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

March 4, 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-Mar-04 vol. A (PDF)

L129A - Mon 4 Mar 2024 / Lun 4 mar 2024

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Monday 4 March 2024 Lundi 4 mars 2024

Orders of the Day

Enhancing Access to Justice Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 visant à améliorer l’accès à la justice

Members’ Statements

Natural gas rates

Next Generation 9-1-1 Program

Mois de la Francophonie

Climate change

Special Olympics

Affordable housing / Addiction services

National Association of Women and the Law

Mitchell District High School senior boys basketball team

Oak Bridge Academy

Member for Leeds–Grenville–Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes

Wearing of T-shirt

Introduction of Visitors

Brian Mulroney

Question Period

Highway tolls

Government contracts

Health care

Taxation

Driver examination centres

Taxation

Anti-racism activities

Affordable housing

Taxation

Prescription contraceptives

Government appointments

Taxation

Northern Health Travel Grant

Taxation

Health care

Correction of record

Visitors

Member’s birthday

Notice of dissatisfaction

Deferred Votes

Gender Affirming Health Care Advisory Committee Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 sur le Comité consultatif des soins de santé axés sur l’affirmation de genre

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Social Policy / Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy

Introduction of Bills

The Six Brewing Company Inc. Act, 2024

Petitions

Environmental protection

Alzheimer’s disease

Health care

Tenant protection

Tuition

Missing persons

Tuition

Social assistance

Amyloidosis

Opposition Day

Highway tolls

Orders of the Day

Enhancing Access to Justice Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 visant à améliorer l’accès à la justice

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Enhancing Access to Justice Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 visant à améliorer l’accès à la justice

Mr. Downey moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 157,

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

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Would the minister care to lead off the debate.

Hon. Doug Downey: Yes, I would, Mr. Speaker.

Good morning. I’m pleased to rise in the House today to continue debate on the Enhancing Access to Justice Act, 2023. As I begin, I’ll say that I’m splitting my time with my colleague the Solicitor General.

Now, if passed, Bill 157, the Enhancing Access to Justice Act, would improve access to justice, enhance community safety and modernize the justice system for Ontarians.

The Enhancing Access to Justice Act represents a necessary step forward for Ontario’s justice system. Our government is bringing forward important changes that would allow us to take bold and immediate action to strengthen and modernize the justice system by simplifying court and government operations and increasing community safety. We are also proposing comprehensive legislative updates that address the evolving challenges faced by victims, children and families across our great province.

Before I go any further, though, I want to thank my colleague Minister Kerzner and his team for their great partnership and efforts in supporting this important piece of legislation. I appreciate the opportunity to work alongside my colleague and his incredible team that he leads at the Solicitor General’s office.

I also want to thank the stakeholders who provided input and have been the driving force behind so many of the proposals I’ll share with you today: the Ontario Bar Association, the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association, the Law Society of Ontario, our colleagues at the Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery along with the judiciary and others who have given input into these matters.

I’d also like to mention the numerous stakeholders who provided written submissions and testimony during the public hearings stage. We had a lot of interest, and the standing committee was hard at work going through all of them and having those discussions. I want to thank all members of that committee from all parties. I think it was a very constructive discussion and there were some good amendments that came out of it.

There are so many people who have provided input into this bill and many of them also participated in the consultations during the last few years as we continue to improve Ontario’s justice system. I’d like to acknowledge the First Nations communities that engaged in one-on-one discussions to provide their perspectives on approaches to cannabis regulation and how to support cannabis regulation on-reserve.

I also want to thank the outstanding professionals working at the Ministry of the Attorney General. There are some 8,000-plus employees of the Ministry of the Attorney General across the province. I have to say, their professionalism, drive and collaboration to keep our system going and evolving is unparalleled, from every corner of this province.

I’ve had many different roles in our justice sector myself, including working as a clerk and a court registrar before I went to law school. I know that when positive change happens, it’s truly the result of the determined and collaborative efforts made throughout the system. I am fortunate to play a role in continuing to make positive change, including through the proposals in this important legislation.

Our government is taking active steps to ensure that Ontario’s justice system and laws meet the demands of the 21st century. We’ve hit some major milestones over the past year, but there is always more work to be done. Despite our advances, some of Ontario’s court processes are still pretty inflexible, which can lead to inefficiencies and challenges for court users.

That’s why we are putting forward proposals today to change the Courts of Justice Act and other statutes to create flexibility and fix current gaps in procedures. These changes will streamline processes, create efficiencies and free up court time and resources. I’m talking about common-sense changes like limiting the delays that could happen during a child protection trial when a provincial court judge is appointed to another court.

Here’s how it happens: If an Ontario Court of Justice judge is appointed as a Superior Court judge or a Court of Appeal judge, and they are in the middle of a child protection trial at the time, it has to start all over again with another judge. This kind of disruption could have negative impacts on the child and their family. That’s why we’re making a change to limit this type of disruption and allow that provincial court judge to finish the trial, even if they’re appointed to another court.

We’re also putting forward changes to make certain procedures for judges in the Court of Appeal and Superior Court of Justice more flexible when they deal with common challenges, some of which can cause significant delays and use court resources. One of these challenges is dealing with vexatious litigants.

Now, I want to clarify that a vexatious litigant is someone who repeatedly brings forward legal proceedings that have no chance of succeeding in court. These actions can potentially have an abusive purpose, like harassing or wearing down opposing parties. This depletes the court’s time and resources, which are better used for legitimate attempts to resolve disputes. It also costs the other parties money and time to respond to each case and show up in court.

Currently, an order against a vexatious litigant can only be obtained in the Superior Court of Justice. Our proposal would allow not only Superior Court judges but also judges at the Court of Appeal, the highest level of court in our province, to make orders declaring someone to be a vexatious litigant and stop them from starting any cases in the future without obtaining permission. At the same time, vexatious litigants’ procedural rights will still be preserved, like the right to know that the court is thinking of making an order against them.

Overall, this is a positive change, one that will help reduce the use of court resources and the delays that vexatious litigants can cause. This bill really is about fixing the process. Situations involving vexatious litigants eat up a lot of time. We must make sure that we are building capacity in the system for the employees who we have hired to help bring cases forward.

We have made considerable investments to help resolve long-standing problems. We’ve done a lot of work, but there is more to do. In the same way that we’re improving and modernizing processes in the courts, we also need to address court-related legislation that is now outdated, particularly if this results in those laws being unclear or out of step with current technology or practices.

In the past, we’ve made a number of changes to bring forward change that aligns with technology. In fact, it wasn’t that long ago that we changed the rules of civil procedure to allow service by email instead of by telegraph, which sounds laughable, but that was in fact the case. That was written right in the rules.

We’re proposing changes that would make legislation clear and current, addressing outdated language in

an act or clarifying details that can cause delays and frustration. These are just a few examples of obvious fixes to some long-standing problems. We don’t want to wait any longer to implement them.

Together with the judiciary and partners across the justice system, we continue to harness new and existing technologies to improve and expand access to many different services. I want to take a minute to tell you what we’ve already done and where we’re headed next.

Over the past few years, we’ve been hard at work breaking down long-standing barriers in the system and moving more services online and closer to Ontarians, no matter where they live. This includes rural, northern and First Nations communities. We’ve expanded electronic filing to nearly 800 types of civil, family, bankruptcy, Divisional Court and Small Claims Court documents through Justice Services Online. We’ve expanded our online court case search tool to ensure the public can search basic court information and select civil and active criminal matters without having to line up or call a courthouse.

Speaker, the way this worked before is an individual would have to go to the courthouse, find the kiosk, search through the kiosk to see if there was an outstanding matter or something on the docket that day. This isn’t just about litigation, it’s also about commercial and business services, because if you’re closing a large corporate deal, you would want to know that there is no active litigation happening at the last minute that wasn’t disclosed. So you would send either a clerk or a student or a young lawyer to the courthouse to go check that kiosk.

When COVID came, we couldn’t check kiosks because you couldn’t get in the courthouse because we had to close for safety reasons. The department pivoted very quickly to take that data—I won’t get into the technology of it—very quickly API it into a form that they could put out on the Internet, which is something that I was surprised we weren’t doing already anyway.

The great by-product of doing that was not only to help the practising lawyers and their clients have current information and close deals, but the media was able to check court dockets without having to go down to the courthouse. That wasn’t something that was even on my radar was happening, but it was a great by-product of the technology advancements and doing things the way we expect them to happen in the modern day—increased transparency for the court system, which is something that we all value.

Speaker, we’ve also started implementing landmark projects that will lead to transformative change across the system. I’ve spoken about our Courts Digital Transformation Initiative a number of times in this House. I’m happy to say the project is now under way and will replace outdated paper-based procedures with a single digital platform to support access to the Superior Court of Justice and the Ontario Court of Justice. This is going to change how we do business right across the board.

We currently have different systems running in different courts for different topic areas. If you have a family law matter in the Superior Court as opposed to a family law matter in the Ontario Court, you would be running on a different technological backbone. You wouldn’t have a commonality in the criminal law system, whether it was the Superior Court or Ontario Court. We were running legacy systems that were coming to the end of their life cycle.

For the first time in Ontario history, we’ve managed to have collaboration of all the partners—Superior Court, Ontario Court and the Ministry of the Attorney General—to come together to create one backbone for the system. I can tell you this is being watched around the world. It’s going to be a significant change in how we do business and how paper flows. It’s going to update the paper-based procedures with a single digital platform.

The platform will be better for people who encounter the system. This isn’t just about lawyers and judges, this is about the everyday citizen who’s going to come in contact with the justice system, because their lawyers also—if they have a lawyer—won’t need to know two or three different systems. This will help us on the back end when it comes to IT professionals and having resources available to solve problems quickly, because they’ll need to know one system and not five.

We’re going to have a system that helps them resolve legal matters faster and easier, which by definition means cheaper. It’s going to deliver better service in terms of judges being able to issue orders electronically, information flowing in real time, trials happening and the documents being there.

I know that doesn’t sound like a big deal, having the documents be there, but I can tell you as somebody who was a court clerk and a registrar, a lot of time was spent chasing down paper—paper that may be in the file, may be in the bin to be put in the file, in some cases fell underneath the cabinet when the fax machine rolled off. There was paper all over the place, and there are stories of delays and unintended consequences with that. This will solve those problems, because the paper will flow electronically, and it will be there when it needs to be there—

Mr. Anthony Leardi: So many dead trees avoided.

Hon. Doug Downey: I heard my colleague say, “So many dead trees avoided.” Speaker, I can tell you, I actually have an email—I kept it—from a printer who said that the things that I am doing are seriously affecting his business. I take that as a win. I think that’s a great thing.

When we talk about transformational change, this kind of thing is exactly what we’re talking about: significant investments to move us into a new era of justice in Ontario.

A responsive and agile system is also one that keeps people safe, especially the most vulnerable people in our communities. Increasing access to justice for victims of crime is a vital priority for this government. Ontario’s justice system needs to be accessible and responsive to all Ontarians, especially those who need it the most. That is why we are proposing changes to the Victims’ Bill of Rights that would make it easier and less traumatizing for certain victims to sue convicted offenders for emotional distress and related bodily harm.

