we all should be thankful for him for the great work that he did 365, seven days a week, 24/7, during his time in government.

MPP Lise Vaugeois: I would like to welcome guests from Terrace Bay. They’ve come a long way to be here: the president of United Steelworkers Local 665, Stephen Downey; executive members Warren Sutherland, Michelle Richardson and David Mayry; and USW staff representative Cody Alexander.

Thank you so much for coming. Welcome to your House.

Hon. Andrea Khanjin: It’s my pleasure to welcome great friends from the Sickle Cell Awareness Group of Ontario: Lanre Tungi-Ajayi, Timothy Tunji-Ajayi, Doreen Alexander, Delaney Hines, Dr. Robert Klaassen and Dr. Jacob Pendergrast. Welcome to your House.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): If there are no objections, I’d like to continue with the introduction of visitors.

The member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr. David Smith: I rise today to wish my daughter, who’s turning 6 today—

Interjections.

Mr. David Smith: Thank you. I know there are going to be a lot of heads looking around. Some of us start early and some of us start late.

She’s going to be 6 years old today, yes. Star Smith said that she’d like to be here with Daddy, so somewhere along the line, I’m going to have to train her to become a member of this House.

Question Period

Highway tolls

Ms. Marit Stiles: This question is for the Premier. Our plan to remove tolls on trucks on Highway 407 would save people money and time. It would help ease traffic for everybody. Across the province, people clearly support this common-sense solution. Why is this government willing to sit back and let a private company continue to profit off Ontario drivers instead of doing something to make life easier for them?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply for the government, the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: Look, this isn’t about truckers. This isn’t about the 407. This is the NDP’s continued opposition to Highway 413. They continue to listen to the protest groups. The people of this province sent a very loud and clear message to that member and the previous Liberal leader and the current Liberal leader, who has actually continued on this campaign to cancel the 413.

Come to Brampton, come to Mississauga and listen to the challenges people are facing on the streets every single day and the gridlock that they are facing. Our government is committed to building $30 billion worth of infrastructure—roads, highways—all across this province and that is exactly what we will do. We’ll continue on our path forward to build Highway 413.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: No, Minister, this is about getting some relief for people today, not 10 years from now.

I’m going to bring my question back to the Premier. This is about political will. The Minister of Transportation said yesterday that it would be just too difficult to scrap tolls on Highway 407 because it’s owned by a private entity. He even admitted to journalists that it is within the government’s power to renegotiate the 407 contract, but they’re not willing to do it.

So my question back to the Premier is, why is this Premier so afraid of taking on the 407 operator?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: You want to talk about actions we can do today? That member knows that on April 1, the carbon tax is about to go up 23%. Let’s talk about the challenges that long-haul truck drivers face with the carbon tax today: $15,000 to $20,000 per truck driver on long-haul truckers that they face with the carbon tax. That’s $15,000 to $20,000 that they could be putting back to their families.

Let’s talk about the changes that we’ve made, whether it was getting rid of the val tags, $125 per car or truck, or the reduction of the gas tax by close to 10 cents a litre. That member has never once supported any of those measures that we have put forward for drivers across this province. Will that member stand up and call her federal counterpart and the Prime Minister and say a 23% increase in the carbon tax is unacceptable and they will not stand for it, and stand with truckers as we oppose that increase in the carbon tax?

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: The 407: the mistake that this government—this party—made and that the people of Ontario keep paying for. Ontarians see through this. They see through this. Just last month, this government made a big show about legislation to ban tolls on major highways, but they exempted the only provincial highway that actually charges tolls.

Yesterday we gave them a chance to reverse their soft-on-tolls policies and actually do something, but they refused. Back to the Premier: When are you going to start prioritizing the interests of Ontarians instead of big corporations?

Interjections.

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

The Premier.

Hon. Doug Ford: Let me get this right: You’re against the 412 and 418. You voted against getting rid of the tolls. You voted against the 413. You voted against the Bradford Bypass. You voted against the largest transit expansion in North America. Which way are you going today? Are you going one way, are you going the other way?

At the end of the day, we’ve done more for the taxpayers of Ontario than any government in the history of this province, reducing the cost and burden of being taxed to death. You’re for taxes; we’re against taxes.

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

Forest industry

Ms. Marit Stiles: I think the people of Ontario are wondering why this Premier is so afraid of the 407 operator.

