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

December 5, 2023

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 2023-Dec-05 vol. A (PDF)

L120A - Tue 5 Dec 2023 / Mar 5 déc 2023

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 5 December 2023 Mardi 5 décembre 2023

Orders of the Day

Enhancing Access to Justice Act, 2023 / Loi de 2023 visant à améliorer l’accès à la justice

Members’ Statements

Transportation infrastructure

International Volunteer Day

Dragon Boat Team Canada

Volunteers in London West

Loplops Gallery-Lounge

Food banks

Events in Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock

Model Parliament

Public safety

Pam Dickey

Introduction of Visitors

Question Period

Hospital services

Government accountability

Municipal restructuring

Economic development

Government accountability

Taxation

Government appointments

Housing

Emergency preparedness

Health care

Transportation infrastructure

Occupational health and safety

Housing / Tenant protection

Skilled trades

Northern Ontario

House sittings

Visitors

Tour for Humanity reception

Deferred Votes

Time allocation

Petitions

Labour legislation

Organ donation

Winter highway maintenance

Occupational health and safety

Prévention du vapotage chez les jeunes

Northern Health Travel Grant

Multiple sclerosis

Health care

Social assistance

Public sector compensation

Orders of the Day

Greenbelt Statute Law Amendment Act, 2023 / Loi de 2023 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne la ceinture de verdure

New Deal for Toronto Act, 2023 / Loi de 2023 sur un nouvel accord pour Toronto

New Deal for Toronto Act, 2023 / Loi de 2023 sur un nouvel accord pour Toronto

Planning Statute Law Amendment Act, 2023 / Loi de 2023 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne l’aménagement du territoire

Adjournment Debate

Defibrillators

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Enhancing Access to Justice Act, 2023 / Loi de 2023 visant à améliorer l’accès à la justice

Resuming the debate adjourned on December 4, 2023, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 157,

An Act to amend various Acts in relation to the courts and other justice matters / Projet de loi 157, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne les tribunaux et d’autres questions relatives à la justice.

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

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: It’s always an honour to rise in this House to speak to the bills that are before us. Speaker, we’re speaking about Bill 157, Enhancing Access to Justice Act. I want to begin by summarizing the sweeping changes of issues that this bill touches for the Ontarians whose head might be spinning when they read about the bill. There are 19 schedules; it’s quite broad.

I’m going to say right now that the theme that connects my concerns about this bill is my disappointment that we have before us a bill that touches on so many issues, while simultaneously failing to meet the moment for so many of those issues that this bill plans to address. This bill is like using a teaspoon to shovel your driveway when what you really need is a snow blower, otherwise, you can’t get your car out of the garage. At this rate, we will probably get Rihanna’s sixth album before we get real action to fix Ontario’s broken court system and realize access to justice from this government.

In my speech, I want to outline what needs to change to enhance access to justice and to share what Ontario stakeholders have been asking us to do on a host of issues this bill comments on, from improving cannabis retail, to protecting survivors of sexual violence, to fixing the courtrooms and the administration of justice in this province. The theme that can tie this together is that this government’s bill is potentially passable without being praiseworthy.

Speaker, as the critic for the Ministry of the Attorney General, I take my responsibility very seriously. I have met many important stakeholders at Queen’s Park and in the community: stakeholders from the legal and adjudicative tribunal community; unions that represent workers in the corrections, law enforcement and court systems; victim services groups; the gender-based violence sector; human rights organizations; organizations committed to honest government and upholding our democracy; small landlords and tenants and countless others.

I’ve accepted their invitations to attend meetings, AGMs, events, workshops and conferences, and I am so deeply grateful for the warm welcome they have extended to me since my appointment to this portfolio. They’ve had so many different opinions to share. Each and every single one of them want to improve access to justice, and in addition to my staff’s excellent note-taking, I’ve kept all of the communications.

Speaker, my presentation today is largely based on those meetings and conversations. It is my intention to bring their stories, their voices into the Legislature to help unpack all that is in Bill 157. Therefore, I want to open my remarks with schedules 6 to 9 and 18. I believe they are very substantial and worthy of further debate. My enthusiasm will be focused on rolling up our sleeves and getting to work to fix our broken court system.

Let’s set the stage for why these reforms need to happen, including the appointment of judges and aspects of our legal system.

Ontario courts and systems for administering justice are in full-blown crisis, and all members in this House know that changes are needed. Ontarians are repeatedly telling us they’re losing faith and that our justice system is not working. People are being released from detention centres and jails without supports to be integrated back into their communities and certainly without a pathway to housing, and innocent people are getting hurt. Public safety is being compromised because there are not enough resources in the courts to properly screen.

People at high risk of committing violent offences again are being detained not long enough and those at low risk are being detained for far too long. Police officers and other emergency service workers are being put in the path of unnecessary risk.

We can’t fix our crisis in the courts by tinkering only on the edges. Having faster judicial appointments and a better system for coordinating federal and provincial family law is laudable, but it doesn’t come close to meeting the moment in this bill. Again, this bill is potentially passable without being praiseworthy.

I want to share a story from my riding of Toronto Centre about the crisis in the justice system. It is the crisis that this government is attempting to address without actually doing the real work to address it.

Toronto’s very new, expensive downtown courthouse was sold to the public as a means to expedite trials and to increase efficiency. Instead, due to this Conservative government’s failure to adequately staff the courthouse, there have been over 300 courtroom closures over a six-month period this year alone, Speaker, including 18 courtroom closures on a single day.

What’s more, workers have been injured at the downtown courthouse, including one who was seriously hurt when brand new shelves fell down and caused the worker to be hit on the head with metal and boxes. OPSEU, the union that represents court workers, wrote to the Premier and this Attorney General in 2021 to warn them of the health and safety risks associated with the new courthouse.

Speaker, anyone who can read this bill can see for themselves that the government has put absolutely nothing in Bill 157, not a single word, to address the staffing crisis in the courts. There’s nothing about clearing the backlogs, hiring or retaining the court staff required to keep those courtrooms open and processing trials quickly.

I’d like to give the government the benefit of the doubt and recognize that schedules 6 to 9 aspire to improve various court functions more smoothly and efficiently, but setting aside the issues contained in those schedules, these schedules unfortunately don’t go far enough, and they won’t actually help Ontarians waiting in line for justice. It will not get to see that their court hearings will become scheduled faster.

We have been talking about access to justice and the failures of the government as of late. We are definitely in a crisis. I think about this crisis often, and I keep coming back to a story that haunts me.

Emily, a young woman who was sexually assaulted in her home, bravely took her rapist to court, despite how difficult it was, only to have her court case delayed again and again because of closed courtrooms, until it was finally thrown out because it passed the 18-month timeline. She bravely spoke to Abby O’Brien of CTV News, and I want to directly now quote from this article:

“On Nov. 7, a sexual assault charge laid by Toronto police against the man Emily reported raped her in January 2022 was stayed and the case” has now been thrown out, the court documents show.

In her words, Emily said, “I crumbled ... It took so much even to do that first step of giving my statement to the police and going to the hospital. Then, a year and half later, I decided to go back to Toronto to do this trial, face this man, and tell my story. Now, it’s ... over.”

Emily’s experience is no anomaly. Under the Criminal Code of Canada, anyone charged with an offence has the right to a trial within a reasonable time frame. Barring exceptional circumstances, that time frame is 18 months in the provincial courts of Ontario.

Staffing issues at Toronto’s newest Ontario Court of Justice ... however, have caused delays and courtroom closures that, in some instances—where cases are being thrown out. The courthouse located at 10 Armory Street—not too far from here, Speaker—opened in February, taking over proceedings from six Ontario Court of Justice facilities in Toronto, a move that the union that represents many of those courthouse workers warned would cause hardships for both staff and those who are in the system.

In his decision, released on November 7, Judge Brock Jones said, “This case should serve as a chilling reminder that this inexcusable state of affairs must never be allowed to happen again....

“The emotional trauma associated with never knowing the outcome of a case on the merits will often be long-lasting and severe for both victims and accused persons.”

The judge identified the staffing shortage as the reason for the delays in the trial. “‘There is no reason this case could not have been completed ... had the courts been properly staffed,’ Judge Jones wrote. ‘Instead, two full days of court time were lost and the case adjourned.’” It is deeply unacceptable that this happened. Emily and the judge have said it all.

But this is far from the only time a very serious criminal case was thrown out in the courts due to delays. I am now going to share another

article from CTV. This

article involves a second criminal case—sexual assault of a minor. It’s one of the latest cases to be thrown out at Toronto’s newest courthouse due to the “staggering” number of courtroom closures fuelled by staffing shortages at the facility.

In September 2023, charges were stayed against a young person, identified only as C.L., accused of the sexual assault of another young person. The charges were stayed due to the closures of the courtroom.

C.L.’s trial was scheduled for March 23, the decision said, but four of the 12 courtrooms were closed that day and only 15 minutes of court time could be allocated to the matter. The next day, on March 24, five of the courtrooms in the building were closed, and the matter could only be addressed for one hour. The trial could not be completed in the given time and was adjourned until July.

At that point, it had now been over two years since the charges had been first placed on C.L. Citing his charter right to a trial within reasonable time and recognizing it had been breached, the youth applied to have the charges stayed—an application granted by the court in June.

Can you imagine, Speaker, experiencing a sexual assault as a minor, going through the legal proceedings that took two years and then having the whole thing thrown out because of delays—that this government could not have been doing enough to prevent? This is the stuff of nightmares, and this is why I am staying up too late. I recognize this probably keeps a lot of people up in Ontario.

Speaker, another criminal case thrown out in September, this time a charge involving impaired driving. The case was called “the tip of the iceberg” by a justice advocate who spoke about it. Schedules 6 to 9 are inadequate to address the iceberg of backlogged cases. Thanks to the excellent reporting from the Toronto Star and, in particular, Jacques Gallant, we have the excruciating details of how this impaired driving case was thrown out.

Ontario Court Justice David Porter, who stayed the impaired driving charges, said, “Staff shortages have continued on a daily basis, resulting in courts being closed almost daily, thus preventing cases scheduled to be tried from proceeding. The crown provided no evidence of what, if any, extraordinary measures have been taken to address this urgent” issue.

During the week of September 4, 14 courtrooms were closed on Thursday; 15 on Wednesday; six on Tuesday, the Ontario Court of Justice told the Star. “Due to the staffing shortages, about 1.5 hours of court time could be used for the first day of the two-day impaired driving trial this past June,” Judge Porter wrote. The trial was supposed to continue the following day but had to be adjourned until October because of the lack of staff, and the assigned courtroom was closed once again.

Justice Porter noted that the delay between the original trial date and the new dates “is solely attributable to the actions of those responsible for the administration of the courts.”

Alarm bells have been ringing since the new building started hearing cases. Before delivering a judgment in April, Justice Brock Jones said in court that “the burden on the staff is the greatest it has ever been,” and they are often expected to work well past regular court hours. “They need and deserve the level of resources and support required for them to do their job properly, and to reflect on their professionalism and dedication to the administration of justice,” the justice said. “They are the backbone of this courthouse. We cannot function without them.”

