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

April 25, 2023

43rd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2023-Apr-25 (PDF)

L070 - Tue 25 Apr 2023 / Mar 25 avr 2023

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 25 April 2023 Mardi 25 avril 2023

Orders of the Day

Reducing Inefficiencies Act (Infrastructure Statute Law Amendments), 2023 / Loi de 2023 sur la réduction des inefficacités (modifiant des lois sur les infrastructures)

Members’ Statements

John Pollands Girvan / Jean Elizabeth Sword

Veterinarians

Injured workers

Thornhill Seniors Club

Volunteers

Youth employment

Canada Cord award

Homelessness

Assistance to persons with disabilities

Events in Markham–Unionville

House sittings

Introduction of Visitors

Question Period

Government accountability

Amateur hockey

Government accountability

Health care

Mining industry

Public transit

Health care

Labour dispute

Government accountability

Transportation infrastructure

Labour dispute

Mental health services

Tenant protection

Notice of dissatisfaction

Visitors

Introduction of Visitors

Introduction of Government Bills

Strengthening Safety and Modernizing Justice Act, 2023 / Loi de 2023 sur le renforcement de la sécurité et la modernisation de la justice

Introduction of Bills

Smoke-Free Ontario Amendment Act (Vaping is not for Kids), 2023 / Loi de 2023 modifiant la Loi favorisant un Ontario sans fumée (le vapotage n’est pas pour les enfants)

Petitions

Entretien hivernal des routes

Health care

Missing persons

Social assistance

Northern Health Travel Grant

Social assistance

OPP detachment

Ferry service

Multiple sclerosis

Highway safety

Taxation

Orders of the Day

Reducing Inefficiencies Act (Infrastructure Statute Law Amendments), 2023 / Loi de 2023 sur la réduction des inefficacités (modifiant des lois sur les infrastructures)

Private Members’ Public Business

Joshua’s Law (Lifejackets for Life), 2023 / Loi Joshua de 2023 sur le port obligatoire du gilet de sauvetage par les enfants

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Reducing Inefficiencies Act (Infrastructure Statute Law Amendments), 2023 / Loi de 2023 sur la réduction des inefficacités (modifiant des lois sur les infrastructures)

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 24, 2023, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 69,

An Act to amend various Acts with respect to infrastructure / Projet de loi 69, Loi modifiant diverses lois sur les infrastructures.

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

Ms. Sandy Shaw: It’s always an honour to rise in this House. This morning, I am going to speak to Bill 69.

I am imagining some of us are a little bleary-eyed from the fantastic overtime win of the Toronto Maple Leafs. I think it’s always good to start the morning with some pretty good news. So go, Leafs, go. Speaker, 1967—we need to get a cup sometime soon in this province, not just this city.

Thank you for indulging me to talk about the Toronto Maple Leafs.

Back to the bill that I’m here to discuss: the government’s Bill 69. I honestly have to say that this bill is not very clear in what the problem is that it’s trying to address. The part that I’m going to speak to particularly is the

schedule that will waive the 30-day consultation period that the minister is required—when they’ve gone through an environmental assessment process.

We have seen that this is a government that nobody trusts when it comes to the environment. Their track record is certainly abysmal when it comes to the environment, and they’re continuing to build on that brand of a government that will stop at nothing—development at all costs, even if that means cost to taxpayers, whether it’s residential taxpayers or provincial taxpayers. Whether the cost is loss of wetlands, whether the cost is environmental degradation, there’s nothing that will stop this government from pausing when it comes to protecting the environment.

Our opinion here on this side of the House is that while you are bulldozing forward on all of your assaults on the environment, a pause of 30 days should not be too much to ask for the people of the province of Ontario.

We’ve seen a government that has no regard for Ontario’s greenbelt. You’ve taken 7,400 acres out of greenbelt protection; 1,400 of those acres are in Hamilton. The excuse is that you need to build housing, but it has been made quite clear that there is already enough land to build all of the housing that Ontario needs within the existing lands.

The question remains: Why are you opening up the greenbelt? There are certainly some important questions that need to be answered about who owns those lands, when those were purchased and, now that they have been taken out of protections, who is going to benefit, who is going to reap the rewards. It’s certainly not the people of the province of Ontario. It’s going to be, apparently, developers who were wise enough to buy land just before those greenbelt protections were taken away.

Those are some of the questions—that is the cloud that is over this government when it comes to any decisions they make when it comes to the environment.

Simply put, this government cannot be trusted when it comes to the interests of Ontario’s environment.

The purpose of the 30-day waiting period, which is required currently under the Environmental Assessment Act, is to ensure that the minister takes the time needed to consider what the public has to say following a class environmental assessment process. Prior to making a decision, the 30 days should give the minister time to pause to consider all of the information that has been submitted as part of the EA. These public comments come from not only experts in the field but people who live in the community, people who are on the ground and understand what’s at risk.

The people take the time to write to the minister, to have their considered comments submitted in the best interests of the province and future generations, and we feel that it would be courteous, if nothing less, for the minister to take the time to consider these comments.

In addition, when we waive that 30-day period, this takes away the people of the province of Ontario’s opportunity to request a bump-up, which means to take this from an EA to a full environmental assessment.

As we know, the things that are happening willy-nilly and pell-mell and so quickly in this province thanks to this government when it comes to the environment—we certainly need to make sure that the people of the province of Ontario understand their rights under the Environmental Bill of Rights and that they have the opportunity to access them.

Further watering down of the Environmental Bill of Rights from this government, or seeing them watering down these rights, are also par for the course. There are basically no environmental protections left in the province of Ontario—none whatsoever. The people in the province need to understand that the Environmental Bill of Rights is still standing, so far, but this is one step in dismantling it or weakening it.

I’d just like to add that the Environmental Bill of Rights is something that’s a legacy of a previous NDP government. It was put in place because the NDP government understands what’s at risk for this current generation and future generations, and we understand that the people of the province of Ontario have a right to weigh in on lands that belong to them, not to the government.

I would advise everyone who has any concerns when it comes to the environment to understand that you still have rights existing under the Environmental Bill of Rights. You have the right to be consulted when it comes to the environment—issues that will impact the environment.

This change, waiving the 30 days, effectively says that you no longer have the right to be consulted or informed, because the government is basically saying, “We already made our decision, and we are not planning to listen to what you have to say.”

We have seen that this is not the first time that this government has shown absolute contempt for the environmental assessment. The government has been found to have broken the law two or perhaps three times when it comes to the Environmental Assessment Act, which is a law in the province of Ontario. It’s quite clear they don’t have respect for the environment, for the people of the province of Ontario, and certainly they do not have respect when it comes to laws that are in place and still standing in the province.

We have a government that currently has Bill 23, which is a bill that relied almost entirely on deregulation and developer tax cuts to incentivize delivering 1.5 million homes in this province.

To be perfectly clear, we need housing in this province. We need all kinds of housing. We need to have affordable housing, co-op housing. There is a dire need for rent-geared-to-income housing, single-family homes—the whole continuum of housing. That is what’s needed in this province.

We have a homelessness crisis in the city of Hamilton. As best we can tell, there are 1,500 people who are currently homeless, living on the streets. We see them, as many of us will see in our communities—people living on street corners with their tents and sleeping bags, just trying to find a place to exist. In Hamilton, there are only 500 shelter beds. The government’s cuts to social housing supports are only making this problem worse.

When it comes to building housing, what we see is a government that has made changes that will download the costs to municipalities. Residential taxpayers will now pay the costs, because when you take away the obligation of developers to pay for development, to pay for the things that development needs, that is a cost to the taxpayers. There’s nobody else who can pay this but the taxpayers.

That’s why Bill 69, which takes people’s rights away when it comes to the environment, is a direct attack on people’s ability to protect their pockets—to protect downloading cost to residential taxpayers. Bill 69 is a further erosion of people’s ability to not have to just bear tax costs that this government decides they’re going to download and also to not have to bear the environmental degradation that they see in their province.

I think it’s important to know that this government also, when it comes to the environment—there are many assaults on the environment, but none more egregious than when it comes to conservation authorities. People should understand that conservation authorities work in an integrated way across the province to manage our flood plains and our wetlands and to manage our protected areas. They have a history in the province, with 60-plus years of doing this work. But this government has basically kneecapped all of their ability to weigh in when it comes to protecting the environment.

The conservation authorities that have dedicated the mission of their organizations to protecting the environment and to protecting people from floods is now being transformed by this government to disallow them from weighing in when it comes to climate impacts on their lands. They’re not allowed to comment on that. For example, when the conservation authorities are weighing in on potential development, they can’t comment on anything beyond the scope of hazard.

I would like to point to the news that we heard this morning: that the government, who is trying to destroy the Ontario Science Centre and build on those lands, has heard from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority that those lands cannot be built on. They’re a flood plain, and they’re ravines and protected areas.

That’s the kind of work that the conservation authorities across the province do, and that’s the kind of information that this government doesn’t want to hear. We know that they don’t want to hear from the people of the province of Ontario, because they’re waiving the 30 days. They don’t want to hear from conservation authorities; they’re muzzling them and their ability to weigh in. They do not want to have any opinions but their own when it comes to delivering for their friends and for developers at the expense and at the risk of Ontarians and future Ontarians.

I think that the perfect example is the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve. This government took away the protections in that area to build. Right beside the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve are also federal lands—Rouge park, which is federal. Recognizing that the provincial government cannot be counted on to protect our lands, the federal government has weighed in and has initiated a study on these lands that will prepare them in the eventuality that this government will build on these protected lands.

So we have lost the ability of the conservationists to weigh in. We are now relying on the federal government to make moves to protect us in the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve area.

When it comes to the Bradford Bypass and Highway 413, we need the federal government to be the sober second thought.

With this bill, we have the people of the province of Ontario—their input is being disregarded, and I would say that is something that should be a concern for all of us. When your government is saying to you, “We’re going to go ahead and do this whether you like it or not. Despite what you say, despite your objections, despite your knowledge and your expertise in this area, we’ve already made our mind up. We are going to move forward with this development,” that is absolutely not the way to be in this province.

I would also like to say that when it comes to transparency—well, this government is no friend of transparency. They’re using taxpayers’ dollars to fight all the way to the Supreme Court to keep closed the mandate letters—mandate letters which will tell the people of the province of Ontario what this government is planning to do with their taxpayer dollars. This government is using taxpayers’ money to fight taxpayers at the Supreme Court because they don’t want to have any eyes on what they’re doing.

This bill is just another step in this government’s lack of interest in hearing from anybody but themselves or their friends.

We heard similar messages at committee. This bill did go to committee. That’s pretty exciting, because sometimes this government bypasses committee.

I know that with Bill 197, which was an omnibus bill that jammed through a lot of changes that apply to the environmental assessment, they didn’t even send that bill to committee.

This bill did go to committee. We heard from a lot of stakeholders. I’ll just read some of those into the record now because perhaps the government may be interested in listening, despite what their legislation says—that they don’t want to listen to the people of the province of Ontario.

