Hansard Transcript 2022-Dec-01 vol. A | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Bill 26, An Act to amend various Acts in respect of post-secondary education / Projet de loi 26, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne l’éducation postsecondaire.

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

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Good morning, Mr. Speaker, and thank you. Before I begin, I would like to say that I’ll be sharing my time this morning with my parliamentary assistant and the member for Burlington.

I’d also like to take the opportunity to give a couple of special thank yous this morning and talk about my experience early this morning. My daughter and I arrived at SickKids at 6 a.m. She’s actually in surgery right now. I left her in the hands of some amazing doctors at 8 a.m., for the next four hours. So I want to give a shout-out to all the amazing doctors, nurses and health care providers across the province—especially the ones who are taking care of our wee people. Even though my daughter is 22 and six feet tall, she’s still a patient at SickKids, until after this operation. So I want to thank everyone out there for all their love.

I’m pleased to have this opportunity, once again, to discuss our proposed legislative changes that will help set students up for success throughout their post-secondary education journey and as they transition into rewarding careers.

Over the last few months, I’ve had the pleasure of visiting several of Ontario’s world-class post-secondary institutions, where I’ve had the opportunity to speak directly with students about their post-secondary education journey and their aspirations for the future. I have also had the privilege of speaking with so many high school students, parents and mature learners at different events—whether it be at the Ontario Universities’ Fair or the Jill of All Trades event—where I was able to hear first-hand about their aspirations when it comes to their post-secondary options. And I can tell you, the enthusiasm from both our current and prospective post-secondary students was palpable—because embarking on a post-secondary education, for many, is one of the moments in life when our next chapter begins.

Our government recognizes that Ontario’s colleges, universities, Indigenous institutes and private career colleges are hotbeds of innovation and entrepreneurship. Campuses across the province, from the GTA to rural and northern Ontario, are not only places of learning, but centres of employment and economic growth for their communities, cities and regions that they call home. They offer high-quality education that will help students and graduates develop the knowledge and skills they need to get good-paying jobs and support the growth of our economy. And it is those students and graduates of these high-calibre institutions who give this province its competitive edge. I have said this many times: The people of this province are our greatest assets.

But in order for students to flourish in post-secondary education and beyond, we first need to provide them with a solid foundation that fosters success. By creating the right conditions for them to succeed, Ontario will have everything we need to safeguard our competitiveness and build Ontario’s economy.

That’s why today I am proud to stand before you to once again speak about Bill 26, which contains historic changes that will position Ontario’s post-secondary education system and students for success.

Before providing an update, I’d like to remind the members what the legislation is about. To recap: At its core, the legislation seeks to protect students and make sure our post-secondary education communities are safe, healthy and respectful environments for learning and growth—environments where they don’t have to worry about discrimination or harassment while accessing an education.

Bill 26 would give publicly assisted colleges and universities and private career colleges the ability to better address faculty and staff sexual misconduct against students. First, it would equip institutions with stronger tools to address instances of faculty or staff sexual misconduct against students. This means, for example, that sexual misconduct toward a student by faculty or staff would be deemed just cause for dismissal.

Second, it would prevent the use of non-disclosure agreements, which can be used to hide the prior wrongdoing of an employee when they leave one institution for another. For example, in a case covered in the media a few years ago, a faculty member dismissed for just cause following an investigation into allegations of sexual violence was hired by another institution while the investigation was under way. Preventing the use of non-disclosure agreements will help limit instances where an employee leaves an institution to be employed at another institution with their prior wrongdoing remaining a secret, unknown to fellow faculty, staff and students. This will help provide greater transparency with respect to faculty and staff who are found to have committed sexual misconduct toward a student.

And third, the legislation would require institutions to have employee sexual misconduct policies that outline rules of behaviour between employees and students and contain examples of disciplinary measures for employees who break these rules. This will help address instances where faculty overstep a teacher-student relationship with inappropriate behaviour, such as an instance a few years ago when an independent review found that a professor gave alcohol to and made sexual advances towards a student.

Together, these changes would help to better protect students in instances of faculty and staff sexual misconduct and would help institutions to address complaints when they arise.

By working together with colleges, universities, private career colleges and all of our partners, we will build a better and safer learning environment for students that is free from sexual misconduct, harassment and violence. This is a priority for our government, which is why we’ve already taken concrete steps to address the issue, and the measures included in Bill 26 further build on these actions, which put student safety first.

Speaker, as proud as I am of Bill 26 and all of the hard work that has gone into developing it, it is truly unfortunate that this sort of legislation is necessary to keep students safe.

Earlier this week, we saw reports in the media of an ongoing case against a U of T professor who was investigated for violations of the sexual violence policy on campus. Even after the university accepted the results of the 72-page report, the professor not only remains employed by the institution, but will be directly overseeing two students and teaching classes next semester. During the committee process, we heard conflicting reports about whether current college and university processes did enough to keep students safe after proven instances of faculty sexual misconduct took place. From what we read here, it is clear that more can and needs to be done to empower schools to remove offenders from their school and keep students safe.

0910

Speaker, our government also supports a post-secondary education system that is accessible, respectful and inclusive for all learners, including Indigenous learners, which leads me to another important part of Bill 26: the proposed name change for Toronto Metropolitan University.

We work with colleges, universities, Indigenous institutes and Indigenous partners to create the conditions that make it easier for everyone to access a high-quality education. We do this because we want to build and encourage a post-secondary system that embraces inclusivity and promotes success for all learners so they can find rewarding careers.

The institution took it upon itself to create a task force to engage with community members on reconciling Egerton Ryerson’s legacy. And after extensive consultations with the university and the broader community, including an online survey with over 30,000 respondents, the university determined that a new name would better reflect its current values, aspirations and directions. The school’s renaming was one of 22 recommendations in the final report of the task force.

In April 2022, the university’s board of governors approved “Toronto Metropolitan University” as the proposed new name to replace “Ryerson University.” A few months later, the university formally requested that our ministry bring forward amendments to the Ryerson University Act, 1977, to make “Toronto Metropolitan University” the official legal name of the institution. We are pleased to support the university’s name change to “Toronto Metropolitan University” by proposing the amendments to the Ryerson University Act, 1977, and other affected statutes to reflect this change.

The university’s renaming is one of many steps the university is taking to move beyond the legacy of its namesake and his role in the design of Canada’s residential school system. As the task force report notes, “A name change alone will not erase the systemic barriers and inequities that Indigenous and Black community members face within the institution.” However, it is an important signal that the university is listening and responding to the historical issues of colonialism and how its influence can affect current students when considering how it could better align the university’s name with its values. As the university states, “Names matter. They tell the world who we are and what we stand for. They communicate ideas, values and aspirations. They speak to the future even as they acknowledge the past.”

I would like to congratulate the university on their decision to move in a new direction; in particular, on the extensive work and community consultations they have completed in order to arrive at this decision, and on the resulting report of its task force.

As a place of higher learning, Toronto Metropolitan University and the self-reflection it has pursued over the last few years can serve as a lesson that a deeper collective understanding of the Indian residential school system is an important step on the path towards reconciliation.

Both initiatives in Bill 26 are about creating the right conditions for student success. They’re about creating inclusive, respectful and safe environments for learning. That is something that is incredibly important to this government, to me, and to the Premier. And he asked me to continue the work that we are doing to strengthen the response of colleges, universities and private career colleges to sexual violence on campus, particularly cases of faculty and staff misconduct towards students.

The first part of this bill underlines our government’s zero tolerance position on sexual harassment, assault and misconduct in post-secondary communities. This is a matter that is particularly close to me, given my prior role as the Associate Minister of Children and Women’s Issues, and now as Minister of Colleges and Universities, but more importantly, as a mother to three young women, two of whom are in post-secondary education.

After introducing these proposed amendments a few weeks ago, I was pleased to see so much immediate support from the post-secondary education sector, as well as coverage in the media.

The Toronto Star penned an article with the headline “Ontario to End Secrecy Behind Campus Sexual Misconduct Cases and Let Universities Fire Faculty Who Abuse Students.”

Additionally, it was excellent to see campus media’s interest in Bill 26. The Varsity, U of T’s long-standing campus newspaper, published a piece on the proposed legislative amendments earlier this month. The Varsity spoke with executives from the Prevention, Empowerment, Advocacy, Response, for Survivors Project, otherwise known as PEARS. This is a grassroots, trauma-informed group providing support for survivors of sexual violence across U of T’s three campuses. The founder and director of the organization was quoted as saying, “I was very pleased to see that further attention is being paid to the issue of sexualized/gender-based violence in post-secondary, as it is so often disregarded.”

Ultimately, the measures in Bill 26 are focused on improving student safety and ensuring the best environment for students to excel in the high-quality education our post-secondary institutions provide.

Speaker, I want to pause for a moment and give a special mention to someone important. Micah Kalisch, the founder and director of PEARS, or the Prevention, Empowerment, Advocacy, Response, for Survivors Project, provided one of the bravest and most moving submissions at committee last week. I know committee members who are here in the Legislature this morning were part of that committee and heard her talk. Her words moved the committee and emphasized why legislation like Bill 26 and consultations with students on this issue are so important.

Micah, I want to thank you for your bravery, your passion and your work in addressing sexual and gender-based violence.

It’s individuals like Micah who are truly making a difference.

It has been very encouraging to see how much support we’ve already garnered for these proposed changes.

In their official statement, the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance, or OUSA, said, “We are pleased with” these “legislative changes that support survivors and protect students from harm in potential incidents of faculty-perpetrated sexual violence. Students across Ontario need continued governmental and institutional support to create a safer learning environment free of sexual harassment.”

OUSA participated in the ministry’s consultations last year and shared student concerns in cases of faculty and staff sexual violence against students. A number of these proposed amendments align with OUSA and the expert recommendations in Courage to Act’s white paper What Is the Role of Post-Secondary Institutions in Addressing Student-Instructor Relationships?

Other partners responded to the news, too. Steve Orsini, president and CEO of the Council of Ontario Universities, said, “Ontario’s universities are committed to ensuring student, faculty and staff safety and condemn all forms of sexual violence or harassment. Building on today’s announcement, all of our universities have developed and continue to regularly review their institutional sexual violence policies to ensure that they maintain a survivor-centric approach.”

To quote Linda Franklin, president and CEO of Colleges Ontario: “Ensuring every student has a safe and positive learning environment is a top priority. The comprehensive policies and protocols in place at every college are enhanced on an ongoing basis, and we’re committed to working with the government and students on the further measures announced today.”

Finally, a quote from Ari Laskin, CEO of Career Colleges Ontario: “Career Colleges Ontario is pleased to see the government is taking action on sexual assault and sexual violence in the post-secondary educational sector. Our members have had in place policies that address student safety on our campuses and we are encouraged to see the government formalizing this across its entire post-secondary sector. Ontario’s career colleges will continue to put student safety and well-being at the forefront of all of our operations.”

Speaker, as you can see, while we remain open to constructive feedback, some of which we’ve heard from key stakeholders since the introduction of Bill 26, reaction has been widely positive and shows us that this form of action was much needed.

I want to be clear: We have, as we all know, remarkable faculty at colleges, universities and private career colleges across the province, and the vast majority of faculty and staff conduct themselves with complete professionalism and strive to foster a safe environment for all our students. However, concerns have been raised on whether existing measures go far enough to address faculty/staff-to-student sexual misconduct in the post-secondary education sector.

That is why these measures are being put in place—to protect our students from those who don’t live up to the standards of conduct with respect to student safety and well-being.

0920

As part of the committee process, several witnesses raised questions and probed nuances to help us better align the language of the bill with its intent. This direct feedback is critical to addressing sexual violence, and we’re committed to maintaining an open dialogue with our partners to continuously improve our work in this area. I will now briefly touch on the changes that have been introduced through this process, which I believe improve the bill further.

During the committee process, we heard some concerns around the use of the term “sexual abuse.” It was shared by some that “sexual abuse” may be too narrow of a term, often colloquially used to describe physical acts, when the intent of our legislation was to include both physical and non-physical acts, such as remarks of a sexual nature. The term “sexual abuse” was used in the bill to capture a broad range of potential acts or conduct. To make the definition clearer, we have amended the bill to use the term “sexual misconduct” rather than “sexual abuse.” This is welcome feedback, and I want to thank those who raised it with us.

