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

October 28, 2024

43rd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2024-Oct-28 vol. A (PDF)

L173A - Mon 28 Oct 2024 / Lun 28 oct 2024

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Monday 28 October 2024 Lundi 28 octobre 2024

Orders of the Day

Working for Workers Five Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 visant à oeuvrer pour les travailleurs, cinq

Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 sur le désengorgement du réseau routier et le gain de temps

Members’ Statements

YWCA Week Without Violence

Brock University

Education funding

Mount Forest Chamber of Commerce awards

Proposed hospital merger

Ayr Curling Club

Landlord and Tenant Board

Événements divers à Glengarry–Prescott–Russell

Riding of Simcoe–Grey

Student achievement

Introduction of Visitors

Question Period

Mental health services

Home care

Health care funding

Energy policies

Mental health services

Highway construction

Homelessness

Home care

Assistance to farmers

Job creation

Boating safety

Underground locates

Arts and cultural funding

Sports and recreation funding

Visitor

Birth of member’s grandchild

Notice of dissatisfaction

Deferred Votes

Keeping Primary Care Fair Act (Restricting Private Payments for Nurse Practitioner Services), 2024 / Loi de 2024 visant à maintenir des soins primaires équitables en restreignant le paiement privé de services fournis par du personnel infirmier praticien

Petitions

Addiction services

Social assistance

Labour legislation

Sexual violence and harassment

Social assistance

Education funding

Endometriosis

Northern Health Travel Grant

Health care funding

Opposition Day

Mental health services

Royal assent / Sanction royale

House sittings

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 sur le désengorgement du réseau routier et le gain de temps

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Working for Workers Five Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 visant à oeuvrer pour les travailleurs, cinq

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 24, 2024, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 190,

An Act to amend various statutes with respect to employment and labour and other matters / Projet de loi 190, Loi modifiant diverses lois relatives à l’emploi et au travail et à d’autres questions.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Further debate? I recognize the member for Leeds–Grenville–Thousand Islands and—something else.

Mr. Steve Clark: Thank you, Speaker. Long name, amazing service.

I’m very pleased to be able to debate this bill this morning. I want to take the opportunity to thank the Minister of Labour for all of his work. This bill is really a testament to the work that our government has had with our labour unions. We made sure that at every opportunity we would update that, so I look forward to the Minister of Labour’s next Working for Workers bill.

I do want to take this opportunity to recognize Minister Piccini and Premier Ford. Recently, they came to my riding—first of all, I want to go back to last November. Last November, Minister Piccini came and he was the guest speaker at the Leeds Grenville Economic Development Summit. This is a summit that has been organized by the Leeds Grenville Economic Development Office. It also is involved with the three community futures in both 1000 Islands, Grenville and Valley Heartland. It also has the opportunity for MP Michael Barrett and I to work very closely.

Minister Piccini came and had a short meeting with officials from the Kemptville campus. This is a campus that—it was a University of Guelph campus. In 2014, the Liberal government—the then Minister of Agriculture at the time was Premier Kathleen Wynne—decided to close Kemptville campus, which effectively closed that university campus but also a number of skilled trades opportunities that were there. Minister Piccini had a fantastic meeting as part of his consultation for Working for Workers, and he met with those officials from the Kemptville campus and municipality of North Grenville.

Fast-forward to 2017, the municipality of North Grenville assumed significant acreage from the campus in an agreement with the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Premier Ford and Minister Piccini came to my riding on October 4 and had a significant announcement regarding skilled trades. We toured a fantastic business, 401 Electric in Brockville, owned by Barry Moss, who has done an incredible job with the Skills Development Fund. We also had the opportunity, the minister and I, to tour Devries, which is an electrical contracting company in North Grenville. They were also the recipients of Skills Development Fund dollars.

The real opportunity that I want to talk about today is the one that Premier Ford—the tour that we had on the Kemptville campus. He got to meet directly with a number of students from the Upper Canada District School Board who have really gone through the revitalization of that campus. Under the Liberal government, skilled trades courses ended at that campus, and it was from a renewed partnership with the municipality of North Grenville, with the Upper Canada District School Board, that it’s so wonderful to have students back on that campus learning skilled trades.

The fact that the Skills Development Fund provided us this opportunity really speaks volumes to this minister and our Premier in their commitment to skilled trades. It was a great opportunity for us to talk to students.

I can remember very vividly, prior to the Liberals closing that campus in my riding, which was a significant negative announcement—the fact that we were able to put students back in that same structure that had the heavy equipment operator course; the fact that these young people were back learning the skilled trades—and I want to just talk about the students.

I was in the village of Athens a couple of Saturdays ago and I was walking across the street to go into one of the local businesses, and a mother ran across the intersection to talk to me about the life-changing experience that Minister Piccini’s program has done at Kemptville campus. Then, I followed it up. The next weekend, I was at an event, the Leeds county plowing match, out near Forfar in the rural part of Leeds county, and I actually met the young gentleman. He was so very enthusiastic about the opportunities that this government’s been able to provide with the Skills Development Fund.

It was very unique to have both the Premier and the minister in the riding. I think this really underpins the importance of bills like Bill 190 and the fact that it’s not just a piece of legislation, that the government’s actually following up with consultation and actually delivering a program like SDF that has literally changed the lives of young people.

This was exactly what our government was saying when we were in opposition to the then Liberal government about the detrimental decisions that they made regarding skilled trades—the detrimental decisions that they made with that campus, which was an extremely viable campus. It really made an important opportunity for us.

Speaker, I think one of the things that we can now deal with is this legislation. I think we’ve had ample debate, so this morning I move that the question now be put.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): There have been over six hours of debate on this matter, and 12 members have spoken. Mr. Clark has moved that the question be now put. I’m satisfied that there has been sufficient debate to allow this question to be put to the House. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr. Piccini has moved third reading of Bill 190,

An Act to amend various statutes with respect to employment and labour and other matters. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 sur le désengorgement du réseau routier et le gain de temps

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 23, 2024, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 212,

An Act to enact two Acts and amend various Acts with respect to highways, broadband-related expropriation and other transportation-related matters / Projet de loi 212, Loi visant à édicter deux lois et à modifier diverses lois en ce qui concerne les voies publiques, les expropriations liées aux projets d’Internet à haut débit et d’autres questions relatives au transport.

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I’m pleased to be able to add a full hour’s worth of what I hope are thoughtful comments on G-212, which is the so-called Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act, as presented by the government. I have the opportunity to serve as the official opposition critic for infrastructure, transportation and highways, and I have a whole bunch of stuff that I’m looking forward to getting on the record and sharing about this bill. This is a piece of legislation that has certainly garnered a fair bit of attention and interest as we have headed back to Queen’s Park.

Some folks will know this is the bill about bike lanes, about supposedly reducing gridlock. It isn’t a bill about a subterranean expressway—or the 401-nel. If folks are waiting for that, that’s not this bill.

But this is a bill that seeks to bypass various due diligence and environmental assessment processes in order to fast-track costly and unnecessary highways through the greenbelt while making it harder for municipalities to provide and ensure cycling infrastructure. This bill also makes permanent the existing restricted tow-zone pilot—we’ve talked about the towing industry in this House before—and also touches on broadband, so I’m going to break that down for us in an hour.

This government has named this bill the Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act. If that were really goal, the government could take the trucks off the 401 and move them to the 407 to reduce gridlock, but they have voted against that NDP initiative. The government could ensure truck drivers have appropriate training to reduce collisions on northern roads, but so far, they seem to be pretending that that isn’t the terrible problem that it is. They could ensure transits gets built. They could turf the notorious CEO of Metrolinx, Phil Verster, and commit to more transparent and accountable building of needed transit infrastructure.

But this legislation, I would say, Speaker, is not about improving traffic. Instead of solving the problem, it picks around the edges of existing legislation. It does tighten up a few things: seeks to advance the government’s commitment to appease its donors and seeks to pick a culture war for political purposes that puts the lives and safety of vulnerable road users at risk, including kids and people who cannot afford a car. It is about a government dictating that people who choose to get around by bike are worth less than people who choose to drive by car.

If this bill were really about getting people moving, it would be a commitment to finishing the Eglinton LRT and diverting commercial truck traffic off the 401 and onto the 407.

The government talks about prioritizing infrastructure, and yet, we’re seeing, it will not invest in the professional engineers within the public service that Ontarians depend on to ensure our infrastructure is safe and reliable.

This is not a bill about traffic. It’s about starting, as I said, a culture war and a nonsensical fight against bike lanes. This is a fight the government is waging without evidence, as I will lay out for us in this time.

The government is making grand claims about driving test savings, which aren’t real. But what is real is the Auditor General’s scathing report that the government is not addressing real concerns and real fraud. If the government were interested in reducing gridlock, they would not be so focused on gumming up the works with new red tape for municipalities.

Speaker,

schedule 2 of this bill, the Building Highways Faster Act, designates Highway 413, the Bradford Bypass, the Garden City Skyway bridge and any other highway project prescribed by cabinet as “priority highway projects.” I’ll get the nitty-gritty on the record and then we’ll explain it for the folks at home.

Schedule 2: The minister may order utilities to move their infrastructure to make way for a priority highway project. The minister or a delegate may enter any non-dwelling property to carry out a site inspection. The minister may, by regulation, deem that certain municipal bylaws, to the extent that they restrict the delivery of goods and services to a priority highway project, do not apply. The government already has extraordinary powers to expropriate property or conduct site inspections; I don’t know if there is evidence—we certainly haven’t seen any—that it needs these additional powers.

Is this just another power grab that seeks to avoid public accountability? I’m looking forward to the debate.

Schedule 3 is the Highway 413 Act. Again, I’ll wade into the details here. It exempts the Highway 413 project from the Environmental Assessment Act, ending the EA that has been under way, off and on, since 2007. The Highway 413 project is defined broadly to include highway connections to Highway 410 and Highway 427. Highway 413 early works—that would include specified bridge and ramp projects—are also exempt, and the act sets out an alternative environmental impact assessment and consultation process for these exempted projects. So

schedule 3 fast-tracks various projects related to Highway 413 by weakening or removing important safeguards that protect the public and the environment from the cost of harmful or wasteful projects.

There is no requirement to publish the estimated costs of any part of the Highway 413 project or to provide a business case for proposed highway investments to confirm the value for money. There is no specific requirement to study the impacts on traffic or trip times, including the impacts of induced demand. There is no specific requirement to study impacts on species at risk. All of those things one would expect to find with a project of this size and scope.

The act requires that the minister state the purpose of the Highway 413 project, but does not require the minister to evaluate alternatives to achieve the same purpose as would be required for a full environmental assessment under the EA Act. The alternative environmental impact process described in

schedule 3 of this bill is carried out by the Ministry of Transportation or its consultants. There is no requirement that the impact assessment, including its terms of reference, be reviewed by subject-matter professionals in the environment ministry, agricultural ministry or other relevant ministries.

