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

April 16, 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-Apr-16 vol. A (PDF)

L146A - Tue 16 Apr 2024 / Mar 16 avr 2024

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 16 April 2024 Mardi 16 avril 2024

Orders of the Day

Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 pour réduire les formalités administratives afin de construire plus de logements

Members’ Statements

Native Horizons Treatment Centre

Wildlife protection

Government investments

National Volunteer Week

Member for Kitchener South–Hespeler

Energy policies

Migrant workers

Public transit

Camp Quality

Brampton Steelheads hockey team

Introduction of Visitors

Question Period

Pay equity

Pay equity / Équité salariale

Pay equity

Taxation

Child care

Taxation

Skilled trades / Pay equity

Water quality

Taxation

Home care

Hospital funding

Taxation

Child care

Taxation

Visitors

Notice of dissatisfaction

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on the Interior

Introduction of Bills

Right to Repair Consumer Electronic Products, Household Appliances, Wheelchairs, Motor Vehicles and Farming Heavy Equipment Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 sur le droit de réparer les produits électroniques, appareils ménagers, fauteuils roulants, véhicules automobiles et équipements agricoles lourds grand public

Petitions

Homelessness

Missing persons

Children’s mental health services

Social assistance

Adoption disclosure

Social assistance

Orders of the Day

Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 pour réduire les formalités administratives afin de construire plus de logements

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 pour réduire les formalités administratives afin de construire plus de logements

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 15, 2024, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 185,

An Act to amend various Acts / Projet de loi 185, Loi modifiant diverses lois.

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

Hon. Nina Tangri: It really is my pleasure to rise today to speak in strong support of our proposed Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024.

Small businesses are the lifeblood of Ontario’s economy. From family-run shops on main streets across the province to dynamic start-ups pioneering new technologies and business models, our small companies represent the very spirit of entrepreneurship that drives economic growth and job creation.

Ontario is home to almost 500,000 small businesses, accounting for over 97% of all businesses in this province. They employ well over two million hard-working people and contribute billions annually to our economic output. When small businesses succeed, our communities and our province succeeds. That is why with the Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024, that is before us today, our government is taking direct aim at the bureaucratic barriers, regulatory burdens and institutional inertia that too often holds small businesses back from reaching their full potential.

I want to be clear: This proposed legislation is not just about building more homes, although that is certainly our key priority. It’s about dismantling the regulatory obstacles that make it harder for small businesses across multiple sectors to compete, to innovate, to grow and create opportunities for workers.

Small residential construction companies, skilled trades contractors, and local builders and renovators will be some of the biggest beneficiaries of the measures in this act to streamline approvals and cut through the bureaucratic red tape that has constrained housing development for far too long.

Think about it: How many electricians, plumbers, drywallers, framers, roofers and other skilled tradespeople have been forced to turn down work or delay projects because of the painfully slow pace of approvals for new home construction? By removing these impediments and getting more housing projects unblocked, we’re creating more opportunities for these small businesses to thrive. The same dynamic holds true for the manufacturers of basic building components and materials like windows, doors, cabinets, roof trusses and prefab components.

When residential construction has been artificially suppressed, it limits demand for their offerings and makes it harder for them to invest, grow and hire more workers.

With this legislation, we are supporting innovative construction technologies and new business models that have been stifled by inflexibility, regulations and approval processes designed for a different era. Factory-built modular housing is a prime example. By enabling standardized designs and embracing modern methods like mass-timber construction, we can clear the way for small modular manufacturers to scale up production.

For small developers, builders and contractors focused on affordable housing, laneway homes, basement apartments and other forms of missing-middle housing, this act removes the unnecessary burden of minimum parking requirements that have made too many smart-density projects financially unfeasible. No longer will they face exorbitant costs just to provide parking spots that go unused in areas well served by transit. This small change brings even more customers to small businesses in these areas.

This legislation will also create new opportunities for small landlords and property managers by streamlining approvals for student housing projects near universities and colleges. With more affordable housing options clustered around campuses, a prime market opens up for small businesses in this space.

And let’s not forget the countless small retailers, restaurants, trades and professional service firms that have struggled to attract and retain talent because their employees can’t find reasonable, affordable places to live within a decent commuting radius.

A lack of housing supply isn’t just a social issue; it undermines businesses of all sizes in their ability to compete for workers. From residential construction and manufacturing to property management and local services, this act directly tackles the bureaucratic challenges that have constrained growth and opportunity in these sectors dominated by small business owners.

It goes further, because small businesses across Ontario have been loud and clear in their opposition to excessive red tape, duplicative regulations, unexpected fees and endless approval delays that make it harder for them to invest, grow and create jobs. We’ve heard from them. And we’re acting with this legislation.

We are eliminating nuisance fees that serve to only nickel and dime small entrepreneurs, like the ridiculous $6,300 daily fee for filming at the provincial Archives of Ontario. That’s the kind of arbitrary charge that makes it harder for new artists, filmmakers and creative professionals to chase their dreams and start small businesses.

We’re introducing service standards that will finally force the bureaucracy to be transparent about the timeliness of approving permits and licences that businesses so desperately need. No longer will small companies be left in limbo, waiting indefinitely for the government to get around to green-lighting their ability to get on with their business.

As a former small business owner myself, I know first-hand that regulatory predictability matters.

We’re cutting the red tape around relocating utilities and other infrastructure to get municipal construction projects under way faster, because every delay puts more financial strain on small contractors who have already priced their work.

We’re modernizing the approvals regime to provide more flexibility and options to innovative small businesses working in Ontario’s producer-responsibility recycling system.

Smart regulation works with businesses, not against them.

Perhaps most significantly, this legislation takes steps to provide municipalities with more tools to compete for major investment projects by offering incentives. Just think about the transformative impacts a single game-changing investment can have for small and rural municipalities—thousands of new construction jobs created to build a new facility in the short term; hundreds or even thousands more permanent roles once it’s operational, from skilled trades to management to support services; and a full ecosystem of small, local suppliers, companies and entrepreneurial spinoffs able to form around that investment over time.

That’s the power of making smart legislative changes to attract major capital and investment to Ontario. And with the right tools in this legislation, cities across our province can roll out the red carpet and hit prime job-creating investments out of the park, creating a ripple effect of opportunities for small businesses.

This is more than just economic growth. Small businesses are always going to be nimbler and more innovative. They embrace new technologies and business models at a blistering pace and drive our innovative economy. It’s something I’ve witnessed first-hand when talking to entrepreneurs right across this province at our universities and our regional innovation centres. They lead the cutting edge of economic development.

Excessive red tape prevents Ontario from unleashing the full creative potential for our entrepreneurs and change-makers pushing into new frontiers. The Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act helps unshackle that ingenuity, because we can’t afford to be complacent. We live in a world where the only constant is accelerating change, disruption and creative destruction of old systems by upstart innovators.

Ontario needs to be fertile ground where innovative ideas take root and where people feel empowered to take risks and challenge the status quo. By cutting unnecessary regulations, this legislation represents a down payment on the entrepreneurial environment we need to cultivate. It signals Ontario’s openness to working with, not against, the ambition and vision of small businesses charting new paths.

So while the housing provisions are crucial in their own right, this act has far broader implications for the competitiveness of our small business sector as job creators, as community builders and as the spark of Ontario’s economic dynamism. We need to nurture that culture because it is the foundation that grows small businesses into the next multinational giants.

Ontario has all the ingredients for a booming entrepreneurial ecosystem: a diverse, well-educated population; world-class universities and colleges; access to capital; and a proud history of innovation. But we can only maintain that ecosystem if we as a government continue our mission of breaking down the regulatory barriers that make it harder for entrepreneurs and small business owners to expend their ambition, creativity and effort on actually growing their operations instead of dealing with bureaucratic hurdles.

This proposed legislation provides one more crucial ingredient: a welcoming regulatory environment that is open for business. The Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024, accelerates that vital work. It recognizes that small businesses are not a cost to be managed but an asset to be unleashed as drivers of broadly shared prosperity for workers and families in every community across Ontario.

I’m thankful that our government, Minister Calandra and Premier Ford have continued leading the charge to untangle the mess of regulations that have been holding back opportunities in Ontario. But it’s not just about cutting red tape.

We’re dramatically reducing the cost of operating a business in Ontario through over $3.7 billion in relief measures to help companies and small businesses withstand economic pressures.

The Ontario Made Manufacturing Investment Tax Credit lowers costs for local makers investing in their operations.

Temporary gas and fuel tax cuts provide relief at the pumps.

WSIB premium rate reductions slash payroll expenses.

We’ve raised the employer health tax exemption to $1 million, delivering a massive tax cut for our job creators.

Business education tax rates have also been lowered to save employers $450 million annually across our province.

And we’ve enhanced small business competitiveness by reducing the corporate tax rate to 3.2% while broadening access to this lower rate.

This multi-pronged approach is how our government continues to reshape Ontario as a competitive, business-friendly jurisdiction driving growth and prosperity. This is in stark contrast to the outdated, bureaucratic processes and burdens that accumulated over decades of poor policies that prioritized bureaucracy over private sector success, spearheaded by the Ontario Liberals and championed by the NDP.

As I begin to wrap up, I just want to share something that I’ve been working on alongside with many of our colleagues. For the past months, I’ve had the pleasure of interviewing many of my caucus colleagues on their past roles as entrepreneurs and small business owners. One recurring theme they shared is the dedication that’s needed to keep going even when the going to gets tough; to take the setbacks in stride and keep moving forward. That conviction has been at the heart of our work as a government to cut back the layers of unnecessary red tape choking off opportunity across the province.

Let me tell you, Speaker, we’re making meaningful strides, earning recognition like the strong A grade Ontario received in the Canadian Federation of Independent Business’ 2024 red tape report card, and an 8.7 out of 10 score that ranks us as a national leader in smart, effective regulation. That is really something that we should all be proud of as a government.

Having said that, there’s more to do to unleash Ontario’s full potential. That’s why the new Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024, features major reforms to speed up approvals, streamline processes and reduce burdens for our hard-working small businesses.

For residential builders and skilled trades, this legislation will be a game-changer. It mandates firm timelines for municipalities to provide clear, transparent approval decisions on construction projects. No more endless limbo, waiting months or years with no answers from city planners.

It will also harmonize the dizzying patchwork of rules,

interpretations and document requirements that vary wildly between municipalities. Now, consistent provincial standards will finally bring uniformity and certainty to the approvals processes. This streamlining extends to smaller residential renovations as well. By clearly defining the scope of projects excluded from needing permits, homeowners and contractors can tackle more minor upgrades without needless paperwork and bureaucracy.

For innovative companies pioneering new technology, products or services, this legislation cuts the arduous approval runaround. We will use a sensible approach that nurtures entrepreneurship, instead of drowning innovation with process.

And for all businesses, there are long-overdue reforms to rein in outrageous fees and charges that nickel and dime at every turn.

