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

March 3, 2022

42nd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2022-Mar-03 vol. A (PDF)

L039A - Thu 3 Mar 2022 / Jeu 3 mar 2022

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 3 March 2022 Jeudi 3 mars 2022

Orders of the Day

Legislative reform

Members’ Statements

Invasion of Ukraine

Lunar new year

Senior citizens

Government spending

Consumer protection

Children’s health services

Senior citizens

Environmental protection

Persian Heritage Month

Health care funding

Visitors

COVID-19 deaths

Question Period

Health care funding

Government accountability

Government appointments

Employment standards

Gaming control

Protection of privacy

Skilled trades

Broadband infrastructure

Traditional Chinese medicine

Government investments

Affordable housing

Hydro rates

Autism treatment

Health care funding

Correction of record

Private members’ public business

Member’s birthday

Deferred Votes

Fewer Fees, Better Services Act, 2022 / Loi de 2022 pour de meilleurs services et moins de frais

Racial Equity in the Education System Act, 2022 / Loi de 2022 sur l’égalité raciale dans le système d’éducation

Introduction of Bills

2704395 Ontario Inc. Act, 2022

Motions

Consideration of Bill 86

Consideration of Bill 88

Committee membership

Committee sittings

Orders of the Day

Legislative reform

Royal assent / Sanction royale

Legislative reform

Business of the House

Legislative reform

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Good morning. We’ll begin this morning with a moment of silence for inner thought and personal reflection.

Let us pray.

Prières.

Orders of the Day

Legislative reform

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 2, 2022, on the amendment to the amendment to the motion regarding amendments to the standing orders.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Now that that’s cleared up, further debate?

Mr. John Vanthof: The amendment to the amendment to whatever, and I am the person that’s first on the docket to clear that up? But before I start talking about the motion and the various amendments to change the standing orders, I would like to talk about something just for a moment that happened to me yesterday in this place. I lost my wallet yesterday morning in the cafeteria, and before I knew that I had lost my wallet, Bruno sent me a note saying that someone had found my wallet. During question period, it came to me.

So someone had found my wallet and, likely, someone had even looked at whose it was, and I still got it back. I would like to say whoever found my wallet and whoever was in the chain, it’s an example that, despite our disagreements, this is a pretty fantastic place to work, and we are all working together for each other and for the people of Ontario—and for a Dutch person to not know their wallet was gone.

Now getting back to the standing orders. We are living in tumultuous times after two years of COVID. We are through with COVID, but COVID might not be through with us, and the ramifications of COVID certainly aren’t through with us.

If you look at what’s happening in the world—there is always conflict in the world, always, but the focus now is on Ukraine and what the people of Ukraine are doing on everyone’s behalf to protect the ideals that we all hold dear. I think we are witnessing something that shows the power of democracy and shows what others have fought for in the past.

I’m not trying to belittle the standing order changes, because the standing orders are important, but compared to what’s happening—that the seventh change to the rule book of the Legislature by this government seems to be a priority, and so close to the election; there are rule changes to the rule book that don’t even take effect until after the election. You’d think maybe there’s some—aren’t there enough problems in the province? It’s a great place. The province of Ontario is a great place, but there are enough problems that we could deal with now that we don’t have to worry about changing the rules for the next government. I don’t understand that.

Furthermore, I’ve stood in this place for 10 years and a bit, and soon we are going into an election, but in those 10 years, I have not had one person come into my office and demand that the one thing that we need to attack right away is the standing orders—not one. And do they need to be updated? Yes, and over the course of years they’re updated, but seven times and in one term?

I made the House aware of a lady in my riding who has ALS, and she couldn’t get access to enough home care. She now, thankfully, does, but there are others who didn’t get the same profile as she did who are facing that issue. And we all know what happens when you can’t get access to home care. If you need home care, you qualify for home care and you don’t get it, your condition worsens; the place where you want to stay, you can no longer stay there; and you end up as an ALC patient in hospital or in long-term care. And there are issues in long-term care.

Coincidentally, the government House leader is also now the Minister of Long-Term Care. He’s fully aware of these issues. Yet we seemed focused on changing the rule book. It just seems so out of touch.

Yesterday, once again, Speaker, Highway 11, the Trans-Canada Highway, was closed. Once again, people were stranded on that highway—one of them my daughter. Now, this isn’t a once-in-a-10-year calamity occurrence. This is on a weekly basis, sometimes more than weekly. I’d like to make one thing clear, Speaker: This isn’t really—and I’ve had a long talk with the contractors as well—a contractor issue, it’s a contractual issue. It’s the contract between the government and the contractor. Climatic conditions are changing, the number of vehicles on the road is changing. Everything is changing, and the government’s not changing the contract.

Does the government respond? Oh, yes: The government responds by striking a committee—a task force, I believe—the Northern Transportation Task Force. Again, great people on that task force, great people on the committee—I fully respect that—but a lot of the issues we could be dealing with today—there are short-term, medium-term and long-term issues. A short-term issue: more funds for enforcement for MTO, more funds for enforcement for the police. Make sure all our drivers, drivers that are licensed in Ontario, are properly trained, right? Those are short-term issues. Those are issues that we could be dealing with today.

Now, we’re not dealing with them today, because we don’t set the government’s agenda. Government has a right. The government won a majority government. We’re not disputing that. I think the one thing that we all agree on is we believe in democracy, we believe in the vote and when a government has a majority government, they have a right to put forward their agenda. But that this government seems almost fixated on playing with the rules—and to his credit, the government House leader stated in his remarks that while it wasn’t really broke, they’re trying to improve it. It wasn’t really broke.

Fine, but there are many things in this province that are broke, that impact people directly, now, today.

The people who were stranded on Highway 11 last night, the people in the snowplows who almost risk their lives every day on those highways because there’s not enough enforcement to slow the trucks down: Those are things that impact people now.

There are things that we could talk about under the old standing orders, if the government brought them forward. The last time the Minister of Transportation brought a transportation bill forward, I made these very same issues so she should put them in. I’d welcome supporting them as long as there wasn’t some kind of poison pill in it. But again, now, the House seems seized with changing the rules, not only for this session—for what, eight weeks—but for the subsequent government.

I think I’ve made it fairly clear that we think there are better things to do than talk about standing orders. But having said that, we don’t control the agenda of the government. They do, and that is their right and their prerogative.

I would like to talk about some of the changes to the standing orders, but more importantly, some of the amendments that we have proposed, because if we’re going to talk about something, let’s all try to make it better. There are a few things, I think, that the government has proposed that actually—well, I think we could be making better use of our time. We could be doing better things for the people of Ontario, and we will after the next election.

One of the things that the government has brought forward is that there should be more lead time—and I’m not going to get really into the details, just the overall gist of it. The government has indicated that there should be more lead time when private members’ bills are introduced, so that when a bill is introduced, the members have more time on all sides to look at the bill, to do some of their own research so they have a better understanding of what they’re actually debating in the House. That actually makes sense.

I remember 10 years ago, there was a better understanding of how that went. You had to have—I think it was more a custom than a rule, but we had House leader meetings where we discussed that a couple of weeks in advance, and if there was one member who hadn’t introduced the bill yet, I remember we would talk: “Okay, so, member X, is that coming soon?” We would try to give the members as much notice as possible. That’s not a bad thing.

Now, there are some issues with the way they’re doing it, but overall the idea is so that all members of the House have respect for each other by, when they introduce a bill, that everyone has time to look at it. You know what? That’s an okay move.

The funny

part is, and where our amendments go, is that we would like the same respect from the government. So the government introduces a bill, and that bill can technically become law within a week. Well, I fully understand that government members, and all members, would like to have the time to actually do the research; a good way of making laws is so everybody has access to the information. Why isn’t that a good idea for government bills?

I understand that the government should be doing their background on their own bills, because they see what the problems are, have their own ideas on how to address the problems, how to further their own agenda. And they likely spend months, perhaps years, looking at how to do this. And yet they announce, “Tuesday we’re going to be discussing this, and you know what? Maybe next week it will be a law.” Well, that’s not how this Legislature was meant to work.

Our amendment basically says: The same respect that you demand from private members for introducing their bills so that all members of the House, including government members of the House, have the time to actually digest that information, we are simply saying that that respect should be granted to all members of the House on all legislation, and particularly on government legislation, because government legislation, as it should be, is much broader. And yet that’s not how it works. Despite after seven tries, it’s not enshrined in these standing orders either.

You’re putting strict guidelines on the time that all members have to look at private members’ legislation, but no such guidelines on a minimum time that all members should have a chance to look at government legislation. Perhaps it’s just an oversight—

Ms. Peggy Sattler: No.

Mr. John Vanthof: My House leader disagrees with me—but perhaps they’re so wrapped up and they think they have all the answers that the Legislature is merely an encumbrance to them, in a majority government. It’s merely an encumbrance, merely a political game. But that’s not what it should be.

They understand for private members’ bills—for private members’ bills, each member has the opportunity to bring something forward that’s very important to their community or to something that’s very important. And we’ve seen some great private members’ legislation—private members’ legislation that eventually becomes government legislation. You know that very well, Speaker, regarding the tolls in your area on the highways. You brought forward legislation repeatedly, and the government finally woke up. That’s how it’s supposed to work. It’s important.

So why don’t you treat your own legislation with the same respect? Perhaps the people on this side actually would—“Okay, how about we change this? How about we change that?” You won the election, you have the prerogative, but you know what? We could maybe make some changes. But to do that, you actually have to have some time to read the legislation and do your own research, and you often don’t afford that opportunity to anyone on the opposition side. And that is not serving not only democracy, but it’s not serving Ontarians.

I would like to say that I have pretty good relations, I think, with almost everyone in this House, and I try. And all the ministers I talk to—

Mr. John Fraser: Almost everyone.

Mr. John Vanthof: I said almost everyone. I’m not perfect either. But we try to work together. And we oppose each other on many issues—no problem. We have opposing views, opposing philosophies. But why doesn’t the government—like in the standing orders, you know that private members’ bills and private members need more time and more respect so that we have the time to look at this. Why don’t you afford that same respect to everyone on government bills? That’s what our amendments are trying to do, so everyone has the time.

The issue is not about getting the bill through as fast as possible. The issue is about getting it through right. And you know what? Nobody, no one is right all the time. And no one is wrong all the time. I can totally disagree with someone, but, you know what, even a broken clock is right twice a day. But the idea is to get everything through as quick as possible, and if something goes wrong: “Well, you missed that opportunity.”

You’re missing the whole point of what this place is about. We all know how important this place is, otherwise we wouldn’t all work so hard to get here and stay here. We believe that there is a big role for representing our people, representing our views and having opposing views. It’s always an honour to stand in this place.

