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

March 4, 2021

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2021-Mar-04 vol. A (PDF)

L231A - Thu 4 Mar 2021 / Jeu 4 mar 2021

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 4 March 2021 Jeudi 4 mars 2021

Orders of the Day

Pipelines

Report, Financial Accountability Officer

Members’ Statements

Consumer protection

Rotary Club of Milton

Affordable housing

Murray Whetung

Small business

Developmental service workers / Fadi El Masry

Protection for workers

COVID-19 immunization

Palliative care

Markdale Hospital

COVID-19 fatalities

Question Period

COVID-19 immunization

COVID-19 immunization

Long-term care

Broadband infrastructure

Youth justice system

COVID-19 immunization

Pipelines

Small business

Homelessness

Birth certificates

Affordable housing

Small business

COVID-19 response

COVID-19 response

COVID-19 immunization

Notice of dissatisfaction

Deferred Votes

Pipelines

Business of the House

Supplementary estimates

Introduction of Bills

Awenen Niin Act (Who Am

I) Respecting Identity Documents, 2021 / Loi Awenen Niin (Qui suis-je) de 2021 concernant les pièces d’identité

Supporting Broadband and Infrastructure Expansion Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 soutenant l’expansion de l’Internet et des infrastructures

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Broadband infrastructure

Motions

Concurrence in supply

Petitions

Social assistance

Small business

Toronto Transit Commission

Education funding

Orders of the Day

Protecting Ontario Elections Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 sur la protection des élections en Ontario

Private members’ public business

Protecting Ontario Elections Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 sur la protection des élections en Ontario

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers/Prières.

Orders of the Day

Pipelines

Hon. Paul Calandra: I move that, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should recognize that pipelines are a safe way of transporting natural resources which are responsible for thousands of jobs in Ontario and call upon the federal government to fight against the closure of line 5.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Mr. Calandra has moved government notice of motion number 103. I’ll look to the government House leader to lead off the debate.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Speaker, I’ll be really, really brief on this, only to thank all members who participated in the take-note debate last week, which helped inform the move to a motion today, and to really single out the member from Sarnia–Lambton, who, along with the member for Barrie–Innisfil, led us in the debate last week. It’s obviously something that is very important not only to the member for Sarnia–Lambton but to all of us in terms of jobs and economic growth and prosperity, Mr. Speaker.

I’m certainly confident that all members of the House will see it the same way and that we will vote as a unanimous voice to really support those who work in the industry, and to recognize the importance of not only line 5, but pipelines as being a safe way of transporting our natural resources.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Speaker, on a point of order: I move that government notice—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Sorry, you have a point of order? Did you say you have a point of order?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I move that government notice of motion 103 be amended as follows:

Delete everything after “House,” and replace with the following:

“the Legislative Assembly should recognize that natural resources are responsible for thousands of jobs in Ontario and call upon the federal and provincial governments to protect workers”—I’m waiting for your acknowledgement, Speaker; I can continue? —“and fight against the closure of line 5.”

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I haven’t got a copy of the proposed amendment, so I’m going to have to get you to send it down.

Mr. Natyshak has moved that government notice of motion 103 be amended as follows:

“Delete everything after ‘House,’ and replace with the following:

“‘the Legislative Assembly should recognize that natural resources are responsible for thousands of jobs in Ontario and call upon the federal and provincial governments to protect workers and fight against the closure of line 5.’”

The member has the floor, and we’re now at the amendment to the motion.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate it, and I appreciate that all members of the House saw fit to dedicate time to identifying what is a real and imminent threat to jobs, certainly in the Sarnia region and all across Ontario.

For those tuning in, many may not understand or know the logistics of how energy distribution happens, and specifically crude and liquid natural gas in Ontario. For the vast majority of Ontario, roughly 50% comes through, ultimately, line 5. Line 5 is a 1,000-kilometre stretch of pipeline that starts in Superior, Wisconsin, and runs across about 1,000 kilometres of the Upper Peninsula of Wisconsin and Michigan. It eventually finds its way at Mackinac and through the Straits of Mackinac across to Ontario.

Speaker, that line is 67 years old. It is a feat of engineering, to say the least. But certainly, there have been concerns raised around the integrity of any pipeline, and specifically a pipeline that lies on the bed of the Great Lakes, whereby if there were to be some sort of catastrophe with that line—as we know happens with energy distribution of all facets—it could potentially damage, destroy the drinking water, the source of fresh drinking water for roughly 60 million people that rely on that drinking water in the Great Lakes basin.

That’s why, as we understand it, the governor of Michigan and some state legislators have proposed changes to energy distribution. We understand that Governor Whitmer has made it a campaign pledge to eliminate immediately line 5: to end it, to cease the lease or easement that is granted to allow that pipeline to cross.

Now, there is conflict that exists at the state level and treaties that exist that allow states and international jurisdictions to share and rely on binational energy distribution. The 1977 treaty on pipelines really sets the rules around who can intervene. We’re quite confident on our side and through discussions with legal experts and energy distribution experts that the intervention at the state level will not be successful. This issue is going to eventually end up tying itself in the courts for a long time, and lawyers will certainly be busy trying to defend their various purposes.

But for all intents and purposes, the 1977 treaty stipulates who can intervene, who can interject and who actually has the jurisdiction to decide whether a pipeline such as line 5 shuts down.

Recognizing these challenges and the concerns that folks downstream from the Straits of Mackinac have, Enbridge, who is the owner of the pipeline, have sought and received permits to begin construction on a new tunnel to eventually remove the pipeline that rests on the lake bed and bring it underground some 100 feet under the lake bed, which is quite phenomenal in its design and engineering but also should offer a measure of safety and alleviate a lot of the concerns about potential effects on the environment. We’d welcome that.

I’ve spoken to representatives from Enbridge. They are committed to making sure that that change happens. They’re waiting for all the signals from the state and federal levels in the United States to give them the go-ahead to start that. That will in and of itself create hundreds, potentially thousands, of jobs. And that’s what this is all about, Speaker. This is about the jobs that rely on that energy distribution today, and we understand that.

New Democrats absolutely understand that an immediate cessation of that pipeline would be detrimental to the jobs not only in the Sarnia region, but also the jobs all the way throughout the corridor up to Ottawa, into Quebec that rely on that. We know that Pearson International Airport is heavily reliant on the jet fuel that ends up there from the refineries in Sarnia.

Speaker, New Democrats have stood here during the take-note debate. We’re on the record. We have written. Our leader, Andrea Horwath, has written to the Minister of Natural Resources, Seamus O’Regan, at the federal level, to demand that he and his government immediately act to protect those jobs. We think it’s a worthy endeavour on the part of not only this province, but all jurisdictions, because when Ontario is strong, the rest of confederacy is strong.

I heard the Premier say that we need a Team Canada approach on this. I’m asking for us in the Legislature here to not play any games, to try not to make this political. We know that jobs and the workers who work in that industry, who endeavour each and every day—the highly skilled workers—to perform their jobs safely and effectively for their communities, they need us to be united here today. And so we ask that the provincial government understand that workers should be at the heart of this, that the province, as I amended—we put our amendment in; it includes the word “province,” because let’s not exclude our efforts here. Let’s make sure that we are on the record.

We can’t just hope and wish that the federal government does anything. We have to be on the record here. So you’ll see that I’ve added the words “provincial governments,” including us. We have a responsibility here. Let’s stand up today, united. Let’s show workers in the energy sector that we understand the precariousness of this current situation, and that we move towards a brighter energy future.

I only have to point members to Enbridge itself, who have diversified their energy holdings to the extent they are one of the largest green energy deliverers, companies that deliver green energy through solar, photovoltaic, wind, geothermal. They have quite an interesting portfolio, and they are committed to reducing their carbon emissions quite drastically. I would even submit that their targets are even more aggressive than this provincial government’s targets.

Nevertheless, Speaker, this is about the jobs that are at threat, potentially, with this immediate closure. We understand that as New Democrats, and today we offer our support to protect those jobs. We hope that the government members will see fit to support our reasonable amendments to the motion.

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: I do appreciate the opportunity to speak to this. I did not have an opportunity during the take-note debate to speak to it. Just given the importance of this, I am appreciative of the opportunity to rise today in the House to do it.

Again, I just want to, because I have time, really thank the member for Sarnia–Lambton and the tremendous work that he has been doing on this file. I know that he has been leading our efforts, along with the associate minister and the other members of provincial Parliament, in that area, working across national borders, frankly, with colleagues on the American side as well, to really highlight how important this line 5 is to the province of Ontario, not only to our province but obviously to Michigan and the United States as well.

I think we all agree on all sides of the House that this is an important piece of infrastructure in terms of the jobs that it maintains, not just in maintaining a pipeline, but all of the jobs that this pipeline helps to create around it. The importance of this pipeline to Ontario’s economy was very well documented by all of the members. Frankly, that there is even a consideration right now that this line might be closed down is the reason why we’re bringing this motion to the floor of the House, following a very robust take-note debate on it.

Given the results of the take-not debate, or what we heard from the take-note debate, I don’t think there is any ambiguity in the province of Ontario’s position with respect to line 5. I hope all members will join us in voting in favour of the motion that the government put forward.

Just briefly, to speak to the member opposite and the amendment that the member has offered, the amendment, I think, puts a little bit of confusion into the mix. We’re trying to not be confusing on this. We believe that line 5 is important. We believe it’s important to the economy of the province of Ontario. We believe it’s important to Canadian workers. When you look at all of the things that line 5 has allowed the province of Ontario to do and accomplish over the years, it is astounding. But that should be recognized in a very clear and simple motion, which is what the government has offered—a motion that all members should be able to support without delay, frankly.

If you believe that line 5 is important—and the member opposite said that he does; we heard from other members that they believe that line 5 is important—then it must stand to reason that it is a safe way of transporting our natural resources. This is where there is some trouble with the amendment offered by the member opposite. The member opposite, in his amended motion, removes the wording that recognizes pipelines as a safe way of transporting our natural resources, which is somewhat troubling following the words that the member said in this debate just moments ago.

It could be construed that some of what he said—and I don’t take away from the member that this is important to his region. He personally believes strongly in the importance of line 5; I agree with the member and I appreciate that he believes that, that he believes in the importance of the jobs that come with it. But you can’t have it both ways.

This is a pipeline that has serviced the province of Ontario for many years safely. So, to remove that from this motion would seem to suggest that that is not something that we, as a House, believe to be the case, which I think strengthens an argument that, perhaps, is being used south of the border. I don’t think that we can show any ambiguity in this particular debate. Pipelines have proven to be very safe in distributing natural resources in the province of Ontario, and that is why it is in the motion that the government has put forward.