The only way that we can begin to make things right for Emily, C.L. and all the other survivors and victims of crime who have been denied their day in court, Speaker, is to make sure that no other survivor or victim experiences the indignity of having their case thrown out due to avoidable staff delays.

So what solutions will help Ontarians

schedule their court hearings faster to avoid these tragedies; solutions that should be in a bill titled the Enhancing Access to Justice Act, but unfortunately are not; solutions that should include the hiring of enough support staff—clerks, court reporters, trial coordinators, judicial assistants etc. We need to bring all of those levels up. We need to reduce the strain on staff and keep all and every available courtroom open. Solutions that increase pay to incentivize the court staff to stay—because recruitment is not enough, Speaker, if we don’t retain them.

This government has failed to adequately staff Ontario courts, leading to the dismissal of serious criminal cases, including allegations of sexual assault. The Attorney General claims that the ministry continues to recruit and onboard staff. Still, the union that actually represents those court workers, OPSEU, has countered by saying, “Any new positions that have been created barely scratch the surface of the staffing needs, as many experienced court staff were lost during the amalgamation” of those courts.

Why is there nothing in the 19 schedules, Speaker, in Bill 157 to address the hiring and the retention of court staff to prevent further court delays?

This government could fund and commit to funding existing renovations in the courthouses or to build new courthouses in regions where there is not enough infrastructure, but they’ve chosen not to.

Speaker, you will recall that, in 2020, this government cancelled plans to build a new courthouse in Halton county one month before construction was due to start. After that project was cancelled, the Halton County Law Association wrote to the Premier and the Attorney General, highlighting the myriad inadequacies and the chronic dysfunction in the existing Halton courthouses. I heard concerns from lawyers and court workers when the federation of Ontario law societies visited us here.

Since the project was cancelled, courtrooms in the existing Halton courthouses have been closed for technology failures, broken a/c units, mould, asbestos and gas leaks. One trial, which should have taken one day, was delayed for over one year due to issues with the Burlington courthouse. The judge in that case called it an “embarrassment for the people of Halton.”

When this bill goes to committee for public input, and where amendments will be tabled to strengthen and improve the bill, it would be wise for the government to consider amending Bill 157 to reverse its decision not to build a new, consolidated Halton courthouse.

The court system can be modernized with additional amendments at committee that could implement a province-wide standardized technology platform for scheduling, filing documents. The government could increase training for judges, justices of the peace and support staff in conjunction with standardizing this technology use.

But I would be remiss to not touch on the most important action this government could take to table a bill that lives up to its name of enhancing access to justice, and that is increasing funding to legal aid. Bill 157 makes changes the government hopes will help clear some court capacity. But if you want to free up court resources, you need to reverse the cuts to legal aid funding. The government cut legal aid funding to Legal Aid Ontario by $133 million in 2019. And this year, they’re underspending this funding to Legal Aid Ontario by $103 million.

It is well known that self- and under-represented litigants lead to extra court time and cause delays. All of the delays I have mentioned have been exacerbated directly or indirectly by a lack of legal aid funding. So I wonder whether or not the government will consider amending Bill 157 to reverse its devastating cuts to legal aid. It is well known that self- and under-represented litigants lead to extra court time. So what’s the solution? It’s simple: funding legal aid.

Legal aid pays for itself in shortened court time, smoother processes, and the unquantifiable quality-of-life gains for Ontarians who need legal representation but cannot afford it. These cuts are not money-saving, they just push the costs down the line, creating massive inefficiencies. Bill 157 is not living up to its aspirational title.

Currently, a single person without dependents has to earn less than $18,795 a year in gross income to qualify for legal aid. Anybody earning over $18,795 is out of luck. Let’s juxtapose that with what a CERB recipient would earn in a single year, which was deemed a living wage—without having to pay for court costs—and you’ll recognize that that amount, $18,795, is significantly too low.

Speaker, a member of the Federation of Ontario Law Associations was sharing their thoughts with me on how to modernize access to justice in Ontario:

“We’re concerned about the financial cut-offs in terms of whether people are eligible because there’s such a gap between the top limit of eligibility for legal aid and people who are unable to afford a lawyer. We have major areas within the province where no one is able to access their legal aid certificate. And that’s a huge problem for us within the clinic system. We also in the clinic system have funding issues because of inadequate compensation. We’re having a great deal of difficulty maintaining staff. So without continued adequate funding going into that system, we’re really undermining the administration of justice—particularly for our low-income residents.”

Another lawyer told me, “One of the things that I’m hearing a lot from members is that a great deal of the backlog and wasted judicial resources in the system comes from the high turnover rate that we are seeing. It’s difficult to maintain staff who have experience and who are more efficient in particular areas. So I encourage you in your efforts to look into that. Because I know that it has been impacting my practice,” said the lawyer, “and the practice of others I represent.”

Lawyers, from all over Ontario, are in agreement: Our legal institutions need better resourcing and funding to retain highly qualified and experienced staff to deliver the quality of service that Ontarians expect and deserve.

Like me, you may be wondering if this government will consider amending Bill 157 to change the threshold to access and increase legal aid funding. In fact, in the minister’s remarks, yesterday in his one-hour lead, he spoke about how this bill plans to advance the government’s so-called digital-first approach to the courts. Let me be clear, we need to bring our courts into the modern age—I’m a huge advocate of doing that—but a digital-first approach to justice should not mean a digital-only approach to justice.

The rapid shift to digital hearings has meant many vulnerable people across Ontario are not being able to access justice. This government knows it to be true. The Ombudsman of Ontario’s report, earlier this year, was absolutely scathing on this point. It found that a digital-only approach presented and created “insurmountable challenges” to Ontarians struggling to access justice. There is a deeper warning in this example, because the Landlord and Tenant Board’s digital-only approach has made the backlog worse—all-time historic high.

Tribunals Ontario published their annual report, at the end of June this year, and showed an increase in case backlog from 34,731 cases in March 31, 2021, to 53,057 cases in March 31, 2023. The backlog got bigger. Digital-first is a great sound bite, but a useless talking point when Ontarians have to wait longer than ever to access justice.

Speaker, we have to keep going, because this bill is enormous. So what else does it do? It amends rules governing the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee to remove the requirement for the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee to consider cultural identity as a statistic for judicial candidates in their annual report. This committee considers, interviews and recommends judicial candidates to the Attorney General. They are meant to be independent, arm’s-length, as a committee. Their role is under strain.

The committee’s experience benefits all Ontarians. It helps to ensure that we hire the very best judges. This committee is required to produce an annual report on judicial candidates and to include statistics on: sex, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, cultural identity—as we know is being struck out—disability status and ability to speak French of candidates who volunteer that information, including whether the candidates identify as an Indigenous or, as a member of the francophone community, at each stage of the process.

This change builds on the government Bill 256 tabled in 2021 where it increases cabinet’s influence over the committee, by increasing the number of committee members appointed by the Attorney General.

Interestingly, the committee is required by law to produce an annual report. It has not produced an annual report—not in 2019, no report in 2020, no report in 2021 and no report in 2022. When reporters FOIed the reports, the request was denied with an explanation, “a search was conducted, and no responsive records were located.”

So how does this help, Speaker? When the Attorney General is failing to even produce this report, how does that ensure that the government is meeting its own standards so that the government can effectively find, hire and train new judges? I’m very deeply invested in the success of the judicial system. It makes our democracy work. But it’s also deeply concerning, Speaker, when the government doesn’t want the public to know basic statistics that they are supposed to report on and that reporters can’t gain access to so that they can do their job.

It makes me wonder why the government is doing this, and I simply don’t know. What I do know, Speaker—and I think we all do, because we’ve heard it in an interview on TVO—is that the Attorney General wants to see more judges who share his values. Is that the aim of this? Is it possible the government fears a report showing that the recommendation list is becoming more male, more pale, more stale, and it might be embarrassing for them? I don’t know, Speaker, because we don’t have the report to show us otherwise.

This government has politicized Ontario’s judiciary by increasing the Attorney General’s influence on the judicial appointments advisory committee and on the filling of judicial vacancies. Judicial independence is a core value of the justice system, and I think that this government would be wise to consider amending Bill 157 to remove the Attorney General’s influence over the judiciary.

This government has given itself more influence over filling judicial vacancies ostensibly to make the process move more quickly. However, the city of Cornwall has had a criminal judge vacancy for close to two years, and thanks to the Attorney General rejecting all of the recommended candidates, they still sit without that justice. Maybe it’s changed; I’m not sure. Will the government consider amending Bill 157 to create a statutory timeline to make sure that no other community goes without a judge for such a long period of time?

Additionally, Bill 157 amends Ontario laws to remove the Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice from the Civil Rules Committee and to allow the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice to appoint an associate judge to the committee.

Additional amendments to this bill would require that all records and other information collected, prepared, maintained or used by the ministry in relationship to the business of the Civil Rules Committee and the Family Rules Committee is not to be disclosed publicly unless authorized by the Attorney General and excluded from the application of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

What does that mean? Well, the Civil Rules Committee and Family Rules Committee have broad powers to change the rules of practice and procedure for those courts and all civil proceedings and family law proceedings. The rules can have a huge impact on legal proceedings. If you miss a deadline, if you file something not in accordance to the rules, it means that you are barred from legal remedies.

My office recently worked with a constituent—and they’re still working with the constituent; my staff are still working with this constituent—who missed an arbitrary deadline in a hearing when they had to file something in order for them to get their appeal. It was devastatingly time-consuming for this low-income, racialized individual living in social housing to navigate this process on their own. I won’t use her name, Speaker, but this is the kind of court error that made work for my office as we tried to help a vulnerable person navigate the system.

Without knowing more about why this is happening, it’s concerning that the government is suddenly trying to make documents and information about changes to the civil rules and family law rules secret. It only reinforces the question: Why? Why can’t the public know about information and documents that are being considered? Who is sending the information the government doesn’t want us to know about? What is the advantage of keeping our justice system’s rules secret, and how does this lead to fairer, better and faster trials? I’m not seeing the path, Speaker.

Further amendments to

schedule 6 would allow that when a judge presiding over the final order in child protection and extraordinary measures are involved—which, as we all know, can mean mental health treatment, including admission to a secure facility—an adoption and adoption licensing hearing is appointed to another court, that judge continues to have jurisdiction to complete the hearing and provide a decision.

Now, Speaker, this sounds like a great idea. Bringing in a new judge at the final order stage of a proceeding would almost certainly add more time and expense to the proceeding to allow the new judge to learn the file. I applaud the government for finding this minor efficiency and taking this step, but what I don’t see is why only allowing this during the final order stage of a proceeding. Why not say “in all stages except the preliminary,” or something to that effect?