The term “sexual misconduct” is defined in the proposed amendment to include:

—acts or conduct that contravene the sexual solicitation provisions under the Human Rights Code; and

—acts or communication that contravene the sexual solicitation provisions under the Human Rights Code; and

—any other conduct or behaviours as defined by institutions in their employee sexual misconduct policies.

On this, I want to take a moment to address any potential concerns about the use of the term “misconduct,” rather than a more common term like “violence” or “harassment.” It should go without saying that careful consideration went into the drafting and amending of Bill 26. I understand the power of words and the importance of choosing words carefully. The choice to use “misconduct” as the defined term in the legislation was twofold. The first was to further define an umbrella term that can be used to apply to a wide variety of phrases and terminology, used in this nature, that are already defined within the referenced acts, codes and policies in Bill 26. For example, “sexual harassment” is contained and defined in the Criminal Code, the Human Rights Code and in school campus policies—all of which are equally applicable should a student need to file a formal complaint. The second was because we want to ensure the language around this issue has an opportunity to evolve. Just as “sexual and gender-based violence” has not always been the terminology used, we want to ensure that, should the language continue to evolve, the legislation encapsulates a term that new phraseology can fall under.

The second set of changes address the need to strengthen language related to non-disclosure agreements, or NDAs. Legal professionals reviewed Bill 26 and flagged a concern that, when it came to NDAs, the legislation would have prohibited the use of a non-disclosure agreement to prevent an institution from disclosing the fact that a court or arbitrator had determined that an employee of the institution committed an act of sexual misconduct toward a student. That would leave a student who alleges misconduct vulnerable to pressure to sign an NDA at the beginning of the process before moving forward with a meaningful investigation. To address this concern, we have amended this bill so that no agreement between an institution and any person can prohibit the institution, or any person related to it, from disclosing the fact of an allegation or complaint being made that an employee committed an act of sexual misconduct toward a student. However, a non-disclosure term of this nature could be included at the student’s request.

Together, the proposed amendments in Bill 26 would require publicly assisted colleges and universities as well as private career colleges to have specific processes in place that address faculty and staff sexual misconduct on campus and to make these processes transparent. These measures are focused on improving student safety and creating an environment for students to do their best and excel in the high-quality education our post-secondary institutions offer.

We know that a healthy campus environment is crucial to student success. At a fundamental level, no student in Ontario can reach their full potential unless they are safe on campus and in the broader post-secondary community.

Our government believes that everyone should be able to pursue their studies, on- or off-campus, without having to worry about sexual violence, harassment or misconduct. The measures included in Bill 26 further build on our government’s actions to support our students and keep them safe.

It is clear that across our institutions, these changes have been welcomed and appreciated for going further than ever before to combat sexual misconduct on campus.

And I’m proud to say that’s not all we have done since forming government.

Last fall, we made policy changes to strengthen supports for post-secondary students reporting sexual violence or harassment. We introduced regulatory amendments that required institutions to update their sexual violence policies in order to shield students from irrelevant questions during sexual violence investigations at institutions. These amendments ensured that students could safely bring complaints forward without fear of disciplinary action. This includes instances where perhaps a student was drinking under age when the sexual violence took place. Thanks to these amendments, students will not be penalized for violating the institution’s policies related to drug and alcohol use at the time the sexual violence took place. It also barred irrelevant questions that had a potential revictimizing or shaming effect, including questions about past sexual history, attire and so on. Our government took action to put an end to these issues, and these changes came into effect this spring. My number one priority is our students’ safety. That is why our government implemented these changes to better support students who have already gone through difficult experiences and may have felt scared and vulnerable.

In 2018, the government conducted the Student Voices on Sexual Violence survey to gather information about how respondents perceive, understand and respond to incidents of sexual violence, as well as their level of satisfaction with their institution’s sexual violence supports and services. More than 160,000 students across Ontario participated in this voluntary survey, which has helped inform our government’s work in the area.

Over the years, we have listened to students and partners and have addressed sexual violence matters in various ways. For example, as of July 2019, colleges and universities are required to report annually to their board of governors on the number of incidents and complaints of sexual violence reported by students, as well as the supports, programs and initiatives that are available to their students.

Colleges and universities must now have and publicly post a stand-alone sexual violence policy, which must be reviewed at least every three years and amended as appropriate. Student input must also be taken into consideration during the development of the policy, and every time the policy is reviewed or amended.

Additionally, our government required every publicly assisted college and university in Ontario to have a task force that is devoted to addressing sexual violence on campus.

And since 2019, the government invests $6 million annually in the campus safety grant. These funds assist and support publicly assisted colleges and universities with campus safety programs, including campus sexual violence prevention programs and supports. The grant can be used to support a variety of student-focused programs and services, including safe walk programs, awareness programs, safety training and much more.

0930

I’d like to address the consultations that we held to better understand and address faculty/staff-to-student sexual misconduct at our post-secondary institutions.

We pride ourselves on being a government that is responsive to the evolving needs of its people. We know that issues as pervasive as sexual violence and harassment aren’t addressed by quick fixes.

It’s worth noting that a 2019 Statistics Canada survey found that harassment is more common in academia than in any other field. Specific instances of sexual violence and misconduct committed by post-secondary faculty and staff against students has been exposed in recent years due in part to investigative reporting in the media. In many cases, survivors have come forward to report instances years after the sexual misconduct took place. While allegation details vary from case to case, a picture has emerged of general frustration about the disciplinary measures taken by, and the lack of transparency taking place at institutions following reports of sexual misconduct against students by a faculty or staff member.

Cases of sexual misconduct by faculty or staff against students undermine the essential conditions for learning, and as evidence of these cases emerge, the public’s trust in the ability and commitment of post–secondary institutions to keep students safe is also affected.

In August 2021, following some media attention regarding sexual misconduct cases in post-secondary institutions and the calls to strengthen existing measures, our government engaged with colleges, universities, private career colleges and student groups to develop a plan of action that could build on and expand existing measures. Our consultations helped us determine the extent of the issue of faculty and staff sexual misconduct towards students, and what we could do to further ensure student safety. These consultations provided a clear signal that there was more work to be done to grant students a safe learning environment, especially as they return to campuses full-time.

We are working to do everything possible to combat issues of sexual violence or misconduct on our campuses. The steps we’ve taken since 2018 have strengthened supports for post-secondary students reporting sexual violence or harassment in campus communities. And the measures introduced in Bill 26 will give post-secondary institutions greater powers to address acts committed by faculty and staff towards students. That is why these measures are being put in place—to protect our students and support their well-being.

I would be remiss not to mention that universities and colleges are also taking important steps to address student safety and respond to these concerns. Many post-secondary institutions are proactive and doing exceptional work to address sexual misconduct. One example that I was very pleased to learn about is at Queen’s University, where they recently launched an online tool and mobile app to allow victims of sexual violence to anonymously record incidents, access resources and connect with on- and off-campus supports. This online support hub allows students to record their experience through a trauma-informed, question-and-answer format. Many institutions have also introduced awareness-raising and educational tools around consent.

Speaker, today’s legislation is about more than post-secondary education. Beyond the lecture halls and classrooms, over the last five years, there has been a great reckoning when it comes to inappropriate behaviour and unhealthy relationships. More than ever, survivors and allies are coming forward to challenge sexual harassment and misconduct in workplaces, social environments and intimate settings. In Hollywood, media and beyond, public consciousness has shifted, with more widespread recognition of the urgent need to call out unhealthy relationships that aren’t rooted in consent or that involve problematic power structures.

That’s what makes this legislation so critical. As a government, we are formalizing our recognition, to show Ontarians that we will not stand by when power is abused. We want to create consistency across the sector in the way institutions address staff who commit acts of sexual misconduct. These changes would provide publicly assisted colleges, universities and private career colleges tools and resources to address instances of sexual misconduct by faculty and/or staff and greater transparency with respect to faculty and/or staff who are found to have committed an act of sexual misconduct towards a student. The proposed changes would make Ontario one of a few Canadian jurisdictions that require institutions to have policies setting out rules for behaviour between faculty and staff and students, and setting out disciplinary measures for faculty and staff who break these rules.

From the first day students set foot in the classroom, to the day they graduate and start their careers, our government’s plan to support learners will support everyone in Ontario to have the tools and the opportunity to reach their full potential.

Our government is taking bold, decisive action in order to do what is best for Ontarians, and we need to remind ourselves that at the heart of this action is the post-secondary education sector and the students. That is why the measures we are proposing are, first and foremost, student-focused. If students don’t feel safe or have a sense of belonging, this will impact their success. It will impact their performance, not just in school, but long before and long after graduation.

Post-secondary institutions have a responsibility to provide a safe and supportive learning environment and are expected to do everything possible to address issues on campuses, be they sexual misconduct or righting historical wrongs.

This is a complex issue, and we are committed to working with our partners—including students—to continuously adapt and enhance the supports available to survivors of sexual violence and fight sexual misconduct on- or off-campus.

Bill 26, if passed, would benefit students by helping to create a safer, more respectful environment and campus community. Bill 26 provides measures to help position our post-secondary education sector for continued success for present and future generations. The sexual misconduct measures will provide students with more protection, empowering them to achieve their full potential during some of the most formative years of their lives.

Once again, we are building on past successes to help students feel safe and to support our institutions to continue to uphold high standards. We will continue to work with our colleges and universities, student groups and other partners to make sure our world-class post-secondary institutions support a bright future for the people in this province.

I am proud of these historic legislative changes, and I appreciate your support as we move forward.

I’m now going to pass it on to my parliamentary assistant—and I’m sure you can all imagine that I’m going back over to SickKids to wait for my daughter to come out of surgery.

Thank you all for your time. I’d like to thank all the committee members. Everyone who spoke on this bill has been so supportive.

I know that we are all here for the right reasons—to ensure that students are protected on campuses in Ontario.

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

Ms. Natalie Pierre: I am pleased to build on Minister Dunlop’s remarks about the proposed legislative changes. These changes will help set students up for success throughout their post-secondary education and as they transition into rewarding careers.

As a government, our priority is to support Ontario students and help them access high-quality education—education that will help them develop the knowledge and skills they need to get good-paying jobs and support the growth of our economy.

In order for students to flourish in post-secondary education and beyond, we first need to provide them with a solid foundation that fosters success. All students in Ontario deserve to learn in a healthy, safe and respectful environment—an environment where they don’t have to worry about discrimination or harassment while accessing an education.

The safety and well-being of students on campuses across Ontario is a critical responsibility of our colleges, universities and private career colleges—and on our part, our government will continue to take action to support institutions in their efforts.

That’s why today I’m proud to show my support for the two initiatives outlined in Bill 26, the Strengthening Post-secondary Institutions and Students Act, 2022.

As Minister Dunlop explained, the first set of proposed amendments in the bill introduce changes that demonstrate our zero tolerance stance for sexual assault, harassment and any other form of sexual misconduct in our post-secondary communities. This legislation seeks to help publicly assisted colleges and universities and private career colleges to better address faculty and staff sexual misconduct against students. This includes equipping institutions with stronger tools to address these instances should they occur, unfortunately. Institutions would also be required to have employee sexual misconduct policies that set out rules for behaviour between employees and students and set out examples of disciplinary measures for employees who break these rules.

0940

Finally, the proposed changes would prevent the use of non-disclosure agreements, which can sometimes be used to hide the prior wrongdoing of an employee when they leave one institution for another.

As Minister Dunlop mentioned, after considering the bill in more detail and listening to feedback we received, we are strengthening the language in the bill to protect students even more by using the term “sexual misconduct” instead of “sexual abuse” to refer to both physical and non-physical acts, and making it clear that the use of NDAs, or non-disclosure agreements, is unacceptable unless the student requests it.

As someone who led hiring and recruitment at Sheridan College for the past 13 years, I can tell you first-hand about the level of responsibility institutions feel to get it right. No one should have to worry about sexual misconduct on- or off-campus, especially not students. Our post-secondary institutions go to extensive lengths to attract and retain the best talent for our students. Candidates are led through a rigorous recruitment process and vetted extensively.