Currently, until this bill passes, there are three types of crimes identified in the Victims’ Bill of Rights where a victim can sue their convicted offender for emotional distress that is already presumed to be true. These crimes include assault by a spouse, sexual assault and attempted sexual assault. What it means when we say that they are presumed to be true is, when somebody is the victim of an individual who is convicted, that victim can sue civilly for the emotional and physical damages, and only in those three instances do they not have to prove that they were victimized, don’t have to go through it all again, don’t have to explain that in fact this heinous act victimized them.

There are more areas that I believe—that are in this bill—that it should be expanded to:

—victims of human trafficking, who should not have to go into court and relive the fact that it affected them emotionally and physically—I think we can take it as true, when the individual who perpetuated the crime is convicted, that the victim went through emotional and physical trauma;

—victims where the crime is of a sexual nature or involves a sexual purpose, which is an expansion on the previous three that exist;

—victims of sexual offences who were minors or persons with disabilities at the time of the crime; and

—victims of the distribution of a voyeuristic recording or an intimate image without that person’s consent.

There is well-documented evidence that victims of these crimes experience long-term effects like post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and other mental health conditions.

At FPTs—federal-provincial-territorial meetings—we’ve had discussions about what is happening, of course, on the Internet and the distribution of images without people’s consent, and I can tell you, Speaker, this is really horrific stuff. It really affects individuals who, quite frankly, can’t chase the Internet fast enough. You can’t get it shut down. It’s very difficult once it’s out on the Internet. I think that is obvious to most of us. There are tools, but it’s not sufficient. If you are the victim of somebody doing that, I don’t think you should have to go into court and prove that it, in fact, affected you. I think we can presume that it affected you.

These amendments will complement the recent changes made to the regulation under the Victims’ Bill of Rights, where additional crimes such as terrorism offences, motor vehicle theft and hate crimes that target religious officials and places of worship were all added to the list of crimes where victims can sue their convicted offenders for emotional distress and related bodily harm. Through the work we are proposing, it is clear that we are listening to victims and making the necessary changes to improve their experiences in and with the justice system.

The regulation we amended under the Victims’ Bill of Rights makes it easier for victims of motor vehicle theft to sue convicted offenders for emotional distress and related bodily harm. I’d like to talk about auto theft more broadly for a moment and what the government is doing to address this alarming issue. I think my colleague the Solicitor General may touch on this as well.

As you know, in recent months Ontario has seen significant increases in violent auto thefts. That’s why we’ve made significant investments in new measures over the last year to help the police identify and dismantle organized crime networks and put offenders behind bars. My colleague the Solicitor General knows all about the work we are doing. In fact, he is leading most of it, under the leadership of Premier Ford, to keep communities safe and combat the rise in auto theft. This funding supports first-of-its-kind auto theft prosecution teams that will investigate and prosecute criminal organizations that profit and benefit from stealing vehicles.

As part of these new measures, my ministry is creating a new major auto theft prosecution response team to provide dedicated support to the Ontario Provincial Police. Our $14-million investment over three years in this new auto theft prosecution team will help prevent violent vehicle theft and help identify, disrupt and dismantle organized criminal networks that are involved.

Auto theft and gun crime are urgent and interconnected issues in Ontario. It is vital to take a cross-governmental approach to help keep communities safe. Last month, our federal partners agreed to contribute $121 million to the Gun and Gang Violence Action Fund. This federal funding, in combination with our provincial investments, will support initiatives that not only deliver strong enforcement and prosecution but also address key risk factors associated with crime, violence and victimization. The work is just getting started.

Speaking of safer communities, our government remains committed to protecting children and youth from the negative effects of cannabis. Five years ago, the federal government legalized cannabis in Canada. Part of this new legislation allowed for the growth of up to four cannabis plants in people’s homes. That means currently, recreational cannabis can be legally grown in homes with child care facilities. I don’t think anybody meant that to happen; I don’t think anybody thought that would happen.

As another means of keeping our children and youth safe, we are proposing to ban the growth of recreational cannabis in both licensed and unlicensed homes offering child care services. British Columbia has had a similar rule in place for years. We feel it’s a safe and measured way to limit youth exposure and access to cannabis.

We’re also taking steps to negotiate and implement agreements with First Nations communities to support cannabis regulations on reserves. Entering into agreements with First Nations communities reinforces a shared commitment to keeping communities safe, protecting our youth, ensuring a safe supply of recreational cannabis and reducing unregulated cannabis sales.

Currently, there are only seven licensed recreational cannabis retailers on First Nations reserves in Ontario. This means that all other retailers on reserves are operating outside the provincially regulated framework. That’s why our government is proposing legislative amendments that would strengthen our ability to enter into and implement agreements with communities on reserves. This comes on the heels of much conversation with First Nations partners and the aspirations we share for a safe and regulated market to protect youth in communities.

I just want to clarify that this initiative to allow proposed legislative amendments to strengthen our ability to enter into and implement agreements comes in collaboration with First Nations. This is not the government coming to First Nations saying, “Here’s what we think you should do.” This is First Nations coming to us saying, “We want to work with you. We want to be within the regulated framework. We want to keep our children safe. We want to keep our communities safe, so we want to work with you.” We are adapting to that, and we hope to move beyond the seven licensed recreational cannabis retailers.

I’d like to touch on next—this is really important stuff, and it’s very topical, of course. I want to briefly talk about another way our government is enhancing the justice system, strengthening our community and holding offenders accountable. It’s something we’ve previously announced, and it’s a crucial part of our commitment to keep our communities safe from crime while finding solutions to increase public safety. The Enhancing Access to Justice Act builds on our government’s work to advocate for bail reform and supports our investments in law enforcement, auto theft prevention and court digitalization.

Back in the spring of last year, we announced a $112-million investment over three years to ensure that high-risk and repeat offenders comply with their bail conditions. Now, Speaker, we talk about bail, and it wasn’t that long ago—it certainly doesn’t seem that long ago—that the Premier and the other Premiers got together. Our Premier, Premier Ford, wrote a letter to the federal government, and all the other Premiers and territorial leaders signed onto that letter. It was to the federal government, saying, “We want reverse onus and stricter bail for repeat and violent offenders.”

At first, people said, “Stay in your lane. That’s a federal issue.” But it was so in need of attention that in fact, it was well received. The police associations across the province, across the country, said that yes, they’re seeing the same thing: “Repeat and violent offenders are cycling through courts, and we want something to make a difference.”

We asked for reverse onus. Fairly quickly, I got a call from my counterpart federally. He said, “Would you be willing to meet?” I said, “You name the place. You name the time. We will be there.” The Solicitor General and I went to Ottawa. We had a conversation with the other provinces and territories and the federal government. It was subsequently put into law by the federal government, supported by all parties and is now the law for serious and repeat violent offenders. This is what can happen when Ontario speaks up and when Ontario talks to its colleagues. I can tell you, Mr.

Speaker, we often say in the House that if the opposition would phone their federal cousins on this issue or that issue, it would be helpful. And I don’t know that people know how helpful it could be—because it really does make a difference when we reach to federal counterparts to move ideas forward, and so I think we’ll continue that work and continue to ask for that kind of support.

But in terms of the investment that we made, we’re investing $26 million over three years to establish intensive serious violent crime bail support teams so it will cover all of Ontario. And those are teams, working alongside police services and bail compliance units. The teams make sure all the necessary evidence is in place to make the best possible case when bail hearings are held for repeat offenders involved in serious crimes.

We want to make sure we have our best foot forward, we have all the evidence, that it’s put together in a way that can be easily digested by the justice of the peace or the judge who is hearing the matter. We want to make sure that we have everything together and that there is no excuse for giving bail to somebody who otherwise would not receive it.

I want to update you today on these intensive serious violent crime bail support teams, launched September 25 of last year. They’re all now hard at work. Their goal is to increase public safety by reducing the risk that persons accused of violent and serious crimes will reoffend.

We will continue advocating to the federal government for meaningful bail reform. We need to keep our community safe. There is more to do. We will continue to reach out across the aisle here for support federally so that we can move forward to keep our communities safe—not just our children but all of our communities.

Now, I’d be remiss if didn’t talk about some of the northern and remote services that we have been able to move forward with since I was up last talking. We are now in a position where we have worked with First Nations to put in Starlink in 29 fly-in reserves where we would otherwise require people to leave the reserve to attend a court hearing, and we can now in a stable environment have those hearings online without taking somebody out of their community, which can be very disruptive.

This is not a day trip; this is often flying into Sioux Lookout, travelling to a court location, having the hearing and having to make your way back. It’s very expensive, it’s not very convenient and, quite frankly, it’s disruptive to the community when they have to leave.

Speaker, I’m hesitating a little bit, because when I first learned about how this works—it may actually be that when the individual is leaving the reserve to go to Kenora, for instance, they’re on the same plane. The victim and the offender are on the same plane—a little six-seater plane—and along with perhaps a witness or two, all in this six-seater plane into Sioux Lookout, and then they have to travel to Kenora. The cost associated with all that—but the human dynamic with that is not what we would expect. So Starlink is a game-changer for us, our ability to do things in a remote way, and I’m very, very excited about it.

Now, Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity to discuss this legislation. If passed, the reforms in the Enhancing Access to Justice Act would further support access to justice for victims of crime, simplify court and government operations, and support communities. Today’s proposed changes would make it easier for vulnerable victims of crime to sue an offender for emotional distress, as I mentioned. They would protect children and youth by banning the growth of recreational cannabis in homes that offer child care services and explore ways to put an end to illegal online cannabis sales.

They would limit interruptions to child protection trials that would happen when a provincial court judge is appointed to another court. They would help provide the tools and resources to keep Ontario communities safe and resilient. If passed, the Enhancing Access to Justice Act would ensure that Ontario’s justice system remains fair, responsive and accessible to those in most need, while continuing to keep people safe.

I look forward to continuing to bring forward areas of improvement in the justice system. As you know, Speaker, the job is not done. There are challenges in all systems, and it’s with a keen eye that we’re working with our colleagues—whether it be the Solicitor General, whether it be the Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery, or whether it be any number of ministries—to identify issues, find out policy options, work with our partners in the justice system and beyond, and come to some sort of solution.

We’re in the solution business, Speaker, and we want to make sure that we’re bringing everything forward that we possibly can to protect people, keep communities safe, protect our children and get the job done. I look forward to engaging further with Ontarians and our valued partners in the justice sector on this important legislation.

I’ll now turn things over to the Solicitor General, to discuss his ministry’s very important items in the Enhancing Access to Justice Act. Thank you. Merci. Meegwetch.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bhutila Karpoche): I recognize the Solicitor General.