We’ve heard the frustrations loud and clear. From restaurants dealing with conflicting health and safety rules, manufacturers struggling with repairs and maintenance approvals, and professional service providers drowning in duplicative licensing processes across different municipalities, this legislation is a direct response to that feedback, overhauling outdated policies and systems to finally make government a streamlined process working for the people instead of obstructing their success and their prosperity.

For these reasons, I encourage all members of this House to support this legislation as part of our tireless efforts to make Ontario the best place possible to start and grow a business.

As I travel this province, as we’re performing and having these great round tables, speaking with small businesses, speaking with unions and speaking with different industry leaders—it’s an opportunity for all members of this House to have a say on how our government can make timelines and processes easier so that they can do what they do best: selling their products, their services to their customers, and continuing to attract more business investment here in Ontario.

Thank you to everyone in the House for giving me this time today.

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

Ms. Jessica Bell: Thank you for your presentation.

I have a question that has come in from staff at the city of Peel and the city of Toronto. They’re very worried about the COHB payments that go out to people who live in private market housing who get a rent top-up so that they can afford the rent. It’s a very effective way to keep low-income and moderate-income people housed. They’re worried that the spat between Minister Calandra and Minister Fraser, and the refusal of this government to make a deal with the federal government to ensure money flows from the federal government, will put all these families at risk.

Can you tell us if municipalities are going to get their COHB funding when it expires in May?

Hon. Nina Tangri: I do want to thank the member opposite for the question. It’s a good question.

In my previous role as the Associate Minister of Housing and when we worked with many municipalities throughout AMO, the COHB funding was very, very important—even through to the Homelessness Prevention Program, which we actually provided an additional $202 million to, to help support municipalities through their service managers and service providers, to work with those people who needed that top-up. We made that funding very flexible so it allowed them to support more people to get into housing. There was a massive gap. There was a gap between shelter, transitional, supportive housing for individuals, housing for families. It’s an area where we need to do more work.

This bill actually has streamlined the processes, and we’ve worked with providers to get more rental housing built so there’s more supply. When there’s more supply, there’s more affordable housing for everyone.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): I recognize the member for Whitby.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I want to thank my colleague for her presentation.

Periodically, I meet with my Whitby Chamber of Commerce, and when I do, they point out that there’s a continuing need to eliminate red tape on the close to 1,000 businesses in Whitby. They want to do that because they want to continue to grow and provide jobs in our local economy in Whitby.

I’d like the minister to take a few moments to talk about how our actions that we’ve taken thus far and this legislation will help us to continue to deliver results for hard-working local businesses.

Hon. Nina Tangri: I want to thank the member from Whitby for his incredible hard work. I’ve met with his chamber in the past, and I’m meeting with them in coming weeks as well.

We heard loud and clear from his chamber and chambers right across this province, BIAs, boards of trade on how we as a government have made it much more easy for them to do business, but they’re also telling us about the challenges that they’ve faced in the past. They’ve come to us, through these red tape reduction packages, to let us know how difficult it has been for them to really just do what they need to do best: streamlining licensing and permits, maybe making singular dates for those renewals of those licences and holding on the fees. Every year, the fees were going up exponentially.

This government has made permits and licence fees stagnant instead of increasing them. That has helped businesses.

And let’s just face it: Every single person in this province, most businesses also, single sole proprietors, may own their vehicle. We have now cut having to renew the licence plate sticker. That $120 a year for each individual across this province has made a massive impact, and that’s something that our government is very proud of.

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

Ms. Jessica Bell: I recently spoke to 200 seniors who are being evicted from Chartwell Heritage Glen. This retirement home is in your riding. I’m very concerned that these seniors are being renovicted.

Two days ago, we spoke to them, and they said that the member opposite has not met with them yet—two days ago.

So these are my two questions: Have you met with them and can you meet with them? And what is your plan to ensure that they are not renovicted?

Hon. Nina Tangri: Thank you for that question, because I actually want to tell you what I have been doing on this.

When it first came to my attention about two and a half weeks ago, I came back, I immediately spoke to—I had a few of the individual family members reach out to our office, who we immediately got back to and started up casework, because we need their permission to talk on their behalf, and you know that; I also spoke to Chartwell and heard from both sides what was happening.

Chartwell has sold that building. It blindsided all of us. Nobody wants to see anybody evicted, let alone our seniors. I heard from them that they’ve sold the building to another company, and they’ve issued notices for the seniors to move. They’re assisting with these seniors. I just spoke to them again yesterday.

I actually met with seniors on Friday, with some of the families, and so we had a conversation. I’ve got all the details that they’ve received.

I’ve got the details from Chartwell—

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

Mr. Stephen Blais: It’s great to be debating this legislation here this morning.

Recently, it has come to light that there are some 48 members of the Premier’s office on the sunshine list, and his gravy train is getting bigger and bigger and bigger as every year goes by.

I’m wondering if the minister can explain to the House how many Ontarians who are not on the Premier’s gravy train sunshine list, making over $100,000 a year, which is more than the average family in Ontario—how many Ontarians who aren’t on the Premier’s gravy train will actually be able to afford to buy a home as a result of this legislation?

Hon. Nina Tangri: Thank you for the question. It’s really not related to this bill at all.

I’d like to talk a little bit about the record of the previous Liberal government, the biggest bloated bureaucracy we’ve ever seen. They would use their unemployment numbers by increasing their bureaucracy as opposed to helping businesses come to Ontario. They drove away over 300,000 jobs from Ontario. This government—Premier Ford and all of us collectively here—worked and took massive steps to encourage investment. We reduced red tape through a number of packages to help bring that investment. And it’s working—more than 700,000 people wake up to a job today than they did when they left in 2018. That is something that our government is extremely proud of.

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

Hon. Andrea Khanjin: I want to thank the minister. She travels across Ontario to hear first-hand what businesses are hearing.

I had the honour of hosting her in my community to meet with a lot of small business owners, and one of the great business owners that she came to visit was Great Bear Products. They were a small, mighty team, family-operated. They have a daughter who is a proud graduate of Georgian College—go, Grizzlies. And they’re expanding. The reason they could expand is thanks to burden reduction and this government that believes in working with business, not against business.

I’m going to ask the minister: What else is she hearing across the province on how we are alleviating these small businesses that are still on the brink of recovery, to really help them expand and really break down those walls and break down those barriers so they can grow their business?

Hon. Nina Tangri: Thank you to the Minister of the Environment for the question.

Yes, when I visited her riding a couple of years ago and met with that company, it was actually very heartwarming to see their creativity. This was something they built from scratch—such beautiful Ontario-made products, something that we should encourage more of across this province.

And to really welcome, congratulate and support the success of our small businesses is critical to a government—to create that environment, to help them not just start a business but to grow. I think that’s where we see one of the areas where our government—where we can create that environment to help more businesses grow.

Through this package, by eliminating processes, by making fees more affordable, by making sure that everybody has the ability to say, “I want to grow. How do I do that?”—having their backs to do that is so critical and something, again, that our government is very proud of.

Thank you for the question.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Unfortunately, we do not have time for further questions, but we do have time for further debate.

MPP Lise Vaugeois: There are things in this bill that I think are useful. There is some elimination of red tape. There are also some extremely difficult problems that have been left behind and a loophole that has also been introduced through the provincial policy statement that’s very worrying.

We have actually seen some rolling back of some bad legislation that the government forced through with great fanfare a year ago: Bill 23. At that time, AMO was not provided an opportunity to present to the Legislature’s standing committee on heritage and culture during the review of Bill 23. It was pretty shocking that AMO was not allowed to speak to a bill, and they were very, very concerned.

Their submission outlined key areas of concern and recommended that a number of provisions should be removed, including those that shifted the costs of growth to property taxpayers, those that undermined good planning practices and community livability, and those that increased risks to human and environmental health. We haven’t seen any improvements to looking after human and environmental health, but we are seeing some of these issues addressed, and we see that the money is coming back—development money is coming back to municipalities. So that’s very good thing.

It’s a rollback of a bill that was passed with tremendous enthusiasm and fanfare. Fortunately, that has been basically rolled back.

What’s also interesting to me is that municipalities are now being consulted in terms of having fourplexes by right, so instead of bringing in fourplexes by right, we’re leaving it up to municipalities. That’s respectful of the municipalities. It’s just interesting how there can be such a flip-flop between all these arguments about how irresponsible municipalities are and they spend too much money—I believe it was the Premier who expounded tremendously on municipalities not being trustworthy with money. But today, we like municipalities, and that’s probably appropriate.

Backtracking on the dissolution of Peel—that’s interesting, too, since we spent a lot of time on that.

There are some good things. Making changes to the building code to allow 18-storey mass timber buildings—I’m very supportive of this development. Developers no longer required to build parking in developments near transit—we’re good with that; a use-it-or-lose-it law that gives municipalities more power to motivate a developer to build a development one they’ve been given the approvals, and so on. Providing standardized, pre-approved home designs—this could be very helpful, and we like the proposal because it will help Ontario build more homes more quickly.

But this is the part that’s very, very worrying: the provincial policy statement. This wipes out settlement area boundaries and municipal comprehensive review processes so new development on nearby farmland can be approved at any time. Let’s be clear about that. We’re talking about easy approvals for expanding onto farmland that needs to be preserved as farmland to produce food. Developers can appeal any municipal refusal to the lands tribunal to amend a municipal boundary and approval—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): I apologize to the member for Thunder Bay–Superior North, but pursuant to standing order 50(c), I am now required to interrupt the proceedings and announce that there have been six and a half hours of debate on the motion for second reading of this bill. This debate will therefore be deemed adjourned unless the government House leader directs the debate to continue.

I recognize the associate government House leader.

Mr. Trevor Jones: Thank you, Speaker. Please resume debate.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): I recognize the member for Thunder Bay–Superior North.

MPP Lise Vaugeois: Thank you very much, Speaker.

Just to recap, the rules work like this: If a municipality allows sprawl, people cannot appeal; if a municipality denies sprawl, a developer can appeal. So who are the rules set up for? They’re set up for the developers. Sprawl means fewer homes being built. There’s no minimum at all built into the policy statement.

Previously, if you were destroying farmland to create housing, you needed to build 80 homes per hectare; then, that 80 was reduced to 50; and under the new plan, there’s no requirement whatsoever. So you can have a home per hectare of land, and nothing anybody says within the municipality can stop it from happening. That is appalling. This is like the greenbelt all over again; not just greenbelt 2.0, which the member from Waterloo has been telling us about, where farmers—I think it’s 650 acres, hectares, of farmland. A lot of farmland is now going up for development. So she has been raising the alarm about that.

I think of this as the greenbelt to the power of N—“N” as in “no limits.” If a developer wants to build on farmland, they get to do whatever they want, with no restrictions and no ability for anyone to stop them. What is this? This is a shocking loophole. No, I’m not going to call it a loophole; it’s planned.

Then we have issues with rent control. The rent control system, over the last decade, has helped landlords hike average rent by three times the amount allowed in the guideline. Rents are going up. According to Ricardo Tranjan from the CCPA, you could drive a very large truck through the loopholes in our rent control system. I imagine a large Hummer blasting its way through rent controls.