My time is almost up. If we’re going to change the standing orders, and we are—they are—then please, give members the same respect for your government legislation that you’re asking for private members’ legislation. Give all members the same respect and the same time to look at that, to look at government legislation between first and second reading. Do that. Show that you really believe in what this place stands for and what democracy stands for, because there are people in this world who are fighting for it right now, not just talking about it.

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

Mr. John Fraser: It’s a pleasure to rise and speak about this this morning. I concur with my friend from Timiskaming. There are a lot of people out there who are putting it on the line for what we’re able to do here right now.

The standing orders don’t really mean too much to people outside this place. It’s how we decide collectively—hopefully collectively—how we work together, how much time we give each other to consider things. It’s not a perfect world. And I agree with the member for Timiskaming in terms of making sure that we have time to know what’s coming forward, so we can contribute whatever we’re supposed to contribute for consideration by the whole House and decide on whether the things that we think on this side are relevant. That’s fine. That’s the way it works.

There are good things in this standing order change. There are some things that concern me, that I have some questions about. I like the committee changes, but when we talk about what—we’re going to do them after this Parliament, which makes sense. So why would we not be debating these things in the next Parliament?

Right now, there are a lot of things that are important. I would rather be here this morning debating Bill 88. I think that’s more important. It’s obviously important to a lot of people outside of this building, who aren’t really worried about the standing orders. As I said, there are things that I support in this motion. I think the changes to committee are good. I think being able to look at estimates at each committee is a good thing. It’s a good change. I understand the direction of the government House leader. I just think there are more important things that we could be doing right now.

There are a lot of changes in here, and it took a bit of time to sort it all out. We don’t have the research staff that the other parties have here, but we managed to go through it.

But as I said, we’re debating this here this morning, we’re debating it this afternoon, and I’d really rather be here debating Bill 88,

schedule 5, removing the regulatory college of traditional Chinese medicine. Why aren’t we talking about that? We created regulatory colleges, actually, to protect everybody. It’s actually about patient safety. Removing that is a really serious thing, and I think that’s something that should come in advance of this. I’ll only say two more things. It went forward with no consultation, and it’s going to affect people’s ability to be reimbursed for that service. That’s what we should be talking about this morning.

Back to what the member from Timiskaming said: It just would be better for all of us, no matter what side we sit on, to have enough time to consider things. We move from side to side here over time and generations. You sit on that side, then you sit on this side, then you sit on that side, then you sit on this side, if you’re around long enough. Talk to my colleague from Oxford. He’s seen a lot. My colleague from Renfrew has been here a long time. They’re good people to talk to—people like Jim Bradley. So standing order changes, they mean something in here.

As I said, I look at some of the changes here and I’m really supportive of them. Some of the other stuff I’m still sorting out, to be honest with you, but I guess the biggest concern that I have is that we’re going to spend time debating this that we could do in the next session, after the next election, when we should be debating other things that I think are really more important to people right now.

As I said, I respect the government’s right to bring this forward, and I think there are changes in here that are important that are good. I just think we could have done them later.

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: I appreciate the opportunity to rise in my place again and speak to the amendments to the standing order changes. I, of course, am listening very closely to what the members opposite are saying and have been reflecting on that. But I think what you hear constantly and what you’re hearing from most of the opposition is that further delay: Delay is what’s important. Anything that we can do to delay legislation, that we can delay the government from doing its work, that we can delay parliamentarians from having the ability to do their job is what they would like to do. I’ll get into that a little bit later.

The member for Timiskaming–Cochrane said that we don’t change standing orders very often in this place, and it should be done slowly, over time. Well, the last time there were substantive changes to standing orders in this place was over 30 years ago, and up until we started making changes, people with disabilities did not have the same rights as every other member in this place. Is that the type of change that the opposition suggests should take 30 years? I would suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that it’s not.

Up until we started making changes to the standing orders, those colleagues who were using BlackBerrys or computers on both sides of this place, including table officers, didn’t have the right to do that. We didn’t recognize the fact that there was something called the Internet, that these debates should be streamed as well as televised. Is that the type of change that the opposition wanted to delay and stand up for? The fact that our committee rooms could not be televised or open to the public: Is that the type of change that they wanted to resist?

The fact that we didn’t have video conferencing available until this government came to office and ensured that video conferencing in our committee rooms could make our committees available to people no matter where they were in this province: Is that the type of change that the opposition wanted to delay? Is that what they’re so upset about?

When you sit around and wait, when you consider the fact that the last time the standing orders were substantially changed in this place, the member for Scarborough–Rouge River wasn’t even born: That’s how long it has been since the standing orders in this place had been changed.

If that’s what the opposition thinks effectively represents the Parliament of Ontario, one of the largest Legislative Assemblies representing one of the largest populations in North America, a province that could be a G20 country all on its own—if that’s what they’re proud of, if that’s what they want to stand up for, then it is no wonder that they haven’t sat on this side of the House since before the member for Scarborough–Rouge Park was born.

That’s not the type of province that we want. I will let them explain to their constituents why they felt that those are the type of standing orders that we should have in this place, because that’s not what we’re going to stand up for. So when the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane says that I said it wasn’t broken, I said this place is an amazing place, it does great things, but, of course, we should always be trying to renew it, to make it better and to make it more representative.

Now, what of the standing orders that we have changed do the opposition want to get rid of? Is it the ability to debate and ask questions back and forth? Because I’m sure those who are watching in the galleries and those who are watching at home would think a Parliament should be able to debate, that that’s the whole purpose of a Parliament is to debate. Well, not in this place before we started making standing order changes, because when a bill was introduced, there wasn’t debate back and forth.

There wasn’t debate back and forth until we made that change and restored the ability to actually debate in this place, to ask questions in this place. Is that the type of change the opposition wanted to resist? I’ll let them explain to the people why it was that they didn’t want a chamber that actually debated. We made those changes.

Did they want to resist or go back to a system that didn’t have equality on our committees? It’s not the type of Parliament that I think a modern-day Parliament should be. There should be equality on committees. There should be the sharing of Chairs and Vice-Chairs. Is that the type of Parliament they want to stand up for? No, they didn’t like those changes. They fought us against those changes. I talked about it the other day. They said that we were being too co-operative. The government was trying to be too co-operative. We’re trying to give too much power to the opposition, and they fought us.

They brought a motion in this House to stop us from being bipartisan, from working with them, Madam Speaker. That’s the type of Parliament they wanted to stand up for.

Now, let’s take a look at the amendments that they’re asking for. I’ll start with one of the first ones. The member for Timiskaming talked about private members’ business and how it should be reflective of how government business is dealt with. I’ll have to remind the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane, of course, that private members’ bills are not money bills. They don’t impact how a government functions. They don’t impact the resources that we give to people. They don’t impact the money that we transfer to education. They don’t impact the money that we transfer to mental health and addictions.

They don’t impact the money that is spent to support colleges and universities. That’s not the focus of a PMB. It’s not the focus of a PMB. Ultimately, PMBs are brought forward by members of this chamber on both sides of the House to impact something very important to them personally or into their communities.

What the opposition is suggesting, ironically, is that we should have no notice on PMBs, no notice whatsoever—the member shakes his head across the way. So what we have proposed in this is that we want to know what you’re debating. Is it reasonable that we should know what it is that the members opposite want to debate before it makes its way to this chamber? I would think yes, Madam Speaker. And if they disagree with me, they’ll have the opportunity to get up in their place and explain why we shouldn’t have that ability.

Let’s look at some of the other changes that they’re suggesting. Now, I will say this: They had the opportunity to make changes, to present amendments to the standing order changes on this package as well. Did they make an amendment to cancel the standing order changes? No. Did they make an amendment to the changes to the committees that we’re proposing? No. Did they make changes to the proposals that we had brought forward with respect to the addition of an additional committee to focus on the environment, to focus on Indigenous affairs, to focus on mining and northern development? No, they didn’t make changes to that, and I congratulate them for that, Madam Speaker.

But what did they bring forward? Let’s talk about the changes that they did bring forward. The first one: The first amendment requires eight sessional days’ notice for debate on substantive motions, including the budget motion, address and reply to the speech from the throne, and standing order amendments. You would think, “Well, that sounds reasonable,” right? So what would that mean?

That would mean, Madam Speaker, that after Her Honour walks into this chamber after an election or after a prorogation, Her Honour would deliver a speech and then this place would adjourn, because under the amendment they’re suggesting, for two weeks after a throne speech, this House could not sit. That’s what they’re suggesting. So after the election that they talk about that is so important—and it is so important, obviously—you would have a throne speech and then immediately you would adjourn for two weeks because they would not be prepared for two weeks to discuss anything that was in that throne speech.

And that wouldn’t just be for a throne speech after an election, it would be for a prorogation. What would be the purpose of that?

There is no other Parliament in the world that has this type of policy—in the world. We didn’t just look at Westminster-style Parliaments. We looked at congressional-style Parliaments and, just for the fun of it, we even went into places where there were horrific dictatorships, and not even they had rules like this in their fake Parliaments, Mr. Speaker. The only ones that could come up with a policy like this was the NDP. That was their first amendment.

Then the next amendment, 63(d): allow members selecting a ministry’s estimates to study to allocate time for its consideration, with a limit of 15 hours—and then they have another one: further limit the study of any single estimates for 12 hours.

Listen to this one—when you read it just as it is, as an amendment, you think, “Well, what does it mean? It sounds good.” What we have done, the changes that we’ve made in these standing orders, Madam Speaker, are we eliminated a committee called the estimates committee, which was seized with reviewing the estimates of this Parliament twice a year. What we have said is, as opposed to doing that, we’re going to add standing committees, we’re going to break them up more, and we are going to send all of the estimates to each of the committees. So the committee on finance would become a full policy committee.

It would review estimates. The committees on social policy and justice policy would review estimates of their policy areas.

What we’ve said is that there shouldn’t actually be a time limit for the investigating of estimates. How is it possible that an opposition wants to limit the amount of time that they spend reviewing what it is that the government is proposing to spend on behalf of the people of the province of Ontario? What kind of an opposition would bring a motion forward that would limit Parliament’s ability, through its committees, through the estimates process, to review what we’re spending and why we’re spending it? It’s absolutely unheard of.

Now, that was the case under the previous rules, which were changed in 1988, I believe it was, to create this estimates committee. That was the case then. We said that’s not the way it should be. We said that Parliament is too important, the role of members is too important to limit it, so we eliminated the rule which would see estimates only have a time limit of debate before it’s brought back to this House.

We said let the committees themselves make the decisions on what it is they want to study. If they want to study every single ministry, then that’s what they should be authorized to do. If they want to spend 20 hours on a ministry, then that’s what they should be authorized to do, not that the government should have a hammer which says that after 15 hours, it’s done. That’s not something we even proposed. They proposed it, Madam Speaker. This was a proposal of the NDP.