Some of the

summary of recommendations that came from committee on Bill 69, Reducing Inefficiencies Act, was essentially—people were saying, “Do not allow the minister to waive the 30-day waiting period following a class environmental assessment comment period before any action ... can be taken.” People are saying, “We are concerned that allowing the minister to bypass the 30-day waiting period would expose principal decision-makers to unnecessary pressure as they become solely and personally responsible for consequential decisions.”

General comments were made:

“Environmental assessments are needed more than ever, and should not be made easier to bypass....

“We are concerned that the Ontario government, in its efforts to reduce inefficiencies, is increasing the potential for environmental mistakes, while at the same time reducing its accountability to the people of Ontario....

“We are concerned that this change has been introduced without prior consultation, and without full public accounting of the implications, including data regarding the current class EA process, and how frequently projects are referred for an individual EA.”

That’s a

summary of the recommendations, and it really speaks to some of the things that I was saying. People are not supportive of watering down their rights, when it comes to the environment and their right to be able to weigh in.

Certainly, given the rapid change in the environment—climate change—we need to be careful. We need to be moving carefully.

This government is bulldozing ahead on these changes, but we have reports—the Auditor General, in fact, has two reports that people should be aware of. One is to do with flooding in the province of Ontario. We are, as a province, not protecting people when it comes to flooding, currently. The ministry doesn’t have the adequate resources to map flood plains, and they don’t have the adequate resources to inform people in the province. So the Auditor General’s report says that we’re already failing when it comes to flood protection for the people of the province of Ontario.

Now we have a government that’s potentially planning to build on or near flood plains, as has been described by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, when it comes to the lands around the Ontario Science Centre.

So, absolutely, we need to consider these steps—that the consequences and the mistakes that this government will be making are something that we should be, as legislators, protecting people from.

I would like add into the record some other comments that we received.

The Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation wrote to the committee, and they had significant concerns with this bill. They said, in part, “A 30-day waiting period for class environmental assessment projects is the prudent way to provide decision-makers with time and space to carry out thorough evaluations of all angles relevant to policy proposals. Consequently, the likelihood of high-quality decisions is dramatically increased” when the waiting period is left. “Stripping this 30-day waiting period from the environmental assessment process threatens a sound decision-making process for a variety of reasons....”

They conclude by saying, “Decisions that impact the environment must transcend political interests more than any other policy area. In the interest of public good, these decisions must be protected from the influence of third parties, for example developers, that are monetarily incentivized to achieve an outcome that does not consider long-term consequences. The 30-day waiting period for class environmental assessment projects is the minimal safeguard that protects government decisions from short-sighted interests and influences and, as a consequence, strengthens politicians and our democracy as a whole.”

I couldn’t agree more with these strong comments.

They conclude by saying, “For reasons outlined above,” the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation “strongly urges the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to keep the 30-day waiting period for class environmental assessment projects. It is in the interests of the environment, the public, and our democracy to do so.”

Finally, I would like to read into the record commentary from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. We understand that in this province the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, for generations, has been protecting the land they live and farm on. We should be listening to what they have to say, and they are quite clear in saying, “We are opposed to these proposed amendments that would provide the ability to eliminate, waive or alter the 30-day waiting period following the comment period of a class environmental assessment. It is essential that there is time for a proponent to review and appropriately consider the submitted comments.”

They close by saying, “Public participation is a critical component of environmental decision-making. Failure to allow for meaningful participation can lead to resentment, animosity, or ambivalence. The system must allow for meaningful participation to empower all those involved, from the concerned citizen to the corporate proponent to the government (at all jurisdictions).... The ability to eliminate this 30-day waiting period effectively negates any public participation in this process.”

I couldn’t agree more with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. This government—

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): Thank you. That’s time for the debate.

We have time for questions.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Thanks to the member opposite for one thing we agree on, which was acknowledging that it was important for all of Canada to see the Toronto Maple Leafs finally win a game. There was a bit of sarcasm there because I am an Ottawa Senators fan. However, I think we can all agree we’d like to see the Stanley Cup return to this nation.

That said, I listened intently to some of the ideas that the member opposite had with respect to development and environment and conservation.

I’m dealing with something in my constituency of Nepean right now, where a long-term-care facility is going to be built, and it will require a ministerial zoning order so we can expedite that to get those seniors and those who require care into the appropriate level of care, which they have not had over a couple of decades, predominantly because the previous Liberal government brought in something called Aging at Home.

That said, what I am concerned with is, the member opposite and many people on the left have decided to be obstructionist when it comes to development, in particular for housing and long-term care—

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

The member for Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas to reply.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Thank you to the member for the question.

The thing that this government is doing is creating a fantastic cover story for the assaults that they are making on the environment. They purport that it is all about housing and it’s all about long-term care.

Do you know what? This government has been in power for five years. The conditions in long-term care are on your watch.

There is no need to build on the greenbelt, no need to build on wetlands, no need to expand into green areas, into farmland, when experts, including your own housing task force, have said that you have more than enough existing land to build the housing that is needed in the province of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): The member for Toronto–Danforth.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I want to thank the member from Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas for her speech this morning.

You talked about the science centre and the potential for development on that site and the risks that one faces. Could you enlarge on that, given this government’s record of not paying attention to environmental constraints?

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Thank you to the member from Toronto–Danforth for the question.

This is a perfect example of this government rushing into plans that they had not made transparent and that are going to benefit—who? We don’t know.

For example, when it comes to moving the science centre from that area in Flemingdon or destroying the science centre building, experts have said that’s a bad idea, that’s a bad plan.

Who thinks this is a good idea? I’m going to say that it’s the private corporation that is now going to get a 95-year lease at Ontario Place. This government won’t even release the details of this lease. I would say that those are the people who will be happy with this.

Future generations and homeowners, perhaps, who end up with a house on a flood plain might not be so happy.

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

Ms. Donna Skelly: To the member from Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas: We both know many of the same people in affordable housing in the city of Hamilton.

I want to quote an

article from CBC Hamilton. It pertains to the frustration that a lot of the not-for-profits face while trying to—in fact, the headline: “Hamilton Non-Profits Face ‘Infuriating’ Delays to Build Affordable Housing, As City Looks to Change.” I’ll quote a woman we both know, Renée Wetselaar, and Graham Cubitt from Indwell—Renée works with St. Matthew’s House. She started a project for affordable housing back in 2018. She said that she has been facing delay after delay after delay with the city of Hamilton, and now a third environmental assessment to get this project from 2018 built.

I know that the NDP—Madam Speaker, through you—doesn’t believe that there are delays. I am a former city councillor, and I can tell you that delays are real.

To the MPP from Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas: Do you recognize the delays that not-for-profits face in the city of Hamilton and why this is important to expedite these projects?

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Thank you very much to the member from Flamborough–Glanbrook.

Absolutely; we, together, know what a crisis we’re facing in Hamilton when it comes to affordable housing—social housing, in fact.

The project that you reference, in fact—I was on that committee, trying to identify surplus land that the city of Hamilton owned and would be able to put forward to build affordable housing units.

We also know that there’s the HATS group, the Hamilton Alliance for Tiny Shelters, that is putting forward a solution, trying to find an appropriate location to build tiny shelters that are a temporary solution for all the homeless people in our province.

People are coming up with good solutions and good ideas. Everyone is trying to address this problem.

Financing is a huge issue. That’s a delay that these organizations face, as well.

A 30-day waiting period that you’re trying to waive is not the magic wand that’s all of a sudden going to make all of the social housing units that we need appear.

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

Mr. Jeff Burch: Thank you to my colleague from Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas for her comments.

There’s a really impressive citizens’ group—a number of groups in Hamilton that are trying to prevent sprawl, trying to encourage building homes without sprawl.

We know that the government’s own task force said that we don’t actually need more land and we can build within existing urban boundaries.

When those groups in your riding, in Hamilton, see the government changing the Environmental Assessment Act in this way—what are some of the local comments that you’ve heard from those groups?

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Many people across Ontario don’t trust this government one iota when it comes to the environment, and that is also the case in Hamilton when it comes to the government, the province, big-footing the decision of municipalities when it comes to their own growth plan.

I would say that the organizations like Stop Sprawl in Hamilton, Save our Streams—these are people who are very thoughtful and very knowledgeable about the issue and are very concerned about the supply of all kinds of housing in the province.

It has been made clear by professional planners and the government’s own housing task force that Hamilton has enough space within the urban boundaries to build 110,000 units. So we have the land we need. We have the space.

What we need is a government that’s more focused on building and incentivizing people when it comes to finances than they are on enriching developers by making their land now developable.

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

Ms. Laura Smith: I listened intently to the member across talking about the interests of the public and saving money. It is a huge issue for my constituents and, I would think, every voter in Ontario and every resident of Ontario.

One of the biggest problems we have in Canada, as we all know, is, there are two seasons for construction—there’s the winter, and then there’s not the winter—so sometimes we only have a few months to get the job done.

I’m wondering, given these deficiencies in our system and the fact that we only have a few months to get things done, what impact that will have on, say, a building project, a long-term-care facility, a retirement home, when they can’t get those shovels in the ground a few days earlier to complete that construction on time and in a faster manner for the taxpayers and the people of Ontario.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: I would say to the member, with all due respect, absolutely nobody is buying this cover story.

In the province of Ontario, have we been building? Yes. Have things got shovels in the ground? Absolutely. So this notion that with those two months of construction time—by the way, we have a lot longer construction period in the province.

Waiting 30 days to do it properly, to listen to the people of the province of Ontario, to make sure the people who are moving into a long-term-care facility aren’t, in fact, putting themselves at risk, because they’re on a flood plain—what does it harm the government to do your job, to take the time to do the due diligence that is your responsibility, to protect the environment and to protect the people of the province of Ontario?

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): We don’t have time for another question, so we’ll move to further debate.

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s a pleasure to join the debate on Bill 69 this morning.

We heard from our two respective ministers yesterday. And I heard from members of the opposition. We heard them in the second reading debate as well, and they’re really challenged, quite frankly, to come up with something legitimate when it comes to the criticism. They’re just throwing 77 tentacles out there hoping they can say something negative about the government, because—surprise, surprise, to the people of Ontario—the NDP and the Progressive Conservatives do not agree. The NDP does not agree with us.

Well, we’re very, very happy that the NDP does not agree with us. Do you know why? Because the people of Ontario do agree, and they want to see progress in this province—and that has been the catchword for everything we have done since 2018, when we were first elected.

They’re throwing everything about every possible bill—they look at Bill 69, and they don’t talk about what’s in the bill; they throw out all of these ghosts and goblins hidden under the bed that may or may not exist. “We’re the NDP, and we’re here to protect you, so we’re going to warn you about every possible UFO that might be out there that the Tories are going to put on you.” The member from Hamilton—several words in that Hamilton riding there—went on about how there are really these fearful things out there.

It’s just an exercise in fiction that’s coming from the opposition, because they don’t have any real, legitimate criticism on the bill—because, you see, it dovetails with their whole modus operandi when it comes to being critical of our government.