Rent control guidelines do not apply to units added to the market since 2018. That’s something the Conservatives brought in. Vacant units are exempt from guidelines, so that when tenants move out, landlords can charge new tenants whatever they want.

Above-guideline increases, an application process through which rents can be raised dramatically for renovations, allow landlords to recover more than they spend. We’ve seen very large corporations that are publicly traded—we know their financial state—and they apply for above-guideline increases consistently.

Consumers are being exploited, taken advantage of. The market isn’t functioning properly, because landlords are taking advantage of a scarce resource: rental units. The state has to step in and do something.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is claiming that they’ve undertaken historic measures to support tenants, but we’re actually not seeing that happening. We’re seeing renoviction after renoviction after renoviction. The fines are minimal to landlords. And, frankly, it’s a war zone out there in terms of getting housing.

What we’re actually seeing is that tenants are organizing rent strikes, and that’s a pretty dramatic development. It’s not like people don’t have very busy lives and things to do, but they’re organizing rent strikes because of the abuses of landlords and the fact that if they lose the place where they’re living, they’re not going to get into a place that’s more affordable; it will be less affordable.

We’re also seeing this, of course, with seniors. We talked about this a little bit already this morning. That Chartwell home that has been sold out from under 200 seniors—what we’re dealing with is real estate corporations that exist to make money. It’s not about housing. It’s not about looking after people’s needs. It’s about making a lot of money.

This is where the NDP is different, because we think of housing as something that people need. It needs to be affordable. It needs to be built in a responsible way, looking after people’s needs, not generating profits.

We know also that the people in Mississauga who are losing their homes are seniors. They’re 90 years old. They’ve been there for 25 years—paying $1,600 a month in rent right now. There’s absolutely no way they are going to find equivalent housing anywhere at that rate. And while the corporation is saying, “We’re going to help house you,” and so on, where are they going to house them? In another Chartwell, at $5,000 or $6,000 a month? There’s nothing there to support these people, as much as the corporation wants to say that. Chartwell certainly does not have a reputation as being there for people.

The rules were changed. In this case, it’s an apartment complex. In the other cases, they have owned long-term care and it has been enormously profitable. We know that the Premier at the time, Mike Harris—whatever happened legislatively, it became possible to buy up all kinds of long-term-care homes and make them for-profit.

We see the consequences of this. It’s incredibly expensive to live anywhere in a retirement home, and seniors don’t have affordable places to go. The profits keep going up, so somebody is happy; just not people who need to find a space to live.

Now I want to talk a little bit about short-term rentals and what that’s doing to affordable housing.

In Thunder Bay, right now, there are about 221 full-home units available on Airbnb, with about 154 of them being in the cores, where housing is most affordable. So what’s happening is that—we’ve got blocks of apartments where people have been living for many years, and it’s affordable housing. What’s happening is that those owners are gradually kicking everybody out, often without notice. We know that because they come to our office, and then we say, “Actually, it’s not legal to kick them out without notice.” But people don’t always know that.

As soon as they can get the tenants out, they’re converting them into Airbnbs or Vrbos—I’ll just call them short-term rentals to be clear. Again, it’s a money-making operation, and with tourism and so on they’re able to make quite a lot of money on these. But now there’s no housing for people, and people are winding up homeless or couch-surfing or whatever it is they have to do to keep a roof over their head.

I’m going to quote the city of Thunder Bay. I’d like to acknowledge Shelby Ch’ng, a member of city council. She has been working with council to create a motion, and that motion will say things such as:

“Short-term rentals reduce the supply of available long-term housing options, as property owners may choose to rent units to tourists instead of local residents....

“Local residents are priced out of their neighbourhoods, as property values and rents increase due to the demand from tourists....

“Short-term renters may not have the same investment in the community as long-term residents, leading to issues such as noise, partying, and other disruptive behaviour, which negatively impacts the quality of life for local residents.”

Talking about this is important, because certain municipalities have created rules to try to address the situation with short-term rentals. Right now, as it stands, short-term rentals do not pay commercial levels of tax; they’re just paying residential tax. That’s basically wrong, and it’s depriving those municipalities of revenues that they should have. They also don’t pay the MAT, which is, when you’re a guest in the city, when you stay at a hotel—that tax also goes to the city.

Some municipalities have dealt with this, but what we really need is the province to take a position and lay down those rules so that it’s not so easy for these short-term rentals to boot people out, not pay their share of taxes and basically use up—take away—affordable housing in hundreds of units, leaving people with nowhere to go. We can do that at the provincial level, and I think it’s very important that the government take this on.

We’ve also seen, in Thunder Bay, the direct consequences of the battle between the province and the federal government over funding. On this side of the House, we have been issuing warnings for quite a while that the province was going to lose out on federal funding, and that has happened. The Thunder Bay district social services board looks after all subsidized housing, rent-geared-to-income housing in the city. They are now short $4.2 million. This means that they are not able to do maintenance—there’s all kinds of things. They were supposed to be building new units; they’re not going to be able to do that.

I hope this is not the end of that story. I hope very much that there’s going to be a negotiation and people will get the money that they were expecting. It’s also last minute, so the DSSAB has had no way to prepare for this—again, it’s going to be the people with the least ability to find other places to live. We actually know that a lot of the places have been—I don’t want to call it “neglected”; it is neglect, but the money hasn’t been there to do the repairs. The maintenance has not been done for a long time, and a lot of the places are really not great to live in at all at this point.

I know that the DSSAB was very focused on making those improvements. I actually know that the province did provide money to improve things at the DSSAB, but now we’ve got another problem and they’re missing an enormous amount of money. It really needs to be addressed.

We had a seniors’ proposal in my riding that I’ve talked about, pretty much since the day I’ve been elected, called Suomi Koti. They have been trying to get funding to build a second residence for seniors. It would house 60 seniors and would open up quite a few houses in our region. It’s all run by volunteers. They’ve raised the money themselves. They own the property; there’s already a building on that property. It has been there for 30 years. I’ve toured the building. It’s in fantastic shape. It has really been a labour of love.

Initially, it was designed to house seniors from the Finnish community, but it is open to everyone. It has a wait-list of six years. I think, “Well, six years. Should I put myself on that list?” It’s an affordable, nice place to live. They would like to put a second building up. They haven’t been able to access enough support. The province has provided support for a seniors’ complex in Thunder Bay–Atikokan. I would like to see something happening in Thunder Bay–Superior North. It has now been six years that they’ve been trying to get funding and haven’t been able to push this over the finish line.

I would like to talk about what we would like to see happen. In Thunder Bay, we have two very successful co-op housing projects. They’ve been there for a long time. They have a range of incomes, people living in them—it’s mixed-income. We also have social housing, which really functions, unfortunately, as poverty ghettos. It’s very difficult for people in those situations, especially as things are now, with gangs coming in. We have home invasions happening, we have vulnerable people—actually, I have a niece living in that area—and they’re frightened, often, because of the gang activity and so on.

They’re the kinds of places that are under-policed. Many Indigenous people are over-policed when they’re out of that area and on the streets, but they’re under-policed where they actually need support.

I also know that people, when they’ve been able to move out of those social housing areas and into the co-op housing—they still have subsidized rent, but now they’re in a mixed-income neighbourhood and it’s a community, it’s safe, and people feel so much more hopeful about their lives. And they’re not frightened about who is coming into their neighbourhood. At one time, these social housing projects—perhaps they were a model that made sense at that time. They really don’t make sense now. What we need is mixed neighbourhoods.

I would love to see more co-op housing in our city. I’d like to see the NDP’s proposal of a new public agency, Homes Ontario, to actually be there to help support the financing of that kind of housing.

When people say, “Well, where is the money going to come from?”, I ask myself, “Well, where is the money going now?” This government is looking at breaking up the LCBO. That will take $2.5 billion out of the public purse. Why on earth would a government remove $2.5 billion from where it can be used to support housing, affordable housing, to support health care, to support education? It doesn’t make sense.

We are also seeing million of dollars spent on self-serving advertising. When the government was in opposition, the government actually introduced a bill to stop that kind of advertising, but now it’s taking place with this government.

And then we have the issue of health care dollars, where private, for-profit health care agencies are receiving higher rates of pay for the same services, for OHIP services, and the incredible amount of money that is being spent on nursing agencies. That is still an after-effect of Bill 124, which did so much to push senior health care workers out of the profession.

So there is money. Always, when a government has power, there are choices about how money is going to be spent. We think it needs to be spent to support affordable housing, fully public health care, and fully public, well-supported education.

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

Mr. Lorne Coe: Recently, at the Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy, we heard from numerous local governments’ representatives from across Ontario that a use-it-or-lose-it policy would help build homes in their communities. We had representatives from all parts of Ontario at the standing committee.

Speaker, through you: Does the member opposite agree with these locally elected officials?

MPP Lise Vaugeois: Thank you to the member for the question.

Yes, I do agree. We know that municipalities were asking for this before, and we know that this proposal has also come from this side of the House. Use-it-or-lose-it is absolutely essential.

Again, there are other things that need to be addressed in the bill that aren’t there to support affordable housing.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): I recognize the member for Niagara Centre.

Mr. Jeff Burch: Thank you to my friend from Thunder Bay–Superior North for a very good presentation.

Every region of Ontario is very different when it comes to the housing crisis. They have things in common, but certainly Thunder Bay is a unique part of the province.

I’m wondering, in your riding, what could have been in this bill that you would hope might be in a bill in the future, that would most help the residents and homeowners in Thunder Bay?

MPP Lise Vaugeois: Thank you for the question.

Rent control is critical, and limitations on selling out people’s apartments and turning them into short-term rentals, and support for seniors’ housing. Access to affordable financing, which is not there, is really needed. This is why the seniors’ complex has not been able to be built. There is no access to affordable financing.

There are many other problems in our region. For example, you can’t build down the road. There are 11 municipalities in my riding, and in many of them. we can’t get housing built, because it’s too expensive to bring in material and bring in the workers. At this point, in Terrace Bay, if you could convince a contractor to come, it would be a $750,000 home, but nobody in Terrace Bay could afford to have a home at that level, so the homes don’t get built. So we have a problem in the region of actually not enough housing to bring in professional workers.

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

Mr. Ric Bresee: Speaker, the previous Liberal Party leader and current mayor of Vaughan recently admitted that the housing affordability crisis actually started while he was in office, while the provincial Liberals were in power. As a municipal member for the last 22 years, I certainly witnessed all of that kind of challenge, and that the Liberal government, supported by the NDP at the time, took zero action on the housing crisis.

Can the member opposite speak to—if you’re so impassioned about moving forward and addressing the housing crisis, why didn’t you push the previous government to act sooner?

MPP Lise Vaugeois: Sir, I wasn’t here, but frankly, this government has been in power now—it’s coming up to six years—and how much time did we spend on the greenbelt? An enormous amount of time. That has been rolled back. What is happening now with farming land—well, it looks like developers have free rein, and we’re getting another version of the greenbelt scandal or greenbelt scam. I’m not sure what to call it.

