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

October 5, 2021

42nd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2021-Oct-05 (PDF)

L002 - Tue 5 Oct 2021 / Mar 5 oct 2021

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 5 October 2021 Mardi 5 octobre 2021

Royal assent / Sanction royale

Resignation of member for Don Valley East

Tabling of sessional papers

Appointment of presiding officers

Private members’ public business

Orders of the Day

Select Committee on Emergency Management Oversight

Members’ Statements

Optometry services

Childhood cancer

Employment standards

Metcalfe Fair

COVID-19 response

Cancer treatment

Sam Ault

Addiction services

Waste reduction

Agriculture industry

House sittings

Thane Murray

Members’ privileges

Member’s privilege

Question Period

COVID-19 response

Government fiscal policies

School safety

Indigenous education

Long-term care

COVID-19 response

Long-term care

Indigenous relations and reconciliation

Hospital and school safety

Breast cancer

Small business

COVID-19 response

Optometry services

COVID-19 response

Private members’ public business

Notice of dissatisfaction

Reports by Committees

Select Committee on Emergency Management Oversight

Select Committee on Emergency Management Oversight

Select Committee on Emergency Management Oversight

Select Committee on Emergency Management Oversight

Introduction of Bills

Creating Safe Zones around Hospitals, Other Health Facilities, Schools and Child Care Centres Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 créant des zones sécuritaires autour des hôpitaux, des autres établissements de santé, des écoles et des centres de garde

Stopping Anti-Public Health Harassment Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 visant à mettre fin au harcèlement face à la prise de mesures de santé publique

Long-Term Care Commission’s Recommendations Reporting Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 sur la communication des recommandations de la commission d’enquête sur les foyers de soins de longue durée

York Region Wastewater Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 sur les eaux usées dans la région de York

Jobs and Jabs Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 sur l’incidence du statut vaccinal sur l’emploi

10 Paid Sick Days for Ontario Workers Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 visant à accorder 10 jours de congé de maladie payé aux travailleurs de l’Ontario

Petitions

COVID-19 testing

Optometry services

Assistive devices

Optometry services

Places of religious worship

Optometry services

Long-term care

Optometry services

Optometry services

Optometry services

Orders of the Day

Select Committee on Emergency Management Oversight

Adjournment Debate

Hospital and school safety

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Royal assent / Sanction royale

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to a certain bill in her office.

The Deputy Clerk (Mr. Trevor Day): The following is the title of the bill to which Her Honour did assent:

An Act to amend the Election Finances Act / Loi modifiant la

Loi sur le financement des élections.

Resignation of member for Don Valley East

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I also beg to inform the House that, during the adjournment, a vacancy has occurred in the membership of the House by reason of the resignation of Michael Coteau as the member for the electoral district of Don Valley East, effective August 17, 2021. Accordingly, I have issued my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for a by-election.

Tabling of sessional papers

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I also beg to inform the House that, during the adjournment, the following documents were tabled:

—the 2020-21 annual report from the Office of the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario;

—the 2020 annual report and statistical report from the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario;

—order in council 918/2021, dated June 24, 2021, appointing Dr. Kieran Moore as Chief Medical Officer of Health for the province of Ontario, for a fixed term of five years, effective June 26, 2021;

—the 2020-21 annual report from the Office of the Ombudsman of Ontario;

—the 2020-21 annual report from the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario;

—a report entitled, Expenditure Monitor 2020-21: Q4, from the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario;

—a report entitled, Municipal Infrastructure: A Review of Ontario’s Municipal Infrastructure and an Assessment of the State of Repair, from the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario;

—a report entitled, Ontario’s Credit Rating: 2021 Update, from the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario.

I also beg to inform the House that during the interval between the first session of the 42nd Parliament and the second session of the 42nd Parliament, the following documents were tabled:

—a report concerning Stan Cho, member for Willowdale, from the Office of the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario;

—a report concerning Catherine Fife, member for Waterloo, from the Office of the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario; and

—a report entitled, Expenditure Monitor 2021-22: Q1, from the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario.

Appointment of presiding officers

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: If you seek it, you will find unanimous consent that the order for government notice of motion number 2 be called immediately, and that the question on the motion be put without debate or amendment.

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

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: I move that the order of the House dated July 18, 2018, be rescinded, and that Bill Walker, member for the electoral district of Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, be appointed Deputy Speaker and Chair of the Committee of the Whole House;

That Lisa Gretzky, member for the electoral district of Windsor West, be appointed First Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole House;

That Percy Hatfield, member for the electoral district of Windsor–Tecumseh, be appointed Second Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole House; and

That Jennifer French, member for the electoral district of Oshawa, be appointed Third Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole House.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Motion agreed to.

Private members’ public business

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: If you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to move a motion without notice respecting private members’ public business.

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

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: I move that, notwithstanding standing order 101(e), the notice requirements for ballot items 1 through 9 be waived; and that, notwithstanding standing order 98(a), the House shall not meet to consider private members’ public business on Tuesday, October 5, 2021, Wednesday, October 6, 2021 and Thursday, October 7, 2021; and that a change be made to the order of precedence on the ballot list drawn on September 27 such that Mr. Fraser assumes ballot item number 2 and that Mr. Wilson assumes ballot item number 7.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Motion agreed to.

Orders of the Day

Select Committee on Emergency Management Oversight

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I move that the Select Committee on Emergency Management Oversight be reappointed with the same mandate and membership that existed prior to the prorogation of the first session of the 42nd Parliament, and that it resume its business at the same stage of progress as at prorogation.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Ms. Jones has moved government notice of motion number 1. I look to the Solicitor General to lead off the debate.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: As I do every time we discuss COVID-19 measures, and particularly given the start of this new legislative session, I would like to begin first by thanking the staff of this Legislature for continuing to distinguish themselves through the care and professionalism with which they have ensured this House remains open and accessible, even during this global pandemic. When the people of Ontario have needed you to go above and beyond in your service to this democratic institution, you have never faltered.

Off the top, I would also like to take a moment to acknowledge that Sunday was Firefighters’ Memorial Day, an opportunity to honour firefighters who have given their lives in the line of duty. If you haven’t already, I would encourage members to signal their gratitude and appreciation to Ontario’s firefighters in each of your respective communities.

This week is also Fire Prevention Week, an educational week to inform Ontarians about how to keep themselves, their loved ones and their property safe from fire. The theme for this year’s annual safety week is “Learn the Sounds of Fire Safety!”, and we are encouraging Ontarians to get loud and test your smoke and carbon monoxide alarms to ensure they are working properly. Thank you, Speaker, for the chance to mention these two items that I know are very important to all members of the chamber.

I’m honoured to rise to discuss the important motion before this House, and that is to re-establish a Select Committee on Emergency Management Oversight. Members will recall that a similar motion was brought before this House in July 2020, as we were debating the Reopening Ontario (A Flexible Response to COVID-19) Act.

As we resume our important work as legislators in this second session of the 42nd Ontario Parliament, I am particularly pleased to note that this motion is up for debate very early on, in what I have no doubt will be a very busy legislative calendar. This speaks to our government’s commitment to ensuring that the important work that the select committee carried out for the last year can continue, with the objective of keeping Ontarians safe, informed and engaged. I trust that all members of the House share in this important commitment.

As members may know, the prorogation of the House last month dissolved the previous select committee established last July. In order for the important work of the committee to continue, it needs to be reformed, and we are taking the first possible opportunity to move ahead.

The motion before us is similar to what members debated last July. In this same spirit of transparency and accountability to our constituents in each region of the province, it would, if adopted, establish an all-party select committee to receive oral reports from the Premier or his designate on the orders made under the reopening Ontario act that have been extended or amended.

Before I speak specifically about the motion before the House, I want to remind members of the context this motion fits into with respect to the reopening Ontario act. After that, I will speak to some specifics of the select committee and, finally, provide a brief update to the House regarding the status of orders that have been continued under the reopening Ontario act.

To remind members, the reopening Ontario act was brought into force in July 2020 to serve as a tool to ensure that Ontario could continue to respond to the long-term impacts of COVID-19, while acknowledging that the government no longer needed the extraordinary tools available pursuant to the declaration of emergency made on March 17, 2020.

When the reopening Ontario act entered into force last July, orders that had been made pursuant to the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act transferred over from one act to the other. I noted in this House back in July 2020 that, as legislators, we have a duty to deliver a practical and flexible plan that supports the hard-earned progress that has been made as our communities have banded together to respond to the pandemic, while recognizing that COVID-19 will still be with us tomorrow. Given the developments in the COVID-19 pandemic since that time, the sentiment rings truer than ever.

The reopening Ontario act has given Ontario the flexibility we needed to support our continued efforts to respond to the ever-changing situation, whether that was cautiously reopening Ontario when appropriate or strengthening public health measures when necessary.

The reopening Ontario act includes key differences from the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, such as the inability to create any new orders from what was in place on July 24, 2020, as well as limitations on the ways in which orders could be amended. Those limitations mean that amendments to orders can only be made for a very narrow and targeted set of agreed-upon reasons, including:

—closing or regulating places, including any business, office, school, hospital or other establishment or institution;

—providing for rules or practices that relate to workplaces or the management of workplaces, such as authorizing the person responsible for a workplace to identify staffing priorities or to develop, modify and implement redeployment plans or rules or practices that relate to the workplace;

—prohibiting or regulating gatherings or organized public events; and

—requiring people to act in compliance with any advice, recommendation or instruction of a public health official.

These very specific criteria for amendments are in contrast to the extensive powers provided under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, which include, among others: authorizing facilities, including electrical generating facilities, to operate as is necessary to respond to or alleviate the effects of the emergency; as well as evacuating individuals and animals and removing personal property from any specified area and making arrangements for the adequate care and protection of individuals and property.

Of course, the reopening Ontario act does not in itself prohibit the province from declaring a state of emergency if the orders maintained under the reopening Ontario act are unable to guarantee the necessary protections. It is important that this extraordinary measure remains within reach of government, in case it is needed to protect our communities and save lives, when it is deemed essential by public health experts.

Indeed, due to rapidly deteriorating public health indicators, the government, in consultation with the Chief Medical Officer of Health, declared a second and third emergency in January and April 2021, respectively. These measures were taken in response to the rapid increase in COVID-19 transmission, the threat on the province’s hospital system capacity and the increased risks posed to the public by COVID-19 variants.

As our government stated on numerous occasions, declaring these states of emergency in response to COVID-19 were not actions that we took lightly. We had been upfront about the severity of the threats we faced if the public health indicators began moving in the wrong direction. We had said we would not hesitate to explore and exhaust all options necessary to protect Ontarians if the situation worsened.

The orders made under the declarations of emergency, such as the stay-at-home orders issued, complemented the existing measures that have remained in place under the reopening Ontario act. In a concentrated effort to reduce opportunities for transmission, the stay-at-home order required Ontarians to remain at home except for the purposes set out in the order, such as exercise, going to the grocery store or pharmacy, or accessing health care services—of course, including getting a vaccination.

