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

February 29, 2024

43rd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2024-Feb-29 vol. A (PDF)

L128A - Thu 29 Feb 2024 / Jeu 29 fév 2024

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 29 February 2024 Jeudi 29 février 2024

Orders of the Day

Get It Done Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 pour passer à l’action

Members’ Statements

Sports and recreation infrastructure funding

Black History Month

Black History Month

MedsCheck Program

Non-Profit Appreciation Week

Gun violence

Government investments

Norman Jewison

Public transit

Health care funding

House sittings

Introduction of Visitors

Question Period

Justice system

Pharmacare

Health care funding

Taxation

Prescription drugs

Anti-racism activities

Health care

Justice system

Transportation infrastructure

Autism treatment

Mining industry

Justice system

Forest firefighting

Justice system

Taxation

Business of the House

Independent members

Supplementary estimates

Introduction of Visitors

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Introduction of Bills

1082472 Ontario Limited Act, 2024

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Black History Month

Motions

Committee membership

Petitions

Ontario Place

Renewable energy

Tuition

Social assistance

Tuition

Tuition

Access to health care

Employment standards

Social assistance

Adoption disclosure

Orders of the Day

Get It Done Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 pour passer à l’action

The House met at 0900.

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

Prières / Prayers.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Next we’ll have a moment of silence for inner thought and personal reflection.

Orders of the Day

Get It Done Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 pour passer à l’action

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 28, 2024, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 162,

An Act to enact the Protecting Against Carbon Taxes Act, 2024 and amend various Acts / Projet de loi 162, Loi édictant la Loi de 2024 sur la protection contre les taxes sur le carbone et modifiant diverses lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I understand that when we last debated Bill 162, the member for Oshawa had made her presentation. So now, we’ll go to questions and responses with respect to the presentation made by the member for Oshawa.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I was fortunate to be here yesterday when the member for Oshawa made her presentation. She talked quite a bit about the issue of tolls, and she shared with us a motion that had just been passed, I think that day, yesterday, by the region of Durham.

I know that one of the schedules in this bill deals with tolls, with removing tolls. I wondered if the member could tell us if that

schedule will do anything for the people of her community.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I appreciate the question. Folks will remember the 412 and 418 and that I tabled my private member’s bill, and four years later, finally, the government removed those. I think part of the reason that the government finally followed through with that was because it was unfair, broadly across Durham region, that we’re the only part of the province with a tolled road.

So here we have

schedule 6 that says, “We won’t toll provincial highways, unless it’s in

an act. Oh, but by the way, 407 ETR that’s privately owned and the 407 East, which is owned by the province, we’re not touching those.”

When Durham has asked for temporary removal because of construction and now that they’ve asked for permanent removal of the tolls from the provincial section, the government has its hands over its ears, and all we hear is crickets. They’re not taking the tolls off. It’s just Durham that has a tolled stretch of provincial highway.

So this bill does sweet nothing for the folks of Durham.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Questions?

Mr. Anthony Leardi:

Schedule 4 of this act has a provision—and I’ll go slowly so that the member has an opportunity to refer to it if she hasn’t seen it already. It says that the

schedule is amended to provide that “for each six-month period or part thereof during which a photo card is valid, the holder of the photo card shall pay a fee of $3.50.” So in other words, the fee is now fixed in legislation and may not be automatically amended, unless another piece of legislation is introduced to amend the fee. So that’s $3.50, and I would like to ask the member if she believes that fee is too low, too high or somewhere in between, and whether she agrees that should be fixed at $3.50?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: As all members in this House, we hear from our constituents when issues matter to them, when government decisions affect them, and I can honestly say I have never once heard anything about photo cards and the fee. So I’m going to go with the $3.50 is what it is.

In fact, I appreciate the member focusing on

schedule 4. I will also liken it to

schedule 2 that deals with drivers’ licence fees and fixes it at $7.50 for each six-month period. The $7.50 and the $3.50 for each six-month period for photo cards now being fixed in statute, are equal to the—wait for it—existing fee. So there is no change. It had been regulation, and now it’s fixed in statute. There is no change to the customer, to the community member. They’re not going to feel any difference. It’s just some shift from regulation into statute. And honestly, who cares?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Questions?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Again, to the member for Oshawa, last night, she gave us a little bit of a history of this government’s experience with licence plates in Ontario. And

schedule 2 of this bill, establishes a framework to enable automatic licence plate renewals. I wondered if the member wanted to elaborate a little bit more on some of her concerns about this government’s track record with licence plates.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Well, I’ve had a lot of opportunity to stand in my place and talk about licence plates, interestingly enough, over the last four years. Interesting that the government is wanting to talk about licence plates when, every time we’re on provincial roadways or in our neighbourhoods, we still see those blue reflective reminders of the ineptitude of this government that they couldn’t get it right. Now, they are letting them continue to drive. Will those licence plates be automatically renewed? Who cares, right?

So my question to this government is, when you’ve got a bill here that says get it done, why on earth are you directing people’s attention to licence plates again when you can’t get them off the roads? You certainly couldn’t get it done in that case. Four years later, we’re still talking about them, and the government—those plates, while impossible to read, are also impossible to forget. So, maybe, the government could get it done when it comes to licence plates.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Questions?

Mr. Anthony Leardi: I’d like to return to the topic of fixed fees. We’ve heard a lot of members of this House—and I talk to many of my constituents—and they’re concerned about affordability. They’re concerned about prices going up, fees going up and government fees going up. I’ve heard many, many people express to me in my constituency, the riding of Essex, about municipal property taxes going up 6%, 7%, 8% in some instances.

But there is only one government that’s freezing fees and lowering taxes, and that’s the PC government of the province of Ontario. So I put this question to the member opposite: Is it not a good thing that we are freezing the fees? Isn’t that a good thing?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: The fee he’s talking about, according to this bill, as he’s mentioned, is the $3.50 fee for each six-month period, equal to the already existing fee, and now we’re fixing it to statute, which can be changed anytime somebody else wants to change it in statute. So freezing them, fixing them—it’s the same as it was. The experience is the same across the community.

But if they want to talk about affordability, instead of removing tolls or preventing tolls where they don’t exist, why don’t you remove them where they do? We’ve got transport trucks on the 401. We could move a lot of them to the 407 if government had any sense of thinking about how to better utilize our existing provincial infrastructure—remove those tolls for transport trucks. Or, the region of Durham is asking for a temporary removal because of construction. We won’t remove those fees for people in the community, and we are not removing tolls for the people of Durham region.

So making life more affordable? What are you talking about? Where? How? In what way? You’re keeping things the same. If you want to address affordability, there’s a million different opportunities. If you wanted to address housing, health care, bring forward a bill of substance, but this is tinkering around the edges and not accomplishing anything. It’s a giant nothing burger.

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

M me France Gélinas: I’m kind of in-line with what the previous member was asking as to—people have some worries. People would like the government to get it done on things that matter to them. The number one thing that matters to a lot of people is fixing our health care system so that the 2.2 million Ontarians that don’t have access to primary care do, so that the hundreds of thousands of people waiting for surgery get the care that they need. There is also a housing crisis that people would very much like the government to focus on as well as an affordability crisis.

Do you see anything in this bill that will address the priorities of Ontarians with health care, with housing, with affordability?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: No, I don’t. I will say, last night, I had the opportunity to join a meeting of the local

chapter of the Ontario Health Coalition in Durham region. A lot of folks with either connection to the health care field or just community members who are starting to interact with the health care system in different ways and realizing it’s not how it used to be, that it’s not what they remember, that they can’t access the services, and they’re quite concerned.

This is a government that talks about freezing things? Bill 124 froze wages that forced the hospitals to be fleeced and held hostage by these nursing agencies that were not just able to get a tow hold, but to take over. So the hospitals are bleeding money to these agencies, instead of being able to pay their own nurses what they would want to through fair, collective bargaining. So this government did that. So they’re standing here in a sort of sanctimonious presentation about making life better. It isn’t.

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

Mr. Anthony Leardi: Today, this morning, we are talking about Bill 162. And Bill 162 has several schedules to it, and the primary purpose, from my point of view of Bill 162, is to address, in part, the issue of affordability.

As I was just saying a moment ago, there are several governments—municipal governments, the federal government—that are raising costs on the people of Ontario. For example, the federal government has raised costs on the people of Ontario by imposing a crushing carbon tax, which escalates on a regular basis higher, higher and higher—automatically.

Many municipal governments, for example, have imposed property tax increases—increases which are locked into your home, making home ownership more expensive. This is happening across the province of Ontario. But as I said earlier, only one government—only one government—is actually getting rid of fees and lowering taxes and that is the Progressive Conservative government of the province of Ontario.

Now, let’s give a few examples of how we are lowering taxes, lowering fees and making life a little bit more affordable for people. We have introduced and then extended the 10-cent per litre reduction on the price of gasoline. That makes life more affordable when you drive to work. It makes life more affordable when you drive to school. It makes life more affordable when you drive to hockey practice, and we think that’s important. Maybe other MPPs in this House don’t think that’s important.

We removed the fee on licence plate stickers. That saves the average family $240 per year. That’s $240 per year you can put toward your savings. Maybe you wanted to buy something special for yourself or your children or maybe even contribute to their RESP. We think that $240 per year makes life a little bit better.

We removed some tolls on highways, making driving less expensive. Now, it’s more affordable to drive where you want to go. Perhaps you’re taking a day trip or a modest vacation; now, it’s a little bit more affordable for you.

We think that those are concrete and important steps toward making life more affordable for everybody. Many times, it makes the simple pleasures of life more affordable. I think we have taken a position in the PC caucus which is quite good and makes life a little better for everybody.

What else is addressed in this Bill 162 is the crushing carbon tax imposed by the federal Liberal government. In the PC caucus, we believe the carbon tax is very bad. In fact, we think it’s so bad we fought it all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. That’s how bad we think it is. We got no support from any opposition party in our opposition to the carbon tax. When we fought the carbon tax all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, the opposition did not help.

Do you know what the Supreme Court of Canada said? The Supreme Court of Canada said that despite our submissions, the federal Liberal government, constitutionally speaking, had the authority to impose a carbon tax on Ontario. That’s what the Supreme Court of Canada said: The federal Liberal government had the right to impose that tax on Ontario.

We know the Liberals were very, very happy with that Supreme Court of Canada decision, because as we know, Liberals love taxes. Liberals think taxes cure all evils. In fact, we’ve heard it said, even in the assembly in the province of Ontario—this assembly here—we’ve heard it said by the Liberals; they think that the carbon tax makes the world more “habitable.” “Habitable” was the word that got used. A carbon tax makes the planet Earth more habitable—that was the argument put forward by the Liberals.

Madam Speaker, I thoroughly disagree with the Liberals. The carbon tax does not make the planet more habitable and never will. Now, let me tell you what does make the world more habitable. I’m going to reach back into the mists of time, way back to my ancient ancestors who were somewhere in Europe, hunting and gathering for their daily existence.

One day, one of my ancient ancestors woke up, and he said, “Today is the day. Today is the day when things change. I am not going to hunt and gather anymore. Today, I’m going to delve into the earth, dig into the dirt, and I am going to find precious things inside the Earth. Then, I’m going to take them out, and I’m going to use those precious things, and I’m going to make fascinating and important things out of them.” That ancient ancestor of mine was the first miner in my family.