They also said they wanted government bills and hoist motions—they wanted to delay the review or even consideration of those for eight days after introduction by the government. Let’s talk about that: eight sessional days—that’s a two-week delay in reviewing by this House any piece of government legislation.

Think about that again, Madam Speaker. Think about it in the context of a throne speech, and think about it in the context of prorogation. The election is done, you have an agenda you want done, you deliver a throne speech. The NDP are proposing then that the House adjourn for two weeks before we even consider a throne speech. Then the government comes back after the two-week mandatory suspension and we introduce a bill. And what do we do? We adjourn for another two weeks so that the NDP can digest that bill.

After an election, this place would not get back to work for a month—a month—and every time a government wanted to bring a bill forward in this House, we would be seated for two weeks so that the opposition could review a bill, and not just a money bill or an occasional bill, whatever it is that—not that they could highlight one bill that they wanted to delay, but every bill would wait for two weeks. That’s the amendment they brought forward, colleagues.

Again, I say to you, you have an opposition that wants to delay the start of the opening of the Legislature by a month after an election, because they admittedly cannot prepare themselves to debate a throne speech after an election. They are unable to debate any bill for two weeks after it is introduced in this House.

The consequences of what they’re asking for would mean that if you are in charge of mental health, if you are in charge of transportation, if you are in charge of colleges and universities, if you want to build a road, if you have massive amounts of infrastructure that you want to do—whether it’s broadband, building new hospitals—their amendments would delay that, not just once, not just twice, but every single time. And what are the consequences of that? Well, obviously, unimaginable consequences. What kind of a Legislature is incapable of dealing with bills brought before it?

The member from the Liberal Party says, “Oh, we don’t have the same research staff as the others do,” as opposed to bringing an amendment forward that says “Give us some more money for research staff.” Nothing. Do they want more money for research staff? No, it’s just they need more time on everything. That’s the amendment they brought forward.

Let’s look at it. Amendment to delay: delay the opening of the House by a month so that they can prepare; delay every bill by two weeks so that they can prepare. They’re against night sittings and are fighting back against the extension of earlier night sittings in this set of standing order changes that we have brought forward. They’re against it. They don’t want to work nights; they don’t want to work after an election; they don’t want to work every single day to make things better for the people of the province of Ontario.

They didn’t want to make changes to allow people with disabilities to properly participate in this place, because it’s too quick. They didn’t want to recognize that the Internet even worked, and this is after the Minister of Infrastructure is working so hard to bring high-speed Internet to every riding in this province, including theirs. But they don’t even recognize that it actually exists. That is what they have brought forward, Madam Speaker.

And then there are other housekeeping things. Madam Speaker, you will know this: After an election, when PMB business starts or after prorogation and PMB business starts, if you’re lucky, you have number 1, 2 or 1 through 10 and your bill is going to be debated quickly. What do we do?

We rise in this place and we seek unanimous consent to delay the consideration of private members’ business because it would be impossible for a newly elected member, or any member, to have prepared a bill during an election and have it prepared at the timeline that the current standing orders—that haven’t been amended for 30 years, that the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane thinks are the greatest things in the world and that there’s no problem. It would be impossible to do it. That’s okay for the NDP, though. It’s okay for the NDP. “Let’s just get up and”—unanimous consent. “Let’s not fix the problem.

Let’s just roll with it, and in time we’ll get around to doing something, but the system works the way it is. It’s fine, and let’s not worry about it. Let’s just do unanimous consent motions.” This is what the NDP have brought forward.

In review, Madam Speaker, let’s, again, take a look at it for what it is worth. The NDP—and I say the NDP specifically, because we heard the member of the Liberal Party suggesting that there are a lot of things in here that they like. The NDP had the option, before any of the independents, to lay on the table amendments to the standing orders. They had the option, they rose in their place and they provided amendments.

Put into context that every single speaker you hear from the NDP today will get up in their place and they will talk about how it’s too quick and how we move too fast. Put into context, Madam Speaker, that what they’re asking for is to paralyze this Parliament so it is incapable of doing its job. It’s a recognition by the NDP that they are unlikely to ever form a government.

If they can’t form a government by getting the confidence of the people of the province of Ontario, then let’s paralyze Parliament so that the democratically elected government won’t have the ability to pass any legislation: If we can’t get what we want through the ballot box, we’ll get what we want by trying to amend standing orders in a fashion that would paralyze any government. That’s what we have in this load of garbage that was brought forward.

Am I angry about it? You’re darn right I’m angry about it, Madam Speaker. We have an opportunity in this place and a responsibility in this place to make Parliament work better. The members say, “We shouldn’t be talking about standing orders.” Well, when should we talk about standing orders? Some 30 years on, we still didn’t have the ability or the courage to bring in standing order changes to this place, to make ourselves an adult Parliament. Should we wait 30 years, 35 years because it advantages nobody? Obviously not, Madam Speaker.

I will stand up every single time, and I’m very proud of the fact that this caucus has brought forward amendments to the standing orders because of what they see. It’s about putting power back in the hands of members of Parliament—all members, on both sides of the House. That’s what all of these standing order changes have done. Not just for us, but for future generations of people who will sit in this place. That’s why, Madam Speaker, when amendments come forward from the NDP on every single standing order change that we have done—not one amendment has come forward to take away powers that we have given to members of Parliament.

The only amendments that they ever bring forward are amendments to delay, frustrate, obfuscate and delay Parliament from actually working. Because they know full well they’ll never get the confidence of the people of the province of Ontario, and if they can delay government from moving in the best way for the people of Ontario—if they can’t get it through the ballot box, they’ll trying to do it through standing orders, Madam Speaker, and we will always stand up against that type of proposed changes.

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Clearly, we have touched a nerve with the government House leader.

I am pleased to rise to participate in the debate on the amendments to the amendments to the standing orders. I listened to the comments from the government House leader, and he started off by saying, quite correctly, that PMBs are not money bills. PMBs are not reflective of the programs and services, the financial supports and other kinds of supports that the people in this province are relying on government to provide through legislation.

Government bills do have financial implications. They do involve the expenditure of public dollars. Arguably, therefore, there is an ever higher level of scrutiny required for the deliberation, analysis and debate on government bills, and the ability to collect feedback from the people we represent about the government bills that the government is bringing forward. Speaker, that is what our amendments propose.

Our amendments propose that members in this place be given reasonable notice. The government determined that they need eight sessional days to be able to review a typically one-page PMB, and I appreciate that. I appreciate that they may need that amount of time to do the analysis that’s necessary on a PMB. But by the same token, members on the official opposition, independents and even their backbench members also need time. You could argue that—is eight sessional days enough? I don’t know. They need eight sessional days to review a one-page PMB.

We have seen omnibus bills come forward in this place that are over 100 pages, sometimes 20 or 30 schedules. Yesterday, we were debating Bill 84, an omnibus bill with 11 schedules. That bill arrived on our desks on Tuesday afternoon—actually, it arrived only electronically to some of us; other members had to wait until the bill was actually printed the next day, at the same time that debate on that bill started. So this was a bill that was introduced on a Tuesday. It was brought forward for debate on a Wednesday—less than 24 hours’ notice.

I do not think that requesting that there be a reasonable amount of time between tabling of legislation and debating legislation is unreasonable, and I don’t think the people of this province would see that as unreasonable either.

And we have seen what happens when you don’t provide that amount of time that’s necessary to actually read a bill, to consult with people who are affected by a bill and then to be able to debate a bill. We saw that with Bill 84, with the amendment to Indigenous services for children in care. We heard from Indigenous service providers that they only found out that the bill was making its way through the legislative process the very day that third reading debate started.

The bill that was supposed to be debated this morning—and people who looked at the orders of the day, who looked online to see what the Legislative Assembly was going to be discussing today, would have expected to see us here debating Bill 88, a bill that includes significant changes to the rights of gig workers in this province, and they may be surprised to be tuning in and learning that we’re not debating that bill. But all members in this place have been deluged by emails raising concerns about

schedule 5 of that bill, a

schedule that is quite unlike the other schedules of that bill. It deals with traditional Chinese medicine practitioners. But the concerns that are being raised in those emails are that that bill was introduced on Monday, and they only found out about it on Monday. So I don’t know if maybe the government has decided to slow down the debate on that bill that was supposed to start today, three days later, because of the flood of emails that are coming in to say, “Whoa, how can the government possibly be debating a bill that’s going to affect us as traditional Chinese medicine practitioners or acupuncturists, and not having given us any heads-up that the legislation was being debated?”

So it’s not just the members in this place who need advanced notice of bills that are going to be debated; it’s the people of the province. It’s the people whose lives are being affected, whose livelihoods are being affected, whose well-being is being affected by the legislation that we are considering. I would encourage the government not just to think about the eight-sessional-day period between the introduction of a bill and the consideration of a bill; I would encourage this government to take 80 sessional days or to take some time in advance of bringing of a legislation forward to do the kind of consultation that is necessary.

We have heard so many examples over the last four years of bills that have been cobbled together on the back of a napkin, brought into this chamber for debate, and the people who are directly impacted by those bills have not had a chance to provide input to the government as to how the legislation will affect them.

Speaker, yesterday when we started debate on these standing orders, I talked about some of the fundamental principles of democracy. I agree with my colleague the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane, who concluded his remarks by saying democracy is not trivial. Democracy is something worth fighting for, and we are seeing people around the world who are fighting for it. We are seeing people in Russia who are protesting what their government is doing, at risk of imprisonment and who knows what else.

They are protesting a totalitarian state that is engaged in violent aggression against a free and democratic and independent nation. That is inspiring to watch what is happening around the world, as citizens are taking it upon themselves to fight to protect their democracy.

We should be doing that in this chamber, Speaker. That is our job. We have the privilege of living in a free and democratic nation. It is a privilege that the majority of citizens, actually, around the world do not have. We should be looking at ensuring that the standing orders that govern how we conduct our democracy are as democratic as possible, are as inclusive as possible.

I hear the government House leader, who takes it upon himself that he is the arbiter of what democracy means in this chamber, that he’s some kind of supreme being who takes it upon himself to decide what members need to be able to function effectively as representatives of the people who elected us in this place. That’s not the way democracy should work. There should be a process of dialogue and debate and consultation across the aisles with all parties involved as to what are the changes that we want to see to be able to conduct the business of the people of this province in the fairest, most inclusive, most equitable, most democratic way possible.

The member talked about accommodations for people with disabilities—long overdue, Speaker; absolutely something that we wholeheartedly embrace. We would like to see the government move forward on its obligation to make Ontario a fully accessible province by 2025. That is something that this government should be moving forward with. That is the kind of issue that we should be debating in this place instead of changes to the standing orders that the government House leader has decided that he is going to bring into the chamber.

The government House leader suggests that somehow these seven changes in four years is reasonable to engage scarce time on the public agenda, scarce time on the legislative agenda; that it’s reasonable to seven times bring in changes to standing orders so that we can have this discussion and ignore the most pressing priorities of the people in this province.