My next question is back to the Premier. In January, it was announced that the AV Terrace Bay pulp mill would close indefinitely, throwing 400 workers out of work. Workers from the mill, members of USW Local 665, are here today. I welcome them. They’re watching us now and they’re looking for answers from this government.

This is a viable mill in a competitive industry. If this mill is allowed to shut down, somebody else is going to open a mill outside of Ontario to do the same work.

Can the Premier tell these workers and the people of Terrace Bay what they are doing to save these jobs and get this mill back up and running?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry.

Hon. Graydon Smith: Thank you for the question. We have—and I’ve told this House many times—been working since the second that mill idled to get it open again, and my greatest respect to the steelworkers that are here today that have joined us that are concerned about their jobs. We are equally concerned about their jobs and the best thing that can happen is that mill reopens. We will be remorseless in our—sorry, in our—blah, blah, blah. Some days you’ve got it and some days you don’t. But we will not stop in our efforts to get this mill open.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I heard their media studio piece this morning, and they talked about all the things that we’re actually already doing, including making investments in the forestry industry to make sure that there’s a forestry industry in the future we can all count on. And the NDP and the Liberals had 15 years to do that. They did not do it. We’re doing it every day. We’re supporting that sector every day.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Back to the Premier: There are a lot of heads shaking in Terrace Bay and Schreiber and across northern Ontario right now. People in northern Ontario and Terrace Bay are saying, “What about us? What about us?” This morning, one of the workers said, “All we need is some hope.” When you grow up in a single-industry town and the mill closes or the plant closes, that’s it. There’s no hope. So they’re asking this government to fight for them—to stand up and fight for them.

And what is this government doing? They are saying the same things they always say; they’re making these empty promises. Those workers came a long way today to hear this government say, “We are going to fight for you and we are going to fight for northern Ontario.”

When will this Premier fight for the people of Terrace Bay?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. Order. Members will please take their seats. The House will come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. Order.

Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry.

Hon. Graydon Smith: Mr. Speaker, we have been fighting for them every single day, and the opposition knows that. They are taking advantage of a situation to play political theatre and political games once again today.

Meanwhile, we’re working the phones. We’re looking for the opportunities. We’re looking for the operators. We’re the ones making the investments in the forestry sector to make sure that Terrace Bay and Schreiber and every community in the north can benefit from a strong forestry sector: $60 million announced last week invested in biomass and the forestry sector, the same product that gets used in those mills, because we’re looking towards not only today, but to the future.

So to the opposition: Stand up and join us. You know we’re doing the right things. Stop playing games and let’s get this done. Let’s get it done for everybody.

Interjections.

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

Members will please take their seats.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. The House will come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Okay, I’m going to start calling out members by name to come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Start the clock.

The supplementary question: the member for Thunder Bay–Superior North.

MPP Lise Vaugeois: Thank you. And I’d like to say, the biomass projects have nothing to do with helping the workers in Terrace Bay. There has been no communication with the workers in Terrace Bay whatsoever.

The owners of the mill, the Aditya Birla Group, received nearly $130 million from the province with an expectation that, when they purchased the mill, they were in for the long hail and the community could depend on the jobs. The town, the workers there and all the surrounding communities don’t have two years to wait until maybe another multinational thinks they can get a good deal on a mill that actually produces some of the best pulp in the world.

There has been no communication with the workers and almost no communication with the town leadership, so everybody is waiting to hear something.

So I want to know now, today, with workers who have travelled all the way here from Terrace Bay, what is the government doing, specifically, to bring back jobs for the workers at Terrace Bay, to bring that mill back to life?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry.

Hon. Graydon Smith: To say that biomass has nothing to do with what we’re talking about in Terrace Bay is to fundamentally misunderstand how the forest industry works. But be that as it may, I’m not surprised. I’m not surprised.

Listen, we’ve gone over this again. The moment this mill shut down, we were in contact with the mayor. We were in contact with multiple mayors. We held regional meetings. That member was at the meetings. That member knows exactly what we’ve been doing. The Leader of the Opposition had a phone call with her. She knows exactly what we’ve been doing. So for them to play this pantomime that they don’t know what’s going on—we’ve been fully transparent about the efforts we’ve been taking on behalf of those fine workers who have joined us today, on behalf of a community. We want to see this mill going again.

It’s a private sector company that signed a horrible deal with the previous government—big shocker there. But we want to get this mill going again, and we’re going to continue to work for the people in Terrace Bay every single day.