They speak to our housing bill—or “bills,” I should say, and so one has to ask themselves the question. Thank God the Conservatives are here to actually get housing built here in the province of Ontario, because if it were left to the NDP, there would be nothing built, or the alternative would be that the government would build and own everything, and this would be—well, that’s kind of communism, isn’t it? That’s what they want. They want a completely socialist system when it comes to housing.

They hate developers, but yesterday, the member from Niagara Centre, who’s here with us, was asking us to do something positive for developers, because, you see, they’re so conflicted. It must be tough sleeping when you’re like a pretzel. The bed has got to be uncomfortable because you’ve got yourself twisted in so many knots tat you don’t know what you’re actually saying.

So the people of Ontario are not buying any of it.

Every morning, I see the Leader of the Opposition ask her questions, and even she’s probably putting her hand on her forehead and saying, “Why did I sign up for this?” And you see the members behind her with these downtrodden looks, saying, “This is all we’ve got? The same old story every day? No new narrative, no positive initiatives for the people of the province of Ontario?”

Just to be—

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Point of order, Speaker.

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

Ms. Sandy Shaw: The member has absolutely no idea what we face and what is going through our minds when we look across at this government that is destroying Ontario, so he’s impugning our motives.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): I will disagree that there is motive there.

I will allow the member to continue.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you, Speaker.

As she knows, that’s not a point of order. If we were going on points of order on those kinds of narratives, you people wouldn’t have a thing to say in this House. That’s just the reality. You can’t stick to the subject—not once, not ever—because you have nothing to say about the subject.

So here they’re going on about this 30-day waiting period for a class environmental assessment, which my minister spoke to yesterday.

When there is a class environmental assessment, the consultation process goes on for, not days, not weeks, but months. When the proposal is first initiated, that consultation process goes on continuously until that class EA is granted. Under the current legislation, you then have to wait 30 days, where you just do nothing and wait. Anybody who has anything material to say about that proposal has already made their views known. This is a period of limbo so that nothing actually happens.

To the point that was being made by my good colleague from Thornhill: Projects that could get started in the fall get delayed and then can’t start until the following spring because, as you know, here in Canada and Ontario, we have winter. So we’ve now delayed that project not 30 days, but several months, because of that key window that we haven’t been able to act in.

I’m going to draw a little analogy. This is what the NDP really wants. A young couple are dating and they’re going through the engagement process. They’re getting to know one another—that’s like a consultation process—and this goes on for perhaps a year. They’ve met the families. They’ve met the relatives. They’ve dated and have gone places. They’ve talked about their future together. They’ve really thought this out. Then, they decide they’re getting married. Then, just like I did many, many years ago—my wife and I got married.

But according to the NDP, then there should be a 30-day waiting period before they can go on the honeymoon. That’s what they want to do in this province. They want you now to go into a 30-day limbo. “We’ve done all the talking, but no, we can’t really move ahead because we’ve got a 30-day waiting period, for no particular reason.”

The NDP go on and on and say, “Well, somehow, some lightning bolt is going to come down and is going to change something that has been talked about for a year, and all of a sudden we’re going to get”—it’s good governance to wait 30 days simply for the purpose of waiting 30 days?

Let’s be clear: This does not mean that the 30-day waiting period is gone. What it means is that the minister can decree that the 30-day waiting period in this particular case is not necessary; that we can proceed with the projects—vital projects such as waste water and sewage projects—in our communities.

I’ve got a couple of projects listed here that were subject to this 30-day waiting period. Maybe the NDP could tell us that that was a good thing to do—to hold these up for 30 days.

In the city of Brampton, Clark Boulevard and Eastern Avenue—that’s Rutherford Road to Kennedy Road—a project under the municipal class environmental assessment held up for 30 days. Did anybody object during those 30 days? Perhaps the people in the opposition, who seem to know everything, could tell me if there was an objection to that project in that 30-day period. No, there was not. You see, that’s just one.

“But this is the most important issue facing the people of Ontario right now. We’ve got to make sure we have that 30-day waiting period because there might be that lightning bolt.”

Another one is the region of Peel’s Front Street waste water pumping station and waste water diversion addendum project under the municipal class environmental assessment.

These are municipal projects that have already been proven, taken to all the necessary thought process and checks and balances—and the municipality has approved them, and they want them. And do you know what? The residents of Clark Boulevard and Eastern Avenue want them too. But let’s just wait another 30 days because the NDP believes there could be something really, really critical to come forward and tell us we shouldn’t do it, we should wait longer. This is the party of “wait and get nothing done.” This is the party that wouldn’t build anything in this province except if it was government-operated and government-owned.

Where is the incentive to anyone to actually build anything?

We’re committed to 1.5 million homes in this province by 2031, and we have standing in front of us an obstreperous opposition that doesn’t want anything done. They get up there on their high horse and try to pretend that somehow they’re doing it because it’s in the best interests of the public. Well, I’m going to tell you, they’re doing it because they believe it satisfies their stakeholders.

Speaker, I want to give them a little advice, not that they’ve ever taken any advice from me and not that they’re going to take this advice from me—but maybe if it came from someone else and there’s someone else other than me out there who would be more than happy to give them the same advice.

You’ve got it all wrong. You got it wrong in the last election in 2022.

They’re sitting here with 31 members, and they think they’re doing just fine because the Liberals have less than they had before with all the retirements and moving on to other things. But the reality is, the Liberal vote went up in 2022. The NDP vote went down. Our vote went up. So only one of the three main foundational parties here—their vote went down. Why did it go down? They like to use the term “out of touch.” Well, man, they ain’t even close to feeling distance, let alone touch. They can’t even get a static shock, they’re so far away from the real people of Ontario—and they voiced that in 2022, and they’re going to voice it in a big way in 2026.

You are narrowing your scope every day because you’re being taken over by the wings in your party who just want to look at the socialist, leftist view of everything out there. You’re doing yourselves a disservice, and you’re doing the people of Ontario a disservice. Your members—many of your people sitting there today won’t be here in 2026, because your party doesn’t understand what is happening in the real people’s homes across Ontario. Do you know what? When they get up in the morning, they’re thankful that they’ve got a job. Do you know what else they’re thankful for?

They’re thankful that there’s a government here in Ontario that is going to make sure that not only do they have a job, but when their children are old enough to go out and work, they’re going to have a good job too, in the industries in Ontario that we have cultivated by good government policy.

Do we create the jobs? Of course we don’t. But it is incumbent upon us, as it is on every single member, regardless of your myopic philosophy, to create a future in this province so that the people, the next generation, will have the jobs to raise the families, and to make sure that Ontario continues to be the best place to live, work, raise a family and play—anywhere in Ontario or perhaps the world.

So when they stand here, and simply for the purpose of criticizing—oh, my goodness. I listened to the hour lead on Bill 69, on the second reading.

By the way, Speaker, did you know that they didn’t even stand up and vote against the second reading of Bill 69? They talked for hours about all of the terrible things that Bill 69 is going to do, but they didn’t even vote against it. They voted on division, because they’re so confused ]about what is right for the people of the province of Ontario.

I know the member from Hamilton didn’t like me talking about what’s going on in the backrooms. I don’t have to be in the backrooms; I can see through the wall. They’re having discussions every day, wondering why—some people in that party are asking themselves, “Why do we keep going down this same road every day?”

Yes, this province is facing a housing crisis, and we need every single level of government working together to get it fixed.

They seem to think that when we remove charges, remove taxes, remove impediments so that we can build more houses, that’s a bad thing. They want to stick things in the way—more red tape, more impediments, that drive up the cost of housing.

We’re doing things that will bring down the cost of housing, but it will only work when the supply is satisfactory to meet the demand. We can’t get there if we don’t start with the legislation, the regulations—the removal of regulations and creating the environment that allows it to happen.

As much as they would like to have the government build every single home in this province and put it on locked-in rent for life—nobody is going to build them. Somebody has to be in the business of actually doing something to earn a profit.

They talk about non-profit health care, for example—public health. Health care is public in this province. Everybody who has an OHIP card, or even those without one, has the right to province-paid health care in this province. But the health care system is one of the most profitable in the world. Do you think the people who put beds in hospitals and medical supplies and everything else that goes into hospitals are doing it on a not-for-profit basis? The health care system is full of profit. We provide health care for anyone at no cost in this province of Ontario, but the system is massively profitable—the development, the research, everything, everybody who is in the system.

So when they talk about public, being non-profit, everything—it’s not the case.

What we have to do is make sure we have the most efficient and effective way of delivering those services. That’s what we’re doing with Bill 97, the new housing bill. Bill 97, which they’re railing against—they want everybody to live in a condo in Toronto, for example. It’s the only place you should live. It’s the only place we should build them.

It just shows their bias and prejudice against rural Ontario, when we’re trying to do something—so if you’ve got a farm with nice acreage and you’re making a living on that farm, and your son and/or daughter or their families would like to stay on that farm, we would like to see that farm continue, because the people who begin the process of putting food on our table are some of the most important people to this province. We need our farmers.

Interjections.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yes, yes.

So maybe we could build a home on that property so that one of the children of that farmer could also maintain a life on that farm, live and work it. Up until now, you can’t do it. We want to do it in Bill 97. They’re against it.

Speaker, every single piece of legislation that we have brought forward, whether it’s to provide jobs in this province—we lost over 300,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs under the last government that was supported almost always by the NDP. Every bill we brought forward to bring new housing starts to Ontario so that we can build that supply, so the price will slowly but surely come down, if the supply dictates it—they voted against it. They continue to vote against relief for taxpayers and the red tape burden relief for businesses so that we continue to keep building those and help them create those jobs.

We’re bringing more jobs to the province in a time frame than we’ve ever done in the history of the province.

We have over 15 million people in this province now, and we’re going to have more and more every year because of our immigration policies, which we need—we need more population, but we’ve got—

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): Thank you. That’s time.

We’ll move to questions.

Ms. Chandra Pasma: Thank you to the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke for his comments. They were very enlightening this morning. They certainly reveal how the government views environmental assessments as a joke; also, how the NDP is living rent-free in the member’s head.

When the member is not spending his time obsessing over the NDP, he might notice that people in Ottawa are incredibly stressed about flooding that is taking place again this year. We’ve had two once-in-a-century floods in the past six years. Levels are again above normal this year. Homeowners have spoken about how incredibly stressful it is every year to wonder if their home is going to be flooded, what kind of damage will happen. That speaks to the importance of why we do environmental assessments and why they need to be taken seriously.

Why does the member not believe that environmental assessments deserve that kind of serious consideration?

Mr. John Yakabuski: I thank the member for the question.

All I can say is, I haven’t been living rent-free in the heads of the NDP for the last 20 years—but I do believe at least it has been under rent controls, because you believe in them for no matter what kind of rent it is.

Anyway, let’s talk about environmental assessment. We see the process as being absolutely, critically important, but we don’t believe that a 30-day waiting period, once all the consultations have been completed, is in the best interests of anyone, because if anyone believed there was an issue there, they’ve had umpteen weeks, days, months, whatever the case may be—they’ve had ample time to exercise their right to comment. And the reality is, even once things are done, people continue to comment. People are commenting about environmental things that were done 20 years ago. We live in a free country. They can comment any time they want.