Do you know what that ancestor did? I don’t know what his name was, I don’t know where he did it, but he took something out of the earth. Maybe it was copper. Then, he fashioned it into a bowl, and he gave it to his wife, and she used it to cook the meals for the family. Then, he took more copper; he fashioned it into a knife. He gave it to his son, and that son used the knife to cut wheat or to cut berries or to cut food for the family. Maybe he had more copper. He gave it to his daughter, and she used it to fashion beautiful instruments, ornaments to make things more beautiful.

Those things were then fashioned and shared with others, and the whole tribe became more convenient. Everything for the tribe got better, and advances were even quadrupled after that.

My ancestor could have left that copper in the ground, but he didn’t. He took it out of the ground. He made things with it, shared it with his family, his tribe, his nation, and things got better. That is how the Earth got more habitable.

The Earth got more habitable because people took things, they mined things out of the ground, and they used human ingenuity to make life better. That’s how I say life gets better. That’s how I say the world gets more habitable, but the Liberals disagree, and I think the NDP disagree, too.

I think their opinion, among the NDP and the Liberal caucus, is that carbon taxes make life more habitable. I think that’s their theory. In fact, they’ve repeated it several times, haven’t they? They’ve done it over and over again.

Not more than 10 minutes ago, when I was speaking about freezing fees, they were saying, “How does that make life better?” It makes life better because it makes life more affordable. That’s why it makes life better.

You can ridicule the freezing of fees, but my constituents appreciate it. My constituents appreciate it when they walk into a ServiceOntario office, and the fee is the same as it was last year and the year before and the year before and they’re not being constantly nickel-and-dimed and gouged. They appreciate that, and I do too, because that’s what makes life more affordable.

The carbon tax does not make life more affordable.

Let me give you a few examples of how the carbon tax, imposed by the federal Liberal government and absolutely adored by the members of the Liberal caucus, makes life less affordable, makes things worse for people.

I’ve asked my constituents to give me examples of their heating bill, something which is absolutely necessary in everyday life—heating your home, which makes life more habitable.

The bill that I received from Meghan in my riding, a bill of $250.55, had a carbon tax of $71.86—28% carbon tax.

Here’s the bill I received from Peter, a $251 bill—$73 of carbon tax. That’s 29% carbon tax.

Here’s a bill that I received from Eric, a $277 bill—$81 of carbon tax. That’s 29% carbon tax on a heating bill.

The bill that I received from Audrey, a $203 bill—$57 of carbon tax. That’s 28% carbon tax, just to heat your home.

I ask the question, who can afford to live that way? Who can afford to heat your home when 28% and 29% of what you pay to heat your home is carbon tax? That’s not going to make life better. That’s not going to make life more affordable. That doesn’t make the Earth habitable.

I sincerely hope that the members of the Liberal caucus are listening intently to everything that I say, because I want every single one of them over there, who are listening very intently to every single word I say, to understand how bad the federal Liberal carbon tax is—having a bad effect on the families in the riding of Essex. That’s what I want them to understand.

We tested this in a vote recently, approximately two weeks ago. We tested it, and it was a vote on the carbon tax; more specifically, it was a vote to remove the carbon tax. And what happened during that vote? Every PC caucus member voted to kill the carbon tax, because that’s what we want. We want to scrap the carbon tax. That’s what we want. We make it plain and obvious. We stand up in our place and we do it.

I noticed that there was a brand new member in the House, the member from Kitchener Centre. She had barely been in the House three days—three days; a brand new member—and even that member was sufficiently educated on the issue that she stood up in her place and she let her vote be counted. Now, I don’t agree with how she voted, but I concede that she stood up in her place and she voted. She took a stand, as many members of this House did.

But what didn’t happen was—the Liberals didn’t take a stand. The Liberals bravely abstained. I use phrase “bravely abstained” facetiously. How can you not have opinions on the carbon tax? When your constituents send you here to speak on their behalf and vote on their behalf and even a brand new member votes in her place, how can you not vote? One would have thought that the Liberals would have an opinion on this topic.

That brings me to the portion of Bill 162 which is

schedule 5.

Schedule 5 proposes that any time a provincial government seeks to try imposing a new carbon tax, they shall be subject to

schedule 5. And

schedule 5 says that they have to take the issue to the voters. There’s a phrase for that; it’s called direct democracy. I think a little bit of democracy—maybe even direct democracy—is a good thing. This is a very common thing all around the world: direct democracy. I would like to know if there is anybody in this House opposed to some form of democracy.

Now I want to refer to some very thoughtful and insightful comments made by a newspaper writer. You’ll notice that I rarely quote newspaper writers in this assembly. Some people like to do that. I don’t. But I have a really great newspaper in my riding. That really great newspaper is call the Essex Free Press. Some people read other newspapers, maybe they don’t read the newspaper, but I read the Essex Free Press. It’s a great newspaper.

I don’t know who people take advice from. There are some people I think in the NDP caucus who take advice from a newspaper or an

article or a journal called the Narwhal. I have never read the Narwhal. I don’t think I ever read anything written by an Arctic sea animal. I don’t think an Arctic sea animal is the kind of journal that I would read. But you know, I like to read a newspaper by somebody who lives in my riding, maybe a talented person who lives the kind of lifestyle I live, a hard-working person, down-to-earth, a person who cares about her community. She is able to speak to me and I’m able to speak to her eye to eye. We know each other. This person’s name is Sylene Argent.

I had a great conversation with Sylene Argent. Let me tell you what Sylene Argent wrote in the Essex Free Press. This is what she said, and this is very important: “I don’t want to rely on rebates. I don’t want to depend on the government for a subsidy here and there, when we can do a better job at looking at how we can reduce costs to make living essentials affordable, while also considering the environment.” That’s what Sylene Argent wrote.

I found that very interesting because I thought there was a lot of common sense in there. She is talking about how we can reduce costs, making living essentials more affordable. I say we can lower the tax on gas, and we did that, by 10 cents a litre. I say we can get rid of the fee on licence plate stickers, and we did that. I say we can get rid of tolls on highways, and we’ve done that, too. These are all ways to reduce costs and to make life more affordable on the essentials. Sylene Argent says so, and I agree with her.

Sylene says that we must also consider the environment, and I agree with her on that too.

Let me tell you about one of the most important environmental initiatives in the history of the province of Ontario. This government is helping to convert steelmaking furnaces in the province of Ontario. They’re going to be converted to electric arc furnaces. What that means is, once that’s completed, those electric arc furnaces are going to help produce steel in the province of Ontario. At the same time, it is the equivalent of removing two million automobiles off the roads of this province.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: I’m not old enough to remember Premier Mike Harris. I’m not old enough to remember Premier Bob Rae. But of all the Premiers in the history of the province of Ontario, the one Premier who has taken the most important step to improve the environment of the province of Ontario, by removing the equivalent of two million automobiles off the roads, is the Premier we have today, Premier Doug Ford. That is correct. He is the one who has taken the single most important positive environmental step in the entire history of the province of Ontario.

I’d like to say to Sylene and to the other common-sense people in the riding of Essex, the people I represent, especially the people in the small towns—small towns like McGregor, River Canard, Cottam, St. Joachim and Woodslee—I read your newspaper, and your newspaper is for you, and this PC government has heard you. We’re going to keep costs down and try to make life more affordable for everyone, and it’s these steps that we’re taking in Bill 162 that are going to help us achieve that type of goal—a goal which will make life a little bit more habitable for you and for your family and for your children.

I’d like to thank the people in those small communities, and I’d like to thank Sylene Argent of the Essex Free Press for her thoughtful words.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): It is now time for questions.

Mr. Joel Harden: I want to thank the member from Essex for his comments. I often find the member’s eloquence very entertaining, for sure. It was like a National Geographic commercial—a lot of anthropology trips down memory lane there.

The member made a case that the Premier we currently have is one of most environmental Premiers ever. I actually wonder, from one perspective, if he isn’t good at recycling our time, because we spent 72 hours in this place undoing legislation that the members opposite have proposed. Let’s go through it, shall we? Bill 124, Bill 28, the greenbelt fiasco, the urban boundary dispute. The Premier is famous for recycling—but recycling hot air in this place. I’m wondering if it’s embarrassing, frankly, to be part of a government that brings legislation into the House only to redo it later.

I think it’s a waste of our time. I think it’s a waste of time to be using the lawyers hired to serve the province of Ontario to go fight court cases that are unwinnable.

So I’m wondering, because the member has talked about making life more habitable, if he thinks it wouldn’t be more habitable for this House to be working on legislation that doesn’t just have to get ripped up a few months later.

Mr. Anthony Leardi: On the subject of court cases and on another decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, I note that in a court case which this PC government undertook to defend responsible government in the province of Ontario, the Supreme Court of Canada said the following: “In Canada’s constitutional democracy, the confidentiality of cabinet deliberations is a precondition to responsible government....

Responsible government is a fundamental principle of Canada’s system of government....” That is from the Supreme Court of Canada, in a case which this government undertook to defend, defending the principles of democracy against an attack by the CBC. We had to fight that all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, and we won, because on this side, in this caucus, the PC caucus, we believe that responsible government and democratic traditions are very—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Thank you.

Further questions?

Mrs. Daisy Wai: Thank you to our member for mentioning the work this government has been trying to do to get life more affordable. The people in Richmond Hill have been complaining about how everything has been so expensive, and I’m happy that this bill is getting to it with making life more affordable—with the exception of the carbon tax.

I just cannot understand why we still have this problem of the carbon tax. People in Richmond Hill have been complaining as they go to the gas pump, and they didn’t even realize about the heating problem—29%. How can we work on this, getting rid of the carbon tax?

Mr. Anthony Leardi: I thank the member from Richmond Hill for that question, and I thank her for advocating on behalf of her constituents, who want a more affordable life. She’s doing a fine job doing that.

All of us together fighting the carbon tax will make a difference, because at a certain point something has to give. We can’t have carbon taxes of 28% and 29% on people’s heating bills. We live in a cold country. People need to heat their homes. We can’t have a federally imposed carbon tax, loved by the Liberals, pretending that they’re making life better for anyone through a tax.

Everybody knows this is not working. Everybody in Richmond Hill knows this is not working. The federal Liberal carbon tax has to die. We have to kill that tax. The PC government of the province of Ontario says, scrap the carbon tax.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Further questions?

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It’s hard to figure out where to begin with the comments from my colleague from Essex, so let’s do a history lesson here, because they are saying the carbon tax is not their tax.

My colleague talked eloquently about the backtracking this government does. When the current Conservatives were elected to form government, we had cap-and-trade, which meant the big polluters—industry—paid for carbon emissions. This government came in and scrapped that and brought in the carbon tax. And so it is really—“comical” is the word I’m going to use, because the other word is unparliamentary—that the member opposite is talking about how great they are, because they went to the Supreme Court fighting the carbon tax, when it was your carbon tax.

In essence, what we have seen is another example of something like the greenbelt, where the government does something, gets caught, the public doesn’t like it, and they pretend they’re taking a hard stance and going in the opposite direction. I will remind the member opposite: Two days ago—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Thank you.

Response?

Mr. Anthony Leardi: And there you have it, Madam Speaker: The NDP say, “Well, maybe the carbon tax is not a good thing. Let’s do cap-and-trade.” Cap-and-trade equals carbon tax. Cap-and-trade is carbon tax. Cap-and-trade caps and trades. It’s carbon tax. And they love that, right? They disguise their language.