The Building Highways Faster Act, as the bill calls it—who is this building faster for—before proceeding with Highway 413 and the Bradford Bypass, is the government going to tell the public how much the mega projects are going to cost them? Because that information has not been forthcoming

This is a government that has so far refused, stubbornly, to utilize existing infrastructure. We have the 407, and it is underutilized. Back in May, the NDP introduced a motion to remove tolls from trucks on the 407 to move more of them from the 401 to the 407. Everyone who has driven on the 401 knows that the trucks on the 401 add to the gridlock. If the government is so convinced that these highways will improve traffic, instead of attracting more cars and making congestion worse, why doesn’t this piece of legislation require the ministry to publish a traffic engineering study showing the evidence to back up the government’s claims? I would posit, Speaker, that it’s because it won’t.

So let’s look at some better and different ideas. Environmental Defence put out a press release, “Queen’s Park Motion to Slash 407 Truck Tolls Undermines the Ontario Government’s Business Case for Highway 413.” This was back in March when the NDP brought forward the motion to remove the truck tolls from the 407 to direct more of the trucks away from the 401. They have said, “The opposition bill is proposing to reduce tolls on the 407 ETR for commercial truckers which would help to reduce congestion on the slower-moving Highway 401.

According to an expert report by global transportation analysts Eunomia, the transportation benefits would be enormous: Despite costing $6 billion less than the 413 scheme, this plan would shift 12,000 to 21,000 trucks a day off Highway 401, and slash journey times for truck traffic passing through the GTA by approximately 80 minutes.

“After a decade of legal wrangling and disruptive construction, the benefits of this policy would be felt almost immediately.” It sounds like a good idea.

From the Trillium

article about the same initiative: “PCs Vote Against NDP Motion to Remove Truck Tolls from Highway 407.” This was back in March. “NDP leader ... introduced a motion to call for the removal of tolls for trucks on Highway 407, arguing it would ease congestion on the 401 and save truckers tens of thousands of dollars.”

Again, they’ve said, “Diverting some truck traffic to the 407 would save truckers about 80 minutes of commute time, get 12,000 to 21,000 trucks off the 401 and cost $6 billion less than Highway 413, according to a recent study by Environmental Defence.”

This is something that we brought forward, we debated in the House and the government was not interested in exploring—certainly not in supporting, but I have tried to have this current Minister of Transportation talk about the idea in the Legislature and even that seems to be a bridge too far.

But there are other ideas out there that this province could look into. If they’re absolutely committed to their current highway plans, what is preventing them from looking at other alternatives at the same time? Because if I believed—which I don’t—that Highway 413 was going to change the world and make it a traffic-free space or whatever, if it was going to just improve the lives of Ontarians so much, if that were true, it still isn’t going to happen any time soon. Removing trucks from the 401, diverting them to the 407 by removing the truck tolls, would be something we could do tomorrow.

So putting off any kind of relief for people until that highway is built—if I believe that that’s what it would do, which I don’t—is poor government, right? Governing for the people: What do they need today? What do they need tomorrow? What do they need in the future? Let’s look at all of the things, and yet, we’re not.

This bill claims to build highways faster, but, again, I don’t believe that that’s a thing that’s going to happen, especially because I think that this Premier should engineer a believable and better plan. And, yes, Speaker, there was a pun in there because, right now, a lot of people are interested in what’s going on with the professional engineers in the public service. They’re engineers. Engineers are a special breed of people. Anybody who has engineers in their friend group know that they see the world differently. We need them. They imagine potential possibilities, how to make the world better designed. We need them and we should value them.

If building infrastructure were really a priority for this Premier, then this government would be investing in the planning and design of great projects for the province. But instead, we get back-of-the-napkin pipe dreams like the 401-nel or whatever we’re calling it, the subterranean 401 tunnel.

Right now, for the first time in 35 years, the engineers who work in the public service are taking strike action. This is unbelievable, but it’s happening because this Premier wants to cheap out on paying for professional services to ensure our infrastructure is the best it can be to serve Ontarians for generations to come. I see it as short-sighted.

Speaker, this is from an

article by Global News, “Ontario Engineers Plan to Remove Members from Highway 413, Bradford Bypass Projects.”

“The Professional Engineers Government of Ontario union”—or PEGO—“which represents engineers who work on oversight and management of government projects and regulations, say they are planning to begin pulling their members from work related to Highway 413 and the Bradford Bypass, two key government projects.

“‘While this labour dispute will impact the delivery of Ontario’s key infrastructure commitments and the management of existing infrastructure and operations, PEGO is ensuring its strike is both tightly focused and responsible,’ the union said in a statement....

“The latest move means removing its members from projects the government has deemed a provincial priority. The engineers generally work in project management and contract consulting roles, with oversight over how quickly the projects can move forward....

“The union said it was working to remain ‘responsible’ in how it escalated its protest, with safety in mind.”

The government is spending what it deems necessary on P3s and private engineers and sees that as an investment, but apparently sees paying their own in-house professional engineers as an expense. All things being equal, we need engineers, wherever they are working in the private sector and the public sector, to be able to do the work that Ontarians need them to do. I would say that if the government were really interested in advancing their infrastructure priorities, then they need to not just look in the mirror, but they need to look in-house and make sure that they are indeed investing in infrastructure.

Again, this bill, the Building Highways Faster Act, if the engineers who are overseeing and are involved in the Bradford Bypass and Highway 413 are planning to withdraw their members from that, how quickly is that project going to go, folks?

I’ll continue here. This was from last week: “PEGO Frustrated by Lack of Progress at the Bargaining Table....

“PEGO has provided the Treasury Board with an analysis showing that PEGO members earn at least 30% to 50% less than they could earn in the broader Ontario market for their skills by working for municipalities, other government agencies, or in the private sector. PEGO is deeply concerned about the challenge Ontario faces in recruiting and retaining expert engineering and land surveying staff.

Mounting vacancies could result in impacts and delays on key priorities of the government, including Highway 413, the Bradford Bypass and others—some of which have been recently designated as priority projects for construction. It is important to note that successful construction is a result of strong planning and design work in the early stages of complex infrastructure projects—work that PEGO’s engineers and land surveyors are engaged in.”

Engineers aren’t nice to have; they’re needed. I would challenge the government to put its focus, if they are indeed interested in building infrastructure—we can argue about which projects, but any government of the province of Ontario, I hope, wants to build long-lasting, safe, well-planned infrastructure for generations. Prove to us that that is indeed your priority.

Further to that, with the engineers, I would ask, why doesn’t this Ontario government recognize the value and invest in the engineering and land surveying expertise that is critical to Ontario’s infrastructure priorities? Why are these PEGO represented engineers and land surveyors who work for the province not paid at the same level as other public entities such as Metrolinx, city of Toronto, region of Peel, for doing equally or more complex expert work? Let’s not forget that the folks in-house sign the papers that they are working for the people of Ontario.

That’s top of their mind, and we don’t want to bleed them to, I’ll say, the outside world, where they can make enough money to pay their bills or, rather, what’s fair for their expertise.

Speaking of engineers, the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers has opposed both Highway 413 and the Bradford Bypass. I’ll share with folks, from OSPE, the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers, which is the advocacy body and voice of the engineering profession: “Ontario currently has over 85,000 professional engineers, 250,000 engineering graduates, 6,600 engineering post-graduate students and 37,000 engineering undergraduate students.”

I’m going out on a limb here, but I’m pretty sure that all members of this House get invited to engineering licence presentations, that we meet with the engineers locally in our community to celebrate their achievement, their academic success, wish them well in their future. We value the work that they do in word, but I don’t know if we do in deed.

This is from a letter that they had written at that time to the Premier and then-Minister of Transportation as well saying, “Last week, the Auditor General of Ontario disclosed that there were numerous recommendations from qualified subject-matter experts to defer pending highway projects. In April 2021, OSPE echoed the recommendations, strongly opposing the proposed highway projects, specifically Highway 413 and the Bradford Bypass, based on feedback from Ontario’s engineering community....

“OSPE strongly urges the Ontario government to abide by the recommendations of your engineering subject-matter experts and defer the highway projects, specifically Highway 413 and the Bradford Bypass, and reinvest that money into higher-priority projects. Our network of engineering experts continues to offer valuable information to the Ontario government and is willing to support your government’s objectives on an ongoing basis....” That was from Sandro Perruzza, chief executive officer, back in December 2022.

Again, we have a habit here in the province—we; I’m not a member of the government—the government of Ontario seems to have a habit of discounting what engineers are saying, and that’s another example and of course connected to what we’re talking about here today.

While we’re discussing Highway 413, let’s talk about the environmental ramifications. This Premier wants the 413 and has promised all those lucrative off-ramps connected to it to PC donors and developers. There are lots of articles that folks can check out and see that each off-ramp is owned by a different donor and developer. There seems to be nothing that can stop this Premier, certainly not a pesky species at risk, not the community and, arguably, not the feds.

I have an

article here from Environmental Defence, “Ontario’s New Highway Bill Would Lock in Gridlock, Strangle Low-Cost Housing Development and Set Up Conflict with Federal Government.” That is about this particular bill. We’re debating Bill 212, Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act. Environmental Defence has certainly taken a strong stand and are providing Ontarians with evidence as to why this bill is problematic in so many ways.

As they had said, “The Ontario government’s omnibus highways bill, which it has labelled the ‘Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act, 2024,’ would bulldoze ahead with destructive new highways that make traffic worse. The bill ignores environmental values, hinders affordable solutions to traffic congestion, undermines efforts to deliver affordable infill housing and puts the province on the collision course with the federal government.”

They go on, “Ontario could and should be tackling gridlock right now by making better use of existing infrastructure, such as moving commercial truck traffic from the 401 onto the underutilized Highway 407. This shift alone could ease congestion on major routes without further damage to ecosystems or the climate.

“‘More highways mean more gridlock, more wasted time, more destroyed natural areas and more pollution,’ said Tim Gray, executive director at Environmental Defence.” He goes on to say, “‘Shifting truck traffic from the 401 to the 407 now and investing in modern, well-connected public transit would relieve congestion more effectively and sustainably without destroying natural areas and farms or increasing carbon pollution.’

“By short-circuiting environmental reviews, Ontario is proposing to ignore the fate of dozens of federally protected endangered species, the Humber, Credit and Holland rivers, and irreplaceable Indigenous archaeological sites. All of these values are the responsibility of the federal government and cannot be destroyed at the stroke of the pen by the Ontario government.”

They continue, the Premier’s “‘callous and contemptuous disregard for wildlife, rivers, clean water and culture cannot be legally ignored by the federal government,’ added Grey. This bill should be a bright, waving red flag for the federal government to immediately designate all new major highways in Ontario for federal impact assessments as we have requested.” There’s a lot going on with this bill and a lot at stake, Speaker.

As reported by the Narwhal, “Canada’s Environment Minister Has 90 Days to Decide Whether to Review Ontario’s Highway 413—Again.

So, “Environmental Defence has requested a federal impact assessment on the heels of the provincial bill” that we have in front of us.

As they have reported on October 22, “An environmental group has made a formal request for the federal government to intervene in Ontario’s Highway 413, throwing the project’s fate into uncertainty a second time....

“Canadian Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault is mandated by federal law to reply within 90 days—by Jan. 19, 2025, at the latest. If he decides to subject the project to a second review, called an impact assessment, the project could once again be caught in bureaucratic gridlock.