But we’re going to make sure we build Ontario.

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

Ms. Donna Skelly: I represent a number of farmers, including one who has been fighting for years to build an additional bunkie, if you will, for foreign workers who work on his farm. He wants to improve their life and give them a little bit more room because they’re there every year and they spend many, many months with him.

I would ask the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke to speak to how out of touch people who are opposed to any sort of construction in rural Ontario are. Our farmers need barns. As you said, they want to build housing for their own families so that they can inherit and continue farming. Yet, we see continuous opposition to any sort of growth in rural Ontario. Could you speak to that?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you to the member for the question.

You’ve heard question period here for the last several months, and you actually just have to shake your head. Are they really talking to real people out there or are they just talking to their inside advisers? Are they stuck in their own echo chamber and have never actually gotten out there and talked to the real people? That suits us fine, because they’re actually hurting themselves.

I say to the member: We’ve talked to the people—but we haven’t just talked; we’ve heard, and we’ve listened. We’ve listened to what they want—and also to try to protect our foreign workers when they come to work here, so that we can prevent what happened, for example, during the pandemic, so that they have adequate housing. We have very good agricultural people and leaders who want to see those people protected, but under the current rules, they can’t do it. We’re going to make sure they can do it. All we need is for the NDP to pull their heads out of the sands and actually support us.

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

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: I’d like to thank the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke for his presentation.

That government has claimed that

schedule 2 of Bill 69 is a response to the Auditor General’s 2017 report. That report criticized Infrastructure Ontario’s uncompetitive procurement and their poor oversight. Infrastructure Ontario pays big P3 companies that are unsuccessful in their bids on P3 projects up to $2 million per bid. That’s for unsuccessful bids—what a consolation prize.

My question to the member: Does the member think it’s okay for Conservatives to continue the party with the public purse?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Well, I’m going to party on my own dime, and that will be on Thursday night, when the Leafs knock off the Tampa Bay Lightning. I’ll certainly be partying on my own dime, and I’ll be doing it on behalf of all the people of Ontario—even my colleague from Nepean, because deep down, she’s going to be cheering for the Leafs too.

I’m not sure where the member comes from. They dig these things up, and they think that this is the smoking gun of smoking guns.

The reality is that we take a holistic approach to governance, and we’re making sure that all the issues that need to be dealt with are dealt with. We’re making sure that we bring in the private sector. We respect the public’s need to know. Accountability and transparency are paramount to this government.

So when I hear the NDP going on and on about something, that they think they’ve found the holy grail here—the reality is, on June 2, the people said, “Mr. Doug Ford, we like the job you’re doing. Keep doing it.”

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Thank goodness, on June 2 the people of Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke looked at you and said, “John Yakabuski, we like what you’re doing. Keep doing it.”

I have more of a comment, Speaker—and it was just watching my colleague give a speech. I wish that all members of our caucus were here, particularly the newer members, to see what a master is—a master class in how to speak up in a very clear, concise way about what government policy means to his constituency, and by and large, what it means to all of us. I’ve had the privilege of sitting with him as a seatmate for many, many years, and it was a real pleasure to be able to watch him speak concisely, without talking points, without ideological points of view. Common sense for common people—that’s who we’re here to represent. I want to congratulate him for that.

Mr. John Yakabuski: How do I respond to that? I’m trying to find the question there. I think the question was—

Interjections: Why are you so great?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yes. Well, I’ve had a lot of people in this House as mentors over the years, quite frankly. But I think what matters most is that you bring some passion to this place because you actually believe what you’re saying; you’re not doing it because it’s some invented thing, because that’s what the backrooms are telling you—you believe that these are the things that you care about. Because do you know what? When you talk to the people on the street in your own ridings, that’s what you’re hearing from them.

Do we get it right all the time? Do I get it right all the time? Just ask my wife. No, I don’t, but I don’t expect to. But if you can sit down at the end of the day and look yourself in the mirror and say, “I believe we’re doing a good job for the people of my riding”—which I believe everybody does. That is why we’re here in the first place.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): We’ll move to the next question.

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: There’s something we can say when the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke speaks: It’s not boring. I always like to be sitting in the House when he speaks.

But that being said, when we think about the 30-day waiting period, First Nations are really concerned, as you know. I’m sure you also have First Nations in your community. I represent a lot of First Nations on the James Bay coast. Their prior and informed consent, for them, is very important. We’ve seen that the government has not been respecting that, has not been respecting the First Nations when it comes to their traditional territories, Treaty 9.

We will see a lot of First Nations coming in this week, but I’d like to hear from you, sir. Because of the pre-informed consent—what do you say to First Nations that, when it comes to their traditional territories, are not being respected?

Mr. John Yakabuski: I thank the member for his question. He’s right; I do have a First Nation in my riding: Algonquins of Pikwakanagan. Not only do I have a First Nation in my riding; two of our grandchildren are Indigenous.

We do understand that situation, and we do respect the wish of First Nations and the right of First Nations for consultation.

I don’t think the 30-day waiting period is the big issue. The big issue is the general consultation requirements under

section 35 of the Constitution. You’ve heard from our Minister of Indigenous Affairs—that is of an absolute, utmost importance and one we are fully committed to.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, I don’t think I’m going to range as widely as the last speaker on this bill, but I still have a fair amount of material to work with.

As you’re well aware, environmental assessments are one of the few tools that people in this province have to protect themselves against arbitrary or dangerous decisions on the part of governments.

We in the NDP are very concerned that amendments to the Environmental Assessment Act could lead to further degradation of public consultation, to further destruction of the environment.

Part of the problem here with the “waiver of the 30-day period for consideration after public comment has been made” is that this is a government that has shown time and time again that it can’t be trusted when it comes to protecting our environment or doing land deals in the public interest. As you’re well aware, they’re currently involved in carving up the greenbelt through shady deals with their well-connected insiders. They’ve abused ministerial zoning orders to ram developer deals through, despite local community opposition. And they’re spending $650 million of public money to give away a massive chunk of Ontario Place to a for-profit company based out of Austria.

The particular issue I’m going to speak to, or part of the bill I’m going to focus on, is the change to the Environmental Assessment Act which allows the environment minister to “waive the 30-day waiting period currently required after public consultation has been engaged in.” The purpose of those 30 days is to give the minister time to consider what has been brought forward and respond to it, because there may be very substantial things that come up; there may be a request for a bump-up to a full environmental assessment.

I would say that although this is not the biggest thing ever in the Environmental Assessment Act, it’s of consequence, and the deletion of public right for those 30 days is indicative of the general approach of this government to public input.

The way the new law is written is that “subject to any prescribed limitations, the minister may, by order, provide that subsection (5) ceases to apply”—the 30-day waiting period. What’s problematic here—there are a lot of problems, but one problem is that the prescribed limitations are not set out. Effectively, the government is giving itself a blank cheque to put in limitations or put in no limitations at all when it comes to any future ignoring or waiving of the 30-day period. Given their history, I would say that it’s fair to expect that the 30-day period will be eliminated.

If it is, in fact, occasionally waived for some reason that the public in general would accept, I suspect that will be fairly limited. I think that this government will take every opportunity it has to make sure that the public’s voice is not heard and certainly has no impact on what the government wants to do. The failure to put conditions in the act itself—conditions that would limit the ability of the minister to waive that 30-day period—just leaves us, the people of Ontario, to the tender mercies of this particular government when it comes to looking after the environment.

Speaker, I’m sure you’re familiar with the film classic, Bambi Meets Godzilla. In that very short film—and a brilliant piece of cinematography—you have Bambi at the beginning with flute music and butterflies, just sniffing the air and being young and a deer in the spring. And then Godzilla’s foot comes down and squishes Bambi. Well, Bambi, in this case, plays the environment, and Godzilla is played by this government. This act, this change, is just another part of that huge foot coming down and crushing the environment.

This is a government that has shown repeated contempt of public consultation, particularly with respect to the environment. This change will make it even easier for the government to ignore public opinion, public consultation.

Ontario courts have twice found that the Ford government violated the Environmental Bill of Rights, which guarantees not only the public’s right to get notification but the public’s right to be consulted. From the CBC report on one of these: “In a split decision, an Ontario court says Doug Ford’s government broke the law”—law is not a big constraint on these folks; often, they refer to them as “guidelines”—“when it scrapped the cap-and-trade system, but the court won’t force Queen’s Park to reinstate the program,” which is unfortunate.

“Greenpeace had challenged the cancellation on grounds the government did not hold public consultations before making the decision, a process required by Ontario’s Environmental Bill of Rights....”

So here is a government asking for even more discretion, when it has a history of breaking the law, ignoring the law, when it comes to the environment.

In another case, the media reported: “An Ontario court has found the provincial government broke the law by failing to adhere to the Environmental Bill of Rights.

“Several environmental groups brought forth applications for judicial reviews over the province’s alleged failure to consult with the public before enacting the COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act.

“Late last year, the province opened up consultations to the public months after the passage of Bill 197....

“The Superior Court of Justice says the Minister of Municipal Affairs acted ‘unreasonably and unlawfully’ by consulting with” people after the act had been put through.

To some extent, if you had a government that was consistently acting to protect the environment, consistently cautious, consistently respectful of public input, you’d say, “Here’s a government that is going to ask for a waiver to actually expedite things and do the right thing.” But that isn’t the history of this government.

Again, I’ll repeat: This government breaks the law openly, and only when it has been found in court to have broken the law is there any admission, “Maybe we did something wrong. These laws, these revised statutes of Ontario—maybe they’re of consequence.”

In 2020, the Ford government severely weakened the Environmental Assessment Act with amendments slipped into Bill 197, an omnibus bill purporting to be about recovering from COVID-19. The bill was jammed through the Legislature, and they bypassed committee, denied the public any opportunity to provide comments.

There’s a consistent theme here. You weaken environmental protection laws, and you do your best to make sure the public has nothing to say about it. And even if they have something to say, you make sure that what happens is, they’re not heard.

What this change signifies is, “Sure, you can make any comment you want. You can point out fundamental flaws. You can find bedrock problems with what’s being put forward. But when the time is up, we’re not going to spend time thinking about it. It’s out the window. It’s gone. We’ve forgotten about it already.”

There are a number of things that people should be aware of when it comes to considering how this government has acted. Look at its policies, look at its track record since 2018. We’ve got a government that is quite willing to break the law when it comes to environmental consultation. This is a government that axed the Environmental Commissioner’s office in 2019—an office that had been in place, frankly, through the Mike Harris government, when we had a very strong Environmental Commissioner who was critical of the government. He was a Tory.

He had been a Tory candidate in Timmins, but he was a guy who was fundamentally committed to protecting the environment. Even Mike Harris didn’t axe the Environmental Commissioner, but this government did.

This is a government that consistently fails to uphold expert opinion on environmental issues, and it’s one that the Auditor General has found is consistently bad news when it comes to environmental policy and when it comes to public consultations.

