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

April 6, 2022

42nd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2022-Apr-06 vol. A (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 6 April 2022 Mercredi 6 avril 2022

Orders of the Day

Working for Workers Act, 2022 / Loi de 2022 visant à oeuvrer pour les travailleurs

Report, Financial Accountability Officer

Members’ Statements

Social assistance

Jeannine Mohns

Small business

Liberty for Youth

Supportive housing / Logement en milieu de soutien

Cost of living

Small business

Small business

Tartan Day

Introduction of Visitors

Question Period

Cost of living

Health care funding

Birth alerts

Highway tolls

Highway tolls

Employment standards

Health care funding

Taxation

Northern Ontario development / Développement du nord de l’Ontario

Road safety

Government appointments

Discrimination

Land use planning

Land use planning

Notice of dissatisfaction

Scottish Heritage Day

Mary Fraser

Bill Murdoch

Reports by Committees

Select Committee on Emergency Management Oversight

Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills

Standing Committee on General Government

Petitions

Bait management

Environmental protection

Orders of the Day

Working for Workers Act, 2022 / Loi de 2022 visant à oeuvrer pour les travailleurs

Tax Relief at the Pumps Act, 2022 / Loi de 2022 sur l’allègement de la taxe à la pompe

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Working for Workers Act, 2022 / Loi de 2022 visant à oeuvrer pour les travailleurs

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 5, 2022, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 88,

An Act to enact the Digital Platform Workers’ Rights Act, 2022 and to amend various Acts / Projet de loi 88, Loi édictant la Loi de 2022 sur les droits des travailleurs de plateformes numériques et modifiant diverses lois.

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

Mr. Will Bouma: Good morning, Speaker, colleagues. On this Tartan Day, it’s an honour to rise and be able to speak on behalf of workers in the province of Ontario.

If there is one thing I’ve learned over the years, it’s that we are no better than the people who work for us. When I was an optometrist working for an ophthalmologist and we would be seeing 160 patients a day and I would have all of a minute and 40 seconds to see a patient, when I was working in Michigan, in Grand Rapids, all the way to present day, when I have dedicated staff at the optometry clinic—I continue to see patients and get them ready.

And I can say as an optometrist, for sure, that in the brief amount of time I have to see patients, the impression that is left about the care that people receive is brought by the people who work for us. It’s the exact same in my constituency office: When I think about the people who work there on behalf of constituents—they take the phone calls; they deal with the complaints and the angry constituents. A lot of that filters up to me, and yet, they are the front line on those.

So we have a duty in the province of Ontario to work for workers. That’s why, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak in favour of the Working for Workers Act, a bill, if passed, that is pro-worker legislation designed to increase economic competitiveness and support Ontario businesses in four pillars:

(1) Labour mobility: We need to ensure regulated workers coming to Ontario from other provinces receive registration decisions within 30 business days. This bill also takes steps towards Ontario’s full participation in the Red Seal program.

(2) Critical leaves from work: Ontario will match military reservist job-protected leave to the federal leave.

(3) Future of work: This bill, if passed, will provide core rights for certain digital platform workers. This bill will also expressly provide that the Employment Standards Act, 2000—the ESA—does not apply to certain highly paid knowledge workers if they meet established criteria and will require notification by employers with 25-plus employees of electronic monitoring of employees.

And finally, (4), workplace protections: This bill, if passed, will strengthen fines in the Occupational Health and Safety Act and require naloxone kits in workplaces where there is a risk of a worker opioid overdose.

It’s difficult for a lot of us to understand the world in which we live right now, Mr. Speaker, where opioid overdoses are so common. But I can remember doing the training with the fire department, where I served, in the county of Brant so that we could safely administer naloxone. This is critical and very, very important.

Ontario is embracing the future of work and rebalancing the scales, advancing proposals that will, if passed, help improve working conditions for Ontario workers.

In my home riding of Brantford–Brant, I speak to many employers that are facing challenges with worker recruiting, retention and cross-training—and that is across the board, from the smallest family-run business to the largest enterprise-level manufacturers. That being said, responding to the historic disruption to the labour market caused by COVID-19, the government has and will continue to take action with a competitive and pro-worker economic recovery approach and implementing first-of-their-kind changes to make Ontario a top place for workers.

We are building on the success of the Working for Workers Act, and this proposed legislation will, if passed, help further to support, protect and attract workers and make Ontario more competitive, helping address provincial labour shortages. Through these proposed changes, we are taking action to ensure that Ontario is the absolute best place to live, work, play and raise a family.

A crucial part of this proposed bill will ensure workers in regulated occupations from other provinces receive decisions on recognizing their credentials within 30 business days. So, Speaker, what does this proposed change address? Uncertainty and delay in registration times can be a deterrent for those already practising in other provinces and territories. Ensuring a 30-business-day registration time frame for these individuals would help transition applicants into the workforce more quickly. This is an important change for our overall government commitment to reducing red tape and regulatory burdens for workers, as well as addressing labour shortages in a timely manner.

The proposed changes would demonstrate that Ontario remains the most ambitious and effective leader in creating an optimal provincial mobility environment in Canada. Also, if passed, Ontario will name all Red Seal trades and transfer training, certification and regulation of fuels-related occupations to the Building Opportunities in the Skilled Trades Act, 2021, or BOSTA. Oversight for training and certification for these occupations will be transferred from the Technical Standards and Safety Authority, or the TSSA, to Skilled Trades Ontario. This initiative was announced publicly on February 25, 2022.

Furthermore, three of the 55 trades in the interprovincial Red Seal program are not currently recognized in Ontario. By maximizing Ontario’s participation in the Red Seal program, this will further support labour mobility.

Speaker, this bill will, if passed, provide job-protected leave for military reservists. This proposed legislation would amend the ESA to broaden the reasons for taking reservist leave to include military skills training, and to reduce the length of service requirement from six months to three months for job-protected leave, to align with the federal Canada Labour Code.

The proposed change would bring Ontario into line with federal requirements and addresses the shortage of reservists and troops exacerbated by the pandemic that had been flagged by the Department of National Defence as a threat to Canadian Forces operations. Ontario will always stand by our military and our reservists, and on behalf of the government of Ontario, I give you all a big thank you.

Another pillar of this proposed legislation, Speaker, will address electronic monitoring of employees. In workplaces with 25 or more employees, employers would be required to establish policies on electronic monitoring conducted on employees: for example, desktop or laptop computers, smartphones, video cameras, sensor-embedded equipment, GPS etc. As more employees are required to use electronic devices in the workplace, electronic monitoring is increasingly prevalent. Many workers may be unaware that they are being monitored. Concerns about transparency around electronic monitoring and impacts on privacy have been elevated by the vastly increased use of remote work spurred by the pandemic.

In recent consultations on privacy issues, Speaker, several privacy advocates noted the absence of government oversight of workplace privacy in Ontario, and I am happy to say that we are addressing this. Electronic monitoring is omnipresent in all our lives and it has been for some time. Our cellphones are monitored even though there are limitations that we can place upon them. Our emails and our TV subscriptions are monitored. Much of it is for good reason: to provide good service, to find a lost cellphone or to keep a check on young kids through their phones so that parents can keep their children safe.

The police monitor our streets using cameras in the most problematic or likely areas. Stores, of course, monitor for security and to prevent theft. There are so many good reasons to do so.

Technology is wonderful and it’s a great gift that we have been given. It makes our lives easier in so many ways, but it can be abused, and so limits must be defined. However, personal integrity and privacy issues cannot be underwritten by unfettered monitoring. There must be limits, otherwise Big Brother truly is watching. This concern has given rise to encrypted messaging in video apps. Individuals have a right to private thoughts and action. The issue of privacy at work is one that can be complicated, and therefore our government is introducing legislation to protect workers from undue electronic monitoring.

There are so many lessons from COVID and the urgent need for people to work from home was an immediate consequence of it. Though, Speaker, an employer does have a right to monitor their businesses, and the productivity of employees to ensure that a fair day’s work is being expended in exchange for a fair day’s pay meets that test. Nevertheless, people, workers—anyone has a right to privacy protections, and the lessons learned through the pandemic are still being examined and digested; however, many lessons learned have already emerged.

This government is committed to truly working for workers. New legislation will require employers to tell their employees if and how they are being monitored electronically. Ontario would become the first province to require electronic monitoring policies and protect workers’ privacy by requiring employers to be transparent on how employees’ use of computers, cellphones, GPS systems and other electronic devices are being tracked.

As I said earlier, Speaker, there are so many ways to track a person. Tracking a vehicle en route, a cellphone that should only be used for business calls, or other electronic media has valid reasons, but people must be advised if, when or if it is always that they are being monitored at work. Everything has changed and we all know that. Where once we were all co-located in a place of work, many work from a distributed model. Work has changed, family life has changed and the world has changed. That is why it is more important than ever to ensure personal freedoms, and full-disclosure policies must be implemented to safeguard one of our most sacred of democratic and human rights.

Under the proposed changes, employers with 25 or more workers will be required to have a written electronic monitoring policy in place for all their employees. The policy would need to contain information on whether the employer electronically monitors its workers and, if so, a description of how and in what circumstances the employer does this. In addition, the employer would need to disclose the purpose of collecting information through electronic monitoring. What this primarily applies to is company computers, cellphones, tablets, GPS systems and other electronic devices that are being tracked.

Companies will have six months to implement these policies, and the ministry will provide resources and support on what they could look like.

Let me give you an example: If you’re someone working at home with your children nearby, then you deserve and, in fact, have a right to know if, how and why you are being monitored. This drifts into the privacy of your children and sanctity of the family home, and this is a gap that cannot exist. Most employers are responsible and just in applying security measures, but this legislation will hold them to account and will close a door to those that may hold to looser standards.

To support this legislation, we have previously introduced the right to disconnect. We banned non-compete clauses. Ontario is the first jurisdiction in North America to bring health care benefits to millions of precarious workers. We are examining reforms in the gig economy. We know that this is the right thing to do because a recent Ipsos poll has shown that 89% of people in Ontario believe that the workplace has changed permanently due to COVID-19 and government needs to act to update employment regulations consequently.

Also, this new legislation called the Digital Platform Workers’ Rights Act, would provide certain rights and protections to digital platform workers, who provide ride share, delivery or courier services for payment through the use of digital platforms: for example, Uber, DoorDash and Lyft. Other types of digital platform services could be added by regulation.

The proposed legislation would provide a minimum floor of rights to digital platform workers on matters such as minimum wage, anti-reprisal protection and notice of removal from the platform. It would require digital platform operators to provide transparency to workers on matters such as calculation of pay, the collection of tips and gratuities, factors used to offer work assignments and any performance rating system. It would require that all work-related disputes between these workers and digital platform operators be resolved in Ontario. This legislation, if passed, would apply regardless of whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor.

The impacts of the pandemic have accelerated and amplified dramatic changes in how and where we work in Ontario. Key changes include the growing importance of digital platform-based gig work and the huge increase in remote work. There is a growing consensus on the need to quickly adapt and take new approaches to employment policy. The proposed new legislation presents an opportunity to better protect digital platform workers in non-standard working relationships by setting minimum rights and requiring the terms of their engagement to be established.