Non-disclosure agreements put staff, students and visitors in harm’s way when prior wrongdoing remains a secret.

We need to ensure a safe environment for post-secondary learners, fostering feelings of safety and personal comfort in which to learn, live, work and grow. Not only do we want to surround our students with educators who are inspiring and engaging; we also want to ensure these educators are unfailingly professional.

I’d like to reiterate Minister Dunlop’s statement that in most instances, the faculty and staff at our post-secondary institutions are doing an exceptional job and are demonstrating incomparable behaviour. Unfortunately, there are a few cases where this cannot be said, and so our government will not hesitate to step in.

The second set of amendments in the Strengthening Post-secondary Institutions and Students Act, 2022, would change the name of Ryerson University to Toronto Metropolitan University. As Minister Dunlop mentioned, the university took steps towards making this name change because of concerns with the legacy of Egerton Ryerson and his role in the creation of Canada’s residential school system. The university came forward earlier this year to request that the government make Toronto Metropolitan University the official legal name of the institution. We are pleased to support this step in the university’s continued journey—a journey that better aligns the university’s name with its current values. The university’s renaming is one of many steps the university is taking to move beyond the legacy of Egerton Ryerson and his role in the design of Canada’s residential school system. I would like to congratulate the university on their decision to rename, on the extensive community consultation they have completed in order to arrive at this decision, and on the resulting report of its task force. I look forward to seeing how the university further acts on the recommendations of its task force to move towards greater inclusion and equity for Indigenous learners.

For many years, I’ve been a committed mentor and coach for students, working with high school, college and university learners to help them overcome the challenges they face when entering the workforce. As someone who is passionate about post-secondary education and supporting students on their career journeys, I can so clearly see how these proposed legislative amendments would be critical to bolstering student success. Ultimately, it all comes down to supporting student access to post-secondary education and ensuring a safe, inclusive learning environment once they get there. I’m proud to say that our government has taken extensive action over the past few years to make this happen.

But while a relatively high number of Ontarians participate in post-secondary education overall, there are still groups that, for various reasons, are under-represented at colleges, universities and Indigenous institutes. That’s truly a shame, because this province needs representation from all individuals who call Ontario home. Their varying perspectives and ideas make us undoubtedly stronger.

For example, low-income students have a high school dropout rate of 30% to 50%, and are less likely to enter a post-secondary education and to succeed once they arrive. As you can imagine, family income is an especially strong predictor for attending university. As such, young people from high-income families are two to three times more likely to go to university than students from low-income families.

Youth in extended care, often referred to as crown wards, face similar challenges in accessing post-secondary education, with a 56% chance of dropping out of high school. It goes without saying that this can often lead to unemployment and underemployment.

And there are students whose parents did not attend post-secondary education. It can be a great honour and also a lot of pressure to be the first in your family to pursue higher education. Unfortunately, only 56% of first-generation individuals—that’s the term we use to describe individuals who are the first in their family to pursue post-secondary education—have a post-secondary credential. That number jumps to 89% for those whose parents both have a degree, a diploma or some other credential. Speaker, 56% compared to 89%—that’s a significant gap.

Students with disabilities face their own unique set of challenges accessing and succeeding in post-secondary education. In 2021-22, over 96,000 post-secondary students were registered with offices for students with disabilities at publicly assisted colleges and universities, and that number has been on the rise for years.

Finally, I’ll note that in 2019, 37% of Ontarians reported having a university degree, but only 16% of off-reserve Indigenous individuals did.

I realize these stats can paint a stark picture of inequity in our province and in Ontario’s post-secondary sector, but it’s important we acknowledge the many factors at play in the context of the important legislation being discussed today.

I’m proud to say that our government has taken definitive action to better support the inclusion, access and success of more students at post-secondary institutions across Ontario. For example, in March of last year, the Ministry of Colleges and Universities engaged with the Premier’s Council on Equality of Opportunity. The council is an advisory group that champions community voices and provides advice to the government on how to help young people succeed in Ontario’s changing economy. The goal of engaging the council was to help seek feedback from stakeholders, advocates and students themselves on how the government can better respond to accessibility challenges faced by minority groups at colleges and universities. We coordinated consultations with different under-represented groups in the post-secondary sector, including those I mentioned earlier. We wanted to hear directly from individuals regarding the barriers they experienced accessing higher education and any challenges they had once they got there. That insight is helping our government shape a better, more inclusive post-secondary system.

I’m proud to say that we have many programs in place that are making a very tangible difference in this area. For example, we provide nearly $10 million annually to Pathways to Education, a not-for-profit organization that provides academic, financial, social and one-on-one supports to Ontarians in certain low-income communities in the province. Pathways to Education helps these youth graduate from high school and successfully transition to post-secondary education. This program supported more than 3,000 students in Ontario last year. That’s 3,000 students who suddenly had the door of higher education opened to them; 3,000 more students who will gain the skills they need to graduate, get a meaningful, well-paying job and help drive Ontario’s economy forward. I know Minister Dunlop had the pleasure of attending the Pathways to Education grad ball a few weeks ago. The event is always a wonderful opportunity to see the very real difference this program can make to so many young people.

Our government also provides more than $11 million annually to support Ontario Postsecondary Access and Inclusion Programs at colleges and universities. This funding helps institutions to provide outreach, transition and retention programs to students who, without supports and interventions, would not otherwise access post-secondary education. It is designed to help students see the value of higher education, see themselves in post-secondary, and help them make the transition and succeed once there. This program had about 273,000 interactions with students in the 2020-21 academic year. That’s more than a quarter of a million touchpoints with students to help them in their post-secondary journey.

0950

We also support something called Ontario Education Championship Teams. As I mentioned earlier, it can be challenging and overwhelming for a first-generation post-secondary student to pursue higher education. This is also true for youth in extended care. Ontario Education Championship Teams help remove informational and administrative barriers for those students so they can transition to post-secondary education and access training and employment. The 21 teams are made up of children’s aid societies, school boards, post-secondary education institutions and employment services. They are doing truly great work. Each year, this important program supports an average of 6,000 students. Again, that’s 6,000 students who may not have thought a post-secondary education was even a possibility for them.

Finally, in the context of today’s proposed amendments to help Toronto Metropolitan University move beyond the legacy of the Indian residential school system, I would like to highlight the work we are doing to support more Indigenous learners with their post-secondary goals. As a government, we are supporting both changes at the local level, such as Toronto Metropolitan University’s name change, and taking concrete steps towards building a post-secondary system that embraces accessibility and equality and promotes success for Indigenous learners and all students.

We know there is an attainment gap in post-secondary education between Indigenous and non-Indigenous learners. Approximately 53% of Indigenous people aged 25 to 64 hold a post-secondary credential, compared to 65% of the non-Indigenous population. There is widespread agreement by Indigenous leaders, communities and education professionals that investing in culturally responsive post-secondary education opportunities for Indigenous learners will have tremendous benefits and reduce this gap.

To this end, colleges and universities across Ontario are committed to improving Indigenous learners’ access, inclusion and participation in post-secondary education. They have prioritized many activities, some in response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s Calls to Action, including hiring and retaining more Indigenous faculty and staff; increasing recruitment, bursaries and scholarships for Indigenous learners; including more Indigenous content in courses; offering new courses, programs and degrees specializing in Indigenous subject matter; and increasing partnerships with local Indigenous communities.

Our government supports colleges and universities in providing culturally appropriate services and student supports to Indigenous learners through the Indigenous student success fund. Through this fund, our government invests $18.2 million annually to fund programs and services such as Indigenous counsellors; post-secondary education experience camps; elders-in-residence; academic supports; access to Indigenous-focused mentoring, counselling and advising services; partnership development; and student and community outreach activities. To further ensure that universities and colleges include culturally appropriate services, institutions that receive the grant are required to maintain an Indigenous education council comprised of Indigenous community members. The council provides advice and input on programs and services. To respond to community needs, colleges and universities also offer Indigenous study programs such as social work, teaching, early childhood education, and language programs.

In addition to promoting inclusion for Indigenous learners at colleges and universities, Ontario supports Indigenous institutes in providing post-secondary education and training for nearly 1,500 Indigenous learners. Indigenous institutes are an important pillar of our post-secondary education sector. That’s why, five years ago, Ontario took a historic step to formally recognize their important role in delivering post-secondary education in the province. That is when the Indigenous Institutes Act, 2017, came into force. The act allows Indigenous institutes in Ontario that have been independently quality-assured through the Indigenous Advanced Education and Skills Council to offer independently delivered post-secondary education credentials.

Nine Indigenous institutes in the province are currently part of the publicly assisted post-secondary education system. Not only do they provide education and training for thousands of Indigenous learners; they offer programming in a culturally holistic and safe learning environment—an environment where Indigenous knowledge and ways of knowing are woven into all aspects of the learner experience. Several institutes serve communities in northern, rural and very remote parts of the province. They provide critical access to learners who might not otherwise participate in post-secondary education and training.

Our government is committed to supporting Indigenous institutes in providing learners in all parts of the province with access to high-quality education and training, so that Indigenous institutes continue to flourish and respond to community demands and the needs of the local labour market. That’s why our government continues to invest in Indigenous institutes across Ontario. In 2021-22, Ontario invested $24.8 million in the Indigenous Institutes Operating Grant, and, in budget 2022, committed an additional $4.5 million over the next three years, for a total of $26.3 million in 2022-23.

There is no greater investment than in the talent and skills of the next generation.

There has never been a more rewarding time to contribute to Ontario’s health care workforce. To help meet the unprecedented health care challenges brought into sharp focus throughout the pandemic, our government is investing $34 million over four years to increase enrolment in nursing and in personal support worker programs at six Indigenous institutes. This funding will help participating Indigenous institutes expand existing programs or create new ones to support the training of approximately 340 practical nurses, 60 registered nurses and 400 personal support workers over four years. To assist these students with completing their studies, Ontario is providing subsidies for tuition, textbooks, child care and costs related to clinical education. Ultimately, we want to make it easier for learners to pursue training as a nurse or a PSW. Overall, this increase in skilled nurses and PSWs will make a significant difference in supporting our health care system and will help Indigenous learners pursue rewarding careers.

In addition to funding for personal support worker and nursing programs, Ontario promotes a diversity of programs that meet the economic, health and social needs of Indigenous communities. Our government is dedicated to creating the conditions that make it easier for Indigenous learners to access a high-quality education. This includes all aspects of a student’s experience, from the learning environment to mental health supports to financial assistance.

To provide Indigenous students, faculty and staff with access to modern and safe learning environments, through budget 2022, our government is investing $4.5 million over three years to support the maintenance of Indigenous institute facilities.

We have also taken decisive action to provide flexible and increased access to mental health supports for Indigenous students. In 2022-23, Ontario is investing $950,000 in the Indigenous Institutes Mental Health Grant. This funding will continue to support Indigenous institutes in offering new or increased access to mental health, wellness, and trauma-related programs, services and supports, primarily for learners at Indigenous institutes. Funding may also be used to provide mental health, wellness, and trauma training for their staff and faculty.

To make it easier for Indigenous people to access a culturally supportive and high-quality post-secondary education, we are also removing financial barriers for Indigenous learners. Our government opened the door to OSAP eligibility for Indigenous institutes as of the 2020-21 academic year. In addition, Ontario offers a range of grants and loans through OSAP to support the unique needs and economic circumstances of Indigenous learners. There were over 5,700 Indigenous learners who received OSAP for the 2021-22 academic year, totalling approximately $78 million in federal and provincial grants and loans across all post-secondary institutions. These supports include the Ontario Indigenous Travel Grant, which addresses the high cost of travelling to a post-secondary school for Indigenous students living in remote First Nations communities.

1000

The real winners are Ontario’s students and communities, who benefit from the incredible work being done at our institutions across the province.

As I mentioned earlier, most faculty on campus are doing a remarkable job of supporting student success. We see this in some of the examples that I’ve shared today. But we need to do more to set students up for success so that they can achieve such milestones. We need to remove barriers to education and provide students with the kind of safe, encouraging, respectful environment where they can focus on what is most important.