Indigenous children’s services

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Remarks in Anishininiimowin. Good morning. A Global News investigation revealed how youth from northern First Nations are being targeted by for-profit group home companies. These companies do this because their owners can charge First Nations more for the care of our children. These companies see our children and youth as a steady source of revenue, as cash cows, as one operator said. Our children and youth are not dollar signs.

To the Premier: Do you condone this abuse?

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

Hon. Michael Parsa: I thank my honourable colleague for the question. Let me make it very clear: Our government will do whatever it takes to protect every single child and youth in our province. There is no room in our system for providers who refuse to provide high-quality care, full stop.

Our government didn’t need another report to tell us. We took action. We created 20 new inspector positions across the province. We increased the number of inspections across homes. We increased the number of unannounced inspections that were being done. We improved the quality of the child welfare data to establish a common standard for every children’s aid society across the province.

These actions have demonstrated that, once again, we will do whatever it takes to protect every child and youth in our province. It’s the moral and legal obligation of every provider to make sure they protect children and youth. We will hold them to account every single time.

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

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Words are good, but we need action. We cannot continue to sit on our hands. We need to do something right. Our children must be treated as human beings when they are in care. It is very clear that this government has failed them. Group homes cannot continue to break child welfare laws without any consequences.

To the Premier: Again I ask, what action will your government take today?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

Hon. Michael Parsa: Through the Ontario Indigenous Children and Youth Strategy, we are increasing access to community-based prevention and early intervention supports, ones that are culturally appropriate and reflect Indigenous customs, heritage and tradition.

On action, as I mentioned earlier, it was our government that said actions were not taken. Enough was not done to support the children and youth, which is why we had the consultations with Indigenous leadership. The Ontario Indigenous Children and Youth Strategy is co-developed by the Indigenous communities with the Indigenous leadership.

And we took action. As I mentioned to you, Mr. Speaker, we increased the number of inspectors across the province. We increased the number of unannounced inspections. We posted just this past summer that we are looking at increasing fines, all to make sure that those providers that are looking after our children and youth in this province know that they have a moral and legal obligation to look after them. We will hold them to account.

Education

M me Dawn Gallagher Murphy: My question is for the Minister of Education. Our government agrees with parents in Ontario: Students need to be in class getting back-to-basics education. Last week, we heard the minister tell this House that Ontario is second in the nation in reading, writing and math, top 10 in science and top 15 in math internationally. We need to keep this momentum going. We must work to keep children learning and provide them with the stability they deserve so they can continue to succeed in school.

Can the minister please explain what’s being done to support students in Ontario and ensure they stay in class without interruptions from threats of union strikes?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Thank you to the member from Newmarket–Aurora for this question. I’m proud to report to this House that our government has concluded teacher negotiations with the Catholic teachers, meaning all children—two million kids—are in class where they belong. This is very good news for Ontario families, because these kids deserve routine in their lives. It has been almost a generation since the last time a government has delivered deals without any strike or any withdrawal of service at the local or provincial level. It is good news, and we should celebrate progress, stability for children and common sense back in our school system.

We are committed to ensuring our kids get back on track. It’s why routine is foundational as we go back to basics. I am grateful to Ontario educators, to the families and students, to the members of this government caucus who stood up for kids for the right to learn, to stay in school, with peace and stability for the next three years. That is the legacy we deserve for Ontario kids.

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

M me Dawn Gallagher Murphy: Thank you to the minister for his response. It is great to see our government reach a historic agreement to keep Ontario students in class. This is an agreement that parents want and students deserve.

Speaker, our next generation have big, bold dreams for their futures. It is of critical importance that they have our support to develop the skills, understanding and self-efficacy they need to grow and thrive. Our government must continue to put education first, deliver stability and invest in students’ potential.

Can the minister please tell the House how our government is preparing Ontario students for future success?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Our government is reaching higher and demanding better when it comes to ensuring our kids have the skills and competencies necessary to succeed in our country. It’s why we have introduced legislation and passed it—the Better Schools and Student Outcomes Act—designed to refocus our school system and our school boards on academic achievement to boost reading, writing and math and extend discipline to the classroom.

We are imposing accountability and transparency on school boards to ensure that the new kindergarten curriculum introduced this year will actually provide daily instruction on literacy and math. We are ensuring that kids get the skills they need—the life skills, the job skills necessary to compete, get good jobs and graduate with confidence.

Mr. Speaker, that’s why we are proud to have delivered on our promise to the parents of this province—stability, common sense and hope for the kids of Ontario.

Highway tolls

Ms. Jennifer K. French: My question is to the Minister of Transportation.