The motion put forward by the government follows very closely what we heard in the take-note debate in this House. Members had an opportunity over—I believe a take-note debate is about four and a half hours’ worth of debate. Many of the members, at least on this side of the House and some on the opposite side of the House, participated in that debate. What we heard is that, not only this pipeline—and if I can extrapolate, all pipelines. I did hear in some of the take-note debate how pipelines are favourable to train transportation or truck transportation when it comes to bringing natural resources around the province.

But on this particular item, on line 5, I believe, Madam Speaker, that we have to show a very strong resolution together as a chamber. We are under threat. The closure of this particular piece of infrastructure would have such a dramatic effect on the province of Ontario. Let’s take away the impacts on the Americans, on Michigan; they can deal with that in their state Legislature. But thinking of what the closure of this pipeline would do for our economy is simply staggering. Thousands of jobs would be not just put at risk, but lost, if we show any wavering on how important this infrastructure is.

It has been talked about: the support of Pearson airport and the billions of dollars of economic activity that results in having Pearson airport and our manufacturing sector. Again, taking away the people who service pipelines—forget about those jobs for just a moment; we’ll get back to them, because they’re so critical, but forgetting those jobs for just a moment—there are millions of jobs that are supported because of this pipeline, and we cannot leave an opening, Madam Speaker.

That’s why I’m being very clear today that I will not support the amended motion, because I don’t believe that we as a House should allow an opening for anybody to suggest that this has not been and is not going to continue to be a safe pipeline. It is. The pipelines that we have in this country are safe. The way we regulate pipelines in the country is second to none.

We should be proud of what we have accomplished, whether you agree with fossil fuels or not. It’s not the case. That’s off the table for now. Whether you agree with it or not, we should be proud of the fact that, despite the fact of our disagreements in how we use fossil fuels and how we use our natural resources, together this country has been able to come up with a distribution method that is safe and has been safe for generations. I would argue that we haven’t done enough of it, that by relying on other ways to distribute our natural resources we have let Canadians down.

We’ve left billions of dollars in economic activity and taken it off the table, because we are unable to expand the safe use of pipelines. But that’s a debate for another day, Madam Speaker. It’s a debate for another day, but I think it is an important debate.

Just to focus again on this: I really sincerely want to say to the honourable gentleman that I think we are all in agreement. If I’m wrong, he can point-of-order me and I won’t be upset by it. I think we’re in agreement that line 5 is important. I think we’re in agreement that line 5 is responsible for thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of economic activity. But we have to be in agreement that it is a safe pipeline, and we have to recognize that it is safe. We cannot open the door for anybody to suggest otherwise.

By amending the motion, it shows to those who might have a different belief that there is an avenue, that we are in disagreement, and that cannot be allowed to happen on something that is so very important. I want to let the honourable gentleman know that no, we will not be supporting the amended motion, and that is why we won’t be supporting the amended motion.

Having said that, Madam Speaker, I just wanted to briefly, if I can, just because I do have some time—I heard a lot of the words of the member for Sarnia–Lambton. Look, when we started hearing about this, I think a lot of us just thought that this is something that could not happen, that this is something that would fade away, that more logical minds would come to the table and we would move forward with preserving and protecting something that has been so critical to both sides of the border.

But as we started to go down a road, it was the member for Sarnia–Lambton, supported by other members in this House who represent that area—it’s going to sound self-serving, but I would encourage all Ontarians to really go back.

If you want to see how good your legislators are, go back to that debate that was held in this House, the take-note debate, and listen to the speeches of the members on both sides of the House as to why this is so important, why we are bringing this forward today and hopefully bringing it to a vote today so that we can show the entire country—not only the entire country; the federal government, our friends to the south. Give them the support that they need.

I know the member for Sarnia–Lambton and other members have been meeting with legislators in Michigan and also from the US Congress, both the Senate and the House of Representatives. They need our support on this, and it cannot be a wavering support. So I’m hoping we can bring this debate to a close today, we can get to a vote after question period today and that by noon, we can show the federal government and all of our friends that Ontario is unified in how important this line is to us.

I understand what the honourable gentleman is saying, but the best way that we can show that we’re unified on line 5 is a resolution of this House, by passing the motion as it was tabled and having that out and into the federal government’s hands and into our partners’ hands before noon today—seizing on what happened during the take-note debate, seizing on the work done by the member for Sarnia–Lambton and all of the other members, like the Associate Minister of Energy, who have all been working so hard on this file, and to an extent, some of the members opposite, to whom this is important.

Look, not all of us have, perhaps, an appreciation or understanding of how important pipelines and natural resources are. Some of us are further away from the direct jobs that are a result of it. But as we start to learn how important it is to us, I think then—a lot of that education has come from our side, at least from the members who are directly impacted by it. The member from Chatham-Kent–Leamington: I think of the enormous industry that has come around with greenhouses in the member’s area, and farmers in my riding who talk about the importance of this pipeline for them.

The more people started to hear about this, the more we started to get indications of just how important it was to the province of Ontario, and the more we started to become seized by this. As I said, we can have the debate on natural resources and how to distribute them and the value of pipelines. We can have the debate on alternative energies and moving Ontario’s economy in other directions. I think we started to do that—not in other directions, but recognizing the importance of alternative energies. We have started to do that.

We started to fix some of the disastrous programs by the previous government, which I think diverted people’s minds and attention away from the value and importance of alternative energies because of the way they did the programs, which were so poorly designed. We’re seeing in Ontario, in Oakville, the move to building electric vehicles. We can do that at the same time as we understand and value natural resources. You cannot have electric vehicles without the resources that are required to make batteries for electric vehicles. So much of the new economy is based on the resources we have right here in the province of Ontario.

When I look at pipelines in particular, when I look at the Great Recession of 2008, it was on the backs of our natural resources that our economy and this country were able to rebound so quickly.

It was because of the value of those resources that were coming out of Alberta, that were coming out of Saskatchewan, that allowed the rest of the country and the billions and billions of dollars that flowed into all other provinces because of the wealth that was generated and the jobs that were created—not only in Alberta and Saskatchewan, but in Newfoundland and the jobs that were being created by offshore oil there—and the movement of Ontarians and Canadians around this country to help support the billions of dollars in economic activities that resulted from our natural resources, which I will say are safe in comparison to every other jurisdiction.

We should be proud of what we have done to regulate these industries. Is there anything that we should do better, Madam Speaker? The fact that we are still in a country that is so rich, that is so blessed with so many natural resources, but many parts of our country have to import oil from places like Saudi Arabia whilst we have safe resources from our western provinces—I think if there’s any failing of the federation, it has been that.

That is why, right now, we have to send a very, very clear message on line 5—a very clear message—and a clear message to the other provinces that this is important to us, that this is important to our economy, and a message to our friends down south that this is important to us, that we are not wavering on this, that we will continue to fight as a province for it. All of us will continue to fight as a province for it.

I have no doubt that we will have many very vibrant debates in this place on energy policy and on natural resources, and we will have differences of opinions on how they should be used or where the economy should go, but we are always of the same mindset, no matter what side of the House that you’re on, that we want an economy that grows, an economy that gives us the resources to pay for health care, to pay for long-term care, to pay for education, and to pay for roads, transit, transportation. We all agree on that. We disagree on how we get there, often, but we all agree on that.

We are all in agreement on line 5. There is no doubt; we are all in agreement on line 5.

If there has ever been an easier way to show how important this is to all of us in this Legislature, to the people that we represent, it is to show unambiguous, clear support for the motion as we tabled this morning, without amendment. I respect the member opposite but I cannot support, and I am very confident that the members on this side of the House cannot support, the exclusion of the safety of the pipeline, as the member would like us to have in his amended motion.

With that, I move that the amendment be amended by deleting the last period and adding at the end: “, recognizing that pipelines are the safest way of transporting energy resources.”

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I recognize that Mr. Calandra has moved an amendment to the amendment so that it would read:

“Delete everything after the word ‘House’ and replace with the following:

“‘the Legislative Assembly should recognize that natural’”—just a moment—“‘by deleting the last period and adding at the end’”—you’re making me work for it today.

Okay, “‘the Legislative Assembly should recognize that natural resources are responsible for thousands of jobs in Ontario and call upon the federal and provincial governments to protect workers and fight against the closure of line 5, recognizing that pipelines are the safest way of transporting energy resources.’” Have I read that correctly?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I’m just clarifying, because I’m trying to follow the government House leader. Did I read it as written?

Hon. Paul Calandra: I move that it be amended by deleting the last period and adding at the end: “, recognizing that pipelines are the safest way of transporting energy resources.”

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): That is what I read. That is what I have here. Thank you—just to be sure.

Okay, so that is the amendment to the amendment, as moved by the government House leader. Debate on the amendment to the amendment to the original motion?

Mr. Mike Schreiner: It’s a pleasure to rise today, though it’s a bit frustrating listening to this debate because I believe, if the government was serious about having a Team Ontario and a Team Canada approach, given what I heard during the take-note debate, we could have written a resolution together before we came into this House; much in the same way that, a year ago at this time when the COVID pandemic was first striking, we all worked together on some unprecedented unanimous consent motions, which I didn’t always 100% agree with but that I got behind because it was the right thing to do for Ontario.

We could have done the same thing with this motion. Unfortunately, that type of working together hasn’t taken place, and you can see by just even the confusion we’re having around the wordings of different motions here that it’s literally happening in—

Interjection: There’s no confusion.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): The House will come to order. The member for Kitchener–Conestoga will come to order.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: My time’s limited, so don’t heckle me too much.

Speaker, I talked about a way that we could, I think, strategically negotiate on line 5 during the take-note debate. There are two key components of that: One is recognizing the legitimate concerns that the state of Michigan has. The members opposite want to say “pipelines, pipelines, pipelines.” Well, the bottom line is, line 5 is a 65-year-old pipeline that was designed for a 50-year life span. Luckily, it has not had a spill in the Great Lakes, but since 1968, it’s had 11 spills during the course of the pipeline.

So if it did spill in the Great Lakes, that would be catastrophic economically for the millions of people who depend on the Great Lakes for their jobs and the billions of dollars it contributes not only to Ontario’s GDP but obviously our neighbour’s GDP. We should be talking about what we are going to do to ensure the safety of this pipeline.

Let’s not forget that a decade ago, Enbridge’s line 6B spilled into the Kalamazoo River, shutting down river transport and the use of the river for over two years, taking five years to clean it up, and it still isn’t even fully cleaned up, at a cost of well over $1 billion. The precautionary principle alone says we should be working together to figure out a way to promote safety. I think we could come up with a way to talk about that if we had actually not been wanting to play pipeline politics with this—

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

Hon. Bill Walker: It’s truly a pleasure after last week’s debate. I want to first and foremost acknowledge my colleague from Sarnia–Lambton. He has stood every day on this matter, being a champion in advocating for the continued jobs and prosperity, not only of the people of his community but our great province and across our country.