This legislation, if passed, will strengthen penalties under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, or OHSA, for violations, including those that result in severe worker injury or death. Sadly, some businesses treat violations of the OHSA that result in severe worker injury or death as a cost of doing business, and the current penalties may not be a sufficient deterrent.

Officers and directors are currently subject to the same maximum fine as any other individual: for example, a worker or supervisor. Distinguishing officers and directors from other persons recognizes their leadership and decision-making role in workplace health and safety matters. It is about the accountability of the decision-maker. No aggravating factors are currently set out in the OHSA for courts to consider in determining fine amounts.

The legislation, if passed, includes both current factors typically relied on by the courts in setting fines as well as additional ones based on penalty provisions and other legislation and case law. The greater the number of aggravating factors that are put before the court, the stronger the case that can be made for a higher fine.

That being said, if passed, this legislation will increase the maximum fine for officers and directors to $1.5 million from $100,000 and will increase the maximum fine for all other individuals to $500,000 from $100,000. It will add a list of circumstances that shall be considered aggravating factors by the courts for the purposes of determining a penalty under the OHSA. It will provide the authority for the court to make a prescribed order on convicting a defendant in addition to a fine or imprisonment imposed. This legislation will increase the limitation period for commencing a prosecution from one year to two years.

The Working for Workers Act 2 will amend the OHSA to require employers to provide a naloxone kit in the workplace if there is a risk of a worker opioid overdose in the workplace, with related changes about maintaining and storing kits, training workers and related issues.

There is an ongoing public health crisis of opioid overdoses and death in Ontario that has been heightened by the COVID-19 pandemic. There were just under 2,500 opioid-related deaths in Ontario between the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, March 2020, and January 1, 2021. In Ontario, there were 17 overdose deaths of workers in the workplace from 2018 to 2021. Naloxone is an effective intervention and can prevent death if administered quickly. The OHSA does not currently require employers to have naloxone available at the workplace.

The workplace is a critical point of access to high-risk populations who would benefit from harm reduction, awareness and access to potentially life-saving interventions.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be a part of a government that has consistently demonstrated the health and safety of Ontarians as a top priority, and the Working for Workers Act 2 is certainly no exception. That is why I am voting in favour of this proposed legislation.

Speaker, again, we recognize—and I know you do too—that we are no better than the people who work for us, in our offices here at Queen’s Park, in our constituency offices and the other fields that we have all come from. So to continuously, as a government, take a whole-of-government approach to how we can make the system work better for the workers in the province of Ontario, to do right by them, as they have worked so hard through the pandemic to do right by all of us, is just the right thing to do.

I look forward to having the support of all parties in the House as we move forward with this legislation.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): It is now time for questions and responses.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I heard my happy friend from Brantford–Brant start off by telling us that he was an optometrist before coming here. He made a good income, I imagine. There’s a lot of prep work and paperwork involved in being an optometrist. You’ve got to continue your training, updating your skills, networking in the community. You’ve got to be out doing charity work, attending charity events and community events.

I wonder how he feels if, as an optometrist, he was only paid for the time he actually worked with a client, actually had hands on, dealing with a client—because this bill doesn’t give gig workers a minimum wage unless they’re in service on a delivery.

So I say to my good friend, what are you going to do on behalf of your caucus to improve this bill, to change this bill to treat workers with respect—because you’re no better than anyone who works for you. How are you going to fix the bills?

Mr. Will Bouma: I appreciate the question from my friend from Windsor–Tecumseh. Speaker, he has been a very, very good friend to me, and I really appreciate it. I’m going to be very sad to see him go. I’ve appreciated every moment that we’ve had together. Also, when he has had the opportunity to be in the chair there, I know that he has been an excellent Speaker—so if I could just take a moment to salute him in that. I just want to say thank you for being a friend and a good colleague.

But do you know what? I agree that we do need to take care of our gig workers, also. What I have consistently heard, Speaker, through the conversations we’ve had and as we’ve had this bill in committee, is that this is a good step in the right direction. We need to be able to move the ball forward on these things and to actually provide real support for the gig workers in that economy also. I appreciate the question.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): I recognize the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I want to thank the member from Brantford–Brant for his presentation this morning, as well. You spoke a little bit about labour mobility. We’re building Ontario; this party and this government is building Ontario. You’ve heard me talk many times in this chamber—I’m so proud of, of course, all our children, but my one son is a Red Seal carpenter. If we’re going to build Ontario, we need more of these skilled trades and we need to attract them from everywhere, because what’s happening here is unprecedented. But we need that labour force to be able to accomplish it as well.

Could you give us a little more detail, MPP Bouma, on what we’re doing with regard to labour mobility to ensure that we have the critical mass of skilled employees and workers to build Ontario?

Mr. Will Bouma: I appreciate that question. The member is absolutely right. I think we have somewhere in the neighbourhood of 200,000 unfilled jobs right now in the province of Ontario, and since we’ve taken office, we know that we need at least 100,000 skilled trades workers. On my walk here this morning from the apartment, I see the work being done on the government buildings. It’s absolutely critical that we have the people that we need.

To be able to establish the Red Seal, which is accepted in many other jurisdictions, to give that sort of labour mobility so that if someone has and wants to take the opportunity to see what Ontario has to offer them—it’s just absolutely critical. It’s so important that we’re able to do this and to be able to see the work that’s being done through the Fairness Commissioner, with the Ministry of Labour, and other aspects of this too. It’s incredible to see that we’re doing a whole-of-government approach to taking innovative ways in order to bring workers to market in the province of Ontario. Thank you for the question.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): I recognize the member from Kiiwetinoong.

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Just listening to the member from Brantford–Brant talking about skilled workers—this morning I have 13 long-term boil-water advisories in my riding, and five short-term. We need skilled workers to be able to build those facilities so that we can get out of the boil-water advisories.

Despite claiming to protect gig workers, this bill does not nearly go far enough to provide and protect workers’ rights. For example, gig workers are not guaranteed a minimum wage for the entire workday but only for the time they are delivering.

With this plan, member, how will this government ensure that the gig workers have enough income so that they can live with a decent quality of life, just as we are sitting here? Meegwetch.

Mr. Will Bouma: Thank you, and I think that’s a really good question. What struck me when I was at committee, and we were hearing from gig workers there too, obviously there are issues that we need to resolve, which we are in this legislation.

But, Mr. Speaker, a lot of gig workers actually go into that market so that they don’t have to work full-time and work a full eight hours, so that they can take a call or not take a call—if you think of a Lyft worker—and they have the opportunity to make those changes.

Yet, our government is introducing foundational rights for digital platform workers across the province of Ontario. No one in Ontario should make less than the general minimum wage for time worked; be fired without notice, explanation or recourse; or have to travel out of the country to resolve workplace disputes. Our digital platform workers are mothers, fathers, students and young people, and it’s an injustice that they don’t have these rights.

The other thing I’ve seen, Speaker, is that many of our drivers are engineers, doctors, lawyers in the countries where they come from. We need to get them certified here so that they can be here also.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): I recognize the member for Whitby.

Mr. Lorne Coe: Thank you, Speaker, and good morning. This past weekend, I was at the headquarters of the Ontario Regiment, situated in Oshawa. I was spending some time talking to the reservists who were there about this particular bill and what they felt the impact would be for them and their families.

I’d like the member for Brantford–Brant to please elaborate for the members who are here and for those who are watching here this morning on the extent and breadth of this aspect of the legislation on the expanded job-protected reservist leave and the impact that he sees on hard-working families.

Mr. Will Bouma: Thank you to the member to Whitby for that question. I know him well enough, how deeply he feels the connection to the reservists in the province of Ontario and to all our armed forces. And I have to say that also to the member of St. Catharines; she really feels that also.

In my own community, Speaker, we have the 56th Field Regiment. I just want to say on behalf of the government of Ontario to every single person who is there at 56th, thank you on behalf of the province of Ontario.

Our government is working for workers by introducing legislation that protects the day jobs of our military reservists while they put their lives on hold to protect our freedoms. Just as an example, I can remember when we were living in Michigan after I was done my schooling. Our neighbour there was a reservist. He was good at logistics—that was his field—and he had been pulled out and had been, for two years, working full-time for the military. His job with the telephone company that he was working for was over, no more advancement, and he knew that, and yet he served his country. We’re taking care of that in the province of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): I recognize the member for London West.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I just heard the member for Brantford–Brant talk about the fact that many of these digital platform workers are casual workers. They may be retired from full-time careers. They may be offering occasional rides to top up their income. However, I don’t know if that member is aware that 30% of the gig workforce are full-time gig workers, and they do about 80% of the work that is done within the digital platform economy.

Does that member not believe that 30% of the workforce that include many of these newcomers, racialized workers, deserve the same protections as every other worker in this province?

Mr. Will Bouma: I so appreciate that question from the member for London West. That is exactly why our government is introducing foundational rights for digital platform workers in Ontario, because we recognize that people are making their livings at these and they need the same protections that other workers have across the province of Ontario. No one in Ontario should make less than the general minimum wage for time worked. No one in Ontario should be fired without notice, explanation or recourse. No one in Ontario should have to travel out of the country to resolve workplace disputes.

Our digital platform workers are our families, our neighbours, our mothers, our fathers, our students and our young people, and it’s an injustice that they don’t have these rights. That is exactly why we are making these changes, so that they can be recognized just like other workers are.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): Further debate?

Ms. Rima Berns-McGown: It is an honour to stand, as always, in this House, and it feels more necessary than ever. Sometimes I think I’m in an alternate universe when I’m in this chamber.

Forgive the literary references, but they spring to mind. The first is the question of doublespeak. Almost every bill that the government brings forward means something other than it says it means. “Doublespeak,” of course, is a reference to George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four—although he used “doublethink” and not “doublespeak.” But it has come to mean this question of saying one thing and meaning something else, often the complete opposite. In this case, this is so clearly not a bill that is working for workers. It is actually a bill that is undermining workers and doing the absolute opposite.

Just this morning, the Globe and Mail has a story about how a coalition of precisely the gig workers the government says it is helping have come together to release a press release, saying that this bill does nothing to help them: “Bill 88 won’t help gig workers. Rather, it allows the government to introduce ‘engaged time’ as a legal principle to allow employers to cut away at workers wages in all sectors as soon as their work is organized by gig platforms.”

That is such a condemnation of

schedule 1 of this bill, and if the government were actually working for workers, it would have listened not to companies that make billions of dollars off the labour of these people, not to companies that exploit them, but to the workers themselves. And this, it hasn’t done. If it had listened to the workers, it would not have created the bill in this way.

Obviously, people deserve a living wage for their labour, but that is for all of their labour. As my colleague just asked of the member across the way, what would he have felt like if his only pay had come when he was actually hands-on with a patient? The labour of being an optometrist is so much more than actually figuring out what kind of glasses somebody needs or looking into their eyes. We need to actually think, “What does it take for workers to be able to live?”