As Ontario’s health care capacity was threatened, the stay-at-home order and other new and existing public health and workplace safety measures worked to preserve public health capacity, safeguard vulnerable populations, allow for progress to be made with vaccinations and ultimately save lives. Once the stay-at-home order expired in June 2020, these restrictions were no longer in effect.

As the Premier has insisted throughout the pandemic, orders should not be in place a day longer than they are needed. An important example of this is that since the reopening Ontario act came into force, eight orders have been allowed to lapse. Some, such as work redeployment in the education sector, are no longer needed, while others, such as virtual signing of wills and powers of attorney and other breakthroughs in moving justice services online, have been made permanent and codified into legislation.

As we’ve seen, when compared to other jurisdictions across North America, Ontario’s plan is clearly seeing an effective curbing of the Delta-driven fourth wave. As a result of Ontario’s extremely cautious approach, including maintaining strong public health measures such as indoor masking, the province’s public health and health care indicators remain stable or are, in fact, improving. At a recent rate of 38 cases per 100,000 people, Ontario continues to report one of the lowest rates of active cases in the country, well below the national average.

Intensive care unit occupancy, while generally in flux on a day-to-day basis, has stayed consistently below the level of 200 throughout the summer and into the fall.

And on the vaccination front, Ontario and Canada continue to lead the world in terms of vaccine uptake, with over 86% of those eligible to be vaccinated having received at least their first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. Over 21 million vaccine doses have been administered across Ontario, with over 200,000 doses administered each week. Every single public health unit has at least three quarters of its population—and I want to highlight especially Leeds, Grenville and Lanark public health unit, which leads the province with over 96% of their population—with at least one dose of the vaccine.

As a government, we have been taking this vital challenge from all perspectives to ensure that every Ontarian who wants to get their first or second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine is able to as quickly and as easily as possible.

To reach parts of the province where vaccination rates are lower than the provincial average, we’ve been working with our partners to expand access to the vaccine through methods such as direct outreach from family physicians to their patient base, as well as pop-up clinics at convenient locations such as workplaces and places of worship.

And, of course, I would be remiss not to mention the three GO-VAXX buses travelling around the province every single day. These GO buses have been temporarily retrofitted to serve as mobile vaccine clinics as part of the province’s last mile strategy to reach those who have yet to receive a second or first dose. This innovative partnership with Metrolinx has led to nearly 9,000 doses administered through walk-up appointments. The GO-VAXX buses will continue to travel to malls, festivals, community hubs and events throughout the fall across Ontario. No appointments are needed, and anyone aged 12 and over can get their first or second doses while supplies last.

By bringing vaccines directly to the people, we are helping more residents get the protections they need to keep themselves, their families and their communities safe. As Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health said in August, thanks to Ontarians rolling up their sleeves to get vaccinated, case rates will fluctuate, but thanks to the protection offered by vaccines, growing case counts will not have the same meaning as during the previous waves of this pandemic. As Dr. Moore noted, the reality is that COVID-19 is not going anywhere any time soon and we have to learn to live with the virus.

However, Ontario has the infrastructure in place to manage outbreaks, including a high-volume capacity for testing, and people on the ground to perform fast and effective case and contact management when necessary. Of course, this is important news for Ontarians looking to return to a semblance of normalcy after a gruelling 18 months of this pandemic.

Yesterday’s speech from the throne made it abundantly clear that, as the world continues to deal with COVID-19, Ontario will be there to keep people safe. The province has pursued the most cautious reopening in Canada, consistently guided by the latest science and evidence when making decisions on how to keep Ontarians safe and healthy.

Most recently, we further strengthened the protections for long-term-care homes by requiring all staff to be vaccinated unless they have a valid medical exemption. This is in addition to surveillance testing and inspections. Ontario was also the first province in Canada to provide third doses of vaccines to residents of long-term care.

If additional public health measures are needed, they will be localized and they will be targeted. On the advice of the Chief Medical Officer of Health, they will seek to minimize disruptions to businesses and families. The ultimate goal shared by all is saving lives and keeping communities safe.

Investments made by our government into health care and other sectors, including education and long-term care, are vital to help manage and contain COVID-19 and its variants. So too are the orders made under the reopening Ontario act. The full name of the reopening Ontario act includes a description that says “a flexible response to COVID-19,” and with good reason. I have often described this legislation as ensuring that the province continues to have access to a dimmer switch, rather than an on-off switch, when it comes to public health measures.

Absent the reopening Ontario act, orders made under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act would cease to exist in their entirety when they expire. Thanks to this legislation, we have been able to strengthen or adjust any public health measures as necessary and respond accordingly to new developments in the fight against COVID-19. For example, Ontario’s temporary vaccine certification system is made possible thanks to the reopening Ontario act.

It goes without saying, Speaker, that these are extraordinary powers for extraordinary times, which is why, when we drafted the reopening Ontario act, we built a number of rigorous accountability and transparency measures directly into this legislation. All orders continue to be subject to 30-day renewals by cabinet, which is similar to the provision required for orders during a provincial emergency. The government is also required to regularly report to the public with respect to the orders that remain in force under the act.

In addition to when changes are announced via media conferences or news releases, Ontarians can visit ontario.ca/alert for a full list of all orders that remain in force in Ontario.

The legislation is also time-limited with a sunset clause. If not extended by the Legislature, the authority under the reopening Ontario act would expire one day after it came into force, July 24, 2021. The Legislature has the authority to extend the legislation’s authority for additional periods of up to one year at a time.

Members will recall that I stood before this House in the spring, in advance of the one-year expiry date of the legislation in July 2021 to propose an extension of the reopening Ontario act until December of this year. We introduced this resolution after careful consideration. It took into account the evidence available to us at the time, our experience to date with COVID-19, and the valuable input and advice of public health experts who have been providing guidance and expertise since the start of the pandemic.

At the time, we noted the importance of this extension to December “due to the fact that, in the medium term, even with vaccination rates increasing, COVID-19 transmission rates still need to be assessed. Based on current evidence and our experience in combatting COVID-19, it is anticipated that the province will require some level of public health and workplace safety measures, such as wearing a mask, until at least late this summer and into the fall of this year.”

With the benefit of time having passed, and as I noted earlier, we can see both those statements were astutely made, and I once again thank the public health experts who continue to provide valuable guidance to government and vital insights to members of this House.

We know that vaccination offers a great deal of protection against COVID-19. As Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor noted in yesterday’s speech from the throne, “Getting vaccinated protects you from the worst of COVID-19. It will save your life.” The data is clear: Unvaccinated people are 43 times more likely to be in an intensive-care-unit bed compared with their fully vaccinated counterparts.

Ontario’s cautious reopening plan, made possible by the reopening Ontario act, with appropriate public health and workplace safety measures in place, has helped to prevent transmission levels from climbing. This approach included some of the highest vaccine thresholds for easing restrictions. We’ve maintained effective public health measures, like indoor masking, while implementing vaccine policies to protect our most vulnerable in retirement homes, hospitals, home and community care, schools and post-secondary institutions, amongst others.

Most recently, we further strengthened protections for long-term-care homes by requiring all staff to be vaccinated unless they have a valid medical exemption. This is in addition to surveillance testing and inspections. Ontario was also the first province in Canada to provide third doses of vaccines to residents of long-term care.

The extension of the expiry date for the powers under the reopening Ontario act—that is, the power to extend or amend existing orders under the ROA—to December 1, 2021, meant that there was no change to the length of time that orders could be extended; the power to amend orders continues to be subject to the criteria I previously outlined; and, finally, the requirement to provide a rationale for every extension still remains.

The legislation also requires that a report be tabled in the House 120 days following the one-year anniversary of the reopening Ontario act coming into force, similar to the reports required under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act. Members can look forward to this report in the coming days.

Of course, the legislation requires regular reportings to a committee of the Legislature, which brings us back to the motion before us regarding the re-formation of a Select Committee on Emergency Management Oversight. The legislation requires that:

“At least once every 30 days, the Premier, or a minister to whom the Premier delegates the responsibility, shall appear before, and report to, a ... committee designated by the assembly concerning,

“(

a) orders that were extended during the reporting period; and

“(

b) the rationale for those extensions.”

My parliamentary assistant, the member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore, will go into further detail about the meetings themselves later in this debate. But I want to highlight specifically the important role that the committee questioning plays in our parliamentary democracy.

While it can sometimes feel that the COVID-19 situation has become commonplace or routine through the passage of time, the orders put in place through the reopening Ontario act are important and deserving of attention. The opportunity for direct legislative questioning on orders does not exist for orders made under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, which is yet another reason why this legislative opportunity is so important for members. If I can channel the House leader for a moment, these measures of legislative accountability are critically important and even more so during COVID-19.

It has been a hallmark over the last year of dealing with COVID-19 that, in Ontario, we put the authority of this Legislature first. This government has gone above and beyond the call of duty to make sure that the Legislature has been able to exercise this important role throughout the pandemic. Unlike some other Parliaments, the Ontario Legislature, as you know, has continued to meet safely to get important work done for the people of this province. That is in no small part thanks to the dedication of assembly staff, whose dedication has allowed us to meet here.

That work has included often rigorous debates over extensions to the declaration of emergency, as well as discussions over the reports produced as a result of those declarations and the many pieces of legislation brought forward to help the people of Ontario get through the pandemic. We’ve changed the way we vote, the way that we conduct committee business and the way that we take meetings as members and ministers, all to make sure that the important work of governing this province continues safely.

The work that is accomplished by parliamentarians on all sides of this House is vital for this Legislature to fulfill its responsibility to Ontarians. We must ensure the select committee can continue to provide these opportunities for members and their constituents to be actively engaged in these critical proceedings.

If adopted, this motion will allow the committee to seamlessly continue its critical role without delay. It will also ensure that the government can continue to be in compliance with the legislative obligations required by the reopening Ontario act. Most importantly, it will ensure that Ontarians can continue to have unobstructed access into the orders that are put in place to keep their loved ones and their communities safe.

Finally, I want to note that there was no meeting of the select committee in September due to the prorogation of the House. As such, I would like to take this opportunity, the first available, to outline briefly the status of orders under the reopening Ontario act since the August meeting of the select committee.