It would seem better for the same judge to preside over the majority, if not all of the proceeding, to reduce court time and expense. In all of our constituency offices, we assign workers to each constituent as much as possible so that constituent can have a seamless experience when receiving service through our office. They don’t have to re-explain their situation an undue number of times. It is common sense, Speaker. Why don’t we extend that same common sense and reasoning to the court systems in a way that allows us to go deeper and faster to ensure that Ontarians have access to justice.

Since I’m talking about efficiencies, why not centralize a single case’s court proceedings to one judge as much as possible?

I have another recommendation, Speaker. I’ve heard from many, many stakeholders that are having difficulty through Family Courts in Ontario. There are significant inefficiencies, and there is a way to make it all much smoother and less stressful for families.

Family law matters experience judicial overlap between the federal and provincial courts, forcing families to move between two systems. They have to interact with two different court systems. I think we can imagine that it is inefficient and it’s certainly been confirmed by many who work in the system. It is emotionally and financially draining. It is a process fraught with difficulty.

There are 25 court locations in Ontario with unified Family Courts, but there are many more locations without it. Why don’t we unify all of them, especially since the federal government has provided funds to expand the unification of Family Courts and the funding has been available since 2018? We have no reason not to do it. This is the kind of substantive change that I would have liked to see in this bill.

Speaker, I strongly believe that this government could have gone even further in reforming family law to make it work for Ontarians. We can review and appropriately expand the number of dispute resolution offices so that fewer matters go to court in the first place. This would save taxpayers money and Ontario families the expense and grief of unnecessary court proceedings.

Speaker, I’m going to move to

schedule 18. This

schedule is supportable, but, following the theme of my remarks today, not praiseworthy. It’s a small change that means victims of certain prescribed crimes, and they are sexual crimes against minors or those with a disability when the crime took place; human trafficking-related crimes; and crimes that would have colloquially been described as “revenge porn” crimes, will have one less

section to fill out in their affidavit or filings in civil court because the emotional distress is now presumed to have occurred for those crimes. It’s a simple change, a good change. The process should be straightforward so that survivors don’t have to relive their trauma again and again and again.

I heard from a lawyer in the sector who said, “I do think it is a good idea generally to broaden the ability of survivors to sue for the harm that has been done to them.”

But, again, the bill could go further. It’s not a big win. It’s a small procedural change that will benefit a very small number of victims. Victims who are minors, those with disabilities and those who have been trafficked are less likely to have the time, resources and money to go through civil court. So how many people will this substantially help? This is another case of the government taking a tiny step, making a tiny change, and calling it a big win for survivors.

Still, at the same time, they are slashing legal aid budgets. Let’s remember that in 2019, this government ended the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and replaced it with the Victim Quick Response Program+. The Victim Quick Response Program+ isn’t available to victims when they can access public programs, even if those programs have months-long wait-lists.

I heard from a constituent of mine who is a lawyer, who said, “It is deeply hypocritical of this government to dismantle the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board but continue to do things that allow them to make announcements that make it appear that they support survivors as a core value. There are actual, substantive changes that they could enact to better the lives of survivors of violence, but they won’t touch those.”

Will the government consider making amendments to Bill 157 to increase access to the Victim Quick Response Program+? That would be supportable because that would mean that the government is doing much more.

They could also properly fund the Ontario courts—coming back to my main point—so that sexual assault cases aren’t dismissed for delays over and over again.

This government could also fund sexual assault support and rape crisis centres. In 2020, this government decided to stop renewing its annual $1-million funding boost to rape crisis and sexual assault support centres. Some of those centres are now seeing the longest wait-lists they have ever experienced. Those sexual assault centres, rape crisis centres—those workers have warned that wait times act as a deterrence for victims, because victims will stop trying to access services because they’ve been told to wait.

In Bill 157, the government can actually increase funding to rape crisis centres and sexual assault centres to truly support survivors.

It is well studied that impoverished and low-income people are over-represented in the criminal justice system. This government is sitting on billions of dollars in a contingency fund. Why not use some of that money to support survivors and victims, instead of punting and punishing those disproportionately impacted impoverished people?

Another consideration is, to what extent are victims retraumatized when they have to go to court—which is very expensive to access and very timely to access—to go tell their story again in a civil trial? And how is there any guarantee that that case is also not going to be tossed out because of the extraordinary delay in the courts?

More so than the small change that

schedule 18 makes, this bill could also go further to support survivors by incorporating my private member’s bill Stopping the Misuse of Non-Disclosure Agreements Act.

We’ve heard stories in the media about the perpetrators of violence and abuse, those who are powerful and wealthy—individuals and institutions and corporations who have used non-disclosure agreements to silence survivors of sexual violence, bullying and intimidation. The latest slate of criticism comes out of the #MeToo movement. Details of alleged and proven abuse, and then, later, legal action surrounding Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Olympic coach Larry Nassar have highlighted the role that these clauses within the NDAs play in silencing survivors.

Closer to home, we had NDAs used here in Canada, in the Albert Schultz case, to silence survivors. It was revealed that Hockey Canada paid out $7.6 million in 1989 in several sexual assault-related settlements, and non-disclosure agreements bound some of those claimants involved in the settlements. There are growing calls to outlaw non-disclosure agreements across the country, as Hockey Canada and other sports organizations reel from sexual assault scandals, including some that have led to multi-million dollar payouts to keep details about those incidents secret.

If the government had incorporated—feel free to lift it right from the bill—the aspect of that bill to stop the misuse of NDAs, they would prohibit people in positions of power with money for privilege and access to stop re-abusing survivors. Survivors could request other types of agreements, such as a one-sided confidentiality agreement to protect their own privacy, should they so choose.

NDAs are used by perpetrators to cover up sexual and physical violence, workplace harassment, wrongful dismissal and many other situations of discrimination that individuals, workplaces and other groups would rather not deal with. The misuse of NDAs also perpetuates patterns of harm and abuse. When survivors can’t speak out in warning or to affirm to others that they aren’t alone, harm continues. Influential people use power while those who have so much to lose will lose.

There is a website entitled Can’t Buy My Silence. It contains heartbreaking stories of people who have suffered greatly before and after being presented with an NDA. They also include people who have chosen not to sign, and they were denied the financial compensation they deserved for their suffering. No one should have to decide between the two: taking away their voice or taking away their compensation.

That, Speaker, would help survivors. That, Speaker, could easily be put in Bill 157.

I want to share another relevant story. In early November, I attended a panel by the Criminal Justice Association of Ontario. They brought together stakeholders in criminal and youth justice to discuss what changes front-line workers needed. I was particularly struck by stories from youth justice centres. Those centres work with youth and provide them and their immediate families counselling and support.

Recognizing that perpetrators of violent crimes are oftentimes repeating cycles of violence, they continue to provide counselling and support to violent offenders to rehabilitate everyone in their community and, then, to invest in preventing violence at all costs. That was good work. It began under the previous government. I was a sitting councillor at that time when the ministry came to me to provide a briefing of what this facility would do and how it would impact and support my local community. I was supportive then, as a local city councillor; I remain supportive now.

This is the kind of creative, innovative approach that we need to see more of. That is good work, and it has been carried forward by this government. It should be expanded as quickly as possible so it can be accessed across Ontario.

People who commit violent crimes and sexual violence will still need to live in our communities whether any of us like it or not. That’s just the reality. People are not disposable. We need to ensure that they have real pathways to rehabilitating the whole person so that they can come back into the community and be fully integrated, and where the community and that person who committed harm can be safe. This government loves to take away the whole pie, and then throw back a few crumbs.

Now I’m going to move on to a few other schedules, because I do need to provide comment on them. Some of them are straightforward housekeeping schedules, and I won’t speak too much about those. But I will speak about

schedule 1, the Architects Act. This

schedule has been quite controversial, Speaker, as you know, and I hope that at committee we can gain a much better understanding about

schedule 1 and the decision that was made leading us to

schedule 1.

I’ve heard arguments from the Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario, the AATO, and the Ontario Association of Architects, the OAA, on this licensing. They are not in agreement. One is much bigger, with more members, more money; one is smaller. The government has chosen, through this schedule, to side with the OAA. I would like to know more about how this government came to this decision, what conversations were had, who said what to whom and the rationale that was used to arrive at the decision.

I would encourage the minister to meet with the Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario, and to meet again if they already have. I’ve met with them. I’ve heard their following concerns: The OAA made an error when they went ahead and created their own class of architectural technologists by way of a policy, even though the Architects Act requires you to do this through regulation. AATO took OAA to court, and it ruled that the certificates that the OAA issued were void because they were formed under a policy and this was made under a consent order.

AATO met with the Ministry of the Attorney General and asked them not to make the very changes that they are now making in

schedule 1, which they see as now rewarding bad behaviour because even the court ruled in their favour. It’s really unclear to me, by reading

schedule 1, whether or not this change is retroactive. We need to know that, as it will have significant implications in the bill.

Speaker, I’m concerned about the implications of setting the wrong precedent on the matter. Regulatory bodies are entrusted with incredible trust and powers of self-governance. We have many of them in Ontario. Every single member of this House knows that self-governance is supposed to impose higher standards, not lower standards. Every self-regulating profession has to prove to Ontarians every year that they deserve the trust legislatively invested in themselves. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that the self-regulating profession did not live up to its own standards. The consent order made clear that a regulatory body issued licences that were clearly outside of their scope.

Giving a professional body that broke trust everything that it wants is setting a dangerous precedent. We want Ontario’s regulatory bodies to respect their boundaries. We want and embrace that professions will change and that professions need to be modernized, and absolutely, they should. But when a profession puts the cart before the horse or, in this case, accepts licensing fees for something they are not legally entitled to license, why are we rewarding them when the power that they have broke the trust that they were given? I need to stress that people paying licensing fees went through training, but their trust was betrayed.

Speaker, I am initially concerned and eager to learn about how we can ensure that there are appropriate differences between architectural technologists and licensed technologists, because I’m not sure if I see the clear difference in this bill. And what I want to point out is that there are contradictory and overlapping regulations and red tape. I hope that this government isn’t about to saddle Ontarians with needless confusion and additional red tape. I hope this government continues to consult with these stakeholders and considers their input when this bill gets to committee.

Schedules 2 and 3, the Cannabis Control Act and Cannabis Licence Act: Who is asking for these amendments? Because when the minister was asked by the press about the provision prohibiting the growing of cannabis in child care facilities, except for home child care facilities, and, specifically, are there instances of this happening, the minister was not able to provide any examples.

Speaker, the harm that comes from cannabis oftentimes happens when an underage person consumes an inadequately labelled product. The cannabis plant and its leaves do not have bioavailable THC. Cannabis buds need to be processed and cured before they have any psychoactive effects. Unprocessed cannabis plant leaves are not more harmful or psychoactive than any other random plant that could be found around the house or in a daycare setting. None of this is to say that this is necessarily a bad regulation, it’s just the concern of, how did we get here?