I am reminded here of another literary master, Charles Dickens, and his characterizations of the time of worker exploitation in pre-industrial revolution England. He talks in Hard Times about a character named Gradgrind, who reminds me very much of some of the folks across the aisle. Let me quote from Hard Times: “It was a fundamental principle of the Gradgrind philosophy that everything was to be paid for. Nobody was ever on any account to give anybody anything, or render anybody help without purchase. Gratitude was to be abolished, and the virtues springing from it were not to be.

Every inch of the existence of mankind, from birth to death, was to be a bargain across a counter. And if we didn’t get to heaven that way, it was not a politico-economical place, and we had no business there.”

I think this is such a crucial quote, and I hope that the government members will really think upon it, because the question is, for whom did they create this bill? If you listen to workers themselves, it is not for workers; it is, rather, for their employers.

We need workers in this province and in this country. Every labour economist will tell you that. We need skilled workers. Workers are not stupid, and despite the doublespeak of the name of the bill, they will quickly figure out that this bill is actually not in their interest. What it does, in fact, is to create what I’m going to call a gig ghetto, and I think it’s an important term and I want us to think about where that term first came from. The word “ghetto” actually means “foundry” in Italian, and that’s because in the mid-16th century, Venice was the first city state to confine Jews to a walled ghetto, which had been a canon foundry. That’s where that word comes from.

The reason that it matters is because once the Italian city state began, and then other countries followed them, to confine Jews to ghettos, it was very, very, very difficult for them to get out. It was very difficult for the principles and the laws that got created to confine Jews in those ghettos to be destroyed. It took centuries, and, in fact, I’m reminded of so many of the interventions of my colleague from Kiiwetinoong, who talks about exactly the way that that principle ended up getting related to Canada when it was founded by colonizers and Indigenous and First Nations people were shoved into ghettos, or reserves. Same principle—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): I would just ask the member to please return back to the bill and be very specific to the bill, please.

Ms. Rima Berns-McGown: It matters, because the point here is, once you create the principles and the walls, it becomes very, very difficult to take them down.

Now let’s look at what’s happened with gig workers. Gig workers have been put into a similar set of circumstances where they have been told that they are, in fact, a separate class of workers. And because they’re a separate class of workers, they do not get to belong in the way that other workers do. They don’t get the rights that other workers do to join a union. They don’t get the rights to be treated as people who are deserving of all of the protections that workers in other sectors are given and that every worker should have from the moment that they set out on their workday to the moment that they come back.

That principle is the idea that lies behind this segregation and this new class of worker in this digital rights platform gig worker thing. So what the government is doing is not in fact advancing the rights of gig workers one iota. It is creating a precedent for an encirclement that means that they are now open to all manner of exploitation in exactly the kinds of ways that Charles Dickens decried throughout his many novels.

I think it’s so important, as we are entering a world in which increasing numbers of people are in fact gig workers—and one thing here that I have heard over and over again on the government side is that gig workers are people who are just sitting around and every once in a while they’d like to go out and make a few extra bucks. That’s not actually the case for so many people and particularly for new immigrants, for Black, Indigenous and other people of colour in particular. Those communities rely so much on gig work, and so much of that work is exploited.

In my riding of Beaches–East York, there is a group called the South Asian Women’s Rights Organization. This group is absolutely brilliant. These are first-generation women, most of whom have come from Bangladesh, and sometimes, because Ontario does not recognize their credentials from back home—they were skilled workers back home, but they arrived and their credentials are not recognized. For any number of reasons, they end up working as gig workers.

The exploitation that I hear about over and over and over again from these women when they meet—they describe in precise detail the way that their various employers exploit them, call them at the last minute for shifts, drop their shifts, underpay them, pay them only for a fraction of their work. And when they go and say something about this, they are let go. This kind of exploitation happens because they are considered independent contractors and because they are not included under the Employment Standards Act, and it is criminal.

It is criminal that what this bill is doing is, in fact, enshrining principles behind that exploitation in law.

I want the government members to think about this very carefully and I want Ontario to think about this very carefully, Speaker, because this is actually the beginning of the encircling of gig workers and the allowing for their ongoing exploitation, not a step in the right direction. And it is so important that each and every one of us understand it this way.

I want also to talk for a few minutes about the connection between what is happening in this bill and the policies that underlie a lack of housing, precarious housing, unhousing—which is also called homelessness, but I want you to think about it as unhousing, because it’s so important that we understand that homelessness is not this thing out there that all of us can just ignore. People become unhoused because they can’t afford to stay housed.

Nobody chooses homelessness. Nobody ends up homeless because they made poor life choices and just ended up there. There are series of structural reasons that people do not have the means to remain housed, and an enormous part of that is the lack of a living wage.

I spent a great deal of time during the pandemic on the streets and in encampments talking to people who are unhoused. None of them were there because they were careless or lazy. They are there because of intergenerational trauma. They’re there because of colonial violence against Indigenous peoples. They are there because of anti-Black racism that is structural. They are there because of ableism. They are there because of the underfunding of social assistance like OW and ODSP. And they simply cannot manage to stay housed.

A great many of these people actually work as gig workers. Did you know that? Did you know, Speaker, how many people who are unhoused and in our shelters are working people? And they’re working as gig workers. But because of the kinds of ways that gig workers are exploited, they cannot make a living wage.

I want that to sink in, and I want government members to really understand that this bill makes things worse; it doesn’t make it better. It doesn’t make it better, and gig workers themselves will say it doesn’t make it better.

Interjections.

Ms. Rima Berns-McGown: It is really rich for government members to protest what I just said, when they’ve never spoken and consulted with and aren’t listening to the gig workers, and who don’t go out and speak to people who are unhoused, have never spoken—they were never in encampments actually speaking to people and understanding their stories.

You cannot make policy, as Charles Dickens said, from the perspective of the exploiter. That’s not how you make policy. I want the government members to hear that poverty and homelessness and anti-Indigeneity and anti-Black racism, and the whole package of things that go along with it and are all related—ableism—are a policy choice. This government is choosing the exploiter over the exploited, and there is no excuse for it.

My colleague from Hamilton Mountain informed me yesterday that a number of these ride-share companies became registered as lobbyists in February of this year, presumably to speak to the government about this bill. It appears that the government listened to them and did not listen to the workers themselves. I want to say, “Shame on you,” because this is disgusting.

Absolutely, there are bits of sugar in the poison. The naloxone piece is incredibly important, absolutely important. That’s great. We’ve come a very, very long way from the first days of this government, where the Premier was trying to shut down safe injection sites. Kudos for having learned something. It is absolutely crucial. We’ve got a long way to go, but this is crucial.

But I want to make the point here that it is really important to stop putting together omnibus bills that are fundamentally worse than problematic—downright cruel—and sprinkling a little bit of sugar on the top here and there, and then saying, “Look, why don’t you vote for this bill?” Create a good soup. Stop putting sugar in a poison soup. Create a good soup.

Finally, I want to make a point about affordability generally, because there will be people listening to this who are not on the verge of being unhoused, and so they don’t necessarily see themselves. They think that they are in a very different place. But I want those people to understand, too, that all of these things are connected. They’re not just connected for the folks who are dealing with deep poverty or the effects of generations of colonial violence; they affect everybody.

Because when you don’t create policy that actually uplifts the workers whom we all need as a society, when you don’t begin there, when you don’t lift everyone up, you create terrible conditions that end up with folks living in shelters, or not having space in shelters and needing to be in encampments because there is nowhere else for them to go. You create the conditions that mean that more people will be incarcerated and that more people will have severe mental health issues.

I want to make the point that shelters, prisons, the social issues that come out of mental health issues, people having cycles of incarceration—those things are bloody expensive. It is cheaper to support workers at the beginning then to have to deal with the fallout of what happens when you don’t. So, on top of everything else, this is not fiscal responsibility. It is not fiscal responsibility. It is wasting taxpayers’ dollars and wasting people’s lives, and it is absolutely shameful. Stop it. Stop doing this to people. Do better.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): I recognize the member for Brantford–Brant.

Mr. Will Bouma: I was hoping that the member could provide me with an explanation. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I have made a lot of friends in the Jewish community over the past four years and it was a great pleasure to introduce, with the member from Eglinton–Lawrence, a bill to recognize the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-Semitism, which was passed as an order in council in the province of Ontario.

The member in her comments made mention that what we’re doing with gig workers, with what we’re doing in this bill, is comparable to what happened to the Jewish people in the Warsaw ghetto in World War II. I would like her to explain in front of this House—unless she would like to apologize—exactly what she means, to the Jewish community in the province of Ontario, with her comments on that.

Ms. Rima Berns-McGown: Perhaps the member is not aware that I am Jewish. Perhaps the member is not aware that I lost extended family in the Holocaust. I am owed an apology by this member. That was appalling.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): I recognize the member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Joel Harden: I’m inspired, always, by the member for Beaches–East York. I think this bill, after listening to that fantastic speech, could more aptly be called working for Amazon, working for DoorDash, working for Uber. This bill is not about working for workers. This is about legislating people in a different employment context.

I want the member to imagine with me—because we only have to survive these folks for seven more weeks—what an NDP government can do to help working people in the gig economy form unions, just like what happened in Staten Island, where Amazon workers voted to join a union. Why doesn’t this bill help working people help themselves and form unions?

Ms. Rima Berns-McGown: Thank you to the member from Ottawa Centre. Yes, absolutely, if you are serious about working for workers, then you begin by giving workers rights. You begin by giving workers the ability to actually live—first of all, to earn a living wage, and secondly, to be able to form unions so that can advocate for themselves, so that they can ensure they have all of the protections that they need and that they deserve.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): I recognize the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I just can’t believe sometimes the self-righteousness of this member from Beaches–East York, where she stands up and accuses people on this side of not understanding anything.

There are homeless people everywhere, including in my riding of Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. I work very closely with The Grind, which helps people who are poverty-stricken and homeless in my riding. For you to stand here and say that we don’t understand any of that because it’s just your way of somehow thinking that you’re better than the rest of the people in this place—you used the word “disgusting.” It’s disgusting that you accuse good people on this side of the House of somehow being less than yourself because you’ve experienced something that none of us possibly ever could have.

Unless you’re the one electronically monitoring the members of this side of the House, you should stand in your place and apologize for the insults and the accusations you make against good people.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): Before we would continue, I know this is getting emotional. I would ask that all comments be directed through the Chair and become less personal. Thank you.

I return to the member from Beaches–East York.

Ms. Rima Berns-McGown: If the government members really are good people, then they will begin by lifting people out of poverty and not just dealing with conditions once they become unhoused.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): I recognize the member from Windsor–Tecumseh.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I listened to my very learned friend from Beaches–East York. She was talking about Charles Dickens and then she talked about the bargain across the counter.

I was reminded of other comments I’ve heard on this bill about who was actually consulted during the formation of it. The workers’ groups, people working in the gig economy, their views were never taken into account. Yet the Amazons, the Ubers, the Lyfts, the SkipTheDishes—it seems that they have written this bill. Instead of SkipTheDishes, it’s like the government has skipped the workers. You skipped the workers, the people that this bill is supposed to be helping. It’s not working for the actual people working for these companies.