Twenty-eight orders remain in place and, subject to further extensions, remain in place until the first instance of October 17. They are:

—O. Reg. 364/20, rules for areas at step 3 and at the road map exit step;

—O. Reg. 363/20, steps of reopening;

—O. Reg. 345/20, patios;

—O. Reg. 263/20, rules for areas in step 2;

—O. Reg. 240/20, management of retirement homes in outbreak;

—O. Reg. 201/20, management of long-term-care homes in outbreak;

—O. Reg. 195/20, treatment of temporary COVID-19-related payments to employees;

—O. Reg. 193/20, hospital credentialing processes;

—O. Reg. 177/20, congregate care settings;

—O. Reg. 163/20, work deployment measures for mental health and addictions agencies;

—O. Reg. 158/20, limiting work to a single retirement home;

—O. Reg. 157/20, work deployment measures for municipalities;

—O. Reg. 156/20, deployment of employees of service provider organizations;

—O. Reg. 154/20, work deployment measures for district social services administration boards;

—O. Reg. 146/20, limiting work to a single long-term-care home;

—O. Reg. 145/20, work deployment measures for service agencies providing violence against women residential services and crisis line services;

—O. Reg. 141/20, temporary health or residential facilities;

—O. Reg. 132/20, use of force and firearms in policing services;

—O. Reg. 121/20, service agencies providing services and supports to adults with developmental disabilities and service providers providing intervener services;

—O. Reg. 118/20, work deployment measures in retirement homes;

—O. Reg. 116/20, work deployment measures for boards of health;

—O. Reg. 114/20, enforcement of orders;

—O. Reg. 98/20, prohibition on certain persons charging unconscionable prices for sales of necessary goods;

—O. Reg. 95/20, streamlining requirements for long-term-care homes;

—O. Reg. 82/20, rules for areas in shutdown zone and at step 1;

—O. Reg. 77/20, work deployment measures in long-term-care homes;

—O. Reg. 76/20, electronic service; and

—O. Reg. 74/20, work redeployment for certain health service providers.

Amendments continue to be made to the various stages of reopening to facilitate technical course corrections on the current public health measures in place across Ontario. The proof of vaccination requirements and some workplace vaccination policy requirements that have been put in place have also been facilitated through amendments to the stages of reopening orders.

I want to thank members of this Legislature for continuing to engage in respectful and constructive debate in the vital matters that we have discussed today, which would continue to be examined closely through the Select Committee on Emergency Management Oversight’s proceedings. This is not the time to waver or allow obstacles to get in the way of these important opportunities for members of the committee to do the work that we each were elected to do as members of this House.

We need to keep discussing, engaging and working together to put Ontarians and their well-being first, because we know that communities that are informed and engaged on this important public health conversation will be safer, healthier and better equipped to respond to the daily dangers of COVID-19 and its variants.

I encourage all members of the House to assist by adoption of this motion so that the committee can be reconstituted and the 16th meeting can move forward without delay or interruption. Thank you. Merci.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): The minister did say she’d be sharing her time with her parliamentary assistant. The member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore has the floor.

Ms. Christine Hogarth: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s wonderful to be back here again.

First of all, I would like to say thank you to all those people who are front-line workers out across our communities all around the province who have done such amazing work to make sure our communities remain safe as we continue with the pandemic.

I’m pleased to join this debate this morning on this important motion. As parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General, I want to start by echoing the minister’s comments this morning about two important dates for firefighters this week. Firefighters’ Memorial Day is an important day for firefighters across the province. As Ontarians, we owe so much to our dedicated fire service, especially those who have lost their lives in the line of duty.

Fire Prevention Week also happens this week, and it is a great opportunity for the public to learn from their local fire services about how to keep themselves, their loved ones and their property safe from fire. The theme this week is “Learn the Sounds of Fire Safety!”, and I echo the Solicitor General’s sentiment for Ontarians to get loud and understand what your smoke detectors are telling you.

And, you know what, you can always call a firefighter to help you. My aunt, who is quite old, had a hard time installing her fire alarm, and she actually called her fire department and they came over to help her and they assisted her. She lives in northern Ontario. Sometimes we all don’t have that help, so I just want to thank those firefighters who helped my aunt to make sure she was safe.

As the Solicitor General noted off the top, the reopening Ontario act has been a vitally important tool that has allowed Ontario to have the flexibility we needed to support the continued efforts to respond to the ever-changing situation, whether that was cautiously reopening Ontario when appropriate or strengthening public health measures when necessary.

When we debated the original legislation last July, we noted that it included key differences from the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, such as the inability to create any new orders beyond what was in place on July 24, 2020, as well as limitations on the ways in which orders could be amended. Those limitations meant that amendments to orders can only be made for a very narrow and targeted set of agreed-on reasons, including:

—closing or regulating places like businesses, offices, schools, hospitals or other establishments or institutions;

—providing for rules or practices that relate to workplaces, or the management of workplaces, such as in the case of redeployment of staff;

—prohibiting or regulating gatherings or organized public events; and

—requiring people to act in compliance with any advice, recommendation or instruction of a public health official such as the Chief Medical Officer of Health.

The reopening Ontario act has given the province the flexibility we needed to support our continued efforts to respond to the ever-changing situation, whether that was cautiously reopening Ontario when appropriate or strengthening public health measures when necessary.

As a result of Ontario’s extremely cautious approach, the province’s public health and health care indicators remain stable or are improving. This approach included some of the highest vaccine thresholds for easing restrictions. We have maintained effective public health measures like indoor masking, while implementing vaccine policies to protect our most vulnerable in retirement homes, hospitals, home and community care, schools and post-secondary institutions, among others.

At the end of September, Ontario had a COVID-19 case rate of 38 cases per 100,000 people. This is one of the lowest rates of active cases in the country—well below the national average. Although the last 18 months have been tough, it is thanks to the efforts of every single Ontarian that we are here today.

We all have stories in our riding of heroes who have stepped up during this pandemic, and I wanted to share a few with you today. In my riding of Etobicoke–Lakeshore, we have our south Etobicoke cluster, which is run through LAMP Community Health Centre. These people came together with the ambassadors to even go out and knock on doors to make sure people were vaccinated, and I salute them. Thank you very much for your efforts. It’s important that we all step up and do our part. Some went above and beyond to make sure their neighbour, their loved ones or their friends got vaccinated.

Of course, we know that vaccination remains our best defence against getting or getting seriously ill from COVID-19. Ontario and Canada continue to lead the world in terms of vaccine uptake, with over 86% of those eligible to be vaccinated having received at least their first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine.

In my riding of Etobicoke–Lakeshore, the community has been working together to ensure those who have yet to get vaccinated have the tools and resources they need to do so. Back in May, we had our first pop-up clinic, and that was at the food terminal. We vaccinated over 7,000 people. We had another pop-up clinic at the food terminal for a full week in July, from the 5th to the 10th, and we vaccinated another 5,000 people. In August, we had the GO-VAXX bus at the Ontario Food Terminal once again for two days, vaccinating many people, and getting many first doses out there. Those first doses right now are so important to all of us.

My riding also hosted the mass immunization clinic at Cloverdale Mall which opened on April 12. Sherway Gardens hosts an immunization clinic, right now in September, and ongoing. Just to make sure, if you’re shopping and you haven’t been vaccinated, please stop by and get that vaccination.

Susan Bisaillon, the CEO of the Safehaven Project for Community Living, hosted a vaccine clinic for those who were just a little intimidated to get their shots. The care that Susan gives all her clients—she’s just an amazing woman, so a shout-out to Susan for the work you do. She made sure that those people who needed that extra bit of care received their vaccination in comfort that was suitable for them.

And the TTC: A shout-out to the TTC for having pop-up clinics all around the city of Toronto, including in my riding at Islington Station on September 16 to 18.

Right now in Toronto there are still vaccine clinics happening everywhere, so, please, please, everybody, if you know someone who’s not vaccinated, please share that information with them.

As the Solicitor General noted earlier in the debate, Ontario’s cautious reopening plan has been made possible thanks to orders under the reopening Ontario act. As legislators, it’s important that we have a keen understanding of government decision-making, especially when it comes to COVID-19. This is why I am pleased that the reopening Ontario act, when it was passed last July, included a number of important measures in place to ensure accountability and transparency.

This included regular reporting to the public regarding orders that were amended or extended; a report to the Legislature following the first year of the act’s in-force date; a sunset clause on the legislation, subject to renewal by this Legislature; and, of course, regular reporting to the committee of the Legislature regarding the orders extended or amended in the preceding 30 days.

This brings us to the motion before us regarding the re-establishment of the Select Committee on Emergency Management Oversight. I want to build off the commentary that the Solicitor General outlined in her remarks regarding the important work that the Select Committee on Emergency Management Oversight conducts on a regular basis.

As the members know, the reopening Ontario act requires that at least once every 30 days, the Premier, or a minister to whom the Premier delegates the responsibility to, shall appear before and report to a committee designated by the assembly concerning orders that were extended during the reporting period and the rationale for those extensions.

As a member of the Select Committee on Emergency Management Oversight since its inception, I want to share my experiences. I have been extremely lucky to have joined and learned from our Chair, the member for Hastings–Lennox and Addington, as well as my fellow committee members, the members for Eglinton–Lawrence, Oakville North–Burlington, Niagara West, Sarnia–Lambton and Durham, as well as others from the government and the opposition side who have joined us.

Since August 2020, the select committee has met 15 times to hear from the Premier’s designate. Each meeting is composed of a 30-minute oral presentation from the Premier’s designate outlining the orders that have been amended or extended since the previous meeting. This is followed by 70 minutes of questions from all parties to help explain the rationale for these extensions and amendments.

The questions that members of the committee have raised are far- and wide-reaching, which include the need for workplace redeployment measures, the government’s plan for easing restrictions when case counts decline and the impact of the orders on the lives of Ontarians, including what supports the government is providing to mitigate those impacts.

It is an extremely valuable opportunity for us, all members who sit on that committee, to ask questions, including those that come to our office. I’m always able to ask questions that my constituents bring to my attention, and I know others do here as well. It’s not just about Toronto, it’s about all of the province. It’s people from Nickel Belt. We have people from Ottawa. So it really covers the bases of questions from all communities, because each community has dealt with the pandemic just a little bit differently.

It’s a valuable opportunity to bring forward the concerns, thoughts, fears and hopes of our constituents. I’m sure that all members have heard, as I have, from so many of their constituents throughout this entire pandemic, and bringing forward their questions and concerns to the Premier’s designate is extremely helpful.

I know the vast majority of Ontarians just want to understand and have confidence in their government’s plan to combat COVID-19, and this committee has provided an amazing forum to do just that.

Members of the committee have had their opportunity to hear from the Solicitor General for most of these meetings, as she has been the designate from the Premier due to her ministry’s responsibility for emergency management and carriage of the reopening Ontario act itself, as well as her role as co-lead, in partnership with the Minister of Health, in the province’s vaccination campaign.

I truly want to thank the Solicitor General for all of her hard work. Her tireless efforts—she was always there at committee, and she always answers all the questions, so I just really want to thank her for all her hard work. It has been a crazy year for us all. We see her on TV with the Minister of Health, and there’s no holiday. There’s no holiday for our ministers, so I just want to thank them once again.

The committee has also had the opportunity to hear from the Minister of Health and the Chief Medical Officer of Health, as well as Dr. Steini Brown with the COVID-19 science advisory table. The committee has provided written reports to the Legislature after each meeting, and I hope that members have had the opportunity to review them.