Cannabis plants have intense light requirements indoors that can be potentially harmful for developing eyes. Moreover, the lamps cannabis plants need can get hot, and for the reason that we want to protect children’s hands from open stoves, we want to limit opportunities for children to burn their hands on these bright lamps. But when listening yesterday, I didn’t get the sense that the government knew this. Is the

schedule here before us because children have been munching on plant leaves and they’ve gotten high? I don’t know, Speaker, because the minister couldn’t give us any examples.

The government can do much more to keep children in child care safe by providing more funding for more inspections. This government could ensure that child care providers earn a decent wage—while experienced providers in the profession, in the long term, develop deepening quality of care for our children—to provide workers with stable careers so that they can stay where they want to stay.

I do, however, want to comment on the kinds of reforms for enhanced community safety that can be accomplished through cannabis regulation.

First, let me be clear: When cannabis harms do come about, they are oftentimes from the illegal markets, and the regulations surrounding cannabis are making it impossible for legal cannabis to compete. Legal cannabis companies have to pay taxes through production and the sales process. Like any other industry, we understand this need, and this unique sin tax imposed on the cannabis industry means that we’re not going to create a level playing field against the illegal cannabis market.

Speaking about a level playing field, the regulatory changes proposed in the backgrounder to this bill are even more controversial. I honestly thought the Premier would appreciate that a diverse and competitive market of many small businesses and cannabis suppliers would deliver the most affordable cost and choice to consumers. This change would promote centralization in an industry that is already experiencing enormous consolidation. Allowing retailers to own up to 150 stores from the existing 75 stores during a period of industry centralization will allow businesses to take a Starbucks approach and weed out their competition, which could be bad.

But here is the rub, Speaker, when I wonder why the government would make such a hoopla about a non-issue like cannabis in child care facilities and then move to quietly advance the centralization and the consolidation of big cannabis corporations by giving them much more expansion power.

A cannabis market that looks like a grocery market—a market that should be competitive but is not, should be innovative but is not and should be affordable but is not. It’s not a market where we compete with illegal suppliers. It is a cannabis industry that stems from the flow of money into gangs, human trafficking, money laundering. It will not make the cannabis industry safer for Ontarians.

I’m eager to learn in committee about what kinds of regulations this government and the Indigenous community want to see in the regulation of cannabis on-reserve. I would be remiss, Speaker, if I didn’t mention that First Nations are a significant stakeholder who live in a geographic area, and they are in the best place, in the best position, to understand what their communities need.

This government might remember the private member’s bill entitled cannabis retail amendment act, put forward in 2020 by the member of Davenport and now Leader of the Opposition. I certainly do, because I supported her bill, as a city councillor, because her bill proposed giving cities a say in the location and distribution of private cannabis locations within their communities.

Speaker, it was before my time at Queen’s Park, but I can tell you that the New Democrats pushed for responsible legalization, and continue to do so—for the legal, regulated retail cannabis industry.

This party advocated for strengthening the municipalities’ role in distributing pot shop licences to avoid a situation where some neighbourhoods had too many while others had none.

The previous Liberal government put some restrictions on the cannabis retailing framework after hearing back from children and health experts and municipalities, like Toronto, on how we wanted that program to be rolled out. I very clearly remember the debate at city council when we voted to opt into the new cannabis retail framework. Shortly after, the Conservative government got elected in 2018, and all that careful research, consultation and planning was tossed out without further notice. Toronto had already opted in under a different plan, but they were getting a new one in the rollout.

The new plan was blunt and without the urban planning refinements and considerations of the previous plan.

Under the Conservative government, cities can still either reject cannabis stores entirely or opt into a provincial framework where they have no say, absolutely zero input, in where cannabis shops go.

Speaker, in this bill, when it comes to further expanding retail cannabis, especially since it’s happening without any consultation or notice with cities, I strongly encourage this government to look at the past Ontario NDP bill that will work with cities and empower their business districts which are still continuing to recover from COVID-19.

As I mentioned, there are 19 schedules to this bill, and this bill is broad, substantial and far-reaching. It touches the Coroners Act. It touches the Fire Protection and Prevention Act. It creates a condition where we want to see more being done to ensure that community members are protected, public safety is enhanced and access to the courts thoroughly delivered. It touches the Juries Act, the Justices of the Peace Act, the Land Titles Act, the Law Society Act, the Legislation Act, the Provincial Offences Act, the Public Officers Act and, finally, references to the crown.

We need to see the court system corrected and fixed. This crisis in access to justice must be addressed, but there’s not enough in this bill to do that, and I’m hoping that we can see more positive changes at committee.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): We’re going to move to questions.

Mr. Graham McGregor: Thank you to my colleague from Toronto Centre for the comments. I listened intently.

This is a very good bill that we’re putting forward, in my view—the Enhancing Access to Justice Act. A few reasons why I intend to support it are because it’s going to be making it easier for victims of crime, such as victims of terrorism, vehicle theft, human trafficking-related crime and hate crime, to sue an offender for emotional distress and related bodily harm; it will protect children and youth by banning the growth of recreational cannabis in homes that offer child care services—there are a lot of other good things in the bill. I want to know whether the member across thought these were good ideas and worth supporting.

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: I don’t believe that the member was listening as intently as he says, because I did highlight exactly what were the deficiencies in the bill and what I’d like to see improved. It tinkers around the edges, and it doesn’t go far enough. It certainly doesn’t address the challenges and the crisis we have in the court system.

As I’ve mentioned, the central theme of all my remarks today is that this bill is possibly passable but not praiseworthy, and I stand by that.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): The next question?

Mr. Chris Glover: I want to thank the member from Toronto Centre. You do an incredible job of representing your community, and you’re doing a great job here of advocating for access to justice for the people of Ontario.

What you described at the beginning of your remarks was a court system that’s in chaos, that’s in absolute crisis in this province, with people being denied access to justice. A rape case of a woman, Emily, who had the courage to bring forward her case to the courts—having it thrown out because there weren’t enough court staff to keep the courts open.

Can you describe with a little bit of detail, in the time that you have, some of the crisis that’s happening and some of the impacts that that is creating for people in Ontario?

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: Thank you to the member from Spadina–Fort York for his important question. Obviously, we see the fact that criminal cases are being tossed out and charges are being stayed. That costs time and resources for the court system: the reporters, the lawyers on both sides, the crown and the trial lawyers involved.

What I cannot quantify is the emotional harm that it re-creates for those survivors and victims of crime, and that, to me, is a tragedy, because they never got their day in court. They never will get closure on what happened to them, a very traumatic incident. And not to mention, Speaker, the accused: The accused will have that charge and that report hanging over their head forever, also without their day in court.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): Next question?

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Good morning, everyone. It’s a pleasure to be here with you in the morning. Thank you to my colleague from Toronto Centre for that long talk; it’s hard to do. We worked well together at city hall—we were seatmates for eight years—and I know how hard you work for your community and all of Ontario, so I appreciate that. Thank you.

Just with regard to this bill and your ideas for it, that it’s not going far enough: Can you give us maybe your top two suggestions for improving this bill?

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: Thank you to the member from Beaches–East York. I also have some very fond memories of our time sitting together at city hall and working constructively and collaboratively on many issues.

The top two issues that I would like to see in this bill—and it’s easy—are twofold: One is to adequately staff the courts, to do everything you can in all your powers to ensure that the minimum requirement of time constraints is met. The standard has got to be met. No more throwing out of criminal cases. That is one thing.

The second thing—I’ll add a third if I have time—is to fund legal aid. You need to be able to do it. People are being impacted by not having access to the judicial system that they so rightly deserve.

The third is to fix the tribunals.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): The next question?

Hon. Doug Downey: There’s just so much to unpack there, but I want to start by thanking the member for filling an entire hour on a whole variety of topics. There are things that I heard that are encouraging to me. I heard you say that unified Family Court is something that you would like to see expanded; we’re on record and the Auditor General has confirmed, even a couple of years ago—we’re waiting on the federal government.

And so I would just ask for the member to confirm that they will stand with us in the request of the federal government to expand unified Family Court here in Ontario, and that is something perhaps we can advocate for together.

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: Thank you very much to the Attorney General for his question. I didn’t get a chance to congratulate you on your one-hour lead as of yesterday.

Absolutely, I will stand with the government and every party in this House as we advocate for the unification of Family Court. It is unduly unfair to families who are trying to access and navigate two systems. It’s costly, it’s time-consuming and, of course, the emotional duress—it just doesn’t work. We have a proven record of it working when we unify, and that’s where we should be moving to.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): Next question?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I want to congratulate my colleague the member for Toronto Centre on her very thoughtful comments on Bill 157. She talked about the changes to the coroner’s inquest rules in

schedule 5; she has advocated, as have I, for the government to implement the findings of the Renfrew county coroner’s inquest on the murders of Carol Culleton, Nathalie Warmerdam and Anastasia Kuzyk several years ago.

So my question is, do the changes that are included in this bill require the government to implement any recommendations that may come out of a coroner’s inquest? Because we have certainly seen the government refuse to implement the number one recommendation out of the Renfrew inquest, which is to declare intimate partner violence an epidemic.

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: Thank you very much to the member for that significant question. No, there is absolutely nothing in this bill that speaks to the recommendations that came from the Renfrew inquest. Not only is recommendation 1 from the inquest free of monetary obligations, declaring IPV an epidemic allows us to address it with the same type of urgency. But I would draw the government’s attention to recommendation number 4 in the Renfrew inquest, which is to create an implementation framework to make sure that everything in that inquest report can be implemented as quickly as possible. That can go into Bill 157; it would strengthen the access to justice bill.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): Next question?

Ms. Laura Smith: Good morning. I want to thank the member for her contributions this morning.

One of the things that I like to emphasize is positive moves within time, and this bill has made changes under the Victims’ Bill of Rights, expanding the list of crimes where victims are presumed to have suffered emotional distress. Right now, under this section, that only includes assault by a spouse, sexual assault and attempted sexual assault. This is now proposed to be expanded to include human trafficking and certain sexual offences, including those committed against a minor.

My question to the member is, does the member opposite think that these modifications are a positive move?

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: Thank you for your question, to the member.

I did say in my remarks that it is positive. There is some merit, but it doesn’t address the core issues that we have that are failing the justice system. By ensuring that there is not a requirement to meet the emotional duress, including those three categories, what it doesn’t do is actually remove the cost or additional charge in time that a victim of crime would have to go back to court for and have the resources to sue through another civil court system in order for them to access justice. That is why that

section falls too short.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): We don’t have time for another round of questions and answers, so we’re going to move to members’ statements.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Transportation infrastructure

Mr. Graham McGregor: Colleagues, the traffic in Brampton is out of control. Our population has doubled in the last 20 years; our transit, road and highway infrastructure has not.

Highways are a provincial responsibility, and Brampton residents had to watch as the previous Liberal government studied, delayed and ultimately cancelled Brampton’s bypass highway, Highway 413. When our party made the 413 a key platform item in the 2022 election, Brampton responded in a huge way, sending me and my four PC Brampton colleagues to Queen’s Park as part of the majority government. The message was clear: Build the highway; get it done.