Given my knowledge of what has been happening over the last six years, I would like to see—there are so many things that this government could have done and can still do differently to help people get affordable housing. That’s where I think our energy needs to be.

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

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: I’d like to thank the member from Thunder Bay–Superior North for her excellent comments. I was particularly taken by her comments on supportive housing.

I’d like to quote Sister Joan Atkinson of the Sisters of St. Joseph, in the Office for Systemic Justice, who wrote to me and said that for the supportive housing model to work—if it is not fully funded, “it will collapse and homelessness with all the other problems that accompany this will escalate....

“We believe there is inadequate funding for these critical human resources that are required to both prevent homelessness and transition people out of the chaos of homelessness, encampments and emergency shelters.”

To the member: I’d like to know, should the government have addressed the critical plight of homelessness and the lack of funding for supportive housing within Bill 185?

MPP Lise Vaugeois: Thank you very much for the question.

Yes, I wish that this bill did support, did recognize the need for supportive housing, to adequately fund it, to adequately fund—obviously, this is a housing bill, so it’s not talking about all of those wraparound services, but we have a tremendous need in our city; we have amongst the highest rates of any part of the province, with addictions.

People are working around the clock in their basically very underpaid jobs trying to support people trying to find transitional homes. They really are having an extremely difficult time doing this because the funding is not adequate. It’s critically important.

As I say, all of these things snowball. If the short-term rentals are taking up affordable housing, then that also snowballs and there are no other places for transitional housing because everything has been kind of knocked down along the way.

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

Mr. Jeff Burch: My friend from Thunder Bay–Superior North talked a lot about the struggles of people in Thunder Bay dealing with rent, and she talked about rent control.

What are some of the other issues that we’re seeing in Thunder Bay around people not being able to afford their rent due to the skyrocketing costs, and what is the best solution, moving forward, to deal with that?

MPP Lise Vaugeois: Thank you very much to the member from Niagara Centre for the question.

We know we need rent controls. We know we need affordable housing. We also know that the people on ODSP and on OW don’t have enough money to keep a roof over their heads, and if, God forbid, they live with someone, then their money is going to be clawed back so that they have even less.

We need to be building affordable housing that is not built for profit, not built for the betterment of investors; it’s built for the betterment of our communities so that people have safe, affordable, quality places to live.

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

Mr. Ric Bresee: To the member opposite: As a part of our plan to build new homes, we have introduced the idea of rewarding municipalities for meeting those housing targets, through the Building Faster Fund. I will ask if the member supports this initiative to build desperately needed homes by encouraging our municipalities.

MPP Lise Vaugeois: Sure. The city of Thunder Bay has received some of that money. It’s not a lot of money; it’s about $850,000. As I understand it, it will go towards infrastructure to support new housing builds. So I don’t really see a problem with that per se, except that—it has encouraged a little bit of building—it’s not addressing the affordability problem that we’re facing. It’s not addressing the issue of supplying affordable, quality housing for the people who need it.

We know that there is so much homelessness, particularly in our area—it’s desperate, really. So I need the provincial government to sort out whatever its issue is with the federal government, whatever it is that’s not being provided, so that the federal government sends that money to the province that can then go to the municipality, to the—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): We’ve run out of time for questions and answers.

It’s time for further debate.

Mr. Jeff Burch: It’s a pleasure to rise. I have a feeling I’m one of the last people who will be debating this, as we’re nearing the end of our time.

I want to commend my seatmate from University–Rosedale, who has done a great job as our housing critic, not only in addressing this bill and many others, but in fighting, especially, for tenant rights in Toronto and across the province.

We know that the government obviously has a majority, so this will end up in committee. I know we’re all going to work hard to improve this bill when we get to committee.

The last six years, watching the government attempt to address the housing crisis, have certainly been interesting. I think we know that it has not been very successful. We saw a 7% drop in housing starts last year. The government likes to say that they’re making great gains, but actually, when you look at the numbers, that’s not really the case. We’ve talked a lot about the fact that we believe that’s because we need to have a proactive approach to the housing crisis, not a reactive approach. We’ve talked many times about the need for the government to get back into the business of housing.

I’ve heard, throughout this debate and in question period, Conservatives talking about the former Liberal government as the government under which the housing crisis started. I would suggest that’s not really true. I’m not going to defend the Liberals’ record—certainly, their most recent record in creating housing. But I’ve been around politics for a long time. I was a city councillor prior to coming to this place. I was also involved in federal and provincial politics since the mid-1990s. I actually ran for provincial government in 1995—a long time ago. I was still in university at the time.

I can remember, in the late 1990s, when that Conservative government got elected, the massive downloading that happened from the province to municipalities. Housing is certainly one of the things that suffered most from that downloading. There’s lots of blame to go around. There was a downloading of the federal responsibilities from the then Liberal federal government to the provinces. But certainly, the provinces had a choice, and Ontario, under that Conservative government, decided to engage in a massive downloading to the municipalities.

That’s really when the crisis began, in my opinion, and certainly in the opinion of many people who look at this problem.

So municipalities already have this massive issue with funding housing. For our regional housing in Niagara, I can tell you there’s an 18- to 20-year wait. You might as well not even be on the list for regional housing. That’s a problem that has built up over many, many years.

You’re going to hear us talk about a proactive approach to housing, which is the government getting back into the business of housing, making sure that we have affordable housing, that we cut down on speculation, that we look at things like social housing, co-ops, and that the government gets back into the business of actually working with municipalities to directly build housing. Many experts across Canada are calling for that solution and, of course, for governments to work together.

The other thing I want to talk about briefly in the time that I have is the governance review committee—the standing committee that travelled. My friend across the way was there. I was at most of those meetings, in places like Barrie and Vaughan and Kitchener and Niagara. We heard a lot from those municipalities. I have to say, while our criticism of this bill is certainly that it’s not the proactive approach that the province needs, at least municipalities and the complaints that were brought forward to that committee are reflected in this bill.

We see a number of things that we heard over and over and over again as we travelled across the seven regions. The first thing that we heard, actually, that I should mention is that there is no appetite for any kind of significant restructuring of those municipalities. People have said loud and clear, from city to city and region to region, that they are interested in addressing the housing crisis directly and working with the provincial government to bring things forward; not in engaging in some kind of navel-gazing exercise, where we’re forcing municipalities to amalgamate and those kinds of issues. So that came through loud and clear. They wanted to focus on housing.

The results of the committee—there were a number of things that came through. One of them, of course, was—and we’ve talked quite a bit about the use-it-or-lose-it policy, something that we have been pushing on this side of the House for quite some time. The government, in Bill 109, I believe it was, came forward with measures that—municipalities had to process planning applications in a certain period of time, and that created a lot of issues for municipalities that were already struggling with capacity.

We said that if the government is going to force municipalities to process those applications—and that’s not a bad measure, if we have reasonable time limits, if there were some developments that had been out there for many years. It’s also fair for developers and builders to have restrictions placed on them, so that when they use the resources of the planning process, they get shovels in the ground in an appropriate time period. There was a lot of resistance from the government.

They are pretty captured with developers—a lot of the policies of this government have been that they listen only to developers and have come forward with the intent of making life as easy as possible for developers; certainly not for municipalities. So it’s good to see that the government has finally listened.

We heard, I think in every single region and pretty much every presentation that was made, the need for some kind of measure to get developers to get shovels in the ground because of the amount of speculation that was happening right across the province, and because it’s only fair, if municipalities have to process those applications, that developers have to get shovels in the ground.

Also, with Bill 23, there was a loss of revenue to municipalities of upwards of $4 billion, according to AMO, and that had to do with development charges, of course. When the province came forward with their building communities fund, which was about a $1.2-billion fund—of course, that is only a fraction of the revenue that municipalities lost. One of the biggest problems for municipalities that applied for that fund is that the criteria for getting money was shovels in the ground, and of course municipalities have no control over shovels in the ground.

With interest rates and inflation, it became less and less economic for developers to actually start their developments, so those started to stall even more. When you have the speculation that was happening and then you have those developments not moving forward—that was creating a real logjam. The Ontario Big City Mayors, for example, and AMO all came forward and said, “There are hundreds of thousands of homes in the pipeline. We have to get those moving. There’s far too much speculation, far too many developers sitting on developments.” I had one in Port Colborne, in my riding, that was there since the 1980s.

These are builders and developers that took up municipal time and resources to put those through.

It is good to see measures. We’re going to watch very carefully how those come out in committee.

A use-it-or-lose-it law that gives municipalities more power to motivate a developer to build a development, once they’ve been given the approvals to do so, is something that we’re certainly supportive of, and we’re happy the government has come forward with that.

I’ve mentioned already the money lost in Bill 23 through the development charge issue. We see that AMO, in response to this bill, is still not completely satisfied with what the government has done here. They’ve made some move to help municipalities recover some of those funds, but there’s still an awfully big funding gap, and there are many municipalities that don’t qualify for the money.

I can tell you, in my area, in Niagara Centre—I represent a small part of St. Catharines, but most of my riding is Thorold, Welland and Port Colborne. Of the 12 municipalities in Niagara, as the governance review committee heard when they were in Niagara, in St. Catharines—they heard very clearly from Thorold, which is the city where I live, with less than 50,000 people, so they don’t qualify for that money, to get that money they lost through the DC changes back. They don’t qualify simply because they have less than 50,000 population.

But they built more housing than any other municipality in Niagara, and so they’re actually asking the government for a housing target because they know they will far, far exceed it and they could use that money.

So there’s certainly an inequity from municipality to municipality in having some arbitrary cut-off like 50,000 population, and all of these municipalities, especially smaller ones, are not qualifying. That’s exacerbated because a lot of the small municipalities, of course, are in rural areas. And in rural areas, what’s the biggest problem that we heard over and over and over in the governance review committee? It’s water and sewer infrastructure. You can’t build homes unless you have that water and sewer infrastructure.

Yes, it’s good that the government has finally come forward with a fund where those municipalities can apply, but there is an inequity there for municipalities that are working really hard and are actually asking for housing targets so that they can qualify for that funding.

We’re also pleased to see some changes with respect to MZOs—we believe very similarly to what AMO believes. AMO just came out with their analysis of this bill. In their analysis, they very clearly state that they believe MZOs should only be used in emergencies and in areas of the north, for example, where there is not a planning regimen there and so the intervention of the minister is appropriate. So we’re not satisfied; we still believe that MZOs are not something that should be used other than when they’re actually needed.

But we’re certainly happy to see that there is a more transparent and accountable process for them now, and we’re looking forward to looking at that in committee and possibly putting forward some amendments to that.

I see I’m almost out of time, but I would be remiss if I didn’t touch on the Peel dissolution issue. As we travelled around from region to region, certainly we brought up what was happening with Peel at the time. The government moved forward without doing their homework, without doing their research, and created a situation in Peel where there were, at one time, 350 staff per week leaving Peel region—just on the rumour or on the legislation that was about to move forward. They don’t need to stay somewhere they’re not wanted or where they’re not going to be able to keep their jobs, so they were leaving in droves. It created a great deal of—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): I apologize to the member for Niagara Centre, but it is now time for members’ statements.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Native Horizons Treatment Centre

Mr. Will Bouma: I am pleased to rise today to speak about the grand reopening of the Native Horizons Treatment Centre that will be taking place tomorrow in Brantford–Brant, where I will be joined by the Associate Minister of Mental Health and Addictions.