Speaker, I am very proud of the work that we have accomplished on the committee to date, and I’m sure my colleagues from all sides of the House are as well. This is why it is so important to ensure that the select committee can continue to provide these opportunities for legislators to be actively engaged in these critical proceedings. If adopted, this motion will allow the committee to seamlessly continue its critical role without delay. It will also ensure that the government can continue to be in compliance with the legislative obligations required by the reopening Ontario act.

This motion is yet another example of how our government has ensured that this Legislature can continue its important work during the COVID-19 pandemic. Whether it has been safely continuing in person or virtually through the sessions of the Legislature, making changes to the way that we vote in order to maintain physical distancing or the regular debate that we’ve had on extensions to declarations of emergency and the powers under the reopening Ontario act, our government has never wavered in giving this Legislature the tools needed to continue working throughout COVID-19.

I’m sure all members can agree on how important that is, and I thank the staff here at the Legislative Assembly for their work.

But, Speaker, the most important reason that this motion needs to be passed is that it will ensure that Ontarians can continue to have unobstructed access to the orders that are put in place to keep their loved ones and their communities safe. As the Solicitor General outlined, orders under the reopening Ontario act continue to play a role in Ontario’s COVID-19 response, including through the recent implementation of vaccine certification requirements and vaccine policy requirements. These policies have resulted in a marked increase in vaccination rates.

Between September 1 and September 8 of this year, the seven-day average for first doses administered increased by more than 29%, from over 11,400 doses to over 14,700 doses. During that time, more than 90,000 first doses and 102,000 second doses were administered in Ontario to individuals age 18 to 59.

This is an amazing accomplishment, because once people think they don’t want to get vaccinated, it’s hard to change their minds. So I just want to thank everybody here who has talked to somebody or said, “Talk to your doctor,” to say, “Let’s get vaccinated.” It is so important to share that opinion. As I say, I’m a politician; talk to your doctor and get their advice, because it is so important to look after our young ones who cannot get the vaccination.

High rates of vaccination against COVID-19 are critical to helping protect our communities and hospital capacity while keeping Ontario schools and businesses safely open. As we continue our last-mile push to increase vaccination rates, requiring proof of immunization in select settings will encourage even more Ontarians to receive a vaccine and stop the spread of COVID-19.

We know that vaccination offers a great degree of protection against COVID-19. As Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor noted in yesterday’s speech from the throne, “Getting vaccinated protects you from the worst of COVID-19. It will save your life.”

Mr. Speaker, the data is clear: Unvaccinated people are 43 times more likely to be in an intensive-care-unit bed compared with their fully vaccinated counterparts. I’ll say that again because it’s truly important for people to know that: Unvaccinated people are 43 times more likely to be in an intensive-care-unit bed compared to their fully vaccinated counterparts.

These are critically important measures put in place to help continue to keep Ontarians safe from the dangers of COVID-19, which is why it remains so important for this committee to get back to work. Moreover, these measures deserve the attention of the Select Committee on Emergency Management Oversight to ask questions and seek information from the government on its decision-making when it comes to these and other changes. This is just one example of the many kinds of work that the committee will be able to undertake once it has been reconstituted.

I want to urge all members to support the quick passage of this motion to ensure the committee can get back to work. I want to also encourage all of you to encourage people to get vaccinated. It’s not about ourselves; it’s for the young ones who can’t be vaccinated. I always think of my nephew who’s 10, and we get vaccinated because he cannot. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): We have time for further debate. I recognize the member from Black River—Stoney Creek—no, no. It’s been so long, Tom; I’m sorry.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Humber River–Black Creek. My apologies.

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: It’s an honour to return to the chamber to represent my lifelong home, Humber River–Black Creek, the place where I’m raising my family and my favourite place in the world. I just want to take a quick opportunity to thank the members of my community who have worked so hard and have made many sacrifices during the pandemic. I want to thank our incredible local health partners. Together, we have vaccinated over 300,000 people through pop-up clinics. I’ve worked so hard to get accessible access to vaccinations in my community. It was certainly tough going with access at the very beginning. Vaccines were available, but we had to come together and make it work.

I’m also very happy to be back here to fight for the issues that matter to my community and to all Ontarians. I want to continue to fight for access to rapid testing in our schools and everywhere. I’m looking forward to seeing the eventual fixing of long-term care, which is way overdue. This is something we should have done a long time ago and it’s time to tackle that. There are so many issues—helping businesses recover during this pandemic, giving them the support they need. I am so much looking forward to debating those issues.

Now we are debating a bill that’s here because of the prorogation of the Legislature. We are debating a motion to revive the Select Committee on Emergency Management Oversight. It was created as part of the reopening Ontario act. I’d like to remind the people in this House what was said about the reopening Ontario act, which ultimately gave this government extraordinary powers with none of the accountability, reporting requirements or debate. During their lead, they did talk about the accountability they believe they’re providing Ontarians with this committee. I could speak first-hand about the committee because I, in fact, am a member of it myself.

But I’d like to remind people about what was said about the extraordinary powers that this government has granted themselves during the pandemic. For instance, Patty Coates, the president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, called the reopening Ontario act “a blatant and unfettered power grab by” this government and “a bid to give themselves carte blanche to skirt their democratic responsibilities.”

The SEIU Healthcare union, a union which represents many front-line health care workers in long-term care, called the reopening Ontario act “an extraordinary overreach that would allow for already precarious workers to be further exploited by the for-profit long-term care industry.” And certainly what I would like to see as we return here are thousands more front-line health care workers hired by this government, be it PSWs, nurses or more.

We’ve also heard from others. For instance, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association cites significant concerns they have with this legislation. The big picture issue is that the government is effectively seeking to maintain emergency powers without the emergency label, and this is problematic in terms of democratic oversight and transparency.

We heard from the carpenters’ union. They said that this will allow the government to make the abnormal become normal from a labour relations perspective, which has troubling consequences.

The list goes on and on. We heard from the OFL: “Bill 195 must not go forward. It is a blatant and unfettered power grab by the ... Conservatives.”

Finally, CUPE: “The ... Conservatives’ proposed legislation extending emergency powers will give the province significant powers at the expense of front-line workers.”

So again, what they did was that they called for a huge amount of power, and in their own minds, they formed this committee as what they would state is a bit of a compromise. Do you feel, those who have been a part of the committee or those who have listened in, that this has provided significant accountability? Well, what we have seen is that once a month, roughly—and it has met about 15 times since its inception—the opposition—30 minutes of the official opposition and 10 minutes of the independents—has had the opportunity to question the government, mainly through the Solicitor General.

She has been tasked with an extremely difficult position to try to answer all the questions about these emergency orders and about what’s going on in the government’s handling of the pandemic. Is she able to provide the level of detail—if she wants to, even—in this format? I would argue no. She has to find a way to answer the questions that are provided. Of course, the government members have the ability to ask questions and, as expected, they generally are, I think, the questions that the government is themselves comfortable to answer. But the tough questions: How are they handled?

One thing that could have really improved this committee—and since we are here and it’s being brought before the Legislature once more, if we could do this committee all over again, if we could make the rules different, I have a couple of simple suggestions: Allow the committee members themselves to be able to call experts to this committee, not just the Solicitor General.

On two occasions, the Minister of Health did, in fact, show up. We were not given any sort of notice in advance, and it happened. The health minister showed up and the Chief Medical Officer of Health and they were joined by Steini Brown. This is something that we had been asking for over and over and over again throughout and from the beginning of the inception of the committee. They showed up and then they had to face some of the challenging questions. Sure enough, they appeared once, the health minister appeared a second time and that was that. That was really what happened.

At the time, there was one question that I’d like to once again share with the members in this House. In my community, we have faced, just like many other communities, very packed buses at the height of the pandemic. The issue is, if we are trying to avoid and find ways to make the places that people are forced to gather safe, certainly you would have to consider a bus. We’ve taken videos and shared them; we’ve put it out in the public showing how people riding the buses—let’s say the 36 Finch—were shoulder to shoulder in many cases.

When the Minister of Health appeared, I thought: Well, this is an opportunity to now ask the Minister of Health, “What can we do?”, to let me bring that to their attention. The first thing that happened, and this was concerning for me, was that the Minister of Health seemed to not even have been aware that this could be the potential for spread of COVID-19, based on the answers. She suggested, “Give those questions to the Minister of Transportation.” I said, “Well, certainly you would expect that the science table would identify this as a potential for extreme spread of COVID-19.” You could see she thought about that and she then said she would take that back to the science table.

A month later, when she did return—it was the second and only other time—I asked the same question: “Hey, so what did the science table have to say?” It was like I had not even asked the question at all. She said, “Oh, okay, I’ll take that to the Minister of Transportation.” I felt like I was in the movie Groundhog Day, to be honest, in that moment.

The point is, this is sort of the question—they talk about accountability, and these are some of the things that we brought to them. We asked questions about the initial makeup of the science table—the details. Generally, when those difficult questions came, what the government did—and it was usually the Solicitor General, I guess. She didn’t have the answers available. Whether she did not have the details or was unwilling to share them, we weren’t getting answers to those questions that were being shared.

Another point that I want to bring up—and it’s actually ironic. On the meeting of August 24, 2020, I asked the Solicitor General: “We’re seeing the federal government has moved to prorogue Parliament. Of course, they’re under a lot of heat right now,” and at the time, the Prime Minister was dealing with the WE scandal, the Me to We scandal. I don’t want to digress, but it’s unbelievable, the amount of scandals this Prime Minister and this government, federally, have been involved with, and it just never sticks. But I digress.

I continued by asking, “You had mentioned that there was no intention to prorogue the Legislature, which is good to hear,” because she had initially said that there was no intention. “However, when this committee was struck, it was struck such that it would not have to meet in the case of prorogation. We know that in 2013, there was a committee struck to deal with the gas plants scandal under the former government, but even that committee was prorogation-proof. Why not make this committee prorogation-proof in case something like that happened?”

So at the time—I had asked about this last year—this was the response: “I don’t really think that anticipating what the federal government did and thinking that we as a provincial government are going to do the same, frankly, is a valid argument.” The minister went on to say that, “I’m not going to presuppose or guess as to what’s going to happen in the months ahead.”

I then replied, “Certainly, I don’t think any of us can predict the future. Reliably, none of us predicted that we would be in this state today. It’s just that when you’re setting up a committee like this, you want to make sure that all the t’s are crossed and the i’s are dotted. In the unlikely event that you made the decision to prorogue like the federal government, we would have been protected from that.” As well, my colleague the member for Timmins also asked the Solicitor General about it.

It’s funny because, a little over a year later, we’re now in this situation. So had they made this committee prorogation-proof, and in case they decide to do so again for political reasons—and, ultimately, that political reason has put the brakes on so much hard work that’s been done. So many bills that are on the order paper are lost and have to be reintroduced.