Our government is ready to take bold, decisive action in order to do what’s best for Ontarians.

As someone who has worked in the sector for many years, I know that if students don’t feel safe or have a sense of belonging, this will impact their success. That’s why I’m so pleased to see that the measures we are proposing today are truly focused on what matters: the students.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): It’s now time for questions and answers.

M^me France Gélinas: I thank both the minister and the parliamentary assistant to the minister for their comments this morning. This is a bill that I think we can all support. The end goal is really good.

There is one part of the bill that we have tried to amend, and that has to do with education. Does the parliamentary assistant believe that if we were to make education on sexual harassment for everybody attending college and university mandatory, that, over the years, as more and more students become educated on this topic, it would have a long-term effect on decreasing the amount of sexual harassment we see not only in colleges and universities but throughout our society?

Ms. Natalie Pierre: Thank you to the member across for your question.

Our government is committed to ensuring students have access to a secure and safe learning environment. That’s why we have taken these steps to strengthen supports for students reporting sexual violence or harassment. Colleges and universities are each autonomous organizations and have their own policies and processes in place regarding sexual violence codes of conduct on campus. This legislation specifically addresses sexual misconduct of staff and faculty towards students.

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

Mr. Lorne Coe: I want to congratulate the parliamentary assistant not only on her presentation but on her long-standing stewardship on what we’re debating today.

I’d like her to expand on her presentation and speak about how the regulations that we introduced a year ago and this particular piece of legislation will help, together, to better support students in post-secondary education.

Ms. Natalie Pierre: Thank you to my colleague for the question.

Last March, our government imposed regulations designed around empowering students who are survivors or have knowledge of an instance of sexual violence. One of the most important changes we put in place was that if someone comes forward with information about an act of sexual violence, they are granted certain exceptions from campus policies; the biggest of these is the school’s drug and alcohol policies. While we don’t want to encourage any illegal or excessive use of drugs or alcohol, students should not be reluctant to come forward with information because they’re concerned for their academic success or standing out of fear of being punished for doing so. Another addition that we’re building on is the removal of unnecessary questions regarding themes such as the sexual history of the student. When it comes to matters of consent, all that matters is whether or not someone has provided it in the moment. But most importantly, these regulations require all schools to have a sexual violence policy.

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

MPP Lise Vaugeois: I would like to say that I think this is a positive step forward.

The member spoke about quite a few other things during her talk, and I’d like to address one of them. Students, during COVID, received increased grants from the federal government through OSAP; however, if they were on ODSP—in other words, they were struggling to have enough money to go to university, and they had a disability—their money was clawed back. So students who didn’t have a disability were able to keep the entire amount of the grant, but students with a disability actually had to give some of that money back. I’m wondering if the member is able to speak to that at all, because it did put students with a disability at a further disadvantage.

Ms. Natalie Pierre: Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

The bill in front of us today talks about non-disclosure agreements, sexual misconduct, and the renaming of Toronto Metropolitan University.

With respect to your question around OSAP, I’ll share that supporting post-secondary education is one of the best investments this government has made for students in the future. That’s why we’re getting it done for students in their greatest time of need. We’ve expanded OSAP to be eligible for students enrolled in Indigenous institutes. We’ve expanded OSAP to cover microcredentials, so that learners have more options on how to expand their education. And in 2020-21, we invested $4.7 billion in direct student aid to 400,000 students.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): I recognize the member for Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston.

Mr. John Jordan: Bill 26 proposes changes that, quite frankly, are long overdue. Protecting students at colleges and universities is so important, and I’m so glad to see this government making these changes. I thank the minister and the PA for the work they’ve done on this. Can the member please outline how these measures will specifically support students and survivors of sexual misconduct?

Ms. Natalie Pierre: Thank you to the member next to me for the question.

Put simply, Bill 26, if passed, will put an end to the secrecy around faculty-student sexual violence on campus and off-campus. As we have seen in reports in recent years, use of non-disclosure agreements to prevent students from seeking legal recourse against the offender and the ability for faculty and staff to move from one school to another without facing any punishment or outright dismissal is far too common in post-secondary education. If passed, Bill 26 would give institutions greater power to discipline and dismiss offenders and empower students to come forward with evidence of sexual violence.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): I recognize the member for London–Fanshawe.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I thank the government for bringing the bill forward. As we know, this week we talked about gender-based violence. We had presentations on how it impacts our society, how it impacts all families—every member of the family. So I’m glad to see that this initiative has been taken, especially for young people going to university and college, and that these measures are happening. But I need to talk about prevention. The member from Nickel Belt alluded to education. I think that’s such an important piece in order to make sure that we can look to the future for eliminating or mitigating it not happening.

How are universities and colleges getting the best practices and standardized policies universally throughout the system so that there’s not a patchwork being done and everybody’s on board with the same topic and can proceed with the good work that this bill has started?

1010

Ms. Natalie Pierre: Once again, Bill 26 speaks to sexual misconduct of staff and faculty toward students.

In terms of prevention, colleges and universities are autonomous institutions and have their own policies and procedures in place around codes of conduct for students and codes of conduct for employees. It may be something that the government considers, moving forward, in the form of a directive. We do meet with our stakeholders in colleges and universities regularly to talk about best practices in this and other areas, and we are looking to share those practices with all other post-secondary institutions.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): We have time for one further question.

Mr. Rick Byers: Ontario has some of the best faculty and staff in the world working at college and university campuses across the province.

Interjections.

Mr. Rick Byers: Hear, hear.

In fact, in many cases, these institutions are not just home to some of the best and brightest, but they’re also some of the largest employers in our communities.

We know Bill 26 has a strong focus on faculty-on-student sexual violence, but we have heard from the minister and others that this legislation is a welcome addition to the sector.

Can the member elaborate on how Bill 26 is not just good for students, but also for members of the faculty and staff as well?

Ms. Natalie Pierre: Thank you for the question.

Madam Speaker, we have some of the best faculty and staff at our colleges and universities, and in no way is Bill 26 an attack on our faculty and staff or a way to limit their rights. In fact, many of the faculty and staff see this as keeping them safe as employees, as well as keeping students safe.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Unfortunately, we have run out of time for debate and questions.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Fire safety

Mr. Rob Flack: On Friday, October 2, 2020, Cindy Devine was killed at the young age of 35 in a two-vehicle accident. She was a wife to Richard and a mother of four. Richard is here today.

Cindy was alive shortly after the crash, but she was completely entrapped in the car and could not escape. Unfortunately, Cindy died after her vehicle caught on fire.

This tragic incident resulted in a campaign now called Extinguishers for Cindy, and they are calling for Cindy’s Law to be established in this province. The Extinguishers for Cindy campaign has now raised over $45,000 in the past three years. This campaign has a lot of well-deserved support and momentum in my riding of Elgin–Middlesex–London. In addition to the money that the campaign has raised, Extinguishers for Cindy has also handed out approximately 1,000 fire extinguishers to local residents.

Speaker, this is a friendly and impassioned reminder to all members of this House and those watching from home: Fire extinguishers are not only important to keep in our homes, but they should also be kept in our vehicles. Fire extinguishers save lives.

Keep up the good work, Richard and team.

World AIDS Day

M^me France Gélinas: Today, December 1, is AIDS day. One of the most important messages that AIDS taught us is the importance of protecting our blood supply. In the 1980s, AIDS in our blood supply unknowingly infected hundreds of Canadians who needed blood transfusions, leading to the royal commission of inquiry on the blood system in Canada, better known as the Krever inquiry, which concluded that blood is a public resource, that donors should not be paid, that Canada must increase self-sufficiency in all blood and blood products, and that no part of the national blood operator’s duty should be contracted out.

In 2014, a private company was prepared to open paid plasma collection centres in Toronto and Hamilton. Recognizing the threat, the government passed the Voluntary Blood Donations Act. I was proud to vote in favour of that bill, along with the current Minister of Health, Minister Jones, and eight members of the current government, to shut these clinics down.

Now, eight years later, Canadian Blood Services has signed a deal with Grifols pharmaceuticals in order to contract out plasma collection to a for-profit collector.

We must remember the Canadians, the Ontarians who became sick, who died. We must remember the lessons of the past and respect the Krever inquiry.

The Ontario Minister of Health is the lead supervisor of Canadian Blood Services. She has a duty to act right now to protect Ontarians and Canadians by shutting down this deal.

Post-secondary education and skills training

Mr. John Jordan: Today I want to talk about the launch of an exciting idea and acknowledge the good work of our Minister of Colleges and Universities and our Minister of Education to support our young people to explore and find a rewarding career. This is a good-news story. From the recognition of missed career opportunities for a new generation, to the rollout of the dual credits secondary school program, supporting the needs of a dynamic and changing workforce—this is an idea with wings.

When news of an additional $4.8 million in program funding reached the secondary schools of Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston, the reaction was overwhelmingly positive.

Smith Falls District Collegiate Institute principal Terry Gardiner said, “The Dual Credit Program represents an outstanding opportunity for students entering trades, or trying a course in their area of interest. It allows them the opportunity to ‘try on’ college and many students see that they can be successful.”

Janet Sanderson, principal of Granite Ridge Education Centre in Sharbot Lake, said, “It gives our students a chance to ... get a taste of the college life ... explore post-secondary options and test the waters. One student remarked, the Dual Credit Program gives him a reason to like school again.”

With one in three tradespeople over the age of 55, the infrastructure of our future will be built by the next generation. Experiential learning is an invitation to explore pathways to robotics, electronics, carpentry, health care, mechanics and more, all under the guidance and mentorship of skilled trades teachers, college partners and industry professionals.

Ontario’s Dual Credit Program has created a buzz in Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston, and it’s powered by the purest form of clean energy: the curiosity and inventiveness of our youth.

Public transit

Mr. Joel Harden: A loud thud was heard yesterday across Ontario at 11 a.m. It was the dropping and the introduction of the Ottawa Light Rail Transit Commission report. It was a 650-plus-page document detailing the problems we’ve had with our LRT system. It’s something I have fought for in this place—thanks to residents and community members back home, who I want to thank for their work.

Sometimes, the truth hurts, and it certainly hurts this morning for advocates of public-private partnerships in infrastructure, because Justice William Hourigan, who led this report, said the following: “The P3 model caused or contributed to several of the ongoing difficulties on the project ... the city traditionally had a hands-on leading role in projects, given the lesser role it played under this mode, the city was left in a position where it had limited insight or control over the project.”

P3s are an accident waiting to happen. They will not offer the transparency the public deserves. That is the lesson, I believe, from Ottawa’s LRT failure.

But right now, as I speak, the same P3 consultants and contractors who made a mess out of Ottawa’s LRT are building the Eglinton Crosstown.

I call on this government to read Justice Hourigan’s report, to learn the lessons, to not waste the public money, and to make sure the mess that happened in Ottawa never happens again.

Volunteer service awards

Mr. Nolan Quinn: For 10 years the United Way/Centraide of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry has been kicking off the festive season with their annual holiday gala. This past weekend at the gala, Karen and Ray Brunet were recognized with the André Mailhot Award, which is the United Way’s highest volunteer honour. Although this award was announced at their AGM in early June, United Way Canada representatives attended the annual gala to present the award to Karen and Ray in person. With this being the 10th year of them being chairs of the gala, the timing couldn’t be any better. The award honours a volunteer who has demonstrated a lifelong commitment to community, philanthropy and the United Way movement. The individual is recognized by his or her peers as exemplifying the United Way values of leadership, volunteerism, inclusivity, community engagement, commitment and respect. Karen and Ray were selected from among nominations that came from many of the 69 United Ways across Canada. Karen and Ray have put in over 5,000 hours of volunteering at my local United Way and can be linked to the majority of sponsors and donations that this event receives. They therefore ensure the event’s success year after year. It is not an exaggeration to say that it is truly thanks to their selfless dedication and community connections that this event has raised over half a million dollars in the 10 years it has existed.

1020

De Sario Family Festival of Lights

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: The holiday season is upon us, a time of kindness and goodwill towards all. During this time, many groups, associations, places of worship and more organize important acts of charity, but sometimes a single person or family steps up to do something remarkable. These acts of joy and kindness and charity come in many different forms, each with their own story of inspiration.