My question to the member, through you, Speaker, is: What could this government have done and what can they do now to improve this bill before it becomes law?

Ms. Rima Berns-McGown: Thanks to the member from Windsor–Tecumseh for the very good question. It was indeed a skip-the-worker bill. I’m going to say once again that when you create good policy, you begin by consulting the people who are going to be affected. And then you build policy in a way that reflects their issues and their concerns.

What the government needs to do is to throw out

schedule 1. It needs to go back to the drawing table. It needs to sit down and talk to workers. It needs to create a bill that provides gig workers with a living wage from the moment that they leave the house until the moment that they come back at the end of the day, that gives them the complete rights of anybody else in Ontario under the Employment Standards Act.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): I recognize the member for Mississauga Centre.

Ms. Natalia Kusendova: This morning, when I was driving in and thinking about the legislation that we are debating, the key messages and things like that, I never imagined that the topic of the Warsaw ghetto would be mentioned. I visited the Warsaw ghetto, and I visited the museum of Polish Jews, and I’m just surprised that we could somehow link this piece of legislation to that topic. That’s all I will say on that issue.

But since we are debating Bill 88, the Working for Workers Act, I wanted to ask the member opposite about the naloxone provision. Naloxone is a life-saving medication that reverses opioid-related deaths, and I think it’s so important we have naloxone kits available at our construction sites and other places of work in Ontario. Will the member support that provision in the bill? Yes or no?

Ms. Rima Berns-McGown: I just want to put on the record that the ghetto I was talking about was Venice. Venice is not Warsaw. I didn’t speak about Warsaw. The government spoke about Warsaw. I was speaking about the Venice ghetto in the middle of the 16th century.

As far as naloxone is concerned, I will say again what I said when I was giving my 20 minutes, which is that the naloxone piece is absolutely crucial, but you’ve sprinkled a little bit of sugar in a poison soup. Stop doing that. Create a good soup with good ingredients. Do exactly what my colleagues agree needs to be done: Support workers, write a bill that is actually in favour of workers, and then add the naloxone.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): I recognize the member for Kiiwetinoong.

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Meegwetch to the member for the presentation. I know that, back and forth, I hear the term “homeless people.” For me, I think the correct term to use is “people without homes,” because they are people first. I think that’s really important. But I also know there’s some talk about colonialism as well. I’ve had my taste of the colonial tea in this place, and it’s important to acknowledge how the system works here against minorities.

But I just wanted to go back to the member: Why is this government bowing down to international conglomerates like Uber rather than protecting the rights of workers who are trying to make a decent living?

Ms. Rima Berns-McGown: Thank you to my colleague from Kiiwetinoong for the excellent question. He is absolutely right. It is the reason I never talk about “homeless people,” ever. I will talk about “people who are unhoused,” because I want to make the point that there have been forces that have forced them to lose their housing, and they are people first, absolutely. Housing is a human right, and we need to fix that.

The question he poses is an absolutely crucial one. Why is the government bowing down to international exploiters of people, who make billions of dollars off them—billions of dollars—instead of supporting workers themselves, particularly when we so need skilled workers in Ontario? We need to show them that we can protect them when they’re here.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): Further debate?

Ms. Natalia Kusendova: Good morning. It is a continual privilege of mine to stand amongst my peers in this chamber to speak on behalf of this government, and today is no different. I have to say, as the election is coming closer and closer, maybe we’ve taken for granted all the opportunities we’ve had in this House, so I think it’s very special that we are able to be in this House, in this place of democracy. As the election comes closer and closer, let’s remember that every time we speak, it is a huge privilege to stand in this House. Some of us may not be back after June 2; some of us will.

But let’s not forget the huge and immense privilege the people of our ridings have given us when they elected us into this 42nd Parliament, and let’s represent our constituents with dignity.

Speaker, the Working for Workers Act represents the continual commitment of this government to Ontario’s workers and businesses. Throughout our mandate, we have been steadfast in saying that when businesses and workers work better together, Ontario thrives. This legislation builds on the success of the Working for Workers Act, 2021, with the aim of further supporting, protecting and attracting workers to make Ontario a more prosperous and competitive economy on the world stage.

I would like to first thank the Minister of Labour, Training and Skills Development for his continual commitment to Ontario’s workers and businesses throughout what was an unprecedented time for our province. With our government, under the leadership of the Premier, the minister worked hard to ensure that workers and businesses alike could persevere throughout difficult circumstances.

I would like to also commend the parliamentary assistant for his work in supporting the objectives of the ministry. It is always great to see my fellow Mississauga colleagues doing great things for the people of Ontario.

Like with many other pieces of legislation from our government, the Working for Workers Act, 2022, was the result of extensive teamwork and collaboration. I would like to thank each and every person, organization and stakeholder who had a role to play in the legislative process.

It goes without saying that there is so much within this legislation that is worth highlighting and discussing, but I want to focus a good deal of my time speaking to a provision within the legislation that is particularly important to me. This legislation, if passed, would require workplaces which are at risk of worker opioid overdoses to have naloxone kits. For my colleagues who may not be familiar, naloxone, or Narcan, is a medication able to temporarily reverse the effects of an opioid overdose, providing valuable time for medical help to arrive to treat the person overdosing.

The importance of these kits in high-risk work settings cannot be overstated. The death toll of opioids in our community has been a concern for many years, and it has grown worse over the past two years, unfortunately.

In recognition of this, I was proud to be in this chamber back in 2019 presenting my private member’s bill, Bill 105, the Mandatory Police Training Act. With my proposed legislation, Ontario would have required police officers, special constables, First Nation officers and inspectors to have successfully completed ministry-approved training in both the use and administration of naloxone for the purpose of blocking the effects of opioids. I believe that my Bill 105, though it did not pass, provided an opportunity to highlight the importance of naloxone as a tool in the fight against the opioid epidemic.

It also provided an opportunity to start destigmatizing opioid-related incidents. I remember very fondly the conversations I was able to have with community groups, stakeholders and my colleagues in the field of public health in preparing that bill, hearing their feedback and perspectives on the opioid crisis as it was at the time.

These effects are not isolated. They can be felt in our homes, our communities, our schools, our streets, our places of worship and our workplaces. With that said, of these 2,500 victims who were employed, 30% were employed in the construction industry, by far the most of any industry impacted by these tragic deaths.

I’m proud to say that our partners in the field of construction are supportive of our move to protect workers on the job site, with Geoff Smith, president and CEO of EllisDon, having this to say about the naloxone provision:

“EllisDon is in complete support of Minister McNaughton’s announcement to mandate the availability of naloxone kits at all construction sites across the province and the necessary training that goes along with their use. Evolving safety measures of any kind in the workplace is a testament to leadership and we will embrace the implementation and access to this potentially life-saving medication.”

Bars, nightclubs and other related establishments have also seen spikes in opioid usage, often involving recreational drugs laced with deadly opioids such as fentanyl and carfentanil, where dealers have taken advantage of unsuspecting persons, resulting in tragic consequences. This latter fact is connected to a concerning trend over recent years relating to the increasing toxicity of opioids sold on the street, which is fuelling the coinciding rise in overdose deaths we are seeing today.

According to the Public Health Agency of Canada, toxicity of supply continues to be a major driver of this crisis, with 86% of all accidental apparent opioid toxicity deaths from January 2021 to September 2021 involving fentanyl. The sheer strength of this increasingly toxic supply and the capability of it to act as a contagion has proved to be a pressing danger to our community.

Workplaces which view themselves as being close to a heightened presence of both overdose incidents and the drugs themselves will be what our government sees to be the high-risk work settings. These employers, their employees, and the broader public will be safer as a result of these mandatory naloxone kits.

There are several benefits to be had by both businesses and workers alike in these spaces where naloxone kits become a requirement. For one, and most importantly, there is the potential for saving hundreds of lives a year—men and women who may have ended up succumbing to an overdose if it wasn’t for this life-saving drug being there to buy crucial time for those overdosing to receive medical attention.

Moreover, the placement of naloxone kits in high-risk workplaces will help to raise awareness about the risks of accidental overdoses from either taking or coming into contact with opioids and opioid-laced substances. When the potentiality of risks are at the top of someone’s mind, they may choose to engage in less risky behaviour and understand the potential repercussions of their actions before it is too late.

Finally, these naloxone kits will help to reduce the stigma around opioid use because, as statistics suggest, the opioid epidemic is not confined to a certain segment of our communities. Rather, this is a crisis that can affect anyone, of any background, any walk of life and any occupation. When stigmas are lessened, acceptance is raised, and only under these preconditions can the opportunity for rehabilitation be a viable way forward for those struggling with this terrible addiction.

We must also recognize the role that mental health and housing insecurity can have in conjunction with opioid addictions, and ensure that a response to this public health crisis recognizes this nexus.

It was the Canadian Mental Health Association who had this to say with regard to our naloxone requirement provision: “We are encouraged by the Ministry of Labour, Training and Skills Development efforts through this consultation in recognizing the important roles employers and workplaces could play in responding to the ongoing drug poisoning crisis which has worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Our approach toward this crisis can have broader implications on other connected areas such as, for instance, housing insecurity and prevention, given that these two societal issues are interconnected.

It was the Minister of Labour, Training and Skills Development who said it best: “Everyone in our province knows someone who has been impacted by the opioid epidemic. These are brothers, sisters, mothers and daughters, and we need to do everything in our power to save lives.”

Monsieur le Président, maintenant il est important de parler de la logistique de concrétisation de ces dispositions dans une approche qui s’engage à travailler avec les entreprises et les employés pour s’assurer qu’elle est la mieux à même d’atteindre ces objectifs de sauver des vies. Bien que j’aie mentionné précédemment qu’il existe certains types de milieux d’affaires où le risque de surdose d’opioïdes est plus élevé—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): I apologize for interrupting the member, but it is now time for members’ statements.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

Report, Financial Accountability Officer

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): Just before we move to that, I beg to inform the House that the following document was tabled: a report entitled 2020-21, Interprovincial Comparison: Comparing Ontario’s Fiscal Position with Other Provinces after the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic, from the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario.

Members’ Statements

Social assistance

Mr. Jeff Burch: It is exasperating for us on this side of the House to continually raise the concerns of so many out there struggling on social assistance to no avail. People on OW and ODSP are struggling more and more every day, unable to support themselves and their dependents.

Linda Weir lives in Welland with her two 14-year-old grandchildren. She is paying rent, which eats up most of her ODSP, which is less than $1,200 a month. The child tax benefit helps, but she sleeps on the couch so the grandkids can have a bedroom. She knows that many in her position cannot even afford to eat. A taxi to get groceries, when she can afford them, is $35 for a round trip. She knows that many in her position have become homeless and are living on the streets, and she knows that food banks are overwhelmed. This pandemic has hit us all hard, but for those on social assistance the future is becoming more and more bleak as the cost of living rises and their benefits remain frozen.