Did they make this committee prorogation-proof? Will they allow members outside of their inner circle to determine who can appear? If you want to say this committee is there for the purpose of accountability, then get members of your science table; bring back the Chief Medical Officer of Health and others, but allow, also, opposition members to be able to call witnesses. There’s so much that could be done to improve this, if they want to say that this real accountability.

I’m proud to be here. I am proud to fight for the issues that matter to my community, to fight for the issues that matter to all Ontarians. But I do think, if the government wants to claim this is the accountability that they think they’re providing, well, I don’t agree that they are providing anywhere the level of accountability that Ontarians deserve during this pandemic. If you want to improve this committee, since you are bringing it back to this chamber and allowing debate on it, make the improvements that are necessary. Bring the experts there.

Don’t force the Solicitor General to have to answer details and not provide the answers that Ontarians and that members of this chamber are looking for. There’s so much more that could be done to improve this.

And the final thing I do want to say is there’s not even the opportunity to write a dissenting report. On other committees, members can write what are dissenting reports and say, “Look, this question wasn’t answered. We don’t agree with this or whatnot.” But the way this has been structured—and, again, it’s ironic, because they’re claiming that this is all about accountability—even the members cannot dissent against what has been written. So the reports that get tabled here are always favourable, because they’ve been structured that way.

I ask the government: Make these necessary changes. I’m hoping to hear real answers in the committee when it is struck and, ultimately, here in the House, because Ontarians deserve better.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Further debate?

Ms. Sara Singh: Thank you, Speaker. Just waiting for my mike to turn on. Thank you to broadcasting.

It’s great to be back. It’s an honour to rise here today on behalf of the people of Brampton Centre to contribute to the debate on the motion to restart the Select Committee on Emergency Management Oversight. And I want to thank my colleague from Humber River–Black Creek for starting off the debate for the opposition. I think he highlighted a number of concerns that we have with respect to the committee.

I just want to start by, first of all, thanking all of the people in a hot-spot community, like in the Peel region and in my community of Brampton, for all of the amazing work that they’ve done to help us get through the pandemic—not only our front-line health care workers, our essential workers, but the community at large for getting vaccinated and doing their part to help us get through COVID-19 and what we are facing now, a fourth wave.

Speaker, it’s pretty clear that the government’s decision to prorogue the House had serious consequences on the work that was happening here in the Legislature. As my colleague from Humber River–Black Creek clearly outlined, bills that were on the order paper now have to be reintroduced—a lot of good work that happened that people are going to have to pick up on and start again.

With respect to the select committee, we wanted to make sure, as opposition members, that this committee would continue, even if the House was prorogued, and unfortunately, the government didn’t think it was of importance to provide clarity, transparency and accountability to Ontarians, irrespective of proroguing the House. That’s exactly what this committee was intended to do: to provide accountability and answer questions in terms of the government’s response to COVID-19 here in the province of Ontario.

Speaker, I’m sure if you read the transcript, while there were many great questions being asked of the Solicitor General and others that appeared, unfortunately, we never really got clear answers to those questions. There was a complete lack of accountability and transparency with respect to this committee and the answers that Ontarians needed at the height of, for example, the third wave. We asked questions of the Solicitor General, who was tasked with the vaccine rollout here in the province of Ontario.

As the member from Brampton Centre and a member from the Peel region, our community was, frankly, hit the hardest. We had positivity rates well above 20% in our community. At that time, at the height of this pandemic, when our community was in crisis, this government made the decision to exclude our community from a pharmacy vaccine rollout. Why would they do that, Speaker? Well, this is what we asked at committee and we never got a straight answer. We never got the answer that people in our community were looking for.

We never got the rationale for why a community that was in crisis, facing the highest positivity rates—not just in this province but across the country—did not get its fair share of vaccines. A simple question to ask the Solicitor General, who was tasked with providing these answers to our community, to me as a member, to the committee—never once clarified why our community got a lower share of vaccines when other communities that had a lower rate of transmission received a greater supply. We never got an answer.

We asked this government very clearly at committee: Was there an equity-based approach being applied to the vaccine rollout? I don’t even think the minister, with all due respect to her, understood what an equity approach would be here in the province of Ontario. They thought that a one-size-fits-all approach was what was going to be best. That meant the communities that were experiencing lower rates of transmission got a higher allocation of vaccines for their community members.

Not to pit communities against another, but even those communities that got greater allocations were saying, “Send them to the hot spots, because we understand that those communities are where the warehouses are. We understand that’s where the manufacturing hubs are, the logistics hubs are. That’s where our essential workers are working out of, and they don’t have a choice to stay home if they are sick.”

Even those communities understood that communities like Peel and cities like Brampton needed a greater share of vaccines. But the government—the government that was responsible for making sure we got those vaccines—didn’t do their part. And at a committee that was set up to provide answers and accountability to Ontarians, we didn’t get anything.

We asked the Solicitor General on several occasions with respect to paid sick days to provide answers to Ontarians on why this government refused to follow public health recommendations and expert advice of their own science table, which indicated that paid sick days would save lives in the province of Ontario. We asked the Solicitor General to help provide a rationale on how the decisions were being made around the cabinet table not to provide paid sick days. We didn’t get an answer.

What we heard time and time again was that it’s the federal government’s responsibility—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): I apologize to the member from Brampton Centre for interrupting. However, at this stage of the day, the agenda calls for us to move from debate on the floor to members’ statements.

Debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Optometry services

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Today I want to bring up a very important issue in my riding. There are so many, but this one is really bubbling: eye care. By the Ford government not fully dealing with the eye-care funding issue—it has been over a month since optometrists across the province have had to stop providing routine eye exams, which means it’s been over a month since my constituents have had access to necessary health care services.

Speaker, do you know who is paying the price for that? It’s our most vulnerable: It’s our seniors and it’s our children. They’re being put in the middle of this issue, and they’ve been writing me. A senior contacted my office, and many others, and she said that after her appointment was cancelled last month—her husband and her are over 75 years old and they live with glaucoma. Having eye pressure checked regularly, along with field tests, have been measures to manage this condition. It would keep them from worsening the glaucoma, which means if it’s not treated, they can actually go blind. That’s how important it is.

A parent wrote and said that her 6-year-old son says he can’t see the board and he complains every night that his eyes hurt: “How am I supposed to help him when I can’t get him an eye exam?”

People with underlying health conditions—a woman wrote saying that she’s in a wheelchair, has a very rare disease and she really depends on her sight for transitioning: “I’m trying to stay in my home without” going to a government-paid facility.

Yes, this funding shortfall started with the Liberal government, but it could end with the Conservative government. Optometrists in the province shouldn’t have to pay out of their pockets to deliver OHIP coverage to their patients. This government needs to go back to the table in good faith and talk to the optometrists, resolve this issue and stop putting seniors and kids in the middle of this political issue.

Childhood cancer

The Pediatric Oncology Group of Ontario, POGO, is an organization that ensures everyone affected by childhood cancer has access to the best care and support. POGO has tracked childhood cancer in Ontario since its founding in 1983, and I thank them for all they do. Our Ontario government supports POGO because of the value POGO brings through a coordinated system that emphasizes evidence-based care that addresses the unique needs of the childhood cancer population and helps ensure Ontario has the best outcomes possible.

Thanks to the data POGO collects, we know that cancer remains the most common cause of disease-related deaths among children over the age of one. Each year, approximately 500 children and youth are diagnosed with cancer in one of Ontario’s specialized pediatric cancer programs, and over 4,000 families have a child in cancer treatment or follow-up care. Today, more than 84% of children diagnosed with cancer in Ontario will survive, but cancer in childhood can mean long-term effects, including second cancers and learning challenges.

Today I think of three young people: Conah Higgins, the son of family friends, who sadly passed away from cancer at age 17; I think of Hayley Nuttal, the daughter of dear family friends, the Ruth and Nuttal families, who passed away at age 8; and I think of Brendan Rourke, a young man from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, whose father, Neal, is a tireless advocate and member of the Advocacy for Canadian Childhood Oncology Research Network, raising funds and awareness for young girls and boys whose childhoods have been regretfully cut short.

Let us all hope that we’ll find a cure for all cancers. To quote my hero, Terry Fox, “Somewhere the hurting must stop.”

Employment standards

Ms. Jessica Bell: On October 1, Ontario’s minimum wage increased by 10 cents, from $14.25 to $14.35 an hour. This wage increase falls well short of what Ontario’s low-wage workers need to live with dignity. It is not possible for workers to pay rent, to pay for transit, to pay for food, for medicine and to provide for children on this wage, especially in a time when costs are going up faster than they have in years.

We know that many of our low-wage workers are our front-line workers: our delivery drivers, our groceries workers, our PSWs, our cleaners. We can’t thank our front-line workers on one hand and suppress their wages on the other hand, but that is what this government did. If this government had kept the $15 minimum wage, workers would be earning an extra $2,920 a year.

But do you know who did get a pay raise during this pandemic? Canada’s richest CEOs. They made an average of $10.8 million a year and they got a 17% pay increase during the pandemic. These are the very same companies that have worked so hard to keep wages so low for the people that are struggling the most.

It is our responsibility as lawmakers to address inequality in the workplace. And that is why I support increasing the minimum wage, providing benefits to workers and moving away from an economy where there are temporary jobs that are endless temporary jobs, to jobs that are good, permanent jobs that people can live on.

Metcalfe Fair

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: The Metcalfe Fair is one of the largest and oldest agricultural exhibitions in Ontario. Hosted by the Metcalfe Agricultural Society, the Metcalfe Fair has been held annually since 1856. The Metcalfe Fair is host to attractions such as the antique tractor display, agricultural education like the heavy horse show, classic car shows, home craft exhibits and—one of my personal favourites—the demolition derby. I also can’t forget to mention the delicious baked goodies from local vendors.

For the first time in its history, last year due to COVID-19, the Metcalfe Fair was cancelled. It was a sad time for everyone, as the Metcalfe Fair is something that everyone in eastern Ontario, in Ottawa and in my riding of Carleton look forward to. This year, however, on September 30, the Metcalfe Fair returned to celebrate its 165th anniversary with the unwavering support of the entire community.

I’d like to congratulate Andrea Taylor, president of the Metcalfe Agricultural Society, all of the staff, volunteers, everyone on the board of directors and those who have helped make this a wonderful event and a success every year.

Happy 165th anniversary to the Metcalfe Fair.

COVID-19 response

Mr. Joel Harden: There are 13 million COVID-19 rapid tests sitting in warehouses in the province of Ontario. This government will ship them to any business wanting to test asymptomatic employees and you get the results in 15 minutes. But two million students just returned to school; 1.3 million of those students are [ inaudible ] the rates of COVID-19 among unvaccinated kids are rising, and one in three new COVID cases is coming from our public schools. But there [ inaudible ] in the throne speech yesterday, not a mumbling word.