Speaker, it’s interesting that, again, the leader of the Green Party, the member from Guelph, wants to continually try to pretend in this House that he has the higher degree here, that he has the higher principles. Where was his precautionary principle a number of months ago to come across and actually bring some solid resolution to how to do this? He’s prepared to let 23,000 jobs go in a couple of months, but he wants to stand on the morals and preach to us.

At the end of the day, Madam Speaker, he could have been much more proactive, and at any time.

I don’t believe—and I’ll stand to be corrected—that even since last Thursday he has brought anything across to our House leader or to me, as the energy minister, to say, “Here’s what I would do on this matter.” It’s great to stand in here, and he talks about not being partisan, he talks about all the rhetoric, but where is all of his precautionary principle of actually bringing true, legitimate ways that we can actually improve this so that we can secure the safety of the pipeline and the supply of propane, natural gas, petroleum for our jets at Pearson to be able to move goods, cargo and services—things that could be life-saving, that will be shut down in May if he has his way.

I, again, want to stand here at every opportunity and welcome him to come across. He has never once called me or Minister Rickford, that I am aware of, on this issue. He never gave us a heads-up. You would think that he would stand up for the people of Ontario and the people of Canada, especially as the leader of the Green Party, Madam Speaker.

So it’s great that he wants to come in here and tell us that we’re not doing it, that we’re not prepared to work together, but I want to challenge him right today. The member of the Green Party knows my door is open. He’s come to me on other issues, so why is this one—he’s prepared to shut down a pipeline that provides so many absolutely critical factors to our world—to our health care facilities, to our food supply, to our energy, so that we have the ability to continue to power things like our hospitals and our long-term-care facilities.

He’s prepared, in the blink of an eye, on what I’m going to suggest actually is partisan rhetoric, to shut that down in May of 2021. We are just debating that today, Madam Speaker, but he is prepared to say, “Sorry about your luck. Just fix this tomorrow.”

None of us on this side are arguing that we don’t have to make changes to our environmental practices and the things that we’re going to do. Fossil fuels, at some point, we truly hope—on this side, we’re looking at things like hydrogen. We’re looking at things like nuclear. Again, I’m not certain whether he’ll stand today and say that he is fully supportive of what we’re doing in nuclear in ensuring that we have a future of nuclear, to be sustainable in our economy.

At the end of the day, you would hope, as the leader of a full party, that he’s not prepared to play this rhetorical game and say, “We’ll shut it down,” without the thought, “What’s going to replace it in May?” What’s going to replace the ability to fire all of those homes and those long-term-care facilities for our most vulnerable? What has he got in his back pocket that he hadn’t shared in the debate the other day that he’s going to replace all those resources with, Madam Speaker?

I stand very much in line with our friend from Sarnia–Lambton, who has been an absolute champion every single day on this. He has promoted that we should be Team Canada, that every single party of government should be working collaboratively to ensure that we’re going back to the United States and saying, “Do not make this error, because it’s going to impact the United States as much as it will us.”

I’m going to go even a little higher level. The President of the United States wants to do a lot of great things, and that’s admirable. But he’s going to need a lot of our natural resources to carry out any of those plans. I’m going to specify the electric batteries. There’s no way those batteries all become a reality if we don’t take the natural resources out of the ground here in Canada. If we don’t have the energy to drive that, how do we get there?

All of this talk, again, that the member of the Green Party, the member from Guelph, wants to give us this lecture in the Legislature on why we’re not prepared to work with him—I’m going to challenge him again to step up, to come across the aisle and actually bring support to what we are trying to do as Team Canada and ensure that we actually help both our American friends and cousins and allies and the great people of Ontario—particularly the Ontarians—and across our great country, to ensure we have a safe supply of energy and we are going to continue to always have the ability to move forward there.

It’s really interesting that many members of this House were almost like crickets on this debate. There was virtually not a single member of the independents, not a single member of the Liberals who stood to speak to this—very, very few. I don’t know if there were even two of the NDP, the official opposition, who spoke to this, to the original take-note debate.

Again, I find that it’s very interesting that the Leader of the Opposition, the member from Hamilton Centre, actually said that it wasn’t appropriate. It wasn’t appropriate for Ontario to be at the table to talk about line 5—something as critical as the secure and safe supply of energy resources, Madam Speaker. She had the audacity to tell us that we should not be at the table.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Shameful.

Hon. Bill Walker: That’s absolutely shameful, says my friend from Huron–Bruce.

Madam Speaker, at the end of the day, we need to ensure that we are here and getting—and I will agree on this point with the member from Guelph: that partisanship has no ability to be in this House for these types of issues. We need to ensure that we’re all standing in unanimous support of the people of Ontario, that we stand in unanimous support.

Interjection.

Hon. Bill Walker: He’s trying to yell out something to me now. I wish he had come earlier so we could have locked those hands, like he always talks about and says that he wants to do that.

I’m going to give him the opportunity now to retract what he said. He’s going to say that he stands in solidarity with the people of Ontario, that he stands behind those jobs. And I hope the members of the NDP, the Leader of the Opposition, will actually stand behind us and support the people of Ontario, the people of Quebec and the people of Alberta.

This whole country is going to suffer if line 5 gets shuttered in May without any backup, without alternative resources to replace that critical energy infrastructure that we have to have to power our businesses, to power our homes, to power our long-term-care facilities and our hospitals.

I would hope that the member from Guelph—and I’m really focused on him because I like him. I think he has the ability to come across and do the right thing here, and probably come across and have a chat with the member from Sarnia–Lambton, who has been an absolute champion on this issue and has actually gone out to things like the chambers of commerce, to all of the trade organizations.

I just want to remind all the members opposite: Those trades unions are all behind us on this. They’re with us, locked in arm, to say, “We care about the jobs of our families. We care about the future of our children and grandchildren.” So at the end of the day, again, I offer it to him and I offer it to every single member of the official opposition, the independents and Liberals to step up and say, “We’re with you, Ontario. We’re with you, Canada.”

We will fight this absolutely every step of the way, to ensure that something that isn’t a rhetorical thought process, that actually is someone who says, “We’re going to do this with no thought process toward all the critical impediments, all the critical damage they’re going to do, to ensure that we actually have a solid, safe supply of energy”—I just can’t get through my head why they wouldn’t be wanting to work with us, why they wouldn’t have come since last Thursday’s take-note debate and said, “Here’s what I’d like to do to step up and show you that I support the people of Ontario equally, as you do in your party.”

Again, this isn’t about politics on our side; this is about doing what’s right for the people of Ontario. This is doing what’s right for the people who actually had to pay a mortgage, who have to buy groceries, who are trying to put money away for their kids and, frankly, get through the COVID-19 pandemic. I can’t fathom those people that are sitting down in Sarnia and the other 23,000 jobs, worrying what happens in May. How are they going to get through not only COVID, but the rest of their history, without a job, without having the certainty and the ability to know that they’re taking care of their family and their loved ones?

I find it unconscionable that the people on the opposite side have not stepped up and said, “I’m with you, 100%.” I’m offering all of them an opportunity today to join in this motion and say, “Yes, we’re with you, Ontario. We’re with those families. We’re with those good-paying union trades jobs,” and say, “I’m with you 100%.” Because if not, Madam Speaker, what they’re saying is, “I’m not with you. I’m not with you to support your grandchildren and your children. I’m not with you to support health care.

I’m not with you to support good-paying jobs, the economy and getting out of COVID-19, the most horrific thing any of us have probably experienced in our lives”—so today I want to offer that opportunity.

It’s great to have this debate. It’s great to have legislation on this floor, to truly debate something as critical not just to Ontario, but to our whole country. This could shut down the automotive supply sector in the United States, which will have a crippling effect all over the place. It will have a crippling effect on our supply chains. It will have a crippling effect on the ability to run any of our businesses, if we don’t have a secure, steady supply of fuel and power.

So again, I’m really not certain what the opposition to this is or why they would stand so strongly, unless it’s just rhetorical and we want the 30-second headline in the paper with no detail. So again, I’m going to ask very directly to the member from Guelph: What is your alternative in May? What are you going to put on the table? I know you’re not in power—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I’m interrupting the member. I apologize for interrupting you when you were on a roll. All of your remarks will indeed, unfortunately, be directed to and through the Chair, not across the floor, not to the member. You can ask those questions through the Chair. Just a reminder to the Associate Minister of Energy. Please continue.

Hon. Bill Walker: My apologies. Madam Speaker, you do a fabulous job of keeping guys like me in line, and I truly appreciate it, because do you know what? We do get passionate when you’re talking about shutting down the people of Ontario and their livelihoods. So I get passionate. I fully apologize for my error; I don’t apologize for the passion.

So I will ask through you, Madam Speaker, to the member from Guelph: What is the alternative going to be in May, when you’re prepared to shut this down? What are you going to say to those 23,000 family members who, again, are going to be impacted with their jobs and with the reality of all of the businesses that are going to shut down, all of the things that aren’t going to happen as a result of this?

And, frankly, I know he has some passion for his American cousins. I think there’s some real long-standing history on that American side. I can’t fathom that he’s prepared to throw them off the dock either and say, “Sorry about your luck, but I’m going to get a good headline today, and I’m going stand up and say that we can do this in good conscience, without any thought process to what we do to back it up.”

Madam Speaker, I have another nine minutes of passion left in me, but I know at this point that I believe we’ve got other business to go to. I am going to withdraw, other than to say that I hope—through you, Madam Speaker, I’d like to ask every single person in this House: Are you prepared to stand with Ontarians? Are you prepared to be part of Team Canada and fight every single day for the reliance of line 5?

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

Interjections.

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

Mr. Calandra has moved the following amendment to the amendment to government notice of motion number 103, a resolution respecting pipelines.

The amendment to the amendment reads as follows:

“Delete everything after ‘House’ and replace with the following:

“‘the Legislative Assembly should recognize that natural resources are responsible for thousands of jobs in Ontario and call upon the federal and provincial governments to protect workers and fight against the closure of line 5, recognizing that pipelines are the safest way of transporting energy resources.’”

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All of those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote being required, it will be deferred until after question period today.

Vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Orders of the day?

Hon. Paul Calandra: No further business.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): There being no further business, this House stands in recess until 10:15.

The House recessed from 0951 to 1015.

Report, Financial Accountability Officer

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Before I invite the members to make their statements, I beg to inform the House that the following document has been tabled: A report entitled Housing and Homelessness Programs in Ontario, from the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario.

Members’ Statements

Consumer protection

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: In the few weeks I’ve served as the Ontario NDP’s critic for government services and consumer protection, I’ve heard countless stories about lives ruined because of Tarion’s neglect in protecting consumers.

Daniel Browne-Emery, whom we tragically lost on January 1 of this year, is one of them. When Dan purchased a new house in 2007, it came with a government-backed warranty, protection consumers should be able to trust and depend upon. Dan’s nightmare began when the house’s foundation leaked. Black mould became a constant enemy. Dan tried to get help again and again from Tarion, but he was ignored. With massive black mould patches, standing water in his basement and Tarion not fulfilling its mandate, Dan’s bank refused to renew his mortgage. He lost over $270,000 and ended up homeless.