I do want to remind members, I want to remind anyone who is watching the debate today that over a period of 26 years, from 1992 to 2018, over a period of a quarter of a century, there were five permanent changes to the standing orders. That does not reflect that people were feeling that standing orders were hindering the business of this House. It reflects respect. It reflects respect for the procedures that have been put in place over a century of democracy in Ontario.

Yes, there are reasons to change. Yes, there are changes in technology that require an update to the broadcast policy, which is something that we wholeheartedly supported. We recognized that the previous broadcast policy had not been updated, and I think it was a period of something like 35 years. Yes, that’s necessary. We approved that in a matter of—I don’t know; I think it was about half an hour. The government House leader brought a motion forward. We said yes. We agreed to that motion: “Let’s do it; let’s put it in place.”

But when the government House leader brings forward such a significant package of changes, it merits a response from the official opposition. It merits the engagement of members across this chamber, to have a say in how we do business. And we do not—again, I can’t stress this enough, Speaker—we do not feel that we are serving the people of this province the way that they deserve to be served by the people they elect when we continue to allow the government to table a motion on a Monday, bring it forward for debate on a Tuesday.

As soon as we get into night sittings, we would be able to reach the closure point with morning, afternoon and evening debate. The government can then pass a bill within days—

Hon. Paul Calandra: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I recognize the government House leader on a point of order.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Just to correct the opposition House leader that—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): The government House leader does not have the opportunity to correct another member.

I will continue with the member from London West

Ms. Peggy Sattler: The reality is that the government can introduce a bill on a Monday. That bill can be passed within four days, by the end of the week. That bill can be done. And we saw the government do it yesterday. I referred to a number of bills that the government introduced at their first opportunity. They moved a time allocation motion that bypassed the process of committee, that moved the bill right to third reading, that then truncated the time for third reading debate, and that bill was law.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I recognize the government House leader on a point of order.

Hon. Paul Calandra: There was absolutely no such time allocation brought forward. It was actually the NDP that—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): The government House leader has been reminded that it is not a point of order to correct or interject in someone else’s speech on a not valid point of order.

We will be continuing with debate, as all members recognize, and all members will have the opportunity to stand and have a conversation.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Order, please. I’m standing. I don’t need the heckling from any bench.

I will return to the member from London West

Ms. Peggy Sattler: There are several examples of bills that were time-allocated, missed the committee process and went straight to third reading for a truncated period of time. Bill 115 is one of the examples. Bill 195, the very controversial reopening Ontario act, was time-allocated at the very earliest opportunity, six and a half hours.

It missed committee altogether and had only two hours on third reading debate before this government passed into law—passed into law—its extreme overreach of emergency measures, its ability to override the collective agreements of workers across this province and other measures that the people of this province, the workers of this province would have appreciated an opportunity to appear before a committee to express their perspective on what those emergency measures would mean.

But there are also other examples, as I shared yesterday. And, actually, we closed the first session of the 42nd Parliament back in June with another bill with exactly the same process: Bill 307, Protecting Elections and Defending Democracy Act—which is a rather ironic title, because that is the bill that used, for the first time in Ontario, the “notwithstanding” clause, which will be the legacy of this Attorney General. I don’t know how he feels about that. It used the “notwithstanding” clause to change the Election Finances Act to silence the critics of this government as we go into an election.

That bill was time-allocated at the six-and-a-half-hour mark, the very earliest opportunity that time allocation motions can be moved. It bypassed committee. It had one hour of third reading debate—done, law.

That’s the kind of change that this government House leader has introduced into this place. Honestly, Speaker, I don’t see that as enhancing democracy. I don’t think that the people of this province see that as enhancing democracy, and, in fact, I would say the exact opposite: That is restricting the ability of the people of this province to engage, to participate in civic and political affairs. It is limiting our ability as the voice of the people of this province to participate in political debate about the legislation that is being considered.

Speaker, I did want to conclude just by once again encouraging the government to provide the kind of time that is necessary for members to consider government bills that are being debated, to talk to the people we represent, to get their feedback so that we can come into this place and share what we have heard from the people we represent. I hope the government House leader will reconsider his approach—but, of course, he won’t have an opportunity to do that, because pretty soon he will be out of that position.

But I can tell you, Speaker, this is not the way that an NDP government will engage with the public, will move legislation forward. We will do the consultation that is required in a—

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

Further debate?

Mr. Michael Parsa: It’s always a privilege to rise in this House to speak on behalf of the great residents of Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill.

Before I go any further, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the government House leader for all his hard work, especially during the last two years. Madam Speaker, I cannot tell you—there hasn’t been a more inclusive, more forthcoming and accommodating House leader ever in the history of Parliament to make sure that the voices of every member in this Legislature are heard.

I’m sure that my colleague across agrees, because I have seen this House leader find ways to accommodate private members’ bills from not only on this side, but find ways for him to find time for members of the opposition to be able to have their private members’ bills and other issues and motions brought forward even during a global pandemic. That says a lot about the leadership of a government House leader of a majority government. So thank you very much, government House leader.

Speaker, today I’ll be speaking on the changes proposed to the standing orders. If the changes are implemented, further, it will enhance the debate, improve democratic oversight here in the Legislature and it will strengthen the institution of Parliament itself. The proposed changes will lead to more efficient oversight of government spending and lead to more robust and focused committee work as well and will better enable and enhance the participation of MPPs to participate in consideration and passing of private members’ bills.

These changes, similar to the ones that we implemented in 2019, 2020 and the spring of 2021, which were introduced to modernize the proceedings, will once again improve the legislative process here at Queen’s Park.

We represent the people of Ontario, and to accurately serve the people we represent, we need to be willing and able to adapt to their changing needs as well. This means that sometimes we need to revise and adjust the ways that we do work around here. This requires legislative changes that set new standards for House proceedings and committee work.

For example, in 2019, we permitted the use of laptops, tablets and smart phones in the chamber. I can’t believe that this was only done in 2019—I see my colleague nodding. When I got here in 2018 and I was told that we weren’t allowed to use our electronics and laptops, and I looked at many members—rightfully so; we have an obligation. We have to be accountable to our constituents. When I was watching our members here who were doing it on the table or had to do it quietly, without others watching, this fixed that issue. It was an oversight that hadn’t been addressed, as the government House leader alluded to in his speech.

When these issues weren’t addressed they had to be, in order for us to be able to do things as we are supposed to do, according to the rules that are set here. As I said, the change allowed members to be able to stay informed with our constituents and with our staff while we’re serving here in the Legislature.

We also allowed the electronic distribution of background materials to reports and sessional papers tabled in the Legislature. This not only reduces the amount of paper we use on a daily basis, it also makes it easier to transfer and read information while we are here in the chamber.

I’m sure every honourable member in this chamber will agree that we had to adapt to the needs of the people during the pandemic, and that included numerous changes here in the Legislature to protect the health and safety of our staff as well as the members. We had to make adjustments to our agenda and limit the amount of people we had physically here at Queen’s Park. These changes are no different.

Speaker, standing order changes are tabled to make it easier for the day-to-day operations here in the House and to make it easier for Ontarians who are tuning in who are watching us.

In 2019, we also streamlined in-House proceedings by no longer requiring a minister to verbally refer a question to a colleague during question period. And we removed the requirement for written authorization for a parliamentary assistant to answer a question during question period when the minister was not present, which I really appreciate. Again, these changes were made to reduce time wasted in the House so we can focus on introducing and passing legislation that will make a difference in the lives of Ontarians.

Also, in 2019, we allowed debate for the same bill in the one-hour morning and afternoon sessions of the Legislature to ensure we are being prudent with our time.

In 2020, we passed additional standing order changes to build on our goal of making the Legislature more efficient for members and Ontarians who are watching and holding us to account. These revisions improved the flow of legislative business by eliminating delays caused by non-substantive reasoned amendments.

We have also allowed deferral of closure votes so that the

schedule of the House can be more predictable and so members can have the opportunity to vote.

In the spring 2021 amendments, we eliminated deferral slips which caused all recorded divisions to be automatically deferred. We also authorized committees to recall themselves when the House stands adjourned—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I apologize to the member for the interruption, but it being 10:15, it is now time for members’ statements.

Debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Invasion of Ukraine

Mr. Joel Harden: Earlier this week, a text message from a Russian soldier to his mother was intercepted. The soldier wrote, “We were told we would be greeted with open arms, but they call us fascists.” His mother replied: “Are you still out for military drills?” And the son replied, “The only thing I want right now is to kill myself. Mom, I’m in Ukraine. This is a real war. I’m scared. We’re firing at everyone, including civilians.”

Speaker, this is the inhumanity of a war that is killing people as I say these words. This war, this invasion of Ukraine, was started by a maniac determined to fight to the last drop of somebody else’s blood, including this soldier’s blood. We’ve seen this kind of madness before, and we have the power in this world to say no to it. Here in Ontario, we are not powerless. We can take action.

I ask folks in Ottawa to join me this Sunday at 2 p.m. in front of the Russian embassy, peacefully assembling with the Ukrainian community to demand that Russia end its invasion of Ukraine. Your voice matters. Nineteen years ago people all over the world rose up to a looming invasion of Iraq. Canadians, tens of thousands of us, motivated our government not to send troops to that war, which we now know was based on false pretenses.

Join us this Sunday. Stand up, stand with the people of Ukraine, march and rally for peace.

Lunar new year

Mr. Billy Pang: Today, I’m happy to share about the 2022 lunar new year events that I hosted in February. This virtual celebration welcomed over 250 attendees from across Markham–Unionville and Ontario, including our Premier and many of our caucus colleagues. We celebrated with local performances from the community.

Madam Speaker, lunar new year brings friends and families together to welcome the new year and all the good fortune it will bring. It brings together Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese and many other communities to celebrate the first new moon of the lunar calendar.

My riding has the highest concentration of Chinese Canadians in Ontario. This event highlighted the contributions they make to our community. With such a diverse riding, the actions of this government to promote anti-racism have helped residents feel safer in this province. Markham–Unionville’s lunar new year event was a celebration of the diversity of the culture of Ontario and why it is important to fight racism and hate in all forms.

Senior citizens

Ms. Laura Mae Lindo: Older adults need more than a plan; they need a vision. I learned that just the other day. I have a podcast that allows me to speak to people from my riding of Kitchener Centre called People in my Hood, A Philosophical Podcast. A few Fridays ago I was speaking to Marcia Smellie and John Lord, who said to me that as much as they see the investments and changes for older adults, not just in the riding of Kitchener Centre but across the province, what they feel is missing is a vision.

What’s missing from the work that’s happening for older adults is an opportunity to ensure that they can thrive, ensure that they can make choices and be supported no matter what it is that they want to do.