Anyone stuck in 401 traffic knows how busy the 401 is—and it turns out, they’ve studied it. It really is the busiest highway on the continent. While commuters spend hours in bumper-to-bumper 401 traffic, the 407 sits half empty.

The NDP’s solution to divert commercial trucks from the 401 traffic jam to the 407 was, unbelievably, voted against by this Minister of Transportation.

So my question to the minister is, why is he turning his back on a good idea when it means commuters will sit and wait?

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: Mr. Speaker, once again, this is just another opportunity for the NDP to try to oppose Highway 413.

Every step of the way, this government has put forward measures, especially in that member’s riding, as well, removing tolls on the 412 and 418.

What did that member do when they had the opportunity to vote in support of removing tolls on the 412 and 418? She voted against that measure.

Everything this government has done has been focused around putting more money back into the pockets of drivers, whether that’s reducing the fuel tax by 10 cents; removing tolls on the 412 and 418; fighting the carbon tax, which is about to go up 23%—that will not only impact truckers; it’s going to impact every single family in this province.

That is why, under the leadership of Premier Ford, we will continue to make historic investments in infrastructure, build Highway 413, and put more money in your pockets.

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I was very proud to table the private member’s bill to remove the tolls from the 412 and 418, and I was really pleased the government made it a priority four years later.

Speaker, people have places to go. People want to get home. They want to get to school. They want to get to work.

This government’s pet project, as we’ve heard, Highway 413, is at best 10 years away, and it may or may not make a 30-second difference in the lives of commuters.

In the meantime, removing truck tolls is a creative solution to better utilize a highway we already have, and this government won’t even talk about it.

Now that the Minister of Transportation has had a moment to think about it, would he like to correct his record and vote for a good idea?

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: There it is, Mr. Speaker. That member just said exactly what that motion was all about. It was about cancelling Highway 413.

And absolutely not—we are going to get shovels in the ground. We’re seeing historic population growth in this province, especially in areas like Peel, especially in areas like Halton and York. We received one of the largest mandates, under this Premier, to build Highway 413, and that is exactly what we will do.

We’re not going to listen to the federal environment minister, who says he’s not going to invest or build any more roads or highways or bridges in this country.

Get out of the Queen’s Park bubble. Hit the roads of Mississauga, Brampton, Vaughan and see for yourself the gridlock people—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Waterloo, come to order. The member for Ottawa South, come to order. The Minister of Health, come to order as well.

Start the clock.

The next question.

Taxation

Mr. Lorne Coe: My question is for the Minister of Energy.

People in my riding tell me daily that they want to be treated equally and fairly when it comes to the carbon tax.

With the carbon tax rate set to increase next month, Ontarians can expect to see a hike at the gas pumps, from 14.3 cents per litre to 17.6 cents per litre. This is absolutely unacceptable. People are already struggling with inflation. It’s unfair that they’re being forced to pay more for gas.

It’s obvious that the independent Liberals and opposition NDP don’t care that this unnecessary tax is making life more unaffordable for their constituents. That’s why our government will continue to support Ontarians and call for an end to the carbon tax.

Speaker, can the minister please tell the House how the federal carbon tax is hurting the hard-working individuals and families in this great province?

Hon. Todd Smith: The member from Whitby is absolutely right once again. The federal carbon tax accomplishes nothing that it intended to do and it’s only hurting Ontario families, Mr. Speaker.

When the federal government introduced the carbon tax, they told us a couple of things: They said applying the additional tax to fuels would help reduce emissions, and they also told us that we would get back more than we paid through the carbon tax rebate. Well, we know that that’s not the truth, Mr. Speaker. We know both of these things have been proven to be untrue. The Bank of Canada says that interest rates have been affected because of the carbon tax.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has said we’re not getting back more than they said we would, and still, members of the Liberal caucus are saying that this the case. The Commissioner of the Environment—a federal agency, Mr. Speaker—has even put out a report saying the federal government will miss their own emission targets. The carbon tax is 0 for 2, Mr. Speaker. The jig is up. It’s time to scrap this harmful tax.

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

Mr. Lorne Coe: The minister is right; this carbon tax isn’t working for the people. Instead, it’s making life more expensive.

Speaker, under the previous Liberal government, people in my riding saw their electricity prices skyrocket because the Liberals insisted on signing energy contracts for power we didn’t need. Since we were elected in 2018, our government has taken a different approach: We’ve worked to make energy more affordable so that hard-working Ontario families don’t have to choose between paying their electricity bills or putting food on the table. Unlike the opposition NDP and the independent Liberals, we will always put Ontarians first.