But let me talk about the Supreme Court of Canada judgment that we actually fought all the way to the Supreme Court against the carbon tax. They didn’t support us doing that either, right? They didn’t want to fight the carbon tax, but the Supreme Court of Canada said it’s a federal Liberal carbon tax, and the federal Liberal carbon tax was imposed by Justin Trudeau and the federal government had the right to do that. Now, you can argue with me all day long, but you can’t argue with the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Further questions?

Mr. Stephen Crawford: It’s great to have the member from Essex here. We can see how the people of southwestern Ontario support our government in electing you as our first member for Essex in many, many years, replacing the current opposition’s member from the NDP.

We know where they stand on affordability. We know where the opposition stands. The NDP and the Liberals never saw a tax or a fee they didn’t want to hike, whether it’s tolls, taxes, energy costs.

We’ve taken many initiatives within this government. Could I ask the member, how and what in this particular bill—how is it going to help regular families? How is it going to help them save costs in driving their kids to soccer etc.? How is it going to save money and put money back in their pocketbooks?

Mr. Anthony Leardi: I thank the member from Oakville for that question. Clearly, he’s standing up for his constituency. He wants to fight the carbon tax, just like me. He’s standing up for a more affordable lifestyle. I thank him for joining us in that fight.

One of the things that this government is doing under this legislation is freezing fees. That’s going to make life more affordable because, as you know, some municipalities across this province are increasing their property taxes, some as much as 6% or 7% or 8%. We’re not going to let that happen with provincial fees. We’re going to freeze the provincial fees. In fact, this is the only government that I can think of at the present time—between the federal government and the municipalities—that’s actually lowering fees and lowering taxes.

I thank that member from Oakville for joining us in making life more affordable.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Further questions?

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: To the member from Essex: This newest attempt of a Conservative bill has nothing to do with making life affordable as far as I’m concerned. It eliminates tolls that do not exist while ignoring the tolls that do exist, all in the name of making life more affordable, yet the only highway in Ontario raising their tolls in 2024 is the 407, the legacy of this PC government. However, instead of fixing that mistake or removing the tolls from the portion the province owns, they are choosing tokenism over real action.

How does the government justify these actions as sufficient responses to Ontario’s urgent housing crisis, health care system strains and the rising cost of living? I’m sure you see it all in your riding. Please explain to the people of Ontario how this Conservative government is going to make life more affordable besides getting rid of tolls that don’t exist.

Mr. Anthony Leardi: I thank the member for that question, but I’ll just remind the member that at the federal level, where the federal Liberal government imposed the carbon tax, they are kept in power by her cousins. They’re kept in power by her NDP cousins in Ottawa. The fastest way to get rid of the carbon tax would be for the member from St. Catharines to pick up the phone, call your buddies in Ottawa and tell them to get rid of the carbon tax. But you won’t pick up the phone and call your friends in Ottawa. You won’t pick up the phone and call the NDP—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Thank you.

It’s now time for further debate.

MPP Jamie West: What an interesting morning. We’re debating Bill 162, the Get It Done Act. I actually prefer the member for Oshawa’s expression of the “giant nothing burger act.” I think that’s right on the nose. This is basically a nothing bill. I know the members opposite are going to criticize me. They’re going to point out a couple of little, tiny things. But honestly, the number one issue since 2022, when all of us were elected or re-elected, is affordability. Freezing a fee that already exists, these minor little steps that you’re doing, is insulting to the people of Ontario.

This weekend, I was going to make sausages for my kids. We like to barbecue a little bit. I stopped by the grocery store, and a pack of buns was seven bucks. I can afford seven bucks, but I am not spending seven bucks on a pack of hot dog buns, so we had something else for dinner. That’s the reality for people; it’s not that things are slightly more expensive.

Don’t tell me it’s the carbon tax forcing Galen Weston to gouge me for seven bucks for a pack of buns. It’s a greedy grocer gouging me. When you knock on doors, and you tell people that it’s not because you’re letting greedy Galen Weston get away with this, you are insulting their intelligence, and they’ll call you out for it.

This is a pretend bill. This is to slow down the conversations about the greenbelt scandal and the RCMP investigations. There are things that we could be doing—should be doing—here that would help people have better lives. That’s what we should be talking about this morning.

This morning I had an interview with the CBC, and we were talking about the wildland firefighters. Why don’t they have presumptive cancer coverage? We did it for urban firefighters, and I think it’s great that we did it. I want to thank Jeff Burch for that. I want to thank the Minister of Labour, the previous one and the new one—I’m not playing favourites. This is what we can do for people that makes their lives better, that makes their families better.

Wildland firefighters being told to put a wet handkerchief over their mouths—that doesn’t do anything. And I’ll be honest with you, I doubt they do that, because when you tell someone to do something ridiculous, that doesn’t make sense, they’re not going to do it.

For more than 200 days, these workers have been asking the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, “Can we have some decent PPE to protect ourselves?” The forest firefighter season has started already in Alberta. It’s going to be starting here soon. It was raining yesterday—in February. Asking for PPE for more than 200 days: There is silence. They have to do a written recommendation and still wait another 21 days for a response—silence. “Can we have the same presumptive coverage that the urban firefighters have?” Silence.

I brought forward an amendment to Bill 149 on this. Why don’t we just include them, all firefighters, treat them all the same? I told the Conservative government, “Look, if the argument is that they’re outdoors instead of indoors and they’re not going to be affected the same way, it won’t cost you anything. But if it isn’t accurate, if they are dying and suffering from an occupational disease, you could allow that to happen with dignity.”

The Conservative government voted again that amendment. The Conservative government won’t answer the phone calls of wildland firefighters.

We could be doing this. We could be debating this this morning. We could each speak for 20 minutes, and we could all vote on voice and get it through and help these people today. But, instead, we have this big nothing burger—nothing burger. The member for Oshawa thought I stole it, but I said this is what the bill should be called. This is a nothing burger bill, and you can tell this because the Conservative member earlier when debating, half of his debate was about a Stone Age man finding copper, somehow inventing the smelting process during the Stone Age, and going to hunter-gatherers. That definitely has nothing to do with this bill. There’s nothing in this.

Mr. Anthony Leardi: You hurt me.

MPP Jamie West: I’m not trying to hurt you; I’m trying to explain to you that—the member opposite says, “You hurt me,” but I’m not trying to insult you. I’m just saying, we’re going to be at PDAC next week. Please, when you go to the prospectors and developers mining conference, don’t tell them that Stone Age people were smelting copper—please, please.

There has been so much walking back of issues on this bill. We’ve had to walk back Bill 124—but not immediately. I stood here several times and said, “This is unconstitutional. You’re going to lose.” And when you lost, I said, “It’s unconstitutional. You’re going to lose.” Then you appealed and I said, “You’re going to lose the appeal.”

Even after the appeal, you didn’t walk it back. You were kind of non-committal and then waited for a Friday afternoon, when no one was paying attention, to walk it back. I haven’t seen this much walking back since Michael Jackson invented the moonwalk. It is unbelievable.

Gilles Bisson was the member for Timmins. Gilles Bisson described the government as “ready, fire, aim.” You have done nothing but prove that time and time again: Bill 124. Bill 28. Bill 28 is—I remember the Minister of Education and the Minister of Labour high-fiving each other when it passed—high-fiving each other. We were talking about workers going to food banks. These are workers who work for the government going to food banks with their kids, workers moving back in with their parents with their kids, and the Conservative government is stepping on their necks to force through this terrible deal. They walked that back in less than 24 hours.

The greenbelt scandal they had to walk back. The greenbelt scandal: We keep being told we have all the facts, but just, I think Monday, the Leader of the Opposition, our leader, New Democratic leader Marit Stiles, was finding out there’s new information that was given to the Integrity Commissioner that was reported unfactually. At what point do you think you’ll have the trust of the people? There’s that line from Bob Marley where you can fool some people some of the time but you can’t fool all people all the time. I don’t think you could fool anybody any of the time at this point.

The greenbelt, the urban boundary scandal—again and again, you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar and you’re like, “I’m sorry.” But listen, in this bill we need to be talking about health care and housing and the skyrocketing cost of living.

In 2022, every single door that all of us knocked on— every single door—they told me, they told you “affordability.” “I cannot believe how expensive it is.” And you have done little baby steps, but nothing substantial that makes life easier for these people. It continues to get worse. In my riding, and I’m sure in your riding as well, what I’ve heard more and more over the last six months is that it has never been this bad.

It doesn’t matter if I’m talking to non-profits, it doesn’t matter if I’m talking to middle class, if I’m talking to wealthy people, if I’m talking to doctors—it doesn’t matter who I’m talking to—I keep hearing that it has never been this bad, and that’s a mouthful because in the Liberal government that went from a majority to losing party status, it was pretty bad. It was really bad, Speaker.

People were looking for a change, looking for hope. Now, we were hopeful it was going to be us, but they selected the Conservative government. What they wanted was change, what they wanted was life to get better, and more than half a decade later it has never been this bad. You can’t keep blaming the Liberal government after five years, after six years. It’s not their mess anymore, it’s yours.

We should be focused on affordability. We should be focused on health care. When I ran for the first time, in 2018, we talked about hallway medicine and how bad hallway medicine was—and it was particularly bad in Sudbury. We’re still struggling in Sudbury, but now it’s become the norm everywhere. In 2018, when we were talking about hallway medicine, we weren’t talking about operating rooms closing. We weren’t talking about ERs closing. We were talking about closing hospitals, but that’s what we’re talking about today after five-plus years of this Conservative government.

I was talking to students yesterday—this is about how we should be talking about housing—and telling them that when I went to school, I was a full-time student. I worked on the weekends and had my own apartment. I made a little more than minimum wage. I didn’t make a ton, but I had my own apartment. I was a full-time student and only worked on weekends. If I worked any other shift, it was just sort of extra money to pick up a jean jacket or whatever was cool at the time. I can’t imagine any student now not working several jobs.

I can’t imagine any student today who doesn’t have several roommates if they’re not living at home with their parents. How can we get people to have more affordable, better-paying jobs if we can’t make it easier for them to get the education they need, to get the training they need? Why is the government putting more and more hurdles in front of people? Why are these students paying the highest tuitions and getting the lowest funding? And to brag about this—I know they brag about this, Speaker—we froze tuition. You froze it at the highest across the country.

Interjection: And reduced it.

MPP Jamie West: You reduced it. It’s still the highest across the country. It’s still the highest and by a long shot. It’s not a little bit. I think you have to increase it by 40% to catch up to the next province. I could be wrong, but it’s somewhere around there, 30%, 40% to catch up the next lowest. So we’re at the bottom of the barrel. There’s no embarrassment. The heckle was, “And reduced it.”

There are 2.2 million people without primary care in this province, and I’m one of them. We had the Ontario Medical Association come talk to us, and in the middle of the meeting, they were telling me about how people are exiting primary care, about doctors who don’t want to be family physicians anymore because of the amount of paperwork they have to do, about the struggle we’re having to get primary care all across Ontario. It used to be a northern Ontario issue, and now it’s everywhere—2.2 million people looking for family doctors, looking for primary care. I don’t have a doctor either. I’m relatively healthy. I don’t go to the doctor that often. My doctor retired.

There are a lot of people, I think, in Canada who deserve primary health care, who take for granted that you should have a doctor—even people who are healthy—that if I need to see a doctor, I should have a doctor.