“All of this has already happened once before: the federal government originally decided to review Highway 413 in May 2021. At the time,” it was about “public concern about the project, and raised red flags about how its construction could impact three federally protected species at risk. The highway would cut across Ontario’s greenbelt, along with wetlands, rivers, forests and prime farmland in Toronto’s outer suburbs....

“Ontario’s transportation minister”—the current one—“has vowed to push forward with the highway at all costs, arguing it will ease the greater Toronto area’s traffic congestion—despite decades of evidence showing new highways don’t clear gridlock. Some estimates for the project indicate it could cost up to $10 billion, though the Progressive Conservatives have refused to put a price tag on it....

“If passed, the bill would exempt the project from undergoing a full provincial environmental assessment, Ontario’s equivalent to the federal impact assessment. Instead, the province is proposing an ‘accelerated’ process, which would require a more limited review of the highway’s environmental impacts, and allow the government to start early works like bridges before completing it.”

This current minister “told reporters he hopes the federal minister ‘stays out of the provincial lane on this.’”

We will wait and see what happens, but exempting it from environmental protections doesn’t seem like the right way forward.

Schedule 4 of this bill is regarding the Highway Traffic Act—there are two parts. It re-enacts an as-yet-undone part of Bill 162, the Get It Done Act, which was to set a statutory driver’s licence fee at the amount of the current fees set by regulation. Future fee changes will require an amendment to the Highway Traffic Act. It sets statutory fees for certain drivers’ examinations at the amount of the current fee set by regulation. Future fee changes will require an amendment to the Highway Traffic Act.

Speaker, the government already has the power to set driver’s licence and examination fees, so setting them via statute instead of regulation won’t change a darn thing for drivers. The fact that the statutory driver’s licence fee from Bill 162 still hasn’t been proclaimed six months later—and no one has noticed or cared—is proof of this.

I am more interested—and I’m sure that the folks at home are more interested—in what the government is doing about the allegations of fraud and corruption within Ontario’s privatized DriveTest centres or the similar allegations of fraud at Ontario’s private truck driver training schools. I am wondering why the ministry is bullying vulnerable road users instead of tackling these actual problems.

Now, imagine 720,000 people will pay for a test this year—that’s $7.2 million—and then, times the 10 years, that’s your $72 million. Imagine that rate over 10 years, and that’s how the government gets to $72 million worth of savings that might be 10 bucks per person, once in 10 years.

However, this government is magnanimously choosing not to implement an increase. They could’ve pretended or threatened to increase it to $1,000. Imagine the hypothetical, magical savings that we could extrapolate over a decade or extrapolate over a century. It would just be marvellous—maybe buy back the 407. But this government isn’t actually increasing the rates, so whatever imagined savings they’re talking about is based on some hypothetical, potential increase they’ve chosen not to levy against drivers.

Also, how many times do you take a driving test, Speaker? That’s not a personal question; you don’t have to answer. I’m sure you’re a great driver, I don’t know. What if the government, as I said, were pretending that they were going to increase that cost to $1,000 per test over 10 years? That’s the sticker that is in the window for this bill. Anyway, it’s not a real thing.

But what is a real thing is the Auditor General’s 2023 value-for-money audit regarding driver training and examination: “The Ministry of Transportation ... is responsible for protecting the public by restricting the privilege of driving to those who demonstrate they have the necessarily knowledge, skills and experience to drive safely....

“A 10-year contract with a service provider to deliver driver examination services ended in 2023. The ministry intended to perform an extensive evaluation of service delivery options.”

This is from the Office of the Auditor General, regarding their value-for-money audit. Fun fact: That 10-year contract that the government was committed to reviewing got extended without the extensive review.

Why this matters, according to the Auditor General: “Ensuring that novice drivers acquire effective training and pass the ministry road test requirements before receiving a driver’s licence is a crucial step in keeping Ontario’s roads safe.”

They highlight a number of very concerning challenges faced in the sector. They have outlined that: “The ministry allows novice drivers who complete the optional beginner driver education program to choose to shorten their 12-month wait period for the city road test by up to four months.”

They found that people “who shortened their wait period had collision rates that were on average 30% higher than drivers who completed the program but did not shorten their wait period,” and that 11 out of 14 driving schools that were sampled “allowed the students to shorten, or even abandon, their in-car training but still issued their students beginner driver education certificates.”

What? How many people in this room are comfortable with that, that people who don’t do the in-car training are still issued their beginner driver education certificates? Well, that was highlighted in the value for money and this government is ignoring that. There’s a chance in this bill, as we’re talking about driver tests and training, to do something, to actually address some of what has been highlighted in the Auditor General’s report. It makes for interesting reading. For the folks at home: driver training and examination, 2023 value-for-money audit—look it up.

I will share here, from the driving instructors’ alliance, they have written to “urgently request your assistance in raising critical questions concerning the government’s failure to implement the Auditor General of Ontario’s recommendation on driver training and examination. This issue is of significant public safety concern and immediate action is essential to protect all Ontarians on our roads.”

Their recommendations and their concerns—again, these are driving instructors, the people who teach folks how to drive safely on our roads who then go to the private testing centre, which is run by Serco, which I’ll talk about, and they get a shortened version of the test, which I will talk about, where they are not held to the same standards that probably many of the folks in this room were because things have changed. They as instructors, who see it up close up and personally, are sounding the alarm. That should be enough for anyone in this room to pay attention.

They have highlighted: “Novice drivers from urban areas who take their road tests at rural or suburban centres are involved in collisions at rates 16% to 27% higher than those tested in urban settings. For example, drivers from Brampton who tested outside the city had a collision rate 22% higher ... than those who took their test within the city. Could you inquire why the government has not monitored this dangerous trend and what immediate steps it will take to address these safety implications?” Well, the answer is that the government has not addressed them.

Their next question: “To address a COVID-19 road test backlog, the ministry reduced G (highway) test requirements. These lowered standards remain almost two years later, without any proper evaluation of the safety impacts. Could you ask the government why the full G test requirements have not been reinstated to ensure road safety, and why changes were made without a thorough safety review?” That was to clear the backlog, folks, and we’ll talk more about that.

They’ve also said, “The ministry awarded a new contract to Plenary/Serco without a competitive process, despite years of performance issues and disputes over penalties. Furthermore, the ministry paid over $19.2 million to extend operating hours and cover costs that should have been the service provider’s responsibility. Could you ask the government why a non-competitive contract was awarded under these circumstances, and why the ministry has borne costs that should have been the responsibility of the service provider?” I could ask.

They also flagged: “Drivers with multiple suspensions have a fatal collision rate six times higher than the general driver population. Yet only 5% of these high-risk drivers completed retraining in 2022. Will the government implement mandatory retraining for drivers with repeat suspensions, and what other measures will be taken to address this alarming safety risk?” Well, the answer, Speaker, appears to be no.

So, as they have said, “These are not just policy gaps; they are pressing road safety issues that affect all drivers in Ontario. I urge you to hold the government accountable and ensure these concerns are addressed urgently in the interest of public safety.” That is from the driving instructors’ alliance.

Speaker, I had met with the Ontario Driving Instructors Association, a different group. These are associations of driving instructors who are so concerned about what they are seeing that they are banding together and forming their own associations.

That shortened process that we talked about is interesting because Serco runs this. It’s a private company that does the road tests. They have doubled their revenue. It’s still $90 for that test because the government, as we’ve talked about, has decided not to increase the fees and they are pretending that that is a saving. So it’s still 90 bucks, but it’s more business for Serco because the revenue has gone up. They can do now two 30-minute tests in an hour or however long it is. They can do twice as many tests; they are doubling their money.

The government isn’t increasing the fees for people, but Serco, the private company, is still doing the reduced, shortened tests and making bank. That’s alarming.

They also highlighted that there are people teaching illegally in their own private cars; that they see insurance fraud on a regular basis; that they have safety concerns because to be a licensed driving instructor, you have to pass a vulnerable sector check, and there are a lot of folks who are running after-hour programs who are skipping that step. It shouldn’t be that hard to get a vulnerable sector check. It isn’t hard for the people who have done it. It might be hard for someone who should not be alone in a vehicle with young people, ostensibly teaching them how to drive. That is something that has been flagged for this government, and that is not a protection that we see in this bill.

Moving on to another part of

schedule 4, the Highway Traffic Act, this is where we’ve seen a lot of interest in the broader community. This

section of the bill requires prescribed municipalities to obtain ministry approval to install a bike lane if the bike lane would reduce the number of lanes available for motor vehicle traffic: “The ministry may consider whether” the bike lane “would unduly diminish the orderly movement of motor vehicle traffic.” The ministry may require prescribed municipalities to provide prescribed traffic information relating to an existing bike lane.

For a government that claims to be all about cutting red tape, it makes no sense for the government to place new regulatory burdens on municipalities who are in a much better position than the MTO, or this Premier, to make decisions about local transportation matters—in this case about bike lanes. The province’s goal should be to improve overall traffic, not just motor vehicle traffic. Bikes take up less space on the road, and if we can make cycling a safe and convenient choice for people of different ages and abilities, it will get cars off the road and improve overall traffic.

But, as written, this bill could ban even well-used bike lanes because bike traffic is not considered. The only thing that counts in this bill is motor vehicle traffic.

This legislation is not about improving traffic. It seeks to pick a culture war for political purposes that puts the lives and safety of vulnerable road users at risk, including kids, people who can’t afford a car and anyone who uses those bike lanes. It is about a government dictating that people who choose to get around by bike are worth less than those who choose to drive a car. Bike lanes already face enormous political barriers and the bike lanes installed on municipal roads represent only a tiny fraction of the total road space dedicated to motor vehicles.

It is ridiculous to suggest that municipalities are casually installing bike lanes everywhere without a thought. Reducing bike lanes and increasing mayhem is what we’re doing with this bill. The Premier and minister are taking on bike lanes and wanting a culture war with an election on the horizon. They seem intent on picking this fight that they think will be popular. But it isn’t popular with everyone and for very real and rational reasons. Municipalities know how to plan, and plan what they know—their communities. I would have to ask why municipalities are having their decisions overruled.

Speaker, there are a lot of people interested in this bike lane conversation. Here’s an

article from the Toronto Star, “Doug Ford’s Bill to Limit New Bike Lanes Will Also ‘Review’ Existing Ones.”

As written, under sweeping new legislation “the Highway Traffic Act is being amended to say ‘the Ministry may review existing bicycle lanes’ and municipalities must receive provincial approval before installing new lanes.... The province would cover any costs incurred by municipalities to remove bike lanes.”

And also, “‘When considering whether to approve the design for the construction of a bicycle lane, the ministry may consider whether it would unduly diminish the orderly movement of motor vehicle traffic,’ the bill states.”

“Whether it would unduly diminish the orderly movement of motor vehicle traffic”—as I have mentioned this is not about overall traffic; this is strictly about motor vehicles.

The Association of Municipalities of Ontario has criticized this as a “significant overreach into municipal jurisdiction.”

“Toronto mayor Olivia Chow has also pushed back at the usurping of municipal authority.” It reads that “ripping up our roads (to remove bike lanes) will make congestion worse.” She also has said that “the province should tackle gridlock by completing the delayed Finch West and Eglinton LRTs.” Yeah, imagine that.