But Quebec just announced rapid testing would go to every single school in the province. Nova Scotia is providing free rapid tests to all kids aged five to 11. This government announced this morning that it would target some tests to some deemed at-risk schools. I call that leading from the back of the line. “We got this,” says the government who apparently has spent money on ventilators in schools or vaccinating schools, and kids will apparently have masks in crowded classrooms. Give me a break. The government has not prioritized our public schools, Speaker, from day one.

They pushed staff onto picket lines last winter and they are now putting kids at risk, just like they put our seniors at risk—and we know what happened when that happened.

Change is going to happen because people will demand it. I want to thank all the parents, staff and kids for speaking out for rapid tests. Keep it up. Demand better for our schools.

Cancer treatment

Mrs. Belinda C. Karahalios: This past September was the 41st annual Terry Fox Run, which raises funds for cancer research. This run is now very personal for me and my family: In November 2020, my husband, Jim Karahalios, was diagnosed with osteosarcoma in his femur—the exact same cancer that Terry Fox had 41 years ago. For 10 months, he was under the care of a team of surgeons, doctors, nurses, assistants, physiotherapists and imaging technicians, which comprise many facets of Ontario’s health care system.

Under their care, he underwent six rounds of aggressive chemotherapy; three surgeries, including reconstructive leg surgery, where 80% of his femur was replaced with a prosthesis, two of his quadriceps were removed and a full knee replacement, as well as weeks of aggressive antibiotic treatment.

When Terry Fox was diagnosed, his leg could not be spared, and survival rates were poor. Today, because of great strides made in medicine, particularly related to osteosarcoma, survival rates are at least 80%. We are fortunate in Ontario to have one of the best osteosarcoma teams in the world.

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and personally thank all those involved in providing care for Jim, including:

—Dr. Kimberly Cai in Cambridge;

—the imaging teams at Cambridge Memorial Hospital;

—director of clinical research, immunodeficiency clinic of Toronto General Hospital, Dr. Sharon Walmsley;

—orthopaedic surgeon and surgeon-in-chief, Dr. Jay Wunder;

—the lead for medical oncology, Dr. Albiruni Abdul Razak; and

—each of their extraordinary osteosarcoma teams at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto.

As well, I’d like to give a special thank you to the home care nurses Debbie Charron and Darina Tsolova, and the entire team at Grand River Physiotherapy, including Frances Harrington and Valerie.

Thanks to all of their efforts, in only 10 months, my husband is walking again. His leg was spared, and the cancer removed. Jim is now back and better than ever. And that, Mr. Speaker, is what we call science.

Sam Ault

Mr. Jim McDonell: Recently, the township of North Dundas and Lactalis Canada recognized the legacy the Ault family left on the community of Winchester and Canada’s dairy industry.

It began when Jack Ault opened a small cheddar cheese factory in Cass Bridge, just outside Winchester, in 1891. He was one of many small producers who transformed Ontario’s agricultural sector from wheat growing to milk products. Over time, his one-building operation became known for its quality, as it absorbed many small, neighbouring dairies. In 1926, he established Ault Foods Ltd.

Jack’s son Sam joined Ault Creamery after serving with the Fourth Canadian Armoured Division in Europe, and finished his science degree at U of T. Although his business had been sold to Ogilvie Flour Mills in the late 1930s on sudden death of his father, Sam treated it as a family business and, by the late 1960s, had grown it into the largest dairy operation in Canada.

Sam was a key leader in the modernization of the cheese industry in Ontario, producing cheeses that won awards in Canada, the United States and England. He also served as president of the Ontario Concentrated Milk Producers’ Association, the Ontario Dairy Council, the National Dairy Council and a member of the advisory committee on the Canadian Dairy Commission.

A true community builder, Sam was instrumental in bringing a new high school, a park, a curling club and a hockey arena to Winchester. He was made an honorary companion of the University of Guelph and, in 2012, was awarded the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee Medal for his service to community and country.

The Winchester community celebrated the Ault family legacy last month with the unveiling of a mural at the Winchester Arena, renamed in Sam’s honour.

Addiction services

Ms. Judith Monteith-Farrell: It’s great to be back in the Legislature. Today, I want to bring to the House’s attention, once again, the ongoing opioid epidemic in this province, and especially in my riding in Thunder Bay.

Last year, 64 people died of an overdose in Thunder Bay, an increase from 38 deaths in 2019. This is a preventable tragedy. Mothers in Thunder Bay and across Canada are working to end this epidemic. They are called Moms Stop the Harm. They are putting pressure on governments across this country to do better so that more families don’t have to experience the overdose of a loved one.

Enough is enough. We need to act and end this crisis. The solutions are there, but this government and previous Liberal governments simply have not done what is necessary. Unfortunately, the throne speech made no mention of the countless people who have died in this epidemic and how the COVID pandemic has only made things worse. Why is this not a priority? Communities are suffering.

Moms Stop the Harm’s vision should be this province’s vision. They call for an end to the failed war on drugs, and provide evidence-based prevention, treatment and policy changes. They support a harm reduction approach that is both compassionate and non-discriminatory for people who use substances.

I hope, this session of Parliament, this government finally gets serious about ending the opioid epidemic.

Waste reduction

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: We have a beautiful province, but far too often, people have told me they’re sick and tired of seeing litter. As a result, in 2019, I passed the day of action on litter, the first day of action in all of Ontario, where we designate the second Tuesday of May as a cleanup day. This campaign had great take-up. We had a digital audience of 1.2 million, with 139 different authors for our campaign, as well as lots of individuals across the province participating in the campaign.

This summer we launched Waste-Free Wednesdays to build on that success. Since I’ve done the day of action on litter and the Waste-Free Wednesdays campaign, we’ve managed to clean up 150 bags of litter. That’s 3,300 pounds, which is the equivalent of a female hippo, Speaker. Thanks to the efforts of all Ontarians, we have collected more than 80 bags of recycled material, as we try to sort and separate as often as we can. We’ve also been able to collect 160 pounds of glass, and it could go on.

This would not be possible without the great volunteers and the entire Ontario effort. Its participants—we have Youth for Lake Simcoe, the Derry Village Seniors Club. We also had people participate through Clean Up Barrie, Clean Up Innisfil; Jan Slik, who takes his scooter out and actually does cleanups using his scooter; the Highway of Heroes; and many of my colleagues throughout the province who participated this summer—Earth Rangers. And we’ve got the members for Oakville, Oakville North–Burlington, Lincoln, and Mississauga–Lakeshore.

We went to Scarborough–Rouge Park, Markham–Thornhill, Port Hope, Barrie, Oro-Medonte, Simcoe North, Mississauga–Malton, King–Vaughan, Vaughan–Woodbridge and Etobicoke–Lakeshore. We look forward to doing cleanups in more of the province.

Agriculture industry

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Speaker, over the years, I have been proud to speak on Ontario Agriculture Week. Former MPP Bert Johnson, one of my predecessors, established it through a private member’s bill. I’ve been proud to recognize and thank our hard-working farmers, farm families and everyone in the agriculture industry.

Each day, there are nearly 49,000 Ontario farmers who plant, grow and harvest over 200 types of food. They produce fresh fruits, vegetables, high-quality meats, poultry and fish, nutritious eggs and dairy, delicious honey, maple syrup and world-class wines. We are grateful for their work and we’re thankful for the food they put on our tables.

They worked hard despite the COVID crisis and the uncertainty across global and domestic markets. They worked hard despite challenges, both seen and unseen, including the mental health crisis affecting so many farmers. Through it all, they worked with skill, dedication, determination and innovation. That is why we enjoy a strong and stable food supply, something we so often take for granted.

On behalf of the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and our entire caucus, I want to thank each and every farmer in this province for being the agri-food heroes we depend on. I also want to thank the farm organizations, local and provincial, who support them, and the communities who surround them in good times and in bad.

Working together, Ontario’s agriculture sector will continue to thrive, not just to benefit farmers but everyone in this province for generations to come.

House sittings

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

schedule of the House is required and that tomorrow the afternoon routine shall commence at 1 p.m.

Thane Murray

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I understand the member for Toronto Centre has a point of order.

Ms. Suze Morrison: I’m seeking the unanimous consent of the House to observe a moment of silence in memory of Thane Murray, a 27-year-old city of Toronto youth worker and beloved community member in my community of Toronto Centre who was tragically killed in a shooting in Regent Park on September 18.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Toronto Centre is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to observe a moment of silence at this time. Agreed? Agreed. Members will please rise.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Point of order, Speaker.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I seek unanimous consent to bring forward a motion without notice calling on the Ford government to immediately implement mandatory vaccination for Ontario’s education, health care, residential and congregate care workers to protect students, patients, residents, people with disabilities and other vulnerable populations from COVID-19.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Leader of the Opposition is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to bring forward a motion without notice calling on the government to immediately implement mandatory vaccination for a number of groups of Ontario workers. Agreed? I heard a no.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Point of order, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Leader of the Opposition has another point of order?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Thank you so much, Speaker. I appreciate that.

Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to immediately table the stopping anti-public-health harassment act, to protect hospitals, schools, small businesses and members of the public. Nobody should be threatened and harassed for doing the right thing and taking the necessary steps to keep us safe from COVID-19.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Leader of the Opposition is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to immediately table the stopping anti-public-health harassment act at this time. Agreed? I heard a no.

Members’ privileges

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I understand the member for London West has a point of privilege she wishes to further raise.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I rise today on a point of privilege that I first raised on Monday, June 14 and followed up on in my letter to you, Speaker, of June 18.

As you will recall, Bill 307 was making its way through the legislative process during a special parliamentary session at that time. During that debate, you took the step of seeking the unanimous consent of the House to determine whether or not members should be allowed to rise on points of order to seek the unanimous consent of the House. In our review of past rulings, we could find no precedent for this decision.

I want to begin, Speaker, by stating the obvious: The practice of seeking unanimous consent for items unrelated to the business scheduled for consideration is not new and is commonly exercised by members on all sides of the House for a variety of reasons. In fact, one could argue that this has become a regular tool in the chamber; we just saw it used right now. This is understandable and, in fact, helpful, as it gives the House the flexibility to both address and respond to items that may arise unexpectedly, and it is in keeping with the tradition of using motions instead of legislation to govern much of the day-to-day operation of Parliament.

I will remind members of what we saw this morning. Members gave unanimous consent to rescind a motion and appoint a new Deputy Speaker, and unanimous consent to cancel private members’ public business this week.

Speaker, on June 14, our decision to move points of order seeking unanimous consent after that day’s question period and prior to the start of deferred votes was intentional, out of respect for the House’s unwritten practice of not recognizing points of order during oral questions. Although the period of transition between question period and deferred votes was brief, it is common practice to use that opportunity for members on all sides to raise points of order. This had, in fact, already occurred the very same day when the government House leader rose on his own point of order to seek unanimous consent for second reading of Bill 299, which was agreed to by the House.