Hon. Michael S. Kerzner: It’s my pleasure to rise in the House today and to participate in third reading of the Enhancing Access to Justice Act. I want to thank my colleague and friend for speaking now and leading us in the debate on third reading. My colleague is a person who’s absolutely relentless when it comes to helping keep Ontario safe, and I want to thank him sincerely for his leadership each and every day. It has always been a pleasure when we attend conferences in Ottawa, or wherever we go, to stand up for what the values of Ontarians are: to live safely in our communities each and every day. I want to thank him.

Madam Speaker, I also want to acknowledge, as we witness the flags flying at half-staff outside of our Legislative Building, the passing of the 18th Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney. I was in university when Prime Minister Mulroney was our Prime Minister, and I felt, as a student, I had a front-row seat to so many of the challenges, but also opportunities, that he exposed for Canada, and how he reassumed the leadership of Canada’s place around the world. His absence and void to us as Canadians is immeasurable, and I especially want to send my personal condolences to my colleague and friend the President of the Treasury Board, and to the extended Mulroney family.

Public safety and justice will always be important as one of our government’s highest priorities. As part of the oath of office that I took as minister, I am dedicated now more than ever to creating a safer Ontario for everyone. We see it for ourselves, Madam Speaker, as we travel the province. Wherever we go, each member in this incredible Legislature who represents a riding somewhere in Ontario, it’s absolutely undeniable that when we go home to our ridings and constituencies and meet with our neighbours and shopkeepers and friends, public safety is always on their minds each and every day.

For this government—and I’ve said this before—we are concerned about public safety morning, noon and night. Updating this legislation is critical, and our government is acting. Never has there been a government more dedicated to breaking down the barriers and identifying the opportunities that we need to seize upon to keep Ontario safe.

I’ve said this before: Never have we had a Premier who was more committed to keeping our province safe, and it is an honour every day to work and to help build the safest province we can under the leadership of Premier Ford. Our Premier has proven himself with a commitment—an absolute commitment to our public safety. And I’ve said this, as well: His commitment and our government’s commitment to public safety is absolute and constant. The proposed Enhancing Access to Justice Act supports this critical work with amendments to existing public safety legislation.

Public safety plays a crucial role in preventing crime and violence and unacceptable behaviour. I want to touch for a moment on what my colleague the Attorney General said as an example when it comes to fighting auto theft. Why is this so important? Why now are we subjected to such a tremendous, tremendous rise in auto thefts, where people are experiencing seeing their doors kicked in early in the morning and thieves and violent offenders just saying, “Give me your car keys”? It’s completely unacceptable.

Very recently, the Attorney General and I went to attend the auto theft summit, and we advocated strongly to our federal counterpart exactly what needs to be done because Ontario’s police services—the OPP, the municipal police services and First Nations police services—have exposed the criminality that needs to be contained. I said then, when I was at the conference, that there’s a lot that could be done.

And I said then—madame la Présidente, comme je l’ai dit récemment lors de la conférence à Ottawa sur le vol de voitures, je prends la sécurité du public très au sérieux. Nous sommes préoccupés par l’augmentation récente de vol de voitures. Je suis préoccupé par l’augmentation de la criminalité. Mais en même temps, notre gouvernement propose des solutions et des stratégies pour assurer la sécurité de l’Ontario.

And we said it when we were there. We told them exactly what needs to be done and I look forward to working co-operatively with them because we’re dedicated to law enforcement efforts that deter criminal activities, investigate allegations, apprehend offenders and prosecute individuals who violate laws and harm others. My oath aims to protect the lives and the well-being of individuals in everyone’s community.

This includes safeguarding people from harm and injury and violence and accidents and emergencies, ensuring that everyone can live free from fear and insecurity. This includes new regulatory tools that address trends in criminal activity. These tools empower our front line by giving them the means to accomplish tasks independently and confidently. With the right tools and supports, our government will provide even more opportunities to help keep Ontario safe. This aim is to identify and analyze and address the challenges effectively. This will furthermore enhance the ability to keep the people of Ontario safe.

Madam Speaker, when justice is properly aligned with public safety—and my colleague talked about it—the bond strengthens a civil society together. The proposed amendments in this bill will play a crucial role in ensuring that individuals who need this legislation are able to access them. By enshrining them in legal frameworks, they will strengthen protections and solidify them for all of Ontario. Together, we have built strong and accountable institutions that supports the pursuit of justice and reflects who we are and what we stand for. Because our government is breaking down barriers, this has become an evolutionary process.

I want to talk for just a minute about something that I think has been transformational, again led by Premier Ford. And I want to give a shout-out to my parliamentary assistants, the members from Etobicoke–Lakeshore and from Sarnia–Lambton, because they’ve seen it for themselves. They’ve joined me at the Ontario Police College and, Madam Speaker, just in a week’s time—a little more than a week, on March 15—I will have the honour of attending my sixth march past since being sworn in as Solicitor General. And why is this important?

Because the changes our government has made by breaking down the barriers to encourage more people to go to the Ontario Police College, to move the graduating class numbers from approximately 1,400 a year to—please, God—approximately 2,200 a year is transformational. It didn’t just happen; it happened because Premier Ford and our government said, “We need more boots on the ground. We need people keeping our community safe. We have to break down the barriers.” That’s exactly what we did.

On March 15, over 500 new cadets will take their place somewhere in Ontario to help keep Ontario safe. Our communities are growing, so we need more people on the ground to do just that. For me to preside over this moment in time, to see something happen where we can look people in the eye, and say, “We will put more boots on the ground. This is how we’ll do it. This is how we will get more people graduating at the Ontario Police College” has been an honour and a privilege beyond a lifetime.

Another initiative we’re talking about through the act: I want to talk about the CSPA, the Community Safety and Policing Act. This framework legislation that is modernizing the way policing is done in the province is, again, very transformational. It is with immense pride to deliver this act that will come into force on April 1, 2024, in just a few weeks. How unbelievable is this, that the CSPA is redefining community safety? It’s replacing a piece of legislation that was enacted when Bob Rae was Premier in 1990—that’s almost 35 years ago.

To see our province move forward in 2024 to get the job done, to stay true to its commitment that this is something that we would prioritize—and we’ve worked very collaboratively, my colleagues know this—with all the stakeholders: the police associations, the police service boards associations and many who have come together. I must say, Madam Speaker, they represent different interests. At times, historically, they may have been conflicting interests. But the way they work together and to make sure that this was a piece of legislation they could say, “We’ve landed it in a good place”—I want to thank them.

Last week, when I was together with the Premier at the CSPA summit, which will help walk the different stakeholders through how this piece of legislation will be so transformational, was a great honour. Through the act and its regulations, it will effectively respond to the evolving nature of crime and community safety expectations—and that’s the key word, “expectations”—in every municipality. The CSPA will, most importantly, increase the trust between communities and their police services. It will ensure that police work closely with communities, including the most vulnerable.

By the way, Madam Speaker, I’ve said this at many times as part of the march past graduation ceremony at the police college—I’ve urged our cadets to be part of their community, to be part of fabric of the community, to celebrate our differences because Ontario looks like Ontario. Parce que notre diversité est notre plus grande réussite. One of our greatest strengthens is our diversity, and I can tell everyone here that when you attend a march past, as many of us have done over our time in this Legislature—most recently, again, the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore and the member from Sarnia–Lambton bore witness themselves to something so miraculous.

We’ve created this legislation that will promote effective, independent and unbiased governance of policing personnel, and it will happen through an independent process for police disciplinary hearings and oversight. While these principles embedded in the CSPA will stand for generations, the framework itself will evolve with the province, and that’s a very important feature. This is a living document. It will live and it will breathe—an epitome of fairness and safety.

Madam Speaker, the act amendments to the CSPA, the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019, will further clarify the process set out for disciplinary hearings. We are ensuring the benefit and fairness to police officers will come with this legislation because we prioritize the well-being of Ontarians and their communities. The police play a crucial role in achieving this goal.

It’s important for us to ensure police agencies uphold the rule of law by enforcing the laws impartially and consistently. Changes to the process for public engagement on regulatory proposals under the CSPA will align with process across government statutes. The proposed amendments are imperative before bringing the new policing framework into force on April 1 this year. One of the cornerstones is to reform Ontario’s police oversight framework.

As part of the act, the Ontario Police Arbitration Commission will be renamed the Ontario Police Arbitration and Adjudication Commission, or OPAAC. The chair of OPAAC will take on an expanded mandate, including appointing independent adjudicators to hearings. This will give police officers greater confidence through independent hearings.

Independent hearings protect the rights of individuals by providing a transparent and accountable process for resolving disputes or addressing allegations of wrongdoing. Officers involved in hearings will have the opportunity to present evidence, make arguments and receive a fair and impartial decision safeguarding their rights and ensuring access to justice and notably increasing public confidence in the police disciplinary process as well.

The proposed Enhancing Access to Justice Act, 2023, includes an amendment to the CSPA that states only the adjudicator must be appointed within 30 days. If passed, the proposed amendment will support the development of appropriate and responsive rules for procedure for expungement hearings.

Let me give you an example of the special constables. We know it in this House: The special constables play a vital role in keeping Ontario’s communities safe. Our government is very appreciative to the special constables. In late December, I marched past over 50 special constables receiving their badges at the Toronto Police College. It was a tremendous honour. But there is something wrong with the job title in the current legislation.

Let me explain again: The French translation of “special constables” used in Ontario statutes is “agent spécial.” “Agent spécial” also appears on special constable’s uniforms, crests and badges. This is not only inconsistent with the French translation of “special constables” used in Quebec and New Brunswick, but can also be confusing in public spaces. There will be no more special agents, and special constables will be defined in French as “constables spéciaux.” The term “agent spécial” is also used in several Ontario statutes in addition to the CSPA and that’s why we’re taking action to amend this issue.

Inconsistency in French terminology between statutes causes confusion. The amendment, if passed, would change the term in all Ontario statutes upon the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019, coming into force on the 1st of April 2024. This will make our message clear and ensure special constables will be properly identified in both languages.

Madam Speaker, I also want to bring attention to the Office of the Chief Coroner and the Office of the Fire Marshal. They both play a very critical role in our community safety.

The chief coroner oversees the provincial death investigation system, ensuring that deaths occurring in Ontario are appropriately investigated to determine the cause and manner of death. This includes deaths that are sudden and unexpected, suspicious, violent or otherwise unnatural. Through death investigations, the chief coroner, led by an exceptional individual, Dr. Dirk Huyer, helps identify public health and safety risks, trends and patterns related to causes of death. This information can inform the public and health policies, interventions and initiatives aimed at preventing future deaths.

The amendments to the Coroners Act will improve the timeliness of construction-related death investigations. We are looking, Madam Speaker, at ways of saving lives from the aspect of public safety because everyone deserves to go home from work safely each and every day.

Construction workers are the unsung heroes who help build Ontario’s infrastructure, as we’ve said it many times in this House—parce que nous croyons en notre province et en notre avenir. Ensemble, nous bâtissons l’Ontario. Well, who is going to build Ontario? We need the construction workers to help build Ontario, and they are.