Apparently, the federal Liberal environment minister wasn’t listening, and his government wasn’t listening, because they have stepped in and declared a federal impact assessment. This is massive government overreach, for one purpose: to kill the Highway 413. Colleagues, the federal impact assessment is the same study required for a nuclear power plant. The federal government has never declared one for a new provincial highway before the 413. That means highways like the 401, 412, 404 and 418 never had to undergo this impact assessment. And yet, when Brampton wants a new highway, we hear all the excuses come out.

Speaker, I am, and my residents are, so tired of excuses. I have one message to the federal Liberal environment minister: Get on board with Highway 413, or get out of our way.

International Volunteer Day

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: I am proud to rise today on international world volunteer day, a day to celebrate the important role that volunteers play in our communities across the globe.

According to Volunteer Canada, over 12 million Canadians generously contribute their efforts to numerous causes annually. Here in Ontario, their contributions have shaped our province through their compassion, community and spirit of giving back. Their impact is immeasurable.

My community is blessed with countless volunteers and community organizations who give so generously to improve the lives of others, and I thank them all.

Today I’m proud to be joined by two amazing community volunteers, Brigette Contento and Michael Verrelli, who lead the Humberlea Community Group and do so much to build a happier, healthier and safer community. They organize food drives and bring food to our most vulnerable. They’ve created an outdoor skating rink and set up an outdoor library in their park. They host year-round events for our children, like their annual Santa Claus parade, spooky Halloween get-togethers, Easter egg hunts and more. When they’re not busy hosting their own events, they’re attending and helping in others and are members of various committees like the 31 Division Community Police Liaison Committee.

Brigette and Mike, thank you so much for making our community better every day. We are all lucky to have you. And thank you to all volunteers everywhere.

Dragon Boat Team Canada

Mr. Billy Pang: Recently I proudly welcomed the remarkable Dragon Boat Team Canada to the House, together with the Premier and my colleagues. This summer, the team won gold at the 16th annual World Dragon Boat Racing Championships in Pattaya, Thailand. This victory serves as a source of pride for our country. It is also a testament to the resilience and talent embodied by the team. Meeting these gifted athletes was not only a privilege, it was also an opportunity to acknowledge their unwavering dedication and skill, and to recognize the honour that they have brought to Canada on the global stage.

Beyond individual achievements, the visit highlighted the collective spirit and unity that sportsmanship fosters, emphasizing the significance of athletics in building a sense of community and national identity. The team’s triumph in Thailand exemplifies the pinnacle of their training and teamwork, reflecting the values of perseverance and excellence.

Speaker, it is crucial that we collectively recognize and emphasize the importance of supporting and celebrating achievements in the sporting arena. By doing so, we not only honour the athletes themselves but also inspire future generations to pursue excellence and contribute to the vibrant tapestry of Ontario’s sporting legacy.

Volunteers in London West

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Speaker, the holidays can be a difficult time, and this year more Londoners than ever are struggling. At the same time, more Londoners than ever are also showing up to help, and I want to recognize just a few.

First, the staff and volunteers at Northwest London Resource Centre who stepped up in a big way to meet the need, expanding food bank services in my riding from two days a week to six in partnership with the London Food Bank.

Next, Fran and Mary, residents of 30 Base Line Road in London West and organizers of their building’s caring cupboard. When the cupboard was put out of commission by a fire last month, they collected grocery store gift cards for the seniors from their building who relied on emergency food supplies. Thankfully, their cupboard will reopen for food donations again this week.

Special appreciation to the hundreds of volunteers at churches around the city who cook and serve community meals for people and families who are struggling, often including musical entertainment, as at St. John the Divine Parish in London West.

Finally, much gratitude to the 700 local businesses and non-profits that are part of the annual Business Cares Food Drive and the many, many Londoners who contribute so generously in ways big and small.

Thank you to all. And to all residents in London West and to everyone in this chamber, I wish you a safe and happy holiday season, however you celebrate.

Loplops Gallery-Lounge

Mr. Ross Romano: Good morning, everyone. Today, I want to congratulate a local Sault Ste. Marie business on their 20th anniversary. Loplops Gallery-Lounge is a fixture of downtown Sault Ste. Marie and our local music scene.

Owners Stephen Alexander and Jennifer Bellerose have seen ups and downs during the last several years with our economy, especially the last few years when COVID was happening. Over the last 20 years they’ve really been able to see a bit of it all, but they’ve remained strong through adapting their business model with the changing of the times.

It is great to see the fun holiday-themed event, the 12 Musicians of Christmas, is back after a five-year hiatus, and I just want to offer my congratulations to both Steve and Jenn on the very many great memories that we’ve had at Loplops over the years. I’m looking forward to another 20 years ahead.

Food banks

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Unfortunately, Speaker, more Ontarians than ever before are turning to hunger relief organizes because they can no longer afford basic necessities like food and shelter. Hunger in Hamilton is reaching record levels, with the number of people turning to food banks nearly doubling since last year. Almost 50% of households say they would become homeless without food banks.

People, including families with young children and seniors, cannot keep up with soaring food prices, unaffordable costs. It’s heartbreaking that in our communities, hungry seniors are seeking help to find meal programs because they can no longer afford to feed themselves.

This last weekend, I participated in the Salvation Army kettle bell drive, and I was moved by the generosity and compassion of Hamiltonians. There are also many ways you, too, can give back this holiday season:

—the Ancaster Community Services Holiday Assistance Program will provide over 150 holiday hampers and gifts to income-challenged families and seniors in the community;

—Good Shepherd Christmas Wonderland is bringing people together to share a festive meal;

—Neighbour to Neighbour, who have been serving our communities for 35 years through their community food centre, will be providing a free Christmas meal that is open to all; and

—we could consider donating to support free and low-cost programs for vulnerable seniors through Dundas Community Services.

I want to send out my thanks to all of these organizations and volunteers who are bringing joy to people in our communities who are hungry and alone. This holiday season, I want to express my warmest wishes to you and your family for a joyous and healthy holiday season.

Events in Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock

Ms. Laurie Scott: As Christmas approaches, bringing snow and good tidings,

I’ll share with you news about fun in my riding.

From Sunderland to Haliburton and all places between,

There’s good times to be had and good friends to be seen!

People lining the streets to spread Christmas cheer,

Hearing carols and laughter when Santa gets near!

There’s good food and good drinks, and of course the reindeer!

None of this would happen without volunteers.

Kids waiting for Santa, along the parade route they stood

Smiling and laughing and telling him they’ve been good

All the local craft shows bring the people flocking,

With goodies aplenty, you’ll sure fill your stocking!

As we continue to celebrate this holiday season,

Let us always remember that Christ is the reason.

Through the cold winter nights, let compassion exceed,

Say hello to a stranger and help those in need.

With my speech almost over and my time almost out,

Come to HKLB and see what it’s all about.

Merry Christmas and happy new year.

Model Parliament

Mr. Vincent Ke: From the 2015 National Youth Survey, the agency found that Canadian youth are less interested in politics and they feel less strongly that voting will make a difference. The voter turnout among youth in 2011 was over 35% lower than that of individuals aged 54 to 74, while research shows that political participation affects youth development.

The High School Model Parliament program presents an ideal opportunity for students to gain hands-on experience as MPPs, fostering an understanding of parliamentary processes and the significance of the democratic system. Several students attending debate classes in my riding of Don Valley North have applied and been chosen in take

part in this fantastic program. I look forward with anticipation to seeing them in the chamber, engaging in meaningful discussions on various issues.

This initiative serves as great means to engage and involve the youth. Today, they take every opportunity to learn and experience, and tomorrow, they will emerge as leaders.

Congratulations to all selected participants. We eagerly anticipate hearing the perspectives of our youth.

Public safety

Ms. Donna Skelly: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. Today I’m rising to highlight a recent investment that our government has made to combat auto theft in Ontario, and specifically in my region of Hamilton.

Mr. Speaker, every 14 minutes a vehicle is stolen in Ontario. In the last year alone there was a 14% increase in auto thefts right across Ontario. This investment of over $895,000 over three years will ensure that our Hamilton Police Service has the tools and the resources that they need to fight car theft and to keep our communities safe.

When the investment was shared, Hamilton police chief Frank Bergen said, “We thank the provincial government for funds received from this grant, which will be used to combat auto theft through increased staffing: two new investigators and an analyst. We will also be working closely with our policing partners to share strategic intelligence” involving “organized crime groups that impact our city.”

This funding to the Hamilton Police Service is part of the government’s new Preventing Auto Thefts Grant Program designed to support new and enhanced crime-fighting measures that focus on prevention, detection, analysis and enforcement. This Preventing Auto Thefts Grant is just one of several measures enacted by our government to fight auto theft. Earlier this year, Ontario also announced the organized crime towing and auto theft team to help police services identify, disrupt and dismantle organized crime networks.

Mr. Speaker, with the crime of auto theft growing across Ontario, I am proud that our government is tackling the issue head-on.

Pam Dickey

Mr. Dave Smith: As we approach Christmas, I think back to all of the people that I know who try to make life better in some way for others. There’s a truly kind-hearted lady in my riding who freely gives her time to make a positive difference for so many. I’m talking about Pam Dickey from Trent Lakes. She lives just outside of Buckhorn and has been volunteering for community care for a number of years.

During the pandemic, not only did she help out by delivering groceries to some vulnerable seniors but she also took to the phones to do wellness checks just to make sure people who couldn’t get out still had a friendly voice to talk to on a regular basis. For the last year or so she has also been volunteering with Community Care Meals on Wheels.

Speaker, this Christmas, Pam has taken it upon herself to make sure that 20 seniors who have lost their spouses will still have a homemade Christmas dinner. In her very own kitchen, she’s cooking enough turkey, mashed potatoes, vegetables, cranberries, gravy and all of the other fixings to make a traditional Christmas dinner, and then she’ll personally deliver all of those dinners to 20 very lucky single seniors.

Pam, thank you for what you do. You exemplify the true meaning of what Christmas is.

Introduction of Visitors

Hon. Todd J. McCarthy: Good morning. I want to welcome to the House today Bill Gleed and his son Derrick Gleed. Derrick is a former regional councillor from Durham. Bill Gleed is an insurance professional, for decades beloved by thousands of clients and beloved by the McCarthy family. Welcome to the House, gentlemen.

Ms. Laura Smith: It is my very great honour to welcome Thornhill resident and student Ella Rosen in the gallery.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: I wanted to introduce my new legislative assistant Susan Sharma. She’s doing fantastic work in my office. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady: I’d like to welcome to the House a guy who has been putting up with me since I was born and who has supported me every step of the way: my dad, Jim. Welcome to the House.