The De Sario family was inspired by the care their daughter received at SickKids hospital for juvenile diabetes, so in 1999 they began a yearly tradition of decorating their home with Christmas lights to raise money for SickKids—and when I say decorate, I mean over-the-top beautiful, with tens of thousands of lights, probably visible from space, and every other decoration you can imagine. It’s a wonderful sight that captures the hearts of all ages. And this year, they’re hoping to raise $20,000.

Speaker, as you know, SickKids hospital is known as a place of legends, where every one of their patients has a legendary story that inspires us all. It is also home to the largest hospital-based child health care research institute in Canada, and we’re so proud and fortunate that it is located here in Ontario.

The De Sario Family Festival of Lights begins this Saturday, December 3, at 5 p.m., at their home at 165 Benjamin Boake Trail in the Keele and Sheppard area, in Toronto’s northwest end, and it runs until the end of this year. I thank them for their hard work to spread joy and help children in need.

Whether you happen to be in the area or not, I encourage you to come by and view the sight for yourself, and perhaps that visit may become a family tradition for you as well.

Happy holidays.

Great Union Day

Ms. Natalia Kusendova-Bashta: It is an honour to stand in the House today to mark an important anniversary that Romanians all around the world celebrate. Every year, on December 1, Romanians come together to celebrate Great Union Day, also known as Romania’s National Day—the unification of the Romanian provinces into one country, which took place at the end of the First World War, in 1918.

Romanian Canadians make up an essential part of our national character. In fact, Canada is home to over 250,000 Romanian Canadians.

Mississauga is home to close to 4,500 Romanian Canadians, who continue to contribute to the cultural, social and economic fabric of Mississauga and of Ontario.

Canada would not be the same without athletes like Bianca Andreescu or politicians like Andrew Scheer.

Mississauga’s own Bianca Andreescu, who is a proud Romanian Canadian, is the highest-ranked Canadian in the history of the Women’s Tennis Association.

Speaker, Romania today is a historically mature country whose binder has passed the test of time.

Canada has excellent relations with Romania, as evidenced by the strong political ties highlighted by shared memberships in NATO and la Francophonie.

Today, I am very happy to welcome Ms. Oana-Raluca Gherge, the consul general of Romania; Mr. Florentin Titov Gherghe, consul; and my dear friend Raul Dudnic from OMNI TV to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I would like to take a moment to wish them and all of our Romanian Canadian friends a happy Romania National Day here in Ontario as well as worldwide. Merci.

Land use planning

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I’m honoured to rise today to highlight the amazing people-powered organizing that is taking place all across this province right now.

Last weekend, I participated in a day of action with hundreds of people—knocking on doors from Thunder Bay to Windsor to Ottawa and cities in between; speaking with neighbours to talk about how vital it is to protect the farmland that feeds us, the nature that protects us; and calling on the Premier to keep his promise not to open the greenbelt for development. In a few hours, people collected nearly 4,000 petition signatures and identified hundreds of sign locations, calling on the Premier to keep his greenbelt promise.

This weekend, there will be rallies again all over the province.

Organizers like Environmental Defence, GASP, Water Watchers and Stop the Sprawl are mobilizing to defend the greenbelt, calling on the Premier to “keep your hands off our greenbelt” and to keep his greenbelt promise, because we know people power works.

Speaker, a healthy democracy requires citizen engagement and mobilization.

I’m inspired by the people taking the time out of their busy lives to demand that the government maintain the integrity of the greenbelt.

I will be there this weekend with the people, defending the greenbelt and calling on the Premier to keep his promise.

Government investments

Mr. Billy Pang: As 2022 is coming to an end, I would like to revisit our recent Markham–Unionville funding announcements to wrap up the year on a generous and bestowing pitch.

Foremost, I would like to recap that November 17 marked the 40th anniversary of the Ontario Trillium Foundation. Partnering with the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport—I thank OTF for awarding funds to those in need and facilitating culture and sport events in Ontario. I look forward to engaging more in-person recognition in the future.

The Ontario Arts Council’s OAC operating grant continues to help enrich our cultural lives by supporting the display of some wonderful collections by Canadian artists at our gallery in Markham–Unionville.

The Seniors Community Grant Program from the Minister for Seniors and Accessibility is another great program. This year, Markham–Unionville has four recipients. It’s great to see senior clubs reconnect and keep their members active again in Markham–Unionville.

Ontarians’ health and safety is at the top of our government’s agenda.

Earlier in November, through the Health Infrastructure Renewal Fund and the Community Infrastructure Renewal Fund, Markham Stouffville Hospital and Hong Fook mental health Markham branch have received respective funding that allows them to provide quality care to their patients.

Funding is an important tool for us to work well with our community members.

My congratulations here to all successful applicants.

Agri-food industry

Mr. Will Bouma: Our government is building a strong, secure food supply chain and securing Ontario’s position as a food leader in Canada by releasing our Grow Ontario Strategy. The strategy outlines the province’s plan to strengthen the agri-food sector, to ensure an efficient, reliable and responsive food supply, and to address ongoing vulnerabilities through new innovations by focusing on three priorities: strengthening agri-food supply chain stability; increasing agri-food technology and adoption; and attracting and growing Ontario’s agri-food talent. This is particularly important in my home riding of Brantford–Brant, as agriculture is our single largest economic sector. This plan is a bold vision of pride and trust in the quality and quantity of food produced in Ontario, grown on the foundation of a competitive agri-food industry that serves the needs of Ontarians, Canadians and the world.

That being said, today I would like to welcome, in the gallery, the Paris fair ambassador, Bronwyn Monkhouse, and the Burford fair ambassador, Doug Archer, and his parents, Scott and Elizabeth. They supported and advocated with distinction the Brantford–Brant agricultural sector, farmers and food processors that feed us all. Many of us remember the gaps in grocery store shelves, on and off, during the pandemic. These young people who act as ambassadors for the agricultural sector remind us that food does not magically appear on grocery store shelves, but rather that our food is planted, cultivated, raised and processed by some of the best farmers in the world right here in Ontario.

1030

And remember this: Farmers make up less than 1% of the population, but 100% of us eat.

House sittings

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Before I invite members to introduce their guests, I beg to inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 9(h), the Clerk has received written notice from the government House leader indicating that a temporary change in the weekly meeting schedule of the House is required, and therefore the House shall commence at 9 a.m. on Monday, December 5, 2022, for the proceeding of orders of the day.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Chris Glover: On behalf of the MPP for St. Catharines, I want to welcome to the House Anna Levin and Peter Runcan. I also want to welcome to the House Amir Farsoud. Amir is an Ontarian with a disability. He was afraid of losing his housing and applied for medical assistance in dying.

I’m wondering if the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services would be willing to meet with Amir and I after question period.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock for a minute, please. Thank you.

We’re doing introduction of visitors. We can’t have political statements made during the introduction of visitors.

Start the clock.

Mr. Rob Flack: I’d like to take this opportunity to welcome a great resident from Elgin–Middlesex–London and the grandmother of page Scarlett: the wonderful Doreen Wilson, a friend of mine, originally from Stroud. Her brother Craig Hunter is a wonderful man from a wonderful family. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Doly Begum: I am very delighted to introduce Paul Persaud and Samuel Allicock, two wonderful grade 10 students from Woburn Collegiate Institute who are visiting Queen’s Park to discuss student safety at schools. We’ve had some really tragic incidents of violence at Scarborough schools.

I’m also delighted to introduce the parents and family of our page captain from University–Rosedale, Joel Bozikovic. We have Liv Mendelsohn, Susan Cohen and Alex Bozikovic in the House today. Please welcome them.

Wearing of jersey

Mr. Mike Harris: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): On a point of order: the member for Kitchener–Conestoga.

Mr. Mike Harris: I know that we’re all very excited to see question period wrap up a little early today so we can catch the end of the Canada game.

With that said, my Germans are looking for an opportunity to qualify to make it to the second round, so I do seek unanimous consent from everyone if I would be allowed to wear my jersey in the House for the rest of the day.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): This is going to be controversial, I know.

Mr. John Yakabuski: We don’t want him to take it off; that’s for sure.

Laughter.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Kitchener–Conestoga is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to wear that shirt in the House for the remainder of the day. Agreed? Agreed.

Question Period

Court decision

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier.

On Tuesday, the courts recognized that Bill 124 was unconstitutional. The decision reads that the government has not “explained why it was necessary to infringe on constitutional rights to impose wage constraint at the same time as it was providing tax cuts or licence plate sticker refunds that were more than 10 times larger than the savings obtained from wage restraint measures.”

If the economic conditions didn’t justify infringing on constitutionally protected rights, why did the Premier introduce Bill 124 in the first place?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The President of the Treasury Board to respond on behalf of the government.

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: As the member opposite knows, we are reviewing the decision, and our intention is to appeal.

But let’s speak to the historic investments this government has made across this province—over $170 billion invested.

Let’s look at health care investments. We’ve got a $40-billion hospital infrastructure plan that we’re going to put forward. That’s going to build new hospitals all across the province—new hospitals in a city like Brampton, which was neglected and ignored by the previous Liberal government; a new hospital in the city of Windsor; a new hospital in Uxbridge; a new hospital in Mississauga.

Mr. Speaker, we are making the critical investments needed to support this province—throughout the last four years, and we’ll continue to deliver on that over the next four.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I think it has been reinforced that there isn’t a critical lack of money and that, in fact, the funds were there to pay people decently.

Bill 124 has driven nurses out of our hospitals and has created a staffing crisis in our health care system.

The government can start undoing the mess that they made. So will the Premier drop his intention to appeal the court’s ruling on Bill 124 and finally work on a plan to recruit, train, retain and return nurses to our health care system?

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: I’m happy to speak to the investments that we have made in health human resources across this province, especially in the last four years.

The largest health care investment increase year over year was recorded last year, when this government put an additional $5.2 billion into the health care system. What does that mean? Since March 2020, we have added over 12,000 health care professionals into the system. Just this year, the Ontario college of nurses has registered 12,800 nurses—and we still have a month to go.

We will continue to make these historic and unprecedented investments that we have been making to ensure we have the health human resources across this province.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: This question is to the Minister of Labour.

Yesterday, the Minister of Labour stood in this House, and instead of addressing the substance of the opposition’s legitimate questions about Bill 124, he opted for talking points about private sector unions, even though he knows full well that there isn’t a union—public or private—in this province that supported Bill 124.

So, with the benefit of hindsight, will the minister tell the hundreds of thousands of broader public sector workers in this province why he backed a bill that suspended their rights to collectively bargain in the first place?

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: I’ll repeat for the member opposite: As we review the decision, our intention is to appeal.

We are incredibly grateful to our public service across this province that serves Ontario and Ontarians.

We’re also incredibly proud of the investments that we are making in this province.

Just three months ago, the Minister of Finance tabled our budget, which, in fact, the members opposite voted against. They voted against increasing health care funding to this province. They voted against building infrastructure—a $160-billion infrastructure plan across this province, which would see hospitals in cities like Windsor, in cities like Brampton, in Scarborough, all across this province.

We will continue to make these historic and unprecedented investments across this province.

Automobile insurance

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: My question is for the Premier.

Speaker, the Auditor General tabled a report yesterday and painted a very clear picture of the state of auto insurance here in Ontario.

My question is very simple: Does the Premier agree that Ontario drivers are being gouged on their auto insurance? Yes or no?

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

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Thank you to the member opposite for that important question.

Mr. Speaker, we could have saved the Auditor General some time and money. Maybe we should have done a value-for-money on this finding—because, of course, as the member opposite knows, we take the cost of auto insurance very seriously. As the member opposite knows, through the pandemic, we saw rate relief of $1.3 billion for drivers in this province.

1040

The member opposite—because I know he’s a very learned fellow—has read page 102 of the budget that was tabled in April, which, as the member for Brampton South just highlighted, his party didn’t vote for.

Mr. Speaker, I’ll highlight what’s on page 102 in the supplemental question.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: Speaker, it’s only 10:30 a.m., and it seems the minister is already out to lunch on this issue, so I’m going to help him.