Folks like Linda are crying out for help. This government has not increased social assistance rates since 2018 even though inflation is at its highest in 30 years. It is true that this government inherited an ODSP program that was gutted by the former government, but this government has done nothing to improve it. Right now, Speaker, ODSP and OW payments are simply not enough. As Linda told me, making ends meet for her and her grandkids is a challenge every single day. If this is a disability support program, you would never know it. We have failed those on social assistance and failed in our responsibility to care for those most in need before, during and after this pandemic.

Jeannine Mohns

Mr. John Yakabuski: On March 12, our daughter Heidi turned 41. But I didn’t attend a party for Heidi; I attended a party for someone who was celebrating a birthday that Heidi won’t see for another 59 years. I joined family and friends to celebrate the 100th birthday of Jeannine Mohns.

Speaker, a 100th birthday is not as rare as it used to be, but it is still quite an amazing accomplishment. I’ve had the honour of attending a number of them over the years. But I have never seen one quite like Jeannine’s. When I entered the hall, I expected I would be saying hello to someone in a chair, perhaps even a wheelchair. I asked her son Tom, “Where is your mom, the guest of honour?” He pointed to a young-looking lady engaging with the folks attending the party, moving around in a way that would defy my age, let alone hers.

Her son Rick managed to get Jeannine to sit down long enough for us to make a couple presentations and, of course, for me to sing a couple songs. Besides myself, presentations were made by Theresa Sabourin on behalf of the town of Petawawa and by an old family friend and former MP, Hector Clouthier, after which Jeannine jumped up, took the mike herself, regaling the guests with memories and stories that only a centenarian could pull off. She even treated them to an old wedding night joke that had everyone in stitches.

Speaker, I don’t expect to be around anywhere near 100 years. But it was a special treat to witness someone with that kind of vigour and vitality, even as she moves into her second century. In fact, I spoke to her son Tom today and he said she was out playing bingo yesterday. Speaker, may God continue to bless Jeannine Mohns and her family.

Small business

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Good morning, Speaker. I’m sure you were watching the national television news when downtown Ottawa was held hostage while protesters were demanding the overthrow of the Liberal government. That occupation started in late January and lasted more than three weeks. And I’m sure you were watching when some of these same demonstrators blockaded the Ambassador Bridge between Windsor and Detroit. They moved in on February 7 and it took a week to come up with a peaceful resolution.

That illegal blockade shut down international trade over the Ambassador Bridge at a cost of more than $300 million a day. Manufacturing plants were shut down, workers sent home, and businesses in the area of the bridge lost their customers.

Speaker, a protest against the federal and provincial governments and the way vaccines against COVID were mandated brought our international trade to a halt for a full week. Now, Windsor taxpayers are on the hook for $5.7 million, the cost of people breaking the law during that illegal blockade. The feds have put more than $2 million on the table to help the small business community affected during this bridge protest. Store and business owners can apply for up to $10,000. The feds did the same for businesses in Ottawa, and Ontario said they would match half of that, up to $5,000.

But Speaker, here’s the rub: Despite repeated requests, Ontario has yet to announce any money for the losses in Windsor. Fair is fair, Speaker. Windsor taxpayers are on the hook for more than $5.5 million. Our small business community is out more than $2 million. When will Ontario step up, do the right thing, help pay some of the bills in Windsor?

Speaker, there’s an election coming. Windsor’s Conservative candidates will have no place to hide on this one.

Liberty for Youth

Mr. Will Bouma: It’s such a pleasure to rise in the House today and talk about the amazing work and people from my riding of Brantford–Brant. Liberty for Youth is a non-profit charitable organization supporting at-risk youth, providing mentorship, education-related assistance, and a safe and welcoming environment. In my riding of Brantford–Brant, Liberty for Youth has a ranch which has the goal of enabling youth to escape the city and develop new skills. Liberty for Youth provides a place where marginalized youth can find acceptance, regardless of their life situations.

Of particular interest is their basketball program, which seeks to direct the energy of at-risk youth to a positive team sport, developing skills of discipline, teamwork and activity.

I am so happy to announce that, through the Trillium grant program and Resilient Communities Fund, this coming Friday, April 8, Liberty for Youth is celebrating a grand opening of their new basketball court. The Trillium grant funding received has enabled them to build a wonderful basketball court which will allow them to continue reaching out to the youth in our community.

Kudos to Liberty for Youth and all involved in this amazing project, and I look forward to the ribbon-cutting ceremony this Friday afternoon.

Supportive housing / Logement en milieu de soutien

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: I want to bring your attention to an issue happening in my riding and other regions: access to francophone residential group homes.

Monsieur le Président, il existe très peu de centres résidentiels uniquement francophones en Ontario. Ceci est une triste réalité, surtout pour les familles comme celle de Miguel.

Mr. Speaker, I want to put emphasis on the sad but true reality of what’s happening in my riding because of the lack of access for francophones. The mother of Miguel asked our office to help her son. He is now 21 years old. He will not be able to attend high school in September. He is a non-verbal francophone. Mr. Speaker, this mother is looking for a francophone group home for her autistic son. She wants her son nearby. Iroquois Falls is the nearest residential group home that offers some French services, but there is no spot for him.

This means she either sends him down south and leaves her job to be close to him, or just drops him off and can’t see her son. This is absolutely inhumane and not a decision a mother or a family should be making.

Mr. Speaker, I hope this government is aware of this situation and not ignoring such an important file—and if they have any plans to invest in creating francophone residential group homes in northern Ontario.

Cost of living

Mr. Stephen Blais: Mr. Speaker, too many Ontarians are struggling to make ends meet. Under this government, despite promises four years ago, we’ve seen the price of gas go up, we’ve seen the price of hydro go up, we’ve seen the price of food go up and we’ve seen the price of housing go up. At the same time, we’ve seen access to health care go down, access to OSAP go down, progress on building the green economy go down, autism services down, mental health supports down. Everything that should be up is down, and everything that should be down is up. This government’s upside-down priorities are having a negative impact on the quality of life of Ontarians.

Ontarians expect their government to have a plan to make life more affordable, to take strong actions and provide relief, to ensure that all Ontarians have the economic dignity they deserve, living in the most prosperous province in the country. Whether it’s the cost of a new home, the cost to turn on the lights, the cost to commute to work or the cost of groceries on Saturday morning, this government has no plan to provide relief for middle-class families. Whether it’s the cost of home care, the lack of funding for ODSP or the cuts to public health, this government has no plans to provide for those who are suffering the most.

The government doesn’t have a plan to make Ontario more affordable. And what’s worse, they’ve delayed the budget, the opportunity to provide that plan for Ontario families. They’ve announced lots of gimmicks, but a handful of gimmicks does not make a jobs plan. A handful of gimmicks does not make an economic recovery plan. A handful of gimmicks does not help families with inflation and the runaway cost of living.

It’s time for real leadership, Mr. Speaker, and a real plan for Ontario families.

Small business

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: These past few weeks, I had the pleasure to visit many businesses in my riding of Mississauga–Erin Mills. I toured restaurants like East Tea Can, Village Taste, Al-Omda, karaoke at Masrawy, and I visited convenience stores like Stop and Go Food Market. I visited food stores like Adonis, Arz and Alnejma. I had the honour to speak to the owners and the employees at those businesses.

We are committed to giving Ontario’s small businesses and workers the tools they need to succeed. From reducing the business tax by 1% to covering the gas costs by 5.7 cents per litre, we will make sure more money stays in the pockets of Ontarians.

We also recently announced a $5-million investment to help Black, Indigenous and other racialized entrepreneurs overcome economic obstacles. With funding, training and culturally relevant services, no entrepreneur in Ontario will be left behind.

These measures will help businesses around Mississauga and across Ontario to grow, create new jobs and adapt to future challenges. Entrepreneurs and workers alike are counting on our government to keep up with the rapidly evolving post-COVID-19 playing field, and our government is committed to answering their call and to get the job done.

Small business

Mr. John Vanthof: I would like to take the opportunity to make the House aware of a tale of two restaurants: the Outfitter Bar in Temagami, a high-end restaurant—beautiful, on the lake. You can boat up to it; you can snowmobile up to it. It’s a fantastic spot. I recommend it to everyone here. And the cafeteria in Sturgeon Falls: It is what it sounds like. It’s owned by Carmen Binette—and good, hearty food. It’s affordable. You always come out of the cafeteria well-fed and happy.

Two totally different business models, both successful, both extremely stressed: What they do share is both those businesses, and many other restaurants across the province, were denied the small business relief grant when they were closed in the last lockdown.

In the case of the Outfitter, the Outfitter put in investments because they qualified, and were denied. The cafeteria had never applied before. They had gone through the first two and thought, “Okay, we’re being closed. This grant is there.” There is no appeal process—summarily denied. This government does not understand small business, though they claim to.

Tartan Day

Mr. Jim McDonell: The tartan of many colours stands for the people of Scottish culture who carried their values of Scottish enlightenment to many distant lands and gave birth and meaning to modernism and innovation as we know it.

A mere 300 years ago, Scotland was known as the poorest nation in all of Europe, but with the union of the two Parliaments in 1707, the Scots became in short order the most educated and literate population of the time, casting their moral values wherever they travelled.

The Highland Clearances started in the mid-1700s and continued for approximately 100 years, forcing more than 100,000 Scottish citizens to emigrate, many looking to North America to create a new life.

There are many prominent Scots who impacted the world, and most notably in Canada, where people claiming Scottish ancestry are one of the most populous groups. Father Alexander Macdonell organized displaced Highlanders into the Glengarry Fencibles, and after fighting for king and country during the Irish Rebellion of 1798, their loyalty was rewarded with a land grant in what is known today as Glengarry county. As the first bishop of Upper Canada and a member of this Legislature, he went on to organize the immigration of tens of thousands of Scots to Ontario.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Point of order.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): I recognize the government House leader.

Hon. Paul Calandra: I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to immediately move government notice of motion number 14, respecting the expedited passage of Bill 111,

An Act to amend the Fuel Tax Act and the Gasoline Tax Act with respect to a temporary reduction to the tax payable on certain clear fuel and on gasoline, and that the Speaker shall immediately put the question on the motion without debate or amendment, and that no deferral of the vote on the motion be permitted.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): Mr. Calandra is seeking unanimous consent to immediately move government notice of motion number 14, respecting the expedited passage of Bill 111,

An Act to amend the Fuel Tax Act and the Gasoline Tax Act with respect to a temporary reduction to the tax payable on certain clear fuel and on gasoline, and that the Speaker shall immediately put the question on the motion without debate or amendment, and that no deferral of the vote on the motion be permitted. Agreed? I heard a no.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: I would like to take the opportunity to welcome our page Ria Somaia’s family: Indira, Sachin, Surendra, Raj and Madhu. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I’d like to welcome the OLIP intern who is serving in my office right now, Dia Mukherjee, who is in the gallery today.

I’d also like to introduce Ryan Clayton, who is from British Columbia, here to learn more about Ontario politics today. Both are in the gallery.

Question Period

Cost of living

Ms. Sara Singh: My first question is for the Premier. For most Ontarians, the cost of living has skyrocketed under this Conservative government. Since June 2018, the cost of buying a home in Ontario has doubled, now costing over $1 million. The average cost of rent has gone up $200 a month. Families are spending more in the grocery store. Under this Premier, the price of gas has gone up 19%, along with home heating, which is now up 18%.