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: I have a few to introduce today. I’d like to begin by introducing and welcoming:

Brigette Contento and Michael Verrelli of the Humberlea Community Group, as well as Alonzo Jones, CEO of the Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario, which, since 1969, has been the statutory regulator and governing body for architectural technologists, architectural technicians, registered building technicians and registered building technologists;

Also, other members of the Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario, including Cindy McPhee, who is a principal designer with First Step Design Ltd.; Frank Balenzano, who is a plans examiner and building inspector for the city of Brampton and AATO board member; and Tony Bianchi, who is an AATO board member, though retired.

Ms. Patrice Barnes: I’d like to welcome the students today from Trafalgar Castle School, who will be performing later on today as the choir on the grand staircase. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. Chris Glover: I’d like to welcome to the House Richard Bradley from Moore Falls, Ontario.

Question Period

Hospital services

Ms. Marit Stiles: Good morning, Speaker. This question is for the Premier. People in this province should expect quality health care that’s available when they need it. But under this government, we’re seeing critical services disappearing from communities. Emergency department closures are happening more frequently, and they are staying closed longer. A new report from the Ontario Health Coalition reported a staggering 868 emergency department closures this year alone.

Speaker, through you to the Premier: What possible explanation can this government offer to Ontarians who lost over 30,000 hours of emergency care this year?

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

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I’ve said many times that when individual hospitals have to make a very challenging decision based on the health human resources that they have available to them to temporarily close for an hour or shift a part of their operation, it is disruptive for a community. But that is exactly why our government has made such a conscious effort and investments in our hospital systems, in our health human resources: expanding the number of nurses that are training in the province of Ontario; expanding the number of residency positions that are available for physicians in Ontario.

We’ll continue to do that work and we’ll continue to expand the health human resources because we know how important it is to the people of Ontario.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, the minister can try to spin this any way she wants. She can try to downplay it, but the reality is very different. The Ontario Health Coalition blames these closures on “unprecedented failure of leadership” by this government.

Folks in Huron, Perth and Wellington are experiencing multiple simultaneous closures. Durham had 51 closures this year alone. People in Clinton haven’t had reliable access to an ER since 2019.

The holiday season is one of the busiest times for local hospitals and emergency rooms. What is this Premier going to do to stop emergency department closures over the holidays?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: What we will continue to do is work with our hospital partners, invest, ensuring that we have alternative payment plans so that physicians have the opportunity to practise in those underserviced areas. We have a new program in the province of Ontario, peer-to-peer, emergency department physicians being able to phone a friend and talk through issues. That has ensured that people actually have access when they need it.

We now have, in northern Ontario, physicians who are in our emergency departments having access to other physicians who have practised for longer and are able to walk through specific issues. That one change alone has ensured that we have had no physician shortages or issues in northern Ontario. Those are the kinds of policy changes that are actually being suggested by our hospital partners and making an impact in our communities.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Phone a friend, Speaker? That’s their fix? Are you kidding me? That is cold comfort for all of those people out there—thousands of them—whose emergency rooms and clinics have closed, 2.2 million Ontarians who don’t have access to primary care.

The newly renovated Mindemoya Hospital had to close because this government didn’t fund the staff to keep it open. Hospitals and long-term-care homes are being gouged by private staffing agencies taking over our health care system. Perth and Smith’s Falls hospital was forced to spend a whopping $2.8 million this year on temporary staff through private agencies. I’ve talked to local hospitals in northern communities who are worried about making payroll.

Speaker, we need investment to finally address these staffing shortages. Will the Premier stand up and commit new hospital funding to ensure care is available when the patients of Ontario need it?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Speaker, where was the party opposite when we actually announced, through our last budget, an expansion of primary care? They voted against it. Where was the party opposite when we made investments and made announcements of over 50 new capital expansions, whether those are new builds in South Niagara, whether those are expansions in communities across Ontario? Where was the party opposite, the NDP? They voted against it.

We’ll continue to make those investments. In last year’s budget alone, we had an average increase in our hospital budgets of 4%. Those are the changes that we make as a government to make sure that our hospitals and our community system is robust and there for us when we need it.

Government accountability

Ms. Marit Stiles: This question is again for the Premier. The government’s announcement to shut down the Ontario Science Centre and lay off staff and reopen it in a new building half its size is very, very unpopular, especially for people in some of the most impacted neighbourhoods like Thorncliffe Park and Flemingdon Park. It’s a decision that also doesn’t make a lot of sense to most people.

The official opposition NDP have unearthed yet another secret government document that’s called “Ontario Science Centre modernization relocation plans”—very interesting. But what’s really notable about this document is the date: August 27, 2021.

Speaker, why did the Premier keep his plans for the science centre a secret during the 2022 election?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Hon. Neil Lumsden: Mr. Speaker, thank you to the leader for the question. I got this feeling that the word “tourism” is a bad word. We’re talking about—now hang on for a second—tourism, which represents almost $36 billion in economic activity, just under 400,000 jobs and 82,000 business-related jobs and careers in tourism. Yet we talk about an opportunity, a destination—tourism is about finding a place to go, drawing people in, not just people in Ontario but the people across Canada and maybe into the United States. It’s driving tourism.

A destination is important, whether it’s a spa, common areas, water parks, paddling, walking and being casual in an area where you can sit and be quiet—all these great things that tourists like. They want to come to. They want to come here. We’re making a world-class destination.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

The supplementary question?

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, the FOIed secret documents that we’ve unearthed clearly show that the Premier had already made a decision to move the Ontario Science Centre to Ontario Place nearly two years before he told the public. We also know it wasn’t until later that year that the government commissioned their business case that would justify a decision the Premier had already apparently made. That business case was withheld from the public for another eight months, despite repeated requests from opposition members to make it public.

Speaker, to the Premier: Why should the public trust a Premier who clearly believes in decision-based evidence-making instead of evidence-based decision-making?

Hon. Neil Lumsden: As they say, two cases are better than one—two business cases that suggest that this is a wonderful opportunity, opportunity that we’d like to think we want to explore for the people of Ontario.

But more importantly, again, back to that “tourism” word that everyone—or not everyone, just certain people don’t seem to like. We talk about building up opportunity in Ontario in jobs and careers, destinations, making an Ontario Place that people want to come to visit and stay maybe an extra day or two longer because the destination is so special, and the opportunity is an experience that those people and their families want to experience. That’s what tourism is about.

People in Ontario do a fabulous job. Those working in the industry are doing a better job because of COVID. They’re smarter, they are ready and they want people to come to Ontario. They want them to visit. They want them to stay. We want to welcome people—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Hamilton Mountain will come to order.

Final supplementary?

Ms. Marit Stiles: Back to the Premier: Can I just say, if this was such a great idea, why did they work so hard to keep it secret for so long? I don’t buy it. I don’t buy it, and I don’t think the people of Ontario buy it. They know there’s something dirty about this deal.

Earlier this year, the NDP released an FOIed secret document showing that the government had already decided to pay for a new parking garage for Therme as early as January 2021—again, nearly two years before the public found out. We know they planned to move the science centre also nearly two years before the public found out.

We can wait for the Auditor General’s report tomorrow or the Premier can set the record straight right now: Is he building a half-sized science centre on top of the Therme parking garage to justify spending 650 million public dollars on a private luxury spa?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to caution the Leader of the Opposition on her choice of words.

Response, Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Hon. Neil Lumsden: Again, thank you for the question. Ah, the science centre: You know, it’s a fabulous place. They talk about space, and though I wasn’t in the business of real estate and development and designing, I do know that there’s something called common area when we talk about space. Common area is that area in a building that people move through, where they don’t necessarily stop and wait, but they move through, and it’s part of the design. The existing science centre has fabulous and large common space areas.

Well, the new science centre will not have that much common space because it will be more efficient, more directed, more targeted to exhibits, and I believe that’s what the science centre is about: drawing people in, educating them, creating—dare I say it again—an experience. Don’t worry about the common area, worry about what they come to see. Those are the displays. Those are what’s out there for people to learn from—not hallways, exhibition space.

Municipal restructuring

Ms. Marit Stiles: Well, I will just say, not all kids have backyards or great big spaces to run around in. Children who live in apartment buildings, they deserve to have space too, right? Why not? Give me a break.

Speaker, while this government is busy planning for a luxury spa in downtown Toronto, the people of Brampton are facing property tax increases up to 34% next year—wild. That’s because the government’s plan to dissolve Peel region is estimated to cost the city of Brampton more than $1.3 billion. So I’m going to ask the Premier, how can he justify the largest tax hike in Brampton’s history in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: I can say this: The government is continuously focused on reducing taxes, building more homes. It has been at the core of what we have been doing since 2018. We will certainly never allow a community to raise taxes so that the people in that community can’t afford to live there.

It is only really the Leader of the Opposition who is consistently talking about increasing taxes on the people of the province of Ontario. When we have reduced it—when we have reduced taxes, she has actually voted against those reductions.

It was so bad that when we reduced taxes on the lowest-income-earning Ontarians—virtually removing them from the responsibility of paying taxes—the NDP, actually, voted against that, because at the core of what the NDP believes is that people have to be dependent on government. We believe you give the people the tools to succeed and they will do just that. They will succeed, and we will continue on that, because the job is not done.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: This deal between the Premier and the new Liberal leader is going to make life more expensive for 1.5 million people in Peel, over 600,000 of them in Brampton alone. People still don’t know how their public services are going to be impacted, but what they do know is that thanks to this Conservative-Liberal deal, their taxes are going up and up and up.

So back to the Premier of this province: What does he have to say to the people of Brampton about their 34% tax hike?

Hon. Paul Calandra: I’ll say this to the people of Brampton: I’m very, very confident that there will not be a 34% property tax hike—unless, of course, there is an NDP council or an NDP mayor. Then, all bets are off, because we know the history of the NDP. It’s the same old song they’re singing about.

This is a party that’s against the 413; they were virtually—not virtually—were wiped out of Brampton, Mr. Speaker, because they are so old-school. They’re against development. They’re against people. They’re against business. They’re singing the same old tune over and over and over again. This is a party that has no ideas. Even their time in opposition is starting to come to an end, colleagues, because they are so bankrupt of ideas.

So we’ve created thousands of jobs across the province of Ontario. We’ve cut taxes. We’ve made investments in all of the important areas for the people of province of Ontario. Consistently, they have voted against.

Economic development

Mr. Will Bouma: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. Under the previous Liberal government, supported by the NDP, when global companies were considering locations to expand in, Ontario was never on the short list. Businesses did not want to navigate through mazes of red tape while paying tax hike after tax hike.

When we came into office, we immediately took action to scrap the Liberal-NDP agenda of tax hikes and red tape. Now, Ontario is the first place that comes to mind when companies want to invest and expand. By creating the conditions for businesses to succeed, we’ve seen record investments and job growth across the entire province of Ontario.

Speaker, can the minister highlight some of the recent investments that Ontario has welcomed?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: We were at the opening of Kainos—it’s an IT company from Ireland. Just yesterday, they announced—and we did the ribbon cutting at their facility in downtown Toronto: 100 employees, on their way up to hiring 300 employees. Again, all because we have lowered the cost of doing business in Ontario. We graduate 65,000 STEM grads each and every year. Welcome, Kainos and the 100 employees that they’ve brought.