The Association of Municipalities of Ontario, or AMO, are well-known to all of us as legislators in this room, and many of the members in this House have been well-connected to AMO and also have been leaders in their own home municipalities. I’m sharing this press release: “Province to Introduce Legislation Governing Bicycle Lanes.”

“According to the government news release, ‘municipalities would be required to demonstrate that the proposed bike lanes won’t have a negative impact on vehicle traffic.’”

As AMO has said, “Bicycle lanes are an essential element of urban transportation planning and road safety. Requiring provincial approval would be a significant overreach into municipal jurisdiction. Based on local knowledge and community input, municipalities develop transportation plans that balance traffic flow with planning priorities like active transportation, multimodal transportation, and environmental and health protection. AMO is not aware of any consultation with municipalities regarding bicycle lanes or of the evidence the province considered in its decision.

“It is unclear how the Ministry of Transportation will be in a better position than municipalities to make decisions about local transportation matters. Rather than micromanaging bike lanes, the Ministry of Transportation could focus on accelerating its own approval processes to help support new housing.”

AMO goes on to say: “There have been recent examples of unintended consequences when the province has tried to take over local decision-making. We urge the province to respect local decision-making when considering transportation improvements and not repeat its mistakes of the past.”

Those are clear words. I’m going to paraphrase, and what I read was that AMO is saying, “Stay in your lane and leave municipal planning decisions to municipal planners.” Again, this is a government that is determined to move forward at all costs. When AMO says that they are unaware of the evidence or the consultation process, that would suggest to anyone paying attention that the government is skipping steps and just doing whatever they think will be popular instead of what, indeed, is needed.

This is from an article, “‘They’re Coming Out:’”—the Premier—“Says He Will Remove Bike Lanes from Three Toronto Streets.”

This

article says: “As he left a Progressive Conservative caucus meeting at Queen’s Park on Tuesday, Premier Doug Ford told Global News his government has already identified three routes to be targeted for removal. Asked whether the government wanted certain criteria to be met before the removal of those lanes, the Premier said: ‘No.’

“The Premier suggested the decision was a done deal.

“‘They’re coming out,’ he told Global News.

“The comments appear to presuppose the outcome of a process that’s still being developed at Queen’s Park. The legislation ... still has to be debated and reviewed by a parliamentary committee before becoming law.”

The Premier, as reported here, has already told us what’s happening. I guess it doesn’t matter what we do in this room; the Premier has got bike lanes on his Christmas list.

“Separately, the Minister of Transportation has emphasized that the decision over what lanes would move ahead and which would be removed, would be decided through a rigorous process of regulations.”

Left hand, right hand, guys. The Minister of Transportation’s office has said regulations will be “‘completed over the coming months’ and that they will include an outline of ‘data and submission requirements, timelines, approval criteria and information-sharing details.’”

The minister’s office has said there’s going to be a process and approval criteria, timelines, all of that, and the Premier has said, “No.”

I will never, ever, ever, ever be a member of this particular government, and I am not unhappy about that. But I have to wonder what some of the members think, as they walk through the halls as government members, knowing that they’ve got ministers and the Premier saying one thing, saying another, maybe at odds or just not communicating. It is quite interesting, because it looks like chaos from the outside, eh? I don’t know what it’s like being on the inside. When we are government, we will have a different kind of process, I’m sure.

Continuing on about the bike lanes, people care about getting around their communities safely. They care about well-planned, safe infrastructure.

I have a letter here from Matt Alexander, who has written, “Please do not let this government get away with legislating restrictions on bike lanes. I know their new proposal is mainly a distraction ... but if they go through with this people will die....

“Their proposal is government overreach. It’s anti-democratic. It rejects the authority of local municipal governments to make decisions for their own constituents, and it represents red tape, which this government claims to be against.”

Matt goes on to say, “Most people in Ontario have no issue with bike lanes, and most people in Ontario want to feel okay about their children or parents riding a bike.

“I grew up in Oshawa and I loved riding my bike in my neighbourhood as a kid, but I never felt safe riding a bike to go anywhere as a teenager because we didn’t have any bike lanes.”

This Premier’s “anti-bike lane bill isn’t just about punishing Toronto, it will also punish people in Oshawa who want to get around without their car. You know how jammed up the roads are .... The only solution to those kinds of traffic jams is giving people a viable alternative to driving.

“Bike lanes provide that alternative. I really hope you will stand up and defend municipalities that want to give people an alternative to driving so that the people who really need to drive have fewer drivers clogging up the roads.

“Please do not let them get away with this. They will get people killed.”

That’s from Matt Alexander, a constituent in Oshawa. There are a lot of folks paying attention to this bike lane attack. It doesn’t make sense. It’s attacking municipalities’ right to plan for their communities.

At the end of last week, there were hundreds of people out on the lawn, protesting this bill, folks who support bike lanes. And not everyone out there was a bicycle rider. There were a lot of folks that have wheelchairs, have different devices, that are pedestrians—people who use bike lanes so that they are protected from the cars, so that they can get around and not be part of that traffic jam.

Here’s a letter from Henry Zongaro, who is writing as a cyclist, and he has said:

“Dear Minister ... I felt compelled to reach out to you regarding your opinion piece, ‘Bike Lanes Only Make Sense in the Right Places’ ... I have to agree that bike lanes only make sense in the right places. However, I disagree with your opinion that they only belong on quieter streets and neighbourhoods.

“As an example, I live near Bayview and Eglinton in the riding of Don Valley West and work in Markham. I would love to be able to ride to work, but instead I use public transit. The great difficulty in making that trip by bicycle is getting past major highways, like the 401, 404 and 407....

“The way neighbourhood streets are laid out in many parts of the Toronto area makes it very difficult to navigate them for longer distance travel that cuts across several neighbourhoods. The only straightforward solution is to make accommodations for bicycles on major streets. That will encourage more people to take advantage of those lanes, more often, getting more of them out of their cars, even if it’s only for eight or nine months per year. Placing bicycle lanes on quiet streets and neighbourhoods will ensure they will only be used for leisure riding, which is mostly how those streets are already used.

“Rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all, top-down solution that keeps commuters in their cars, I feel you should leave it to municipalities to decide where bike lanes make the most sense. They are closer to their communities and are better placed to determine where bike lanes should be placed.

“Regards,

“Henry Zongaro.”

I’m pretty sure all of the government members—well, all members in this House—are getting letters like that on this bill.

Speaker, there’s an organization called Friends and Families for Safe Streets. Jess Spieker has been to the Legislature on various occasions to speak about vulnerable roads users. My Bill 15—she has spoken about different initiatives that would keep people safe and protected, and she had some thoughts on this bill. I won’t share them all, but I know she’d be very happy to share them with each individual member who is curious.

As Jess had said, “This will only serve to get innocent people killed. Ripping out bike lanes will not improve overall car congestion since they’re on only 4% of Toronto’s streets....

“This is a brutal slap in the face to every family whose loved one was killed in a car crash and to every survivor of a car crash.”

She has asked, doesn’t the ministry “have to produce documentation ‘proving’ that bike lanes cause car congestion? That’s impossible, because car congestion is caused by too many cars and bike lanes get people out of cars.”

“No restriction on what type of street this evaluation would apply to ... No reason to think that this government will approve a single piece of future cycling infrastructure.” They have such a hate on bike lanes, there’s certainly no guarantees that that won’t continue.

And as she has said, “The Minister of Transportation and his office staff can’t possibly have the capacity to actually do these reviews, both of applications” for new bike lanes “and of existing infrastructure. They can’t get anything done (e.g., Eglinton Crosstown, literally every LRT project everywhere is delayed, highways are riddled with potholes, wasteful 401 widening already just as clogged with cars as it was before, GO service is not frequent enough to be useful for most people, what happened to the all-day Kitchener-Toronto GO service?

TTC is starved for operational funding and needs new trains, no actual use case or justification for any of those new highways to enable the ... greenbelt giveaway to developers, on and on and on) so why do they think they have time for this? Have they been sitting on their hands the last six years?”

Jess has lots of thoughts on this, and understandably.

The Premier has been calling for data. Well, it exists, right? They are making things up about their bike lane claims—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bhutila Karpoche): I’m sorry to interrupt the member. I’m going to ask the member to withdraw her comment.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I will withdraw my comment.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bhutila Karpoche): Thank you. You may continue.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Thank you.

There are many examples of bike lanes that ensure vulnerable roads users are protected while they travel our roads, whether on a wheelchair, pedestrian, cyclist. The Runnymede-to-Shaw segment of the Bloor bike lane is one of Toronto’s busiest. It’s used by thousands of people every day. I would like to know if the ministry will provide the evidence—actual evidence, not anecdotes—to back up its claims that bike lanes are impeding overall traffic. Why does this bill focus only on motor vehicle traffic and not overall traffic? As written, this bill would ban even well-used bike lanes because bike traffic is not considered.

This bill should be about safety first, especially for vulnerable road users, but despite everything we have heard about safe roads in Ontario, we aren’t doing enough to make sure people can be safe on their travels.

The MPP from Ottawa Centre rode his bike from Ottawa to Toronto. He stopped along the way in Oshawa. We heard from folks about near misses; the importance of well-planned infrastructure; injury, death and loss of loved ones. We heard the need for vulnerable road user legislation to keep folks that use our roads safe.

Those bike lanes are actually part of traffic calming, which is planned to keep people safe. This bill suggests anything that impedes motor vehicle traffic flow is potentially on the chopping block. Well, these bike lanes are to keep people safe and are meant to slow traffic. Anyway, it’s just such limited understanding.

Sometimes bike lanes are installed as traffic calming measures to increase safety. Everyone who uses our roads or works on our roads without the protections of a steel cage should be considered to be vulnerable. Traffic cops, pedestrians, flagmen on construction sites, roadside construction workers, cyclists, bikers, paramedics at a collision, tow truck operators—lots of people find themselves on their roads outside of vehicles, and ensuring they are factored into plans and legislation should not be too much to ask.

Speaker, it is amazing how one can go through an hour in what feels like 20 minutes. I think that the bike lanes conversation is going to be had with enthusiasm in this room. All of us have very full inboxes right now because of people who are quite concerned about this government’s overreach into the municipalities’ planning abilities when it comes to bike lanes.

As the critic, I’m going to take a moment and also mention that under

schedule 1 of this bill, the Building Broadband Faster Act, this government already has quite extraordinary power to expropriate property and conduct site inspections. I’m not convinced that this part of the bill is what is in the way of the government getting broadband spending out the door. Everyone needs high-speed Internet in this day and age.

This year, the government is budgeting $1.3 billion for broadband infrastructure. That’s a big number, eh? However, this government has failed to spend the vast majority of its broadband infrastructure budget for as long as this program has existed. Last year, the ministry budgeted $663 million for broadband but only spent $93 million. The year before that, the ministry budget was $693 million for broadband but only spent $70 million. The year before that, the ministry budget was $406 million, but only spent $15 million.

Broadband has been a priority for New Democrats because it matters to all Ontarians. We’ve tried to include words like “rural, northern and First Nations communities.” We’ve tried to include them as priorities in government legislation to make it clear that they should not be left behind, but all of those amendments have always been defeated.