Why was this consumer not protected? How could this happen in Ontario?

Only after possible public shaming did Tarion offer Dan a paltry sum, forcing him to sign a nondisclosure agreement to hide their neglect.

Dan’s story is far too common in Ontario, Speaker. I’m here to remind this government that it’s their own agency’s job, Tarion’s, to protect consumers like Dan, not work for big developers and builders. Consumers deserve authentic oversight and someone who is there for them on the worst days of their lives.

Although Dan can no longer raise his voice, I will continue to champion the rights of consumers so that Dan’s tragic story is never repeated again.

Rotary Club of Milton

Mr. Parm Gill: It’s an honour to rise today and recognize the Milton Rotary Club. As we all know, Rotary members are dedicated volunteers who provide humanitarian services in communities throughout Ontario and worldwide.

On Saturday, April 10, the Rotary Club in Milton and other local partners like Sustainable Milton will be hosting a virtual Milton youth summit. This is their first youth summit, and we would love to see this become an annual event going forward.

With the theme of this event being “Be Tomorrow’s Leaders Today,” this free program for youth aged 12 to 14 will offer leadership skills development and mentorship, as well as offer awareness of community service and environmental education. Those interested are strongly encouraged to sign up through the Milton Rotary website.

As a proud father of three, I know how important it is to support our youth. I thank all the Rotarians in Milton, and other local key partners, for their tremendous work in our community each and every day.

Affordable housing

Ms. Suze Morrison: I rise this morning to share a story of my constituent Mouloud and his family.

Fifteen years ago, Mouloud and his wife Roumeila moved into a one-bedroom apartment with the support of a rent subsidy. They were happy. The apartment that they were placed in met their needs, and they started their life together as a young couple.

But fast forward to today and they are still in that same one-bedroom apartment, only now they have three children between the ages of three and seven. Their eldest has ADHD and is truly struggling to have his needs met in this small apartment. The family was already struggling before COVID-19 hit, and obviously, as you can imagine, with the whole family now at home, the situation is becoming really unsustainable.

Mouloud has done everything he can to advocate for his family, but has been told that the wait-list to move to a larger unit is 12 years long.

Mouloud’s family needs a larger apartment to accommodate this young couple and their three children, and 12 years is far too long for them to wait. Their eldest child will be 19—a legal adult—by the time this underhoused family will be placed in an adequately sized unit. Mouloud and Roumeila have countless friends and neighbours who are in identical situations. We need investments in affordable housing, and we needed them 15 years ago. In what world is a 12-year wait for affordable housing appropriate?

I’m proud to stand with families like Mouloud’s and so many others in calling for investments that don’t leave families languishing in underhoused units for decades.

Murray Whetung

Mr. Dave Smith: On October 21, I introduced Bill 220, the Murray Whetung Community Service Award Act. We debated the bill at second reading on October 26, where it received unanimous support from all members present. The bill would create an award honouring Murray Whetung, a Second World War veteran from Curve Lake. The bill would also tell the story to future generations of how Canada mistreated many First Nation veterans, who served four years or more away from their communities and their families.

On the morning of February 26, Mr. Whetung quietly passed away. He was an inspiration to generations of people, not only in the community of Curve Lake but throughout Peterborough county. Although he was a quiet man, he has left a lasting legacy like no other person I’ve ever known. He always found the good in every situation and could always be seen with a smile.

I have to relay this one story because it makes me chuckle every time I think of it. During the court case that would eventually settle the Williams Treaty, Mr. Whetung spent an entire day testifying. Whenever he was asked a question about his deputation from 20 years earlier, he would go into a monologue about one of his well-known stories, never speaking directly to his deputation. Afterward, he was asked by a family member why he did that. His response was, “Our lawyer told me not to talk about it.”

The Crown attorney thought he was senile, when in reality he simply outwitted the crown.

Chi meegwetch, Mr. Whetung.

Small business

Ms. Sara Singh: Last week, I had the opportunity to attend the provincial advocacy issues forum hosted by the Brampton Board of Trade. We were able to connect with businesses across our city, as I have been able to do, and listen to their concerns. Many of those businesses raised serious concerns about the lack of supports from this provincial government to help them get through COVID-19, Speaker.

It wasn’t just at the provincial advocacy issues forum that we heard those concerns echoed. I met with Tracy, from Scented L’air, who creates essential oils in our city. She said she’s struggling to ensure that her main street business can continue to operate throughout this pandemic.

It’s not just Tracy. It’s also Sean from the Knowledge Bookstore, who said that while he had a bump in sales in the summer, now he’s seeing a lull in revenues and he’s not sure if he’s going to be able to sustain his business.

I also heard from Mansharan and Tejbir, who are operating in the taxi and limo industry. They have indicated that they don’t even qualify for the small business relief programs put on by this government.

Many businesses are saying that they’re not getting the support they need. And it’s not just their business that is suffering. These small business owners are the backbone of our local economy. They help contribute to our city. It’s not just their business that’s suffering; it’s actually their livelihoods.

As Tejbir indicates, he still has bills to pay, even if his business is not functioning. That’s brokerage fees, GTAA dues and licence fee renewals. Businesses in our community need this government to step up and actually provide them the direct support they need so that they don’t lose their livelihoods and their homes.

Developmental service workers / Fadi El Masry

Mr. John Fraser: I’d like to say a few words about developmental service workers here in Ontario. There’s a lot of talk about personal support workers during this pandemic. Developmental service workers across this province have been there in group homes and in the community, supporting people living with developmental disabilities—the most vulnerable among us.

I just want to say thank you on behalf of everyone in this Legislature and all Ontarians for the work that you’ve done to keep people safe—the people you serve, the people you care for—in this pandemic. We owe a debt to you, and I want to thank you very much. I also hope that the government will continue the pandemic pay beyond this year and make it permanent for developmental service workers in Ontario.

Speaker, I do want to say thank you and goodbye to a staff member who’s been with me actually longer than I’ve been a member. He worked for me in the constituency office when I worked for Dalton McGuinty. That’s Fadi El Masry. He’s leaving working with me after nine years. He did have a little hiatus for about a year, but he’s been a really big part of our office, a lot of support to me. He’s like a son to me, and he helped improve my Arabic, which is very important in Ottawa South.

So, Fadi, shukran.

Protection for workers

Mr. Rick Nicholls: As many of you know, I’m from the great riding of Chatham-Kent–Leamington, the greenhouse capital of Ontario, if not North America, where we grow the finest local produce, such as tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers, eggplant, mushrooms and the list goes on, so that Ontarians can enjoy this affordable, locally-grown delicious produce in stores across the province.

Now, in order that we can meet the demand for these delicious items, there are thousands of acres of greenhouses, which don’t run themselves. They require a large labour force. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, these growers find it very difficult to secure local help. So, with the help of the federal government, who has implemented programs to bring in temporary foreign workers, growing worker demands are being met. Ontario is looking at bringing in 22,000 workers this year. By the end of April, we will expect to have at least half of them here.

As you can imagine, keeping this many workers safe, especially during a pandemic, is a challenge. But today, I would like to acknowledge two of my colleagues, Minister McNaughton, who has ramped up the Ministry of Labour inspections, and Minister Hardeman, who has put many programs and procedures in place. Without the efforts of these two ministries and everyone else, we wouldn’t be able to ensure these foreign workers and the communities where they live are being cared for with food, shelter, clothing and being kept safe from the spread of COVID-19. Safety and meeting the growing demand for fresh local produce is critical.

Speaker, personally, I know how much this means to my communities, both from a health and economic perspective. Thank you, growers and workers, for all you continue to do during this unprecedented time of worker shortages and COVID-19.

COVID-19 immunization

Mr. Wayne Gates: I rise to address the most important issue in Niagara today: access to vaccines. We have not been spared the pain and tragedy that COVID-19 brings to our community. COVID took the lives of nearly 400 people in Niagara, a loved one in our community dying every 3.5 hours at its peak. However, this government diverted life-saving Moderna vaccines from Niagara. To this day, the government will not tell Niagara where those vaccines went.

Just last week, the health minister tried to convince us that Niagara received what it was promised, and the government House leader said, “At no time was Niagara shortchanged of any vaccines.” He followed that by accusing me, public health and front-line health care heroes of “spreading false allegations.”

Speaker, Niagara Health’s medical advisory committee, a group of local doctors, urged in an open letter to the Premier to provide Niagara with their fair share of vaccines. They called for fairness to protect the lives of people in Niagara. Our medical officer of health and that group of local doctors have confirmed that they were told they would receive 5,500 Moderna doses, but on January 5, it was diverted. Still to this day, they don’t know why, or where they went.

We have empty freezers ready for Moderna vaccines. This government may think we will stop asking questions or speaking up if they say we’re getting our fair share of vaccines, but it’s not accurate. We will not be silent.

I continue to stand with our public health medical experts seeking fairness and answers while I’m standing up for my community. Let’s be clear: No matter how this government tries to rewrite history, Niagara did not get its fair share of vaccines, and lives were lost—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to ask the member to withdraw.

Mr. Wayne Gates: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The next member’s statement.

Palliative care

Ms. Lindsey Park: I rise to update the House on the much-anticipated expansion of palliative care services for patients and families in Durham region at Oak Ridges Hospice in Port Perry.

Back in November 2019, I was extremely proud to join the Minister of Health in Port Perry to announce an expanded plan for the first hospice in Durham region, increasing the plan from five beds to an eight-bed hospice. At that time, we also announced an additional $600,000 in capital funding to support construction of the additional beds, bringing the capital investment up to $1.6 million.

Speaker, I have great news: The new 12,500-square-foot, eight-bed facility is finally ready to open this spring.

I want to acknowledge a few people and congratulate Brent Farr, who was recently named executive director, and Michelle Betlem, the new fund development and communications coordinator. For their long-standing contributions, I want to thank Bette Hodgins, the project manager of operations; Dr. Steve Russell, who will now be the first medical director; Dr. Stephen Gray, who will now be board chair; as well as board members Gail Guimond, Kevin Morgan and Dave Sidhu. The hospice will actually be named Morgan and Sidhu House in honour of these legacy donors.

Finally, I want to thank Anne Wright, the capital campaign chair, and the Minister of Health for her unwavering support.

Markdale Hospital

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’m pleased to rise and deliver this statement on behalf of my friend the Associate Minister of Energy and MPP for Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, who announced last Friday the construction of the new state-of-the-art hospital in his riding.

He says, “Mr. Speaker, as an advocate for the new Markdale Hospital since the day I was elected, I’m proud to share that this project is fully approved and construction is under way.

“The Ontario government is investing $53 million to build a modern, four-bed hospital with a 24/7 emergency department, one palliative care bed, and access to clinical laboratory and diagnostic imaging services.