This is a government that cancelled the cap-and-trade legislation and, in doing that, eliminated billions of dollars of investment in energy efficiency and making sure that buildings and infrastructure were climate-resilient. It cancelled

an act, which, by the way, had a lower carbon price than the federal carbon price. So, in fact, this is a government that increased the carbon price in Ontario and, in the course of it, did less for the environment. That’s the kind of commitment we’re talking about.

We’re talking about a government that will not only act contrary to its own language—no surprise there—but will also make sure that the ability to actually come to grips with the climate crisis is undermined. That’s who we’re talking about. Why would you trust them?

As I referred to earlier, this is a government that’s attacking the greenbelt. The member who spoke earlier talked about protecting farmers. Is that why the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve is being taken out of the greenbelt and that farmland is going to be converted into subdivisions for multi-million dollar homes? Is that protecting farmers? Is that protecting the land in Ontario that we need to grow food?

The member asked, “Are you guys in touch with normal people?” Well, I knock on doors in my riding every week, and I’ve been knocking on doors the last few weeks talking to people about what’s going on, talking about the greenbelt, and one of the things that comes up time and time again is people saying, “Where are we going to get our food when you pave over all the farmland?” Because that’s their intention. They’re starting with one of the most sensitive agricultural areas in Ontario, preserved at great cost decades ago—important in terms of food, important in terms of wetlands. They’re going to pave that over. So any complaints about higher groceries, it’s on—

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): I apologize to the member for interrupting. We need to move to members’ statements.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

John Pollands Girvan / Jean Elizabeth Sword

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: This weekend, I was invited to address the 48th Highlanders of Canada, a Toronto-based infantry regiment that proudly parades out of the Moss Park Armoury in my riding of Toronto Centre. We gathered to commemorate the service of Brigadier John Pollands Girvan and his wife, Nursing Sister Jean Elizabeth Sword.

Nursing Sisters were trained civilian nurses who enlisted with the Canadian army, making them the first women in the modern world to hold military commissions as officers. Jean Sword followed in that great tradition, and she was awarded multiple medals for her brave service. Her husband, John Girvan, commanded the 48th Highlanders and fought in two world wars, rising to the rank of brigadier, and is the most decorated individual in the regiment’s history.

Brigadier Girvan’s service medals were auctioned on the open market last year, a development that could have resulted in those medals being split amongst multiple and different bidders. The regimental community responded with great conviction, and 51 donors came forward and successfully bid and repatriated those medals to the regiment and the perpetual care of the 48th Highlanders Museum, where they will now be on permanent display.

I hope you will join me in applauding the faithful service of the 48th Highlanders of Canada.

Applause.

Veterinarians

Mr. Kevin Holland: It was a pleasure for me to join Ministers Thompson, Dunlop and Bethlenfalvy and my colleagues MPP Harris and MPP Flack this past Thursday at an incredible announcement for the University of Guelph and Lakehead University. The investment of over $15 million to address veterinary shortages in rural and northern communities will greatly benefit the farmers and large-animal owners in my riding. This support will greatly assist the Northwestern Veterinary Hospital in Thunder Bay, northwestern Ontario’s largest vet hospital, reducing backlogs and expanding services.

Not only will this investment help provide needed care for my constituents’ animals, but it will also assist in the recruitment of new veterinary students and the support of graduating veterinary students. The new collaborative doctor of veterinary medicine program with the universities allows 20 additional veterinary students to enrol per year—totalling 80 new seats by 2028. The goal of the new DVM program focuses on bringing in northern, rural and Indigenous students.

The Veterinary Incentive Program being launched means that program participants will be provided annual grants totalling up to $50,000, if the participant practises on large animals in underserviced and northern communities.

The growing demand of vet human resources needs to be met, and our government is doing that.

I look forward to the upcoming announcement in Thunder Bay, at Lakehead University—

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): Thank you. Next members’ statement.

Injured workers

Ms. Sandy Shaw: I am saddened today to rise and discuss a member of my family, Captain Craig Bowman, and his battle with cancer. My cousin is a firefighter who has been diagnosed with esophageal cancer, like many firefighters unfortunately are. Craig and his family are being denied coverage by WSIB because he does not meet the 25-year threshold for presumptive coverage. Craig has been a firefighter for 22½ years. Prior to his recent diagnosis of esophageal cancer, which has metastasized to his liver, Captain Craig was a very fit 46-year-old man. His prognosis is very poor.

He has been denied WSIB on a presumptive case, despite five letters from doctors. The lengthy process of an appeal could take many precious months, and this family needs the help now.

In 1997, another hero, Bob Shaw, inhaled dangerous chemicals during the Plastimet fire that would result in esophageal cancer that would take his life. Bob’s battle came to the attention of his local MPP, Andrea Horwath. Partisan differences were put aside, and the Bob Shaw Law was created that makes WSIB coverage for certain cancers presumptive.

Today we have another local hero, Captain Craig Bowman. He is not getting presumed coverage because he has only been a firefighter for 22½ years, not 25.

Once again, as legislators, we need to come together for families such as my cousin Captain Craig’s. We can do better for front-line heroes, who should be spending time with their families and not fighting arbitrary rulings of the WSIB.

Thornhill Seniors Club

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: Recently, I had the great pleasure to visit Thornhill Seniors Club in my riding. I met with the president, Norm Goldstein.

The club was officially launched in June 2004. Since then, it has been a hub for seniors from all communities, offering them a safe place to enjoy. Seniors together organized and operated many sports, cultural and other activities for decades. The club takes pride in achieving historic proportions in Thornhill’s history. The club speaks for Thornhill seniors, bringing people together, building bridges, brightening the day for many seniors. The club members say that TSC offers them a special place that they themselves can control and manage, a place which seniors call their own.

TSC has various drop-in programs, including watercolour classes, yoga programs, year-round travel programs and in-person bridge programs.

Our government offers resources, programs and services to Ontario’s seniors that can help them stay safe, healthy and active. Our government not only helps seniors, but also their caregivers and the organizations that support them. By promoting wellness, social connection and education, these programs can help reduce social isolation and help seniors stay active, independent and engaged.

Madam Speaker, I wish Thornhill Seniors Club all the best.

Volunteers

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: I’m very humbled to always serve the members of Barrie–Innisfil, and I’m always proud to see the incredible volunteers we have across our region.

This past weekend, I was able to celebrate some of those volunteers at the town of Innisfil, where we paid tribute and thanks to Jennifer Richardson, who helps with Connecting Innisfil, and many individuals, like Helen Kindy, who helps with COPE Service Dogs; Anne Kell, who helps with countless initiatives like Pitch-In for Innisfil, which is an annual cleanup event we have, the Rotary Club, Friends of the Library, and Christmas4Kids.

We were also able to thank Dave Cockburn and Serge Singh, who help with Crime Stoppers.

We were able to thank Brian Jones from the Gilford United Church and his colleague Rev. Linda Butler, and so many more.

In Barrie, we’re also very proud to have Barrie Families Unite that operates on 200 volunteers per week regularly—volunteers like Laurie Clarke, Linda Wait and Linda Sallans, who are always there, constantly helping the organization.

We also have the Red Cross, which counts on volunteers like Brian Miller, who is helping with many of their programs throughout Simcoe county, through the connector volunteer program.

If you’re listening today and you’re looking to volunteer, we have so many organizations across the region, whether it’s the YMCA, whether it’s Christmas4Kids, Habitat for Humanity, and so many more.

I encourage everyone to continue to volunteer—and for those who have, thank you so much.

Youth employment

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: I rise today on behalf of the youth in my riding of Don Valley West, and especially those in Thorncliffe Park, who tell me about the challenges they have in finding employment. Many of these kids and their families are immigrants and newcomers to Canada, and as such already face other barriers.

According to First Work, one in five Ontarians aged 24 to 29 are being classified as NEET—not in employment, education or training.

Investing more in student supports such as youth job connection helps train our youth to get their first job, sets them up for future success, and grows our economy.

The Youth Job Connection program allows employment service providers to reach out to students at risk of leaving school without a job or training lined up, funds incentives for companies to hire young people, and allows youth to take

part in pre-employment training.

In fact, First Work, which was at Queen’s Park just last week, requested in their 2023 pre-budget submission that the “government maintain or reintegrate youth-specific programming like Youth Job Connection ... to ensure the province’s young people are not left behind in Ontario’s economic success.”

For the youth in Thorncliffe Park and across Ontario who find it difficult to navigate the workforce and get the experience they need to succeed, funding such programs would get them the jump-start they need to thrive in Ontario, where their families have chosen to call home.

I’m asking the government, on behalf of youth in Don Valley West and across the province, to please reconsider cutting the Youth Job Connection program so we can give youth—

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): Thank you. The next members’ statement.

Canada Cord award

Mr. Todd J. McCarthy: I would like to share with this House the accomplishments of some remarkable young ladies from my riding of Durham who were just recently recognized by the Girl Guides of Canada for their exemplary service. Speaker, 10 members of the 8th Bowmanville Pathfinders were presented with the Canada Cord award, which is the highest award a Pathfinder can earn.

Girl Guides between the ages of 12 and 14 who are enrolled in Pathfinders and who complete the program requirements specializing in the areas of community service, volunteerism, leadership, camping skills and personal development are eligible for this prestigious award. The recipients of the 2023 Canada Cord award from the 8th Bowmanville Pathfinders are Alyson Baker, Charlotte Welsh, Chelsea Smith, Chloe Stone, Claire Kerswill, Evelyn Hosking, Julia Roth, Mel Ball, Ruth Breithaupt, and Ryleigh Hunter.

On behalf of all members of this House, I would like to congratulate these young ladies, their families and their guide leader, Julia Smith, on their remarkable accomplishments. We wish them all the best and every success in the future.

Homelessness

Ms. Natalia Kusendova-Bashta: Last week, I had the pleasure of joining my colleagues in the region of Peel to announce a 38% increase to the tune of $42.3 million into the region’s homelessness prevention program, as part of our government’s $202-million additional investment into homelessness prevention and Indigenous housing. The additional funding for the region of Peel represents 20% of the overall additional investment.

We are so grateful to the Ministry of Housing for recognizing the need in the region of Peel, as well for as the incredible work the region is doing in settling newcomers and helping those who are experiencing or are at risk of homelessness. This is truly a welcome investment that will make a tangible difference in people’s lives.

I can’t tell you how many times I had the sad duty, when caring for people experiencing homelessness in the emergency room, of having to discharge them into the street, frantically calling all available shelters and being told that they are all full. These were some of the most heartbreaking moments in my nursing career.

That is why this investment will empower the region of Peel to support shelters like Embrave, Amarghat House, Our Place Peel and many others to continue doing incredible work and housing our most vulnerable: women fleeing domestic violence, youth at risk, those experiencing mental health challenges, and many others.

Speaker, I’m proud to be part of a government which is taking the housing crisis seriously and helping our most vulnerable.

Assistance to persons with disabilities

Miss Monique Taylor: It gives me really great pleasure to welcome the Ontario Disability Coalition to the front lawn today. They’re here once again to rally the government to increase ODSP rates.