Broadband is an essential service. We have to remember that people deserve it. And it’s not going to happen if this government doesn’t spend to get broadband out the door.

This bill, Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time, doesn’t reduce gridlock and isn’t saving us time. We need a government to actually plan things well for the improvement of Ontario. This bill is not getting us there.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bhutila Karpoche): It is now time for questions.

Hon. Todd J. McCarthy: My question to the member for Oshawa concerns her earlier comments on Bill 212 and the environmental assessment reference.

As acting or alternate Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, I wanted to ask the member for Oshawa: Does the member understand that we’ve had, since 2007, dozens of studies and reports on the 413 and that this government is being guided right now by those studies and reports, in addition to the accelerated environmental assessment process? That is because—does the member understand this—we believe you can do both. You can be good stewards of the environment while building the Ontario of tomorrow. Does the member understand that that is the intent behind this bill?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I’m going to share from the Environmental Defence’s letter to Minister Guilbeault as they are requesting an impact assessment. They said, “The 413 project is now ... proposed to be exempted from the provincial EA process and would entail ‘early works,’ which would include bridge crossings that would impact values under federal jurisdiction.”

Speaker, this government does not have a good track record on environmental protections. Certainly with this pet project there is no exception.

“Because of the proposed exemption ... it appears that there would never be a final report on the environmental impacts of the project carried out by Ontario prior to construction of early works and that a final report may never be required to assess fish habitat, species at risk and migratory bird impacts. Mitigation measures have not been proposed for federal effects.

“There has been no detailed public assessment of the potential impacts on species at risk, fish or fish habitat or migratory birds for the project along the preferred route.”

Certainly, we have not seen any evidence of environmental protection or priorities.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bhutila Karpoche): Next question?

MPP Jamie West: Thank you to the member for Oshawa for her debate. She spoke at length about how there is a bit of a culture war about bike lanes and getting people frustrated with bike lanes.

When we talk about gridlock, what a lot of people see, especially when I drive to northern Ontario, is the incredible gridlock along the 401. She had mentioned the Ontario NDP’s opposition day motion to allow transport trucks to go onto the 407, thereby freeing up the 401. If she’d like to expand on what that would do, what it would accomplish; also, if she could make a comment on how many bike lanes are on the 401, slowing down traffic on the 401.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Certainly there aren’t any bike lanes slowing down traffic on the 401. Not to be too flip about this, but with their 401-nel: underground, subterranean tunnel plan, I wonder if their plan is—maybe they can make the top level be all bike lanes. I have no idea what they are doing. I don’t think they do either.

Listen, the 407 is underutilized. We can talk about the time that the plane landed and whatnot, but on any given day it is underutilized. We could be differently approaching this. We could be problem solving, but the government is like, “Shh, don’t use the word ’407.’ We’ve made promises about the 413.”

This is something that could help people today and tomorrow: to redirect trucks from the 401 to the 407 by removing the tolls. Everyone thinks this is a good idea. I would guess that the government members also think it’s a good idea, but they’re not saying anything because right now the only thing they’re allowed to talk about, it would appear, is the 413.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bhutila Karpoche): It is now time for members’ statements.

Members’ Statements

YWCA Week Without Violence

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: On Saturday, the YWCA Canada’s annual Week Without Violence campaign against intimate partner and gender-based violence came to a close.

I had the privilege of speaking at a panel event that YWCA Niagara hosted, where we heard from local service providers and experts in the field. Eye-opening statements were made and horrifying statistics were shared.

Feeling called to take action, I rise today to recognize Elisabeth Zimmermann from the YWCA Niagara Region, Nicole Regehr from Gillian’s Place, Jennifer Gauthier from Birchway Niagara, Nyarayi Kapisavanhu from TOES Niagara and Mary Ellen Simon from Niagara Regional Native Centre for their leadership and commitment to providing a safe haven for women and gender-diverse people across the Niagara region.

From strengthening enforcement to infusing much-needed funding into our legal aid system to increasing social supports and focusing on funding court services, we need effective solutions that focus on prevention rather than dealing with the consequences of violence after it has been perpetuated. We need culturally sensitive supports that put racialized Indigenous women and gender-diverse individuals first. We need to invest in housing, social supports and education.

Let’s be clear: Prevention is better than cure. It’s not about creating the next innovative project, it’s about ensuring the essential supports are strong. Intimate partner and gender-based violence is everyone’s problem. Acknowledging the problem exists is the first step in saving lives.

Brock University

Ms. Natalie Pierre: Good morning, everyone. At the end of the summer, I had the pleasure of touring the new Brock University campus that is currently being built in my riding of Burlington. I was greeted by Dr. Mary-Louise Vanderlee, the dean for the faculty of education. Dr. Vanderlee and other faculty members have been recognized as contributing to one of the highest institutes of education in the country. With almost 28,000 alumni, Brock University has been actively training educators to serve the next generation.

I was happy to see the progress of the new Brock campus that will play a crucial role in shaping future generations of educators, equipping them with the tools they need to inspire and lead in diverse and dynamic learning environments. The new campus is not just a new building, it’s an example of the advancement of educational excellence and innovation.

As the only university in the GTA west corridor offering teacher education programming, I’m excited for the opportunities this new space will provide for students, faculty and the broader community.

Education funding

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Recently, children in a grade 6 French immersion class at Withrow school in my riding were preparing to meet the 20th teacher assigned to their class since the school year began. The school has not been able to provide a permanent teacher for this class this school year. As you can imagine, the students are demoralized and the parents are completely frustrated.

This is a not a new problem or an isolated problem in our public schools. In the spring, I raised a similar issue faced by students at Earl Grey school in my riding to the Minister of Education. No one in this room will be surprised to learn that the response was superficial and led to no action that would help the students.

As one parent put it to me, “Underfunding and removal of supports in the classrooms mean that teachers are leaving the profession, burning out or choosing not to enter teaching at all.” Parents, where they can afford it, are paying for after-school tutoring to try and get an education for their children.

I ask the Minister of Education to provide the funding and support that our schools need to provide the education that our children deserve.

Mount Forest Chamber of Commerce awards

Mr. Matthew Rae: It’s my honour to rise today to recognize two outstanding individuals from my riding of Perth–Wellington.

Recently, I had the pleasure of attending the Mount Forest Chamber of Commerce awards, where we recognized the Mount Forest Citizen of the Year, Crystal Steffler. Crystal may not have grown up in Mount Forest, but got involved in the community shortly after making her new home there. She’s an outstanding active member of the Lions Club, volunteers with the Mount Forest Firework Festival and is a personal support worker. In addition, she founded an initiative called the Child Cancer Blanket project, which involves community members making blankets or quilts and donating them to children’s hospitals across Ontario. As one of her nominators put it: “Crystal—she’s always there.”

The second individual I want to recognize is a bright young man named John Ray—no relation, Speaker. John was awarded the youth citizen of the year award. He can be found on Saturdays during the summer at the Wellington North Farmers’ Market selling fresh produce from his family’s farm.

Both John and Crystal have a passion for volunteering and giving back to the community they love.

Congratulations, John and Crystal, and thank you for all that you do for Mount Forest.

Proposed hospital merger

Ms. Catherine Fife: There’s a growing level of excitement in the region of Waterloo, especially on the 100th anniversary of St. Mary’s General Hospital.

Grand River Hospital and St. Mary’s General Hospital have put forward a plan to merge and bring the much-needed care to the region. This merger will help meet the needs of one of the fastest-growing regions in the province and take pressure off an already underserviced population. We recognize, as a community, that this is a needed hospital, and it will not only meet the health care needs but also the economic needs of our community.

Building on their 40 years of strong partnership, Grand River and St. Mary’s will be redeveloping two existing sites and opening a new state-of-the-art hospital site in Waterloo region by 2034. This new site will be built on the campus of the University of Waterloo David Johnston Research + Technology Park. It is an ambitious plan that needs to be resourced. Working so closely with the University of Waterloo will also help spur innovation, attract talent and support the continued economic growth, prosperity and, most importantly, the health of the people of Waterloo.

I am sure that St. Mary’s General Hospital and Grand River Hospital will continue to live by their belief that it is an honour to care for the sick, as they move forward and continue to deliver outstanding health care for the people of Waterloo region.

I want to emphasize that Waterloo region is truly building the future of care together.

Ayr Curling Club

Mr. Brian Riddell: Mr. Speaker, the Ayr Curling Club just celebrated 175 years on October 5—that’s longer than Canada has been around.

The Ayr Curling Club has provided a safe space for people of all ages to be healthy and active while enjoying a sport they love—and those stones are pretty heavy.

The curling club has gone above and beyond what is expected of a recreational facility. Outside of curling, they have provided a space for community groups and businesses to meet, and hosted food distribution for those experiencing homelessness.

I was very pleased to see our government award a $38,500 grant through the Ontario Trillium Foundation. Funding is to be used for some much-needed roof repairs and a new ice scraper.

I want to say, again, a very happy belated 175th anniversary to Ayr Curling Club as they continue to grow for another, probably, couple of hundred years.

Landlord and Tenant Board

Mr. Vincent Ke: Many of my constituents come to my office distressed because their tenants have been living rent-free and utility-free for long periods of time. Meanwhile, small landlords in my constituency are struggling with mortgage payments and fear losing their lifelong investments.

Last year, 20% of tenants in Toronto were in rent arrears. Some of them are exploiting the processing delays at the tribunal. These bad actors are taking advantage of the system without facing any consequences.

The majority of tenants honour their lease agreements. However, the professional tenants are committing theft. They are not only stealing from landlords but are also undermining the rule of law and eroding trust in the system. If we allow this bad behaviour to continue unchecked, we encourage its recurrence.

Speaker, I was encouraged to hear the Premier mention potential reforms to the Landlord and Tenant Board, in collaboration with the Attorney General. I hope the upcoming reform could help restore confidence among small landlords and law-abiding tenants, and rebuild a healthy rental market.

Événements divers à Glengarry–Prescott–Russell

M. Stéphane Sarrazin: Aujourd’hui, nous débutons la deuxième semaine du retour en Chambre ici à Queen’s Park. Comme on pourrait dire, on revient dans la routine.

Beaucoup de travail nous attend. Nous travaillerons sur beaucoup de différents dossiers et de projets de loi d’ici la période des fêtes.

Hier, lors de mon voyage en train de Cornwall à Toronto, je regardais mon calendrier en me demandant qu’est-ce que j’avais fait pour ne pas avoir vu le temps passer lors des 18 semaines que nous étions dans la circonscription. Comme le voyage en train est d’une durée de quatre heures, et ce, deux fois par semaine, c’est souvent une opportunité pour moi de réviser les dossiers et de passer à travers beaucoup de documentation.

En regardant mon calendrier, j’ai conclu que j’avais pris part à 145 réunions, 66 événements communautaires, 14 annonces de subventions, neuf entrevues, huit conférences, et ce, depuis juin. C’est sans compter plusieurs discussions que j’ai eues avec les gens des quatre coins de ma circonscription lorsque je m’arrêtais pour faire des emplettes dans des commerces locaux ou lorsque j’arrêtais pour faire le plein dans les stations d’essence.