In December 2018, I was deeply saddened to learn that Native Horizons, located on the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, had burnt to the ground in a devastating fire.

Over the last few years, Native Horizons has undergone a transformation of its own and has been rebuilt bigger and better than before. The new facility boasts rebuilt portions of the building, including the addition of multi-purpose and spiritual rooms, and the construction of spaces for trauma-informed programming and cultural-based activities.

Some staff at Native Horizons have compared the journey of the facility to that of a phoenix rising from the ashes. I think that is a perfect analogy, as in many ways, Native Horizons’ rebuild symbolizes the change that it has on its clients, by empowering countless Indigenous individuals to reclaim control over their lives and rise to overcome mental health and addictions obstacles.

Native Horizons’ story is one of resilience and hope, and I am proud of the work that they have done to rebuild and the work that they continue to do in the community.

Wildlife protection

Mr. Joel Harden: We enjoy great privileges in being elected officials, and one of them is when the community reaches out to us and touches us personally.

I want to thank the students from Hopewell public school and their teacher Ms. Vorobej, who are hopefully watching this right now—hello, everybody—for touching my heart about an issue I was unaware of before your leadership, and that is the health of Ontario’s boreal caribou.

These students at Hopewell public school did a module last semester where they talked about the fact that of the 51 populations of boreal caribou in Canada, 37 of those populations are deemed not self-sustaining. What it means for our pristine and beautiful north is that the species of the boreal caribou, an iconic species for Ontario, are literally poised, potentially, for extinction. I note that Ministers of the Environment in this current government and previous have made this a priority, and I note that the federal government has said that Ontario needs to have the strategy that they deem to be acceptable by this month, April 2024.

I want to thank the students from Hopewell public school who wrote me personal notes and who helped collaborate with me in a letter to Minister Andrea Khanjin that I will be hand-delivering this morning, because that is what citizenship actually is. Citizenship is when you use your voice to speak out to people in our profession, to send a message, to care about someone you’ve never met.

Bless you, students at Hopewell public school. Thank you for your leadership. Let’s work together to protect the boreal caribou.

Government investments

Mr. Lorne Coe: I’m pleased to share with my colleagues news about additional funding that strengthens the safety and security of hard-working families in Whitby and other parts of the region of Durham.

Our government, with the leadership of Premier Ford and the Solicitor General, has provided $900,000 over three years to support the hard-working officers of the Durham Regional Police Service in their efforts to combat and prevent auto thefts. This funding is part of our government’s groundbreaking Preventing Auto Thefts Grant Program focused on prevention, detection, analysis and enforcement. A total investment of $18 million over three years is being allocated to 21 police projects to collectively tackle the rising issue of auto theft.

This funding equips our police services, like the Durham Regional Police Service, with the tools necessary to enhance prevention, improve investigations, and gather evidence to put criminals where they belong—in jail.

Since 2018, approximately $15 million has been provided by our government to the Durham Regional Police Service.

National Volunteer Week

Miss Monique Taylor: Today I rise to celebrate National Volunteer Week 2024, a week to pause, reflect and give thanks to the many individuals who give tirelessly every day in our communities. As we honour this year’s theme of “Every Moment Matters,” it is important to truly recognize every volunteer who adds value to those words.

A volunteer is defined by many adjectives and actions, often including words like “dedicated,” “consistent,” “loving” and “welcoming”. They bring hope, joy, strength and support to all of those they engage with.

In Hamilton Mountain, volunteers support school nutrition programs, classroom activities, food banks, literacy groups, community gardens, co-ops, long-term-care facilities, hospitals, hospices, cancer assistance programs, community sports, neighbourhood associations, events, festivals, and so many other amazing activities.

Volunteers are from neighbourhoods, organizations and groups spanning many diverse interests. They’re working together to support one another, sharing common visions and goals, and inspiring future generations to continue this important and much-needed work.

To all volunteers, I sincerely say thank you. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your commitment to helping others. Thank you for making a difference in people’s lives. Thank you for continuing to show up and lend a hand, a smile and a moment that matters.

Many sayings and expressions have been shared over the years about volunteers and volunteerism. To quote Elizabeth Andrew: “Volunteers do not necessarily have the time; they have the heart.”

Happy National Volunteer Week.

Member for Kitchener South–Hespeler

Ms. Jess Dixon: I wanted to use this slot to express my personal gratitude to a few people who will be known to many on this side of the House.

When I was a crown attorney, I had, I think, a very direct impact on many people’s lives in a positive fashion. And in coming to office, I made the decision to leave the crown in the hopes that, as a politician, I would be able to make a greater impact than I could as a crown.

As we all know, government is a large and unwieldy beast, challenging to navigate and subject to many whims, and it can be very challenging to feel, as an individual, that you are progressing.

I’ve had several projects recently—all crime prevention-related, for the most part—that I’ve achieved some significant success on. While I was the originator behind them, I never would have been able to get them where they are without the unbelievable help and support of several key staff members in various ministries, and I want to name them at this point. From the Ministry of Education, we have Justin Saunders and Kennan Benjamins, who have been incredibly patient with me. From MTCS, we have Mauro Barone. From MCCSS, we have Kimiya Zamani; from Sol Gen, Creed Atkinson; and from the Premier’s office, Shawn Beckett.

Thank you all so much. I would not be doing what I’m doing without you. I’m incredibly grateful, and I will be forever.

Energy policies

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, as you and other members of the House are well aware, this government wants people to pay more to Enbridge. They want to increase their gas bills.

In December, the Ontario Energy Board, the body that regulates utilities in this province, decided that consumers needed to be protected; that they should not be subsidizing Enbridge’s expansion; that, in fact, those customers needed to be protected today and for decades to come.

Unfortunately, the government has decided that instead of protecting consumers, they will be protecting Enbridge.

This morning, in committee, we debated amendments to Bill 165. Every amendment meant to protect consumers, to protect them from higher prices, was defeated by the government. The government is determined to ensure that, at the price of consumers, Enbridge’s investors will be protected down the line. This is not a defensible position on the part of the government, not one that will be appreciated by consumers when they get their gas bills in the next few months, and one that, over the decades to come, will mean much higher bills than people otherwise would have been paying.

The government needs to reverse course. They need to reject this bill that they brought forward.

Migrant workers

Mr. Trevor Jones: On Sunday, April 14, the Leamington Roma Club hosted over 20 health service, business and support organizations to connect with more than 500 international agriculture workers from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras and the Caribbean who work in Leamington and surrounding areas.

Hosted by staff and volunteers from the Migrant Worker Community Program, the annual health and information fair brings barrier-free, culturally aligned resources in several languages to provide information and assist workers to book health exams. It included on-site blood pressure testing; blood glucose screening; mental health supports; dental checks; bicycle, road and farm safety info; income tax and insurance information; health card services; and direct contacts with local police, fire and EMS personnel to raise awareness and build trust. The atmosphere was festive, with the smells of fresh food in the air and the sounds of live Latino music on stage.

I appreciate the many people who travelled great distances to support their families while supporting all the good things grown in Ontario. They’re our colleagues, our friends, and an important part of our community.

I was most proud of my friend and neighbour the member from Essex, who very boldly addressed the entire crowd in Spanish. As the new parliamentary assistant to Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, he made a great impact.

Together, it was a successful event.

Have a great day.

Public transit

Mr. Adil Shamji: Today I rise to express the disappointment of my constituents in Don Valley East about this government’s unacceptable lack of progress on public transit.

Mr. Speaker, the still-under-construction Eglinton Crosstown will serve my riding from six stations. My constituents see this construction and feel all of its problems and delays. This government has shared no details about the progress and its estimated completion date. My constituents deserve answers about the status of the line, the problems it faces, what’s left to be done and when the government expects it to be open. And they want to know why half of all Metrolinx employees are on the sunshine list, despite the complete lack of accountability and progress.

Also in my riding are two stations on the Ontario Line. Metrolinx has promised consultation about the transit-oriented communities being built around them. However, they’ve been less than forthcoming about what sort of community benefits will be made available, how businesses will be protected, and they have yet to see any real evidence of employment opportunities apart from job fairs advertising entry-level and junior positions.

It’s important to have housing, especially near the Eglinton Crosstown and the Ontario Line. But under the chaotic and unpredictable housing environment created by this government, my constituents are seeing rampant demovictions, unacceptable above-guideline rent increases, and appalling wait times for the Landlord and Tenant Board.

We need to make sure all the infrastructure that makes communities feel like home—schools, parks, libraries and more—are an integral part of that development.

The government must take action and provide the people of Don Valley East information about the progress of both the Eglinton Crosstown and the Ontario Line.

Camp Quality

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It is National Volunteer Week. The motto, of course, is “Every Moment Matters.” If you ask my guests here today—Fiona Fisher, the executive director; Manal Al Halabi from finance; and Lauren Burke, the senior director of strategy and program for Camp Quality—they will probably say, “Yes, every moment matters.” But for those of us who volunteered for Camp Quality, a free pediatric oncology camp, we would say that every moment that was given to us by the children and the other volunteers at Camp Quality mattered more than anything we could ever dream of.

A year and a half ago, I found myself numb, dealing with a new diagnosis of bipolar disorder and trying to find a path forward for myself in what would be my expected new life. Going to Camp Quality was one of the things that allowed me to really see what true happiness could be. Children who were dealing with a cancer diagnosis, and some who may not have had much time left to live, reminded each of us at that camp that life is worth living, that life is important to share, no matter how many cards are stacked against you. Every single day, those children get up and they live life with a massive smile on their face—children, seven years old, being teachers to those of us much older.

Every moment does matter. When we talk about Camp Quality and the work that Fiona and her team do—it brings dignity; it brings a smile to the faces not just of those children and not just of their families, but those of us they’ve chosen to spend some time volunteering for them.

Brampton Steelheads hockey team

Mr. Graham McGregor: It’s my pleasure to rise in the House today to highlight very exciting news for Brampton. Just in time for the 2024-25 Ontario Hockey League season, I’m proud to announce that Brampton will be getting our own OHL team when the Steelheads come to town. That’s right; after more than a decade since the Battalion left, OHL hockey is coming back to Brampton. This is great news, not just for my constituents, but for hockey fans across Brampton.

And yes, Mr. Speaker, Brampton is a hockey town. Brampton is proud to have developed some of the best talent the game has seen, including Cassie Campbell, Sean Monahan, Rick Nash and Tyler Seguin, just to name a few. More recently, our city was proud to host Hockey Night in Brampton last August, where Brampton’s passionate hockey fan base came together to raise over $1 million for our second hospital.

This move represents why Brampton is the place to be. With our vibrant and diverse population and our passion for developing the next generation of sports talent, Brampton is quickly becoming the breeding ground for sports excellence nationwide. Not only will this move give Brampton youth a chance to play for their hometown, but it will give our city front-row seats to watch them grow into the next generation of hockey stars.