When will the Premier stop with the gimmicks and take real action to help everyday Ontarians struggling with out-of-control costs of living?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): I recognize the member for Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill.

Mr. Michael Parsa: I thank my honourable colleague for the question. Here’s the difference between a party and a government that puts people first, that is fighting every single day to reduce costs and make life more affordable: What you see and hear from the opposition day after day is, they will talk about minimum wage—“We’ll raise the minimum wage to $15”—and what do they do? They vote against it.

We lower costs and we fight for those jobs to come to Ontario so that we can raise every single person in this province. What does the opposition do? They vote against it. They will come time after time and they will talk about making life more affordable for Ontarians, and then every time we’ve actually put tangible work toward making a difference in people’s lives, the opposition votes against it. There is a clear contrast.

We will continue to fight for those jobs in Ontario. We will continue to make life more affordable for Ontarians while the opposition continues to say no.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): I recognize the deputy leader.

Ms. Sara Singh: The Premier forgets that wages for about a million workers in this province are frozen, thanks to Bill 124. For hundreds of thousands of front-line grocery store clerks and retail and service workers—there have been no gains for them because of the low minimum wage here in the province of Ontario.

For Ontarians stuck with this Premier’s low-wage policies, just trying to make ends meet is hard enough. Just to pay the increase in rent alone, Speaker, a minimum wage worker would have to work an additional 13 hours a month. With this Premier’s low-wage policies, why is this government making it harder and harder for working people to have a roof over their heads?

Mr. Michael Parsa: Again, I thank my colleague for the question. Quite the contrary: Every single day, what we are doing is to make sure that life is more affordable for the people of this province. And in contrast, what the opposition does is continuously fight and oppose every measure that we’re putting.

I’ll tell you, Mr. Speaker, as a result of us raising minimum wage, more than 760,000 Ontarians are now able to take a bigger paycheque. And do you know what’s going to happen in October? That’s going to be raised to $15.50, so a further bigger paycheque for Ontarians. We’ll fight every single day for every single Ontarian, while the previous government gave up on Ontarians, while the previous government gave up on jobs for Ontario. We want not only jobs, we want good-paying jobs to come back in this province for every single Ontarian, and we’ll fight every day.

They didn’t get it done. They supported them. We will get it done, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): Final supplementary.

Ms. Sara Singh: Speaker, I’d like to remind my colleague that this government froze the minimum wage when they took office in 2018, making sure that workers didn’t get the pay bump that they deserved. Let’s be clear: You have done nothing to make housing more affordable, nothing for renters, and nothing for seniors who drive. There is nothing on offer for folks who can’t afford high car insurance and no relief for high hydro prices.

It doesn’t have to be this way. We could have a government that is working to make life more affordable, starting with affordable homes for families in my city of Brampton and starting with an end to the Premier’s low-wage policies. When will this government stop with the election gimmicks and start tackling the high cost of living here in the province of Ontario?

Mr. Michael Parsa: I thank, again, my colleague for the question. I want to thank the Minister for Municipal Affairs and Housing because he has been a champion in this province. The problem that the NDP just woke up to discuss today, this minister identified and this Premier talked about the very first day. They acknowledged the previous government’s failed policies year after year after year. But the problems that we’re facing today are because they failed the people of Ontario. And don’t forget, Mr. Speaker, when the opposition, the NDP, had the balance of power, what did they do?

They also failed the people of this province, but not under the leadership of this minister and not this Premier.

We will continue to work hard every single day to make life more affordable for Ontarians. That means better-paying jobs. That means affordable housing. That means more housing all across the province, from corner to corner to corner, for every Ontarian, under the leadership of this government, this Premier and that minister.

Health care funding

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

For people in Ontario, the wait in the emergency room can be painfully long, some waiting hours and hours. The wait for a family doctor can be weeks. The wait for surgery is now several months long, or even some years for some folks. This morning, the FAO laid bare the reasons behind these long waits. Ontario spends less per person on health care than anywhere else in Canada—much less, Speaker, 10% less than the average.

My question to the Premier is, why does this government believe that Ontarians deserve less health care funding than everywhere else in Canada?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): I recognize the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health.

Mrs. Robin Martin: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. This government has invested more in health care than any government in Ontario’s history. We’ve invested an extra $5 billion, and during COVID-19, an extra $5 billion on top of that. We have been investing more in health care and in hospitals and in doctors.

As you know, we just announced 295 medical spots, with some assigned to the northern Ontario medical school, which is very important for making sure that we have the resources up in the north and in rural and remote communities. We’re doing everything we can to make sure that people have access to hospitals, to health care across the province and in every community when and where they need it.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): Supplementary?

Ms. Sara Singh: Speaker, this is not a new problem, and frankly, the numbers don’t lie. The previous Liberal government started the process of bringing health care to its knees. They froze hospital budgets for five years and laid off more than 1,600 nurses. But what has the current government done? They cut. They withhold funding. They put in place low-wage policies, like Bill 124, disrespecting health professionals and driving them out of the province of Ontario.

My question to the Premier is, why is he driving away health care professionals instead of fixing our health care system?

Mrs. Robin Martin: Thank you again to the member opposite for the question. Quite to the contrary, this government has invested in the largest health human resource recruitment initiative in Ontario’s history. We have 27,000 PSWs and nurses going into long-term care to fulfill our promise of four hours of care on average per resident. We have recruited another 8,000 nurses and PSWs for hospitals and home care. And we have, as I just mentioned, 295 new places for doctors across the province. That is the first increase in doctor placements in 10 years in this province.

We are doing everything we can to make sure the resources are there for people who need them. We have been adding pandemic pay to our front-line health care heroes throughout the pandemic, and we recently contributed $763 million to nurses to have a $5,000 bonus.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): Final supplementary.

Ms. Sara Singh: Well, Speaker, here’s the reality of the situation: Ontario has the fewest beds per person. Ontario has the fewest registered nurses per person. And in my beautiful city of Brampton, we only have one emergency room for over 700,000 people. In the northern and rural communities, people are forced to drive hours for care, and for many First Nations people, they are actually forced to fly out of their communities to access a hospital.

Everyone in this province deserves so much better. Investing in public universal health care is a good investment. It actually helps governments save money in the long term. Why is this government underfunding and withholding money from our health care system rather than investing in it?

Mrs. Robin Martin: Thank you again to the member opposite for the question. As I’ve indicated through my other two answers, this government has done more investment in health care than any other government in Ontario’s history. But what has the opposition done—the opposition who supported the Liberals for 15 years while they did nothing, invested in nothing and left our health care system in this current state?

The NDP have opposed our government’s commitment to protecting people’s health at every turn, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. We provided investments of more than $1 billion to support the rollout of Ontario’s vaccine plan; they voted no. They didn’t support us when we invested over $1.8 billion in the hospital sector in 2021-22 or our $125 million to expand critical care capacity across the province; they voted no. We invested over half a billion dollars to surgical recovery; they didn’t support it.

Opposing our government is really all this opposition party is able to do. That’s why they’re going to be forever in opposition.

Birth alerts

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Remarks in Oji-Cree.

Good morning. My question is to the Premier. In July 2020, the government directed children’s aid societies to stop using birth alerts targeting Indigenous women by October 2020. A year and a half after this directive was given, we are still hearing from the Matawa Chiefs Council that this practice continues. Now instead of apprehension based on birth alerts, they are happening through the duty to report.

Speaker, birth alerts are a gross violation of the rights of the child, the rights of the mother and the Indigenous community as a whole. Will the Premier tell this House how the government has ensured that the birth alert directive of 2020 was implemented?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): I recognize the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Our government is listening and taking tangible steps to combat systemic racism, including in Ontario’s child welfare system.

In 2020, the ministry directed children’s aid societies to end the practice of birth alerts, which partners told us disproportionately affected First Nations, Inuit and Métis families and communities. No woman should be deterred from seeking prenatal care or parenting supports while pregnant due to fears of having a birth alert issued. Eliminating birth alerts is an important step in creating a child welfare system that responds to the needs of children, youth and families through prevention and early intervention.

I thank the member again for the question.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): Supplementary?

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Speaker, I’ve had my taste of colonial tea in this place.

In 2014, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission called upon all levels of government to reduce the number of Indigenous children in care. In 2019, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls recommended the abolishment of birth alerts. Child welfare involvement, birth alerts and other institutional policies and practices that target Indigenous families have very real effects on our nations.

Speaker, is Ontario’s 2020 directive just birth alerts under a different name? Can Ontario ensure Indigenous families that the colonial, oppressive and discriminatory practice of birth alerts are not still being used against Indigenous families?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Again, no woman should be discouraged from seeking prenatal care or parenting supports out of fear that their child will be taken from them. We heard from Indigenous and other racialized communities that this practice separates newborns and parents shortly after delivery and unfairly affects racialized and marginalized mothers and families.

Ending birth alerts was a key recommendation of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. And instead of immediately separating families and making assumptions about a mother’s capacity, we are directing children’s aid societies and hospitals to collaborate and create new protocols that support vulnerable mothers and families. Ending birth alerts, let me be clear, is a critical step in creating a child welfare system that is focused on prevention and early intervention. Thank you again for the question.

Highway tolls

Mr. Lorne Coe: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Ontarians continue to be concerned with the cost of living. It is no secret, though, Speaker, that for 15 long years, past Liberal governments imposed unjust cost burdens on Ontarians, including putting costly tolls on drivers in my community.

Can the Minister of Transportation please tell the House what this government is doing to right the wrongs of the Liberals and keep costs down for hard-working Ontario families?

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: I want to thank the member from Whitby for such a great question and for being such a great advocate on behalf of his constituents.

Speaker, when our government took office four years ago, we made a commitment—a commitment to reverse the costly policies that were enacted by the Del Duca-Wynne Liberals, and to keep more of your hard-earned money in your pocket where it belongs.

Last month, I was pleased to stand with the Premier and members of caucus to announce that we are delivering on our promise to the people of Durham to remove the unfair tolls that Steven Del Duca and the Liberals imposed, and to cut costs for drivers in the region. Speaker, I am so pleased to say that, as of yesterday, tolls on Highways 412 and 418 are officially gone for good. That means one less dent in your pocket when you take your kids to school or commute to work.

Mr. Speaker, we are not repeating the past mistakes of the Liberals. We are saying yes to putting and keeping more money in your pocket.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): I would ask the member for Ottawa Centre to come to order, please.

I recognize the member for Whitby.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I would like to thank the Minister of Transportation for that response and her long-standing leadership and commitment to remove the tolls on the 412 and 418.

Speaker, I know that this is a long time coming for drivers in my riding, who were ignored by the Liberals for years on this issue—years. Instead of listening to voices in my community and across this entire province, the Liberals took every chance to make life more expensive and more difficult for Ontarians.

Can the Minister of Transportation please tell the House more about what this government is doing to cut costs for drivers in other areas?