J’ai vraiment apprécié les belles discussions que j’ai eues avec les gens de ma circonscription et j’ai bien hâte de rencontrer plusieurs centaines d’entre eux à l’Expo Hawkesbury qui aura lieu du 9 au 10 novembre prochain au Complexe sportif Robert Hartley. Les événements comme l’Expo sont vraiment une excellente opportunité pour moi et mon équipe d’expliquer ce que notre gouvernement fait pour améliorer le sort des Ontariens, et de pouvoir répondre à leurs questions et éclaircir certains dossiers qui ont un impact sur leurs vies de tous les jours.

Moi et mon équipe avons bien hâte de rencontrer les gens de Glengarry–Prescott–Russell à Hawkesbury le 9 et 10 novembre prochain.

Riding of Simcoe–Grey

Mr. Brian Saunderson: It is my pleasure to rise this morning to speak about the critical and unprecedented investments our government is making to ensure that the residents of Simcoe–Grey have a bright and sustainable future.

It is no secret that my riding of Simcoe–Grey is one of the fastest-growing ridings in our province as the release valve for growth pressures in the GTA.

Starting in July, I announced the investment of $120 million to build three much-needed new schools in Wasaga Beach and Essa township, as well as an addition to a high school in Tottenham. These new schools will ensure our students have access to state-of-the-art facilities in their own neighbourhoods.

This September, I announced $95 million of direct investment through the Housing-Enabling Water Systems Fund, starting with $25.4 million to the town of Blue Mountains for waste water infrastructure to unlock over 2,000 new housing units. The next week, I announced $69.99 million in investment in Collingwood to expand the water treatment plant, a joint project with the town to New Tecumseth that will unlock 24,000 new housing units.

In August, Speaker, I was at the Stevenson Memorial Hospital in New Tecumseth to announce its capital expansion project is entering the tender process with a commitment of $350 million for this much-needed project. Shovels are expected to be in the ground by late 2025.

Speaker, these investments, totalling $565 million, are tangible proof of our government’s commitment to investing in critical projects to build our communities and improve the lives of our residents for generations to come. And, Speaker, there’s more to come.

Student achievement

Mr. Ric Bresee: As MPPs, we all have an opportunity to engage with a lot of different people, but some of these opportunities really stand out as positive signs for the future.

Recently, I had the wonderful opportunity to engage with some of my local secondary school students. At North Hastings High School in Bancroft, I spent time with the students in Mrs. Waterbury’s period 2 and period 4 civics classes.

And this last week, for Local Government Week, I was joined at NDSS by Limestone school board trustee Tiffany Lloyd and both the mayor and deputy mayor of Greater Napanee as we presented to students in three different classes, led by Ms. Klaassen, Ms. Carmichael and Mr. Heaton.

Speaker, it was a distinct pleasure to share insights on how different levels of government work and how students can get involved now, even if they’re too young to vote. We had great discussions and some insightful questions about local issues, health care, homelessness, transportation and so much more.

As a side note, I have done a lot of these types of classes before and it was awesome to have the students fully engaged with us and not on their smart phones.

Overall, the level of intelligent questions and, in some cases, challenge to myself and my municipal colleagues clearly demonstrates that the next generation of voters and leaders are prepared to handle all of the challenges they face. If these kids are a representative sample, our future is very bright indeed.

To the students at NDSS and NHHS, I say thank you very much.

Introduction of Visitors

Hon. David Piccini: It gives me great pleasure to welcome some guests to the Legislature today, instrumental in our latest Working for Workers bill: from the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, Greg Horton and Gavin Jacklyn, along with rock star Meaghan Martin, who worked in our office on this.

I’m also very pleased to welcome, from my riding, Mike Robinson, fire chief from Hamilton township; Ric Ash, retired firefighter from Hamilton township; Pete Fisher from Today’s Northumberland; and Jeff Briggs from the Cobourg fire service. They are the reason we do all this, Speaker, and I’d like to welcome them warmly to the Legislature today. Welcome.

Ms. Chandra Pasma: It gives me very great pleasure this morning to be able to welcome my sister, Bethany Pasma, to the Legislature—a resident of Oxford, so it’s nice for us to be able to meet in the middle. Thanks for coming to spend time with me today, Beth.

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: Today, I would like to welcome our great friends Heather Kenny, Katrina Dollano, Ron Ross and Mark Holmes from Traditional Chinese Medicine Ontario. Thank you for being here today.

MPP Jill Andrew: It’s my great pleasure to introduce Mischka Crichton, the chief executive officer of the Toronto Caribbean Carnival, as well as—I don’t see them; maybe they’re coming in—Adrian Charles, the general manager of the Toronto Caribbean Carnival, to your House. Welcome, and thank you for all the wonderful work you’ve been doing since 1967.

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: I know that there’s a very large group of students who are making their way through the security protocol. They’re here for a tour. They are three classrooms, grade 4 and 5, of Gabrielle-Roy elementary school from the great riding of Toronto Centre.

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: I see in the visitors’ gallery we have Charlie the chaplain. Welcome to Queen’s Park, Charlie Lyons.

Mr. Chris Glover: I’d like to add my welcome to Mischka Crichton, the CEO of Toronto Caribbean Carnival, as well as Adrian Charles, the general manager. Welcome to your House.

MPP Jill Andrew: I’d also like to welcome Charlie the chaplain to the House. Thank you for your care and support of all of us members in this House.

Question Period

Mental health services

Ms. Marit Stiles: Good morning, Speaker. This question is for the Premier. If there’s one thing that I hear all across this province, from Timmins to Windsor to Ottawa, it’s the need for mental health care and addiction services. I hear it from young people who are struggling with anxiety and depression in rates higher than we’ve ever seen. I hear it from parents who are just desperate and would do anything for their children, but wait-lists are months, even years long for mental health services. Children and youth are waiting up to two years—two years, Speaker—to get the care that they need. Things can change a lot over two years. Kids cannot wait.

Does the Premier agree that everyone deserves access to publicly funded, publicly delivered mental health services?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply for the government, the parliamentary assistant and member for Burlington.

Ms. Natalie Pierre: It’s a pleasure to have the opportunity to talk about our government’s record on mental health. When we took office in 2018, Ontario’s system of care for people with mental health and addiction challenges was broken, because the previous government, supported by the NDP, never made it a priority. We, on the other hand, have developed and implemented the province’s first long-term strategy for improving mental health and addictions care through the Roadmap to Wellness.

Since then, we’ve increased annual funding for mental health and addictions by over $800 million, introducing new programs like the structured psychotherapy program, which provides free cognitive behavioural therapy for adults struggling with anxiety and depression.

Mr. Speaker, we are the only government in this province’s history that has ever treated mental health with the seriousness it deserves, and we are proud of our record of expanding services and helping vulnerable people get the care they need.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: That’s embarrassing. That’s an embarrassing response.

The number of children and youth on mental health wait-lists has more than doubled under this government’s time from 12,000 to 30,000 children on those waiting lists. That is on this government.

It is getting worse every day, Speaker, but I want to talk about a call that was made by Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler back in 2016. Nishnawbe Aski Nation asked the government to declare public health a state of emergency. And I remember when Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler called an emergency meeting because young people are dying by suicide in their communities. No one from this government even showed up.

Does the Premier agree that delivering mental health care, like counselling, like psychotherapy, at no cost to patients in Ontario is the government’s responsibility?

Interjections.

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

To respond, the member for Burlington.

Miss Monique Taylor: Might want to change your notes over there.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. The member for Burlington has the floor.

Ms. Natalie Pierre: We won’t take lessons from the NDP or the Liberals about running an effective mental health system, because they wouldn’t know anything about it.

We are the ones who designed the Roadmap for Wellness. We are the ones who created the Ontario Structured Psychotherapy Program. We are the ones who began collecting data so we can make evidence-based decisions—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Ms. Natalie Pierre: —and we are the ones who created the first cabinet portfolio in Ontario’s history specifically for mental health and addictions.

Mr. Speaker, our government has made unprecedented investments in mental health. We’ve created 60 mobile crisis response teams. We’ve opened mobile mental health clinics and funded 32 youth mental health clinics across the province, including in rural and remote communities, so our young people can access the supports they need.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, health care does not end here at the neck, right? Mental health care is health care. If people in Ontario aren’t able to access it free of cost, that is a problem, and it is a failure of this government and their responsibility to deliver the basics.

When 2.5 million people don’t have a family doctor, Ontarians are that much further from accessing publicly funded mental health care supports. There is a simple solution: Fund the community mental health sector and connect thousands more Ontarians to mental health services in their communities.

So back to the Premier: Will the Premier support the official opposition’s motion this afternoon to accept that mental health care is health care?

Interjections.

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

The member for Burlington.

Ms. Natalie Pierre: Mr. Speaker, each program that I have talked about so far is free for access to all Ontarians. The member opposite may be behind the curve, but since day one we have been expanding access to mental health and supports for everyone in this province.

After decades of neglect by previous governments, mental health is finally taken seriously, and it’s our government that is doing the hard work building a continuum of care. We listened to the needs of our communities and have developed a strategy that’s working, no thanks to the parties opposite who voted against every single measure along the way.

Mr. Speaker, it’s easy to criticize but it’s harder to do the work of building an evidence-based system, and that’s exactly what we’re doing. Our approach is breaking down barriers and we’re getting more people than ever before the help they need where and when they need it.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. Next question.

Home care

Ms. Marit Stiles: I want to go back to the Premier. In the last few weeks we have heard from home care patients and from caregivers about what the shortage in supplies means to them: people with serious illnesses, severe pain, unable to get the supplies they need and no end in sight.

It is not enough to say they will get reimbursed eventually; it is not enough. These families need answers about how the government let this happen and when this is going to end. When did the government first learn about the shortages that were impacting so many people across this province?

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

Mr. Anthony Leardi: Mr. Speaker, everybody who requires medical assistance and medical supplies at home must receive them at home. This government insists that it is absolutely necessary that these supplies be delivered. It is unacceptable, in the province of Ontario, that anybody who requires medical supplies at home should go without.

That is why the minister has already communicated with the CEO of Ontario Health atHome and authorized and directed that any and all means should be taken to ensure that those medical supplies reach their destination, and that those supplies, which are so importantly needed, are in abundance in the province of Ontario and they must be delivered.

Mr. Speaker, anybody who has had to seek assistance through another means may be reimbursed, and we are making sure that that is already happening.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, how’s that working? Because, I’ve got to tell you, I was in communities across the province this weekend and I’m hearing directly from providers and people who are ill and they are not seeing those supplies, so something is still not working.

With this government, Ontarians always come last. Their first priority is catering to their insider friends and to the corporations. They will never stand up to corporations on behalf of Ontarians.

They are dismissing these stories that are coming out of home care: doctors and caregivers under distress, patients suffering unnecessarily with no end in sight.

I want the Premier to answer: How many people are still being impacted by these shortages and when can they expect—exactly—for these supply distribution problems to be solved?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Hamilton Mountain will come to order. The Associate Minister of Auto Theft and Bail Reform will come to order.

The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health and the member for Essex.