As we know, people living with disabilities in this province are living far below the poverty line. Rents have increased. The cost of living has increased. The monthly allowance for people who are disabled in this province has not increased nearly enough. A mere 5% increase to people who were already living below the poverty line continues to leave people in legislated poverty, which is not the province—we should be working hard to ensure that people have a healthy life and that they are able to live comfortably in the province of Ontario.

Once again, they’re here to encourage the government to increase the ODSP rates, to double those rates, to allow people the ability to live comfortably in homes. Once someone is evicted from a home in this province, the chances of them being able to find rent within their monthly allowance is very slim.

I’m happy to have the opportunity to speak with them today. I hope the government members will also come out to the front lawn and speak to members who are living in legislated poverty in the province of Ontario.

Events in Markham–Unionville

Mr. Billy Pang: I’m glad to speak on two important engagement events I had with constituents in Markham–Unionville this past weekend.

First, I had the pleasure of having Minister Lecce join MPP Daisy Wai and me at a round table on Bill 98, the Better Schools and Student Outcomes Act. We spoke with key stakeholders in our ridings about the bill. They included students and parents from public schools and Chinese media. What I heard from stakeholders in Markham–Unionville is clear: They believe the education system should support students to succeed in life and work. It should also prepare young people for jobs of tomorrow and the evolving economy. These are exactly what the bill seeks to achieve, if not more—and I treasure this opportunity to hear from stakeholders, their views.

After the round table, I hosted an open house of my community office to constituents in Markham–Unionville. More than 50 families and 70 individuals came. It was a wonderful afternoon. My team and I were able to meet families and friends in the community. We talked about issues that they care about, from education to health care, housing to the economy.

I’m blessed to have a tight-knit community in my riding. I am humbled and honoured to serve my constituents and stakeholders. I will continue to make Ontario a better place for them.

House sittings

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I beg to inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 9(g), the Clerk has received written notice from the government House leader indicating that a temporary change in the weekly meeting

schedule of the House is required. Therefore, the afternoon routine on Wednesday, April 26, 2023, shall commence at 1 p.m.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m pleased to inform the House that we have a former member with us in the House this morning: the member for Fort York in the 35th Parliament; the member for Fort York in the 36th Parliament; the member for Trinity–Spadina in the 37th, 38th, 39th and 40th provincial Parliaments, Rosario Marchese. Welcome back.

The member for Peterborough–Kawartha, I believe, has a point of order.

Mr. Dave Smith: As you know, the OHL playoffs are well on their way, and last night, my Peterborough Petes defeated the Ottawa 67’s. I have bets with three members here in the House.

I would seek unanimous consent for the member for Ottawa South to wear my white-and-maroon away jersey, the member for Ottawa Centre to wear my maroon-and-white home jersey, and the member for Carleton to wear my black-and-maroon third jersey in question period today.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’ll take the black one.

Laughter.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Peterborough–Kawartha is seeking unanimous consent of the House to allow the member for Ottawa South, the member for Ottawa Centre, and the member for Carleton to wear Peterborough Petes jerseys this morning in the House. Agreed? Agreed.

Introduction of visitors.

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s a pleasure for me today to introduce my executive assistant Tim Wontorra, who is joining us in the House today. I’m not sure if it’s his first time, but it’s certainly his first time being introduced by me.

Welcome to your House, Tim.

Mr. Chris Glover: Mr. Speaker, I’d ask that everybody in the House give a warm welcome to Evelyn Murialdo and the Scadding Court Community Centre Latin seniors’ group, who are attending question period this morning and then meeting with you, the Speaker, for lunch and going on a tour of Queen’s Park.

Would you all please join me in giving a round of applause to the Scadding Court group?

Mr. Mike Schreiner: It’s an honour today to recognize page Frederick Funk—he’s from Guelph—and to welcome his parents, Elisha and Justin Funk, who are in the west members’ gallery, to Queen’s Park.

Thank you for your service. Thank you for being such great parents to a wonderful page.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: I’m proud to introduce guests who will be joining from the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at of Canada. These are an incredible group of Muslims who live in our communities. Their headquarters are in Peace Village in Vaughan. I want to thank them for embracing their motto of “Love for All, Hatred for None.”

Miss Monique Taylor: I’d like to welcome some of the attendees who will be visiting us on the front lawn today: Dr. Sally Palmer from the Ontario Association of Social Workers, Social Action Committee; Sherry Caldwell, president of the Ontario Disability Coalition; Anthony Frisina from the Ontario Disability Coalition; and, of course, our friend Michau Van Speyk from the Ontario Autism Coalition.

Mr. Graham McGregor: This morning, we’re joined by guests from the Appraisal Institute of Canada-Ontario: President Kim Passmore, Tracey Davies, Ben Ellens, Dino Giuliani, Lora Wylie, Dan Brewer, Paul Duarte, Ed Saxe, Eric Tworo.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: I’m proud to welcome members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at Canada to Queen’s Park, whose motto is “Love for All, Hatred for None,” and who are hosting a special Eid celebration here today at 5 p.m., in room 230. Thank you to their president, Lal Khan Malik, director Asif Khan, Ashfaq Ahmed, Naseem Shad, Nadeem Mahmood, and other friends for organizing this event. I encourage everyone to join.

Mr. Todd J. McCarthy: It is an honour to recognize some students who are here with us today from Ontario Tech University’s humanities society. Welcome to Alexandra Sanita, Tamara Talhouk, Kyli Jenkins, and Dryden Arseneau. The future is bright with these young people here with us today.

Mrs. Daisy Wai: I’d like to welcome the team, the students and the teachers from Prestige private school. They are now having a tour, and they will be joining us in question period.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: I’d like to welcome my friend from North Bay, Gordan Rennie.

Hon. David Piccini: It gives me great pleasure to welcome a good friend of mine who’s here visiting Queen’s Park for the first time: Jennifer McGill from Port Hope.

And I send a special welcome to Tim from Colborne.

Hon. Paul Calandra: I’d like to introduce Raphael Moralles from the incredible riding of Markham–Stouffville.

Mr. Hardeep Singh Grewal: In recognition of Sikh Heritage Month, the Ontario Sikh and Gurudwara Council is celebrating Sikh Heritage Month at Queen’s Park today in room 228, sponsored by myself and supported by MPPs Tangri, Gill, Sandhu and Sarkaria. We’d like everybody in the House to join. It’s happening from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. today.

Question Period

Government accountability

Ms. Marit Stiles: This question is for the Premier. Speaker, concerns are piling up about the government’s back-of-the-napkin plan to jam the Ontario Science Centre into the new, private, luxury spa and parking lot complex at Ontario Place. Last week, the Minister of Infrastructure told millions of radio listeners that she was just “verifying the numbers” and “triple checking” before releasing the business case for this decision. Today, her team told the Globe and Mail that she won’t be releasing it after all.

To the Premier: What did the minister see in the numbers that led her to change her mind?

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

Hon. Kinga Surma: Our government is saving the science centre. We are giving it a new home at the Ontario Place redevelopment. It will be a new tenant there. It will be an attraction for families, for tourists, for everyone to enjoy.

The Premier was very clear this morning, when he was questioned by the media, that we will continue to work with the city of Toronto on both the Ontario Place redevelopment as well as the lands where the science centre sits, and we will do that.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: That answer simply isn’t good enough.

Taxpayers are already on the hook for millions of dollars for an elite, private spa that absolutely nobody asked for. The government is committing the province to a 95-year lease, and they’re moving a cherished public institution and all of its jobs from its home community into a much smaller space.

Through you, Speaker: Couldn’t the Premier at least reveal the business case for these decisions?

Hon. Kinga Surma: Do you know what’s not good enough, in our opinion? To leave this site in disrepair—to leave it the way it is. It is crumbling. It is eroding. I’m speaking about Ontario Place. It is flooded. It is not enjoyed by the general public.

Our government has been clear, since 2019, that we have a vision for this site and that we want to bring it back to life. We want it to be a place that families can enjoy 365 days a year, that families can enjoy throughout the whole, entire day. And we will have that with the science centre, with Therme, with Live Nation, with a 43-acre public realm space that will be accessible by the Ontario Line, accessible to the public through all modes of transit.

Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough—leaving the site to deteriorate. We will bring it back to life.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Perhaps they won’t release the business case because there is not one, just like there isn’t a good case for housing on the science centre lands.

We heard from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority on this. The TRCA was not consulted, of course, so they’ve been forced to explain that these lands are not safe to build on. It’s on a ravine.

The government is piling one bad idea onto another bad idea here in a half-baked scheme that is losing credibility by the day. Why would any reasonable person take their word for it that this plan is in the public interest?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To respond, the Associate Minister of Housing.

Hon. Nina Tangri: I really want to thank the leader of the official opposition for her question.

I think everyone agrees in this House that we are in a housing supply crisis. It is this Premier, this minister and this caucus who recognize that and want to make sure that we get housing built in Ontario. After decades of disrespect and disarray by that government, it is finally this government who is making sure that we’re seeing absolute housing starts—100,000 almost two years ago, and 96,000 last year. More than that, what’s so important is, we’re getting purpose-built rentals built—that’s what is more important. We want to make sure everybody in this province has a roof over their head.

Ms. Marit Stiles: That’s a confusing answer to that question, can I just say, because I just finished explaining that the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority says you can’t build there.

Amateur hockey

Ms. Marit Stiles: This morning, we learned of some troubling allegations that have come to light regarding the Greater Toronto Hockey League, allegations that suggest that the teams in the league—which is supposed to be, by the way, non-profit—are being bought and sold for millions. The owners are avoiding having to pay taxes on the whole thing. To make matters worse, wealthy parents are buying the ability to influence team rosters, dashing the dreams of players as young as nine years old from playing the sport that they love.

Speaker, my question is to the Premier: Will this government investigate these very serious allegations and do its part to put an end to cash-for-access culture in amateur hockey?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Hon. Neil Lumsden: Thanks for the question from the Leader for the Opposition.

I’d also—I don’t know if he’s here—like to thank Mr. Aliu, chairman of Hockey Diversity Alliance, for the work that he has done in building and supporting communities that haven’t had an opportunity to participate in hockey, by funding. We, as a ministry, are thankful and happy to support what he is doing.

I will also tell you, specifically, as a guy who has been involved in sport for a long time—I coached rep hockey and rep football—I take these allegations very seriously.

As a result, at this time, these allegations are being investigated by the GTHL. The GTHL executives have actioned an independent investigation with respect to ethical issues of influence and governance. And yes, they’re taking it seriously, and I know they’re taking it seriously because they have hired a retired justice from the Ontario Court of Appeal and a retired police detective to do the investigation.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: I’ll tell you, Speaker, I was just hoping for a yes. It is not good enough to have the GTHL investigate themselves; I’m sorry, with all due respect.

Akim Aliu, who the minister just mentioned, is with us here today in the members’ gallery. He’s a former NHL player with the Calgary Flames and chair of the Hockey Diversity Alliance. He came to this government, to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport, months ago. Months ago, Akim showed the minister documents that formed the basis for these allegations, but nothing happened on the provincial end. He is hoping and he is demanding that this cash-for-access culture end and that kids are able to play based on their ability and their talent, not if their parents are able to buy them a spot on a team.