The answer is, yes, Ontario drivers are being gouged on their auto insurance. We pay the highest auto insurance rates in Canada despite having some of the lowest per capita accidents. In fact, accidents have been down since the start of the pandemic, and yet insurance rates are climbing at double the rate of inflation. While Ontarians are struggling, insurer profits hit 27%, and drivers are overpaying in the hundreds of millions.

Will this government do the right thing and bring auto insurance premiums down to the level they should be? Yes or no?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Mr. Speaker, maybe I’ll take the member opposite out for lunch.

I do appreciate the question. It’s a very serious question.

Let me read from page 103—sorry—from the budget, which I’m sure the learned member read: “The Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario is implementing a new strategy for reforming the regulation of automobile insurance rates and underwriting. As part of the new strategy, FSRA will be developing a new framework for ensuring fairness in rates that would replace outdated guidance, including existing guidance on territorial rating”—also known as postal codes.

So I’d ask the member opposite: Do you support that in the budget, and why did you vote no?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members should make their comments through the Chair—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Please start the clock.

Final supplementary?

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: I thought the minister was supposed to give answers, not ask questions. This is exactly why this minister is one of my top 10 favourite fantasy authors of all time.

Speaker, the proof is in the premiums; I’ve said it before. The Auditor General has confirmed what New Democrats have been saying here for years: Auto insurance postal code discrimination is real, and it has to stop. Drivers with clean driving records in Brampton, Scarborough, northwest Toronto and many other GTA neighbourhoods are paying double the rates of others.

Two months ago, I tabled a bill to end auto insurance postal code discrimination in the GTA. The government supported this very same bill before the election; the Premier said it was a priority. So will they pass this bill into law immediately? Yes or no?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Well, I know the member opposite would love to be on this side of the House so that he could help us reduce insurance rates.

I come back to the pandemic—$1.3 billion of relief; zero increases for two years, because we’ve been focused on keeping costs down for the people of Ontario.

But it just doesn’t end with territorial ratings—that we’re looking to provide value for auto insurance premiums and the people of Ontario. We’re also looking at choice. That’s also on page 103. We’re looking at more choice for auto drivers who want more choice in the industry. We’re also looking at fraud and abuse. We’ve directed FSRA to collect the data so that we can tackle fraud and abuse in the system.

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows well that this government’s priority is to provide relief to the hard-working people of Ontario. That’s what we ran on, and that’s what we’ll—

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

Public transit

Ms. Chandra Pasma: Yesterday’s Ottawa LRT inquiry report revealed a cascade of problems due to the decision to build the LRT as a public-private partnership. The report said, “In many ways, the P3 model caused or contributed to several of the ongoing difficulties on the project.” These difficulties included a lack of transparency, misleading information from the P3 contractor, and the city’s inability to hold the P3 partner accountable for deficiencies.

Will the government learn the lessons of the Ottawa LRT fiasco and stop signing risky P3 contracts?

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

Hon. Kinga Surma: Thank you very much to the member for the question.

Certainly, we’re grateful to the commission, but it’s because of the P3 projects we have that we are able to build subways in the city of Toronto and in York region. It’s the reason we’re building highways—like Highway 3, the Highway 427 extension, the Highway 401 widening, and the Garden City Skyway. It’s the reason why we’ve made such great progress on building hospitals in the province of Ontario—like Niagara, Cortellucci Vaughan, West Lincoln Memorial Hospital, Niagara south, Trillium, Ottawa.

I’ve always said—I’ve been very transparent—we will use the right model for the right project and we will proceed in that way.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question. The member for Parkdale–High Park.

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: The same P3 contractors and private consultants responsible for the Ottawa LRT are also responsible for the Eglinton Crosstown P3. The Auditor General warned of deficient designs and missed deadlines. There are already signs that the problems experienced with the Ottawa LRT could happen with the Eglinton Crosstown P3. Metrolinx keeps announcing more delays and keeps paying more money to the P3 contractor. They recently announced yet another one-year delay, which both the minister and Metrolinx have refused to explain.

Clearly, something has once again gone wrong with the Eglinton Crosstown P3.

What is the ministry and Metrolinx hiding?

Hon. Kinga Surma: The Minister of Transportation has been very clear that she is doing everything she absolutely can to make sure that we can get the Eglinton Crosstown running as quickly as possible.

Our P3 history in the province of Ontario is a wonderful one. We have brought to life 74 projects since the inception of Infrastructure Ontario. Since our government was elected, we’ve brought 24 projects to market, 15 of which are currently in construction.

We were elected on a strong mandate to build this province, and that’s what we will do.

Infrastructure funding

Mr. Lorne Coe: My question is to the Minister of Infrastructure.

In the coming decades, Ontario’s population is expected to grow by more than six million people. As our population grows, investing in infrastructure is now more important than ever. Clogged roads and gridlocked highways hurt our hard-working families, as they’re stuck in traffic longer than needed. Outdated and antiquated infrastructure drags down our economy and makes us less competitive as a province. Ontario cannot afford to hold this economy back. Now is the time to build.

Can the Minister of Infrastructure please share with the House what our government is doing to build effective and resilient infrastructure for all Ontarians?

Hon. Kinga Surma: Thank you very much to the member.

Again, we were elected on a very strong mandate to invest in infrastructure, which is why we are investing $159 billion over the next 10 years. Last week, we announced our updated P3 project pipeline, which included 39 projects.

During COVID-19, under Premier Ford’s leadership, we developed the rapid build program to build long-term-care homes as quickly as possible, which resulted in 320 additional beds at Lakeridge in a construction period of 13 months. We are taking those learnings through the rapid delivery program, and we’ve announced our first rapid delivery program to build schools in the province of Ontario. This includes five new schools, creating 15,700 student spaces and 1,500 child care spaces.

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

Mr. Lorne Coe: Back to the minister: Addressing our infrastructure needs today is an investment in the future of our province.

Together, let’s build health care networks that better serve our patients and keep our province moving ahead.

Infrastructure investments ensure a stronger economy, better jobs and bigger paycheques for all Ontarians.

1050

Communities like Brampton, Windsor and my region of Durham are all places that have long advocated for infrastructure investments, but, sadly, the previous Liberal government ignored our needs.

Now is the time for our government to act. Now is the time to get shovels in the ground.

Can the Minister of Infrastructure tell the House what critical projects our government is undertaking as we, together, rebuild Ontario?

Hon. Kinga Surma: I certainly can. The people elected us, and they brought us back here because they want more hospitals, they want more highways, they want more schools and more public transit.

In our most recent P3 pipeline update, we are advancing on procurement and construction of our hospitals and children’s treatment centres—ones like Niagara Health, Trillium Queensway and Mississauga, WAHA, CAMH, CHEO, and Quinte Health.

With regard to transportation, we continue to advance Highway 3; the Scarborough subway; the Eglinton Crosstown West extension; the Ontario Line north, which we’ve broken up into two separate contracts; and the Garden City Skyway.

We’re also bringing Ontario Place back to life so that families have a wonderful place on the waterfront to enjoy.

Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp.

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Premier.

Yesterday’s Auditor General report showed that Ontario Lottery and Gaming signed private casino contracts based on unrealistic bids, but instead of holding those contractors to their contracts, they agreed to let them pay $3.3 billion less to the government. These are billions of dollars that should have gone to supporting our schools, our hospitals.

Why is this government letting the OLG undermine its own credibility by signing and renegotiating bad contracts?

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

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Thank you to the member opposite for that question.

Mr. Speaker, those contracts, which were signed about a decade ago, in 2012—between 2011 and 2014, I think there was a minority government. And who supported the minority Liberals?

Interjection: Catherine Fife.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Oh. The member opposite’s party.

Over the last decade, the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. has been good for taxpayers—in fact, the most recent year returned $1.5 billion to the taxpayers of this great province. Not only that—provided significant growth to the economy through good jobs, good-paying jobs, bigger paycheques.

Finally, the citizens of this province have a great entertainment industry, through the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp., that provides entertainment value to the citizens at all the casinos and all the great—

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

Ms. Catherine Fife: Mr. Speaker, if I could enforce those contracts, I would—but do you know who could? This Minister of Finance could do it.

The auditor also showed that the OLG and its private casino operators do not have adequate processes to prevent money laundering: “At two casinos, mystery shoppers were able to obtain four casino cheques for between $4,900 and $10,750 with limited play and no casino winnings,” despite OLG’s money-laundering policy that play must be verified before issuing any cheques above $3,000.

Money laundering is happening in Ontario’s casinos. British Columbia has stronger money laundering provisions in place today, which the government should bring in. So my question is really simple: Will the Minister of Finance commit to making those changes today so that money laundering does not happen in Ontario casinos?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Mr. Speaker, there is no room for bad actors in this province.

The Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. has a very rigorous process, has policies and procedures in place—and they’ve increased their enforcement over the years and are doing a terrific job.

We will always go after bad actors.

But let me tell you this: I have to question the scope and the mission creep of the Auditor General using taxpayer dollars to do a sting operation in an area where we have plenty of enforcement in this province.

We are going to go after the bad actors. We are going to make sure that we have the high standards in this province. We take it seriously, the OLG takes it seriously, and this government takes it seriously.

Electricity supply

Mr. Dave Smith: My question is to the Minister of Energy.

Speaker, concerns about the issues of access to electricity in our province exist. Communities in rural, remote and northern Ontario deserve access to a reliable source of electricity. Sadly, for many, that’s just not the case.

In many Indigenous and northern communities, the continued reliance on diesel generators is an ongoing challenge that needs to be addressed. Diesel-generated electricity is expensive, it’s polluting, and it doesn’t meet the needs of growing communities.

Indigenous communities across Ontario serve as important partners in our energy sector.

Can the Minister of Energy please elaborate on what our government is doing to ensure northern, remote and Indigenous communities have access to the electricity they need?

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks to the member opposite for the question.

As Minister of Energy, my top priority is to ensure that we have a reliable and clean electricity grid that meets the needs of everyone across Ontario, especially in remote communities.

The member is right that there are still some remote fly-in communities that are operating on diesel generators. That’s expensive, it’s not good for the environment, and it doesn’t allow for growth in new homes and an expansion to be built in these communities.

That’s why it was really important last week that I joined my friend and colleague the MPP from Kiiwetinoong in Kingfisher Lake, his home community, with many of his family members. It was a tremendous day, as we lit up that community to the provincial grid, thanks to the Wataynikaneyap power project, which is a tremendous project—it’s known as the line that brings light. I would add that it’s the line that brings hope as well.

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

Mr. Dave Smith: Thank you to the minister for that response.

It’s encouraging to see our government’s leadership, working alongside First Nation communities, to partner on connecting to our electricity grids to northern Ontario. Being connected to our electricity grid unlocks future economic and social development in northern communities, including new schools, housing, and economic opportunity.

Can the Minister of Energy elaborate on the Watay Power project and tell this House how this First Nation-led project will bring energy certainty and new opportunities to northwestern Ontario?

Hon. Todd Smith: The Wataynikaneyap power project is a very important project—1,800 kilometres of transmission line; an Indigenous-led project; and 24 First Nations teaming with Fortis power to connect communities like Kingfisher Lake and 16 others to the provincial grid. Our government is proud to support this project with $1.34 billion, which will help the construction during this time. Three of the 17 fly-in communities have already been connected to the provincial grid. Chief Eddie Mamakwa in Kingfisher Lake said last week—and the member opposite said this to me as well—he recalls when the first diesel generators were brought in in 1982; the runway was built in 1987; the running water came in in 1993. And they’ll always remember, in 2022, when they hooked up to the provincial grid. It allows for growth. It allows for housing to be built in the community. It allows for the new school that’s being built in Kingfisher Lake to be powered. This is what can happen when we work together with First Nations partners to ensure that we’re seeing economic prosperity in their communities. It’s a tremendous partnership and should be congratulated.

Energy contracts

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier.

Yesterday’s Auditor General report revealed that the government is failing to make adequate use of its renewable energy resources.

Another report yesterday showed that this government is about to waste the money of Ontario ratepayers by procuring more gas plants. The report by Power Advisory said it would be cheaper to invest in efficiency, conservation, renewable energy and storage, instead of spending billions on new gas plants.