Mr. Anthony Leardi: Mr. Speaker, in the province of Ontario, people who need medical supplies at home absolutely must and deserve to have them delivered as they were requested and on time. We absolutely insist that this must be done and it is utterly unacceptable that there be any interruption in the delivery of these supplies.

The supplies are abundant. There is no difficultly with supply. There has been an interruption in some areas with the delivery of these supplies.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health has already communicated with the CEO of Ontario Health atHome, and if anybody in the province of Ontario has had any difficulty receiving these supplies and has had to seek them through an alternative, they are entitled to reimbursement. I can advise this House that 83% of these reimbursement requests have already been processed.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas will come to order.

Leader of the Opposition, final supplementary?

Ms. Marit Stiles: I can tell you that the people of Ontario need and deserve real answers to these questions, not just spin. They want to know who knew for how long and what did they do to fix the problem. We know there was a sudden change. Our MPPs here contacted the Minister of Health with example after example as it was coming in.

We know that Bayshore, the company that’s responsible for the shortages, is a long-time donor to the PC Party. Once again, it all comes down to who knows who in this government and Ontarians will always come last.

What is this government doing to hold Bayshore to account, to get people the supplies that they really need right now? Or is this another case of insiders continuing to get off easy while Ontarians pay the price?

Interjections.

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

Mr. Anthony Leardi: It is absolutely important that people in the province of Ontario who need their supplies at home should receive them at home, on time and as ordered.

Already, the Minister of Health has contacted the CAO of Ontario Health atHome and authorized that any and all means be taken to ensure that there is no interruption in the delivery of these supplies. In addition to that, we’ve activated a special telephone number, which is 1-866-377-7567. Anybody who requires reimbursement for an order should call that number and seek reimbursement.

In addition to that, the minister has activated a special assistance team to make sure that those deliveries are made on time and as required. That special assistance team is already being activated.

Health care funding

Mr. Jeff Burch: Through you to the Minister of Health: It has now been 1,027 days since Welland hospital lost its after-hours surgical services, and we have yet to hear a plan from this government as to how they will be restored. This government is failing to deliver on the basics for the people of Welland.

We have proposed a plan to rebuild the aging Welland hospital as a full-service hospital, including 24/7 emergency and after-hours surgical services.

Will the minister support a planning grant to Niagara Health so that we can begin work today on the logistics of this project?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health and the member for Essex.

Mr. Anthony Leardi: Of course, when this government took office in 2018, the health care budget was $60 billion. It is now $85 billion for a 41% increase to the health care budget. With regard to providing more primary care, which actually keeps people out of the emergency room, this government has extended an enormous expansion of the nurse practitioner-led program across the province of Ontario, adding thousands and thousands of people to primary care.

In addition to that, we’ve added a program especially designed for emergency rooms which is the offload delay program, which provides assistance and other staff to make sure that ambulances who arrive at a hospital are able to unload their patient and get back on the road as required. All of these programs are provided by the government of the province of Ontario.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Ottawa South will come to order.

The supplementary question?

Mr. Wayne Gates: My question is to the Premier. Over the summer, while the Premier and his government chose to take a five-month-long break, we continued to experience a crisis in MRI wait times in Niagara. The average provincial wait time for MRIs is 97 days, which is still unacceptable. Think about it: In Niagara, it is a walloping 349 days. My constituents, including seniors, have travelled as far away as Mississauga and to the United States of America to get an MRI, and they had to pay out of their own pocket.

People are suffering because of the crisis the Premier created in health care staffing with Bill 124 and the ongoing underfunding. Speaker, when is the Premier going to properly fund health care services and ensure my constituents in Niagara Falls, Fort Erie and Niagara-on-the-Lake get the MRI services they need, when and where they need them?

Interjections.

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

Once again, the Minister of Auto Theft and Bail Reform will come to order.

The member for Essex.

Mr. Anthony Leardi: Mr. Speaker, we all know how important it is for people to get their tests, such as MRI tests and CT scans, and that’s why the health care budget in the province of Ontario, which started in 2018 at $60 billion, has now gone to $85 billion in 2024. That’s a 41% increase in the health care budget, providing services that have been in place in the province of Ontario in all locations. Let me give you one fantastic example.

In my area, the greater Essex county area, we’ve added a new MRI machine at Erie Shores HealthCare, which has now completed its 1000th test since this government put it in place—and in addition to that, an additional MRI at Windsor Regional Hospital that’s doubling the number of MRIs in the region of Essex county.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Niagara Falls will come to order. The member for Don Valley East will come to order.

The next question.

Energy policies

Mr. Rick Byers: My question is for the Minister of Energy and Electrification. The people in my riding of Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound remember the negative impact the Liberals had on our province when they were in power. Businesses and homeowners remember that under the Liberals, they had to pay some of the highest energy bills in North America. Life has unfortunately become more expensive for those same families and businesses because of the Trudeau-Crombie carbon tax.

That’s why our government needs to take action to reverse the damage the Liberals created to our energy system and ensure that the cost of energy remains affordable as we plan for future growth. Speaker, can the minister please explain how our government’s recent reforms will make energy more affordable for new homeowners and job-creating businesses?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The parliamentary assistant and the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you to the member for Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound.

Unlike the previous Liberal government, which left families burdened with unaffordable energy costs, we are committed to putting affordability at the forefront of Ontario’s energy future. Extending the amortization period for electricity infrastructure investment from 25 to 40 years will lead to savings for homeowners and businesses, making life more affordable. We are streamlining the connection process with a pay-for-what-you-use model, keeping energy affordable.

On Sunday, the Minister of Energy joined the Premier and Minister of Finance to announce the extension of the Ontario gas tax cut, again providing immediate savings for families at the pump. This is real, direct support for the people of Ontario, as the Liberals raise the carbon tax by another 24%.

Speaker, these reforms are laying the foundation for a future where energy is both affordable and reliable for the people of Ontario, something the previous Liberal government failed to do.

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

Mr. Rick Byers: I thank the parliamentary assistant for that excellent response.

Speaker, access to clean, reliable and affordable energy is crucial for the economic prosperity of our province. Past Liberal policies made electricity unaffordable, but our government must work to change that. As we continue to build for the future, we must implement measures that provide for more stable and affordable energy costs for all Ontarians. Our government recently introduced legislation that would, if passed, enable the implementation of Ontario’s first-ever integrated energy plan.

Speaker, can the parliamentary assistant please explain how the Affordable Energy Act will ensure long-term energy affordability for Ontarians, while supporting the increasing demand for clean and reliable power.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The parliamentary assistant and member for Mississauga–Lakeshore.

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: Thank you to the member for that question. The Affordable Energy Act, if passed, is a critical part of our strategy to keep energy costs low for families and businesses while meeting the projected 75% increase in electricity demand by 2050. Unlike the previous Liberal government, which neglected affordability, we are taking a long-term approach to ensure Ontarians are not saddled with the high costs they faced in the past.

Nuclear energy is at the heart of this strategy. Nuclear currently provides more than 50% of Ontario’s electricity, and the Ontario Energy Board regulated price plan confirms that nuclear energy is cheaper than wind and solar.

This government understands that families want clean, reliable and affordable power. By expanding nuclear and cutting red tape we ensure families have continuous access to affordable energy that supports our economy and reduces emissions, unlike the cost increases of the Liberal era. We are building a strong energy future for Ontario—

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

The next question.

Mental health services

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: In Ontario, over 30,000 children and youth are waiting for mental health treatment, up from 12,000 in 2017. That has nearly tripled since the Conservatives formed government. The average wait for children and youth to receive mental health care is 67 days for counselling and therapy, and 92 days for intensive treatment. Some children wait up to two and a half years.

Chronic underfunding of community health teams and interdisciplinary teams with mental health specialist staff has led us here. The government is failing to deliver on the basics that Ontarians need, and we are living with the dire consequences.

Why does the Premier think spending nearly 650 million taxpayer dollars on a foreign-owned luxury spa in Toronto is more of a priority than investing in children and youth having immediate, community-based, universal mental health care supports?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Once again, the member for Burlington and parliamentary assistant.

Ms. Natalie Pierre: Children and youth need accessible and reliable services if they are to grow into healthy adults. Since 2019, we’ve increased annual funding for children and youth mental health by $130 million through the Roadmap to Wellness. Over the last two budgets, we’ve added another $43 million.

Unlike previous governments, we’re actually innovating and collaborating with partners to support services that are specifically tailored to the unique needs of young people. We’ve opened 22 youth wellness hubs across the province with another 10 on the way, including a youth wellness hub in Windsor.

The $330-million pediatric recovery fund also includes expanded funding for virtual supports, like the One Stop Talk program, a new live-in Step-Up Step-Down Program and training for clinicians on youth-specific issues.

Children and youth are our future, and our government will continue to make investments in their mental health.

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

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Maybe the member opposite didn’t hear what I said: The wait-list for children and youth waiting for mental health supports has tripled under your government—tripled.

They’ve also cut funding. They haven’t provided base funding increases to community mental health agencies in decades. Liberals and Conservatives are failing in the mental health file.

Mental health care is health care. Data shows that when Ontarians are unable to find a family doctor, community health team or interdisciplinary team of mental health care specialists like psychologists, social workers and mental health nurses, or Ontarians can’t afford to pay for the mental health care, their mental health challenges become more severe and complicated.

This government is failing to deliver the basics needed to keep all Ontarians healthy. Investing in community-based mental health support is much less costly than hospitalization or incarceration.

I ask the Premier: Will you support our NDP motion to deliver mental health care at no cost to individuals as part of Ontario’s universal health care plan, yes or no?

Ms. Natalie Pierre: The NDP are asking for a 5% base funding increase for the community mental health sector, but when we gave the sector that exact increase in last year’s budget, they voted against it. They said that mental health is an afterthought, but we are the first government to ever create a long-term strategy for mental health and the first to create a ministerial portfolio for this file.

They asked for evidence-based investments, and we’re the first government to begin collecting data on mental health programs precisely so that we can make evidence-based decisions. They talk about counselling for adults and youth; we’ve created the Ontario Structured Psychotherapy Program to provide cognitive behavioural therapy for adults struggling with depression and anxiety. We’ve opened 22 youth wellness hubs, including one in Windsor, Ontario, with another 10 on the way for youth to access similar supports.

We’ve done more for mental health in this—

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

Interjection.

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

The next question.

Highway construction

Mr. Amarjot Sandhu: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Peel region is a rapidly growing part of our province, with new homes, businesses and schools being built every day. That is why this region must have the roads and highways we need to keep up with this growing demand.

The previous Liberal government knew there was a need for Highway 413. In fact, they spent millions to study the highway before they turned their backs on the people of Peel and abandoned the project altogether. The results of those studies were clear, Mr. Speaker: Our highways are at capacity and things will only get worse in the next decade. We cannot afford to wait any longer for new roads and highways to be built.

Speaker, can the minister please share how our government is getting it done and building highways like Highway 413?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The parliamentary assistant and the member for Hastings–Lennox and Addington.

Mr. Ric Bresee: Thanks for that question from the hard-working member from Brampton West.

Speaker, our population is growing, and we need more infrastructure to support the families moving to our great province. Under the Premier’s leadership, our government is focused on getting people out of gridlock. That’s why we’re building critical projects like Highway 413 and the Bradford Bypass. These new highways will make it easier for you to get to where you need to go.