“I thank the local community who has rallied behind this project for 20 long years, while raising over $7 million in its support.

“I thank the Grey Bruce Health Services and the foundation teams, past and present, for their leadership over the years.

“I also thank Mayor Paul McQueen, and councils, past and present, for their perseverance over the years!

“And finally, I thank my predecessor, Bill Murdoch, who himself advocated for years and, I believe, he had at least two health ministers from the previous government visit Markdale to help promote this project.

“It took two bills and two decades to get the Markdale Hospital project approved. But it was Premier Ford and Minister Elliott who delivered on their promise.

“This is the best news my constituents have been waiting for, and we are extremely excited for the future of health care in our region and look forward to celebrating with the community as soon as it’s safe to do so.”

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

COVID-19 fatalities

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I have a point of order. I seek unanimous consent for the House to observe a moment of silence to pay tribute to the 98 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 for the House to observe a moment’s silence to pay tribute to the 98 Ontarians who have succumbed to COVID-19 over the past week. Agreed? Agreed. I’ll ask the members to rise.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

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

Mr. Gurratan Singh: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Point of order.

Mr. Gurratan Singh: Thank you, Speaker. I ask for the unanimous consent of this House to bring forward a motion to call on the Conservative government to immediately implement paid sick days to protect workers in Brampton and in Ontario and to ensure that they don’t have to choose between going to work sick or paying the bills.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Brampton East is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to bring forward a motion requiring the government to implement paid sick days legislation to help protect workers in Brampton and across Ontario from COVID-19. Agreed? I heard a no.

It is now time for oral questions.

Question Period

COVID-19 immunization

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, we know that the AstraZeneca vaccine is arriving any moment now, and as far as we know, the Premier’s plan is to vaccinate healthy 60-year-olds before at-risk 70-year-olds. The clock is ticking on AstraZeneca, as we all know, because it has a restricted shelf life.

Does the government plan to vaccinate the most at-risk people in our province or not?

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

Hon. Christine Elliott: Yes, I can assure the leader of the official opposition that we do have a plan. The plan is available, for anyone who wishes to see it, at ontario.ca/covidvaccines. It sets out the three priorities that we have in terms of the phasing, I should say, of the rollout of the campaign.

First, of course, we wanted to make sure that our most vulnerable residents of long-term-care homes received at least the first dose of the vaccine—and we’re working on the second doses. Next, we are prioritizing in terms of age, starting with 80-years-olds and then working with other priority communities—people with disabilities and other health concerns.

The decision that we’ve received now from NACI indicating that we can delay the Pfizer and Moderna second shots for four months is truly a game-changer. And with AstraZeneca coming online next week, this is going to allow us to get more needles into more arms faster, which is what we need to do to provide everyone in Ontario with a layer of protection against COVID-19.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Still on vaccines: This morning, CTV broke that 1,500 vaccines have been wasted here in Ontario while people wait for a vaccination. That is the equivalent of six retirement homes.

We asked the government for a directive around preventing wastage of the vaccine, but the government refused to provide that directive.

How can it be that 1,500 vaccines have been wasted in our province?

Hon. Christine Elliott: In fact, we have an amazing group of people who are doing the vaccinations in the province of Ontario, across the entire province. They’re doing everything possible. We know now that we can get six doses of the Pfizer and every effort is being made to do that.

However, it’s also known that in any vaccination campaign, including in our flu vaccination campaign, there is going to be some degree of waste, as much as we’re working hard to prevent that there is no waste whatsoever. What we’re talking about is 0.1% waste out of 784,000 shots that have already been given. That means that 99.9% of the people are getting the shots they need. The 0.1% is a very, very, very small percentage of waste. This happens in any vaccine campaign, and it has already been provided for in our plans.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, vaccines are now beginning to arrive regularly, but the government doesn’t have a plan to make sure that the most at-risk populations, particularly our COVID-19 heroes, are getting their vaccinations quickly. They have no booking system in place. The vaccines are going to waste.

My question is, why does it always feel like we’re in a scramble—like this government is scrambling instead of having a well-thought-out and executed plan?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Premier to reply.

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: It’s amazing how the party of doom and gloom—“We have no vaccines.” We’re leading the country—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Hon. Doug Ford: —even if you combine every one. We have 784,000 people who have been vaccinated, and 268,000 have had the double dose. So I’m just not too sure where the Leader of the Opposition is coming from, but obviously there’s a little number mix-up that they have.

Again, we’ve vaccinated more than anyone in the entire country. We’re going to continue doing that. As I said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, let’s get more vaccines from the federal government. That’s where the blockage is. Once we get more vaccines, you’re going to see it ramped up. Oh, by the way, Mr. Speaker, we set another record across Canada: We vaccinated over 30,000 people yesterday.

COVID-19 immunization

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Premier. Yesterday, the Premier said it’s up to public health units to vaccinate folks in the most at-risk neighbourhoods. So my question is, why is the Premier abandoning our COVID heroes?

Hon. Doug Ford: Actually, there’s multiple people that are vaccinating out there. It’s the hospitals, it’s the PHUs, it’s the private sector and it’s all the pharmacies. There is going to be a pilot with 500 pharmacies, and we’re just going to build on that. There are 4,900 pharmacies within that group, with a lot of independent pharmacies. It’s all hands on deck, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I’ll repeat what I just said: We need vaccines from the federal government. We don’t need these dribs and drabs of 180,000 here and there. We need millions of vaccines. Once we have them, I can assure you we’re going to get them out the door. And by the way, the vaccines we just received—I had an update yesterday. We’re going to be out right across the province this weekend, so hopefully they’re going to ship more vaccines.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the science advisory table clearly has told the government that the best plan is to get those vaccines into the arms of our COVID heroes in the highest-risk neighbourhoods in our province. That would prevent almost 4,000 new cases of COVID-19 and it would save 168 lives. In fact, Dr. Michael Warner said this: He recommended “vaccinating higher-risk populations sooner which will reduce strain on hospitals, open up non-COVID care sooner and save more lives.”

Why, once again, is this Premier ignoring the expert advice?

Hon. Doug Ford: I’m just wondering, is the description of long-term care not “vulnerable”? Because we’ve basically immunized every single long-term-care patient and the front-line health care workers. We’re going to continue doing that, Mr. Speaker.

There is something called “parallel systems,” that you can actually vaccinate people with the AstraZeneca and you can vaccinate people with the Moderna and Pfizer. By all means, if the Leader of the Opposition wants to sit down and get a little schooling on that, I would be more than happy to do that for her.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, here’s the Premier’s plan: Healthy 60-year-olds are going to get the vaccine before at-risk 70-year-olds, and 50-year-old COVID heroes in high-risk neighbourhoods are waiting who knows how long.

My question is: This government is responsible for the distribution of vaccines in our province. Why are they not providing the public health units enough vaccines to ensure that the at-risk COVID heroes who live in those high-risk neighbourhoods get their vaccines soon?

Hon. Doug Ford: Why aren’t we getting the vaccines out? I just mentioned, Mr. Speaker, we don’t have the vaccines. But I’ll pass that message on to the PM when I speak to him, that we need more vaccines until we can take care of everyone, no matter if they live in Toronto—and our priority will always be the most vulnerable. In congregate living, we’re going to do that. We’re going to make sure we get the over-eighties-plus and we’re going to work our way down, but we’re also going to work on making sure we take care of people, the most vulnerable, within our society.

Long-term care

Ms. Sara Singh: My question is to the Premier. Ontarians heard this week that the Minister of Health didn’t have answers for the long-term-care commission, and she passed the buck over to the Premier, who refuses to appear before the commission to give families in this province the answers they need about the decisions that he made. Ontarians also heard that the long-term-care minister had her own worries about COVID-19 spreading in long-term-care homes, but she did nothing to put in place real substantive measures of precaution that would have protected seniors in long-term care.

The Premier said that there would have been an iron ring in long-term care, yet, Speaker, it’s clear that it was never built. Can the Premier help families and seniors understand why your government failed to build the iron ring in long-term care and protect vulnerable seniors in this province?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: I appreciate the question from the honourable member. We set out very, very quickly to ensure—even prior to the pandemic, to be honest. Look, we inherited, as I’ve said on a number of occasions, a long-term-care system that really was in crisis. That’s why we moved so quickly after taking over government. The Premier made a commitment to the people of the province of Ontario to build new long-term-care facilities right away. We did that. There was a staffing strategy that was being considered, Mr. Speaker. We’ve moved MZOs—which they’re against—to ensure that we could build out long-term-care homes very, very quickly.

It is no secret that we inherited a government that had only built 600 new long-term-care home beds. We moved very, very quickly during this pandemic to ensure that our long-term-care homes had all the resources they needed, including PPE, IPAC support and support from our hospitals.

There is more work to do. That’s why the commission is so important. That’s why we’ve moved on the recommendations, Mr. Speaker. I hope the members opposite will support us as we continue this important work.

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

Ms. Sara Singh: Speaker, the testimony from the Minister of Health and the Minister of Long-Term Care makes a few things clear: The buck really stops with the Premier, and he should be the one testifying and clarifying the response to Ontarians.

Today, we also learned from this testimony that the Ontario Hospital Association said that the Premier’s own chief of staff actually seems to be the one running the command table. Instead of leaving the operations up to the Chief Medical Officer of Health or other scientists, it seems that the Premier has apparently put his own political appointee in charge.

The Ontario Hospital Association told the commission that they would have preferred that an expert be in charge of leading the pandemic response. Why did the Premier put his own chief of staff in charge, and will he and his chief of staff be appearing before the commission to explain to Ontarians their actions?

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

Hon. Doug Ford: It’s ironic that the member is saying that. The chief of staff doesn’t even sit on the table, so I’m not too sure where she got that information.

But again, Mr. Speaker, from day one, no matter if it’s the Minister of Long-Term Care, the Minister of Health, all the ministers here, we’ve worked tirelessly every single day, around the clock, sleepless nights, making sure we turn around the long-term-care system that we inherited. Our government has approved $1.38 billion in surge funding for the sector. We have accelerated four projects to make sure Mississauga, Ajax and a couple in Toronto have brand-new long-term-care systems. We ended up hiring 8,200 PSWs. We’re the only jurisdiction in Canada that’s going to have four hours of care.

We’re improving the broken system we inherited, the system that was broken for 30 years.

Broadband infrastructure

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Infrastructure.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an impact on the daily lives of all Ontarians. Throughout the pandemic, I have heard from many constituents in Perth–Wellington about poor and unreliable broadband service. It has become abundantly clear that too many people in our province lack reliable Internet or, in some cases, don’t have any connectivity at all.

I know our government has stepped up and made historic investments to improve broadband and cellular connectivity for the people and businesses in our province, and I’m excited about the possibilities that will result from these additional investments our government is making. Yet despite the promise that comes from these investments, we often hear the Minister of Infrastructure say that this funding isn’t enough and that there is more work to do.