I tell you something: When I see a construction worker working to help build Ontario, they’re not necessarily building it for us. They’re building it for our children and the next generations. Our government’s ambitious building strategy relies heavily on their efforts.

But in times of public health emergencies, natural disasters and other crises relating to issues that arise, the chief coroner again plays a critical role. They are the ones coordinating and overseeing the responses of the death investigation system by deploying resources, coordinating efforts with other agencies and ensuring timely and appropriate handling of deceased individuals.

As of now, the Office of the Chief Coroner investigates every construction-related death. This process is time-consuming, which means providing answers to distraught families is often delayed.

Madam Speaker, currently, it takes approximately three years for an inquest to be scheduled. Waiting for an inquest can be perceived as inactivity. This leads to frustration, particularly in situations where there are no pressing deadlines due to the nature of the investigation. And this can only happen once all the regulatory investigations and prosecutions under the Occupational Health and Safety Act have been completed.

The current legislation aims to conduct a construction fatality in isolation that can potentially point to root causes that could prevent multiple deaths. The proposed changes in the act include an amendment to the Coroners Act that, if passed, would require accidental construction-related deaths be subject to a coroner-led mandatory annual review. This change, this single mandatory inquest for incidents where one or multiple deaths occur—and the review process will include industry representatives and experts. The coroner’s inquest would remain an important option where appropriate.

Families would also be involved in the mandatory review process and could request that an inquest be held in addition to the review.

I feel, Madam Speaker, as we all do, for losing anyone that helps builds Ontario, anyone that helps keep Ontario safe, and that’s why we have to stand with the families of the construction workers and make sure we understand the lessons that were learned. Zero construction deaths will be our goal, and we will always have the backs of all the loved ones. The proposed amendments, I believe, will lead to a broader and systemic examination of the safety issues.

I want to say also that the CSPA will seek to amend the Fire Protection and Prevention Act. Ontario has evolved over time, and the legislation needs to adapt to address these new challenges. Emerging issues and changes in circumstances ensure that legislation must remain relevant and effective in addressing contemporary needs and realities for fire.

I want to give a shout-out to our great Ontario fire marshal, Jon Pegg. Jon is an incredible individual that has gone through all the province promoting fire safety, sending a positive message that we need to work together with fire services all across Ontario, with the chiefs, with the professional firefighters, with the volunteer firefighters, with concerned individuals. I want to thank Jon for everything he does each day to keep Ontario safe.

There’s a gap in the range of enforcement tools under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, and we want to close these gaps.

I want to talk about the administrative monetary penalties, otherwise known as AMPs, to encourage compliance. AMP frameworks allow for monetary penalties to be imposed by authorized persons for contravention of a requirement in the act, regulation or bylaw. An authorized person may issue an AMP upon discovering that a contravention has occurred. AMPs are important because they promote compliance without requiring the commencement of a prosecution. There is currently no authority for an AMP framework under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997.

And we heard from our stakeholders. We heard from Rob Grimwood, who leads the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs, and other stakeholders who have been advocating for this compliance for years. Given what we have been hearing from the sector, Bill 157 proposes this amendment to enable the future development of AMPs as an additional enforcement tool. This amendment enables our government to consult with stakeholders such as municipalities on an AMP framework.

This will include identifying contraventions for which an AMP may be issued; determining the amount or range within which a penalty could be set; enforcement and collection, including how AMPs could be administered in unincorporated parts of Ontario; and establishing a framework to review associated impacts during the regulatory process.

This amendment within the proposed Enhancing Access to Justice Act gets to the heart of what a more efficient and streamlined justice system is about. It will eliminate unnecessary burdens on the courts and make the entire process less cumbersome and, at the same time, discourage violations of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997.

Madam Speaker, I’ll end where I started: I’m proud to be part of a government, led by Premier Ford, that has prioritized public safety. I’m proud to be part of a government, led by Premier Ford, that has reaffirmed our rights to live safely in our communities, something that belongs to all of us.

And I’ve said this before: When we have safe communities, we have absolutely everything. We have a place to wake up our loved ones and see them off to school. We have a place to call our parents each day, our seniors, to make sure they’re safe too. As we go to work, as we come home at the end of the day, as we shop, as we play in the park and as we pray, there is nothing more inherent to our DNA, to the fabric of who we are in this incredible quilt of Ontario, than our right to live safely. We take this very, very seriously. A big part of this trust that the community has in us ensures that justice will always remain accessible for all Ontarians. Access to justice is a fundamental right.

And I want to thank again my colleague the Attorney General for leading us through the Enhancing Access to Justice Act. We will get it done because it’s the right thing to do.

For us, as we look at the Community Safety and Policing Act, this transformational piece of legislation is replacing a piece of legislation that did its time. It was introduced in another time and place. And today, in 2024, we have to ensure that we are ready and we are able to allow those people that keep us safe—nos policiers, nos pompiers, nos premiers intervenants—everybody that keeps us safe, because we can’t say enough to thank them.

We say we have their backs, but truth be told, actions speak louder than words, so whether we’re fighting to keep these violent and repeat offenders off the streets, having strategies, as my colleagues said, to fight auto theft to ensure that wherever we go, we know there are people keeping Ontario safe.

At the end of the day, Madam Speaker, there is nothing more precious, important, something that belongs to each and every one of us individually, than a safe Ontario. It has been an honour to speak today on this piece of legislation.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bhutila Karpoche): Questions?

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: Good morning, colleagues. This weekend, I had the distinct honour of speaking at the Federation of Asian Canadian Lawyers. They were celebrating their 17th anniversary and there was a beautiful gala celebration. The buzz in the room was really about many different things, but once we turned to the topic of the judiciary, there were all sorts of concerns about the politicization of the judiciary. In 2021, this Conservative government gave themselves more power to control how judicial vacancies are filled, and we have now seen the government leaning pretty heavily and tripling and quadrupling down on those appointments.

I’m curious to know, to the Attorney General: How can you assure Ontarians that they are going to get fair access to the justice system without political interference?

Hon. Doug Downey: I think she’s early for question period because there’s nothing about that in this bill whatsoever. So I will, I guess, talk in general about access to justice, access to services, how we’re making the system better not just for those who operate within the system, but for those who come into contact with the system for first time in their lives.

It is absolutely everything from the Courts Digital Transformation Initiative, a state-of-the-art, ground-breaking system that’s already under way, that will be implemented, that will change how documents flow, how people access the system and how judges do their work. That’s just one small piece in the grand scheme of things, a $180-million initiative being watched all around the world to see how we’re doing what we’re doing.

I’ll have more to say in other questions.

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

Ms. Christine Hogarth: I want to thank the Attorney General and the Solicitor General for their statements this morning. I also want to thank them for the work that they’re doing to keep our communities safe. You both work very much—you complement each other and you are both getting the job done together for the people of Ontario, so I thank you for that.

I actually want to read an email that was received. It’s actually not from my riding, but Etobicoke is one big family. Her name is Ang D., and she lives in Eringate. Her question is, is this government doing enough to protect its citizens? She talks about taxes going up—and Ang, I just want you to know that that’s municipal taxes that are going up, not provincial. She talks about the great work that 22 division is doing, and I want to also compliment the great work of 22 division. But they say their hands are tied—they’re talking about 22 division—when the court system keeps releasing these repeat offenders.

Is the government doing enough? She’s asking people to contact their MPPs and their MPs, and I’m wondering if one or both of you can comment on if the government is doing enough to protect the citizens.

Hon. Michael S. Kerzner: I want to thank my colleague from Etobicoke–Lakeshore. Our government is not afraid to stand up and to say that these criminals who feel that they have a right to disrupt our way of life—it’s not okay.

Our government has stepped up with $51 million in investments to fight auto theft. Our government has stepped up with an over $100-million investment to get these violent and repeat offenders off our streets. Our government has stepped up by saying we will graduate more people at the Ontario Police College, so some can come to 22 division and 23 division in Etobicoke, to keep it safe.

The changes that we have made, the investments that we have made, are fundamentally unprecedented in the history of Ontario, and that’s why there has never been a government led by anyone other than Premier Ford that has prioritized public safety the way we have.

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

Mr. John Fraser: I listened intently to the Attorney General’s comments, and access to justice is very important, but confidence in our justice system is just as important. Last week, the Attorney General criticized the appointment by a previous government of two associate chief justices, both who had served on the bench for about a decade. Those two justices were Frank N. Marrocco and Alexandra Hoy. They served this province.

And so, given that people need to have confidence in the system, does the Attorney General think it’s appropriate for the Attorney General to be criticizing the appointment of sitting judges to higher office?

Hon. Doug Downey: I think we’re having a focus problem this morning, because that isn’t in the bill either, Madam Speaker. I was criticizing the process by which things were happening, and those weren’t the judges who were the subject of that process, but we don’t need to wade into that any further.

I want to talk about how access to justice is being enhanced in Ontario through right-sizing certain processes, things that were out of date, things that weren’t working. We were left by the Liberals with a legacy of broken systems and cumbersome processes. We were left with a real mess in some areas: systems that literally broke as we were coming into office, because they weren’t paying any attention to it. They were so focused on other things; so focused on the politics of politics, instead of the governance of governing. It was really quite a state of affairs.

And so, we are building on the strengths that we have, we are investing hundreds of millions of dollars in our system and we’re changing processes to make sure that we’re keeping our communities safe.

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

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: Back to the Attorney General, who doesn’t want to talk about judicial appointments, but specifically judicial appointments are named in this bill. The government is now striking the category of cultural identity as an identifying collectible statistic, and yet we know that the government has talked about using—they’re meddling with the judicial system, and one of their excuses is that they want to diversify the bench. At the same time, they’re now striking this category of cultural identities.

The Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee has not published any of its annual reports since 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 and probably 2023. So how can we as Ontarians actually be able to trust the justice system if the AG continues to meddle with it?

Hon. Doug Downey: I meant to mention in response to the previous question about the awards ceremony at FACL. I just wanted to congratulate Imran Emmanuel Kamal. He got both the Lawyer of Distinction Award and the Public Sector Lawyer of the Year, and I’m very pleased to see him receive that. He’s a star in our Attorney General’s office, doing great work on behalf of the public. For the Clerks, I have written out the name and the award so that you can follow along. I know the paper is coming.

Madam Speaker, we are doing so many things to make the system better, faster, more accessible, more affordable, more efficient. We are making changes across the board. The technical changes that are being referenced in this bill in terms of statistics are aligning us with the new current requirements, so it’s not really getting rid of anything. It’s an alignment so that we have consistency.

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

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: I would like to thank the minister for those changes. This government has made a lot of changes in regulation under the Victims’ Bill of Rights to the list of crimes where victims can sue their offenders for emotional distress, like aggressive assault, sexual offences, crimes against minors, human trafficking and hate crimes. We extended that to terrorism, motor vehicle theft, sexual offenders and hate-related crimes. How it is difficult to prove the emotional suffering—and how the proposed changes to allow victims to be presumed to have suffered emotionally can help victims not to be retraumatized again and again when this happens?