While I acknowledge that unanimous consent motions are often denied, since it only takes one member to say no, there are several examples when such requests have been supported. As I mentioned, this happened on June 14 and numerous times before and since then. For example, the government House leader rose on a point of order to request unanimous consent for the immediate passage of motion 155 on April 19, 2021, and the House agreed.

On April 29, 2021, the government House leader rose on a point of order to request unanimous consent for the House to revert to introduction of bills in order to table Bill 284; again, the House agreed. In these and similar instances, members on all sides of the House have been able to seek unanimous consent from the Legislative Assembly with or without advanced notice. In those cases, once the Speaker determined that the point of order was valid, it was left up to the House to determine whether or not the matter would be taken up for consideration.

It can be argued that the only real difference between the events of June 14 and previous and subsequent requests for unanimous consent was with regard to the number of requests brought forward at one time. However, the action itself of seeking a UC was in keeping with the established conventions and customs of the Legislature. At no time was the Speaker or any other member able to identify the violation of a particular standing order or established parliamentary practice, and the action did not in any way differ from behaviour deemed acceptable in the past, or even on that same day.

Your response raised a number of concerns, as it seemed to contradict what is widely understood to be the way the House normally deals with unanimous consent requests made via points of order. It gave rise to the impression that the validity of the point of order, and not the actual UC request itself, required the agreement of the whole House, not just that of the Chair.

This morning I’d like to summarize my concerns by raising two questions that I hope your ruling on this point of privilege will answer. First, at what point did members become obligated to cite a relevant standing order or established parliamentary practice to rise on a point of order to seek unanimous consent?

Speaker, while the requirement to provide a rationale makes sense for raising questions about perceived violations of privilege or the standing orders, never in the time that I have served here at Queen’s Park have I seen this tied to a request for unanimous consent to bring something forward for the House’s consideration.

In fact, given the broad activities that have been allowed through the use of unanimous consent via points of order—everything from introduction of bills to consideration of private members’ business outside the normally scheduled time to amending a private member’s motion on the floor of the Legislature, which happened on March 10, 2021—the only conclusion that can be drawn is that there have been few limitations or requirements placed on the use of the unanimous consent tool.

The second question I would raise is, how does your June 14 decision reflect the parliamentary principle of not presupposing what the House will decide in the future based on previous actions? I am concerned that your approach does not allow due consideration for the potential uniqueness of every unanimous consent request, which conflicts with the principle of not presupposing an outcome based on previous responses of the House, even on similar matters. One need look no further than June 14 itself for validation of this, when, as I said, the debate on Bill 299 was allowed to proceed despite the denial of the unanimous consent request that had come before it.

Speaker, we respect your position of Chair. We understand that your ruling as Speaker is final, but it is our hope that you can shed further light on the rationale for your conclusions so that members have a better understanding of your decision. I thank you again for this opportunity to raise this point of privilege, and look forward to your response.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I wish to thank the member for London West for her further points with respect to her point of privilege, and I will be responding with the ruling in due course, when it’s ready.

Mr. Roman Baber: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for York Centre: a point of order?

Mr. Roman Baber: Speaker, when the House last adjourned—I believe it was on June 14—I had submitted to the Speaker a point of order which arose in the context of my NDP friends, and specifically their parliamentary privilege. I have submitted to the Speaker that, effectively, the ruling of the Speaker had the unintended effect of extinguishing the right of the NDP members to move for unanimous consent. I believe, respectfully, that I have made out a prima facie case of privilege.

Standing order 23(

b) provides that, “Once the Speaker finds that a prima facie case of privilege exists, it shall be taken into consideration immediately.” I believe that my friend from Don Valley West subsequently made the same point in support of my position, but had not cited the rule.

And so perhaps in your explanation, Speaker, which you will render within a few days, if you would kindly address my point of order, which is that since the prima facie case of privilege was established, pursuant to the standing rule, it should have been dealt with immediately, and no vote or continuation of the Attorney General’s submissions should have been permitted.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I appreciate the advice of the member for York Centre. I think he was endeavouring to speak with respect to the point of privilege that was raised. I’ll respond in due course.

Member’s privilege

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): On June 14, 2021, the member for Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston submitted by email notice of his intention to raise a question of privilege. I am now prepared to rule on the matter without further hearing from the member, as standing order 23(

d) permits me to do.

In his email, the member alleges that on June 14, 2021, the Sergeant-at-Arms attempted to prevent him from entering the voting lobby during a recorded division because he was wearing a face shield and not a face mask, as is required by an order of the House adopted February 16, 2021. This, the member submits, constitutes a breach of his parliamentary privilege, as it attempted to obstruct and prevented him from taking

part in a vote.

The order in question was adopted by the House almost eight months ago. It reads as follows:

“That, notwithstanding any standing order or special order of the House, for the duration of the 42nd Parliament or until such earlier date as indicated by the government House leader, members be permitted to speak and vote from any member’s desk in the chamber in order to observe recommended physical distancing; and

“That, in addition to any Speaker’s directives for the rest of the legislative precinct, except when recognized by the Speaker to speak, every member shall wear a tightly woven fabric mask that completely covers the mouth and nose and fits snugly against the sides of the face without gaps while in the chamber or either of the members’ lobbies; and

“This House acknowledges that every person seeking to enter the legislative precinct, including members of the assembly, are subject to the Speaker’s COVID-19 screening and masking protocols, and further acknowledges that application of these protocols may result in a member of the assembly being refused entry to the legislative precinct, or any part thereof; and

“This House acknowledges that in such instances, the Speaker will personally make this decision, and do so in the interest of the health, safety and well-being of everyone in the legislative precinct, and that in doing so the Speaker is acting on behalf of this House and this House authorizes the Speaker to act on its behalf.”

On June 14, during deferred votes, the House divided on a motion for allocation of time on Bill 307. During the course of that division, which occurred in the members’ lobbies adjacent to the chamber, the Sergeant-at-Arms reported to me that the member for Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston had entered the lobby to record his vote without wearing a face mask. I was informed that the Sergeant-at-Arms reminded the member of the requirement and offered him a proper face mask. After the division, I reported this incident to the House.

The House divided twice more that same afternoon on the motions for second and third reading of Bill 307. The Sergeant-at-Arms reported to me that during each of those divisions, the member for Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston again disregarded the February 16 order of the House—which by now, he surely understood—by entering the lobby to record his vote without wearing a face mask, which I, in turn, again reported to the House.

I also took the opportunity to inform the House that a similar incident had occurred on May 31, 2021. In total, the member has blatantly and deliberately disobeyed the order of the House four times.

Before I consider the substance of the member’s notice, I’d like to speak to the requirement that questions of privilege be raised in a timely manner. As members of this House are well aware, an allegation of a breach of parliamentary privilege, which by definition is at the core of a member’s ability, both individually and collectively, to carry out their parliamentary duties, is such a serious matter that it should be brought to the attention of the House at the earliest opportunity.

According to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, page 135, “The matter of privilege to be raised in the House must have recently occurred and must call for the immediate action of the House. Therefore, the member must satisfy the Speaker that he or she is bringing the matter to the attention of the House as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the situation.”

I will draw members’ attention to standing order 23(c), which sets out the procedure for raising a question of privilege: “Any member proposing to raise a point of privilege, other than one arising out of proceedings in the chamber during the course of a sessional day, shall give to the Speaker a written statement of the point at least one hour prior to raising” it “in the House.”

Most questions of privilege that are raised arise from events that take place outside of the proceedings of the House. For this reason, the most common process by which members raise questions of privilege is by providing notice at the first possible opportunity and then subsequently raising the matter in the House. However, where a question of privilege arises out of the proceedings during the course of a meeting of the House, there is an expectation that it will be raised immediately, without notice, and the question of privilege arising from the division process in the lobbies certainly meets this criterion.

Because these circumstances are rare and members are more often required to give notice prior to raising their points in the House, I can understand why the member’s instinct in this case was to first provide notice. Even so, if the member believed that he had experienced obstruction in his attempt to vote in a division, he should have raised the matter in the House at the first available opportunity. He did not.

On June 14, the first incident occurred during the division that took place from 12:45 p.m. to 1:15 p.m. The member filed his notice shortly after 2 p.m. The House then continued to meet until it adjourned at 4:24 p.m. After the first incident, the member returned to the voting lobbies twice more before the House adjourned that afternoon, yet he chose not to enter the chamber to raise his question of privilege.

As June 14 was the final day of the recall of the House, the next opportunity for the member to raise his question of privilege was yesterday, and again today, yet he has again declined to do so. However, given the gravity of the issues raised by the member, I am still prepared and willing to address the substance of the question.

In the member’s written notice, he claims that the Sergeant-at-Arms “impeded and obstructed” his attempt to vote, which amounted to a violation of his parliamentary privilege. He also noted that the face mask requirement is not included in the standing orders.

In response to these claims, I will remind the member that the February 16 order is a duly adopted special order of the House and, in adopting the order, the House exercised its right to regulate its internal affairs and settle its own code of procedure, a right that is itself protected by parliamentary privilege. Upon its adoption by the House on February 16, 2021, the requirement for members to wear the prescribed face mask in the chamber and lobbies became a rule of the House, carrying the same weight as any other provisional or permanent order of the House, including the standing orders.

The parliamentary authorities offer clear guidance on the individual rights of members as they relate to the rules and procedures of the House. At pages 13 and 14 of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, Joseph Maingot writes, “While it will be seen that the member enjoys all the immunity necessary to perform his parliamentary work, this privilege or right ... is nevertheless subject to the practices and procedures of the House. Thus allegations of breach of privilege by a member in the House of Commons that amount to complaints about procedures and practices in the House are by their very nature matters of order.”

The Sergeant-at-Arms, in reminding the member of his obligation to wear a face mask, was acting properly and professionally under the authority of the Chair, pursuant to the order of the House, while the member for Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston repeatedly, knowingly and, I would submit, carelessly disregarded that order. His conduct was reprehensible and should not be repeated. If it is, further corrective measures may have to be taken as considered necessary and appropriate by the House.

It is for these reasons that I find that no prima facie case of privilege has been established.

Question Period

COVID-19 response

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My first question this morning is for the Premier. The government finally came back to Queen’s Park, but, based on their nothing-burger budget, seemed to not be prepared to get to work. We know that we have folks in Ontario that are working very hard. I want to particularly point out nurses, who are working their backs off to try to protect us throughout this fourth wave, and yet they’re doing so facing significant shortages caused by this government and the previous Liberal government. Speaker, they’re exhausted; they are overworked; they are underpaid.