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: Thank you again to the member for the question. When our government took office in 2018, we inherited a disastrous situation from the Liberals. But you don’t have to take my word for it, Speaker. Just look at their record: Under Steven Del Duca and the Liberals, electricity rates were skyrocketing and 300,000 manufacturing jobs left the province. And when Mr. Del Duca was Minister of Transportation, licence plate sticker fees rose by nearly 10% per year.

But our government is correcting their wrongs. We’re taking concrete steps that will save drivers precious time and money. We’re saying yes to removing the tolls from Highways 412 and 418. We’re saying yes to eliminating licence plate renewal fees and stickers. We’re saying yes to building the future Highway 413 and the Bradford Bypass toll-free, and yes to cutting the gas tax by 5.7 cents per litre. What do we hear from the NDP and the Liberals on the other side of the House, Mr. Speaker? “No,” every single time.

Highway tolls

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: My question is for the Premier. Speaker, in the middle of the pandemic, while many small businesses were forced to shut down and many more Ontarians lost their jobs, this government gave the owners of Highway 407 a billion-dollar write-off. Recently, there have been calls to help drivers by getting more vehicles off the 401 using existing roads. The city of Mississauga unanimously passed a resolution calling on this government to reduce traffic on the 401 by lowering tolls on the 407. Instead of spending $10 billion to build Highway 413, will the Premier give drivers a break and get his buddies to lower tolls on the 407?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): I recognize the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: Congestion is a problem that affects all of us in this House and people across the province of Ontario. It affects our quality of life, it impacts the cost of goods and it adds costs for businesses. Highway 401 is the most congested highway in North America. For years, the Liberals had the chance to address this issue. They didn’t build new subways, and when they built new highways in the greater Golden Horseshoe, they built them with tolls, Mr. Speaker.

We want to put money back into people’s pockets, which is why we removed the tolls from Highways 412 and 418. We want to get people moving. We want to get people where they need to go, which is why our Greater Golden Horseshoe Transportation Plan addresses the gridlock that the Liberals let develop year after year. Congestion is only going to get worse as the population of the greater Golden Horseshoe increases, which is why we are taking steps to increase our highway capacity by building Highway 413 and the Bradford Bypass toll-free.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): I return to the member from Humber River–Black Creek.

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: The Auditor General has confirmed that she will be looking into the billion-dollar handout this government gave to the private corporation that owns Highway 407, and I’m sure that her report will be enlightening. Speaker, the 407 runs just north of my community. It was originally designed as an outlet to direct traffic away from the 401, but few people in my community actually use it because of the expensive tolls.

Instead of taking action or reducing these tolls, the Premier gave the owners of the 407 a billion-dollar write-off. Now he’s going to spend another $10 billion to build a highway through the greenbelt to help his developer buddies, who are some of his biggest donors, make even more money.

For once, will the Premier do the right thing and put the interests of everyday Ontarians ahead of the interests of multi-billion-dollar corporations?

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: I’m happy to tell the member opposite that our government is doing the right thing. We’re taking action in ways that the Liberals and the NDP won’t do. We are building the infrastructure that people need to end congestion in the greater Golden Horseshoe.

Mr. Speaker, MTO has been looking at the gridlock problem for decades. The GTA west corridor stage 1 environmental assessment looked at all the alternatives. Under this EA, modelling showed that if Highway 413 is not built, the 407 would be at or above capacity by 2030 even if the tolls remained. That means that we need to get building today. We need to build a Highway 413. We need to build the Bradford Bypass.

We are a pro-transit government. We’re investing $61 billion in transit to build new subways, new LRTs. We are taking the steps. We are showing the leadership in transportation that the Liberals did not for years, condemning generations of Ontarians to congestion. We are going to do what’s right. We are saying yes to building.

Employment standards

Mr. John Fraser: I’m sure, like the rest of us here, we’d all like to know where the pixie dust is being spread today. We all know the Premier likes to promise big things, really big things, and not deliver—and really not deliver—like a 20% income tax cut or a 12% reduction on your hydro rates. Now, with Bill 88, he’s promising that he’s working for workers. Instead, he’s making them second-class workers under the Employment Standards Act, workers who don’t have the same rights and protections that all Ontario workers have fought for and deserve.

When will the Premier stop saying things just because they sound really good and actually deliver on the protections that Ontario’s gig workers need?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): I recognize the government House leader.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, let’s think of what he just said there: “When will the Premier stop announcing things that sound good?” So if they sound good, it means that they must be good for the people of the province of Ontario. I guess that that’s what it means, right?

The member opposite thinks that reducing taxes for the people of the province of Ontario is not something we should be doing, that it’s too good for the people of the province of Ontario; that providing better protection for workers in the province of Ontario, something they didn’t do for over 15 years, that the workers don’t deserve it. That’s what the Liberals think. We don’t. That reducing the gas tax for the people of the province of Ontario at a time when carbon taxes, war in Ukraine is hurting all of our economy—they think it’s too rich to put more money back in the pockets of the people of Ontario.

And that is fundamentally the difference between the Liberals and the NDPs in a coalition. We believe in putting money back in the pockets of people to build a strong economy where people can live, work, invest and raise a family. And there is no better place in North America to do it than Ontario right now, under the strong, stable Progressive Conservative—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): Thank you.

I return to the member for Ottawa South.

Mr. John Fraser: I don’t think my colleague across the way got it. It’s actually the Premier saying things that he’s doing, like a 20% income tax cut or 12% off your hydro rates. I don’t know about you, but if you guys think they’ve happened, maybe you should go and knock on a few doors.

The Working for Workers Act doesn’t actually work for workers. In fact, this is a government and a Premier who like to say no. They want to say no to protections for their health and safety, no to vacation pay, no to termination pay, no to rights to organize, no to a fair living wage. And just like the Ontario Autism Program and so many other things, the Premier likes to say big things, really big things, and promise big things and then come up short, really short, or not at all.

When will the Premier stop talking the big talk and actually deliver real rights and protections to gig workers in Ontario?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Again, Mr. Speaker, let’s go back to 2018, before we were elected. We saw jobs and investment fleeing Ontario because of the policies of the Liberals and the NDP. They never saw a regulation that they didn’t like. They put in regulations. We were twice as regulated as any other province in the country. Jobs were fleeing. And what has happened since we have come to office? Not only are we making important investments in health care, including in his own community—his own government, and he was parliamentary assistant, refused to put investments into the Ottawa Hospital. It took us to get that done.

We’re cutting taxes for people. That’s what Conservatives do: more money in their pockets. Jobs are coming back to Ontario. We’ve saved the auto sector, Mr. Speaker. We’re building transit and transportation. And do you know what? When we build transit and transportation, it works. We don’t build bridges upside down like the Liberals did. Ontario is getting back to work because of a strong, stable Progressive Conservative majority, and after June 2, they will get another one.

Health care funding

Mr. Dave Smith: In honour of national Tartan Day, I am wearing my family tartan: McPherson.

My question is to the President of the Treasury Board. My constituents have heard that the government’s plan to stay open includes adding 3,000 new beds over 10 years and the continuation of the over 3,100 beds in hospitals that were added during the pandemic. My constituents have sacrificed so much during this pandemic and want to know more about how this government is fixing the failure of the previous government.

To the President of the Treasury Board: How will this legislation and the plan to stay open protect Ontarians for generations to come?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): I recognize the parliamentary assistant to the President of the Treasury Board.

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: I want to thank the member from Peterborough–Kawartha for that question. The member is correct. Through the Ministry of Health, we are investing over $30 billion over the next 10 years to address long-standing challenges in our hospitals, created by the former Liberal government. In addition, since the onset of this pandemic, the government has added nearly 1,000 more intensive care hospital beds.

Speaker, after a decade and a half of neglect, the people of Peel region are finally getting the new hospitals they deserve. Last December, we announced the largest investment in hospital infrastructure in Canadian history to completely rebuild the Mississauga Hospital in Mississauga–Lakeshore. And last Sunday, the Premier announced another $21 million to invest in expanding the William Osler Health System. This funding will transform Peel Memorial into a new in-patient hospital with a 24/7 emergency department and expand cancer care for Brampton Civic Hospital.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): I return to the member for Peterborough–Kawartha.

Mr. Dave Smith: I’d like to thank the Treasury Board representative, the member from Mississauga–Lakeshore, for that answer. It’s really important that we build on the lessons we’ve learned from COVID-19, and I’m pleased to hear that we’re actually doing that. I can’t believe that after 15 years of Liberal inaction, we’re actually getting hospitals built, something that is completely foreign to what the previous government did.

I think that the answer highlights another important area for me, though, and that’s training future health care practitioners in Ontario. It’s great to have new beds, but we need nurses and we need doctors to actually be there to make sure that people are getting the care that they deserve. It’s also important that we’re attracting and retaining other medical professionals.

Can the minister please tell the House how these initiatives will help Ontario weather future emergencies?

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: Thank you again to the member for that question. To stay open, we need to retain as many staff as possible, retraining more people and breaking down barriers for skilled workers who choose to stay here in Ontario. Through the new Ontario Learn and Stay grant, up to 2,500 students will be eligible to receive full, upfront funding for tuition, books and other things for education. As well, that will keep them here in the graduated areas that they want to work in.

We are also supporting foreign-trained medical professionals by proposing an amendment so that internationally trained health care workers can receive certification from the regulatory colleges in a timely manner and start working as soon as possible.

Finally, we are also building the health care workforce for tomorrow by adding 160 new undergraduate seats and 295 new postgraduate positions across the six medical schools in Ontario over the next five years.

I want to thank the Minister of Colleges and Universities and the Minister of Health for all the work that they are doing to help us rebuild the system that was neglected by the previous Liberal government. We are getting it—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): Thank you.

I recognize the member for Mushkegowuk–James Bay.

M. Guy Bourgouin: Ma question est pour le premier ministre.

Monsieur le Président, je veux que ce gouvernement explique pourquoi M. Aubertin a dû vivre cette expérience—et de fournir des explications pour ce manque. C’est inacceptable.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): Merci. I recognize the Minister of Francophone Affairs.

Monsieur le Président, en plus de moderniser la loi, nous mettons en oeuvre des mesures pour fortifier la capacité pour faire la promotion des services, mais aussi pour la stratégie de la main-d’oeuvre francophone et bilingue. Il y a un manque, une pénurie de main-d’oeuvre francophone ici en Ontario, et c’est pour ça, avec notre modernisation dans le cadre législatif, qu’on fait tout ce qu’on peut pour renforcer la main-d’oeuvre francophone pour livrer ces services.

Nous prenons ce problème très au sérieux, et je serais heureuse de parler avec le membre opposé de ce problème.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): I return to the member for Mushkegowuk–James Bay.

M. Guy Bourgouin: J’apprécie la réponse de la ministre, mais la situation ne s’améliore pas, monsieur le Président.

Je comprends certainement la frustration de nombreux Ontariens en ce qui concerne les tests au volant. Bien sûr, en raison de la pandémie, nous avons mis sur pause les tests au volant. En juin de l’année dernière, j’ai présenté un plan audacieux avec un investissement de plus de 16 millions de dollars pour augmenter le nombre de tests routiers. On a embauché plus de 250 personnes, des examinateurs supplémentaires, pour offrir des services routiers avec des heures prolongées à travers la province, y compris dans le Nord, pour les Ontariens du Nord, y compris les francophones.