I can’t wait to don a Brampton Steelheads jersey and cheer on our boys this fall.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We have with us in the Speaker’s gallery today Oleh Nikolenko, the consul general of Ukraine in Toronto. Please join me in warmly welcoming our guest to the Legislative Assembly today.

M me Chandra Pasma: J’aimerais accueillir nos amis de l’ACÉPO, l’Association des conseils scolaires des écoles publiques de l’Ontario, aujourd’hui, y compris leur président, Denis Labelle; leur vice-présidente, Samia Ouled Ali, qui habite dans ma circonscription d’Ottawa-Ouest–Nepean; la directrice générale, Isabelle Girard; aussi d’Ottawa, Christian-Charle Bouchard; et tous les conseillers scolaires et les directeurs d’éducation qui nous joignent ce matin. Bienvenue.

I would also like to welcome, from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Teresa Van Raay, Andrea McCoy-Naperstkow, Clint Cameron and Jonathan Miller. I’m looking forward to our meeting this afternoon.

Mr. Kevin Holland: I want to take the opportunity to welcome, from Thunder Bay–Atikokan, my good friend Bill Groenheide, who’s here with the OFA today.

M. Guy Bourgouin: Il me fait plaisir de vous présenter et souhaiter la bienvenue à Denis Labelle, président, et Jeannette Labrèche, deux représentants du Nord pour l’Association des conseils scolaires des écoles publiques de l’Ontario. Bienvenue à Queen’s Park. Encore, ça m’a fait plaisir de vous voir ce matin au déjeuner.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: I have a couple of people to introduce—one is the charming communications branch from the Ministry of the Solicitor General. I ran into them in the hallway, and they’re here. Welcome.

I also have energetic Eldon Mascoll to introduce. He’s an iconic cultural hero and the producer of Canadian Black History Experience, which is an immersive touring show celebrating Black Canadian trailblazers.

Welcome to your House, Eldon.

Mr. Rick Byers: Mr. Speaker, it’s my pleasure to welcome Paul Vickers to the Legislature this morning. He’s an active farmer in Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, and he’s here for the meetings of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

I’d also like to recognize today’s page captain from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, Bella-Sitara Singh Soares. She’ll do a great job today.

Mr. John Vanthof: On behalf of the official opposition, I would like to welcome the OFA board and their staff here today and several young agricultural leaders they’ve brought with them. We had a great meeting with them this morning, and I hope they have many more great meetings today.

Thank you for growing our food.

Ms. Patrice Barnes: I’d like to welcome to the House Dave Buchanan and Kunal Thukral, here from HCLTech. They’re hosting a reception today in 228.

MPP Jill Andrew: I’d like to introduce Alexandre Beaudin, project lead, development of collective intelligence at ACÉPO, the association of French-language public school boards.

Mr. Mike Harris: It’s a special day in our house. I’d like to wish my daughter Gemma a happy eighth birthday. I know she’s at school, but we’ll send her the clip a little later on today.

MPP Jamie West: J’aimerais souhaiter la bienvenue à mes électeurs de l’Association des conseils scolaires des écoles publiques de l’Ontario : Francine Vaillancourt, vice-présidente, Conseil scolaire du Grand Nord, et Sébastien Fontaine, directeur de l’éducation, Conseil scolaire du Grand Nord. Bienvenue à Queen’s Park.

Hon. Jill Dunlop: I, too, would like to introduce one of my local farmers from Lafontaine. He’s also a director with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture: Paul Maurice. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: It gives me great pleasure to welcome individuals from First Work, Ontario’s workforce development and youth employment network. They will be hosting a networking reception from 5 until 7 p.m. in rooms 228 and 230. I hope all members can join us.

L’hon. Stephen Lecce: Bonjour, monsieur le Président. Aujourd’hui, j’aimerais présenter à Queen’s Park l’ACÉPO. Merci pour votre leadership et votre collaboration.

We want to welcome the amazing French public school board trustees and leaders from across Ontario. Thank you for your leadership in Ontario.

Ms. Jessica Bell: I’d like to introduce Michel Laverdière, director of education for Viamonde, and Sylvie Gervais from ACÉPO. Welcome to our House.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Visiting Queen’s Park for, I believe, the first time are the mayor of Orangeville, Lisa Post; councillor of Orangeville Todd Taylor, who also happened to serve as s Dufferin county councillor; and the CAO for the county of Dufferin, Sonya Pritchard. Welcome to the House.

MPP Lise Vaugeois: J’aimerais souhaiter la bienvenue à Anne-Marie Gélineault, Francine Vaillancourt, Sébastien Fontaine et Catherine Chereau-Sharp du Conseil scolaire du Grand Nord. Bienvenue.

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: I just want to wish a happy birthday to my colleague Sarah Jama and our wonderful Trevor. Happy birthday.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Today, I’d like to welcome to the House Drew Spoelstra, president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. He’s here with his provincial directors, but more importantly, a number of young farmers from across Ontario. I’d like to welcome Vanessa Renaud, Angela Cammaert, Julie McIntosh, Derek Van De Walle, Jonathan Miller, Brad Snobelen and Matt Chapple.

I’d like to invite everyone to the OFA reception later this afternoon in the dining room.

I’d also like to give a warm welcome to Stephanie, who’s with me today, a student from York University.

MPP Lise Vaugeois: I’d also like to welcome, from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Bill Groenheide and Angela Cammaert. I’m looking forward to meeting with you later.

Hon. Graydon Smith: I want to introduce Bruce Cazabon, vice-president, and Yves Laliberté, director of education, from le Conseil scolaire public du Nord-Est de l’Ontario. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

M. Stéphane Sarrazin: J’aimerais aussi souhaiter la bienvenue aux membres du Conseil des écoles publiques de l’Est de l’Ontario. Les membres du CEPEO sont ici à Queen’s Park avec d’autres membres de l’ACÉPO, l’Association des conseils scolaires des écoles publiques de l’Ontario. C’était un plaisir de les rencontrer, ces gens-là, pour déjeuner ce matin. On a eu de belles discussions.

Je voulais juste dire que je me joindrai aux membres du CEPEO jeudi soir au centre Shenkman à Orléans pour prendre part aux célébrations en l’honneur du 25 e anniversaire du Conseil des écoles publiques de l’Est de l’Ontario.

Merci d’être parmi nous aujourd’hui. Bienvenue à Queen’s Park.

Question Period

Pay equity

Ms. Marit Stiles: Today marks Equal Pay Day. It’s the day when we mark how far into the next year women have to work to catch up to what most men had earned the previous year. When you’re racialized, Indigenous, a member of the LQBTQ community, the wait for equal pay day is even longer. Women of all age groups, across the board, earn less than men.

So my question to the Premier is, will he commit to ensuring that every woman worker earns as much as her male counterparts?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development.

Hon. David Piccini: In short, yes, we’ll continue to work to ensure that across Ontario.

I would say, to date, we’ve done a number of important things as a government to ensure women have equal opportunities to men and are paid equally. We have a pay equity commissioner we’ve been working very closely with: Kadie Ward.

Speaker, we’ve also taken a number of bold steps. To think that up until this Premier was elected, we virtually ignored 50% of the workforce in building the critical infrastructure we need—the hospitals, the schools, the bridges, everything we need in this province. Statistically, it’s working. We now see a 30% increase in women registration in apprenticeships; we see a 116% increase in the building trades.

We’re going to keep working to ensure that every young girl across Ontario achieves their full potential.

In the supplementary, I’ll turn it over to my colleague.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, for more than 30 years, pay equity has been the law in Ontario—it was hard-fought and it was won by the activism of women from across this province. But for over a decade now, the gender wage ratio hasn’t improved; women still make 87 cents on the dollar.

Closing the gender pay gap and supporting women and gender-diverse peoples’ economic equality is a government responsibility.

Women frequently work in jobs taking care of people and the community—from the doctors, nurses and PSWs who keep our health care system going to the ECEs in our child care centres who care for our children while we’re at work.

Will the Premier commit to properly funding the strong public services that support women’s economic equality?

Interjections.

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

The Associate Minister of Women’s Social and Economic Opportunity.

Hon. Charmaine A. Williams: Speaker, our government will always stand up for pay equity in the workplace and for a woman’s right to be paid fairly for the work that she does.

Employers cannot pay women less based on their gender. And we will continue to hold bad actors accountable, which is why we have the pay equity commission, which has been working with us very closely to ensure we close that gap.

Let’s be real, Mr. Speaker. We can’t go back to the failed policies of the Liberals, supported by the NDP, that chased away thousands of jobs. Do you know what that did? It forced many women to be the sole income earner for homes. It forced many women on social assistance, forcing the government to have to take care of them.

This is why we changed the name of our ministry to “women’s social and economic opportunity”—because we believe in empowering women, because we believe that women can do the jobs that any man can do. That’s why we’ve invested billions in the skills development program, the invest in women program and the Women’s Economic Security Program. We’ve done historic changes to our child care program. We’ve closed the gap. We’ve seen more women working today than we have before. And we’re going continue to do this work.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, they say they stand up for it, but women still only make 87 cents on the dollar.

If we don’t have strong public services like affordable child care and health care and education, women will be left behind. If child care is so out of reach, you’re not going to be able to climb the corporate ladder. If you’re at home taking care of your aging parents, you can’t log those extra hours to get that promotion.

Here’s what I’ve been thinking about lately: our mothers and our grandmothers who fought so hard for these rights and services so that we and our daughters—my daughters—our granddaughters, all of us women in this chamber can have a chance. In an increasingly hostile environment for women, we cannot take those rights and services for granted.

What is the Premier’s plan to protect the rights and services that women have fought so hard for?

Interjections.

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

Again, the Associate Minister of Women’s Social and Economic Opportunity.

Hon. Charmaine A. Williams: I agree. There’s so much work that has been done to see women progress. I appreciate the passion, and we share the same passion.

That’s why if a woman chooses to go to work, we want to make sure we have the infrastructure in place to support that choice. That’s also why we’ve been able to secure the largest portion of funding from the federal government out of any province in Canada, through our Minister of Education, to ensure that the portion of families who need child care from a for-profit child care service provider can still get the child care they deserve. We’ve seen that this has made an impact. More women with children aged zero to five are working—the first time we’ve had an increase since 1976.

These are things to celebrate, and these are the things that we’re doing in our government to make sure that we’re bringing back our economy, through our Minister of Economic Development, attracting many businesses back to Canada and Ontario so that women are able to be at the forefront of these beneficiaries.

Pay equity / Équité salariale

Ms. Marit Stiles: I’m going to put my question back to the Premier. It’s very simple.

We believe people doing the same work should be paid the same regardless of their gender; workers in the health care system expect the same. That’s why front-line health care workers belonging to SEIU and the Ontario Nurses’ Association have spent over a decade fighting for a gender-neutral wage under the Pay Equity Act. The Premier calls these working women heroes—he loves to call them heroes—but he has done nothing to improve their wages or work with them on the Pay Equity Act. Instead, he has repeatedly taken them to court.