Hon. Doug Downey: I’m pleased to speak to this. I really want to thank the committee again. I did it in my speech, but all parties were keenly interested in parts of this bill. Some amendments came through the committee and that just proves the value of committee members and what the committee can do by hearing from the public and from stakeholders even further than we had.

I’m really pleased to know that we can put victims in a position where they don’t have to relive and re-explain how they are affected. If you can imagine, a human trafficking victim would otherwise have to explain how being trafficked affected them. We’re taking away that secondary trauma. I think it’s just absolutely the right thing to do and I hope the opposition supports us on this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bhutila Karpoche): There is not enough time for another question. There is not enough time for further debate.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Natural gas rates

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: I rise to react to a recent government announcement about the Ontario Electricity Support Program—OESP—that brings warmth to some yet leaves a chilling gap in our fight for energy affordability. Last year, I called for urgent action against soaring gas bills and for expanding this program to include other energy sources, a call that remains unanswered.

Our government prefers corporations over people. Last week, the government announced they would reverse the OEB’s decision—their own regulatory board decision—that would lower heating costs for families across Ontario. Instead, this government would subsidize Enbridge—the same corporation that doubled heating bills for their customers in 2022. When criticized, this Conservative government’s response was very predictable: pointing fingers at the federal policy that they cannot influence; finger-wagging at provincial solutions that put affordability before rich corporations; sitting on their hands while families shiver.

This isn’t just about electricity, it is about gas, about warmth, which every Ontario home deserves but many cannot afford. Today I stand before you, urging an extension of the OESP to include gas bill relief. This is not a political issue, it is a matter of addressing affordability. Whether you use electricity or gas to heat your home, no one in our prosperous province should have to choose between heating their home and other essentials of life.

Next Generation 9-1-1 Program

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: I was happy to announce last month with my Peel colleagues that the Ontario government is providing Peel Regional Police with over $3 million and the Peel Joint Fire Communications Centre with $1.8 million for the transition to Next Generation 9-1-1.

Next Generation 9-1-1 is a new system that will allow 911 dispatchers to receive text messages, data and GPS coordinates from the public. This will allow for better and faster emergency responses when people need it most. And last month, we heard the big news: On February 21, at 3:30 a.m., Peel Regional Police became the first large communications centre in Canada to successfully finish the transition to Next Generation 9-1-1.

Speaker, this is a huge milestone for emergency services here in Canada. With this new technology, we will finally be brought into the 21st century. I am very excited for this new technology and want to thank everyone who played a role in making this happen, and a special thanks to the heroes of Peel police working everyday to keep us safe.

Mois de la Francophonie

J’ai eu l’opportunité durant les deux dernières années de représenter les parlementaires francophones des Amériques en tant que chargé de mission de l’Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie. J’ai eu la chance d’échanger avec des parlementaires de partout à travers le monde et de discuter des défis auxquels ils sont confrontés.

Dans les prochains mois, je passerai le flambeau à un parlementaire du Nouveau-Brunswick, et j’aimerais remercier les membres de l’APF,

section Ontario, pour m’avoir fait confiance en me confiant cette mission. Et en terminant, j’aimerais souhaiter un joyeux Mois de la Francophonie à tous les francophones et francophiles de l’Ontario.

Climate change

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, as you would be well aware, last year, 2023, was the hottest year on record and the expectation is that this year will be even hotter. We are really starting to push the limits on what is happening globally in terms of heating. We are setting ourselves up for dramatic changes in the world around us that we will not want to have to encounter.

We are all well aware of the Smokehouse fire in Texas and the fact that the smoke from that conflagration is visible here in Canada. The consequences of global heating, drought, wildfires, flooding are visible around the world.

Speaker, to even stabilize the global climate—not to pull back on the damage that has happened, but to even stabilize it—we need to reduce emissions in Ontario by 50% by 2030.

As people are well aware, this government has set an irresponsible target of 30%. It will not do what is needed to be done. It will not show the leadership that, as an advanced industrial society, Ontario should be setting.

We need this government to change course. It needs to set a target of 50% reduction of emissions by 2030. It needs to put in place the investments, the policies and the programs to actually deliver on that. Failure to do that will cause damage that all of us will regret for the rest of our lives.

Special Olympics

Mr. Brian Saunderson: It’s a pleasure to rise this morning to talk about a topic that’s close to my heart and very closely connected to my riding of Simcoe–Grey. Currently, the 2024 Canada Special Olympics National Winter Games are taking place in Calgary, Alberta. And recently, the town of Blue Mountains celebrated the 25th anniversary of hosting the sixth Special Olympics World Winter Games in 1997—only the second time it was held outside of the US—when 2,000 athletes representing 73 countries descended onto the town of Blue Mountains to celebrate their sports.

The town of Blue Mountains has established a strong relationship with the Special Olympics movement as being home to the alpine ski program since that time. Eight of the 12 members of the Ontario alpine ski team are from the riding of Simcoe–Grey, and I want to recognize each of them: Robin Shuter, Erin Wright, Matthew Fields, Eddie Bunkowsky, Kevin Lachance, Jamie Hall, Julian Hudson and Angel Blainey—all from the riding Simcoe–Grey. They are joined by their teammates, Cameron Oliver, Carter Simpson, Ryan Sorley and Ben So.

I’ve recently learned they are coming home with at least three medals after spectacular performances, and I want to congratulate all of them. They’ve done a great job representing Ontario.

Their motto is, “Let me win, but if I cannot win, let me be brave at the attempt.” They have certainly been brave, and they’ve represented us well. Many of them will go on next year to Turin to represent Canada.

Affordable housing / Addiction services

Miss Monique Taylor: Yesterday, I spoke with individuals who are currently living in tents outside of Hamilton city hall in solidarity for the almost 2,000 unhoused citizens across our city. They’re calling for solutions to the lack of housing options, both temporary and permanent, including wraparound services to support their health and safety.

Many of our homeless are facing other multiple challenges and crises at the same time, some in the form of addictions like opioids or other street drugs. This polycrisis is amplified by now another provincial decision in health care: the distribution of naloxone kits. On February 9, an executive order was issued without notice or consultation, changing our local community agencies’ access to these life-saving kits.

In Hamilton, overdoses don’t always happen within walking distance to a pharmacy, within their operating hours or within sight of someone carrying life-saving Narcan; it is often organizations and outreach groups who are on the streets, in our shelter systems or part of our health teams who are handing out these kits 24/7.

We need to support those who are doing this important work and call to action when decisions are made that cause harm rather than good.

This is an epidemic. We need solutions, not barriers. All levels of government need to ensure that there is immediate access to life-saving tools, affordable housing and wraparound supports that will save lives.

National Association of Women and the Law

Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos: Speaker, I rise today to recognize the National Association of Women and the Law, which celebrated its 50th anniversary at an event I had the honour of attending in Ottawa last week. The founders of NAWL were not only visionaries but also dear friends from the University of Ottawa law school.

Since 1974, NAWL has been at the forefront of feminist advocacy and law reform in Canada. Through the tireless efforts of founders Diane Ansell, Shirley Greenberg, Lynn Kaye, Maria Linhares de Sousa, Peggy Mason, Maureen McTeer and many others who followed in their footsteps, NAWL spearheaded groundbreaking initiatives that have reshaped our legal landscape and advanced the cause of gender equality. NAWL was the catalyst for change, challenging entrenched societal norms regarding sexual violence, advocating for key amendments to the Criminal Code and the Divorce Act and a new family law reform act.

Its contributions to sections 15 and 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were pivotal in ensuring equality and justice for all Canadians.

Women across Canada owe a debt of gratitude to NAWL for the groundbreaking work they have advanced over the last 50 years, forever changing our nation’s legal framework.

As we look forward, I would like to recognize its achievements, and I remain steadfast in our shared goal to end violence against women and children through legal, social and legislative reform.

Mitchell District High School senior boys basketball team

Mr. Matthew Rae: It’s my pleasure to rise in this place today to talk about a small high school sports team with a ton of grit and determination. The Mitchell District High School senior boys basketball team recently secured the WOSSAA single-A championship. The Blue Devils beat the reigning champions, Woodstock Collegiate Institute, 62-52 in the semifinals. In the finals against London Christian, the Blue Devils came out strong, but London trailed by just one, after the first eight minutes. Alen Chen led the surge in the second quarter, scoring nine of his 15 points.

Jared Vosper, Charlie Geiger and Kale Murray all contributed to the offensive comeback. Blake Redfern finished with 27 points for the Blue Devils. Coach Moses utilized all the players in the final. In the end, the Blue Devils beat London Christian school 86-52 in the WOSSAA finals and punched their ticket to the OFSAA championships. The boys take the court at OFSAA today in Welland.

Speaker, it was 40 years ago when the MDHS senior boys basketball team last won the OFSAA single-A championship, and the boys have high hopes for this year’s tournament. The secret to their success, according to Coach Moses, is effort and attitude.

To Sam, Jack, Luke, Charlie, Ryan, Will, Jared, Blake, Lincoln, Alen, Kale, Tayden, Brock, Talbot and Elijah: Best of luck at OFSAA, and know the entire community stands behind you.

Go, Blue Devils!

Oak Bridge Academy

Mr. Brian Riddell: I’m delighted to rise today in grateful acknowledgement and support of Oak Bridge Academy. Oak Bridge Academy, or OBA, is an independent, not-for-profit school for neurodiverse children in my riding of Cambridge. It is the place where high-needs kids on the autism spectrum go to learn and thrive, and this is important because, really, there are not that many places in Ontario for these children to go.

As an independent school and registered charity, Oak Bridge Academy relies exclusively on small donations and tuition fees to fund its world-class programs—even so, educators from England are coming over to Cambridge to see how they handle their situations with the students in our country. However, this may soon change. Tomorrow, Oak Bridge Academy will compete in a Waterloo region competition to determine which not-for-profit organization makes the strongest case for support, through the Social Venture Partners Perfect Pitch competition.

School representatives, who would be in the gallery today if they weren’t in dress rehearsal right now, will take the stage with other not-for-profit executive leaders to showcase the incredible work being done in our community to support those in need; more so, they will speak to the innovative, cost-effective and inspiring programs that make the difference for so many of my people who live in Cambridge.

I’d like to thank Oak Bridge Academy for serving not only as an educational path of last resort for families living with autism, but also as a provider for first-class neurodiverse programming. I’m so proud to represent you in the House today.

Good luck tomorrow, Oak Bridge Academy.

Member for Leeds–Grenville–Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Point of order, the member for Nepean.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s a pleasure to rise today. Today is obviously an important day for my colleague from Leeds and Grenville. Mr. Steve Clark, 14 years ago today, was elected to this assembly. He was elected with 66% of the vote, and we’re wondering where the other 34% has gone.