Dr. Garrioch, God bless him—once you get to your seventies, you want a little family time. Dr. Garrioch has been taking care of me since I was 15. Maybe it’s time to retire. He has had a full career.

Where are the new doctors? We don’t invest in it. We don’t encourage it.

Bill 124 crippled our health care industry. In the middle of a health care crisis, we treated health care workers, lab technicians, nurses, the people who provide our primary care in the hospitals—the Conservative government treated them like dirt. Those who could retire retired. Those who could retire early retired early. Those who could leave left, and they left for other provinces that treated them better. And when they rescinded Bill 124, the Conservative government didn’t even have the grace to let these workers know that it’s gone, so that more of them don’t leave.

There are simple things we can do for affordability. In Bill 149, there’s a digital workers’ rights protection act that gives these digital app workers the right to be paid less than minimum age—enshrines it into law. Basically, it tells you, if you’re an app worker, you do not have the right to the Employment Standards Act; you don’t have the right to the Labour Relations Act; you have no other rights that other workers are allowed; and that these multi-billion dollar companies can get away with paying you about six bucks an hour—sometimes as low as two bucks an hour, after your expenses.

You can complain about it, but they have the right to do it, so that complaint won’t go anywhere. We could fix that. That would help ten of thousands of these workers. It would change their lives today. We’re not doing that. We’re colouring around the edges. “What can we say in the news that sounds good but doesn’t accomplish anything?’ That’s the theme of almost every bill we debate here—“Let’s give it a catchy title, but have nothing in the middle.” All sizzle, no steak.

I was meeting yesterday with fruit and vegetable wholesalers, importers, who provide fruit and vegetables for almost all of southern Ontario—a really amazing organization. One of the things they were telling me was that insurance rates for trucking have gone through the roof; that if you want to help keep the price of food down, if you want to help business survive in Ontario, you’ve got to do something about these insurance companies that are gouging our trucking industry.

We saw this two years ago, when the insurance companies were gouging the snowplow companies, and all these small snowplow companies—these farmers who take care of the churches in their communities aren’t able to do it anymore because the insurance rates are so high. Some of these industries who are doing snowplowing—they have to go to Lloyd’s of London to get insurance, and we’re talking about millions of dollars of insurance. So the little guy is falling out of it, and even the bigger players are trying to find ways to sell to somebody else, because the insurance company keeps coming back for another chunk and another chunk. There’s no one looking into that gouging.

There’s no one looking into the food price gouging. We know it exists. This would help people.

A couple of times this morning, Speaker, I’ve heard the Conservative government brag about how they’re freezing fees and how municipalities are raising property taxes. It is unfair to the municipalities to blame them for raising property taxes because the Conservative government is downloading developer fees: $5 billion worth of developer fees have been downloaded to the municipalities, fees that used to be collected and given to the municipalities, but now the municipality has to make up that shortfall.

And a municipality can’t run a deficit, so the only thing they can do when the Conservative government at the provincial level says, “Hey, take the hit for $5 billion,” is reduce services or increase fees.

I said it before, I’ll say it again, I’ll continue to say it, that when you look at your property taxes and you’re mad at them going up, save some of that blame that you’re aiming at your mayor and city council and put it where it belongs: the Conservative government. They made that call in record unaffordability. They said, “Wealthy developers shouldn’t have to pay anymore; you pay for it instead.” That’s not fair to people.

A lot of this bill Speaker—I said “a giant nothing burger” before, from the member for Oshawa, but a lot of this bill really can be, “It’s the same as it ever was”—the “same as it ever was” bill. Let’s remove tolls from places where there’s no tolls. Why don’t we remove tolls for the trucking industry to get on the 407 so we can move things around quicker, so we can help industry, so we can help business? Why don’t we, for the 407—I wish the Conservative government hadn’t sold it off so many years ago—collect $1 billion that they owe us instead of waiving it and saying, “We’ve got this one.

We’ll pick up that cheque. It’s just a billion dollars. Don’t worry; our taxpayers will pay for it”? Why don’t we allow transport trucks on the 407—waive those tolls, allow people to drive? Less transport trucks on other roads, more people driving around—that’s not part of it.

One of them has to do with licence plate fees. They’re going to enable automatic licence plate renewal. I talked about backtracking before. The reason they have to do this is because people were getting tickets because they hadn’t renewed it. The Conservative government removed the cost but forgot to implement a system where people were reminded to renew, and so people didn’t and were getting pulled over. They also did the same thing for the health cards. People were going to hospital for emergency care with expired health cards. This isn’t you doing an amazing new thing, this is you fixing a mess that you made before. This bill is a giant nothing burger.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Questions?

Mr. Brian Riddell: So you’re all over the place talking about everything, but what I really want to know is why you can’t commit to saying that the carbon tax is not good for the people of Ontario. Why can’t you say that?

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): A reminder to all people in the Legislature to ask the questions through the Chair.

Back to the member for Sudbury.

MPP Jamie West: The member from Cambridge is asking about the carbon tax. Honestly, what we’ve heard since October of last year is carbon tax and carbon tax and carbon tax. The Conservative government at the provincial level wants the people of Ontario to think that they’re fighting for them, but do you know what they’re doing, Speaker? They are petitioning us to write a really stern letter to the federal government. That’s the authority we have at this level. This is a strawman argument. We’re going to get a fancy ostrich-feathered pen, and we’re going to write a letter, or maybe we’ll do a fancy font or something.

This sounds like you’re fighting for affordability for people, but you’re not. The things you could do for people that are not performative, that are not writing a stern letter, where you can have people make at least minimum wage and not get ripped off by their employer while you can go after wage theft—that you ignore. But everything else, it’s just fluster.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Further questions?

MPP Jamie West: It’s hard to answer in just a minute, but one thing we can do very quickly is we can limit the number of private nursing staff agencies. There is a need for them in certain circumstances, but in this instance, where we can afford to pay these private nursing staff agencies, the sky is the limit and there are members of the Conservative Party who have ties to these private staffing agencies, this is a conflict of interest but it’s also not a good use of our public dollars.

If we can hire workers making a decent wage, we should pay them the decent wage. We shouldn’t pay an agency an extra $1,500 on top of that to provide the services. That would be better for us. That would bring our taxes down. That would be more affordable for hospitals and health care.

We could build affordable housing and define what it means and not pretend it is affordable and say things like “attainable.” The newest iPhone is attainable but not affordable to everybody.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Further questions?

Mr. Rick Byers: I thank the member for his comments. He touched on a number of different subjects, and I heard him say that it has never been this bad before. I certainly understand why folks might think that because we haven’t had this type of price pressure and inflation for a long, long time. But you can tell from the colour of my hair, I’ve been around and seen it before. In the 1980s, inflation was in the teens, interest rates were 19%, 20%. My first mortgage was 10.5% and I thought I had won the lottery. These periods of price pressure happen.

My question to the member is—he is from a northern area; I’m from a rural area. The carbon tax: If you live in the GTA, you’ve got a choice. You’ve got transit you can take, or not drive. That makes sense. But in rural and northern areas, we’ve got no choice. Our farmers have no choice. They’ve got to drive their vehicle and drive their crops. Parents taking their kids to school have got no choice, they’ve got to drive. So doesn’t the member agree that this bill will support families by keeping costs down?

MPP Jamie West: Two things very quickly: This carbon tax is a provincial carbon tax. The Conservative government brought this in. Basically, when it was brought through by the federal Liberals, if you didn’t sign up for your own at a provincial level, the money went federally and got back to you. So the Conservative governments owns this tax. It’s theirs.

The other thing is, all this bill does is say, if you’re going to bring something in, there’s going to be a referendum. It is sabre-rattling. It doesn’t amount to anything. It is just pretending you are doing something. We can stop talking about this, this thing that we don’t have direct control over, and we can help people put money in their pockets by doing simple things like removing the digital workers’ rights protection act so people can make minimum wage per hour and not less than minimum wage. That’s what we need to focus on: putting money in people’s pockets in a substantial way and not colouring around the edges.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Further questions?

Mr. Joel Harden: I want to thank my friend from Sudbury for those remarks. As I ask the member a question, I just want to acknowledge that the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario are in the building today. I see Doris Grinspun there; I see other friends I had the privilege to have breakfast with this morning. Thank you for being here. You are inspiring me to ask my friend about what this this bill could do.

This bill we have in front of us could be called the “retread act” because we’ve spent 72 hours in this place debating legislation which later gets withdrawn while our hospitals are suffering, while our practices are suffering. Unfortunately, we had at lot of great proposals for primary care that came out of Ottawa. We’ve had one funded for a terrific bunch of nurse practitioners, Hoda and Joanna and that team. But we have 150,000 people in our city, in our larger Ottawa region, without access to primary care, Speaker, and there is absolutely nothing in the “retread act” to help those folks. There’s gimmicks and bobbles.

So I’m wondering if the member from Sudbury has the same experience. Should we have action on primary care instead of hot air on retread?

MPP Jamie West: We absolutely should. Look, I mentioned it earlier—I don’t know if the nurses were here when I talked about it—but the quickest thing we can do is get rid of these private staffing agencies, or at least reduce the use so that they’re only used in situations where they used to be used. We have to show respect to the nursing agency that’s there.

Bill 124, for 53 months, punished nurses—for 53 months. The Conservative government didn’t have the dignity to do a press conference when they repealed it after losing a court challenge and losing an appeal.

Hon. Stan Cho: Point of order.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): I apologize to the member from Sudbury.

I recognize the Minister of Long-Term Care.

Hon. Stan Cho: It’s great to have the RNAO here. I look forward to chatting with them later. But despite the pandering of the opposition there, it has absolutely nothing to do with the bill at hand.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): I will go back to the member from Sudbury for a response.

MPP Jamie West: We call that speaking truth to power, Speaker.

Look, the reality is that Bill 124 was harmful to the health care industry. People are exiting in rapid numbers. If they did the press conference, maybe nurses would know that it’s been repealed and those workers would stop exiting the province, knowing that we’re going to finally pay them what they’re worth.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Further questions?

Mr. Ric Bresee: Thank you to the member from Sudbury for his comments today.

We all know that this House and the comments made in this House are often replete with some rhetoric and intentions. Sometimes, as the previous question just indicated, they go off in a direction of what could be, should be, possibly might be in some future bill, certainly.

But I want to give the member an opportunity to correct something. At the beginning of his speech, he said that he was arguing in favour of supporting the wildfire forest firefighters getting defined. He said that this government was silent on it, but if I may read directly from Hansard, Speaker. His seatmate asked the question, “With wildfire season anticipated to start early this year, will the government finally do the right thing and classify forest rangers as firefighters?” That was the question from your own member. The answer from Minister Piccini was, “A short answer to the member opposite: Yes.” So I guess this government isn’t silent on these matters.

MPP Jamie West: I heard it that day, and I am very hopeful the minister is going to do something. Why aren’t we debating that bill today? Why are we debating this fluff-of-nothing bill, this nothing burger bill, when what we could be debating right now is providing occupational health and safety hazard, WSIB compensation to these workers, PPE for these workers? Why are we dragging this down?

Why are we spending 72 hours in this place walking back your garbage bills when we could be helping workers in the workplaces of Ontario who are fighting forest fires in northern Ontario with a hanky across their mouth while you twiddle your thumbs and pretend you’re doing something? The Minister of Labour said yes, but then sat on his hands.