Would the minister please tell us exactly what it will take to close the digital divide?

Hon. Laurie Scott: I’d like to thank the member from Perth–Wellington for the question and for his representation to his constituents.

As he indicated, our government has taken decisive action to help bridge the digital divide. In fact, it was in the fall, four short months ago, that I had the pleasure of hosting the Premier and two of my cabinet colleagues in Minden, Ontario, to announce our government’s historic investments in broadband infrastructure. But as members of the House know, broadband is a federally regulated sector. Its agency, the CRTC, is responsible for establishing country-wide standards and rates for Internet and cellular connectivity.

Despite that, Mr. Speaker, our government is not waiting to take action to bridge that digital divide. While we continue to call on the federal government to do its part and properly fund broadband, we are making historic investments to improve and expand broadband and cellular connectivity to communities across the province because, as the member rightly points out, the pandemic has highlighted this need. Frankly, Ontario can’t wait for federal action; the digital divide is widening.

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

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Speaker, I received an email from Kim in Mount Forest, who shared her concerns about reliable broadband. Her email reads, “I’m sure you’ve received many emails in regards to this issue, but something just has to be done. I live in Mount Forest, Ontario, and I can have what can best be described as the world’s most horrible Internet.

“For example I was trying to download something from a website, and it took more than eight mins. My download speed is 0.54 megabits/second with an upload speed of 0.01 megabits/second, and if that weren’t enough, we’re paying $179 a month for this subpar service.

“It’s difficult with two of us trying to work from home and staying connected with family members has been a challenge. It’s very frustrating not being able to have this service when a lot of people rely on it.”

My question for the minister: When might people like Kim in Mount Forest be able to have reliable high-speed Internet connectivity?

Hon. Laurie Scott: I’d like to thank you for sharing Kim’s story with us. I want to say to Kim, I understand where you’re coming from. I live in a rural area and experience many of the same difficulties she does.

I understand that for many people across Ontario, there is no infrastructure project that is more important to them and to their local economies than broadband, and that’s why we have a plan. That’s why, last November, our government announced we are making historic investments to improve Internet connectivity to communities right across the province.

Our investments are just one of the steps we’re taking to help deliver broadband to more people across Ontario. While I’m proud that our government has stepped up with historic levels of funding, we know that it’s simply not enough to bring everyone in Ontario up to speed. That’s why, this afternoon, I will be introducing legislation in this House that, if passed, will help us bridge the digital divide.

I’ve said before that we will continue to do what we can to get Ontarians connected. While we continue to call on the federal government to give Ontario its fair share, I can say to the constituents in Ontario that we are going to close that digital divide.

Youth justice system

Ms. Suze Morrison: My question is for the Premier. This week, families of children in 26 youth justice centres, mainly in northern Ontario, learned that their facilities were being immediately closed. Without any notice, children—many of them Indigenous, some of them as young as 12—were put onto planes and buses in the middle of the night and moved out of their communities.

This government hid this decision from those families. Local officials were quoted as saying, “We weren’t allowed to tell them they were moving, we weren’t allowed to tell their families, we weren’t allowed to tell them where they were going.”

My question to the Premier is, why does this government care so little about these families? Why did they not think that they were worth telling that their children were being removed into another part of the province?

Interjections.

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

To respond, the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

Hon. Todd Smith: There are a number of different processes that we followed as we closed these youth justice facilities to make sure that the children were transferred seamlessly to another location in northern Ontario.

A focus on prevention and education programs has led to an 81% reduction of youth admitted to youth justice facilities in the province of Ontario. That’s good news. That means there are now 8,500 fewer kids in custody than there were in 2004-05.

As a result of these youth justice facilities being underutilized—and there were five of them that had zero kids in them; there were 13 that had one child in them last year. This is really, really important. It shows the success that we’re having in keeping families together and returning youths to the right track, where they become positive members of society.

The decision to close these facilities will end up saving $40 million annually each year, but at the same time, these children will be getting the services in those communities—

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

Ms. Suze Morrison: Back to the Premier: In response to the Premier’s decision to secretly remove children from their communities in the dead of night, Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler said, “Ontario should be ashamed,” and I agree.

What I just heard from the minister is that he has put a dollar amount, a bottom line, on the trauma that he is causing to Indigenous children in the province of Ontario.

Speaker, the provincial child and youth advocate also said, “The way in which these young people were treated like pieces of furniture, with no rights, with no sense that they’ve already been through trauma, without their families knowing where they’re going, to do that in that way is unconscionable.” This decision will have a devastating effect on these families.

Premier, in what world is it acceptable to ignore the history of child removal in the province of Ontario, to ignore the history of residential schools, to ignore the history of the Sixties Scoop and the Millennium Scoop and the continued removal of children through the justice system and through CAS? How do you ignore that and not stop and think about the trauma that you are causing these children? Did you not think about—

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

Interjections.

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

Again, the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services to respond.

Hon. Todd Smith: Mr. Speaker, there were 10 children who were moved across northwestern Ontario earlier this week, and there are eight facilities that remain open across northern Ontario, many of them providing the culturally appropriate type of services that are required.

In the example of Justice Derek Holder House in Sault Ste. Marie, it had a utilization rate of 2%. There were zero youth in that facility for the majority of the year. Another northern example: There were four youth justice facilities with zero kids for the majority of the year; there were five that had one youth. It just didn’t make sense to keep these facilities open.

These are all recommendations that came from an Auditor General’s report back in 2012, that required the modernization of the system to ensure that the kids were getting the services they need. But the bottom line: 8,500 fewer kids are in custody now and are getting service in the community, Mr. Speaker, and that’s good news.

COVID-19 immunization

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for the Premier. I was glad to hear the Premier say this morning that they were going to prioritize the most vulnerable in the vaccine rollout.

Adults with developmental disabilities, their families, the people who work for them are concerned about whether they’re going to get their vaccines. As we all know, many people living with developmental disabilities have comorbidities. They’re at a higher likelihood of hospitalization and death. There’s a lot of risk for them.

I know that the science table has put forward their recommendations to cabinet and that the minister and the Solicitor General have both said that that information is coming. It’s creating a lot of anxiety for these families. That recommendation came more than 10 days ago. They’re afraid that they’ll get forgotten again, because it’s happened throughout the history in this province. It’s something that, in this Legislature, we have to be very aware of.

Minister, when will you be able to provide the information to these families about where they are in priority for vaccinations for their children?

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

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you to the member for this question. It is a very important issue and one that we are paying attention to with the task force on immunization. It is something that we have built into our plan. We have one plan that is being delivered by 34 different public health units.

As we move into phase 2 of the plan, we are going to be focusing on two things, essentially: one is age and one is risk. We’ve already talked about age in detail: We’re starting with people who are over 80 and then moving down in five-year increments. But it’s also based on risk, and the risk comes from several areas. One area is going to be people who are living in congregate settings. That would account for some of the people that you’re speaking about: people with developmental disabilities who may be living in group homes.

It also will be based on their health risks and their personal situation. That will account for many of the people who are very vulnerable, who do have developmental services issues or physical issues, health issues that require them to be moved up further in the list. This information will—

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

Mr. John Fraser: Thank you, I appreciate the answer, but I can’t underscore the level of anxiety with families.

As you know, a 30-year-old with Down’s syndrome might be like a 50-year-old who doesn’t have Down’s syndrome, and they may have comorbidities that complicate that. Dealing with them specifically, as opposed to in a general sense of that population, like we’re dealing with the populations here, I think is really important to do. Because if we try to pick them off—they have a comorbidity or they’re this old or they live in this setting—I don’t think it’s going to work.

I raised this when we had the one brief that we had about vaccines. I thought I was heard, but I haven’t seen confirmation of that. I think the approach that the government needs to take—and I don’t know if that’s what the advice is—is we need to look at them as a group, because once we try to pick them off specifically on things, it’s going to create some problems for families and we’re going to miss people.

I’d ask the minister again to—

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

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you. This is a group of people that I know has been lost and forgotten in the past. I recall several years ago working on the Select Committee on Developmental Services. This is something that is, I think, very important to both of us personally, and this is a group that we do not intend to dismiss.

We intend to make sure that they do receive that level of priority, because you’re right, they often don’t reach the same ages as other people in terms of their length of life. I know that people are very anxious about knowing where they are on the list, and we’re very anxious to provide them with that certainty. That will be coming imminently.

But I would also say that the information we received from NACI just last night about the fact that we can delay the intervals between the Pfizer and Moderna doses by four months is a game-changer for us in terms of being able to proceed faster with immunizations and have more needles in more arms more quickly. We intend to do just that. As soon as we receive them, they’re going to be going into arms as quickly as possible.

Pipelines

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Last week, I was proud to join colleagues on this side of the Legislature in speaking up for the hard-working people of Sarnia–Lambton and the tens of thousands of people across Ontario who would suffer because of the Michigan governor’s decision to shut down the line 5 pipeline. However, it was sad to see only two members opposite take

part in this important take-note debate.

Could the Associate Minister of Energy please tell this House why it’s so important that this House stand united in the fight to ensure the continued safe operation of line 5?

Hon. Bill Walker: Thank you to my friend the member from Perth–Wellington for this important question and all of his great work.

As the member mentioned, last week, we had an excellent take-note debate in this Legislature on line 5. We heard from colleagues from across the province who shared the grim realities that the people of our province will face if this ill-considered decision stands. We heard quotes from some of the people and businesses in southern Ontario who would lose their livelihoods as a result of the line 5 shutdown.

Earlier that day, I invited opposition colleagues to join us in speaking up for these hard-working Ontarians, including many unionized workers. Unfortunately, I was sad to see that only two members, one from the official opposition and one from the independents, rose to speak to this important issue.

Later today, this Legislature will have an opportunity to demonstrate its support for Ontario jobs, our province’s energy sector and, most importantly, the people we represent. I sincerely hope that the opposition and all members will join us in supporting the government’s motion on line 5.

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

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Again to the minister—and I want that thank him for that answer—I, too, hope that the opposition will take the opportunity to stand with us in the fight to prevent line 5 from shutting down.

Last week, the leader of the official opposition—and this is quite sad, Speaker—said, “There’s no role, really, for the provincial government” on this issue, and, “This is a federal matter.”

Can the associate minister please tell us how the provincial government is playing an important role in raising awareness of this issue and why this advocacy is so important?

Hon. Bill Walker: Thanks again to the member from Perth–Wellington for that question. Unlike what the leader of the official opposition says, there is absolutely a role for the provincial government in standing up for the hard-working people of Ontario, for our businesses, for our energy sector and our families.

This Premier has been leading that charge. As I mentioned last week, our government continues to engage with our federal partners, with legislators in Michigan with local leaders and mayors, with chambers of commerce, industry leaders and many, many others. Colleagues on this side of the House are taking a Team Canada approach, are calling on our federal MPs to help advocate for this issue and are helping them understand the potential negative impacts on our constituents. We held an important take-note debate and called on the opposition to join us in this effort.