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

Wearing of T-shirt

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Point of order, the member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Joel Harden: I ask my colleagues for unanimous consent to proudly wear a T-shirt for the Carleton Ravens, because the women—the defending national champions of basketball in this country—just won the provincial championship on Saturday, and coach Dani Sinclair is coach of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Ottawa Centre is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to allow him to wear the Carleton Ravens T-shirt. Agreed? Agreed.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m pleased to inform the House that we are visited today by a former member, Gordon Walker, the member for London South in the 31st and 32nd provincial Parliaments. Welcome back to the Legislature. It’s great to have you here.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: I’d like to welcome members of Connecting GTA from my riding, the great city of Pickering—they’re all over the place.

I’d like to welcome Karishma Kazim, Vithu Ramachandran, Jasica Mahalingam, Anchana Bala and my good friend Darshan Sritharan. Welcome to your House.

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: Today, I would like to introduce my new OLIP intern, Milena Basciano.

Mrs. Daisy Wai: Today, I’d like to welcome the parents of my page, Colin Niu. His parents, Ben Niu and Alena Li, are here with us today as proud parents. Ben and Alena, we’re honoured to have you here at Queen’s Park to watch how your son is being nurtured here as a great citizen of Ontario.

Hon. Michael Parsa: I’d like to welcome Brian Marks, Henry Wall and Mike Nadeau. They serve as CAOs for their respective district service administration boards in Cochrane, Kenora and Sault Ste. Marie. Welcome to the House.

I’d also like to acknowledge Max Wen, our exemplary page from Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill.

Mr. Will Bouma: I’d like to welcome my friend Ian DeWaard to the House today and representatives from CLAC. Make sure you head over to rooms 228 and 230 at lunchtime.

Mr. Andrew Dowie: It’s my sincere privilege to welcome Evan Cameron from the OLIP program into my office for the next couple of months. I’m delighted to have you with us, Evan, and it’s great to have you at Queen’s Park.

M me Dawn Gallagher Murphy: I’d like to welcome the mother of one of our pages, Lorna Coulter, who is also an alumni page, to the House today. I’m looking forward to having lunch with her and Skye later today.

Mr. Brian Riddell: I’d like to welcome to the House today Pauline Cantin from Riverbend retirement home. She’s an employee there. Welcome to the House.

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: This morning, I’d like to welcome members of the Schickedanz family: Jordan MacDonald, Joe DiMatteo and especially seven-year-old Ellie, who is visiting Queen’s Park for the first time. Welcome to your House.

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: It’s my great pleasure to introduce my good friend Jenny Chen, York Region District School Board trustee for Markham, ward 1 and ward 8. She’s a strong advocate for the rights of children and parents in the schools of Markham.

I would also like to introduce her husband, Timothy Huang, and two first-time guests to Queen’s Park, Shayne Yang from William Lyon Mackenzie Collegiate Institute and Vivian Zhang from Bill Hogarth Secondary School. Welcome to the Legislature of Ontario.

M me France Gélinas: I would like to welcome Ian DeWaard, Andre van Heerden, Leigh-Ann Ulch, Rhonda Gow and Stephanie—sorry, Stephanie; I forgot your last name. Welcome to Queen’s Park. They’re talking about long-term care, home care and retirement homes.

Ms. Patrice Barnes: Today, I’d like to welcome into the House the Connecting GTA team with Suresh and his group. They’re here for a women in business event today. Thank you and welcome to your House.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I’d like to welcome to the chamber today Pam Mulder from Vineland, who is an RN with Shalom Manor, and Stephanie Hollender, who is a PSW with Heidehof homes and a resident of St. Catharines. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): That concludes our introduction of visitors this morning. I want to thank the members for keeping their introductions brief and to the point.

Mr. John Fraser: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Point of order, the member for Ottawa South.

Mr. John Fraser: I seek unanimous consent that, notwithstanding standing order 45(b)(iv), the time for debate on opposition day motion number 1 on highway tolls be apportioned as follows: 56 minutes to each of the recognized parties and eight minutes to the independent members as a group.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Mr. Fraser is seeking the unanimous consent of the House that, notwithstanding standing order 45(b)(iv), the time for debate on opposition day motion number 1 on highway tolls be apportioned as follows: 56 minutes to each of the recognized parties and eight minutes to the independent members as a group.

Agreed? I heard a no.

I want to acknowledge that we are meeting on lands traditionally inhabited by Indigenous peoples. We pay our respects to the many Indigenous nations who have gathered here and continue to gather here, including the Mississaugas of the Credit. Meegwetch.

This morning we have with us, in the public gallery, the Brown Junior Public School choir from the riding of Toronto–St. Paul’s to perform O Canada and God Save the King. Please stand and join them in the singing our national and royal anthems.

Singing of the national anthem / Chant de l’hymne national.

Singing of the royal anthem / Chant de l’hymne royal.

Applause.

Brian Mulroney

Hon. Paul Calandra: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I recognize the government House leader on a point of order.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Speaker, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the House to observe a moment of silence in remembrance of the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, 18th Prime Minister of Canada, who sadly passed away on Thursday, February 29, 2024.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The government House leader is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to observe a moment of silence in remembrance of the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, 18th Prime Minister of Canada, who sadly passed away on Thursday, February 29, 2024. Agreed? Agreed.

Members will please rise.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. Members may take their seats.

Question Period

Highway tolls

Ms. Marit Stiles: Good morning, Speaker. This question is for the Premier. Two weeks ago, this government announced a bill to remove tolls on all the highways that don’t have tolls, while keeping the tolls on the one highway that has them.

In promoting the bill, the transportation minister said people are “feeling the pinch in their wallets. The last thing they need to see is another unnecessary fee or toll coming their way.”

So with this in mind, Speaker, and to the Premier: Will the government support our motion this afternoon to remove tolls for truck drivers using Highway 407?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To respond, the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: Mr. Speaker, there are only two parties that have ever introduced tolls on the highways and that was under the NDP government and the previous Liberal government.

Everything that we do as a government in this House has been to keep costs low, whether that’s fighting the carbon tax—the carbon tax can cost long-haul truck drivers $15,000 to $20,000 a year. That’s money that could go to their families to put more food on their tables, that could put them through school.

Mr. Speaker, this is about supporting truckers. They want us to build Highway 413 and they sent a strong message to that member and the previous Liberal government about their inaction to build infrastructure across this province. That’s why we will continue to keep costs low, fight the carbon tax and build Ontario.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, I’m just going to bring it back to the issue that I asked a question about, which is Highway 407, which is completely underused. You could land an airplane on it—and I mean, literally an airplane landed on it right in the middle of the day with no problem. The highway is underused because the tolls are too high and, in fact, the private operator set the tolls so high that the ministry was going to have to charge over a billion dollars in congestion penalties, but they never collected it.

My question back to the Premier is, why did the Premier let the private 407 operator keep that billion dollars instead of using it to bring down these sky-high tolls?

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: Mr. Speaker, when that member and the previous Liberal government had an opportunity to remove tolls on the 412 and 418, what did they do? Absolutely nothing. In fact, when our government put forward in our budget the opportunity for that party and the previous Liberal government to support our move to remove tolls off the 412 and 418, what did they do? They voted against that motion and against those measures. They don’t care about truck drivers; they don’t care about drivers.

We want to build Highway 413. We actually even put forward measures to reduce the gas tax by close to 10 cents a litre, and what did that member do? They voted against that cost-saving measure for families. It’s about putting more money back into the pockets of hard-working families. Whether it’s fighting the carbon tax or reducing the gas tax, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to support families and support drivers across this province.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Actually, the NDP campaigned for years to remove the tolls on the 412 and 418 and we are proud we were able to get them removed. But why stop there? Why stop there, Speaker? It can cost a trucker as much as $60 per trip. Meanwhile, Highway 401 is overused; commuters are stuck in traffic. The NDP, truck drivers, transportation experts and environmental advocates have all called on the government to remove Highway 407 tolls for trucks. Getting some trucks off Highway 401 and onto the 407 is better for truckers and it’s better for all the drivers too. It’s a common-sense change, but I’m hearing a lot of excuses from the other side.

So, Speaker, why is the Premier so afraid of taking on the private operator of Highway 407?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: Mr. Speaker, every step of the way, we have been there for truck drivers, whether that’s about supporting and building the 413; whether it’s about removing tolls on the 412 and 418; or whether it’s about reducing or fighting the carbon tax. In fact, that member could make a phone call to her federal counterpart and ask them to support this government’s position to reduce costs for truckers—not only truckers, but everyday drivers, Mr. Speaker, who are punished by this carbon tax for just taking their kids to work or going to school.

This side of the House will continue to support measures that will put more money back in your pockets, but we’ll also continue to support measures that will build critical infrastructure like the Highway 413 that we so desperately need. I ask that member to come visit our ridings in Brampton and Mississauga so they can see first-hand the gridlock. We’re seeing record population growth. We need more highways and we need new highways, and that’s why we’re going to build Highway 413.

Government contracts

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, I’ll point out that that’s going to take 10 years and billions of dollars, but they could do something to provide relief tomorrow.

Last week, we asked the government about their decision to give a multi-million dollar contract to PricewaterhouseCoopers to develop a digital tribunal system without allowing any other company to compete for the contract. We know that the NDP government in BC has been able to deliver results, but this government should know that we can’t copy and paste a digital tribunal system from BC to Ontario. And, in fact, their system is far less complex than our Landlord and Tenant Board. So there is no question that this project required a made-in-Ontario plan.

To the Premier: Why does your government let this project proceed without ensuring it would be compatible with the needs of Ontarians?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Attorney General.

Hon. Doug Downey: I sent the letter over to the Leader of the Opposition last week and I don’t know if she read it, but it’s pretty clear in there that this would be a transformative change for us built on the BC experience. And very clearly, Mr. Speaker, it was in the 2021 budget twice, if they cared to read that. I doubt they read the budget. They voted against it.

We are enhancing services for the public. We are making sure that people have access to fair and timely matters. We were left with an entirely broken system by the Liberal government. We actually had to hand bomb notices and do things manually because the system failed that we inherited from that Liberal government, supported by that NDP government.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, despite what the government says about where this idea came from, we have learned that Ontario was well on its way to developing our own digital system prior to giving PwC a sole-source contract. There were already years and millions of dollars invested, in fact, Premier, into a made-in-Ontario digital platform that was planning to launch in 2019, but that project was thrown out. The government hasn’t given any reason to justify why. It seems like they used this just as another excuse to line the pockets of a private company.

Back to the Premier, given the skyrocketing costs of this contract, now at least $26 million and counting, did the government and Ontario taxpayers save any money by abandoning the original project?

Hon. Doug Downey: I’m not going to take business acumen or advice from the NDP about how you get things done. We are getting things done. In fact, the system that we scaled from BC, from a smaller tribunal to our largest tribunal that receives over 80,000 applications a year—it is quite a scale.

Now, I’ll tell you, this isn’t just an idea that we’re percolating, that we’re moving along, that we’re saying will be ready sometime. It’s actually running. We ran it parallel with the old system. Now, it’s fully functioning and doing very well and doing high volume.