I can’t wait for the standing ovation because I love watching you guys give a standing ovation while sitting on your hands.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Well, that was a lively little debate.

It is now time for members’ statements.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Sports and recreation infrastructure funding

Mr. John Jordan: This government recently announced capital funding to non-profit organizations across the province to ensure communities have safe and ready access to vital programming, activities and spaces.

My thanks to Minister Lumsden and the work the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport does along with the Ontario Trillium Foundation to support and improve infrastructure—everything from purchasing equipment and building new spaces to retrofits or repairs.

Speaker, a total of 12 organizations in my riding of Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston received funding—organizations like YAK Youth Services in Perth. With their funding, they’re upgrading their kitchen facilities, so they can continue to make healthy meals and snacks and provide a safe and supportive place for youth.

The Carleton Place Curling Club will use its grant to purchase and install a new chiller to allow the club to remain operational for recreation, gatherings and emergencies.

The Montague and District Seniors Forget-Me-Not Club will use its funding to make infrastructure improvements to the only space in the community for seniors’ programs and events.

Earlier this year, I had the honour of meeting with councillors and community volunteers at the new covered outdoor rink in Sharbot Lake.

Speaker, this government will continue to help build healthy and vibrant communities throughout Ontario by strengthening the impact of the province’s non-profit sector and supporting social determinants of health. Congratulations to all organizations in my riding that received funding and thank you for all your contributions to the people in your community.

Black History Month

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Speaker, on this last day of February, I want to congratulate the London Black History Month coordinating committee for a fantastic lineup of events.

There was the wonderful and moving opening gala at Museum London, where a new On the Spot app was launched chronicling the history of Black communities in the London area since the early 1820s.

There was the third annual Essence and Culture Awards, an inspiring celebration of Black excellence and a showcase for the extraordinary talents of Black Londoners. Kudos to Colin Caleb and Michelle Brissette, and all the ECA board members, for a phenomenal evening.

There was the premiere of a new documentary about the Fugitive Slave Chapel, built in 1848 as a place of worship for former slaves who fled to Canada on the Underground Railroad, which was restored and relocated last summer to Fanshawe Pioneer Village.

There was the thrilling performance of Freedom: The Spirit and Legacy of Black Music with London Symphonia at the magnificent Metropolitan United Church. The show was created for the Stratford Festival by the multi-talented Beau Dixon, a graduate of London South Collegiate Institute in London West.

February also saw the Fugitive Slave Chapel and the Metropolitan United Church performance space recognized by the Lieutenant Governor, with two of just four provincial and highly prestigious Excellence in Conservation awards.

Many thanks to all the London Black History Month coordinating committee volunteers for such amazing opportunities to learn, engage and be inspired.

Black History Month

Mr. David Smith: I rise to acknowledge that, throughout the month of February, Ontarians celebrate Black History Month for the many great accomplishments and contributions of people of African descent to Ontario’s economy and safety in the areas of research and development, medicine, business, education, sports, festivals, politics and much more.

We celebrated these accomplishments through our ancestral ways of libation, singing, dancing, drumming, poetry and merriment together only last Tuesday at Queen’s Park, with many in attendance, from our Premier, Doug Ford, to our stakeholders, constituents, members of the Legislative Assembly, legislative staff and many community members, including staff and volunteers. I thank you all for supporting the event with your presence, efforts and speeches to make the event a resounding success.

I would like to use this opportunity to thank our sponsors: Mr. Chris Campbell of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America; Mr. Ivan Dawns of the international union of painters; Mr. Roodney Clarke of the plumbers and pipefitters union; Ms. Danielle Cantave of Ubuntu Arts; Mr. Chef TEE of Greelz; and Mrs. Julia Bebiem of Grandieu Events and Management.

I’d like to thank all—

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

The next statement.

MedsCheck Program

Ms. Sandy Shaw: While our federal New Democrat counterparts won pharmacare for Canadians, ensuring access to medication for those who need it, this provincial government is instead allowing huge corporations like Galen Weston and Loblaws to siphon money from our public health care for private profit.

Yesterday, we learned through investigative reporting that Shoppers Drug Mart is pressuring staff to bill for unnecessary and unprompted medication reviews. Here’s an example: A woman received a random call from her pharmacy at Shoppers to check if she was still using her inhalers for asthma. She said yes and the call ended in under five minutes. She later learned that Shoppers billed Ontario MedsCheck for that unsolicited call.

Ontario MedsCheck—or medication reviews—when done correctly, is a great service. But Shoppers isn’t doing it correctly. It seems that they are doing it not for the patient, but for profit.

It gets even worse: Each MedsCheck creates more administrative work on a frustrated and shrinking group of physicians who have to sign off on every record of a MedsCheck call.

Like many of its other decisions, this government has a proven record of working for insiders and huge corporations like Walmart and Staples. Big surprise: The person this government appointed as the director of pandemic response worked as a lobbyist for Shoppers Drug Mart.

So maybe you’re one of the 2.3 million Ontarians who don’t have a family doc, or maybe you’re stuck waiting in an emergency room with minor medical issues because you can’t get a family doc. If that’s the case, remember where to direct your anger: this insider-first PC government.

Non-Profit Appreciation Week

Mrs. Daisy Wai: As we reflect on the significance of Non-Profit Appreciation Week, I’m honoured to witness the culmination of our collective efforts in celebrating the invaluable contributions of non-profit organizations across Ontario. Under Bill 9, the Non-Profit Sector Appreciation Week Act, we recognized their dedication from February 12 to 16, 2024. Throughout the week, alongside my esteemed colleagues, we had the privilege of presenting certificates of recognition to numerous deserving organizations.

Our local event on February 16, held in the city of Richmond Hill municipal offices, epitomized the spirit of gratitude and admiration. Joined by Minister Michael Parsa and Richmond Hill mayor David West, we honoured 31 non-profit organizations for their unwavering support and transformative impact on our community.

I also hosted a non-profit sector appreciation reception at Queen’s Park last night where we extended our heartfelt appreciation to non-profits across Ontario. Let us continue to champion the noble cause of uplifting our non-profit sector, not just during this designated week only, but every week. Together, let’s celebrate these unsung heroes enriching our society’s fabric.

Gun violence

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: Recently in my community, two innocent lives were targeted by senseless violence. A 16-year-old youth waiting for the bus to take him to a volleyball game was indiscriminately shot in the face. He suffered critical, life-altering injuries.

Nearby, on the very next day, Mr. Adu Boakye, a 39-year-old man, was shot multiple times and killed. Speaker, he came from Ghana just three months ago to build a better life here and support his family back home. Now he’s gone, leaving behind a grieving wife and four children. Two completely innocent lives targeted, and for what? For nothing—absolutely nothing.

These senseless acts destroy lives and families but also rob communities of their feelings of safety. The Ghanaian community held a vigil for them this past weekend, and our faith community and Toronto police led a prayer walk yesterday. They did it to bring community together, to comfort one another, to mourn. They did it to begin restoring feelings of safety and to build hope for the future, and I thank them deeply.

Collectively, we must all do more to stop this senseless violence. We must get these guns off the street and stop them at our borders. We must continue to strengthen and build the relationship between communities and our police who are here to serve and protect us. We must support victims of crime. And we must invest more to find out and intervene when a person begins to gather that darkness within themselves to cause such terrible harm. We must find them and change the course of their lives before they lose their humanity and take the lives of others.

Speaker, there is hope and there are solutions, and it is our obligation, our moral imperative, to deliver them.

Government investments

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: Our government for the people is getting it done for the people of Ontario by keeping costs down, growing the economy and making it easier to build infrastructure for growing communities, like mine in Niagara West.

Last week, our government introduced the Get It Done Act. And our government is getting it done for Niagara.

Right now, work is under way at the new South Niagara Hospital, the largest public infrastructure project in Niagara’s history, as well as the new West Lincoln Memorial Hospital in Grimsby. These are two critical health care projects for Niagara. Our government said, “Let’s get it done.”

We’re expanding rural broadband in 30 local communities across Niagara West. Fibre optic cable is already in the ground. We said, “Let’s get it done.”

Our government is investing over $2 million to connect 7,600 more people in Niagara to primary care. People across the region said, “We need family doctors.” This government said, “Let’s get it done.”

Our government is expanding GO train service to Niagara. Last year, we added more round trips per week. Commuters are looking for more trains. Our government said, “Let’s get it done.”

Our government is expanding the $1.2-billion Building Faster Fund to small municipalities, like rural communities in Niagara. When it comes to water, to roads and to bridges, this government is getting it done.

In January, I joined the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade to welcome $65 million in new investments for Niagara’s manufacturing sector in Smithville. We said that we need to become a manufacturing powerhouse. And once again, we’re getting it done.

Speaker, from building houses, hospitals, keeping costs down for families and businesses, or just keeping our word, this government is getting it done.

Norman Jewison

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Happy winter, everyone. I am beyond proud to speak today about a Canadian filmmaker extraordinaire, Norman Jewison, a man with strong roots in beautiful Beaches–East York.

On January 20, 2024, we lost Mr. Jewison at the age of 97—a long life worthy of grand celebration and thoughtful acknowledgment. He was known for directing films which examined social and political issues, all while making controversial or complicated subjects in easy reach to all audiences. He inspired us with standout films like Moonstruck, Fiddler on the Roof, The Cincinnati Kid and In the Heat of the Night, just to name a few.

I would like to think that the formative years spent in our beautiful Beaches neighbourhood contributed to his keen sense of curiosity and creativity, with Lake Ontario at his doorstep and the “small town in a big city” feel of Queen Street East. It was the landscape that he drew on to form his respect for human rights, hard work and humour.

He returned to Canada from the United States in 1978, settling in the Caledon area and establishing a farm that would produce prize-winning cattle.

The Canadian Film Centre in Toronto was founded by him and incorporated in 1986.

He is truly one of Ontario’s finest gems.

Look out for a number of local tributes to Norman Jewison, including some of his most beloved films screened at our community’s most beloved, 100-year-old Fox Theatre.

May his life and work be remembered forever.

Public transit

Ms. Laura Smith: This Monday marked the launch of One Fare—fully funded by our government, we’re keeping the costs down for public transit riders in Thornhill and GTA.

Now, riders will only pay once, and they can transfer for free between participating transit, including GO, TTC, YRT, MiWay, Brampton Transit and DRT. So we’re making life more affordable by putting money back into the pockets of transit riders, where it belongs. The One Fare program will save commuters an average of $1,600 each year.

Thornhill borders on the city of Toronto. Students attending U of T, TMU, York University are stuck with double fees daily, but that stops right now, because our government has made it easier than ever to access transit with this system. Also, with pay your way, riders can pay with Presto or with their credit cards or debit cards—no more rushing to reload the funds.

These programs will boost ridership by eight million per year, which means we’re taking cars off the road, decreasing traffic and pollution. Thanks to the Minister of Transportation and the Associate Minister of Transportation, people will benefit from this, especially our students and seniors.

When I announced it at the Promenade mall in Thornhill, it received a huge round of applause. Our government will never stop advocating to make life more affordable and convenient, building a great province to live and work in for generations to come.

Health care funding

Mr. Andrew Dowie: Last month, there was a transformative announcement that was delivered in Windsor and will phase out thousands of truly dreaded trips up the 401 to London—no offence to my colleagues across the aisle.