Nous avons apporté la modernisation du test G pour améliorer l’efficacité pour nous assurer que tous les Ontariens, anglophones et francophones, puissent avoir accès à ces services. Mais je continue à demander la patience.

Taxation

Mrs. Belinda C. Karahalios: My question is for the Premier. Recently, this government finally admitted that they will fail to deliver on another promise from their 2018 election campaign: to reduce gas and fuel taxes in their first term in office—another promise made and promise broken.

During the 2018 election campaign, the Premier promised to bring in tax relief by cutting the provincial tax on gas and fuel in his first term in office. By November 2021, with this promise still not fulfilled, the Premier said a cut in gas taxes would come before the next budget. Now the budget is on its way and the government has stated that only a temporary cut in gas and fuel taxes would come, and only if they are re-elected.

Looking back on the last four years of a wasted opportunity, why did the government not keep its commitment to cut the provincial tax on gas and fuel during its first term in office?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): I recognize the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Michael Parsa: I thank my colleague for the question. We’re introducing legislation that, if passed, would temporarily cut the tax by 5.7 cents per litre. That is on top of the 4.3 cents that has already been cut for Ontarians. These savings, coupled with the recently announced elimination of the licence plate fees, would save an Ontario household $465 per year in 2022.

My question is to my colleague: Why isn’t she and all members in the opposition not helping us in fighting the carbon tax which is adding so much cost and burden to Ontarians? Once again, we are fighting every day to make sure we lower costs for Ontarians. The opposition does the opposite and always votes against every initiative we put forward.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): Returning to the member for Cambridge for the supplementary.

Mrs. Belinda C. Karahalios: They keep talking about the carbon tax, and they’ve implemented their own. A cut to the provincial tax on gas and fuel would have been a great help to Ontarians over the last four years, especially as this government and its forced lockdowns and mandates shuttered businesses and put people out of work. But this government failed and broke its promise.

Now they have admitted that, under a PC government, there will never be a permanent cut to the gas and fuel tax. The government has said they will cut the gas and fuel tax but only if re-elected and only for a few months. Why is that? Why is tax relief for Ontarians only a good idea for a few months and only if the government is re-elected? Why won’t the government cut gas and fuel taxes today and make the cut permanent?

Mr. Michael Parsa: Again, I thank the honourable colleague for the question. Today, tomorrow and every day since we’ve been elected, we’ve been fighting for Ontarians, and we won’t stop doing that. Mr. Speaker, the latest that we announced after two very difficult years for Ontarians—and there was a lot asked of Ontarians, individuals and families, which is why we make sure that every single initiative we put forward benefits Ontarians.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that on top of the 5.7-cents-a-litre reduction in the fuel tax that the member alluded to—and I hope that everybody in opposition votes in favour of this—we also removed licence plate fees. Thanks to the Minister of Transportation—removing tolls for Ontarians.

Again, every single time we put these forward, the opposition votes against them, but that’s not going to stop us. Every single day, we will work hard to make sure that we make life more affordable for the people of Ontario, including members in her riding.

Northern Ontario development / Développement du nord de l’Ontario

Mr. Jim McDonell: My question is for the Minister of Northern Development, Mines, Natural Resources and Forestry. We all understand that our province’s northern regions have different needs than those of the south. Whether it’s a consequence of harsher winters, tougher terrain or the often-remote landscapes, it’s clear that living, working and doing business in northern Ontario comes with a particular set of challenges.

Speaker, through you, how is this minister and our government levelling the playing field for northern Ontario businesses and communities?

Hon. Greg Rickford: I want to thank the member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry for his exceptional career and the advocacy for his constituents over the course of time.

Mr. Speaker, we’ve heard in recent weeks in light of the situation in Ukraine that the world has come to the doorstep of northern Ontario. And Sudbury, as our flagship city, with all it has to offer in the mining sector and the mining services supply sector, needs to be ready for that. Like northern Ontario communities across some 800,000 square kilometres, we’re ensuring that the quality of life in those communities is where not just families who currently live there want it to be at, but also future families.

We’re on the move, and we’re growing. That’s why I announced the three quarters of a million dollars for an open theatre in the downtown core, enhancements to the Kivi Park for trails and, of course, 105 000 $ dans le Conseil scolaire public du Grand Nord de l’Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, Sudbury is on the move—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): Thank you. I recognize the member for Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry.

Mr. Jim McDonell: Thank you for the hard work on shaping a more inclusive Northern Ontario Heritage Fund that has reaped success. I congratulate the minister and all those who have worked to create a better and broader entity for their efforts. I’m certain that these investments will prove equally as valuable to the communities as they will to those who receive them directly. After all, building and investing in businesses and community infrastructure makes for better communities, creates jobs and helps strengthen a community’s core identity. I think that’s a lesson that the Wynne-Del Duca Liberals could reflect on as they consider their tainted legacy of dismal stretch goals.

To the minister: How is this government working to rebuild the tarnished relationships left by the previous government, to improving northern Ontarians’ quality of life?

Hon. Greg Rickford: During my visit to Sudbury, I also announced an example of what the northern Ontario resource development program can do. We understand the impact of the resource sector on our towns and cities across northern Ontario. I was able to announce funding for Sudbury to develop a roundabout, which would divert some of the resource traffic in and around Sudbury. It was very well received by the deputy mayor.

But really, this is about preparing all of our towns and cities for a reality. Whether it’s the forest sector or the mining sector, the United States of America and the European Union have come a-calling. They want northern Ontario to supply them with their forestry products and their mining products, particularly critical minerals. But time and time again, all our investments are met with resistance from the Liberal-NDP coalition. The no democratic party, in particular, says no to growth and development in northern Ontario—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): Thank you.

Hon. Greg Rickford: —and the people there know it. That’s why they’re rallying behind the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): Thank you. I recognize the member for Thunder Bay–Atikokan.

Road safety

Ms. Judith Monteith-Farrell: My question is for the Premier. People in Thunder Bay–Atikokan and across the north are very concerned about the safety of our roads. My office received an email last week from a constituent with photos of yet another recent accident involving trucks. I have frequent phone calls about near misses and stretches that have regular accidents, and I know the government has heard about the famous Sistonens Corners. Some conversations are harder because we have to talk about fatalities and serious injuries.

I thank the OPP for a recent enforcement blitz, but where is the investment in infrastructure to make it safer? My caucus brings bills and motions forward and asks questions. When is this issue actually going to be taken seriously? When is this government going to get serious about road safety in northwestern Ontario?

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: I thank the member opposite for the question. On this side of the House, we take road safety very seriously, especially in the north, where winter driving conditions can make driving even more challenging. We take winter maintenance seriously. After 15 years of Liberal government, things only got worse in the north, so for the last four years we’ve been taking important steps to improve the safety of driving on northern roads in all sorts of ways.

With respect to infrastructure, we have taken important steps. I was in Kenora recently with the Minister of Northern Development and Mines to celebrate the expansion of Highway 17 from Kenora to the Manitoba border. We’re expanding Highways 11 and 17 from Thunder Bay to Nipigon. The member asks: Where are the investments? The investments are in bills that our government puts forward that the NDP continuously votes against.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): I return to the member from Thunder Bay–Atikokan for the supplementary.

Ms. Judith Monteith-Farrell: My question is for the Premier. I’m glad the minister mentioned winter roads because we’re having a snowstorm in Thunder Bay today, so just a heads-up.

Another major concern on road safety is the transport trucks travelling the Trans-Canada Highway. Residents report that drivers are going too fast, especially on winter roads, when safety means driving below the speed limit. Our highways are not provided with equal plowing and salting to the 400 system in southern Ontario. There aren’t enough transport inspectors, and we know truckers are under a lot of pressure to get their cargo to their destinations.

We also know that there isn’t enough training or testing to make sure that drivers are operating safely in winter conditions. That’s an issue for both them and other drivers, like local residents who have to use their personal vehicles. When is this government going to do something to make sure northern highways are safe?

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: Since our election in 2018, we have been taking important steps to ensure that roads are safe. We have announced that we are building new rest areas and expanding existing rest areas across the north to improve safety for truck drivers.

With respect to training, though, Ontario has a very robust commercial licensing system in place. It is, in fact, among the most robust anywhere in North America and we are committed to taking steps to ensure that it is upheld. The training standard includes a minimum of over 103 hours of instruction and it covers entry-level knowledge and skills that are needed for truck drivers to operate on Ontario’s roads.

Mr. Speaker, I’m working with the Minister of Colleges and Universities to ensure that our organizations that provide training are designated and approved under the ministry’s certification program. The ministry and I have been in regular contact with the trucking industry over the last year to gather feedback on the effectiveness of that training program. We’re going to take all the steps we need to, to ensure that our roads continue to be among the safest in North America.

Government appointments

M me Lucille Collard: My question is to the Premier. Despite the Premier’s promise to stay away from cronyism, this government’s track record on political appointments has been less than stellar. We’ve seen numerous examples of appointments that favour the Premier’s friends, without seeing the qualifications associated with the high-profile positions that they’ve been appointed to. From the Ottawa Police Services Board to Dean French’s appointment free-for-all, this government seems to choose who to appoint based on their donors list, despite campaign pledges to the contrary.

Will the government apologize for not taking politics out of the appointment process?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): I recognize the government House leader.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Speaker, in fact, that’s exactly what we did. We saw that, after years of cash-for-access and a whole host of ethical challenges that the previous government faced, whether it was air Ornge or—oh, my gosh, the list is just too much. We all remember windmills in communities that didn’t want them, for power that we didn’t need, and the chief of staff going to jail, of the previous Liberal government, and—

Interjection: Gas plants.

Hon. Paul Calandra: I forgot about gas—there are so many ethical challenges from the Wynne-Del Duca times that it is hard to keep up with all of them. But that all changed in 2018. We brought openness and transparency into government. We’ve made so many changes in this place alone to make Parliament work better for all people, including giving the opposition, or the minority—I shouldn’t even say the minority—the few Liberals that are left an opportunity to ask four questions. Imagine that they would ask a question on ethics, that the Liberals would ask a question on ethics, Mr. Speaker.

We’re going to continue doing all that we can to make this the best place to live, work, invest and to raise a family. That, the people of Ontario can count on.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bill Walker): I return to the member from Ottawa–Vanier for the supplemental.

M me Lucille Collard: Having good ethics in appointments is a good thing. Appointing people you want to reward who don’t have the skills required for a job has real impacts on the services to Ontarians. When the media picks up on examples of evident favours being returned through appointment to high positions, the public has good reason to be concerned.

Premier Ford had committed to be more transparent with provincial appointments since elected, yet the numerous reports we see in the news every day clearly demonstrate that the government has broken that promise time and time again. So why is it that the Premier does not bring the rigour and the transparency he promised to Ontarians?

Hon. Paul Calandra: I don’t know how many questions they get a week—very few—and they ask this question now, Mr. Speaker. Not that it matters, because, with everything else that is going on in the world, the Liberals are asking a question on ethics