Hydro bills are already too high. Why is the Premier wasting money on new gas plants when there are cheaper options that don’t use fossil fuels?

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

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks to the member opposite.

It’s pretty rich coming from the member opposite—to talk about affordability in the energy sector, when his own party believes that we should get rid of natural gas, a base-load power supply. And that member, in particular, is not supportive of nuclear, which provides 60% of our base load power in the province every day. Each and every day, my job as the Minister of Energy is to ensure that we have an affordable and reliable supply of electricity in the province. The Independent Electricity System Operator has advised us that if we were to remove natural gas from the system, we would have blackouts and brownouts. Is that what this member wants? It’s certainly not what this government wants or what the people of Ontario need.

1100

We’re seeing record investments in our province because we now have a reliable and affordable electricity grid in Ontario—one that is competitive with other jurisdictions—and we’re seeing the results with multi-billion dollar investments here in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Well, that was an interesting dodge.

Let’s try it again. The Premier has promised private gas plant companies that Ontario ratepayers will keep paying for the new gas plants even after they are shut down. The gas plant contracts will run to 2040, but those plants will be shut down long before then under federal law.

We already had one gas plant scandal under the Liberals. And it looks like the PC government is determined to do exactly the same thing.

How much will Ontario ratepayers be forced to pay for new gas plant contracts after these plants have been shut down?

Hon. Todd Smith: The member opposite wants to shut down gas plants now. That would result in brownouts in our province—completely unacceptable. The Independent Electricity System Operator has also told us that it would increase electricity bills by $100 a month. That is unacceptable to our government, and it’s unacceptable to the people of the province of Ontario.

We saw a glimpse of their energy policy a couple of weeks ago, when the member from Ottawa Centre ran extension cords across the bridge from Ottawa to Gatineau. That’s a look at what we could expect—God forbid—if an NDP government was ever in charge of our energy supply. We simply can’t have that unpredictability. We have to have a reliable and affordable system.

Every single day, I’m working to ensure that our system is clean and safe, that it offers choice, and that it is reliable and affordable, so we can see the growth we need in our province.

Land use planning

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for the Premier.

In 2018, the Premier was caught on video telling a room full of developers, “We will open up the greenbelt, a big chunk of it.” Then in May of that year, he swore to all Ontarians that he unequivocally wouldn’t touch the greenbelt. And in April 2021, he said, “We’re not going to touch the greenbelt.”

So here we are, December 2022. It’s Christmas, and the Premier is proud to say “promise made, promise kept” to his rich developer friends. The problem is, he broke his promise to the people of Ontario. He is giving away the people’s greenbelt—huge chunks of it; it’s not his to give.

Speaker, through you to the Premier: Can the Premier stand here today and tell us why anyone would believe anything that he says?

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

Hon. Steve Clark: I could say the same thing about the honourable member. He stood here in this House and, as a member of the governing Liberal Party, carved up the greenbelt 17 times—no apology, no answers for the people of Ontario.

We were open. We were clear. We were transparent. We’re in the middle of a housing crisis, and we posted on the environmental registry a plan that would provide a minimum of 50,000 homes.

Many of these sites have received municipal support. The one in Pickering, Mayor Ashe—I have a letter that I’ll read in the supplemental, clearly indicating that they wanted this property in the DRAP to be available for home construction.

All of these sites are adjacent to existing urban areas. They’re all able to be serviced.

At the end of the day, our plan, unlike the Liberals’, will add over 2,000 acres to the greenbelt.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Mr. John Fraser: Well, it’s evident that the Premier thinks part of his job description is to make his very rich friends even richer. It’s clear that there’s a pattern of people gaining inside knowledge and advance notice of this government’s decisions—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. The member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke will come to order.

I heard what the member for Ottawa South said. I will remind all members that you can’t impute motive in the House. I’m going to ask the member to withdraw and then conclude his question.

Mr. John Fraser: Why would someone take out $100 million—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to ask the member to withdraw.

Mr. John Fraser: I withdraw. Sorry; I didn’t hear you, Speaker.

There is a clear pattern of people gaining inside knowledge. Why would someone take out a $100-million loan at 21% interest to buy land that you could literally do nothing on—and weeks later, magically, you could.

It took more than a day for this government to say “no” when they were asked whether developers got a heads-up—a whole day.

It’s not the developers’ greenbelt. It’s not the government’s greenbelt. It’s not the Premier’s greenbelt to give away. It’s the people’s greenbelt.

Speaker, through you: Will the Premier stand in this House and tell the people of Ontario that his rich developer friends did not get a heads-up?

Hon. Steve Clark: It’s pretty rich, coming from a gentleman who worked for Premier McGuinty, who sat in this chamber on this side of the House and carved up the greenbelt 17 times. It’s pretty rich that this guy is bringing this question forward.

I’m going to read a letter from the mayor of Pickering, His Worship Mayor Kevin Ashe. The first paragraph says it all: “You recently received a letter from Mayor Ryan requesting the repeal of the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Act, 2005, in the city of Pickering. As the newly elected mayor of the city, I would like to support this request. As noted by Mayor Ryan, these lands were part of the regional and municipal growth plans for settlement area expansion prior to the greenbelt—20 years ago.”

We’re moving forward on this request from municipalities, other requests from municipalities.

At the end of the day, the plan proposed will have a minimum of 50,000 homes provided for us and over—

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

Interjections.

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

The next question.

Children and youth mental health services

Ms. Natalia Kusendova-Bashta: Speaker, studies reveal that approximately one in five children in Ontario are encountering mental health challenges. The past few years have been especially difficult for our youth as they face unique challenges augmented by the isolation brought on by the pandemic. It is therefore crucial for our government to expand access to innovative solutions in order to support the mental health and well-being of Ontario’s children and youth.

Can the Associate Minister of Mental Health and Addictions please share with this House how our government is ensuring high-quality care for children and young people through integrated services such as the youth wellness hubs?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Thank you to the member for Mississauga Centre for her question.

Since 2019, we’ve invested $570 million into child and youth mental health supports across the province of Ontario.

In June 2021, we dedicated another $31 million to reducing wait times and improving access to mental health services.

Expanded alongside these services are our youth wellness hubs. These are one-stop shops for mental health and addictions treatment, primary care services and early intervention programming for youth aged 12 to 25. Available on a walk-in basis, they offer a safe space for youth and a warm hand-off to other community-based care providers, assuring children who are in need of help that there is no wrong door. We now have 22 of them in the province of Ontario, and we’ve green-lit another eight.

I’m looking forward, in my supplemental, to talking a little bit about the work of Joanna Henderson at CAMH and the great work, when we collaborate, that we can do as a province and—

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

Ms. Natalia Kusendova-Bashta: I thank the minister for his response and for his tireless work on mental health and addictions for our province.

I am proud that one of the 22 youth wellness hubs that the minister spoke of is actually located in Malton, in my city of Mississauga. The Malton Youth Wellness Hub provides vital services to youth in my riding, such as mental health counselling; substance use support; employment, housing and education support; as well as recreation.

These services are being delivered through partnerships with organizations like Catholic Family Services Peel-Dufferin, CMHA Peel Dufferin, Our Place Peel, and many, many others.

1110

In 2010, the previous Liberal government was provided a report prepared by an all-party committee, which included 23 recommendations to improve mental health services. Not a single one of those recommendations was implemented.

Unlike the Liberals, our government is committed to working with our mental health partners to support and address our children and youth’s mental health and well-being needs.

Can the associate minister please elaborate on how our government is building a comprehensive and connected mental health and addictions system?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Thank you again for that question.

This Monday, Dr. Henderson and I got together to announce an exciting pan-Canadian initiative called the Integrated Youth Services Net, the IYS-Net. As many of you here today have heard me say over and over again, if we can’t measure it, we can’t manage it. The IYS-Net will connect every youth hub across Canada through a shared data infrastructure, easing collaboration between researchers and policy-makers. Imagine that, Mr. Speaker: mental health practice informed by real-time data exchanges that optimize service delivery and treatment outcomes, learning from youth and proactively adapting to their needs. This is an unprecedented opportunity for us to be creative and collaborative and to make catalytic change.

Together with our provincial and territorial allies, we’re building a system centred around the values of justice, diversity, inclusion, and the lived experience of young people all across Ontario. This is what we’re focused on, and we will build that system in collaboration with all our partners.

Government accountability

Mr. Jeff Burch: Speaker, through you to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing: I’ve asked the minister numerous times whether the government tipped off developers about plans to open the greenbelt for development. The minister has had multiple different answers to our questions. First, the answer was that the government talks to anyone who builds homes. Yesterday, the minister said “no,” without any further elaboration. Every day, it seems we get a new answer from the minister.

So, today, I’ll ask again: Did the minister or any other government or PC Party official share with any landowner, developer or lobbyist information about the government’s plan for developing the greenbelt before it became public on November 4?

Hon. Steve Clark: Speaker, I answered yesterday that no, I did not, and that I will assist the Integrity Commissioner in the investigation.

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

Mr. Jeff Burch: Up until April, the chief of staff to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing was Luca Bucci. In June, Mr. Bucci was hired as the CEO of the Ontario Home Builders’ Association.

Despite a one-year cooling-off period required of former government officials who become lobbyists, Mr. Bucci seems to be lobbying the government on development issues. He recently spoke at the heritage committee in support of Bill 23, where he interacted with the minister’s parliamentary assistant. He appeared, this morning, to speak in favour of Bill 39. The cooling-off period exists to prevent lobbyists from putting their former employers in a real or potential conflict of interest.

Why is the minister allowing his office to be lobbied by his former chief of staff?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The government House leader to reply.

Interjections.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Such disappointment, colleagues, from across the way as I got up; I’m somewhat hurt by that.

Here’s the reality, Speaker: They can couch it any way they like—because they have been doing it for not only just the last two weeks, really; they’ve been doing it for the entire time the NDP has existed. That is the committee of no. They don’t want people to have homes. They don’t want people to have homes in the GTA. They’re happy where we’re at—but we’ve said no right from the beginning; right, colleagues?

We were elected on a mission to make Ontario better than it was when we took over.

So what have we done? We’ve done better on health care. We’ve done better on education. We’re doing better to put more money into the pockets of the people of the province of Ontario.

While they want people to live in their parents’ basements forever, I know a lot of parents here who want their kids out of the basement and in a brand new home somewhere in the province of Ontario. That’s what I know. It’s the dream of everybody.

I know that when my parents came to this country—do you know what my parents did? They wanted to have a better tomorrow for their kids. And that is what we’re all about.

So you can continue to say no, hold people down. We’ll move forward and give hope and prosperity to everybody.

Veterinary services

Ms. Jess Dixon: I unabashed identify as a pet parent. Unfortunately, I’ve spent far more time in veterinary clinics than any parent would want to.

We have a significant shortage of veterinarians in my area in Ontario and across the province. I know from first-hand experience, and from my friends, that it’s causing significant wait times, problems with emergency clinics, and burnout in our veterinarians. It’s also having an impact on our farmers, who can’t find people to take care of their livestock. I would ask if our Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs could please highlight what our government is doing in order to address this issue.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I very much appreciate your devotion and the question as well. This is something that people across Ontario are talking about—not just pet owners, but Ontario livestock farmers as well.

I want to be perfectly clear that in terms of access to veterinarian services—this is an issue that’s across the nation, but here in Ontario, we’re taking action.

This past spring, we met with stakeholders from the veterinarian sector, and they identified very clearly that we needed to modernize. The fact of the matter is, the Veterinarians Act in Ontario hasn’t been looked at for over 30 years, but it’s our government that is taking action. We are working with our stakeholders to identify how we need to modernize, given the fact that there are new technologies and the scope of practice for both veterinarians and vet technicians has evolved. We need to get with the times and modernize our legislation in this province as well. It’s part of our Grow Ontario Strategy that we’re going to be moving forward with. I’ll speak more about it in my supplementary.

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

Ms. Jess Dixon: It’s without any hyperbole whatsoever when I say that I’m incredibly excited about this.

I’ve spent a lot of time with a lot of our registered veterinary technicians across this province, and I know—again, from experience I wish I hadn’t had—just how valuable they are and how extensive their learning experience is, and what they could do to help veterinary services.