Thanks to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services, Essex, Kent and Lambton will receive $4.5 million in annual funding to increase our local pediatric health services. More children of our region will get the care that they need for the future, when they need it, and right at home in our own community.

This funding supports a new after-hours pediatric emergency diversion clinic at Met campus, together with increased support for children’s speech-language pathology, physiotherapy and occupational therapy rehabilitation services at the John McGivney Children’s Centre in Sandwich and the Connections early years centre in Walkerville. The Children’s Treatment Centre of Chatham-Kent and Pathways Health Centre for Children in Sarnia are also receiving new support for their services.

In contrast to the past, this government goes beyond the talk and continues to choose to invest. The regional acute care hospital at County Road 42, the repatriation of nurses working in Detroit, support for in vitro fertilization for the first time, new nursing schools based at the University of Windsor, new MRIs, the cardiac catheterization lab and nuclear accelerator at the Windsor Regional Hospital have been taken off the shelf and delivered, now that the years of inaction are over.

House sittings

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

schedule of the House is required, and therefore, the House shall commence at 9 a.m. on Monday, March 4, 2024, for the proceeding of orders of the day.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: Tomorrow, March 1, marks Professional Engineers Day. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and congratulate all professional engineers of Ontario and thank them for their efforts. You are building Ontario for all of us.

Ms. Marit Stiles: I’m so pleased to welcome today in the gallery the RNAO and their members. It is wonderful to have them here for their advocacy day. I want to particularly welcome Lhamo Dolkar, president-elect of RNAO, Doris Grinspun, executive director, Rachel Elliott, Michelle Heyer, Sonia Chin, Debra Lefebvre, Katie Hurst, Daria Juüdi-Hope, Shelley Evans, John Edwards, Paul-André Gauthier, Lisa Herlehy, Mackenzie Thiessen, Rob Samulack, Ashley Robinson, Ingrid Daley and also joining them, of course, former member of Parliament for Beaches–East York Matthew Kellway. Welcome to your House.

Mr. John Fraser: I would like to introduce members from the RNAO Ottawa region, who specifically asked me to use first names for the sake of brevity, so here we go: Una, Laura, Genevieve, Monique, Jenna, Laura, Ellen, Jennifer and Lisa, and their honorary member Mahoganie. Welcome to your House.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I’d like to thank the member for Ottawa South for introducing me to the House—Lisa was on your list. I’m here.

Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce a great friend to many people in the chamber, including yourself and of course the table, Jeffrey Kroeker, who was a former staff member of ours in many different Parliaments. He’s sitting up in the gallery. And I’d like to welcome him back to the chamber and thank him for all his hard work while he worked here.

Mr. Joel Harden: The member for Ottawa South beat me to the punch of the full Ottawa list of RNAO folks so I’m just going to emphasize one guest, and that is Laura Crich. Laura, thank you so much for leading the RNAO in our city. I would be remiss if I didn’t also acknowledge and welcome Hoda and Joanna, who have won a nurse practitioner clinic in Ottawa thanks to your hard work, Laura.

Thanks to all the nurses in this building. We need a lot more of them.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I, too, would like to welcome members from RNAO who are here today, especially Doris Grinspun, CEO; president, Claudette Holloway; and those whom I had breakfast with this morning: Carol Maxwell, Margaret Boyle, Kathleen Pikaart and of course incoming president-elect, Lhamo Dolkar. Welcome to Queen’s Park and thank you for your good work.

Mr. Andrew Dowie: Representing the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario from Windsor-Essex, we have Kathy Moreland, Hali Sitarz, Rose Plantus and Keirsten Smith. Sincere thanks for visiting this morning and welcome to Queen’s Park.

Miss Monique Taylor: I would also like to welcome the nurses from RNAO and a special welcome to our Hamilton nurse, Ashley Fry-O’Rourke. Welcome to your House.

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: I’m very pleased to welcome Loris Aro from Don Valley West, a nurse at Bayshore HealthCare who is very committed to treating those with opioid addiction. Thank you, Loris, for being here.

Also, thanks to those I had breakfast with this morning: Jessica, Reza and Chi Chi, who is a nursing student and a refugee from Nigeria. It’s a very moving story, so thank you. I encourage her in her studies.

I’m also pleased to welcome Rhea Katyal and Sebastian Cirlan from my riding who are participating in Model Parliament; Yanick Proulx from Sudbury; Nolan Welsh, who is here today as part of Model Parliament but also working in my constituency office and doing a great job; and lastly, Huda Muddei, who is a new staff member on my team. It’s her first day in the Legislature, so thank you, Huda.

Hon. Michael D. Ford: Good morning, colleagues. It is my pleasure to welcome to the Legislature this morning Sofia Avdoulos from my riding of York South–Weston. Have a great day at Queen’s Park.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I am very pleased to welcome my constituent from London West Janet Hunt, who is the president of the RNAO Middlesex-London

chapter and has been educating me and advocating with me since I was first elected in 2013.

I also want to welcome Mackenzie Thiessen and Ryan Chan from RNAO Middlesex-London and—for the great conversation we had this morning at breakfast.

Mr. Aris Babikian: It is my great pleasure to welcome our page captain of the day Winifred Lin’s parents from Scarborough–Agincourt to this great place: mother Duan Sharon Rong He and father Zhou Jordy Di Lin. Welcome.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): If there are no objections, I’d like to continue.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: I, too, would like to welcome our former MP for Beaches–East York, the marvellous Matthew Kellway. We worked well together on environmental issues. I’m glad you’re here.

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: It gives me great pleasure to welcome immediate past president of RNAO and a constituent of mine, Morgan Hoffarth. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Natalia Kusendova-Bashta: Of course, as an RNAO member myself, I’m so pleased to welcome so many of my friends and colleagues to the House today: Doris Grinspun, Claudette Holloway, Lhamo Dolkar, Poonam Sharma, Paula Manuel. Thank you for your advocacy. Thank you for speaking out for nursing and speaking out for health.

M me France Gélinas: Il y a des membres de l’Association des infirmières et infirmiers de l’Ontario : M. Paul-André Gauthier et Neil Stephen.

I also want to say a great thank you to their president, Dr. Claudette Holloway, and Dot Klein as well as Kayla Guse, who came from Sudbury to be here with us today. Welcome to the RNAO.

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: I would like to take the opportunity to welcome my friend and a media icon, Egyptian radio host Montaser Montaser, in the gallery. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: As I look around the room, we see many familiar faces, but I definitely see Kathleen Pikaart. I wanted to welcome her, a registered nurse from my community and on the board of directors for RNAO.

And welcome to any of our neighbours that I can’t see from here.

Hon. Graydon Smith: Speaker, thanks for helping me get my squats in today. My Apple Watch has never been happier.

I’m blessed to have many friends in life, and for 40 years, Debra Walker has been one of them, joining us today in the gallery. I’m so thrilled to have her here.

MPP Jill Andrew: Good morning. I would like to welcome Drs. Doris Grinspun and Claudette Holloway to Queen’s Park. Thank you so much for your outstanding leadership.

To all of the RNAO nurses, nurse practitioners, nursing students in the House, thank you very, very much for your hard work.

It was also great to see Sharla from the Sickle Cell Awareness Group of Ontario. I’m going to see you guys again next week.

I’d also like to thank Mason Rosen, Nolan Welsh and Allison Burns, who are students who participated in our Ontario Model Parliament program, for their incredible work. May they have a seat in one of these seats one day.

Hon. Michael Parsa: Speaker, I want to welcome my friend Phiona Durrant, from the Aurora Black Community Association; her son Jayden; and board member Bobbie Marshall. Welcome to Queen’s Park. Thank you so much for everything you do in our community, especially the last 28 days. Thank you so much, Phiona.

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: I, too, would like to give a very warm welcome to staff members and students who are part of the RNAO who are here today.

A special shout-out to members who live or work in Parkdale–High Park: Sharla Adams, Anlan Yao, Alicia Saunders, Susan McNeil.

I also want to say congratulations and a very warm welcome to president-elect Lhamo Dolkar.

Hon. Nina Tangri: I want to welcome, from my riding, Ashrita Samantula, who is participating in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario’s Model Parliament. I want to welcome her to Queen’s Park.

And I do want to give a shout-out to RNAO. As a board director at Credit Valley Hospital, I spent six years on the front lines, working with them, seeing the great work they do. I had that great privilege, and I want to thank all of you for being here today.

Ms. Laura Smith: It is my very great honour to welcome Steven Street, the executive director of WoodWorks Ontario. Welcome to your House.

Hon. Stan Cho: On behalf of the Minister of Health—there were a few adjectives missed: dedicated, hard-working, tireless—I would love to welcome the executive director of the RNAO, Doris Grinspun, and her colleagues to the Legislature.

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: It gives me great pleasure to welcome two students from the Model Parliament program and residents of London North Centre, Danielle Munang and Noah Debicki. It was great meeting you yesterday. I hope you have a great day.

Ms. Christine Hogarth: I just want to welcome my riding executive to the House today: my sister Mary Hogarth, Kathleen Gough, Tim Dobson, Gregory Wowchuk, Simon Nyilassy, Gary Stones, Oleg Zakala and a former employee, Joseph Corazza. They’re all here for lunch today. Welcome to the Legislative Assembly.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I just want to introduce Alexander Zan. He’s a student from Waterloo region. He’s participating in the Model Parliament. Welcome to your House.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): That concludes our introduction of visitors for this morning.

I want to thank the members for their indulgence and ask that next week we try to be as brief as possible with our introduction of visitors.

It is now time for oral questions.

Question Period

Justice system

Ms. Marit Stiles: This question is for the Premier. Yesterday, while defending his latest plan to stack the judicial appointments committee with insiders and lobbyists, the Premier launched into a tirade about the state of crime in the province. He said, “They’re kicking in doors in the middle of the night, putting guns to people’s heads....”

Given the Premier’s concern about the risk of handguns in violent crime, why did he give a lobbyist for an American handgun manufacturer the power to choose Ontario’s next judges?

Interjections.

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

To respond, the Attorney General.

Hon. Doug Downey: I can understand the confusion that the Leader of the Opposition has in terms of how the system works. But, Mr. Speaker, the committee makes recommendations based on those who apply, and I don’t know what else they would have us do, except have people go through and do the interview. Would they prefer the federal system, Mr. Speaker? Would they prefer other systems?

This is a good system. There are good people, smart people, people who are looking for individuals that understand victims’ issues, individuals that understand cultural perspectives, individuals that understand community service. They are vetting candidates for consideration. But the choice is the government’s to make at the end of the day, and so I look forward to an alternate model from the member of the opposition.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Supplementary?

Ms. Marit Stiles: There’s no confusion here. This government changed the law so they could appoint more lobbyists and conservative insiders on the committee and it is not going to solve this problem.

Speaker, the tough-on-crime so-called bluster here in the House is not going to change the fact that it’s this government’s failures that have left people without access to justice. Victims of crime are seeing their assailants walk free not because of an insufficiently conservative judge, but because of delays that are the direct result of this Premier’s mishandling and underfunding of our court system.

So, back to the Premier, Speaker: How will appointing a handgun lobbyist to the judicial appointments committee help reduce gun crime?

Interjections.

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

The Attorney General.

Hon. Doug Downey: So what the NDP would have us do, if they were being open to what they are really saying, is defund the police so there is not an accused to be brought before the court, regardless of which judiciary was there, Mr. Speaker. They have an entirely different world view on how this should work. They don’t think that the accused should be held to account. They don’t think that they should even interact with the police. They think they should have social workers in place of police across the board.