Speaker, can the minister please explain how our government is delivering the support Ontarians need as they experience more financial hardship due to the carbon tax?

Hon. Todd Smith: Through our Powering Ontario’s Growth plan, we’re putting all kinds of new generation in place, expanding our nuclear facilities, which are creating an environment for new investment in our province. But at the same time, we have fought the carbon tax since the very beginning, Mr. Speaker. The carbon tax is driving up the cost of everything, and that’s been proven out by the experts that I cited earlier. But families at home know. The folks from Terrace Bay who drove all the way here know exactly what it means when they go to fill up their pickup trucks in northern Ontario, Mr. Speaker.

We’re in the midst of an affordability crisis, not just in Ontario but across this country. So, if you were in charge of the federal government in an affordability crisis, would you pause the carbon tax? Would you potentially rewind the carbon tax, or would you do what Jagmeet and Justin are doing, full steam ahead on the carbon tax, in three weeks’ time raising it by another 23%. It’s irresponsible, and it’s—

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

Public transit

Ms. Jessica Bell: My question is to the Premier.

Metrolinx has just cancelled its plan to build nearly 3,000 homes and upgrade the Mimico GO station after Vandyk Properties went bankrupt. So, what that means is that local residents have been waiting 10 years for a GO station upgrade and all they’ve got is a hole in the ground.

So, my question is to the Premier: How many times does Metrolinx have to fail to deliver on a project before this government holds that transit agency to account?

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

Hon. Kinga Surma: Thank you very much to the member for the question. I think it’s really important that we understand the circumstances that we are in. Mr. Speaker, we are having economic challenges. Those challenges are not immune to the province of Ontario. The process is before the courts, and the new landowner will be selected, but Metrolinx acted really quickly and brought itself out of the deal in order to protect the infrastructure and protect the transit-oriented community at Mimico station.

Mr. Speaker, we continue to work with the city of Toronto, and we will continue to work with the new landowner to make sure that we build housing, affordable housing, public realm space and, of course, a GO station that the people in Etobicoke rely on.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): And the supplementary question? The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Joel Harden: Back to the minister: For folks watching at home, there’s a reason why you didn’t get an answer to that question today. The sad thing is, public transit construction in Ontario has been hijacked by a self-serving, overpaid bureaucracy led by a million-dollar man, Phil Verster, that this Premier and that minister will not hold to account.

Are we going to hear another speech, after my supplementary question, about wonderful transit projects to come in 10 years, or is this government finally going to hold a corrupt bureaucracy to account and fire Phil Verster?

Hon. Kinga Surma: I’m actually really pleased to have this opportunity to talk about the transit work that is happening, particularly in the GTA, under Phil Verster’s leadership, under Premier Ford’s leadership and under Minister Sarkaria’s leadership. Eglinton Crosstown West is being tunnelled and approaching Royal York station. The Scarborough subway is being tunnelled and the Ontario Line construction has started, as has construction at Exhibition station. Now, of course, we’re focusing our energies on Yonge North.

This was a subway transit plan that they said would never be done. Work is under way, and we will continue to build stations and public transit in the province of Ontario.

Municipal planning

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Good morning, everyone. My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I’m sure the minister fondly remembers last year at committee when I asked him about the major transit station area approvals. It has now been 111 days since the minister told me that sign-off would be soon and that “soon” meant “very soon.”

Well, in those 111 days, not only have the Ontario Liberals released a comprehensive housing plan, including a strong focus on quickly approving and upzoning MTSAs, but also, I have had the time to order a Webster’s dictionary for the minister and I’ve highlighted the definition of “soon.” I’m happy to educate the minister on his vocabulary. “Soon” means “without undue time lapse,” “before long,” “in a prompt manner,” “straightaway,” “shortly”—some time in the 21st century.

Enough of the vague promises and false hopes. We need a specific date and time for municipalities to get shovels in the ground. Speaker, my question to the minister is, when will you approve the MTSAs for Toronto and Ontario?

Hon. Paul Calandra: I appreciate the opportunity. Of course, we are working very closely with Mayor Chow on developing approval of those official plans, but at the same time, we understand that, after 15 years of Liberal government, no homes were being built across the province of Ontario. In fact, they took away the dream of home ownership. That is the legacy of the Liberal government when they were in power.