The week before, we welcomed Unilever to downtown Toronto. They’re from the UK, obviously. They have opened their world’s first and only AI lab right here in Ontario, right here in Toronto. We competed with 50 countries around the world to attract Unilever here, and we won. They have several hundred employees that will be employed here at their downtown operation in Toronto. So, Speaker, we’re very grateful—

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

And the supplementary?

Mr. Will Bouma: Thank you, Minister, for that response.

You would think that, with more than 700,000 jobs created since we took office, the Liberals and the NDP would realize that our approach of lower costs works. Instead, they continue to advocate for policies that would crush businesses, penalize workers and destroy our economy.

While we have been laser-focused on creating jobs and growing the economy, the Liberals spent the last six months just to end up with a new leader who endorses the same anti-growth agenda as the NDP. By reducing the annual cost of doing business by $8 billion annually and cutting burdensome red tape, we have seen job-creating investments flood into the province of Ontario.

Speaker, can the minister please elaborate on other investments and expansions Ontario has secured over the past few months?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Last week alone, we had several hundred million dollars in new investment. Heddle Shipyards is investing $107 million in St. Catharines so they can tackle the Vessel Life Extension project. That’s 30 new jobs—$3.4 million in support through our government’s AMIC operation.

Medicom, a $165-million investment in London: This is a 140,000-square-foot production facility that’s being built. There’s 135 new jobs coming. If you remember before the pandemic, Speaker, we made virtually no PPE here in Ontario. Today, we make 74% of the PPE we buy. Once Medicom is up and running, making nitrile gloves here in Ontario, 92% of all PPE that we buy will be made domestically right here in Ontario.

Government accountability

Ms. Jennifer K. French: My question is to the Premier. Speaker, this government decided that the luxury spa act, Bill 154, won’t be going to committee or have any more time in this Legislature, but folks have real concerns. In this bill, the Minister of Infrastructure is being gifted the power to issue minister’s zoning orders. Ontarians see that MZOs are a government gift for their insiders to fast-pass process. MZOs don’t get shovels in the ground faster. They often don’t have community buy-in, but they do make some people stinking rich.

My question is: Now that the Minister of Infrastructure has the power to issue MZOs, who is going to get rich next?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, I tell you what’s going to happen, and what has continuously happened in the province of Ontario, is that the people of the province of Ontario continue to prosper because of the policies of this government.

The Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade just talked about a massive investment that is coming to Ontario. This is on top of $27 billion worth of other investments.

We all know that when they had the opportunity, they literally drove out the auto sector. Do you remember that? The auto sector was gone, and they were transitioning to a service economy. We said that we’re going to reinvest and bring jobs back to the province of Ontario.

The member asked, who’s going to prosper? The people of the province of Ontario will continue to prosper. Ontario Place will bring thousands of jobs. It will bring thousands of tourists from all over Ontario, all over the United States. It is a destination that we should continue to be proud of, but, unfortunately, under the Liberals and NDP, they allowed that destination to crumble. We are bringing it back to life, just as we brought it to life when Bill Davis was the Premier. We’re going to bring it back to life and make it even better than before.

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: My question is back to the Premier. Ontario Place is a public outdoor treasure, globally recognized for its heritage. Because of Bill 154, neither the Environmental Assessment Act, nor the Heritage Act, will apply. Because of Bill 154, this PC government will be allowed to break the laws with impunity. Because of Bill 154, the Minister of Infrastructure now gets to issue MZOs. She also gets a fancy-schmancy luxury spa as her legacy project.

Speaker, we saw preferential treatment and MZOs given out as party favours by the previous Minister of Housing. So, my question to the Premier is, who gets the first MZO from the minister of mega-spas and where did they get to sit at the wedding?

Hon. Paul Calandra: I tell you, Speaker, this is a party that is virtually being wiped out one member at a time, right? They’re fighting with themselves.

I tell you what’s happening, Mr. Speaker. Do you know who’s going to get new things? The city of Toronto is going to get new buses and trains because of the deal. That’s what’s going to happen. Our streets will be safer; our buses and our transit system will be safer because of this deal. We will revitalize a destination that she calls a “jewel.” We’re actually going to revitalize it so people want to come back to it.

Thousands of jobs will be created by this. So, who’s going to prosper? The people of the province of Ontario will prosper. It is a gift for all of Ontario.

I know the member has weddings on her mind. She was just married recently. I congratulate her for that, Mr. Speaker; I think we all do.

It highlights the problem of today’s NDP. They stand for nothing. They’re angry at each other. They’re angry at the province. They’re angry at the people. And that is why they keep losing election after election after election.

Taxation

Mr. Kevin Holland: My question is for the Minister of Health. Our government was elected with a strong mandate to serve the people of Ontario. After years of neglect and disrespect from the previous Liberal government, supported by the NDP, Ontarians support us to make decisions that will make life better for everyone. This includes taking leadership to address affordability concerns and ensuring that our health care system receives the support that it requires.

Unfortunately, our hospitals are having to deal with unnecessary rising operational costs thanks to increasing federal taxes, rising interest rates and ongoing international supply chain issues. Hospitals across Ontario should be able to focus their resources on providing front-line services, not on taxes and red tape.

Could the minister please inform the Legislature about how rising costs from increasing federal taxes are negatively impacting our hospitals?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Thank you to the member from Thunder Bay–Atikokan for raising this very important issue.

Since the federal government imposed a carbon tax, the financial burden is already making an impact on hospitals across Ontario. The federal government’s carbon tax will impact Ontario’s hospitals by increasing annual heating costs by $27.2 million for 2022. What would that $27.2 million purchase? It would have offered an additional 104,615 MRI operating hours, providing scans for an additional 157,000 patients. These are real issues that are impacting our hospital partners and, of course, our patients.

That’s why our government will continue fighting the federal government’s carbon tax on behalf of the people of Ontario.

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

Mr. Kevin Holland: Thank you to the minister for her response.

While our government is advocating for all Ontarians, the opposition NDP and Liberals are oblivious to the far-reaching negative impacts that higher taxes and burdensome red tape are causing, among many other things they’re oblivious to.

When it comes to accessing specialized health care services, there are times when residents in northern Ontario need to travel to other parts of our province. I know that many of my constituents rely on vital programs, like the northern travel grant, that help offset long-distance travel costs. With costs for fuel and accommodation continuing to rise, it is not right or fair that residents in the north should have to endure these additional expenses just because they need medical care and services.

Can the minister please explain how increasing taxes and burdensome red tape are negatively impacting the people of northern Ontario?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: The member is raising a very important issue that is actually costing all Ontario residents, but particularly our northern residents—to fill the car, heat your home and feed your family—even though our government is always looking at ways to make life more affordable, including looking at changes to the northern travel grant, to ensure it continues to serve northerners in a way that is convenient and effective.

We know the federal government is making that travel more expensive. Over the last number of months, we have demonstrated the real cost of the federal carbon tax on families, students, seniors and on our institutions and services the people of Ontario have come to rely on.

We call on the members from across the aisle to join us in demanding that the federal government repeal this tax that is disproportionately impacting northern Ontario.

Government appointments

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: My question is to the Premier. When asked for an update on the Eglinton Crosstown public-private partnership, Metrolinx CEO Phil Verster essentially said he would let the public know when he knows. After a decade under construction and over $1 billion over budget, this response from Mr. Verster is unacceptable.

What is it going to take to fire Mr. Verster?

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

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: Mr. Speaker, our government has launched the largest expansion of public transit in the history of this province. The NDP and the Liberals have voted against it every step of the way.

Let’s look at the Ontario Line: 28,000 cars being taken off the road, and what do the NDP do? They vote against that.

We were just announcing a milestone on the Yonge North subway extension just this past Friday, another large milestone in making sure we get shovels in the ground. That project will reduce travel time by 22 minutes, but it will also put over 26,000 people in 10 minutes’ walking distance to a transit station.

Under the leadership of Premier Ford, we have built an incredible $70-billion program to support public transit across this province. It’s about time that the NDP support that plan.

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

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: Mr. Verster, and you as Minister of Transportation paying him $1 million a year, have had multiple chances to explain significant operational failures. For the tens of thousands of people whose daily lives are disrupted and the hundreds of small businesses who have been forced to shut down, Mr. Verster’s response is an insult. Is this government so incompetent that you cannot recognize massive failure, or do you really like Mr. Verster that much?

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

Interjections.

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

The Minister of Transportation can reply.

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: The NDP have had multiple opportunities to support public transit in this province and they have said no every single time. On one hand, they want to support the Liberals and the highest carbon tax, on the other hand, they don’t want to support $70 billion of public investment into transit. They’ve got to pick a side. Like the House leader said, they stand for absolutely nothing.

When we’re taking 28,000 cars off the road on the Ontario Line, on the Eglinton West LRT extension, taking 6.5 million fewer trips in your cars, what do the NDP do to that? They vote against that every single time. The highest carbon tax from the NDP, no investment in public transit—they vote against it every single time.

Under the leadership of Premier Ford, we will build highways, we will build roads, we will build subways and we will build LRTs and change the transportation network across this—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. The members will please take their seats.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. The House will come to order. The member for Waterloo will come to order. The government House Leader will come to order.

I think we’re ready to start again. Start the clock. The next question.

Housing

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: Every day, we hear from people who are struggling to find a home. When this government isn’t busy blaming this province’s challenges on other levels of government, we hear them talk and talk about a promise to build housing. But, Speaker, just like they broke their promise to protect the greenbelt, leading to the $8.3-billion greenbelt scandal for which they’re now under RCMP criminal investigation; just like they broke their promise to lower income taxes for middle income families, they’re breaking their promise to get housing built.

They promised to build 1.5 million homes by 2031, but the current forecast is they will get just 870,000 houses built by then. And to date, cities have received more support from the federal government than through this government’s Building Faster Fund.

My question to the Premier: When will he admit to the people of Ontario that, once again, he has broken their promise to them and that his housing plan is failing?

Hon. Doug Ford: Maybe you should go talk to your new leader. The number one concern for their new leader is, “Let’s raise $1 million, because someone has to pay for my salary.” That’s what her number one issue was. That shows me you picked the wrong leader. Maybe you should have picked the guy in the far back instead of that leader.

The number one issue—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Just a second—we stopped the clock, Premier.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Premier. Premier, I had to stop the clock because I couldn’t hear you. So just a second.

The House will come to order.

Interjections.

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

Restart the clock. The Premier has the floor.

Hon. Doug Ford: Your leader has the worst record in Ontario on building homes, and you have the nerve to say anything about building homes? Again, maybe you should sit down and have a heart-to-heart with your leader. She was against building the 413 that is critical to Brampton and Mississauga. She was for the carbon tax. For 15 years, she was all in favour of taxing people. She raised taxes in Mississauga to unprecedented heights. That’s what your leader is about. We’re about lowering taxes, building the 413, getting rid of the carbon tax and building more—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock.