That just happens to not be our view. We want our communities safe. We want the bad guys to have a sentence that is appropriate for the crime that they make. They didn’t even support us on reverse onus on bail, for which our Premier drove across this country, and the federal government eventually passed.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: I’m not going to take lessons about being tough on crime from a government that is under active investigation by the RCMP.

Speaker, not only are these new patronage appointments former Conservative staffers who lobby their former employers for a living, but one of them registered to lobby after they were appointed to the committee that selects judges. Judges are not meant to be like-minded with any political party and they are not meant to be appointed in the interests of private companies seeking to do business with the government. They are meant to serve the people.

So, Speaker, yes or no—back to the Premier—will these insiders continue to lobby for handgun manufacturers while they are appointing our judges?

Interjections.

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

The Attorney General.

Hon. Doug Downey: Mr. Speaker, I didn’t actually talk about some of this stuff until they got fully on their high horse. In 2017, right before the election, the Liberals appointed 47 judges—47 judges—and I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, it appears, from a very quick look through the public database, that 40% of them were donors to that party and not one was a donor to a Conservative or a Green Party member. So I’ll take no lessons from them on the sanctity and how the system should work.

Pharmacare

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, the federal government has announced they’re finally going to start the process of establishing a national pharmacare program here in Canada. This will bring much-needed relief to people who are living with chronic illnesses, to seniors, to all people living with disabilities, and it’s something New Democrats at all levels have worked on for many, many years. But much depends on the provincial government to make universal pharmacare a reality, and so far, the Minister of Health has refused to commit to the deal.

So my question is to the Premier: Will you commit to ensuring that all Ontarians have access to essential medication and devices through single-payer coverage?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health, the member for Eglinton–Lawrence.

Mrs. Robin Martin: I thank the member opposite for the question.

Our government prefers to wait to see what the federal government is going to propose by way of a pharmacare program before we say what our position will be on that. We’re looking forward to receiving a clear description of what they are going to be proceeding with.

In the meantime, this government is making it more convenient for people to connect to care closer to home by launching pharmacists prescribing for some of our most common ailments, and that has been so successful. Local pharmacies have become a one-stop shop to get prescriptions for 19 of the most common ailments. This service makes it more convenient for people to access care, eliminating the need to go to doctors or emergency rooms, at no extra cost to Ontarians. Stopping by your local pharmacy is very convenient and, so far, 700,000 Ontarians have been able to do that at pharmacies, 94% of which are participating.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, Ontarians can’t afford this government’s wait-and-see approach.

It’s pretty straightforward. Universal health care must include pharmacare. That was always the intention, since it was first introduced by Tommy Douglas.

We have talked about this many times in this room before—and I will remind everyone, the room is full of nurses here today. I was talking with them this morning about what a game-changer this universal pharmacare program is going to be for their patients. People should not have to choose between medication and food or transportation. Now, thanks to the NDP, Canadians who are struggling with the cost of prescriptions can finally breathe a sigh of relief.

Back to the Premier: Will you commit today to ensure that Ontarians will have access to publicly funded contraceptives and supplies to manage diabetes?

Interjections.

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

Member for Eglinton–Lawrence.

Mrs. Robin Martin: Thank you again to the member opposite. In the space of her statement then question there, the Leader of the Opposition said both that it was a universal pharmacare program and that it was just going to cover diabetes and contraceptives. This highlights the issue which—we don’t know exactly what it is we’re being asked to agree to. When we have all the details and information, we’re certainly happy to look at that, and we’re certainly looking forward to seeing what the federal government proposes.

Obviously, we want to make sure that our Ontario residents have access to all the services they need here in Ontario, and that’s why we’re bringing care closer to home in so many ways.

The pharmacists, like I mentioned, are doing prescribing and treating minor ailments, and 700,000 Ontarians have been able the take advantage of that already.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: The truth is, instead of getting to work on expanding prescription coverage and bringing in a universal public health care system, this government is moving to sell off our public health care piece by piece by piece. Big corporations are seizing the opportunity to turn a profit—exactly what we were warning of.

This week, we learned that employees at Shoppers Drug Mart were being pushed to bill for consultations that patients do not need. That company can then bill the province up to $75 per call. That’s double what family doctors can bill for patient visits.

Speaker, I want to know what this Premier is doing to protect patients from this outrageous and unnecessary overbilling.

Interjections.

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

Again, the member for Eglinton–Lawrence.

Mrs. Robin Martin: Your Health: A Plan for Connected and Convenient Care puts people at its heart by adding and expanding health care services closer to home.

MedsCheck started under the previous government, and just this morning, the member from Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas, in her members’ statement, said that it was a great service. It’s a one-to-one consultation between pharmacists and eligible patients to help comply with their prescription medications and explore how medications interact with each other.

But what is really important, as I said earlier, is the expanded role for pharmacists that they are now playing in our health care system, which has expanded. Local pharmacies have become one-stop shops for people to be able to get their prescriptions filled for 19 of the most common ailments, such as yeast infections, pink eye, acne and urinary tract infections, and that just requires a health card. The pharmacists have now assessed over 700,000 patients with common ailments. Those patients don’t have to go to primary care doctors and don’t have to go to emergency rooms.

This is a great innovation for our health care system. We’re going to keep working with pharmacists.

Health care funding

Ms. Marit Stiles: This government is allowing big corporations to overbill, and it’s the people of Ontario who are going to pay the price, obviously.

Speaker, 10,000 people in the Perth area are at risk of losing their family doctors and nurse practitioners, because this government arbitrarily decided not to fund one of their local clinics. There are only 10 doctors, and this government rejected their application for team-based care. Each of those 10 doctors wrote letters to the province asking them to reconsider the application to keep their doors open. If they don’t get the funding support, they expect to close within three years.

My question is for the Minister of Health: Are you going to fund the Tay River Health Centre in Perth?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Eglinton–Lawrence.

Mrs. Robin Martin: Through our recent historic investment of $110 million into 78 new and expanded primary care teams, our government is connecting 328,000 more Ontarians to an interprofessional primary care team, including $4 million in investments to the Kingston Periwinkle model, for example. That will connect over 10,000 people in that region to the primary care they need. The new and expanded teams include family health teams, nurse practitioner-led clinics, community health centres and Indigenous primary care health care organizations, and will add over 400 new primary care providers.

While the Liberals and the NDP cut residency school spots and limited the number of physicians practising in interdisciplinary teams, our government has added over 10,400 physicians since 2018, and our plan has invested nearly a billion dollars annually into interdisciplinary primary care teams.

In addition to these historic investments, we’ve expanded medical school spots. We’re breaking down barriers for—

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

Supplementary question?

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, the government is spending millions and millions of dollars on ads to try to spin that kind of thing, and do you know what? People in Ontario are not buying it. They’re not buying it, because they know what’s happening in their communities.

Perth is just one of the many communities that is being left behind by this government. Some 10,000 people in Sault Ste. Marie are losing their family doctors in May and another 6,000 patients there are on the brink. I will remind the government that last week, I brought in retirees from Sault Ste. Marie, patients who are going to lose that care. In total, the number of patients who are losing access to primary care in Sault Ste. Marie represents more than a quarter of the population of that city. That is shameful.

Speaker, when will the Premier finally invest in the health care that people need in rural and northern Ontario instead of just serving them up his vanity ads?

Interjections.

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

The member for Eglinton–Lawrence.

Mrs. Robin Martin: Our government has made this historic investment into interprofessional primary care teams. Our expansion, plus our education programs that I was mentioning, means Ontario is forecasting that 98% of Ontarians will have regular primary care over the next several years, but 90% already have regular primary care. The investment we made triples the $30 billion we earmarked just a year ago to expand interprofessional primary care teams, and we’re funding over four times as many initiatives as outlined in our Your Health plan a year ago.

Ontario is the first province to have a publicly funded a nurse practitioner-led clinic program, which I know the RNAO would support. And this is in addition to the new Practice Ready Ontario program that’s adding 50 new physicians this year. This government is making the investments that the other parties in this Legislature never made. We’re going to make sure primary care is there.

Taxation

Mr. Will Bouma: My question is for the Minister of Indigenous Affairs and Northern Development. The carbon tax is making everything more expensive for everyone in this province, especially in northern and Indigenous communities.

The cost of transporting goods in northern Ontario is already much higher than in any other part of the province. Individuals in these communities often travel by car and in many cases larger vehicles for safety due to the many back roads and weather conditions, but the federal government is ignoring these concerns.

We know that the people of northern Ontario deserve better. Can the minister please explain more about the negative impact that the federal carbon tax is having on the quality of life for the people in northern Ontario?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply, the parliamentary assistant and member for Thunder Bay–Atikokan.

Mr. Kevin Holland: Thank you to the member from Brantford–Brant for that question. The member from Kiiwetinoong often discusses the price difference in groceries between more populated communities in the north such as Sioux Lookout and the price of groceries in Sandy Lake First Nation. He notes that the price of chicken is often six times higher in Sandy Lake than it is in Sioux Lookout.

A 2022 report from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada concluded that Indigenous groups are disproportionately burdened by carbon pricing. This is before you factor in the harsh impacts of inflation that are disproportionally felt in remote communities and only being made worse by the carbon tax.

We know that the carbon tax is affecting the price of groceries and the supply chain. We continue to call on the members of the Liberals and NDP to support our government’s call to axe the carbon tax once and for all, for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Will Bouma: Thank you to the parliamentary assistant for that response. Unlike other parts of the province, the north faces unique barriers regarding fuel costs that need to be understood and respected, but it’s clear that neither the federal government nor the NDP or the Liberals care about the dire economic impact the carbon tax has on individuals and families in northern Ontario.

Our government recognizes that this regressive and punitive tax is negatively affecting people in these communities as they are hit hardest at the gas pumps and at the grocery stores. That’s why we will continue to support them and call on the federal government to eliminate the costly carbon tax.

Speaker, can the parliamentary assistant elaborate on the detrimental effects that the carbon tax is having on the people, communities and businesses in the north?

Mr. Kevin Holland: The member from Orléans often talks about how if everyone just got a heat pump and used electricity to power their homes, they would be better off.

Is the member from Orléans and the Liberal Party not aware that the dozens of remote and isolated communities rely on diesel fuel and that heat pumps will not work in communities in northern Ontario as temperatures exceed minus 20?

Our government is hard at work to get Indigenous communities off of diesel and onto our clean provincial power grid, but in the meantime, northerners and Indigenous communities are forced to pay more to heat their homes and gas up their vehicles because of the burdensome Trudeau carbon tax.

Members in my riding have routinely called me to say that it’s an additional $450 just in carbon tax to heat their homes. We continue to call on the members opposite to support us in calling on the federal government to axe the carbon tax to make life more affordable for northerners and First Nations people so that we don’t need to choose between heating and eating.

Prescription drugs

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is for the Minister of Health. My constituent Kirsten has experienced great challenges accessing take-home cancer drugs. Kirsten was weeks away from losing access to life-saving medication all because Ontario does not automatically cover the cost of take-home cancer drugs. While on medication to help prevent a recurrence of breast cancer, Kirsten lost her job due to downsizing. Along with her income, she lost benefits. She was shocked to learn that Ontario does not automatically cover take-home cancer drugs. This is a long-standing broken promise of this government.