Again, the opposition says, “Well, why didn’t you do it a different way?” Well, because we did it the right way.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Tell that, Speaker, to the people who are waiting: 53,000 unresolved cases at the Landlord and Tenant Board right now, and the number keeps growing. Long backlogs at tribunals mean that Ontarians are waiting months, even years, to have their cases heard under this government. Under this government, the wait-list has quadrupled, and the tribunal is handling fewer applications every single year since this Premier formed government in 2018. The government needs to come to grips with the fact that technology is a tool, not a plan.

I want my question to go back to the Premier: Will he start investing in staff and courtroom services and stop sending good money after bad to Bay Street firms?

Hon. Doug Downey: Well, I guess they did not only not read the 2021 budget, they didn’t read the 2022 or the 2023 budgets either. We have been investing. We have doubled the number of adjudicators. We have hired more staff. In fact, applications are up 31% over last year, and we are still driving the number down. From 2014 until when we took office, there was an excess of cases over those resolved every single year under the Liberal government, with the assistance of the NDP.

Again, if facts matter, I will be taking no direction from the NDP on this. We are getting the job done. The numbers are coming down. People are getting their cases heard. Orders are going out 90% of the time within 30 days at this point. We have some excellent metrics, and we are getting in the right direction, notwithstanding they vote against every single investment that we make in the system.

Health care

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Santé.

Last week, hundreds of people in Kingston got up at 3 a.m. to go stand outside in the cold and wind for a chance to gain access to primary care. How can the minister explain that?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: As we expand access to primary care practitioners across Ontario, the member opposite of course will know that we have 78 new primary care expansions happening in the province of Ontario. I completely understand the enthusiasm and interest in Kingston for those accessing primary care. Obviously, our preferred route would be to make sure that they can go through the Ontario portal to make sure that they get assessed and assigned to a primary care practitioner.

But again, in Kingston alone, notwithstanding the primary care expansion that the member opposite referenced, as part of the expansion we also have the Periwinkle model. I will quote the organizer of that application, saying, “If you need to see a nurse practitioner, you’ll see a nurse practitioner. If you need to see a doctor, you’ll see a doctor. If you need to see a primary care clinician, a dietitian, you will see the appropriate”—

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

Supplementary question?

M me France Gélinas: Sick, frail, elderly people standing outside for hours in February: This is happening under this minister’s watch. Everyone agrees the solution is interdisciplinary care, where physicians work alongside nurses, social workers, dietitians, health promoters.

The minister has received solutions from hundreds and hundreds of communities. Why are you only willing to help 78 of them?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: We have tripled the investment. We have $110 million available for expansions across Ontario. We are making sure that people get access to primary care multidisciplinary teams in the province of Ontario.

With the greatest respect to the opposition, to suggest that you can just open up and say, “Go ahead and hire”—we need to do the work. And we have done the work, with the Minister of Colleges and Universities, expanding the number of seats available for training nurses, for training lab technicians, for training the paramedics, for training nurse practitioners.

We are doing that work and we will continue to do that work. But to suggest in any way that a $110-million investment, 78 new and expanded primary care is not enough? We will continue to do the work; you’ll continue to vote against it.

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

Next question?

Taxation

Mr. Anthony Leardi: My question is for the Minister of Energy. As we all know, the federal carbon tax is unnecessarily increasing the cost of everything that Ontario needs on a daily basis. Like our Premier said, the delivery of every product we have in this province is being affected by the worst tax this country has ever seen. It’s a useless tax. That’s the federal carbon tax.

We continue to remain laser-focused on keeping costs down for Ontario families and businesses, but the carbon tax is working against us. Mr. Speaker, can the minister please explain how the carbon tax is driving up costs for Ontarians in everyday life and what we need to do to keep costs down?

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks very much to the member from Essex for another great question. The cost of the carbon tax isn’t just affecting the price at the pumps, it’s affecting the price of everything. The Minister of Agriculture certainly knows this. It’s affecting the price at the farm gate because the farmers are putting fuel in their tractors, the farmers are using fuel to dry their grains, the transportation it takes to get those products to the food terminal and to the grocery store; it’s driving up the cost of everything.

Last week, we had a debate here on energy costs and the NDP expressed their fake concern about the cost of energy. We know that in three weeks’ time, the federal government is going to be increasing the carbon tax by another 23%. If members of this Legislature wanted to make a difference, they’d phone their buddies Jagmeet and Justin and they would put a pause on that federal carbon tax—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Anthony Leardi: Thank you to the minister for his response. This is exactly why our government spoke up about the carbon tax and why we fought it tooth and nail all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. It’s ludicrous that the federal Liberals intentionally disregarded the welfare of most people in Ontario by blatantly ignoring how the carbon tax is leading to increased home energy costs.

The most concerning

part is that it’s only going to get worse from here. The federal government and the opposition Liberals and NDP want to nearly triple the tax by 2030. That is unacceptable. Can the minister explain why Ontario families cannot afford the tax increases that the Liberals and the NDP want to foist on the hard-working people of Ontario?

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks again to the member from Essex, who really cares about making sure that people in his riding and across the province can afford to eat, at the end of the day.

During his question, we just had a member from the NDP say, “Get over it. Get over the carbon tax.”

There’s one party in this Legislature that actually cares about affordability, whether it’s decreasing the cost of the gasoline tax, whether it’s removing tolls from our highways or taking away the licence fees on our plates. There’s one party focused on driving down the cost of living, and it’s Premier Ford and our Progressive Conservative Party.

It’s real simple. April 1 is coming. The federal carbon tax is set to rise again by 23% in just over three weeks’ time. Will the members of the NDP just say, “Get over it,” or will they call Jagmeet and will they demand that Justin Trudeau put a pause on the federal carbon tax so people can afford to live in our country?

Driver examination centres

MPP Lise Vaugeois: In December, the Auditor General identified major concerns about the ministry’s decision to lower the standards to earn a driver’s licence. Some drivers are being trained and tested on a single route. Drivers with repeat suspensions, if not required to retrain, are responsible for six times the rate of fatal collisions.

The Auditor General’s report is clear: A lack of standards and oversight at DriveTest centres is leading to an increase in serious accidents.

Minister, when will you return DriveTest requirements to their previous higher standard?

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: Our government takes the safety of all road users very seriously. Ontario has the safest roads in all of North America due to the many measures that we have put in place to ensure that our roads remain safe.

In January 2023, our government mandated the use of electronic logging for commercial vehicles.

We’re helping improve driver safety, road safety.

Mr. Speaker, we’ve also introduced legislation like the MOMS Act, which increases and makes driver’s licence suspensions even longer. It increases impoundment periods, as well, for those who aren’t safe on our roads, especially in the form of stunt driving as well as street racing and aggressive driving.

We will continue to focus on keeping road safety as a top priority and do whatever we can to maintain the strongest and highest forms of road safety across this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

MPP Lise Vaugeois: My office received a copy of a memo from the vice-president of Serco, the private company that operates numerous DriveTest centres in Ontario. Information in the memo identifies fraudulent road test passes and false experience being added to driver records. Not only have the test standards been lowered by the ministry, even these lower standards are not being met.

What is the minister doing to make sure that all those receiving drivers’ licences are trained to the highest standards and have legitimately completed all the requirements?

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: Mr. Speaker, our government has maintained the strongest forms of road safety across this province and across North America. Actually, when you look at Canada and the entire country, we have the strongest and most strict measures for G licensing, in this province, in Ontario, and that’s because of our commitment to road safety and our commitment to ensuring that we have safe roads.

That’s why we continue to introduce pieces of legislation like the MOMS Act, which will increase suspensions and penalties on those who are not safe. If you’re stunt driving or street racing, we will ensure that your vehicle is impounded and that you are also charged for those incidents.

I would like to state for the members here that those individuals, when they had an opportunity to be stronger and support measures on road safety, didn’t support them. They didn’t vote to increase and lengthen suspension periods on those driving recklessly on our roads. We’ll continue to ensure that we support safety across all—

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

The next question.

Taxation

Mr. Amarjot Sandhu: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. At a time when the cost of living continues to rise, the federal government is making things worse with a punitive carbon tax. Residents in Brampton West tell me life is becoming more expensive, particularly as the carbon tax pushes up the cost of fuel.

Many families in my riding rely on their car to get to work every day. They experience the consequences of the federal carbon tax every time they fill up at the pumps. This carbon tax is unfair, and it is hurting hard-working families and individuals across the province.

Our government must continue to provide support and relief for Ontarians, especially at a time when the federal government is turning its back on us. Can the minister please tell the House what our government is doing to help ease the carbon tax burden for the people of this province?

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: Thank you very much to the member for Brampton West on his advocacy against this carbon tax. The federal government is about to increase this tax by 23%, so that member is absolutely right in being concerned for families across Brampton that can’t afford that increase. People are being punished for driving their kids to school, for driving to work, for driving to take their kids to extracurricular activities, and that’s not right. That’s why this government has always been steadfast in our commitment to ensuring that we fight the carbon tax.

Not only that, we’re also decreasing the cost of the fuel tax by 10 cents a litre. That’s because we want to put more money back into families’ pockets so they can do what they want with that money, whether it’s take their kids out for a meal, whether it’s put their kids in an extracurricular activity. We’ll continue to fight this carbon tax every step of the way.

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

Mr. Amarjot Sandhu: Thank you to the Minister of Transportation for his response. It is encouraging to see our government’s continued efforts in standing up for Ontarians and fighting against the federal carbon tax. This is especially important for commuters across the province who rely on their cars to travel to work or to see their families and friends.

Mr. Speaker, at a time when Canadians are seeing costs go up everywhere, the federal Liberals are raising taxes. The people of Ontario should not be forced to pay more to fuel their cars. While our government demonstrated much-needed leadership and reduced the gasoline tax, the federal government did not. We must continue to call on the federal government to eliminate the carbon tax completely and to help deliver true affordability for Ontario families. Can the minister please share with this House how our government is protecting commuters from this costly federal carbon tax?

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: It’s clear that the federal Liberals are completely out of touch with the concerns of residents, especially in places like Brampton and Mississauga and all across this province. I can’t believe that they’re willing to increase the carbon tax by 23%. This is not something the families of Brampton and across this province can afford right now.

But not only that, they have a federal environment minister that says he doesn’t want to build any more roads or highways. We’re seeing record population growth. That’s why we’re ensuring that we’re making those investments, not only to fight the carbon tax but to build roads, to build highways.

But on top of that, we’re reducing the cost of gas by 10 cents. But on top of that, we’re also making sure that we freeze fees on photo cards and also on drivers’ licences. And two years ago, we also reduced the val tags and removed that fee, saving a family $125 per car or truck. We will continue to make life more affordable for families and fight against the carbon tax.

Anti-racism activities

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: My question is to the Premier. Systemic anti-Black racism is prevalent in our society and has negative impacts on the health of Black Ontarians. Anti-Black racism takes a toll on mental health, despite the resilience of Black communities.

Black community organizations such as TAIBU and Tropicana Community Services have asked Ontario to recognize the first Monday of March as Black Mental Health Day to raise awareness and highlight the impact of anti-Black racism on mental health.