That actually reminded me of my mommy. My mom graduated from York University after completing her first bachelor of arts at the tender age of 79—but I say 36 because I like Christmas dinner. When my mom graduated, I remember how excited she was to realize that there were people that would help her, as an older adult, achieve the educational successes that she had always dreamed of, but she had to wait for us to be out of the house in order to be able to access.

Older adults need to have spaces and places where they can do more, where they can access anything that they want, make their dreams come true and be treated with the love, care and compassion that they so deserve.

Government spending

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: The world, including Ontario, has been experiencing change like we haven’t experienced in decades. According to a recent survey, “more than half of Canadians say they can’t afford the cost of living.” Affordability has become an issue for many families. Inflation rates went up 5% for the first time in 30 years. Just yesterday, the Bank of Canada raised its benchmark interest rate to 0.5% to help combat inflation.

The survey goes on to state that “Canadians’ household budgets are becoming squeezed as the price of food, gasoline and energy rises.”

Mr. Speaker, my constituency office in Markham–Thornhill often receives calls surrounding the affordability of living. Dreaming of a roof over their head has become challenging for many people, especially for the younger generation.

However, our government has been taking action and using Ontario’s financial firepower to support the people and businesses in the province. This includes increasing the minimum wage to $15; eliminating licence plate sticker renewal fees and refunding millions of drivers for fees paid since March 2020; cutting the cost of taking transit with free rides to and from GO Transit; $75 million in additional funding to support further electricity cost relief for eligible residential, farm and small businesses, along with numerous other initiatives.

Government spending increased by $16.7 billion compared to last year. This represents the single largest year-over-year increase in program spending on record. These initiatives by our government have been welcome news to all residents of Ontario.

Consumer protection

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: There is an affordability crisis in Ontario. The cost of everything is through the roof, and it’s still going up. But, even worse, there are individuals, businesses—heck, entire industries—who are taking advantage of consumers. We get tricked into buying things we don’t need. We get shoddy service or products that we can’t return. We’re paying for things that have doubled and tripled inexplicably overnight. They’re gouging us and reaping major rewards without penalty.

But we have nowhere to turn because there is no real consumer protection in Ontario. If you call the consumer hotline, like over 30,000 did, nothing happens. If you go to the ministry, they tell you to get a lawyer. The delegated authorities that exist are more interested in protecting those that they are meant to police.

The New Democrats of Ontario have a solution: Bill 77, the Ontario Consumer Watchdog Act, real consumer protection in the form of a consumer protection watchdog who will sniff out consumer abuse and will have the teeth to take real action. We will finally have what we deserve: someone watching our backs and punishing those who take advantage of us.

The Ontario Consumer Watchdog Act will be debated in the House next Tuesday, March 8. I’m calling on everyone in the House to support our bill so that Ontario consumers will finally get the respect and protection we deserve. It’s long overdue. Let’s get it done.

Children’s health services

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Serving as the MPP for Chatham-Kent–Leamington, now for over 10 and a half years, has had many rewarding moments, but perhaps none more rewarding as this. It all started back when I was in opposition. The need for a new children’s treatment centre in my community was brought to my attention. Even though the purpose and usage of the centre in C-K had functioned for over 70 years, it became obvious that the current facility had outgrown its ability to properly serve the families and children in my community. The number of children currently in need has climbed to over 3,500 per year, aged from birth to 21 years of age.

In closing, I believe that every child deserves the opportunity to reach their full potential. Congratulations to the management team, staff and the children’s treatment centre foundation for all you’ve done to help make dreams come true.

Senior citizens

Mr. Vijay Thanigasalam: Today I rise to give a special shout-out to all the seniors in my riding of Scarborough–Rouge Park. I want to take this time to recognize how active seniors have been throughout the pandemic in looking after each other and keeping themselves involved in our communities.

I had an opportunity to meet with Seniors in Action, a seniors group organized by seniors, for seniors that creates new opportunities for them to stay active both physically and mentally. I had the opportunity to meet and talk with two members—Lydia Quesada and Alicia Siervo—two active members of Seniors in Action. They said, throughout the pandemic, these seniors have met regularly at 8 a.m. to go on a walk. Mr. Speaker, this is what inspires me.

I also had the opportunity to meet with seniors from the Frontline Community Centre, where they engage with each other virtually through innovative programs organized by the Frontline Community Centre.

I must also mention Mr. Ramalingam, a senior leader at the 1315 Neilson Road building, who has been a champion in helping seniors in his building by engaging with my office and other not-for-profit organizations to bring hot meals and groceries to all the seniors throughout these tough times. Also, a big shout-out to Mr. Sivaloganathan of Rouge Park Tamil seniors association for his leadership throughout the pandemic.

Mr. Speaker, I must say, engaging with seniors always makes my heart full.

Environmental protection

Mr. Chris Glover: I’m excited to announce that on January 6, my daughter Ayisha gave birth to a beautiful baby boy named Shea.

Applause.

Mr. Chris Glover: Thank you. Yes. It’s my first time being a grandfather.

Having a grandchild pushes our time horizon further into the future. First Nations communities teach us that the decisions we make today should result in a sustainable world and healthy relationships seven generations into the future.

In thinking about future generations, I think about the housing crisis and the cost of education, but the biggest crisis of all is the climate crisis. I’m proud of the NDP’s commitment to protecting our environment through a just transition to a green economy, by making new public sector buildings carbon neutral by 2030, by retrofitting existing buildings to the world’s most ambitious retrofit program, by providing subsidies for electric vehicle charging stations and by creating a million green economy jobs through the new green deal.

Ontario has the capacity to transition to a green economy. Last December, I attended a ribbon-cutting ceremony for an electric ferry at Billy Bishop airport, a groundbreaking ceremony for a tall timber building on George Brown campus and the launch of a three-wheeled electric vehicle that is being built and designed in Ontario.

We need to nurture this green tech capacity to transition to a green economy. Our future generations are depending on us.

Persian Heritage Month

Mr. Michael Parsa: Good morning to all of my colleagues. Speaker, last year I was honoured to introduce Bill 271 alongside my good friend and colleague the member for Carleton. Our bill would officially proclaim the month of March as Persian Heritage Month. Speaker, this bill received unanimous consent in the House, so I want to thank all my colleagues on both sides of the House for supporting this bill.

This is significant for the Persian community, because it officially celebrates our culture and heritage right here in our province. It was an honour to bring this bill forward to recognize the important contributions Persian Ontarians have made and continue to make in our province. The nearly 200,000 Persian Ontarians make it the largest concentration of Persian people in the entire community right here in our province. Since 1970, Persians have played an important role in shaping the economic, political, social and cultural landscape of our province.

Persian culture and history is among very few others around the world to have thousands of years of history and tradition. Persian people have been at the centre of countless empires, trade routes and cultures for centuries. Their resilience and unwavering commitment to helping others is what makes this community so special, Speaker. As we celebrate Persian Heritage Month, I want to encourage everyone here in the Legislature and those watching at home to learn and engage more with our culture and learn about the history.

I’d like to thank the entire Persian community for all they have done for the province and for the support that they have provided us, particularly in the last two years. They have made this province a better place for all of us, and I am excited to watch this community grow and achieve great things.

Remarks in Farsi.

Health care funding

Ms. Marit Stiles: In this very moment, the Ontario Medical Association estimates about 21 million backlogged health care services, including life-saving surgeries, doctors’ visits and diagnostic tests. While almost a million people continue to live with pain and anxiety and uncertainty, this government is refusing to adequately fund hospitals and community clinics. Ontarians have been driven into fear: fear of not getting needed health care services on time, fear of hospitals and clinics not having the capacity and staffing levels to address the backlog, fear of not being able to protect the health and well-being of our loved ones, fear for their very own survival.

Maria, a constituent in my riding of Davenport, shared her fears with me. She wrote to me that she is afraid because “our health care system has been underfunded for generations and it’s about to break.” Maria comes from a family of nurses, and she worries about the dangerous staffing levels and our health care system’s lack of capacity to address even our immediate needs.

We have to do better. Catching up on the backlog is going to take years. The Financial Accountability Office estimates three and a half years to clear the surgery backlog and over three years to clear the diagnostic procedures backlog, and this is assuming that hospitals operate above pre-pandemic levels.

We need funding urgently. I’m calling on this government, please listen to the advice of the Financial Accountability Office and provide the $1.3 billion needed to clear the backlogged patient services now, for Maria and so many others like her.

Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m very pleased to inform the House that page Julia Markson, from the riding of Etobicoke–Lakeshore, is one of today’s page captains. We have with us today at Queen’s Park her mother, Alicia Markson; her father, Joseph Markson; and her sister Amelia Markson.

We’re also joined today by the family of today’s other page captain, Daunte Hillen, from the riding of Hamilton Mountain: his mother, Heather Lambert-Hillen, and his sister Charlise Hillen.

Welcome to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. We’re delighted to have you here.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I know the member from Hamilton Mountain had a point of order.

Miss Monique Taylor: We have not been able to introduce guests in this House in so long, and I am really pleased to welcome Heather and Charlise here today, who are, as you just said, Daunte’s family. They are fantastic volunteers in the community doing amazing, wonderful things. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

COVID-19 deaths

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I seek unanimous consent for the House to observe a moment of silence for the 172 Ontarians who have succumbed to COVID-19 over the past week.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Leader of the Opposition is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to have a moment’s silence for the 172 Ontarians who have succumbed to COVID-19 over the past week. Agreed? Agreed.

Members will please rise.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

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

Question Period

Health care funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My first question this morning is to the Premier. We know that the surgical and diagnostic backlog has skyrocketed in this province. People are waiting in pain, with growing worry and deteriorating quality of life. The Ontario Medical Association has said clearly that the backlog is about one million surgeries. The minister yesterday claimed it’s only a matter of tens of thousands. One has to wonder if the minister’s number includes people who can’t even get a scheduled surgery as yet.

My question is: Can this Premier explain the massive discrepancy here, why his health minister and the OMA are apart by about 942,000 surgeries?

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

Hon. Christine Elliott: Yes, I can explain the discrepancy. The numbers noted by the OMA included procedures, doctors’ visits, other issues—

Ms. Andrea Horwath: No, they don’t.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Yes, they do.

We have done an extensive review within the Ministry of Health and what we have determined is that the number of patients who are actively waiting for surgery right now is approximately 250,000. Before the pandemic it was 200,000. So the actual number of patients who are waiting for surgery right now, as a result of the pandemic only, is 50,000.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Yesterday she said 58,000, Speaker.

But look, the OMA was really clear: When you add in the procedures and screenings to the surgeries, it’s 21 million. That’s the backlog here in Ontario, as per the OMA’s report.

The government was called out yesterday by the FAO because his office revealed that the government is massively underspending in health care. They have not spent—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Government side, come to order.