Back to the Premier: Will this government launch a public investigation into these allegations and close any loopholes that may allow numbered shell companies to buy and sell kids’ hockey teams?

Hon. Neil Lumsden: The ministry does not have a direct relationship with member organizations as a provincial sport organization. It has no authority. The GTHL is a member of the Ontario Hockey Federation.

You asked about action. There is action being taken—and I use the word “independently” of the GTHL, which means that it is separate from the GTHL executives. Once that information comes back—you’re right; if there is information that we need to follow up with the Ontario Hockey Federation on, we will do exactly that.

The members opposite might want to shake their heads at what we’re doing, but there is a process that we will go through, and, if necessary, we will act based on the information we get from the investigation.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The final supplementary. The member for St. Catharines.

To the Premier: Will you do what is right and make sure children are able to play based on their abilities and their talent?

Interjections.

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

The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Hon. Neil Lumsden: No, I wasn’t applauding; I will applaud that statement, because, in all my years of coaching, I couldn’t agree more—at all levels—that young people in amateur sport, all the way up to university need to be judged on their play and who they are to be part of a team. Nothing else is acceptable. If there are other things going on, as is being suggested, we will find that out through this investigation.

I will tell you, no one is more passionate about creating opportunity for young people in sport, because of what it does and how it helps young people through the process.

When we find this out, if in fact there is something to find out—you can shake your heads all you want. I know a little bit more about this space than you might, and I will tell you that we will act if necessary.

Government accountability

Mr. Chris Glover: Global News just broke this story: Ontario Place for All has submitted seven freedom-of-information requests to the Ministry of Infrastructure. For each of these seven requests, this government has withheld the requested information. One request was for the lease agreement between the Ontario government and the private Austrian spa at Ontario Place. This agreement handcuffs this generation and future generations of Ontarians into spending an estimated 650 million taxpayer dollars and cost-sharing operational costs for the next 95 years.

Why won’t this government release the lease agreement so that the people of Ontario can judge for ourselves whether this is a good deal?

Hon. Kinga Surma: Mr. Speaker, let me just take things back a bit. In 2019, we announced our vision for the site. We announced that we wanted to invest in the site to bring it back to life. In 2021, we went out to the public again and informed them of the tenants that we were negotiating with. Then, just last week, the Premier and I and the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport were out again to inform the public of the progress that we are making on the site.

But do you know what we’ve done? We have learned from the past mistakes of past governments. We will have tenants that are going to invest capital in the site to build a brand new, all-year-round stage. We will have Therme, which will build a wellness and sports rec facility and waterslides with 12 acres of public realm. Most importantly, we will have tenants that will actually be contributing to the annual maintenance and repairs of the site so that it doesn’t fall into disrepair, like under their watch.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question. The member for Parkdale–High Park.

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: Since the minister didn’t answer the question previously, I’ll ask again.

At the announcement to move the Ontario Science Centre last week, the Minister of Infrastructure said the business case that showed it was more expensive to renovate the science centre than build a new one would be made public in due time. The minister then said that she would release the business case to the public once the numbers were verified and triple-checked.

The minister is now claiming that the business case is confidential and will not be released after all.

The people of Ontario deserve answers. Show us the business case. Why the secrecy?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Infrastructure.

Hon. Kinga Surma: Thank you to the member opposite. But please don’t put words in my mouth. That is completely inaccurate and inappropriate.

What we are doing is making the site sustainable. We will have three wonderful tenants: Ontario Science Centre, Therme, and Live Nation. Live Nation and Therme will now be contributing to the site, to the maintenance repairs to keep the site clean, to keep the site beautiful. Why? Because we don’t want it to fall into disrepair—like it was under the watch of the Liberal government. We want this site to be open for years and years and generations to come so that families have a wonderful place that they can enjoy with their families.

Mr. Speaker, that is what we heard from the public through the annual consultation process that has been taking place for several years. People want access to the site, and they want to enjoy it with their families.

M me Goldie Ghamari: Ma question s’adresse à la ministre des Affaires francophones.

Avec des initiatives comme le règlement sur l’offre active qui est récemment entré en vigueur, notre gouvernement a facilité l’accès des francophones aux services dans leur langue maternelle.

L’hon. Caroline Mulroney: Je remercie ma collègue pour cette excellente question.

—l’accroissement de la main-d’oeuvre bilingue et francophone; et

—l’adoption de modèles de services intégrés et aussi efficaces.

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

Bien que des progrès importants aient été réalisés, notre gouvernement doit assurer la continuité de ces travaux afin que la communauté francophone de l’Ontario dispose d’un environnement propice à son épanouissement.

La ministre peut-elle nous en dire plus sur ce qui a été fait pour faciliter la désignation des organismes?

L’hon. Caroline Mulroney: Pour faciliter la désignation des organismes, nous avons modernisé le processus de désignation pour en alléger le fardeau administratif. À cet effet, le ministère des Affaires francophones a lancé une plateforme en ligne permettant un traitement plus rapide et aussi plus rigoureux des demandes en 2022. Depuis, nous travaillons avec d’autres ministères pour identifier les organismes intéressés à entreprendre le processus de désignation en ligne. Et le ministère ajoutera des fonctionnalités à la plateforme cette année, notamment en intégrant le processus d’évaluation triennale des organismes.

Health care

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier.

I was contacted this week by a resident of York region through a friend. The resident, an 80-year-old man, was just recently told that his prostate condition could no longer be controlled by drugs and that he needed surgery. He was offered two choices: He could wait for a year and a half to get surgery with his OHIP card through Mackenzie Health, or he could pay $6,000 with his credit card and get his care within three weeks at a private clinic.

Can the Premier tell me how he can defend his health care policies when people have to pay to get OHIP-covered surgery done in any reasonable time frame?

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

Hon. Sylvia Jones: The member opposite talks about the need for constituents to have access in a timely manner to surgeries and yet opposes the very legislation and proposals that we bring forward that will ensure, in fact, we have those community surgical centres.

Of course, the member has conveniently left out some of the details of the example that he gave.

I can assure you that organizations like Mackenzie Health that have accessed our surgical backlog recovery of almost a billion dollars—as a result of investments that our government has made since the beginning of 2019—have ensured that Ontario is, in fact, leading Canada in terms of the shortest amount of wait times. But we need to do more because we understand that there are people who are waiting too long to get necessary surgeries.

We will do that work. I hope the member opposite appreciates that that will make a difference for their constituent.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Again, to the Premier: The choice this man had was to use his credit card or to suffer—or to suffer.

When the Premier’s decisions mean that people have to wait ages to get surgery to relieve suffering or to prevent death, then he has failed.

When will the Premier provide the funding for health care and health care workers so people are not suffering or forced to max out their credit cards to get treatment?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Done and done. We have a historic investment in terms of recruiting and training health care professionals in the province of Ontario. We have invested in capital builds, over 50 in the province of Ontario, to expand surgical operating rooms and make sure that we have that. Through Bill 60, we will continue to expand what already exists in the province of Ontario—surgical units to ensure that people get access in their communities in a timely manner. This work is ongoing.

It is the member opposite and the party they represent who continue to want the status quo.

Mining industry

Mr. Ric Bresee: My question is for the Minister of Mines.

Everyone across this province is eager to help advance Ontario’s economic prosperity.

Northern Ontario is critical to the future of our province, and unfortunately, its tremendous potential was ignored for too many years under the previous Liberal government.

The rich supply of critical minerals found in the north is particularly important in our transition to clean energy technologies, especially in the production of electric vehicles’ EV batteries. Building a robust supply chain means that we must be able to extract the minerals out of the ground with urgency in order for Ontarians to become an EV leader in the world.

Can the minister please explain how our government is strengthening Ontario’s mining sector?

Hon. George Pirie: Thank you to the member for the excellent question.

Mr. Speaker, as an individual who was raised in the mine site village of Dome and Dome-Ex in South Porcupine, Ontario—our government not only recognizes the importance of the north, but we want it to prosper like the rest of the province. That’s why our Critical Minerals Strategy is so important. It will connect the mineral-rich north with the manufacturing might of the south. This will create jobs and supply Ontario, Canada and the world with critical minerals needed for the EV revolution and the technologies of tomorrow.

Our strategy is backed by strategic funding and programs like the Critical Minerals Innovation Fund and the Ontario Junior Exploration Program that will build the supply chain and find the mines of the future.

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

Mr. Ric Bresee: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

We can see that the investments that are being made, like those at Umicore in Lennox and Addington and Volkswagen in their EV production plants in St. Thomas, clearly show that our government is focused on building a strong made-in-Ontario supply chain, but we need those critical minerals to accomplish this.

To capitalize on this generational opportunity, we must act with urgency and create the right economic conditions for investments in our province’s mining and exploration industry. Critical minerals exploration is a key driver for creating good-paying jobs and building a strong, globally competitive economy. It’s vital that our government continues to make these targeted investments in order to help our companies search for minerals to be used in automotive and battery manufacturing.

Can the minister please explain what actions our government is taking to expand exploration for these critical minerals here in Ontario?

Hon. George Pirie: Thank you again for the excellent question.

Last week, I was honoured to join the Minister of Finance in Thunder Bay to announce the additional investment of $6 million into the OJEP through budget 2023. That brings our total investment in the Ontario Junior Exploration Program to $35 million.

Our efforts are working. Last year, Ontario regained the top spot for exploration spending, with over $870 million invested. We’re number one. These investments are creating jobs for northern and Indigenous communities so that they can be a vital part of the supply chain.

Our government, under Premier Ford’s leadership, is building a supply chain for EVs, and it all starts with exploration.

Public transit

Mr. Joel Harden: My question is for the Premier.

The Eglinton Crosstown LRT is two years late and $1 billion over budget. This government has missed two deadlines for it to open.

To make matters worse, leaked emails note the government is now silencing Metrolinx, who prepared a video update on the Eglinton Crosstown LRT. The Premier’s office’s staff would not allow that video update to be seen by the public.

A simple question to the Premier: What are you trying to hide?

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

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I understand the frustration that community members feel with respect to project delays on the Eglinton Crosstown LRT. It’s a project that we inherited from the Liberals, and from the beginning, unfortunately, they mismanaged the project.

Our government has been committed to doing transit differently. We brought forward legislation, the Building Transit Faster Act, that the opposition unfortunately voted against.

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows better than almost anyone in this House that there are risks associated with rushing a project. Transit riders deserve a lot better than the experiences of the Ottawa LRT.

That’s why our focus has been—and I’ve been clear on this since the beginning. Our focus is making sure that the crosstown opens as soon as possible, but that when it does, it is safe and reliable for transit riders.

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

Mr. Joel Harden: Speaker, the minister is right about one thing: People in Ottawa Centre have seen this movie before.