My question to the Premier is: Where is the government plan? Where is the funding necessary to shore up our health care system by making sure that we keep our nurses and that we retain them for the future of our province?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply for the government, the Deputy Premier and Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you to the leader of the official opposition for the question. We value greatly the work that has been done by nurses. We certainly recognize that they have gone through tremendous stress and considerable overwork in the last 18 months, and they are the ones, with other front-line health professionals, who really are the heroes in this entire system.

We recognize the concerns that they have. We did provide pandemic pay for a period of time to assist them financially with many of their concerns. But we also know that they are subject to significant stress loads, anxiety, in some cases PTSD because of some of the things that they have witnessed and had to deal with. So we have expanded to provide specific mental health supports for nurses to provide them with the counselling that they need in four locations that are major mental health centres.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Nurses are leaving in droves, and the government hasn’t shown any plan whatsoever—similar to the problems that we have in education: The government is not making the necessary investments in our education system. In fact, it’s shocking that a full one third of COVID-19 cases currently are in our public school system. The government could have hired more teachers, they could have reduced class sizes, they could have supported our students when they needed that support the most, and instead they chose to cut $800 million from our public education system in the throes of a global pandemic.

Speaker, students, parents, teachers and education workers have had nothing but silence from the government. They weren’t even talked about, they weren’t even referenced in yesterday’s throne speech. Where is the plan for safer schools, including the hiring of new teachers and education workers and mental health supports for our students? Where is that plan, Speaker?

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

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. I’m proud to be part of a government that is investing more in public education than any government in the history of this province.

Mr. Speaker, the plan has been fully endorsed by the Chief Medical Officer of Health. The head of the Ontario science table has suggested the plan cautiously aligns with that best medical advice. We have put in place investments that have enabled massive air ventilation improvements in every single school in this province, without exception. We have ensured $600 million in mechanical ventilation improvements through the summer and the fall. We have deployed 70,000 HEPA units.

We have provided take-home testing options to make life easier for those parents, for those high school asymptomatic parents, to reduce the time they’re out of class. And today, with the support of the Chief Medical Officer of Health, we have gone further, Speaker—another tool in the tool kit to keep our schools safe, to keep them open—by deploying, on a risk basis, a rapid antigen testing program that will help ensure we keep students in this province learning every single day.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, that doesn’t answer the issue around $800 million being cut from the education budget.

But look, sadly—in fact, tragically—the same thing is happening in long-term care. There is no plan to fix our long-term-care system. In fact, this government is content in continuing the same failed system of for-profit-led long-term care in our province—the same system that the Liberals upheld for 15 years. There’s no plan to hire or retain workers, just like in our broader health care system. And the wage top-up for PSWs in fact expires at the end of this month. Just this morning, the minister responsible for long-term care three times on CBC Radio dodged the question and refused to commit to making permanent the PSW pay raise.

My question is: Why won’t the government make the commitment to increase wages of PSWs permanent? Because every single expert in every single report—and they know it—says that that’s exactly what they should be doing.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply, the Minister of Long-Term Care.

Hon. Rod Phillips: Mr. Speaker, our Premier has made clear both his respect for our PSWs and through the wage increases we provided, and the wage increases that we have committed to have ensured that they will get fair pay for the great work they do.

But Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition talking about not having a plan—this is a government that’s here to fix long-term care: 30,000 net new beds. The previous government built 611 net new beds in 11 years, including the years when the Leader of the Opposition was in partnership with them. Do you know how many beds were built in Hamilton Centre at that time? Zero, Mr. Speaker. Six hundred beds are being built in Hamilton now; that’s a change.

Moving to four hours of care, a commitment that was talked about by the previous government but never followed through on: New funding will start to flow this year to move us to the highest levels of care.

We’ll also introduce legislation to make sure that accountability, transparency and enforcement are what they should be. We have a plan to fix long-term care, and I look forward to the support of the opposition as we debate that.

Government fiscal policies

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s pretty tragic that the minister doesn’t realize that beds are not going to do anything without the staffing that we need to support the people who use those beds.

My next question is also for the Premier. It’s clear that this government is not going to make any changes. They’re going to go back down the same wrong path and penny-pinch all the way to the campaign. Education: as I’ve already mentioned, $800 million in cuts. They’re going ahead with it. Students, education workers, teachers, parents—everybody in the education system—know we need more resources, not less, in order to get through this pandemic, but also to rebuild our education system, which this government appears to be bent on tearing down.

My question is, why is this Premier, why is this government, in the context that we now face, continuing with an $800-million cut to our education system?

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

Hon. Stephen Lecce: First off, this Premier and government have increased investments for school boards this year, compared to last year, by $561 million.

What the member opposite’s question actually means: The $800 million forecasted by the Parliamentary Budget Officer speaks about compensation hikes, which obviously the NDP would give to the teacher unions and there would not be a government standing up for the interests of taxpayers and parents.

This government went through the negotiation in the last pandemic with one focus: investing more in the classroom. Over the summer we invested $600 million more in air ventilation because of the dereliction of duty by the former government that did nothing to improve schools, that closed 600, no less. Our government is investing in building new schools—over half a billion dollars. Many new schools are being built and refurbished in Ontario.

With respect to COVID-19, $1.6 billion more and $85-million learning and recovery plan—because we appreciate how important it is to keep kids safe, keep them in school, and improve the learning quality in this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: News for the minister: Parents are actually taxpayers as well and they want to protect their kids’ education. He should have learned that more than a year ago. Parents care about their kids’ quality of education.

But you know what? It’s not only education cuts, Speaker. Our local health units have been doing yeoman’s work when it comes to the COVID-19 fight. They have been working miracles in communities on the front lines as this Premier has basically gone missing—complete lack of leadership, complete dithering, complete delay. The Premier’s priority remains cutting our public health units from 35 down to 10. The government is literally restructuring our public health care system in the midst of a global pandemic. What is wrong with that picture?

These folks are on the front lines of COVID-19 day in and day out. Of all the things to keep plowing ahead with, why is the Premier continuing to make cuts to health care?

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

Hon. Christine Elliott: It probably won’t surprise you, Mr. Speaker, that I disagree entirely with the comments made by the leader of the official opposition. In fact, we’ve put an extra $5 billion into our health care system since the beginning of this pandemic.

Far from restructuring public health during the pandemic, we’ve actually paused in the consideration, and Mr. Jim Pine, who is doing the discussions and consultations with municipalities, has stopped because of the extra work that the public health units need to do. We have paused that until we move through this pandemic, hopefully sooner than later.

But we know that the public health units need some assistance. That’s why we’ve provided $47 million in mitigation funding so that they don’t have any lack of income. We’ve provided them with that mitigation funding as well as several hundred million dollars in order to allow them to continue to do the excellent work that they’re doing in testing and case and contact management.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, I would agree that the public health units are doing a heck of a lot of extra work, and the last thing they need is a spit in the eye from this government with the threat of reducing them down to 10 from 35.

Look, the Premier also has the tools to do the right thing to help the front-line, minimum wage workers in our province—the essential workers who were there, day in and day out, risking their own health, literally risking possible death, while the rest of us were able stay safe. Meanwhile, as they continue to toil away, the cost of living keeps going up, and the Premier’s first action when he became Premier was to roll back their wages. The 10-cent increase is nothing more than an insult to the workers we relied on during this pandemic.

My question to the Premier is, why is he okay with that? Why is he okay with workers, working full time, sometimes at two and three jobs, not earning enough to pay the bills and put a roof over their heads?

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

Hon. Monte McNaughton: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of a grateful province, I want to thank every single worker out there who’s been working every day throughout this pandemic to support our families and our communities.

We laid out a plan to continue to increase the minimum wage in Ontario, but let me be clear: We want people to be getting better jobs. We don’t want to build an economy on minimum wage jobs. That’s why, for example, we’re encouraging people to pick up a career in the skilled trades. These are good jobs that pay six figures, that have defined pensions and benefits.

Mr. Speaker, we’re going to work every single day to spread opportunity widely and fairly as we rebuild back a better province.

School safety

Ms. Marit Stiles: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. This question is for the Premier. September came and September went, with nary a peep from this government. So with no concrete plan in place for rapid school testing from this government, parents took matters into their own hands. They acquired and distributed rapid tests themselves as cases among kids continued to steadily climb in this province. It was a crushing blow to those parents when the Premier suddenly blocked access to those rapid tests last week and then, today, reversed that position.

Speaker, why did parents have to crowdsource a vital tool that experts say will help keep schools safely open, and why didn’t the Premier do his job and have real testing in place in September?

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

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. I will confirm that the Ontario science table, pediatric hospitals in this province, the testing strategy expert panel and the Chief Medical Officer of Health do not support asymptomatic rapid testing province-wide. That is the position of medical authorities right across the province, including the medical officer of health in the member opposite’s community.

Having said that, we have followed the Ontario science table recommendation and adopted the updated advice by the chief medical officer who confirmed today we are launching a risk-based, targeted rapid testing program to public health units for them to deploy with the local indicators required, so that yes, we can ensure schools remain safe and open. It builds upon our take-home PCR test strategy we’ve launched for asymptomatic high school students.

Why? Because we want to increase presenteeism. We want to reduce absenteeism from the classroom for mental health, to learning loss—it’s so critical that we mitigate going forward.

We’re working closely with the Chief Medical Officer of Health. We’ve adopted this new strategy as another tool in the tool kit to keep schools open in this province.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Mr. Speaker, the abdication of responsibility by this minister is appalling. They have downloaded decisions, they have downloaded costs and they never take responsibility for a single thing. In that vacuum of provincial leadership to make schools as safe as possible, schools now account for one third of the active COVID-19 cases in this province. There were 250 more cases today and six more schools are closed. The Chief Medical Officer of Health himself said today that targeted rapid testing could help prevent painful closures in areas of high risk.

Every day, we are hearing about class sizes that are larger than pre-pandemic levels, cohorts mixing as classes are collapsed. Recognizing that increased risk to children in crowded classrooms, will these schools be included in the rapid testing program?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: In the midst of the Delta-driven fourth wave, five in six elementary schools in Ontario do not have an active case, and four out of five high schools in our province do not have active cases.

The Chief Medical Officer of Health confirmed this morning that the cautious protocol is working to keep transmission low and schools safe. We appreciate the partnership of everyone. I should acknowledge, on World Teachers’ Day, our gratitude to our educators for working so hard with our government and public health units to keep schools open and safe, and to ensure children remain engaged in learning.

Today, the chief medical officer adopted another tool in the tool kit by launching a program designed and targeted for those schools at risk, based on a balance of metrics, including schools that will have high case rates and may have low vaccine rates.

Mr. Speaker, we are relying on the expert advice of public health units to deploy those tests. We’ve launched a take-home test across schools in this province for high school students to make life easier. We’ve expanded testing options. We’ve worked with the Ministry of Health to reduce wait times. We’re going to continue to stand ready to do whatever it takes to keep schools safe and open in Ontario.

Indigenous education

Ms. Donna Skelly: My question is to the Minister of Education. This past year, we have seen a renewed focus on th