Why is the Premier repeatedly taking hard-working women to court instead of giving them what they’re owed?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Associate Minister of Women’s Social and Economic Opportunity.

Hon. Charmaine A. Williams: There’s always more that we can do in Ontario, but I have to say we are doing quite a bit—like we heard, a 30% increase of women in the trades; that’s a 110% increase of women in construction alone.

The OECD global report on pay transparency and pay equity stated that Ontario’s Pay Equity Act punches well above the global legislative weight, having one of the most rigorous applications. Ontario was one of the first governments, globally, to articulate and legislate pay equity based on the foundational concept of equal pay for work of equal value.

Mr. Speaker, we are working to correct the historical undervaluation of jobs typically held by women, and we’re going to continue to do that, and also ensure that women can choose to enter any sector they want, like STEM, like the skilled trades. We’re getting it done. We’re getting more women working in jobs that pay well so that they can take care of their family and keep themselves and their families safe.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: The minister is right; there always is something more we could do. We could stop trying to take them to court every five minutes.

I’m going to go back to the Premier again. The vast majority of long-term-care workers and home care workers in this province are women—but the CEOs of the three largest nursing home corporations? All men. Extendicare, Chartwell, Sienna—linked hand in glove with this government—are massive corporations, spending millions of dollars to take these women, their employees and members of SEIU and ONA to court to deny them pay equity.

At the same time, those three companies alone are running a gravy train that has rolled out millions in executive compensation and over $500 million in shareholder profits—and I want to say, that was just since the pandemic—all while these women are struggling to pay rent.

On Equal Pay Day, whose side is this government on? The millionaire fat cats who profit from government contracts or the working women who simply want equal pay for equal work?

Interjections.

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

The associate minister.

Hon. Charmaine A. Williams: We are on the side of women—women being in the driver’s seat of their economic future, women who can have the choice to be in the C-suite or to work the front line. I am so proud of what we’re doing to ensure that we are fighting to see that women have any area that they want to get into.

I have been able to go down 10,000 feet in a mine, and guess who I found down there? I found women working down there. In a sector that has traditionally been male-dominated, we are seeing more women taking on the brave step to say, “I can be down in those mines. I can be working in Women in Wood,” which is another group that I have been able to meet with.

Do you know what else, Mr. Speaker? We’re ensuring that women have the opportunity to be in the leadership positions. We want to ensure that men will support women and give them the opportunity to take on these leadership positions.

We know that we’re going to see more women in these leadership positions that the—

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

M me Marit Stiles: Ma question est au premier ministre encore. Il faut vous le répéter : vos amis, Extendicare, Sienna, Chartwell, dépensent des millions de dollars pour amener des femmes sous-payées en cour pour assurer qu’elles restent sous-payées. Pendant que leurs salaires ne reflètent pas l’importance de leur travail, ces compagnies donnent plus de 500 millions de dividendes à leurs actionnaires.

Monsieur le Premier Ministre, aujourd’hui, c’est la journée de l’équité salariale. Trouvez-vous sincèrement que ces femmes reçoivent leur juste part pour le fruit de leur travail ?

Hon. Charmaine A. Williams: I’ve been so privileged to be able to meet with so many strong women across Ontario. All women are saying the same things—“We can do these jobs; we can see ourselves in the leadership positions”—especially when I meet with the amazing women who are in the care industry, who are taking care of those when many of us are having to do other jobs.

I think the support and the fellowship that we have with women in every single sector, especially our front-line workers, is paramount.

I want to talk about the number of women on boards. I think our government has done some major things to ensure that we are seeing equal representation on boards. We want to keep encouraging this trend. More women are sitting on boards than ever before—and when you have more women at the head, you have a 75% increase of the rest of the company having gender equity.

These are the things that we’re doing. And we’re working in these sectors to ensure that we are putting women in these leadership positions everywhere in the province.

Pay equity

MPP Jill Andrew: Today is Equal Pay Day, yet the gender pay gap continues to average at 32%; for Black and Indigenous women, the gap is 42%. Arab women are the lowest-paid women in Ontario’s labour market, with a shocking 47% wage gap—that’s 53 cents for every dollar a man makes.

Ontario’s public child care, education, social and community service providers are mostly women, mainly racialized women. They’re overworked, they’re underpaid, and they’re undervalued.

Since 2018, this government has cut spending to community and social services by 12.1%. Since 2022, Ontario has spent the least amount on social and community services than any province in our nation.

My question is to the Premier. Is this Conservative government okay with shortchanging women?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Associate Minister of Women’s Social and Economic Opportunity.

Hon. Charmaine A. Williams: It surprises me that the member opposite is saying that because, in fact, we’ve increased the budget $1.6 billion—and then another $600 million again this year. A part of that is also ensuring—and actually at the forefront is ensuring that we provide supports to see that women are getting training in job readiness and to see that women have the opportunity to get skills development in different sectors that pay very well. That is what the whole fifth pillar of Ontario-STANDS focuses on: ensuring that women are able to be in the driver’s seat of their economic future. That is our commitment—economic development, social and economic opportunities for women.

That’s why a quote from the chamber of commerce release said, “The good news is that women’s wages have grown faster than men’s in recent decades....” That’s because of the work we’re doing in our government to make sure that we’re building Ontario’s economy.

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

MPP Jill Andrew: Speaker, Ontario pay equity legislation passed over 30 years ago, yet it still remains a drop of water in a desert for many women. We need it fully actualized today.

Instead, the Conservatives are preoccupied with funding cuts and privatization schemes, which we know will only further the gender wage gap.

While this government’s Bill 149 requires some employers to publicly post pay ranges, it did nothing to ensure these ranges are actually realistic and aren’t simply perpetuating the gender pay gap.

The government continues to block the Pay Transparency Act, 2018.

Back to the Premier: Today is Equal Pay Day. Will the Premier finally implement the Pay Transparency Act, 2018, to help narrow the gender wage gap and increase women’s economic liberation?

Interjections.

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

Again, to reply, the associate minister.

Hon. Charmaine A. Williams: I’m actually quite baffled by the question from the member opposite.

If we understand the economics, a poor economy means women suffer. And if we actually look at what’s happening today—we saw the federal Liberals, supported by the Liberals in this House, increase the carbon tax. Do you know who that impacts? That impacts women.

Right now, we have so many women who have to choose whether or not they’re going to put their child in swimming lessons or pay their hydro bill.

Mr. Speaker, we know a poor economy is what really impacts women. We saw, when jobs were being chased away, women had to become the sole income earners for homes. That’s terrible.

That’s why we’ve made the steps. Our Minister of Economic Development has attracted billions of dollars of new industry investments in Ontario, and women are going to be the beneficiaries of that.

Supporting women and supporting our economy means making sure that women are kept safe.

We’re going to continue to move forward and do what we’re doing to build Ontario’s economy, and women are at the forefront of that.

Taxation

Mr. Mike Harris: My question is for the Minister of Energy.

The Liberal carbon tax is one of the worst taxes this country has ever seen. It punishes families and small businesses, and it hurts Ontario’s growth and economic progress. This regressive tax is unnecessarily increasing the cost of everything Ontarians need on a daily basis. We know that the people of Ontario deserve better.

That’s why our government continues to remain laser-focused on fighting the carbon tax and keeping costs down. But the Liberal members across the aisle and the carbon tax queen herself, Bonnie Crombie, are working against us. That is unacceptable.

Can the minister please explain how the carbon tax is driving up the cost for everyday Ontarians?

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you to the great member from Kitchener–Conestoga for the question. He’s absolutely right; the carbon tax is driving up the cost of everything, including the food items we buy.

Let’s just take a little ride with a loaf of bread—the loaf of bread that you get at the grocery store. The Grain Farmers of Ontario expect to pay $2.7 billion in carbon tax by 2030, driving up the cost of grain. But it doesn’t stop there. Businesses that mill the grain into flour and then turn that flour into bread pay a carbon tax on their operations, and then there are carbon taxes on the fuel to get it to the distribution centre and to the grocery store. And the grocery store pays carbon tax on their operations, including their heating and their cooling and everything else. It’s a never-ending saga under these Liberals.

The fact is, if the federal government would understand the damage that they’re doing to people all across Ontario, they would scrap the tax.

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

Mr. Mike Harris: Thank you to the parliamentary assistant for his response.

The parliamentary assistant is right; this tax is not working for the people. It is jacking up the price of everything and making life more difficult for hard-working Ontarians.

The same old Liberal story is happening all over again. Under the previous Liberal government, people in my riding of Kitchener–Conestoga saw their electricity prices skyrocket, increasing by more than—get this, colleagues—$1,000 a year. Now they are supporting their federal buddies’ tax grabs.

Unlike the Liberals, our government has worked hard to make energy more affordable so that Ontario families don’t have to choose between paying their electricity bill or putting food on the table.

Can the minister please tell this House how our government is delivering the support Ontarians need as we continue to fight this job-killing, regressive carbon tax?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thanks for the supplementary question from the member.

Energy is a great subject for us to be talking about; not so much by the Liberals, because they could never figure it out.

We’re doing everything we can to make energy affordable here in the province of Ontario so families and businesses can survive and businesses can invest in their operations. We’re ensuring affordable home heating through our Clean Home Heating Initiative and the natural gas expansion program. We’re building the next generation of affordable nuclear energy in this province so we will have guaranteed energy for decades to come.

Speaker, they failed in energy policy. They’re failing in their approach to the carbon tax.

We’re going to continue to make life more affordable for the people of Ontario.

Child care

MPP Lise Vaugeois: Early childhood workers are asking when they will receive the provincial minimum wage increase promised for January 2024. There has been no communication from the government about this delay. And now the Trillium is reporting that the increase won’t take effect until June. This uncertainty has been incredibly difficult for workers to bear.

The government talks about empowering women, so why is the government shortchanging the lowest-paid workers in this women-dominated industry?

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

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

Indeed, we are committed to making life more affordable for mothers and for women across the economy—working with the minister and I.

This government has cut fees historically by 50% for working families, saving roughly $8,000 to $12,000 a year. We’re also building 86,000 additional spaces in small towns and big cities to reduce the wait-lists, to make it more accessible for families.

With respect to the workers, we stand with them. It’s why the government announced an over 19% increase in wages, which was opposed by members opposite. And notwithstanding that opposition, we’re going to continue to lift wages every year. What we did in this deal is deliver wage parity with school board ECEs who were making more. We’ve now closed that gap.

We’ve delivered more access, increased the rate of wages. And we’re reducing fees for Ontario families.

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

MPP Lise Vaugeois: I think workers would appreciate getting a date for the implementation of those wage increases.

In my riding of Thunder Bay–Superior North, we are at risk of losing our only rural child care program because of a lack of qualified early childhood educators. People in my riding are desperate, especially those who live in rural areas but work in Thunder Bay. They have no idea how they will be able to keep their jobs if they can’t find child care.

The government loves to talk about construction workers, but the reality is that female-dominated professions and the care of children continue to be disrespected and underfunded.