We count on our federal government to help protect Ontario jobs and our province’s energy security. We hope that by working together with the support of all people in this House, we will find a way and a solution to achieve these goals and support the great people of Ontario.

Small business

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is for the Premier. Darryl owns the Stage Diner, a small business in my riding. He had invested his savings into opening the Stage Diner last spring. Then the pandemic hit. Darryl applied for the Ontario Small Business Support Grant, but he has been denied, because his new diner business couldn’t demonstrate a loss in revenue and there’s no consideration to his previous business.

Small businesses in my riding have done the right thing throughout the pandemic. They have scaled back their operations and followed provincial public health rules. Why has the government failed Darryl and the many other small businesses that still can’t access this support?

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

Mr. Stan Cho: Thank you to the member for bringing up Darryl’s situation. I did receive a letter from you yesterday. We are examining this particular case and going through the details now.

But the reality of this grant program is that it has reached the hands of many small businesses throughout this province. In fact, the latest statistics we see are that almost 80,000 small businesses have received $1.1 billion in hand, and the average wait time to receive those monies is 12 days. This is an incredible support system for small businesses. Of course, there are the case files which are more complex, or perhaps errors are made. That’s why we encourage members opposite, if you have businesses that are unable to access those supports, to feel free to contact us, and we will look into those details for you.

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

Miss Monique Taylor: If Darryl doesn’t get access to the Ontario Small Business Support Grant, he will have to shut his doors. He is already scaling back his hours. He needs the government to reconsider his application, and he’s not the only business that is reaching out for help.

Yesterday, my office heard from two hair salon owners who applied for the grant months ago and have yet to hear back from them, so these are applications sitting on the shelf that nobody has responded to. These businesses have either been closed or at a reduced capacity for almost a year. The ones that have survived are barely holding on.

Can the Premier ensure that every small business that needs the Ontario Small Business Support Grant will receive it?

Mr. Stan Cho: As we look into Darryl’s case, we’re happy to look into the hair salons’ cases as well.

But we are helping small businesses outside of the small business grant program as well. Whether that is help with PPE grants; whether that is help with broadband infrastructure investments; whether that is help in permanently reducing property taxes for up to 30%; whether that is help for eliminating the tax on jobs, the EHT, for the smallest of small businesses in this province, there’s a long list of support measures from the very beginning of this pandemic.

What do they have in common? Two things, Speaker:

(1) We’re hearing from small businesses that this is helping them weather this storm that is COVID-19; and (2) the opposition has voted against every single one of those important measures thus far. I hope that changes moving forward, as we table our next budget later this month.

Homelessness

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: My question is to the Premier. Today, the FAO released its report on housing and homelessness programs in Ontario. The FAO concludes that the province will likely not reach the 2025 goal of ending chronic homelessness.

Nobody should go without a roof over their head or a warm place to keep them safe, especially during the times of COVID. Unfortunately, there’s a significant gap between such ideals and the harsh reality faced by too many Ontarians today. The FAO estimates that 16,000 Ontarians are homeless on any given night, of which between 40% and 60% are experiencing chronic homelessness—but we really don’t know, because this government stopped the count in 2018. Over the past year, the pandemic has put 355,000 Ontarians out of work, the largest decline on record. The eviction moratoriums have expired or are just about to expire at the end of this month.

Will this government recommit to reaching their goal of ending homelessness by 2025 and providing the funding to do it? And will you restart the count, so we know how many people are sleeping on our streets in Ontario?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Steve Clark: First of all, I want to thank the Financial Accountability Officer for his work. Our government takes this file very seriously. After years of inaction—Speaker, through you to this member and her previous government—we were saddled with a situation where we had to act. The previous government had a lot of platitudes, but they did not have a plan. Since being elected in June of 2018, we have made this a top priority for our government.

Speaker, I haven’t had the chance to ask, through you to this member, if she will join us. However, it’s been clear under the National Housing Strategy that we are being shortchanged by the federal government by some $490 million. I’ve written to the federal minister about that issue. I know Ontario’s 444 municipalities support me on that ask and I would like to make sure, through you, Speaker, that this member supports us in asking for Ontario’s fair share.

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

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: Housing advocates expect the province to play its role in leadership when it comes to housing and homelessness in this province, and there is much work for you to do.

From 2019-20 to 2027-28, annual spending on the province’s housing programs will average $696 million. This is significantly lower than the average annual spending between 2014-15 and 2018-19, at $856 million. The investments are going in the wrong direction, Speaker. Only half of the 55,300 additional households that will receive support under the province’s housing program in 2027-28 are expected to be removed from the core housing need. The FAO estimates that by 2025 there will be still an estimated 159,800 “high housing need households”—those who are paying more than 50% of income on housing.

Speaker, will the minister reverse his cuts to housing programs and restore the funding to at least 2019 levels—

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

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Steve Clark: Through you to the honourable member: She needs to get her numbers straight. It was clear in the Financial Accountability Officer’s report that it acknowledged that some of the federal programs—the cost-shared programs with the province—were decreasing over time where other new programs were starting, and then the trends would then increase upwardly.

I want to go back to a statement that the member made regarding the homelessness count. The Liberals made a commitment to end homelessness by 2025. The one thing they forgot: They didn’t have a plan to do that. This year, we will be implementing a by-name list across the province, which is more effective than the previous haphazard methods that the previous government put forward. We are going to move forward with the by-name count this year. But don’t take my word for it: Contact the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness. They have worked with many of Ontario’s municipalities—many municipalities of members opposite—and realized that the by-name list is the only way—

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

Birth certificates

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: My next question is to the Minister of Government and Consumer Services. The birth of a new baby is one of the biggest milestones in a parent’s life. Among all the new challenges that new parents face, they also are required out to fill out a flurry of documents. In that process, it is not uncommon for a spelling or auto-correct mistake to occur, resulting in the wrong name registered on a newborn’s birth certificate.

In 2018-19, the Ombudsman’s annual report highlighted this concern, and it is my understanding that the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services has acted to make the process for correcting those errors easier.

Can the Minister of Government and Consumer Services explain how recent regulatory changes are making it simpler and more affordable to correct an error in the name of their newborn child on a birth registration?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I’d like to thank the member from Perth–Wellington for his question. I know that as proud grandparents, he and his wife, Jane, celebrate the milestone when a new baby enters the Pettapiece family as well.

I’m pleased to share with everyone that we have taken action. Because when that bundle of joy arrives, parents are excited. They go to register the birth of their newborn on their phones and their tablets, and sometimes auto-correct can make small errors. That unintended consequence can be costly and become a bigger problem.

For years, a strict legislative requirement has made it onerous for parents to correct minor errors. For example, they have been required to submit both a statutory declaration and additional evidence if certain criteria are met. To compound this issue, to correct these minor errors parents have had to spend $90. So I’m pleased to share with this House that I recently signed regulations to make it easier to correct an error on a vital event registration like a birth certificate.

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

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Again to the minister: It’s great to hear that the government is making life simpler for new parents at one of the most joyful and hectic times of their lives. This change is yet another step in making government services more accessible for Ontarians.

Speaker, ensuring that Ontarians are able to continue to access critical government services during the pandemic is of utmost importance. This includes, of course, the 5-in-1 Newborn Bundle. Can the Minister of Government and Consumer Services explain the steps her ministry is taking to improve the bundle for new parents and ensure that Ontarians continue to access such critical services from ServiceOntario?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Absolutely. I’d be pleased to share with everyone in the House today and people watching at home that the 5-in-1 Newborn Bundle is one of 40 services available online through serviceontario.ca. From the comfort of your own home, the bundle allows new parents to apply for a birth certificate, a social insurance number, Canada child benefits, including the Ontario Child Benefit and education savings referral service.

Speaker, my ministry has recently made updates to the bundle to ensure that when parents are completing their child’s birth registration, they will see their child’s proposed legal name multiple times and are able to make corrections along the way when they’re certifying the name and the birth of their baby. This is another safeguard that will streamline the process of getting documents for newborns. This bundle is one of the many easy-to-use online ServiceOntario services that are available 24/7. Users can print proof of completion and confirmation of when the products will be mailed directly to them.

We are embracing the digital age and making—

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

Affordable housing

Ms. Jessica Bell: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Today, the Financial Accountability Officer reported that Ontario’s housing crisis will continue to get worse. Between 2011 and 2018, under the previous Liberal government, the number of families in core housing need grew by nearly 20%. The FAO says this number will keep growing to more than 815,000 families, which is an increase of more than 80,000 people over the next eight years. Despite this, this government plans to reduce annual spending on housing programs by an average of $160 million a year.

Minister, we are in the middle of an affordable housing crisis. Why is this government cutting annual spending to affordable housing?

Hon. Steve Clark: I want to thank the Financial Accountability Officer for his report. I want to congratulate the member opposite on being the new housing critic for the official opposition. I was actually quite encouraged by her opening comments about the fact that Ontario’s core housing need is going up. That’s exactly why we’ve called on the federal government to give us our fair share of the National Housing Strategy dollars, based on our core housing need.

If we’re going to use our core housing need as the metric that I believe the member opposite and I both want to use, then it will be imperative that members from all sides of this House support our call for an additional $490 million from the federal government.

But I want to remind the member that, over the next three years, the FAO projects that the province’s base homelessness program spending will continue to grow, as it has since we’ve taken office. But, again, Speaker, there were some federal-provincial cost share programs that—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. The supplementary question. The member for Beaches–East York.

Ms. Rima Berns-McGown: Ontario was in homelessness emergency before the pandemic. Now, in the middle of the worst social and economic crisis since the Depression, which has especially hit racialized, immigrant and disabled Ontarians and pushed so many into housing precarity or hidden homelessness, the FAO estimates that the government’s spending on housing programs and its spending on base homelessness programs is actually decreasing, from a gross rate of 8% per year over the past seven years to only 3.4% going forward.

Ontario set a goal of ending homelessness by 2025, but the FAO says the government will not meet this goal. Its Poverty Reduction Strategy doesn’t even mention or commit any additional funding to homelessness or address its commitment to ending homelessness—all of this in the middle of a pandemic that sees so many on the verge of eviction.

Why won’t the Premier and the government recognize the homelessness emergency we’re in and act to end it?

Hon. Steve Clark: We are acting to end it. We inherited a system that was largely ignored by the previous government for 15 years. We’ve decided—listening to experts, the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness—that we will move away from the patchwork of programs that the previous government moved forward on, and we are going to start a by-name list this year. That type of data will be imperative for our government to move forward to end homelessness.