And we know that after 15 years of Liberal inaction and endless gridlock, Ontarians need relief. That’s why the Minister of Transportation introduced the Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act, which will allow 24/7 construction on priority highway projects. By cutting red tape and streamlining the construction process, we will get Ontario moving again.

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

Mr. Amarjot Sandhu: Bonnie Crombie and her Liberals do not have a plan to tackle gridlock. They keep saying no to investments that will keep our province moving. They said no to Highway 413. They said no to the Bradford Bypass.

In Bonnie Crombie’s own words, she has “never supported” Highway 413. And the NDP are no better, Mr. Speaker. Some of their members want to tear down the Gardiner Expressway. That would be a disaster for GTA drivers already stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic. The people of Ontario deserve better.

Unlike the Liberals, our government needs to be focused on common-sense actions that will help tackle gridlock and provide Ontarians with transit relief. Speaker, can the parliamentary assistant please explain to the House what our government is doing to get drivers in Ontario moving again?

Mr. Ric Bresee: Thank you again to the member from Brampton West. Speaker, it’s true that some members of the NDP want to tear down great highways like the Gardiner. Under our plan to tackle gridlock, we accelerated the construction of the Gardiner Expressway, and Ontarians are already seeing the real effects of 24/7 construction. The Gardiner’s accelerated timeline is now four months ahead of schedule—ahead. That’s why, in our new legislation, we will designate priority highway projects so that we can build faster and keep people moving.

Priority highways projects will connect previously underserved areas, meaning goods will be delivered quicker, faster services and less time for commuters to be stuck in gridlock, so they can spend more time with their family. Speaker, our government will get Ontarians moving.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Ottawa Centre will come to order.

The next question.

Homelessness

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: My question is to the Premier. After years of planning, this month the University Health Network, as well as the city of Toronto, the federal government, and in partnership with Fred Victor, converted a parking lot into a 51-unit supportive housing project. They are now housing unhoused patients who have been ending up in our emergency rooms. But this project had to go ahead without the support of the provincial government, because they had waited too long.

There is a solution on the table to build supportive housing. It will reduce ER visits. It will end chronic homelessness. Why is the government failing at the most basic step of this process and not at the table with them? Why is this province not committed to long-term funding so that they can build more supportive housing to end chronic homelessness?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Paul Calandra: I appreciate the opportunity to answer the question. The member, of course, will know that we are supporting the Homelessness Prevention Program. It’s at its highest level in history. In addition to that, we have committed well over another $600 million to both the cities of Toronto and Ottawa for the homelessness prevention programs in both those cities.

Ostensibly, Mr. Speaker, we truly understand how important it is. That’s why we’re working very closely with Ontario Big City Mayors. That’s why we’re working with—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Hon. Paul Calandra: —to ensure that the maximum amount of resources are put in place to help us address this problem province-wide.

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

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: I did not hear an answer in the minister’s response.

Getting people off the streets who are sleeping rough, people who are setting up in tents in parks, is a very good investment. It is much cheaper to house people than to confine them to an expensive hospital bed. Supportive housing is needed to end chronic homelessness. We know that it requires 24-hour support, nursing care and a virtual link to emergency health services on site. This kind of care is not radical; it’s actually critical and proven to work.

People on the wait-list for supportive housing are literally passing away—dying—while they are on this wait-list. They are waiting for this government to step up. Ontarians are dying. Cities are broke. They need this government to be a partner.

My question once again is: When can the University Health Network, the city of Toronto, the federal government and Fred Victor expect a long-term funding commitment from this government for one of the most innovative supportive housing projects that we have seen in Ontario?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Look, we’ve provided significant additional resources not only to the city of Toronto, of course, but to the city of Ottawa and across the entire province. We increased the budget for our Homelessness Prevention Program under the previous Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing by over $200 million, bringing that level of support to the highest level in provincial history.

When it comes to our supposed partners at the federal level, this is a federal government that was supposed to sign a deal with us on Thursday and decided to walk away from the table, ostensibly because they didn’t want to fund homelessness programs in some of our other cities. London, Oshawa, Windsor: These are cities that the federal government did not want to fund. We said that that was unacceptable, that we would stand up for all Ontario cities that are dealing with homelessness, and that is why we’re providing the level of funding that we are, the highest—

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

The next question.

Home care

Mr. John Fraser: My question is to the Premier. We all know that since 2018, the gaps in our health care system have grown wider: 2.5 million Ontarians don’t have a family doctor; 11,000 people died on a wait-list for something last year; and now patients at home in palliative care, at the end of their lives, are not receiving the pain medication that they need, and people living at home with a chronic illness, or frail seniors, are not getting the basic medical supplies that they need. We all know that. We all have heard that in here. We’ve all read it.

Yesterday, the Premier said, “I’m going to get to the bottom of this.” So, Speaker, my question to the Premier is will the Premier join our call to have the Auditor General look at the situation at Ontario Health atHome?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister the Health and member for Essex.

Mr. Anthony Leardi: We all know how important it is for people in Ontario to receive the medical supplies they need at home, including people who are receiving palliative care. Those medical supplies are absolutely essential and it’s utterly unacceptable that there be any interruption in the delivery of those supplies.

The minister has already contacted Ontario Health atHome and given the directive to make sure that they take any and all means necessary and required to deliver the medical supplies that have been requested. The supplies are there; they need to be delivered.

In addition to that, the minister has activated a call line where people can seek reimbursement for any costs that they have incurred seeking supplies by alternative means.

In addition to that, the minister has already activated a special assistance team to make sure that the logistics system that delivers these supplies does so as required. All of those steps have already been taken, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. John Fraser: The member is right: It’s utterly unacceptable, just like it’s unacceptable that 13,000 people in his riding don’t have a family doctor.

I know that the other party leaders on this side of the House will join us in this call. The Premier should as well.

My sisters and I cared for both our mom and dad at home at the end of their lives. It was hard. It was difficult. So when I think about the suffering that’s happening right now and what these families are going through, it makes me angry. It makes me want to get to the bottom of this. It should make all of us angry and want to get to the bottom of this.

If the Premier is truly a man of his word and he wants to get to the bottom of this, then he will join us in asking the Auditor General to look at the situation at Ontario Health atHome. Will the Premier commit to do that today?

Mr. Anthony Leardi: It’s very admirable that the member and his siblings have taken care of their parents. That is a very good and proper thing to do. All of the people at home that require delivery of medical services at home, such as palliative care medical assistance, deserve to have that delivered at home and on time. The delivery service for that is called Ontario Health atHome and the minister has already communicated with Ontario Health atHome to make all the necessary means necessary to get those deliveries made.

In addition to that, the minister has already activated a call line for anybody who needs to be reimbursed for medical supplies that were ordered or ordered by alternative means, and that has already been activated. Furthermore, there’s also a special logistics team that has been set up to make sure that those supplies are made and delivered where they’re supposed to arrive.

Assistance to farmers

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Agribusiness. Lindsay recently hosted the International Plowing Match. It was a very good show, and I want to thank everyone involved for putting on the show and thank the members here that attended.

You can imagine, there were a lot of farmers there. And you know what the number one thing I heard was? How hard the Trudeau-Crombie carbon tax was on them. It increases the cost of everything a farmer does, which increases the cost of food for everyone.

Recently, our government announced new investments focused on improving farmland. This is an important step forward toward strengthening our food supply and supporting our local farmers facing rising costs. Can the minister please explain our government’s recent support to our farmers?

Hon. Rob Flack: Thank you to the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock. We all enjoyed going to the plowing match. Thank you for hosting us—well done.

Our government secured a 25% increase in the Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership program, and $569 million will be coming our way to support our farmers with important investments in the resilient agricultural landscape program, AgriStability program, Agricultural Drainage Infrastructure Program and the Grow Ontario Strategy.

Why, Speaker? We’re supporting our farmers to get the job done. From soil health to biodiversity to water quality, we are creating the environment for our farmers to improve their productivity—the gains that they’ve shown so well in the last 20 years.

We have a thriving agri-food sector in Ontario: 871,000 people employed from the farm gate to the consumer’s plate—30,000 more since 2018. Our farmers are getting it done.

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

Ms. Laurie Scott: Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his hard work on this file because helping our farmers is indeed crucial and seeing our government take decisive action is encouraging.

Ontario farmers continue to face ongoing challenges, and they need our government’s full support. Rising land costs, labour shortages and the negative impacts of the Trudeau-Crombie carbon tax are all intensifying issues. Farmers have called for increased supports, clear policies and sustainable practices to secure their livelihoods and to contribute to Ontario’s food supply.

Speaker, can the minister further tell us how our government will continue supporting our farmers, especially amid the rising operational costs?

Hon. Rob Flack: First of all, I want to thank the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for the reforms he made to the provincial policy statement recently. The expansion in use of agricultural impact assessments is an important tool that municipalities will use and our ministry will support. Putting an agri-food lens on land use is very, very important.

I’d also like to thank the Minister of Energy and Electrification for the largest energy procurement in our history and banning the use of solar farms on prime agricultural lands. These initiatives are important to supporting our agri-food sector. We are striking that delicate but important balance in ensuring that we support our agri-food industry along with thriving economic growth throughout the province, in Stellantis, at Volkswagen—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Response.

Hon. Rob Flack: The bottom line is this, Speaker: The carbon tax coalition opposite, they offer a carbon tax. We will always say no to that punitive, terrible tax that has hurt farmers—

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

The next question.

Job creation

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: My question is to the Premier. Workers need this government to step up. Since Conservatives took office, Ontario has lost more than 13,000 manufacturing jobs. That’s on the top of the 300,000 jobs lost under the last Liberal government. Ford doubled down on Liberal incompetence. When he was running for office, the Premier said he guaranteed he would bring back the jobs lost under the previous Liberal government, but his failures are even worse.

Premier, why have you failed so miserably at bringing back manufacturing jobs to Ontario?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Come to order.

The Associate Minister of Small Business to respond.

Hon. Nina Tangri: I’d like to thank the member opposite for the question because it allows us to really talk about our record. Speaker, since we took office, more than 860,000 good-paying jobs have been added, including nearly 200,000 this year alone. Just last month, Ontario added 43,200 good-paying jobs across the province, and that works out to 92% of all the jobs created in Canada.

But let’s remind the opposition of their record. Under the Liberals, supported by the NDP, our manufacturing sector was on the brink of collapse. They willingly chased away 300,000 manufacturing jobs, but today, with this government, manufacturing employment is at one of its highest levels in 15 years. We’ve landed tens of billions of dollars of new auto and manufacturing investments. But, Speaker—

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

The supplementary question?

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: After the Liberals lost 300,000 jobs, Premier Ford said, “Hold my beer.” Congratulations on not only taking away more jobs but destroying services at the same time. Look at StatsCan.

This government has handed out massive corporate subsidies, yet is failing to bring manufacturing jobs back to Ontario: 13,400 fewer jobs because of Premier Ford’s failures. Ontario’s unemployment rate is higher than the national average.

Instead of cooking up schemes and dodging scandals, this government needs to invest in