To the Premier: There is a bill on the order paper to do just that, and we could pass it today. Will he commit to recognizing Black Mental Health Day in Ontario?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Citizenship and Multiculturalism.

Hon. Michael D. Ford: Thank you very much for the question, of course following Black History Month, in which we had the opportunity to celebrate across the province ending anti-Black racism and really uplifting the diversity of our communities, including Ontario’s Black community.

That is why we are, on a number of fronts, making critical investments to make sure that our Black community and all communities here in the province of Ontario can get ahead. We’re doing that under the leadership of the Minister of Economic Development, creating strong jobs for the future; under the Minister of Transportation, in making sure that we are connecting our diverse communities to the jobs the minister is creating right across the province; and of course, in my ministry, making those strong investments to fight anti-Black racism and uplift our diverse communities. It’s a priority for us, under the leadership of the Premier.

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

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: Part of the efforts to recognize Black Mental Health Day is to address the barriers and burdens of anti-Black racism on mental health. Children are waiting for two years for mental health care, and it takes longer if you’re Black. There are mental health and addictions states of emergency across this province, which hit harder if you’re Black. It doesn’t feel like this government appreciates the urgency of the issue.

Back to the Premier: What sources will he commit to today to deliver culturally appropriate mental health services to Black Ontarians?

Hon. Michael D. Ford: Thank you very much again. Under the leadership of the Premier, we have been making strong investments as a government in combatting anti-Black racism and raising up our Black community. That is why, particularly, I would like to reference our anti-racism strategic plan in the province, where we invested $132 million in combatting racism in all its forms, but particularly around economic development, supporting children and youth, specifically anti-racism and anti-hate initiatives, as well as policy and accountable measures across 14 ministries. Making sure that all Ontarians can succeed is an all-of-government approach, and we will continue to do just that.

Affordable housing

Mr. Mike Schreiner: Good morning, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. The “get it done wrong” act will make affordability and the climate crisis worse. Imposing expensive sprawl onto municipalities will increase property taxes to line the pockets of land speculators. It will force young people into long, expensive commutes just to find a place to rent, let alone a home to own. That is why Greens are working so hard to legalize housing, creating more choices and more opportunities for first-time homebuyers to buy homes they can afford in the communities they love.

Speaker, will the Premier stop avoiding debate on housing solutions and get it done for people, not speculators, by supporting my bill to end exclusionary zoning and legalize homes that people can afford in the communities they love?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: Look, from day one, we have been focused on building more homes for the people of the province of Ontario. What you hear typically from the opposition parties are more obstacles being put in the way of actually getting more homes and more shovels in the ground, just like all around him. He is surrounded by a former Liberal caucus that did just that: They put obstacles in the way of building more homes.

What we’re seeing now, with us, is housing supply action plans which see rental housing starts at their highest level ever in the province of Ontario, and over the last three years, we are starting to see new housing starts increase and increase. This is despite the high-interest-rate policies of the federal Liberal government, the high carbon-tax policies which are putting so many people out of the market for that new home.

So what we’re going to do is return the dream of home ownership to the people of the province of Ontario by getting more shovels in the ground, reducing costs and removing obstacles.

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

Mr. Mike Schreiner: Respectfully, people are sick and tired of waiting for this government to put forward housing solutions that work for ordinary people, not speculators.

Let’s look at places that are succeeding: Guelph is on track to meet its housing targets; Kitchener has exceeded their housing targets. Both have legalized fourplexes and elected Greens, by the way.

If just 18% of existing single-family homes became a fourplex, that would be two million homes, Speaker. But that requires putting affordable homes ahead of speculators.

So, Speaker, I’m going to give the minister an opportunity today: Will the government say yes to legalizing housing, yes to fourplexes across the province?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, when I look at who is getting the job done, I see Conservatives across the province of Ontario who are getting the job done. I was very happy to be in Brampton, where they smashed through their housing target. I was very happy to be with the Minister of Long-Term Care when we were in Stouffville, because Stouffville not only smashed through the target—239% over the target, Mr. Speaker.

When you look at those municipalities that are doing what we’ve asked them to do: removing obstacles, reducing taxes, getting shovels in the ground faster by approving permits quicker—those municipalities, which have followed the housing supply action plans brought forward by this government, are meeting their targets.

Now, it should be no surprise that where Liberals are in charge, those targets aren’t being met. I look at Burlington; I look at Mississauga—two municipalities that can’t get it done for their community, but all around them, they can, Mr. Speaker.

We’re going to make sure that every municipality reaches that target for the people of the province of Ontario.

Taxation

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: My question is for the Minister of Energy. This government has always known that the carbon tax is driving up energy prices across this province, and it’s why we’re using every tool in our tool box to keep costs down and ensure that Ontarians have access to affordable and reliable energy.

But, Speaker, while this government is serious about making life more affordable for Ontarians, we’ve seen Liberal governments like the Trudeau Liberals in Ottawa pick and choose who gets relief from this unnecessary tax. The federal government announced an exemption but only for home heating oil. This has understandably led to frustration and anger from many of my residents, who are trying to ensure that they’re able to heat their home with other sources of energy.

So, Speaker, could the minister please tell this House how the federal carbon tax is negatively hurting Ontarians, people like my residents, with the cost of home heating?

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks very much to the great member from Niagara for a great question this morning.

The federal Liberals obviously have come to the realization that their carbon tax is driving up the cost of home heating for people—but only in Atlantic Canada. We need them to understand that the federal carbon tax is hurting people right across the country.

Interjections.

Hon. Todd Smith: Now, we know where the Liberals stand on this—they’re heckling me right now—and we know their leader, Bonnie Crombie, is in full support of the federal carbon tax. So members of their caucus are in full support of this carbon tax—because they’ve stood up in this Legislature and said the people of Ontario are “better off” with the federal carbon tax than they would be otherwise.

It’s unbelievable that the Liberals in Ontario, who drove people into energy poverty for 15 years, are letting their friends do it again in Ottawa and making life unaffordable not just for the folks in Ontario but for the folks right across this country. It’s time—

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

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: The people in Niagara West and people across Ontario deserve to be treated fairly. The federal government must move quickly to expand this pause to all forms of home heating in Ontario, or better yet, get rid of this terrible tax altogether.

Speaker, when I speak with families and businesses in my riding, they speak about one issue consistently, and that issue is affordability. They tell me they already can’t afford the impact of the carbon tax on their energy bills, and yet they’re looking at a tax that’s only going to rise in a few weeks.

So, our government, I know, is going to continue to ensure that we’re taking action to lower energy costs, so that people can put more money in their pockets, unlike the Liberal tradition that we’ve seen in this House and now we see in Ottawa.

So, Speaker, could the minister explain to this House what the government is doing to ensure that families in Niagara West and every corner of this province have access to lower-emission home heating, like natural gas?

Hon. Todd Smith: Speaker, we are in the midst of an affordability crisis, not in this province but in this country, and a large portion of that is the fact that the federal government has introduced their carbon tax, a carbon tax that is expected to go up again on April Fool’s Day. It’s no joke, but on April 1, it’s expected to go up by another 23%. Who in their right mind would add a huge tax like that while we’re in the midst of an affordability crisis?

I can tell you who would: It’s Liberals. It’s Liberals in Ontario; it’s Liberals in Canada, supported by the NDP. They stand in the House from time to time and say they’re on the side of the people of Ontario, but when it really matters, how do they vote? They should be picking up the phone today, calling Jagmeet, calling Justin, and saying, “Hit a pause on the carbon tax. It’s only going to make life in Ontario”—

Interjections.

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

The next question.

Prescription contraceptives

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: My question is to the Minister of Health. When we tabled a universal contraception motion, you deemed extending coverage to women over 25 as not resource-worthy. Yet, now, with the federal commitment, the landscape has changed.

Research underscores that universal access is pivotal for reproductive justice and economic efficiencies within health care. As we near International Women’s Day, will this government back this transformative policy, championing gender equality, by endorsing universal contraception for a fairer, healthier Ontario?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: As the member opposite knows, of course, Ontario has a very robust system in place with OHIP+, but I’m going to speak specifically to the federal pharmacare announcement, because, frankly, it is very, very thin on details. When I spoke to the federal minister on Wednesday evening, I asked very specific questions, because we all need to understand how this impacts on existing programs that are happening in the province of Ontario. As the member knows, we have made some announcements specifically related to diabetes and our youth.

So I want to make sure that the program that is coming in from the federal government, if it is ultimately approved and passed, is, in fact, not going to negatively impact the people of Ontario, who have a very robust system right now.

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

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: Back to the minister: Wait and see from this government means ignoring Ontario’s needs. Last year we championed free contraception, highlighting what it means for so many women in Ontario—in health, in gender equality, in affordability. Despite the initial nods, the minister’s wait and see turned into outright rejection.

With national pharmacare on the table, this wait-and-see stance signals a dismissal of reproductive justice for women’s rights. Will this Conservative government finally prioritize Ontarians’ well-being by committing to universal health care, including contraception, today?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: You know, Speaker, that question underlines exactly why the people of Ontario do not entrust their faith in the opposition. I am not and our government is not going to make decisions based on headlines leaked by Jagmeet Singh. We are going to get the details. We are going to make an assessment based on what is already existing in the province of Ontario.

I don’t know if the member understands, but we have individual bilateral discussions that have to take place in order for this program to proceed, and we will do that with all of the facts and all of the details, because on this side of the House, facts matter.

Government appointments

Mr. Adil Shamji: For the Premier, Mr. Speaker: In Ontario, we have three branches of government: legislative, executive and judicial. The legislative branch is, of course, all of us. The executive branch includes the King, represented by the Lieutenant Governor, the Premier and the executive council. And the judicial branch is an independent system of courts that interprets and applies the law, as well as protecting the rights of citizens.

The Premier can’t seem to grasp a concept that even grade 5 social studies students have mastered by the time they come here for their tours at Queen’s Park. He calls his appointment of two former senior staffers to the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee “democracy,” but this is a power grab and nothing more. It’s the Premier tightening his grip, a shameless move that strong-arms the judicial branch for political gain and rewards friends. What else is new?

Without quintupling down, will the Premier tell us the real reason that he thinks two former staffers are more qualified to choose our judges than non-partisan legal experts?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

The Attorney General.

Hon. Doug Downey: You know, that is the quintessential Liberal arrogance—condescension, telling us how the system works—

Mrs. Robin Martin: Mansplaining.

Hon. Doug Downey: Yes, it is mansplaining. Thank you.

Look, the way that it works is that people vote for who they want to have govern, and that’s what they did. That’s why our government is sitting here and they are sitting there. They want us to put people in positions to make decisions to keep their communities safe, to make sure that we are representing their interests, to make sure that we are making good and solid decisions.

They would have us go to one of their ideologues to sit and give us advice. I know this for a fact and I will address it in the second answer.

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

Mr. Adil Shamji: As we just heard, this is about controlling people in high places. We saw it with the former staffer who was charged with orchestrating the historic greenbelt giveaway. Now we have a registered gun lobbyist, friendly to the