Again, Speaker, I want to remind this member, as I have done almost every time she has asked me a question, we’ve committed $1.5 billion to help sustain, repair and grow Ontario’s community housing system. And in the middle of the pandemic, our government has committed an additional $510 million—over half a billion dollars—in additional funds to help our municipal partners join with us and the federal government to help end homelessness. We’ve made that commitment. We will continue with that commitment, and we will ask the members opposite to join us and work with us.

Small business

Mr. Roman Baber: My question is to the Premier. One of the greatest catastrophes resulting from the Doug Ford lockdown is the toll on small business. The Premier is quick to stand up for business practices at Walmart. He boasts about talking to the CEO and learning about Walmart’s supply chains. But despite claiming to stand up for the little guy, he is completely tone deaf to the reality of small business.

What’s more illogical is that it’s clear that small business is not a cause for concern. I refer the Premier to the last published weekly epidemiology report from the Public Health Agency of Canada. Table 6 at page 12 lists cases and deaths by outbreak settings. It reveals that only three deaths—three deaths—are attributable to outbreaks in food, drinks, retail and personal care settings in Canada. Compare that to 12,000 deaths in long-term care and 734 deaths in health care.

My question for the Premier: How does he justify the annihilation of small business and the ruining of millions of lives when they are not a cause for COVID concern?

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

Mr. Stan Cho: Thank you to the member for highlighting the importance of supporting small businesses. That’s exactly what this government has done from the beginning of the pandemic.

Of course, the number one priority is the health and safety of the people we serve. However, understanding that small businesses are going through a very difficult time, we’ve introduced a series of measures for the smallest of small businesses, whether that was a PPE grant for $60 million or the Digital Main Street program to help small businesses retool for the new reality under COVID-19; whether that was a tax cut in terms of property tax, saving small businesses up to 30%. That’s a permanent measure, Speaker, as well as eliminating the EHT for those small businesses with a payroll up to a million dollars annually. That is also a permanent change.

The member must have seen merit in it because he has voted in favour of every single one of those measures I have just mentioned to support small businesses. I hope the member continues to support small businesses when we table our budget later this month.

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

Mr. Roman Baber: Speaker, no response from the member from Willowdale: Why target small business when it isn’t the problem? Whatever peanuts this government is offering, whatever program these Conservatives boast about does not come close to saving these families and their employees.

I’m holding yesterday’s letter to the Premier from Regan Irvine, owner of the Irv Gastro Pub, a few blocks away from here. Regan writes, in part: “Over the last year, my mother and I have depleted our life savings to try and keep the restaurant afloat. We have cashed in RRSPs, drained savings accounts, maxed out credit cards and maxed our lines of credit because the government programs simply aren’t enough.

“I don’t believe you truly understand the hardships, mental health, stress and daily challenges we face. The growth rate of mental illness, suicide, divorce, domestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse are never at the forefront. Your half-ass lockdowns are causing people to lose everything while all of you are still”—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to ask the member to withdraw.

Mr. Roman Baber: I withdraw the quote from the letter.

“Until any of you experience the financial setbacks and struggles that us small business owners have suffered, you will ... never know the impact of your decisions.”

Mr. Stan Cho: I was 12 years old when I walked to the bank with my dad when he had to second-mortgage our house to make payroll, Speaker, to keep the doors open, to pay for the livelihoods that put food on the tables of his employees. I know how difficult it is for small businesses, even during the best of times. That is why—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I apologize. The member for York Centre will come to order and the member for Cambridge will come to order and allow the member for Willowdale to respond.

Mr. Stan Cho: That is why this government, from the beginning, has outlined a series of supports, blanketed measures, in conjunction with all levels of government to make sure these small businesses can weather the storm.

It’s unfortunate that that member refers to all of these programs, a blanketed measure, as “peanuts,” because the thousands of business that we are speaking to are saying this is helping them during this difficult time. Nobody asked for this globally uncertain situation to come upon us, but this government will stay in step with small businesses, support them until COVID-19 is but a distant memory.

COVID-19 response

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: My question is to the Premier. Two weeks ago, a memo was sent by the Minister of Education to Windsor-Essex school boards, outlining asymptomatic targeted testing in our schools. The memo stated that 5% of elementary and secondary schools and 2% of the student population within the Greater Essex County District School Board would be tested each week, beginning Monday, February 22. Yet here we are, two weeks later, without any concrete plan to roll out testing and no testing being done in our Windsor-Essex schools—not a one.

Why hasn’t the Conservative government prioritized and begun asymptomatic testing in Windsor-Essex schools to ensure that every student and education worker is safe?

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

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. I can assure the member that in this government, we have been providing asymptomatic and symptomatic testing in the province well before students returned to school this year. In fact, in Windsor, in the member’s community, we actually expanded it. Asymptomatic testing was provided to the Begley school when an outbreak occurred, well before the expansion province-wide. That capacity existed before the Ministry of Education got into the game of providing testing. Because of the Minister of Health, to her credit, 17,000 young people last week alone were tested in this province.

We lead the nation in testing in every measurement. That underscores one truth: We will make it accessible, convenient and local, which is why, in our capacity as the Ministry of Education, we have provided capacity to every public health unit, every school board up to 50,000. We’re encouraging families to continue to get tested and use that capacity to keep our schools safe and our staff safe in this province.

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

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: The Minister of Education is the master of illusion. Maybe Penn and Teller will take him on tour with them. I have a copy of the letter from the Minister of Education. I’d love to send it over so he could reacquaint himself with what he put in it.

In fact, this Conservative government has had a year to properly implement a safe school environment that would protect our students and education workers from COVID-19. Despite the calls from experts to ensure smaller, safer class sizes and COVID testing in schools, time and time again, this Conservative government chooses to not invest in our children or education workers.

We are a year into the pandemic. There’s no reasonable excuse for this dangerous lack of action. When will the Premier and his Conservative government stop delaying the public health measures that will ensure the safety of our students, education workers and, by extension, our entire community in Windsor-Essex, and actually implement broad asymptomatic testing in schools?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: I think what I’m hearing from the member opposite is she would impose a requirement on teachers, on students and on families for testing, and that actually is quite alarming. In the province of Ontario, we believe in ensuring it remains voluntary, the choice of parents. We think they’re well-positioned to make that decision for their child. What we can do is make sure it’s less invasive—which we have, through saliva-based testing. What we can do is make sure it’s in every single school board in the province of Ontario, hitting a 5% target on a weekly basis. We are doing that in partnership with public health units.

The fact is, contrary to the continued efforts—for a year, as the member said—of trying to create fear in the hearts and minds of parents in Ontario, 99.46% of schools remain open; 85% of schools have no active case at all. Now, that can change. We have to remain on guard. We have keep our guard up and our vigilance up, which is why we’ve enhanced the screening protocol. It’s why we’ve mandated masking down to grade 1. We’ve improved the quality—the three-ply mask. It’s why this government has continued to invest to keep our schools safe.

COVID-19 response

Mrs. Belinda C. Karahalios: My question is for the Premier. We are two weeks shy of a year since this Premier and government have imposed arbitrary government orders. I provide examples of those in government breaking their own emergency orders over the last 12 months: the Premier visiting his cottage; visiting a mayor to give “happy birthday” greetings; attending a wedding, seemingly without masks being worn; the then-finance minister going on a sunny vacation; the parliamentary assistant for education not wearing a mask in a large gathering.

Can the Premier let us know what fines, if any, were applied in any of these examples?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: We did bring in a number of measures to keep the people of the province of Ontario safe. I know the members opposite, both the member for, I believe, York Centre and the member for Cambridge, were enthusiastic supporters, voting for all of those measures. I do congratulate the member for Cambridge. She did stand on a point of privilege and she voted against a motion that she did not feel was appropriate, unlike the member for York Centre, who enthusiastically voted time and time again for all of those measures.

Look, the measures that we put in place have helped ensure that the province is safe. I can appreciate that the member opposite is not favourable to some of these. That is her right. It’s her job to stand up for the people of her riding. Ultimately, the people in her riding will pass judgment on the decisions that she’s made.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): York Centre, come to order.

Hon. Paul Calandra: We’re quite proud of what we have done and what we have accomplished together.

There is more work to do, Mr. Speaker, and we’ll get on with that job.

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

Mrs. Belinda C. Karahalios: It appears that no fines were applied in any of these instances of government members deliberately breaking their own emergency orders. Why, then, was it appropriate for the government to go after $46,000 in legal fees, plus almost $40,000 in fines, from the Trinity Bible Chapel of Waterloo region—all because its congregants deemed it essential and an obligation to congregate for prayer? Surely the government didn’t need the money after finding over $5 million in taxpayer money to fund the Ontario PC Party, as proposed in its most recent legislation, Bill 254.

Hon. Paul Calandra: The honourable member, of course, will know that part of that bill is a continuation of what this government has done in helping independent members find their voice in this place, which includes allowing independent members to raise funds as well. We’re quite proud of the work that we’ve done to help independent members find their voice. We have provided them additional questions in this House for question period. We’ve guaranteed them seats on committees. We’ve given them an expanded opportunity to respond to bills and legislation before this House.

So I’m actually very proud of what we have done to democratize this place, to allow the independent members to speak. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, the measures that we have brought in to protect the people of the province of Ontario are very important and are what have helped us keep the rate of infection to the lowest, almost, in North America. I’m quite proud of those. Like the member opposite, I will be judged by those decisions at the next election, and I’m quite confident that—

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

The next question.

COVID-19 immunization

Mr. Gurratan Singh: How is it possible that in a province as critical as Ontario in the fight against COVID-19, this Conservative government has managed the vaccine rollout so poorly?

As of today, Ontario ranks seventh in per capita vaccinations amongst Canadian provinces. That means we are behind Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and BC. When you add in the territories, we’re 10th in per capita vaccinations in Canada.

We are so close to the light at the end of the tunnel for this COVID-19 pandemic. Why and how, at this critical moment, has the Conservative government prepared so poorly for the rollout of vaccines?

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

Hon. Christine Elliott: Well, in fact, the reality of the situation is we have already administered over 784,000 vaccines in a very short period of time with an amazing group of people across the province. We have one plan, but it’s being delivered by 34 different public health units. Many of them are already well into vaccinating people—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Hon. Christine Elliott: —who are over 80 years of age. The plan is rolling forward as we have planned, but the reality is that we need more vaccines. We can triple, quadruple—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Hon. Christine Elliott: —the number of people who are receiving vaccines, but we need to receive the vaccines. We expect that the Pfizer and Moderna will—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I apologize to the Minister of Health. I have to ask the member for Essex, the member for Hamilton Mountain and the government House leader to come to order.

Supplementary question?

Mr. Gurratan Singh: Back to the Premier: Brampton is a city full of essential workers who don’t have the luxury to work from home. They work in factories, in trucking and other essential services that move our economy. They risk their lives every single day so others can work from home. It breaks my heart to know that every single morning, there are workers in Brampton and in Ontario who wake up and force themselves to go to work sick because they cannot afford to lose a day of pay and lose the funds they’ll need to put groceries on the t