Stop the clock. I need to be able to hear the Leader of the Opposition. I need to hear the ministers who respond.

Please start the clock. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: They have not spent $1.3 billion on the health of Ontarians that they had planned to, that they were supposed to—resources that could be and should be fixing that backlog. The FAO said they spent less than they planned on COVID-19 public health programs, physician payments and hospital capital projects, and hundreds of millions less on drug programs.

If they aren’t investing the funds, it’s clear Ontarians aren’t getting the health care they need and want. With people worrying and waiting in pain, why isn’t the government spending the money that they said they would to fix the backlogs and get patients the health care that they need and deserve in our province?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Just a few comments on that: The number of 21 million mentioned by the leader of the official opposition doesn’t even make sense. There are only 15 million people in the province of Ontario. Are we all waiting for surgery? I don’t think so.

And yes, I did mention 58,000 yesterday and I’m mentioning 50,000 today because that’s an updated number that I received this morning. That is an accurate number. We know that absolutely. We have put the money and the resources into bringing down that number so that the people who have been waiting for procedures and surgeries will be able to get that faster. We’ve put a half a billion dollars into making sure that more surgeries can be performed on weekends and during the evenings. That is going to get people the relief that they need.

As to the report that we’re not spending enough, that is actually not accurate. We are spending the money. We have the money. Part of it is because some of the vaccine management and lab testing expenditures were reported under a different number. That is because we are having to move this around—

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

The final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, what’s absolutely ridiculous is that a Minister of Health in a province like Ontario refuses to acknowledge that for every surgery there are many procedures that go along with that, many screenings that have to take place. So the 21 million number that the OMA cites is accurate. This minister is inaccurate and the people deserve accuracy when it comes to their health care.

The FAO made it very clear: Wait times in this province are going up, not down. They are not making their targets at all. People aren’t getting the health care they need. Knee surgery is double the wait versus the target. Hip replacements, double the wait. For MRIs, only 38% of people are getting MRIs in the targeted time.

It’s clear that this government does not support good, public health care in this province. Why are they sitting on over a billion dollars of health care money instead of fixing the wait times, getting people into surgery, getting people’s pain dealt with and making sure they get the health care they need?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Our government absolutely believes in a strong, public health care system. We’ve demonstrated that by increasing our investments in health from $59 billion in 2020 before the pandemic to now almost $64 billion. We have made investments of $5 billion to create over 3,100 more public health care spaces in our hospitals. We’ve also invested a half a billion dollars in order to make sure that people get the care that they need.

I would also like to indicate that hospitals have not only worked to provide capacity for emergency and urgent MRI and CT care, 97% of their urgent patients have been seen within clinically recommended times. We are also working on that 50,000 backlog that we have, in addition to the 200,000 that we had before the pandemic, and we’ve made the investments to prove it in our public health care system.

With respect to the report that the member has been referring to, that is a moment-in-time picture that’s taken. What’s going to actually indicate what is real is at the end of the fiscal year, and you can be sure that we will have spent the money on our public health care system by then.

Government accountability

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Premier. After everything that residents and businesses went through in Ottawa, after this Premier’s huffing and puffing about holding back vehicle licences, handing back vehicles that his government was seizing from the occupiers—the Minister of Transportation, in fact, said that 39 vehicles were seized. Not even a month ago, on February 11, the Premier said—and I’m going to say this straight from the quote that he said in this House: “Let me be as clear as I can.

There will be consequences for these actions and they will be severe.” He said there would be a “maximum penalty of $100,000 and up to a year imprisonment.” But after a single week of those vehicles being impounded, after a single week, the Premier has given the keys to those occupiers back for their trucks.

How on earth could this Premier ever say that he took this occupation seriously when he’s handing back the keys without a single penalty?

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

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: Let me be clear: We are not letting truck drivers involved in the occupation off the hook. I’m happy to clarify for the Leader of the Opposition, who simply just does not have the facts.

As with any major demonstration, the role of the police is to keep the peace and to protect the public. The Ministry of Transportation’s first priority in this occupation was to get trucks cleared off the streets of Ottawa as quickly as possible. Law enforcement and police needed measures to help them clear the streets as quickly as possible. The emergency tools that we provided law enforcement with allowed the OPP on the ground to immediately suspend and tow vehicles. With a seven-day expiration period, the actions taken by the OPP to remove these vehicles could not be appealed and provided more certainty that would allow them to clear the occupation in short order.

Speaker, if we had gone further, these suspensions could have been bogged down by injunctions, hearings and delays in our courts. Any suspensions processed remain on the vehicle record and could affect their—

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

The supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier does not care about what happened in Ottawa or what happened to the citizens and businesses in that community. He waited for days and days and days before doing anything at all. We said pull the licences, pull the operating licences. We said seize the vehicles. We said take action. Do something.

Residents find out now that the $100,000 penalties that this Premier was blustering about were all for show, as usual. The occupiers are literally driving away in the very trucks they used to occupy Ottawa. He’s sending a pretty dangerous signal that the kind of lawlessness that took place will have no consequences.

My question is: What happened? What happened to the Premier’s boasting about throwing the book at these occupiers?

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: We’re very pleased with the role that the province played in assisting law enforcement to bring the situation in Ottawa to an end. With the additional tools we provided to law enforcement, they were able to quickly suspend licence plates and CVORs of trucks blocking the streets of Ottawa and the roads in Ottawa. Through these measures, we suspended 24 Ontario licence plates and 13 Ontario CVORs. We even went further to ensure that we reported out-of-province vehicles so that they received sanctions in their home provinces and jurisdictions.

Mr. Speaker, we have been clear. We worked swiftly with law enforcement to provide them with the tools that they needed, and in using those tools they were able to clear the blockades in Ottawa and restore order in that city.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, by handing the keys back in but a week, this Premier is abandoning his responsibilities.

The occupiers who caused residents in Ottawa sleepless nights, who terrified seniors, who cost people jobs, who cost people wages and who shuttered businesses, deserve to have some accountability. They don’t even get a slap on the wrist, these occupiers, for what they caused in Ottawa. No penalties, no fines—certainly not the $100,000 fines that this Premier huffed and puffed about. He’s all bark and no bite when it comes to consequences for the occupiers. It is outrageous, Speaker.

I am going to ask the Premier again to explain to Ontarians, explain to Ottawans and explain to Canadians why he’s holding no one accountable, why he’s handing the keys back after three weeks of a national crisis that happened in our province.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply on behalf of the government, the Solicitor General.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: With the greatest of respect, Speaker, people are still in jail because of the illegal occupation, because of their leadership in that illegal occupation.

I think it’s really important to remember what the Minister of Transportation said: Any suspensions processed remain on the vehicle record and could affect the renewal of licences in the future.

Look, at the end of the day, Ottawa was safely returned so that people could continue with their lives and their businesses. The occupation was removed safely. And why? Because we had an operational plan with a chief who was working with the RCMP, the OPP and, frankly, an awful lot of police officials from across Ontario and indeed Canada. They were working together and did the right thing.

Government appointments

Mr. Joel Harden: My question is also for the Premier. People in Ottawa this morning woke up to realize that there was a controversy caused by Mr. Robert Swaita, someone whom this Premier appointed to the Ottawa Police Services Board. Mr. Swaita is a major PC Party donor. He has donated $8,000 to the Ontario PC Party since 2015.

But media reports say Mr. Swaita joined the Ottawa convoy personally and attended the protests while he was sitting as a civilian, as an appointee by the Premier, on the Ottawa Police Services Board. I am going to assume he received briefings from police about sensitive information about the security operations.

Speaker, through you, can the Premier please confirm, did his appointee attend the occupation that was going on in our city while sitting on the Ottawa Police Services Board, and is that why he asked Mr. Swaita to resign?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To respond, the Solicitor General.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: There are some unconfirmed reports about what the member referenced on who attended the first weekend.

I want to assure the member opposite that we have been working from the very beginning with the city of Ottawa. They have taken a new direction with their police services board. We are supportive of that new direction. As you know, the three provincial board members have submitted their resignations and we have accepted their resignations. We will move forward working with the city of Ottawa to put provincial police services board members in place as quickly as possible.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Joel Harden: Back to the Premier: I really hope it’s the Premier because the people of our city in Ottawa really want an answer from him, and to not see him hiding behind his ministers.

The government had a chance to figure out Mr. Swaita’s qualifications before they appointed him to the Ottawa Police Services Board. My colleagues, including the MPP for Davenport, asked to scrutinize Mr. Swaita before he was appointed; this government refused. They would not let Mr. Swaita appear. They would not let Mr. Swaita be questioned.

But now, media reports are circulating suggesting that Mr. Swaita took

part in the Ottawa occupation and took

part in the convoy. Is it a coincidence, Speaker, that this gentleman has now resigned, or did the Premier ask him to resign? Does the Premier know if Mr. Swaita shared sensitive information with organizers of a three-week occupation? Is the Premier concerned about that? Is the Premier prepared to have accountability over that? Will he speak to the residents of Ottawa today or will he continue to be silent?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: As I said in my previous answer, we are supporting the city of Ottawa in their governance transition of the Ottawa Police Services Board. It’s important that the people of Ottawa have confidence in their police governance, and this will bring a fresh perspective to the board as they address these recent events. As you know, police services boards are autonomous. They are working with the chief and the city of Ottawa. They oversee how policing is provided, but they are, to be clear, an autonomous board.

Employment standards

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: My question is to the Minister of Labour, Training and Skills Development. The gig economy is here to stay, and every gig worker deserves to be treated fairly and compensated fairly. Today, one in five Canadians work in the gig economy, and this number is predicted to rise. With this in mind, these workers are counting on our government to show leadership and make every effort to protect and support our workers.

Speaker, through you to the minister, what is the ministry proposing to rebalance the scales and support these workers?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: I want to thank the member from Carleton for her leadership and always standing up for workers in her community. No one working in Ontario should ever make less than minimum wage for an hour’s work. No one working in Ontario should be dismissed without notice, explanation or recourse. No one should have to travel out of Canada to resolve a workplace dispute or sign a contract they don’t understand. This is why our government introduced core rights for gig workers.

Our Working for Workers Act 2, if passed, would make Ontario the very first province in Canada to raise the floor for all of these workers. We want all workers to have the opportunity to earn a good living and have more workplace protections and more opportunities for even better jobs here in Ontario.

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

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Thank you to the minister for that encouraging response.

Mr. Speaker, the minister highlighted some of the uncertainty that gig workers face and I’m glad he did so, because it shows that this government, under the leadership of Premier Ford, is listening to the people. Our government believes in working for all workers, including those who work in the gig economy. These workers are mothers, fathers and friends, and it is an injustice that they lack the necessary protections owed to them, so it’s great to hear that gig workers will be granted rights and protections to rebalance the scales in their favour.