What is this government doing to raise pay rates? We’ve heard that they’re going to raise them; tell us when, so that people can look forward to an increase in their pay packages.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Speaker, our government increased wages by nearly 20% for ECEs. We appreciate their work. It’s why we’ve increased the amount of spaces for them and roles for them, in addition to the salary. In addition to that, we’ll increase wages by $1 per hour per year, every year, over the course of this agreement. We have ensured wage parity—we’ve now moved from one of the lowest levels to the median average in the province, and we are now on par with school boards in Ontario. In addition to that, we’re supporting career laddering to make sure that ECEs who want to move up to become educators can do that too, by providing fees within their college program.

Mr. Speaker, we’ve cut red tape for the operator. We’ve cut fees for the parent. We’re increasing wages for the worker. We’re doing all of this without the support of the members opposite.

Taxation

Mr. Amarjot Sandhu: My question is for the Minister of Finance.

The federal carbon tax is hurting people in my riding of Brampton West and across Ontario. It is driving up inflation and raising the price of everything, from groceries and gas to home heating. Everyone has had enough of the carbon tax, and everyone knows it is just another Liberal tax grab. Unlike the opposition NDP and independent Liberals, our government won’t stop standing up for people of this province. We’ll continue to call on the federal government to put an end to this regressive measure.

Can the minister please tell the House why the federal government must end this costly carbon tax?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Thank you to the member from Brampton West for that very fine question.

High inflation, interest rates and the newly high cost of the federal carbon tax have pushed up costs for people right across this great province.

We have heard from jurisdictions and leaders across the country and across the political spectrum that the carbon tax is making life more expensive. In fact, it seems the only ones left supporting this punitive tax are the federal Liberals and, of course, the queen of the carbon tax—yes, herself—Bonnie Crombie.

Mr. Speaker, today, the federal government releases their budget, so we renew our call one more time: It’s time for all parties and all governments to come together. Let’s scrap the tax and make life more affordable for the people of not just Ontario, but all of Canada.

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

Mr. Amarjot Sandhu: Thank you to the minister for his response.

The carbon tax is not only driving up our energy and gas bills, but also the cost of food, housing and more. Hiking this punitive and regressive tax is unacceptable to each and every Ontario resident who is already seeing their hard-earned dollars stretched further than ever before.

We know the NDP and the independent Liberals won’t stand up for the people of this province. They actually want to see the carbon tax triple by 2030.

That’s exactly why our government will continue to protect Ontario workers and families from the high cost of the carbon tax, and we urge the federal government to do the same.

Can the minister please explain what our government is doing to keep costs down for Ontario families?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Thank you again to the hard-working member for his question.

When it comes to the carbon tax, we know that Bonnie Crombie and the Liberals have chosen to stand with the federal government over the hard-working Ontarians all across the province.

I was proud to stand beside the Premier to announce that we have extended the gas tax cut and are keeping costs down for the people of Ontario. This historic cut will save Ontario households $320 and provide billions of savings across the province.

I think it’s important that all members of this House join us in voting to make life more affordable for Ontarians. So I call on the Ontario Liberals to vote for our 2024 budget as we bring down costs for the people of Ontario.

Skilled trades / Pay equity

MPP Jamie West: My question is for the Premier.

Speaker, the trades provide lucrative and secure employment for millions of Ontarians. Historically, women have been under-represented in these industries. To close the gender wage gap, it’s vital that we start early. We need to make dedicated efforts to recruit women into the trades, and this means ongoing hands-on opportunities throughout high school and post-secondary.

However, high schools and secondary schools have been consistently underfunded by successive Liberal and Conservative governments, which has led to a dramatic decrease in the number of available shops and an extreme shortage of qualified shop teachers.

How does the government expect to recruit women into the trades while neglecting and underfunding these programs?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development.

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, I’m utterly perplexed by that question from that member, who has voted against every measure that this government has put forward—measures to increase school funding, a massive capital increase which includes investments in the trades and shop class; voting against the Skills Development Fund, the largest skills development fund in North America. And what’s that doing? That member and I had a conversation just the other day about SDF projects in his riding that are working in partnership with school boards, that are making historic investments into the trades.

Do you know who’s benefiting? Indigenous youth, women. We’ve seen a 30% increase in apprenticeship registration among women—a historic increase. Stats matter—the largest increase in apprenticeship registration last year.

We’ll take no lessons from the party opposite. In fact, we invite them to join us in making Ontario the best place to live, work and raise a family.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question? The member for London West.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Again to the Premier: When male students and female students go to post-secondary education in Ontario, they pay the same tuition. But when they graduate and go into the labour market, the value of the credential for women is suddenly worth less. Graduate surveys two years after graduation show that female grads in Ontario earn less than male grads across all levels of education and all fields of study; after five years, the gap is even wider.

Why has this government done so little to close the gender pay gap for post-secondary graduates?

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, again, I would point to a stat that my colleague mentioned—that the OECD’s global report on pay transparency and pay equity stated that our act punches well above its global legislative weight.

And what are we doing in this province? Under the historic investments we’ve seen into Ontario, we’ve brought back manufacturing; in fact, we’ve created more jobs than all US states combined. Speaker, do you know who that benefits? Young women I’ve spoken to from Ontario Tech, from Trent, from Fleming, from Loyalist, all graduating into jobs—jobs in the nuclear sector providing the backbone power we need for the electric vehicles.

When I visit the north, I’m speaking to graduates from Queen’s University working in our mining sector, unlocking the critical minerals; engineers that we need to support our massive automotive investments.

The key thing is that at every step along the way, the NDP has said no to critical minerals, no to mining, no to hospitals, no to those investments that are making Ontario—

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

Water quality

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: This week, we found out once again how short-sighted this government is. They are putting rural communities at risk by proposing to eliminate free well water testing in Ontario and close more than half of Ontario’s public health labs. You do not cut corners on water quality. It is a human right. And it is our job, as leaders, to protect Ontarians.

Hello, Walkerton. Do we need a trip down memory lane? We should all remember the horrible tragedy that sickened over 2,000 people and killed seven because of neglect. Surely the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, who represents this beautiful town, would be fighting for the health and safety of her community and against this negligent proposal.

The government is willing to risk the lives of Ontarians to save a buck.

News flash to the penny-pinchers out there: Walkerton cost priceless, precious lives and $155 million.

My question to the Premier: Do you understand the importance of providing safe, clean, accessible water to the people of Ontario?

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

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Let me be as clear as I can possibly be: There is no one in the province of Ontario or in this Legislature who believes that putting well water testing at risk is on the table. I want to be very clear on that matter.

Of course, the Ministry of Health funds Public Health Ontario to provide testing services for individuals who rely on private drinking water systems to serve households. We all know that.

The ministry has not made any decisions about changes to the provincial well water testing program, including which laboratories conduct testing of water samples.

I want to be very clear: There have been no changes. People who want to get their well water tested—and there are thousands across rural Ontario, including in my own riding—take those tests to their public health unit. They get tested. They get those results. That continues.

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

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Well, you can imagine that we don’t have a lot of faith in this government. And your words don’t match your actions. So we want to be proactive.

Does anyone here remember Roland Caldwell Harris, the supremely clever public works commissioner at the city of Toronto from 1912 to 1945? That genius had incredible foresight. The initial design for the iconic R.C. Harris water filtration plant down in the Beach was only half of its current length, but he made sure the whole operation was scalable, because he knew a growing city’s consumption of water would invariably increase.

I urge this government to look ahead. Think of the three million Ontarians who rely on well water. There should be no financial barrier to clean and safe water, especially in an affordability crisis.

This Premier has no problem spending millions on doubling the size of his office, but he cannot spend the money on clean water.

My question to the Premier: How do you justify raising your office budget to $6.9 million while cutting essential public health services like free well water testing?

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

To reply, the Minister of Infrastructure.

Hon. Kinga Surma: Let’s talk about action. Included in the budget, recently announced—$1.8 billion for infrastructure across the province, $825 million of which will go to water infrastructure projects across the province of Ontario to help enable housing development, because we are in a housing crisis, but of course for health and safety purposes as well.

So if you want to talk action, why don’t you preach what’s in the budget?

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

The next question.

Taxation

Ms. Donna Skelly: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Energy.

Our government, as you know, has been standing up for Ontario families and businesses and fighting the federal carbon tax, but that can’t be said for all members in this House. As we know, the Liberals, under the leadership of a woman who is now known as the carbon tax queen, Bonnie Crombie, continue to ignore constituents and stand behind their federal counterparts. The hard-working people of this province deserve so, so much better. They deserve to have more affordability, and they want more money in their pockets. And that’s exactly what our government is doing.

Can the minister please explain what actions our government is taking to mitigate the negative impact of the Liberal carbon tax?

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: I want to thank the great member from Flamborough–Glanbrook for that question.

Speaker, Chrystia Freeland is more interested in photo ops and getting a new pair of shoes than she is in helping the people of Canada and Ontario.

We’re focused on relief for the people of Ontario. We are cutting the gas tax, cutting the tolls on the 412 and 418, and we’re keeping electricity costs down. But the federal government continues to work against us. The whopping 23% increase in the carbon tax on April 1 raises the price of everything, including the prices in grocery and shoe stores, and heating bills.

I’m asking the Liberal members on the other side to join us in telling your federal counterparts the carbon tax is punitive and is hurting families all across this province. Stand up with us. Ask them to scrap the tax.

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

Supplementary question.

Ms. Donna Skelly: Thank you to the parliamentary assistant for his very passionate response.

Speaker, too many people in Ontario are struggling with the rising cost of living. They can’t pay their mortgage. They can’t pay their rent. They’re struggling to buy groceries, to heat their homes.

But the Liberal members in the Legislature—under the leadership of a woman who loves the carbon tax, Bonnie Crombie—fail to acknowledge the devastating impact that this tax is having on so many people in Ontario. They would be happy to raise your taxes each and every year, just like Bonnie Crombie did.

Our government is making life more affordable. Our government is the only group in this House that are fighting the federal government’s unjust and unfair tax hikes.

Can the parliamentary assistant please tell this House why it is time to scrap the carbon tax once and for all?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you to the member for the supplementary question.

Our government has been working hard to make Ontario the best place for business by cutting taxes, reducing red tape and expanding our use of clean energy.

Everything is getting more expensive here in the province of Ontario because of the carbon tax.

But there’s an additional problem, Speaker. You see, in spite of what the federal government tells the people, their intended effect of the carbon tax isn’t working; in fact, it’s noted that the emissions are not going down as a result of that. So the carbon tax isn’t even doing what the federal government said it was going to do.

So here you’ve got something that is not working, but it is succeeding in driving up the cost of everything in Ontario, hurting families, hurting businesses.

For goodness’ sake, Speaker, do they not understand it is time to scrap the carbon tax?

Home care

Mr. Wayne Gates: My question is to the Premier.

Caregivers are holding our health care system together through their tireless and selfless efforts to serve the most vulnerable people in our community. The work is largely done by women. They are doing this at great personal and financial cost, and their workload only goes up as this government co