Members will please take their seats. I’ll remind the members to make their comments through the Chair, not directly across the floor of the House at each other.

Interjections.

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

Let’s restart the clock. Supplementary?

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: Clearly the Premier is worked up about our new leader, as he should be.

Ontario Liberals are incredibly proud of our new leader. A big city mayor and former MP, Bonnie Crombie has a great deal of experience working to improve the lives of Ontarians, not like this government working to help their insider friends. She’s getting new developments approved. Mississauga, once considered a suburb, has been transformed under her leadership into a full-fledged metropolis. In fact, last year, the city of Mississauga issued a record number of building permits, and the city currently ranks fourth in the continent for the number of construction cranes.

To imply that housing construction is in decline because of mayors like Bonnie Crombie is not only disingenuous but deeply disappointing—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to ask the member for Don Valley West to withdraw the unparliamentary comment and then conclude her question.

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: Withdrawn.

Building 1.5 million new homes requires something akin to a wartime effort. It requires co-operation with civil society and other levels of government. We cannot, and should not, be kneecapping them.

Speaker, once again to the Premier: When will he admit his housing plan is not working and start working with, not against, our municipal partners to get the housing crisis solved?

Hon. Doug Ford: Again, through you, Mr. Speaker, this is a leader that said no to removing tolls, no to scrapping the licence plate stickers, no to cutting taxes. Do you know why? Because their leader was too busy flying around in the private jet of her buddy the developer. Everyone knows who this developer is, and it’s going to come back to haunt her. Flying around in the private jet, going to her $5-million estate in the Hamptons—she’s out of touch with the average person.

Emergency preparedness

Ms. Natalie Pierre: My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. In the past year, we’ve seen emergencies like wildfires, floods and storms in all parts of Ontario. The people in my riding of Burlington and across the province are looking to our province in times of need. It’s our responsibility to keep all Ontarians safe in the event of emergencies. We must continue to do all that we can to ensure our province is prepared as much as possible for any urgent situation that may arise.

Speaker, can the President of the Treasury Board please share what our government is doing to strengthen emergency management and ensure that Ontario is prepared for the future?

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: Thank you to the member for Burlington for the question. Simply put, there is nothing more important than the safety and the well-being of our families and our loved ones. Our government, through Emergency Management Ontario, supports emergency preparedness and mitigation, and we coordinate response and recovery with our partners, keeping the more than 15 million people in Ontario safe. This is a 24/7, 365-day-a-year job, and I am so proud and grateful to all the dedicated emergency responders and personnel who do it.

I’m pleased that our government has earmarked a $110-million investment to strengthen emergency management and to make Ontario even more safe and more prepared. And I’ll have more to say about those investments in the supplementary.

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

Ms. Natalie Pierre: Thank you to the minister for her response. It’s encouraging to see our government demonstrate leadership in protecting the well-being of our families and our loved ones. The people of this province, including my constituents in Burlington, will be pleased to know that our government is taking every necessary step to keep them safe.

The President of the Treasury Board spoke about the $110-million emergency management support we outlined in our last budget. Speaker, can the minister please explain how our government is spearheading a comprehensive emergency management plan and safeguarding our province through this investment?

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: Again, thank you to the member for the question and for the opportunity to speak about the important investments that our government is making.

One of the ways our government is ensuring that Ontario is safe, practised and prepared is the Community Emergency Preparedness Grant. This new grant will help communities purchase critical emergency equipment and supplies, such as sandbagging machines or generators, or could be invested in emergency management training. This grant is a prudent and responsible investment that gives communities the tangible resources that they need to keep people safe when the next flood, wildfire or severe storm impacts our province.

I look forward to continuing to work with local levels of government, First Nations communities and organizations to prepare for emergencies now and in the future.

Health care

Mr. Wayne Gates: My question is to the Premier. The Ontario Health Coalition released their report today. Just this year in the province of Ontario, there have been closures in 868 emergency departments and 316 urgent care centres.

These closures are affecting my community at the Douglas Memorial urgent care centre in Fort Erie. Nearly half of the population of Fort Erie is over 55. Some 8,000 residents do not have a family doctor, and there is no reliable public transit in town. Having an urgent care centre open 24/7 can mean the difference between life and death for our residents.

Speaker, when is the Premier going to stop fighting nurses in court, repeal Bill 124, properly fund our public health care system and ensure that every community has access to the health care they deserve and need when they need it?

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

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I’m going to again remind the NDP member that as we bring these investments forward, whether it is through the fall economic statement or our budgets, your party and you vote against them. So when we make changes legislatively for as-of-right, which allows physicians who wish to practise in the province of Ontario to quickly do that without having to wait for their licence to be transferred, the member opposite votes against that legislation. When we have capital investments of over 50 new expanded, renovated hospitals, including, of course, in his own area with the South Niagara Hospital, you vote against it.

I will say, you do show up for the photo op, but you vote against it when you have an opportunity to make a difference in your community. That’s your legacy.

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

Supplementary question? The member for Nickel Belt.

M me France Gélinas: The Ontario Health Coalition was able to identify 1,199 vital hospital services closures; that’s 868 ER closures, 316 urgent care closures, 11 obstetrics closures, labour and delivery closures, ICU closures, lab closures. Every single one of these closures puts people’s health and lives at risk.

The minister must be very proud; her plan to create a crisis is working perfectly. How many more private clinics will the minister be able to fund given this level of crisis?

Interjections.

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

The Minister of Health.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Speaker, I think it’s important to remind the member opposite that, in fact, these were numbers that had never been managed and measured previously. There was no provincial government that was accessing and ensuring that hospitals made sure that data was here. Frankly, you cannot manage what you don’t measure. We’re measuring those changes.

I have to say, the investments that we continue to make, whether it is a 50-bed rehab expansion in Sudbury at Health Sciences North, whether it is a 72-bed expansion at St. Joe’s—again, where was the NDP? They were voting against these investments in their own community. Again, they will show up for the photo op, but when they can make a difference in their community and support those changes and investments, they vote against it.

Transportation infrastructure

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. There’s nothing the people of Caledonia want more for Christmas than to hear that the reconstruction of the Argyle Street bridge will begin. I’ve promised this House I will rise on this matter until shovels are in the ground. This is my fourth question related to the bridge since August 2022.

A few weeks ago, I sat in traffic in the middle of the bridge when the sound of sirens was heard. An ambulance was attempting to get across. Cars had nowhere to go, the paramedics were clearly frazzled, and people were panicked. This should not be happening on any bridge in this province, and yet it has been happening on a daily basis in Caledonia for the past few years.

The people of Haldimand county are fed up and they are tired of this government’s inability to get the job done.

Speaker, through you to the minister: What is the date the reconstruction of the Argyle Street bridge will begin?

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: Safety is a top priority for this government. As the Minister of Transportation—we have a budget of over $27 billion to invest in our roads, our highways and bridges.

I look forward to working with the member. We have made significant progress on that specific project. We appreciate the challenges that she has mentioned, and we are working with the appropriate partners to ensure that project is well under way.

Unlike the Liberals and NDP, our government is committed to making sure that we’re building highways, we’re building roads, we’re investing in our bridges across this province—$27 billion in our budget over the next 10 years, which both the Liberals and NDP have voted against every single time.

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

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady: There we have it: no Christmas miracle in Caledonia this year, but rather more excuses that don’t hold any weight.

The progress—I’d like to know what that progress is.

The ministry kicked Lorrie Harcourt from her home, the toll house, in 2019. She could still be living in her home that she spent 35 years redoing.

The lack of an answer leads me to question, what is holding up the reconstruction? Why doesn’t the minister just tell us? The people of Caledonia are good people, and they deserve a good reason, and maybe they’d be sympathetic if they actually knew what that reason was. But as I warned the previous minister, many fear the bridge is at risk of collapse. No government, no minister wants that on their hands.

Speaker, through you to the minister: Could he clearly articulate why he’s taking this risk and what it is that is preventing the reconstruction of the bridge?

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: Mr. Speaker, we understand and appreciate that there are challenges across this province. We have made a commitment to support investments, unlike the previous Liberal government, who, for 15 years, did absolutely nothing to support the bridges and highways across this province.

We are saying yes to investing in rural communities across the province—including the Argyle Street bridge, with a new five-span steel arch bridge. The design of the bridge replacement is complete, and our government is in the process of obtaining final approvals to proceed with construction.

Thanks to the Premier and the leadership of this government, we’re investing in our roads, we’re investing in our bridges—$27 billion. That project will be a part of those investments.

Unfortunately, the previous Liberal government had 15 years and did absolutely nothing with infrastructure.

We’re going to continue to make sure we make the necessary investments to build bridges, build roads, build highways and build transit across this province.

Occupational health and safety

Ms. Laura Smith: My question is for the Solicitor General. Our government recently announced the introduction of Bill 157, the Enhancing Access to Justice Act, 2023. This proposed legislation contains several pivotal changes, including amendments to the Coroners Act.

The Coroners Act currently requires a mandatory inquest for each construction-related death, and Bill 197 will introduce the creation of a coroner-led annual review and public report of multiple accidental construction-related deaths each year. These changes highlight our government’s commitment to the safety and well-being of our workers.

Speaker, can the Solicitor General please explain how the proposed amendments to the Coroners Act will allow for faster and more meaningful recommendations for construction-related death investigations?

Hon. Michael S. Kerzner: I want to thank my colleague from Thornhill for the question. Any death, Mr. Speaker, is too many. Public safety is paramount, and our government is committed to exploring any option that may prevent further deaths. That’s why my friend and colleague the Attorney General introduced Bill 157.

The member is right. The Coroners Act currently requires a mandatory inquest for each construction-related death. Our proposed change would require an annual coroner-led review of accidental deaths that occur at or in construction projects in the previous year.

Mr. Speaker, the main intent of the proposed amendment to the Coroners Act is to prevent further deaths in the industry by reviewing construction-related trends and sector-wide issues, and make recommendations that can be identified faster. Mandatory annual review of construction-related deaths will lead to quicker justice. And at the end of the day, a safe Ontario is a strong Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Laura Smith: Thank you to the Solicitor General for his response. It’s reassuring to hear that our government is going to make the process easier and quicker for families.

Losing a loved one is a tragedy and one of the most terrible things to happen to a family. Anyone who has lost a member of their family in an accident reserves the right and deserves the right to an inquest and to be a part of the process. It is of critical importance that our government provide Ontario families with assurance in upholding their right to an inquest.

Speaker, can the Solicitor General please tell the House how the proposed changes to Bill 197 will help bring justice to families?

Hon. Michael S. Kerzner: Again, I thank the member from Thornhill. The member is right. The death of a loved one is the most terrible thing that can happen to any family. Our hearts go out to the families who lost a spouse, a sibling, a child or a parent.

I agree that the families need to have the right to request an inquest if necessary. That is provided in Bill 157. Their request for an i