To quote Kirsten: “To know that there’s this treatment that was so important to be on and the stress of not being able to potentially have it is near debilitating.”

Speaker, can the Minister of Health tell Kirsten when will Ontario cover the cost of take-home cancer drugs?

Interjections.

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

The member for Eglinton–Lawrence.

Mrs. Robin Martin: Cancer is a debilitating disease. A lot of us have personal experiences with it and so I do empathize with the patient. Our government will continue to work to ensure Ontarians have access to the care they need when they need it.

In Ontario, take-home cancer drugs are funded both by the New Drug Funding Program and the Ontario Drug Benefit Program. In 2022, our government spent over $1.7 billion on cancer drugs, 58% of which went toward take-home cancer drugs.

According to a recent report, while Ontario has the second-highest incidence rate of new cancer cases compared to other provinces and territories, we’re doing a good job on treating them because we have the third-lowest mortality rate for cancer in Canada, and that’s thanks to our great health care providers.

As part of budget 2022-23, an advisory table was struck with a mandate to explore improvements to access for take-home cancer drugs and we’ve already taken action, expanding the use of safe and effective biosimilar drugs while allowing our government to reinvest in new drug therapies to support more people receiving more accessible care.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question? The member for Nickel Belt.

M me France Gélinas: British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec—they all cover take-home cancer drugs, some of them for decades. But in Ontario, good people like Kirsten face administrative and emotional barriers on their already difficult health recovery journey from cancer.

In 2022, your government said it would look at covering take-home cancer drugs. Speaker, today, the Canadian Cancer Society is calling out this government.

Access to take-home cancer drugs saves lives. Ask any member of RNAO here today. Minister, how much longer are we going to have to wait until Ontario covers take-home cancer drugs?

Mrs. Robin Martin: Again, thank you to the member opposite for the question.

As I indicated in my answer, in 2022, for example, our government spent over $1.7 billion on cancer drugs, 58% of which went toward take-home cancer drugs. So we’re continuing to work with our stakeholders and partners on further discussions and we’ll continue to look at that.

But our government is also making health care more accessible for everybody closer to home, and I know this is welcomed by cancer patients. For example, we funded 49 MRI operations in hospitals in small and rural communities, which is very much appreciated, so people can get a diagnosis easier.

We’re also funding community paramedicine. As I mentioned earlier, we have the pharmacist funding with 700,000 assessments in the pharmacies happening just this year alone. So we’re doing everything we can, in addition to our primary care expansion at $110 million, to make sure that care is closer to home for everyone.

Anti-racism activities

Ms. Patrice Barnes: My question is to the Minister of Citizenship and Multiculturalism. Throughout Black History Month, we celebrate the rich history and many contributions Canada’s Black community has made to our province from the very beginning. As we approach the end of Black History Month, we are reminded that just because February has come to an end, the work doesn’t stop.

That is why I’m proud to support this government’s implementation of mandatory Black history in grades 7, 8 and 10, as Black children and youth need to understand that Blacks are not newcomers but are part of the fabric of Canada as a nation since 1600. Yet, Speaker, Black youth in our province continue to face barriers that can impact their future and success.

Speaker, could the minister please tell this House what actions our government is taking to dismantle systemic barriers and empower the next generation of Black leaders with the necessary skills to succeed?

Hon. Michael D. Ford: I want to thank the member from Ajax for the question and, of course, all you do as an ally, advocate and leader for Ontario’s Black communities.

Speaker, I am proud to say that, earlier this month, my ministry announced a further investment of $16.5 million into the economic stream of the Black Youth Action Plan. While previous Liberal governments stood by with the NDP, it is our government that took real action by increasing the funding of BYAP to over 500% from 2018 to dismantle barriers, improve outcomes and empower Black children, young professionals and families.

That work does not stop when Black History Month does. Our government will continue to take action and make critical investments needed to ensure all Ontarians, no matter their race, religion or background, have all the tools and opportunities they need—

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

The supplementary?

Ms. Patrice Barnes: Thank you to the minister for that response. It is reassuring to hear, unlike the previous Liberal government, our government is beginning to take meaningful action and making critical investments to empower Black youth and young professionals across Ontario.

Speaker, community grassroots organizations play an important role in helping youth find meaningful employment, develop critical skills and unlock a brighter future for themselves and their communities. Black youth and communities are not looking for special treatment, but, due to historical barriers, need meaningful opportunities to succeed. Our government must remain focused on creating these opportunities where all Ontarians can achieve their dreams and reach their full potential.

Speaker, could the minister please share with this House some of the ways in which investments towards the Black community action plan are creating and driving success for the Black community?

Hon. Michael D. Ford: Again, I would like to thank the member for Ajax for such an important question. Throughout Black History Month I have had the pleasure to meet with many Black Youth Action Plan program participants and see first-hand how BYAP-supported programming is driving positive change in communities across our great province.

Since 2018, Mr. Speaker, our government has supported over 70 Black-led community organizations, which in turn has improved the outcomes of over 60,000 Black children, youth and families. Since launching our economic empowerment stream in 2020, we have helped over 5,000 Black youth and young professionals launch meaningful careers in high-demand sectors like STEM, health care and the skilled trades.

Mr. Speaker, while the Liberals supported by the NDP stood by, our government will continue building a stronger Ontario where all have the tools and opportunities to achieve their dreams and reach their full potential.

Health care

Mr. Wayne Gates: My question is to the Premier. A recent report by the Ontario Health Coalition noted that funding for private clinics in the province has increased by 200% in the last year and, for private hospitals, it has been increased by 300%. Meanwhile, we have operating rooms in public hospitals across Ontario that are not used because public hospitals don’t have the funding to recruit and retain staff or pay for the surgeries.

Speaker, why is the Premier choosing to cut public health care and give money to private, for-profit care?

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

Mrs. Robin Martin: You know, it took Ontario years of neglect by previous governments to get into this situation that we’re in now, but our government has been taking action and delivering results for Ontarians. Our government is very proud to have one of the largest publicly funded health care systems in the world, a system that we’re investing over $80 billion in this year alone. With our Your Health plan, we’re reducing wait times for surgeries and procedures across the province by connecting Ontarians to the care they need when they need it.

Just yesterday, there was an

article in the Ottawa Sun, February 28, with a patient, Deb Paterson, who had knee replacement surgery at the Riverside hospital last year. She said she had an excellent experience. Five months after being told that she would have to wait for a couple of years, she received a call asking if she wanted to have the surgery through this new program. She had surgery four months later, after being assured it was covered by OHIP. She summarized her review of the service with this: “This sure went well for me.”

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

Mr. Wayne Gates: I want to say to that member: Those same surgeries can be done in a publicly funded, publicly delivered hospital right here in the province of Ontario, with the very nurses that are here today.

We also know that private clinics are receiving more money per surgery from the government than our public hospitals receive. We know that private surgeries are more expensive than public ones. This government’s privatization scheme is making wait times longer, making the staffing crisis worse and costing taxpayers more, not less.

Why doesn’t the Premier drop the expensive, unfair, two-tier privatization attempt and instead properly fund publicly funded, publicly delivered health care in the province of Ontario and respect the nurses that are here today?

Mrs. Robin Martin: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. I just indicated why we’re doing this. The reason we’re doing this is to make sure we have more access to surgeries for patients.

I remember another story from the Thunder Bay–Superior North riding, where a man had his surgery done much quicker. What we’re doing is seeing that patients are getting back to their lives, to living a fulfilling life much more quickly because they have these surgeries much more quickly. There are countless stories of life-changing impacts across this province: 17,000 people have had cataract surgery already because of the clinics that we opened. They wouldn’t have had that surgery had we not opened those clinics.

We’re delivering for patients in Ontario so they get the care they need when they need it.

Justice system

M me Lucille Collard: This government continues to award contracts without a competitive bidding process, make legislation without a consultation process and has given away $8.3 billion in greenbelt land to their rich insiders without any evaluation process at all. All these examples are evidence of an extremely flawed decision-making process. What has been the result? Walk-back after walk-back and flip-flop after flip-flop. They have wasted years of precious time that should have been used to help Ontarians.

Now we’ve just learned that the Attorney General made the decision to appoint a former Conservative staffer and gun lobbyist to be chair of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee. Is appointing a gun lobbyist who will lobby against gun control what the Attorney General and the Premier meant by appointing like-minded candidates?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To respond, the Attorney General.

Hon. Doug Downey: I welcome the Liberals back into the discussion about how they ran their judicial appointments. Not only were their former chair and their former members multiple-year party donors, I can tell you, when I went back and looked—because I wasn’t looking through this lens as I was appointing judges, but I went back and looked. The Liberals join the NDP in their sanctimonious, high-horse rhetoric and, right before an election, they appointed 27 judges, in 2014.

Two years before or three years before, it was three people; then, in 2017, 47 more judges, 40% of whom were donors to that party and that party, and not one donor to this party or the Green Party. So I’ll take no lessons from them on how the system should work.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

The supplementary question?

M me Lucille Collard: As a lawyer and having worked with the courts, I’m very proud of the independence of our judiciary. I never thought I would have to defend the fundamental principles of our justice system against the attacks of our own Premier and the minister of justice. We know that even the perception of political interference can undermine public confidence in our justice system. So how can the Attorney General proudly say, over and over again, that he is only interested in appointing judges that are like-minded conservatives?

The Attorney General said in this House that he has an obligation to the public to make appointments in the interest of the public. Does the Attorney General believe that it is in the best interest of the public to bring American-style political appointments to our Ontario courts?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

The Attorney General.

Hon. Doug Downey: Mr. Speaker, let’s talk about the day that Dalton McGuinty stepped down. Do you know what happened that day? He filled two positions, associate chief justice positions—two of them—that very day. And guess what? Those positions weren’t open yet. They weren’t to be open for over six months in the future, and that night he announced he was stepping down.

I will take no lessons from these people on how the system should work. They abused the system. We are treating it with the respect that it deserves.

Transportation infrastructure

Mr. Graham McGregor: My question is for the transportation minister. He’s a fellow Brampton boy, so it won’t take me long to go knock on his door tomorrow if he gives me the runaround today.

Actually, Speaker, getting around Brampton takes a heck of a lot longer than it used to, thanks to 15 years of dithering, delays and neglect from the previous Liberal government. Now, we have a federal Liberal government that decided that the first provincial highway that they ever wanted to declare a federal impact assessment on just happens to be Brampton’s bypass highway, Highway 413.

I wish I was joking about this next part, Speaker, but could you believe that the federal Liberal environment minister, Steven Guilbeault, actually said that Canada should get out of the road-building business altogether? I wish I was joking. Can you believe that—a minister of the crown?

Speaker, could our transportation minister please highlight our government’s approach on whether or not the Ontario government should be in the business of building roads and highways?

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: Now, there’s a member that gets it, Mr. Speaker. There’s a member that listens to his community, that drives on the roads that those families are driving on every single day trying to get to and from work in the gridlock that has been created because the previous Liberal government refused to invest in roads and bridges and highways.

I’m equally shocked at the comments from the federal environment minister saying that he won’t build or invest in more bridges and highways. We’re seeing explosive growth in Ontario, a million people over the next two years, and the federal government doesn’t want to invest in infrastructure. That’s crazy. But thankfully, we’ve got good members, like the member for Brampton North, fighting for their residents, fighting for the people of this provin