They introduced a housing policy the other day. The new housing critic, what did he say about his own policy in 2022? When asked about major transit station area building, he said he was going to fight against it and use whatever levers he could to stop this outrageous type of development from happening. So on the one hand, the Liberal critic says he wants more, but when he’s in private with his community groups, he calls it outrageous.

Now their Liberal leader, she doubles down. She calls a 12-storey condo unit that she disapproved of and rejected “an abomination.” That’s the Liberal record. They say one thing, they accomplish nothing—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

The supplementary question.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Tick tock, you need a clock, Minister.

If the government truly believes that they’re delivering on their housing plan, let’s look at their track record: Limit exclusionary zoning in municipalities through binding provincial action? Nope, hasn’t been done. Allow as-of-right zoning up to unlimited height and unlimited density in the immediate proximity of individual major transit stations? Nope, hasn’t been done. Allow as-of-right zoning up to six to 11 storeys with no minimum parking requirements on all streets utilized by public transit? Nope, hasn’t been done.

I could go on, because they have yet to implement 52 of 55 recommendations from their own housing task force.

Speaker, the Ontario Liberals have a bold housing plan. In 2026, under Bonnie Crombie, we will fix the many, many disasters and crises this government has created—

Interjections.

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

I apologize to the member for Beaches–East York. I had to interrupt her because I could not hear her.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We’re paying attention to the time. I can reassure all members that that is the case.

Please restart the clock. The member for Beaches–East York.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: My question for the minister is: Do you need a link to the Ontario Liberal housing plan so you can actually get shovels in the ground and address the housing crisis?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. The House will come to order.

Please start the clock. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Paul Calandra: I certainly won’t need a link to anything that the Liberals have done because under the 15 years that they had the opportunity, housing starts never really increased, did they? In fact, they stayed steady. You know what happened when we got elected? They increased year after year after year after year. You know why? Because we kept removing obstacles. The last year that the Liberal leader was in office in Mississauga, you know how many housing starts they got? Twelve. That is the record of this leader of the opposition: 12 housing starts. In fact, she increased development charges by over 27%.

You know what happens, Mr. Speaker, when you increase taxes? You make housing unaffordable. When you put in carbon taxes, you make housing unaffordable. When you increase development charges, you make housing unaffordable. You know what communities have done that? Mississauga did it. That’s why the population of Mississauga decreased. Burlington is doing it, and that’s why they’re missing their housing targets. Where there are Conservative mayors, they reduce taxes; they remove obstacles; and they’re getting the housing done. Stouffville—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Start the clock. The member for Brantford–Brant.

Taxation

Mr. Will Bouma: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. The new Liberal leader has been such a staunch advocate for the carbon tax. She could not be more out of touch with the everyday reality that hard-working families and businesses in this province are facing. They are dealing with higher inflation and higher interest rates. The last thing they need is governments raising costs even more on them. But unfortunately, that is exactly what the Liberals are doing with their carbon tax, which they plan on raising again on April 1.

Our government will always oppose this tax. We are committed to lowering costs for the people and businesses across the entire province. Can the minister please highlight what our government has done to lower the cost of doing business across the province of Ontario.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Our party has opposed the carbon tax right from day one. While the Liberals raise taxes, we continue to lower taxes. We reduced the cost of WSIB premiums by 50%, saving the business community $2.5 billion each and every year. We have put a capital cost write-off in that has saved the business community $1 billion a year. We continue to reduce the burden of red tape; 500 pieces have been reduced, saving almost $1 billion a year.

The carbon tax penalizes business. While the Liberals raise taxes, we continue to lower tax. We ask that we scrap the tax today.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Will Bouma: Thank you to the minister for his response.

The Liberals, under the leadership of Bonnie Crombie, are indistinguishable from their federal cousins in Ottawa. They both don’t understand the challenges everyday people are facing, and they think now is a good time to hike taxes again. They both listen to out-of-touch activists in ivory towers who support the carbon tax, while ignoring the hard-working families in this province who despise it.

While the Liberals ignore them, our government will always listen to the hard-working people of this province. We know that by keeping costs down, we can create the conditions for new investments and more good-paying jobs.

Can the minister highlight how, by reducing costs, we’ve been able to secure new investments and create good-paying jobs across the entire province of Ontario?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Mr. Speaker, we have shown the Liberals the way. We’ve shown them what happens when you raise taxes, and we’ve showed them what happens when you lower taxes.

By us lowering taxes, we have seen the province create 180,000 new job