Mr. Speaker, I know these workers want to know more, so, through you, can the minister please provide clarity on how our government will achieve this?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: Thanks again to the member for this very important question.

Mr. Speaker, if passed, our Working for Workers Act 2 will be breaking new ground here in Canada. We’ll be ensuring that gig workers earn at least the minimum wage. These workers deserve bigger paycheques. Our legislation will also make sure that they have basic rights like a pay stub.

Our policies are the beginning, not an end point. These core rights are a foundation in our mission to help all workers earn more and take care of their families so we can build stronger families here in Ontario. Our government believes that whether you work for a big company, a small business or a ride-share app, you shouldn’t be left behind. As we build back a stronger Ontario under the leadership of Premier Ford, we’re going to continue putting our workers first.

Gaming control

Mr. Percy Hatfield: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Good morning, Minister.

Speaker, in a good year, we have about 10,000 people working in Ontario’s gaming sector. Land-based casinos returned 55% of net gaming profits to the Ontario treasury. That’s more than $2 billion a year. The government has opened its doors to Internet gaming. A recent study shows that this would lead to fewer people working and a huge loss to the net revenue from gaming.

Speaker, what assurances can the government give the people of Ontario, especially those earning a living in our bricks-and-mortar casinos, that this won’t be the case?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Mr. Speaker, thank you, through you, to the member opposite for your many years of public service since your by-election win in 2013. Thank you for your service. He’s done a great job representing his constituents, as we all do every day.

It’s an important question, and I’m going to answer, in part, for the Attorney General, who’s not here today, who’s leading the charge on Internet gaming. That is a grey market that exists today in the province of Ontario. It is not regulated. We are the first province in Canada—in Canada—to regulate the grey market, the Internet gaming market. Extensive consultations occurred for over a couple of years with land-based gaming operators, with foreign operators, with First Nations—a broad consultation, including municipalities, including workers, including unions.

We’re going to do everything to regulate this market so that we can create jobs, move our economy forward and support the hard-working people of Ontario.

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

Mr. Percy Hatfield: COVID has left half of the casino workers in Niagara Falls out of work. At Woodbine, there are still 500 casino workers on layoff. We have 1,000 unemployed in Windsor. Big promises were made to students at Humber College that the expansion at Woodbine would bring future employment. Internet gaming threatens those students and all of our unemployed casino workers.

Speaker, what is the government thinking? How can we allow Internet gaming if it means fewer jobs, less money to the provincial treasury and no hope for those still on layoff from the COVID cuts?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Again, thank you for the question. This government, for the last two years, has worked around the clock to make Ontario safe. In fact, through the leadership of this Premier, the leadership of this Minister of Health—we inherited a health system that was broken, that needed to be fixed, and through their leadership, we’re rebuilding Ontario, we’re rebuilding the health of this province.

Coming out of this pandemic, we’re going to be stronger. And let me tell you this: There are going to be jobs created right across this whole province, including the land-based gaming operations, including the Internet gaming operations. In fact, when you look around the world where iGaming has been regulated, it’s created more jobs, it’s created more tax revenues, and it’s been good for the economy so that people can put food on their table. So thank you again for that question.

Protection of privacy

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Speaker, through you to the Premier: Earlier this week, you eliminated the vaccination passes that would finally allow people to experience some freedoms that they enjoyed pre-COVID. They could now show their support of small businesses and restaurant owners once again. But now I’m hearing reports that the provincial government is introducing a digital ID. It will contain personal and family contact information, access to financial and numerous government services, and access to medical records, including immunizations.

Premier, we both understand the need to speed up efficiencies in the government. With technology becoming more accessible, I do have some concerns. Medical records are personal and confidential. Respectfully, Premier, they are no one’s business. In the past, people had to show personal COVID vaccination status to go anywhere and to do anything such as to board planes, trains, or even automobiles or even go to sporting events.

But my question to you, Premier, is, with this digital ID that your government is working on, will it be used against someone if they are asked to show their COVID vaccination status? Again, I repeat: One’s vaccination status is no one’s business. It’s personal.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply, the Associate Minister of Digital Government.

Hon. Kaleed Rasheed: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. We are saying yes to improving customer service for the people of Ontario by modernizing the way people can access services online. I’m so proud of this Premier, who truly believes in customer service and is doing everything possible to make sure that we as a government provide the best customer service possible to the people of this province.

Mr. Speaker, we are saying yes to the people of Ontario by creating easier access to online services at their fingertips. Ontario’s Digital ID program will make it easier for people and businesses to securely prove their ID online, reduce the risk of ID theft, protect people’s data and expand access across government services.

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

Mr. Rick Nicholls: I’m not so sure I heard the answer with regard to vaccine passes and having to show that.

But again, back to the Premier: Many are questioning the real reasons why you and other Premiers chose to eliminate the vaccine passes. What is the main driving force that resulted in the cancellation of vax passes? Lower COVID cases? Fewer hospitalizations? High percentages of currently vaccinated people? On the surface, all are probably true.

But now we’ve learned that the Prime Minister was secretly introducing a federally mandated vaccination pass for all Canadians, which means Dr. Trudeau could put his limits on out-of-country travel access of Canadians who have not chosen to be vaccinated. Once again, Premier, this is an affront to our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms—that is, until the Prime Minister decides to rewrite it.

My question to you, Premier, is, will you explain your reasoning for cancelling the provincially mandated vaccine passes and the emergency orders for Ontario now? And will you be supporting a federally mandated vaccination pass?

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

The Associate Minister of Digital Government.

Hon. Kaleed Rasheed: I want to be very crystal clear about it: There is no health data or vaccination information being part of the digital ID. I just want to make it very clear to the member opposite. We are saying yes, absolutely, to convenience and choice. As the Minister of Finance has said many, many times, digital first does not mean digital only. Ontario’s Digital ID program will be optional. The government is not eliminating or phasing out any physical forms of ID, such as driver’s licences and health cards.

As I have said, Mr. Speaker, protecting Ontarians’ privacy is an essential part of our better customer service initiative. The Information and Privacy Commissioner has been engaged since day one, and we will continue to consult as Ontario’s Digital ID program works to move forward.

Skilled trades

Mr. Bill Walker: My question is to the Minister of Labour, Training and Skills Development. We are experiencing a historic labour shortage, and unfulfilled jobs are costing Ontario billions in lost productivity. Our government, under the leadership of our Premier and the minister, has already worked to remove unfair and discriminatory barriers against foreign-trained professionals so that they can fill in-demand jobs in the province.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, can the minister please share with this House how his ministry is continuing to cut red tape and working to make it easier for skilled professionals across Canada to work in our province?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To respond, the member from Mississauga–Malton.

Mr. Deepak Anand: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I want to say thank you to the member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound for his tireless service for over a decade. Thank you so much.

Mr. Speaker, our government is building a stronger Ontario. To do so, it has never been more important to attract the skilled workers to do the jobs, and in-demand jobs. Between July and September 2021, there were over 330,000 vacant jobs in Ontario, which means hundreds of thousands of paycheques waiting to be collected. This is why, if passed, our Working for Workers Act 2 will cut red tape and make it easier for skilled professionals from across the country to work in Ontario.

Our legislation will allow workers to get their credentials processed in less than 30 business days and make it easier for engineers, auto mechanics, plumbers and many more to come to Ontario and fill in-demand jobs and drive economic growth.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Bill Walker: I want to thank the parliamentary assistant, the member for Mississauga–Malton, and the minister for the great work they’re doing on behalf of workers here in Ontario.

Data suggests that the need to replace retiring workers in the skilled trades is imminent and real. In 2016, nearly one in three journeypersons in Ontario was 55 years or older. We need more skilled tradespeople to come here. These jobs are in-demand and highly paid, and these workers will contribute to and participate in our government’s plan to make Ontario the best place to live, work and raise a family.

Speaker, through you, can the minister please tell us how our government is working to make it easier for skilled trade workers and apprentices to work and train in Ontario?

Mr. Deepak Anand: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I want to say thank you to the member again for the great question, and thank you for his mentorship and support in the last four years. I can’t thank you enough.

As our Premier always says, our economy is on fire. Ontario is leading Canada’s economic growth, and all these workers will play a crucial role in our government’s plan to build more roads, bridges, highways, homes. We are maximizing our participation in the federal Red Seal Program so that there is a common standard for apprenticeship training and certification. Ontario will be recognizing all Red Seal trades. And we are going further: Our new agency, Skilled Trades Ontario, is harmonizing training standards for dozens of trades so that apprentices who started training elsewhere can continue their training here.

Mr. Speaker, all of our actions are focused on only one mission: to open our doors to so many people so they can call Ontario their home and we can prosper together.

Broadband infrastructure

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Premier. Access to broadband is crucial for all Ontarians, and especially for rural Ontarians, for their families, for their businesses. We all know that. As a result, the Ford government made huge announcements: Everybody was going to be connected by 2025.

We were surprised by the Financial Accountability Officer’s report that your government budgeted $400 million—$406 million, I believe—in the last budget, but actually, to date, you’ve spent $1.2 million of that.

How are you going to get it done by 2025 when basically it’s all talk and no investment?

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

Hon. Kinga Surma: Thank you very much to the member for the question. Through the Premier’s leadership, we’ve invested $4 billion to make sure that every single home in the province of Ontario is connected by the end of 2025. We’ve invested in 17 projects through ICON. We’ve partnered with the federal government for 58 projects across the province of Ontario, which include northern communities and First Nation communities.

Mr. Speaker, our focus right now is the reverse auction. It is under way, and it will connect the remaining 325,000 residents who are waiting to get connected.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: There is a big difference between actually investing and announcing investing, and there’s a pattern here. In 2019-20, you budgeted $31 million and spent zero, zilch. In 2020-21, $45.7 million was budgeted, and you spent or invested 1.37% of that.

What’s even more frightening is that, as they come to this deadline, they’re going to make spending decisions with the big players and leave the little players, the small Internet providers who actually are capable of providing the service through rural Ontario—you’re going to leave them out and do the big Infrastructure Ontario reverse bid, and that is going to leave a lot of people out.

Hon. Kinga Surma: Thank you very much for the supplementary. We are very anxiously anticipating the results of the reverse auction. It is going very well.

But if I recall correctly, the member opposite didn’t support the Building Broadband Faster Act. So I want to ask the member opposite, what are you doing to help your constituents get connected across the province of Ontario?

Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to present further measures so that we can construct high-speed Internet infrastructure as quickly and efficiently as possible throughout the province of Ontario. I’ll ask the member opposite, what are you going to do to help?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Once again, I’ll remind the members to make their comments through the Chair, not directly across the floor of the House.

The next question.