Back to the Premier: The problem for our city, in Toronto, here, is that the P3 consultants who designed our failing LRT are the same ones this government has under contract for the Eglinton Crosstown LRT, and red flags are popping up everywhere. For example, CityNews Toronto documented buckets of broken-up chunks of the Sloane station platform at Eglinton and Bermondsey, with barricades all of a sudden up everywhere after this LRT station appeared poised to open.

Over the weekend, the Toronto Star reported, as I said before, that Metrolinx officials are frustrated with this Premier’s staff silencing them when they’re trying to give the public an update on the project.

Speaker, I agree with Councillor Colle and Councillor Matlow and others who said we need a public inquiry into this mess. That was something good enough for Ottawa. It should be good enough for the city of Toronto.

Will the government commit to a public inquiry of the Eglinton Crosstown LRT today? Yes or no?

Interjections.

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

The Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: Well, what I can commit to the people of Toronto is that they will get a system that is safe and reliable to use once it is ready to open.

With respect to the specific issue on the Sloane platform, repairs are being made on a

section of concrete that was identified through Metrolinx’s very strict quality control and inspection process, and there are no additional costs required to fix this platform.

What people of Toronto don’t need are politicians forcing a system to open before it is ready. That is what happened in Ottawa when the mayor of Ottawa demanded that they shorten the testing period. And then what happened? Derailments. Transit riders were stranded and couldn’t get to work and couldn’t get home.

We will not rush a system to open before it is ready. Transit riders deserve better, and that’s what they will get under this government.

Health care

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

Speaker, the Premier likes to say, “Under my watch, you’ll only ever need your OHIP card, not your credit card.” The Premier should tell that to Lisa, whose wait time for breast cancer surgery at the Ottawa Hospital was so long that she was forced to go to a private clinic to pay $50,000 for the life-saving surgery she needed. And Lisa is not the only one. Wait times for breast cancer surgery at the Ottawa Hospital are so long that surgeons are advising their patients to consider private options. Dozens of women in Ottawa are having their life-saving surgeries delayed and then rescheduled. The uncertainty and the wait is agonizing.

How is any of this in any way acceptable to this Premier?

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

Hon. Sylvia Jones: It is frustrating when people have to wait for long periods of time for their critical surgeries, which is exactly why we have brought forward the Your Health plan, Bill 60, which allows us to expand those community and surgical centres.

The example the member gave—there needs to be some context to it. And of course, that surgery, if it happens in the province of Ontario, is covered by your OHIP card.

This is the same member from the city of Ottawa who is opposing the innovation that is happening at the Ottawa Hospital today. Through our surgical backlog fund, the hospital has been able to utilize an innovative model that ensures an OR room within the hospital is being used on the weekend, when it was sitting vacant before. What does that do? It means that those critical surgeries that must happen and will continue to happen have the ability to happen sooner because we are utilizing those operating rooms over the weekend.

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

Mr. John Fraser: Speaker, I’m hoping that in the supplementary, the Premier will be able to explain to Lisa how he could allow this to happen.

Do you know how many women at the General campus of the Ottawa Hospital are getting their life-saving breast cancer surgeries within the safe recommended rate? Is it 90%? Is it 75%? No. Is it 50%? No. Is it 25%? No. It’s 13%. The situation for gynecological cancer surgeries is not much better; it’s 30%.

All the while, the hospital is renting out ORs to a private company while these women watch that and wait.

Every four weeks these breast cancer surgeries are delayed, the risk of death increases 6% to 8%.

There’s a reason that we started measuring wait times in 2007: so this wouldn’t happen.

Back to the Premier: How did this Premier allow this to happen under his watch?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: The member opposite should also talk about the wait times that are happening across Canada, because, in fact, Ontario leads Canada in the shortest wait times. Is that enough? Clearly not. We want to do more, which is why we are expanding immediately through the surgical backlog recovery.

Almost a billion dollars has been used by our public hospitals in the last three years to expand their operating room capacity. And it has worked, because, in fact, we are now down to wait times that are equivalent to pre-pandemic levels. That is a success that we have to point to and thank our hospital partners for. Is it enough? No.

We don’t want the status quo, which is why, through Bill 60, we are expanding the community surgical and diagnostic centres. That will ensure that people have access to regularly scheduled surgeries in a timely manner closer to home. It is exactly what the people of Ottawa and Ontario need and deserve.

It’s important that Ontarians of all ages and abilities can participate in local programs across the province.

Hon. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: Thank you to the hard-working MPP from Chatham-Kent–Leamington for the wonderful question.

Thanks to the leadership of this Premier, we are building an accessible Ontario.

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

Mr. Trevor Jones: It’s encouraging to hear that our government is making meaningful investments to help improve the daily lives of individuals and families across our province, and we all know there’s still more to do. In every community, there are opportunities and challenges when it comes to reducing barriers so that people across Ontario can live active, healthy lives.

It’s vital that our government continues to provide funding that supports local needs and empowers community organizations so that improvements can take place everywhere in Ontario.

I want to share with you that we have invested nearly $50,000 in inclusive community grants to the Active Lifestyle Centre in Chatham-Kent–Leamington. This funding went to a refresher driving course for older adults. This has supported up to 1,500 older adults from 11 rural and smaller urban communities in Chatham-Kent access driving to stay active and connected.

It does not matter how big or small a community is; we can all work together to build a better Ontario that is inclusive for all.

Together, we are building a better Ontario.

Labour dispute

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: My question is to the Premier.

Windsor Salt workers from Unifor Locals 240 and 1959 have been on strike for over nine weeks as they continue to fight for job security and against the outsourcing of their jobs by a US hedge fund company, Stone Canyon Industries. These workers mine and produce the table salt, road salt, agricultural salt and more that we all benefit from. In fact, the salt used in the kitchen and on the dining room tables right here at Queen’s Park is Windsor Salt.

Speaker, the Conservatives claim they’re working for workers, so Windsor Salt workers want to know: What specifically has the Premier done to support them during this strike and stop the outsourcing of their jobs?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: Let me just say that we do appreciate how important these workers are to the province of Ontario. In fact, all workers are important to the province of Ontario.

That’s why, in the last election, the majority of the unionized workforce across this province supported Progressive Conservatives in the election, including in the member’s own riding.

The Ministry of Labour has put forward a number of initiatives that improve the working conditions not only of workers—but more importantly, or equally as important is that the conditions that we’re bringing in are as a result of some of the incredible work that we’re seeing by this Premier and by this minister to bring jobs and economic activity back to the province of Ontario.

This province is thriving. We have thousands of jobs that are being created, thousands of jobs where we will turn to our unionized workforce, to workers across the province of Ontario to help us continue to build a bigger, better, stronger province of Ontario. And that includes those workers the member has referenced in her question.

We encourage both the workers and their employer to reach an agreement at the table, and I’m sure the member would agree that’s exactly where it should be done.

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

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: I’ll remind everybody that it was actually the Conservatives who scrapped anti-scab legislation.

And it’s very clear what you feel about workers, with Bill 124 and Bill 28.

Scab labour is used by employers to undermine collective bargaining and drag out labour disputes.

The Conservatives have a track record of supporting the use of scab labour time and time again.

I was joined by Windsor Salt workers here at Queen’s Park to reintroduce, for the 16th time since the Conservatives cut anti-scab labour, our anti-scab labour bill. The Conservatives wouldn’t answer whether or not they will be supporting it. In fact, they wouldn’t even look at the workers who were here.

So I’ll try again: Will the Premier tell workers today whether or not his government will vote in favour of our anti-scab labour bill and support Windsor Salt workers? Yes or no?

Hon. Paul Calandra: I truly find the NDP entertaining. Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? Because this member gets up in her place, supported by the members around her, and suggests, “Oh, we want to bring anti-scab legislation back,” but when they had the balance of power, when they could have said to the Liberals, “We demand that you bring back this legislation”—

Interjection.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Why? Because they held the balance of power. They could have said, “Workers are a priority for the NDP.” Instead, they said that stretch goals on auto insurance is all that they needed to continue the disaster that was the Liberal government, from 2011 to 2014.

You didn’t make workers a priority in 2011, you didn’t make them a priority in 2012, you didn’t make them a priority in 2013, you didn’t make them a priority in 2014—when you supported every single disastrous budget that group brought to the province of Ontario, that brought workers in this province to its knees.

And now, when you’re down to 30 people, it’s—

Interjections.

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

Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The government House leader will come to order. The member for Windsor West will come to order.

I’ll remind the members to make their comments through the Chair, not across the floor of the House.

Start the clock.

The next question.

Government accountability

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: The Minister of Finance frequently talks about transparency, about how his crystal ball is a bit foggy and how “certainty is not part of the future. It is always uncertain.” But now his government is saying they can predict the next 95 years with their new lease for Ontario Place.

In 95 years, we’ll be gone, and a new generation of Ontarians will have to deal with the generational decisions of this government.

The province and the city of Toronto had a similar lease for the Ontario Science Centre, and now, halfway through, the province is insisting that it be destroyed because it’s too old.

The minister knows a 95-year business case is not a sound one; maybe that’s why they won’t release it.

Can the Premier please tell us how his government now has the “crystal ball” confidence to approve his government signing a 95-year lease with a company that only set up shop in Canada two years ago?

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

Hon. Kinga Surma: I cannot believe that member is asking this question right now.

They closed the doors to Ontario Place. They left it to go into disrepair, to be in a state where it is constantly flooded and, at times, not safe for people.

We have presented a vision to the public—we were out last week. The Premier was answering questions this morning.

The Leader of the Opposition said very clearly, “standard commercial lease.”

Our partners, our tenants, are making serious investments to the site, building a brand new stage that will be enjoyed all year round, as opposed to just the summer period, a Therme water park and wellness facility, which will also have 12 acres of public realm space, and 43 acres of public realm space together, and contributing to the maintenance and upkeep of the site, which you failed to do.

Take responsibility for your actions.

Interjections.

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

Once again, I’ll remind members to make their comments through the Chair.

Start the clock.

Supplementary question?

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: Speaker, the government’s announcement to move the Ontario Science Centre was a shock to everyone except those in the deal room. It is anything but transparent. The government did not consult with the people of our community. They did not consult with the city of Toronto or the TRCA, who jointly own the land.

The science centre is an important cultural and educational hub in North York, serving thousands of local students with programming and employing many people in my riding of Don Valley West and neighbouring Don Valley East. Moving it to Ontario Place means moving jobs and programming out of our community. Our community will be lessened culturally and economically with the loss of the Ontario Science Centre. This decision, made in secret, shows the lack of regard this government has for the people of Thorncliffe Park and Flemingdon Park.

Can the Premier please explain how our community will benefit from this move and how much benefit will go to the developers who advised him to do this?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Hon. Neil Lumsden: This is a great opportunity for me to, after having a number of consultations with the chair and the CEO, remind everyone that if you haven’t been there lately, the science centre is open for business. There are a lot of great things going on there—school visits and opportunities for people to revisit, if they haven’t.

There’s usually a lot of conversation around a thing that people don’t understand because they haven’t really examined it.

But let me tell you this: When we talk about a potential world-class stage down at Ontario Place, it’s