Traditional Chinese medicine

Mr. John Fraser: My question is to the Premier. In 2006, the Liberal government of the day made traditional Chinese medicine a regulated health profession in Ontario. Until then, anyone in Ontario could hang up a shingle and say they were a practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine. Creating the college was in the public interest. We did it to protect patients. That’s why we have regulated health colleges. It’s their primary purpose: patient safety, the public good.

For 16 years, the college has protected patients in Ontario. Your government wants to change all that. In Bill 88, you snuck in a

section that eliminates the college and, most importantly, protection for patients.

Speaker, through you, will the minister commit today to protecting patients by removing

schedule 5 from Bill 88 and commit to keeping the college of traditional Chinese medicine here in Ontario?

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

Hon. Christine Elliott: Our government is committed to protecting the safety of Ontario patients. We also are committed to getting more people working by reducing regulatory barriers, to allow more individuals to get back into the business of practising traditional Chinese medicine.

The proposed legislation would repeal the Traditional Chinese Medicine Act, 2006, and amend the Health and Supportive Care Providers Oversight Authority Act, 2021. As a result, the oversight of traditional Chinese medicine practitioners and acupuncturists will transition from the College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists to the Health and Supportive Care Providers Oversight Authority, which is the same oversight authority that is overseeing personal support workers.

This is a strong organization which will provide the necessary protection for the people of Ontario while still allowing more practitioners to become involved in the practice, which is what the people of Ontario want.

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

Mr. John Fraser: Respectfully back to the minister: Traditional Chinese medicine practitioners are not tattoo artists and they are not PSWs. They apply medicine and treatment.

This change was done without any consultation—none whatsoever—literally out of the blue and buried in a bill. So far, we’ve heard no rationale from this government as to how this is going to make anybody safer or how it is going to affect people’s access to care when their benefits plans don’t pay for it anymore. How is this good for anyone in Ontario when any one of us can hang up a shingle and say we’re a practitioner? Who told the government this was a good idea? Who whispered in the Premier’s ear? There is no reasonable, rational reason to eliminate this college—none whatsoever. You’re going backward, not forward.

Speaker, through you to the Premier, I’ll ask once again: Will the Premier commit to removing

schedule 5 from Bill 88 and keep the traditional Chinese medicine college here in Ontario and keep protecting patients?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Our government has always been dedicated to protecting the health and well-being of the people of Ontario. This is no different. This authority, the Health and Supportive Care Providers Oversight Authority, is already overseeing personal support workers who also provide health care to the people of Ontario. Traditional Chinese medical practitioners will be under the same authority. They will be provided with that safety. As well, acupuncturists will be protected by local personal health units, so there will be that authority.

It will also allow for more people who have faced significant barriers to being admitted by the college to able to practise traditional Chinese medicine. That is what the people of Ontario want. We are dedicated to protecting their safety and making sure more people can have access to the care that they need and deserve.

Government investments

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. When the COVID-19 pandemic started, our government was quick to help pivot our businesses to produce the critical PPE needed to keep our health care workers and businesses safe. I recall, for example, joining the minister at the Vodkow distillery, just outside of Ottawa, who were pivoting to create hand sanitizer for my local hospital in Ottawa West–Nepean.

We saw businesses of all types step up to help get the province through the pandemic. Can the minister please tell us what has been done since to support businesses in establishing domestic supply chains?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: We were so proud to see thousands of businesses pivot their operations to help fight the pandemic. They really showed what Premier Ford calls the Ontario spirit. We knew they needed our financial support and that’s why we announced the $50-million Ontario Together Fund, which helped support these businesses to retool and make that critical PPE. Virox Technologies, in Oakville, was the very first recipient. They invested $1.7 million to manufacture disinfectant wipes, and the province invested $850,000.

Sterling, in Concord, invested $2 million, one of the first to make face shields in Ontario. The province invested $1 million in these critical products that simply were not being made here in Ontario.

These are just two of the thousands of Ontario business success stories, showing that Ontario is getting stronger.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: Through you, Speaker, thank you to the minister for that response. Clearly, the Ontario Together Fund was instrumental in establishing domestic supply chains here in Ontario, and many businesses will have benefited from the funding provided through the Ontario Together Fund.

We were very disappointed on this side of the aisle to see that the members opposite chose not to support these critical investments in Ontario businesses. Unlike the opposition and Liberals, our government will continue supporting businesses by making the right investments to ensure Ontario remains the economic engine of Canada.

Can the minister please provide some further examples of companies that Ontario has supported?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: As the pandemic continued throughout 2021, we provided an additional $50 million to the Ontario Together Fund, and Ontario manufacturers continued to step up.

Abatement Technologies in Fort Erie invested over $18 million to build a new facility to manufacture their infection control filtration systems. The province invested $2.5 million in this company so that hospitals and long-term-care facilities had this life-saving equipment.

Greenfield Global in Johnstown, Canada’s largest producer of ethanol, invested $75 million to produce high-purity alcohol to make hand sanitizer. The government invested $2.5 million to support local manufacturing, create good-paying jobs and ensure that we had the vital PPE literally at our fingertips.

These are two more of the Ontario business success stories, showing that Ontario is getting stronger.

Affordable housing

Mr. Chris Glover: To the Premier: The Conservative government likes to claim that all of Ontario’s problems are because of the Liberals, and we in the NDP agree that after 15 years in power, the Liberals left us with hallway medicine in our hospitals, with a $15.9-billion maintenance backlog in our schools and a massive housing crisis. But this Premier’s developer-friendly policies have done nothing to address the housing crisis, which is making it nearly impossible for the average person to even rent in Ontario, let alone to afford to buy a home.

Rents in Toronto rose 14.5% last year to an average of $2,315 a month. The government removed rent controls from new buildings and, as a result, tenants in my riding are now facing rent increases of $500 a month. In my riding, average rent in Harbour Plaza increased by 37.7% last year, and 36.1% at the Playground Condos at Garrison Point. These condos are all exempt from rent controls because of this government’s actions.

Why is affording a place to live so difficult in this government’s Ontario?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To respond, the member for Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry.

Mr. Jim McDonell: When we took government in 2018, we inherited a huge housing crisis in this province, enabled by the Liberal government and the NDP before, who supported them all the way through. Young families, seniors and hard-working Ontarians are desperate for housing that meets their needs.

Our government’s priorities put affordable housing ownership in the reach of Ontario families and provide more people with the opportunities they need to live closer to where they work. That’s why, in 2019, we introduced More Homes, More Choice: Ontario’s Housing Supply Action Plan to make housing more affordable by increasing the supply of a full range of housing options.

Our action plan puts Ontario first. We cut red tape and are helping build the right types of homes in the right places, making housing more affordable and building them faster. More Homes, More Choice includes a broad range of measures to address the speed of development approvals, the mix of housing types, the cost of development, the supply of rental and ownership housing, and other innovative ideas to increase housing supply.

In December, we asked the Housing Affordability Task Force to look at and explore measures to address housing—

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

The supplementary question.

Mr. Chris Glover: I don’t know what province the member opposite is living in, but if he thinks he’s been making housing more affordable in Ontario, he is not trying to rent something, he’s not trying to buy a home in Ontario. Your housing plan bulldozes over communities, wet lands and heritage properties, but does not address the financialization of the housing market or money laundering, and it has not reduced the cost of housing.

Last year, under your watch, home prices in Toronto increased 16% to $1.7 million, and by the end of the year, an average condo will be over $750,000 in Toronto. People are leaving the province because of the cost of housing. Business owners in my riding tell me that housing costs are now Ontario’s biggest competitive disadvantage.

You’ve had four years to make housing affordable. Rent is out of reach and the dream of buying a home has been crushed. Will you admit that your “affordable” housing strategy has been an abject failure and that it’s time to change course? Or are you saying to the people of Ontario that the only way they are going to get the homes they can afford is if they vote you out in the next election?

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

To respond, the Premier.

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the opposition for the question. I just find it very ironic that the inaction of the Liberals and NDP for 15 years put us in this spot. We’re digging out of this spot. Rental housing and affordable home ownership are even further out of reach for hard-working Ontarians because of 15 years of doing absolutely nothing.

Mr. Speaker, our government’s housing supply action plan is working to increase supply and make it easier for Ontarians to find the right home for them. In 2020, the year after the housing supply action plan was implemented, Ontario had over 81,000 housing starts, the highest level in a decade, and over 11,000 rental starts, the highest level since 1992. These are the trends that continued last year. Ontario had over 100,000 housing starts, the highest level in 30 years, since 1987, and more than 13,000 rental starts, the highest level since 1991. We’re—

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

The next question.

Hydro rates

Mrs. Belinda C. Karahalios: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Recently, the Financial Accountability Office released a report confirming that after almost four years in office, this government “isn’t going to be reducing electricity bills”—another broken promise from this government’s 2018 election campaign promises.

Not only did the FAO state that electricity rates aren’t going down, but, in fact, under this government, average residential electricity rates have increased by 4.3%. It is a shame, Mr. Speaker, to see Ontarians pushed further into energy poverty at a time when the economy has suffered through lockdowns and thousands have lost their jobs.

Why has this government broken its promise to voters to lower electricity rates?

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks very much to the member opposite for that very important question. And I want to thank the Financial Accountability Officer for the report that he tabled last week.

We all remember, Speaker, the way that electricity rates were soaring under the previous McGuinty-Wynne Liberal government, sometimes at double-digit percentages year over year. What the Financial Accountability Officer stated in his report last week is that our government is on the right track to flattening those soaring rates here in Ontario. As a matter of fact, under the Liberal Fair Hydro Plan, over the next decade, those electricity rates were anticipated to rise 6% to 7% each and every year.

Mr. Speaker, what the FAO confirmed last week is that our plan is working. Our plan is the best. We’re flattening the rate of increase at much lower than the rate of inflation across Ontario. We are keeping the price of electricity certain.

We’re lowering the price at the pumps as well, Mr. Speaker. Our Premier got rid of the cap-and-trade, dropping gas prices by 4.3 cents a litre. The Liberals step in federally and raise the price by even more.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mrs. Belinda C. Karahalios: Speaker, the largest factor driving electricity rates up in this province is the unsustainable costs of wind turbines. They produce little electricity for an exorbitant cost.

The Premier said, when he was running for leader of the party and campaigning for Premier, that he opposed wind turbine projects, but under this government, they are building the largest wind turbine project in Ontario’s history, in the riding of Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry.

Somehow, this government finds the power to shut down local businesses for two years with mandates, but can’t find the power or the will to cancel wind turbine projects that are increasing electricity costs and are a rip-off to taxpayers and ratepayers.

Can the government explain why it is allowing the largest wind turbine project in Ontario’s history to be built under its watch?

Hon. Todd Smith: Speaker, I know that the member opposite will remember this, because she was a member of this caucus when she voted in favour of lowering electricity rates in the province of Ontario by cancelling 790 unnecessary over-market solar and wind energy projects, which saved electricity customers almost $800 million on t