I’d ask if the minister could talk a little bit more about how modernizing the Veterinarians Act could allow our amazing registered veterinary technicians to provide more services and help fill this gap.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: To the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler: We are going to be listening, and we certainly look forward to your input as well as input from people involved in the sector from across Ontario.

The member from Elgin–Middlesex–London will be leading these consultations across this province as he goes on tour. We want to hear, first and foremost, how the sector has evolved, how we need to modernize, and how we need to develop legislation in 2022 that creates less red tape and builds a stronger Ontario—because that’s what Bill 46 is all about.

As we look to grow Ontario, we want to make sure that people have their voices heard. We’re looking very much forward to an expansive consultation process that will identify the new scopes of practice that have evolved for vet techs as well as our veterinarians. First and foremost, the important aspect here is that we are engaging everyone in the veterinarian sector to make sure we get it right.

Mental health and addiction services

MPP Lise Vaugeois: My question is to the Premier.

Front-line mental health and addictions workers have been clear that we are in an acute crisis, with record numbers of opioid deaths in Ontario. This crisis is particularly acute in Thunder Bay, where we have four times the provincial average of deaths.

Will the province increase community-based addiction services, including harm reduction and supportive housing, and increase capacity in publicly funded, publicly run treatment centres in our communities?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

We know that there is an opioid crisis in the province of Ontario that predated the pandemic and was only aggravated by the pandemic.

1120

Our government has made historical investments in addiction treatment and mental wellness. Those investments now total $525 million in annualized investments. In addition to those investments, because of the pandemic, we created an addiction recovery fund—another $90 million—that created 400 treatment beds and 7,000 new treatment spots that are all over the province of Ontario. Those investments are being made where they’re needed most; the focus was on jurisdictions, on cities and towns where those were needed the most, where we have the highest rates of overdoses. Investments were made in Sioux Lookout—40 beds; in Thunder Bay—35; in Sudbury—15; in Timmins—10; and 54 at Canadore College in North Bay. Why were those investments made? Because we are going to build a continuum of care. We’re going to look after individuals from the time that they require withdrawal management, through addiction, through supports, all the way to providing them with supportive housing, because that’s what we need to do—

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

MPP Lise Vaugeois: Thank you for mentioning supportive housing. I appreciate that and look forward to seeing more of that in our region.

In Thunder Bay, there are a multitude of for-profit methadone clinics in the business of keeping people hooked on methadone. As for-profit medical practices, it is in their financial interest to keep people on methadone indefinitely. In contrast, not-for-profit clinics work with clients to gradually reduce dosages until the person is drug-free.

Will the government investigate these exploitative businesses and commit to supporting community-based, not-for-profit mental health and addictions treatment that includes mobile crisis response teams and the building of supportive housing—which I’m glad you intend to do.

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Thank you for that great question.

When you stop and think about the amount of supports and services that we need in the province of Ontario—we all know, or we should know, that that treatment should be in the communities. It should be delivered in a way that is measured, so that we know that the outcomes we are getting are the ones that are the best for the people of the province of Ontario. We also know that we need to do more to ensure we have low-barrier access points, to be able to get them into a system to get the supports that are necessary.

When you talk about mobile crisis intervention teams—I support them, and we support them, as a government. We have expanded them throughout the province and will continue to do so, because we know that it’s a way to get individuals the help they need. That’s the key point here.

We have to get people to treatment, which is why those 400 beds were created and why we have 7,000 additional treatment spots.

And yes, we will deliver services at the same standard and level across the province of Ontario—because that’s what every Ontarian deserves to have in their community.

Protection of privacy

Mr. Nolan Quinn: My question is to the Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery.

As our lives become increasingly dependent on digital technology, we need to be more knowledgeable about the ever-present cyber threats we now face.

Recently, we saw the negative impacts that cyber security attacks can have, with a school board reporting that it was affected by a cyber incident.

As a province, we must ensure that we are equipped with the necessary tools to stay safe as we access services digitally.

Can the minister please explain what our government is doing to prioritize the safety and security of all the people of Ontario in our increasingly digital world?

Hon. Kaleed Rasheed: I thank the great member for Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry for the great work he is doing for the people of his riding.

Speaker, since our government introduced Ontario’s first-ever Cyber Security Strategy in 2019, we have rolled up our sleeves and gotten to work. As many of us know very well, a key pillar of this strategy was the creation of our cyber security expert panel, appointed to help evaluate the state of cyber security across the OPS and BPS. After two years of hard work and collaboration, our government publicly released their final report this October and committed to implementing the recommendations. This report is a major milestone on our path to improving our cyber resilience. Perhaps most importantly, it helps us create even more secure online services for Ontarians.

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

Mr. Nolan Quinn: Thank you to the minister for that response.

Cyber attacks have become more sophisticated and frequent, targeting vital services. As our government continues our ambitious agenda to utilize digital capabilities for programs and services, we are responsible for protecting the public from harmful cyber security threats. The public expects the data they share with their government to be secure and safely managed.

Could the Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery please elaborate on the next steps our government is taking to better protect cyber security for all the people of Ontario?

Hon. Kaleed Rasheed: I again thank the member for his question.

Speaker, the work ahead to implement these recommendations will not always be easy, and it will certainly not be immediate. But I can pledge to you today that I will work tirelessly with my colleagues to usher in the changes needed to bolster our cyber security across all of government. The expert panel’s recommendations are forming the foundation of our cyber security policies and help develop the best practices that we will share across all sectors.

Our ongoing digital transformation has already delivered significant benefits to the public and businesses, and we must continue to protect them from cyber threats so we can deliver on our government’s plan to make life easier and build a stronger Ontario.

Health care

Ms. Doly Begum: My question is to the Premier.

Last week, the Minister of Health said that primary care physicians should treat more children so they do not have to go to emergency rooms. However, the reality is that 1.8 million Ontarians don’t have a regular family physician to even go to in these situations. OHIP-covered virtual care has been one of the last resorts that parents and their sick children have had to find immediate medical help, which this government is gutting, leaving parents with a cost of about $29 a month.

Our government is allowing for private ventures like KixCare to charge for virtual pediatric visits.

Dr. Aviva Lowe, a pediatrician who consulted on KixCare, is urging the provincial government to maintain access to virtual care. She said, “Pediatricians ... will no longer be able to offer virtual visits for patients”—and she went on to talk about how it’s unequal for people who don’t have family doctors.

My question is, at a time when there is a crisis, why is our government gutting essential services like OHIP-covered virtual care?

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

Mrs. Robin Martin: Thank you very much for the question.

We just want to take a moment to acknowledge the great work done by all of our doctors across Ontario, and we thank them for all of their efforts.

As members may recall, during the pandemic, we started to cover virtual care.

Before the last election, a three-year physician services agreement was ratified by the Ontario Medical Association and its members. It was a true milestone, because it was the first time in 10 years or so that a deal had been reached without an arbitrator. But it also realized another milestone: That agreement made virtual care a permanent feature of our health care system and our health care offering for the first time ever for patients. We’re very proud of that. Under the new framework, things have been changing and the way it’s compensated has been changing—but that is what the OMA ratified and what the members of the OMA agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Doly Begum: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the response from the parliamentary assistant—and I would hope that they actually intervene and look at what is happening with virtual care.

Lionel, a parent in Scarborough Southwest, reached out to our office about his recent experience. After getting sick, the only way his family was able to get medical advice and a prescription was through virtual service.

Our government is allowing for profit to be made from essential services like health care and fundamentally taking away the right of Ontarians to publicly funded primary care.

In a CBC article, Leah Littlepage, another Ontarian, talked about her 16-month-old daughter, who stayed out of the emergency room four times in the past year because of virtual care.

The system that you have come up with for virtual care is not working.

My question is, at a time when pediatric hospitals are overrun, especially for infants and babies, and we need to have virtual care service that actually covers these people, like these parents, why is this government taking away options that are available—that are available to save kids—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. Member for Eglinton–Lawrence.

Mrs. Robin Martin: Thank you very much for the question.

As I was saying, under the new virtual care agreement, all medically necessary virtual care services, including patient visits by telephone, will continue to be insured under OHIP, but we’re implementing a new pricing structure for virtual care—and that’s what we’re really talking about here: a pricing issue—that ensures patients are receiving services through the avenue that best reflects a patient-physician relationship. Patients will continue to have access to virtual care where clinically appropriate—in settings, for example, like rural and remote mental health services.

1130

Our government has been clear with virtual care—because this is what we heard from patients. It’s intended as a complement to in-person care—not a replacement. So we are making a requirement that a physician has to actually meet a patient once within a 24-month period. We don’t think that’s too much to ask. That provides for better patient care, which is what we want in Ontario.

Forest industry

Mr. Kevin Holland: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry.

We all know the issue of deforestation is a major concern. Trees absorb and store carbon dioxide. Restoring degraded forests is a significant avenue for carbon absorption and storage and one of the strategies for addressing global warming. Since 66% of Ontario is forested and almost 90% of those forests are public, this ministry contributes significantly to our role in helping to protect Ontario in our fight against climate change.

Can the minister explain how our province contributes to sustainable forest development while ensuring the protection of our environment?

Hon. Graydon Smith: Thank you to the member from Thunder Bay–Atikokan. He is doing a tremendous job for the people in his riding in Ontario.

Responsible stewardship and sustainable development of Ontario forests are at the heart of what my ministry does. Healthy forests are essential to environmental well-being and provide important recreational and tourism opportunities for residents here at home and for people around the world.

The forest industry in Ontario generated $18 billion in revenue from manufactured goods and services in 2020 and supported more than 148,000 direct and indirect jobs in 2021.

Forestry operations are a vital source of good jobs, particularly in rural and northern communities where they may be one of the main sources of employment.

Sustainable Growth: Ontario’s Forest Sector Strategy is our government’s 10-year timeline to unlock the full potential of our forest sector, and our plan will continue Ontario’s history of sustainable development and position the province as a world leader in making and selling forest products from renewable, sustainable—

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

Mr. Kevin Holland: Thank you to the minister for the great work you’re doing as Minister of Natural Resources.

In April 2021, the ministry created a Forest Sector Strategy Advisory Committee compromised of municipal, Indigenous and industry representatives to continue improving the sector.

While many innovative companies in our province utilize our forestry products, companies located in rural, remote and northern communities have challenges that other businesses wouldn’t have to face. Higher costs, access and difficulties attracting and retaining talent are significant economic development challenges in northern and rural regions.

Can the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry address how our government will support investments and innovation in Ontario’s forestry sector going forward?

Hon. Graydon Smith: I want to thank every single employee in the forest industry sector in Ontario, because they’re doing a great job every single day.

Forest biomass is an incredible opportunity for Ontario, and it includes trees that aren’t used in conventional forest products, as well as sawmill by-products like bark, sawdust and wood shavings. It can be used in medicines and pharmaceuticals, plastics and polymers, textiles, 3D printing, battery energy storage and green hydrogen. It can even be used as a component in jet fuel. Using forest biomass can support both the province’s forest management and environmental objectives, helping us to use more mill residues, reduce waste and landfilling, and provide clean energy. As we realize our plan for future uses of forest biomass, these facilities will make important contributions to the forestry sector and regional economies.

Our government is ensuring families, communities and industry can depend on a healthy and vibrant forest sector—

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

Winter highway maintenance

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: Once again, northern Ontario was hit with wicked weather, which caused another road closure. Our record so far is three for three. L’hiver va être long.

In Hearst, this morning, trucks were lined up for 67 kilometres after a 12-hour road closure. On Ontario 511, there are no indications of road closures.

We have contractors who cannot fulfill their contractual obligations. People are calling my office for updates.

How are we supposed to function up north when every snowstorm creates road closures?

To the minister: When will your ministry address this issue? Passing my private member’s bill is a good start.

L’hon. Caroline Mulroney: Je remercie le député pour sa question.

Our government is very proud to be nation-leading in our standards for highway clearing across the province, but especially in northern Ontario.

Speaker, our government just recently announced a new standard for clearing highways in northern Ontario—a new Highways 11 and 17 standard called the Ontario trans-Canada standard. We will see our northern highways cleared in 12 hours. That is four hours faster than ever before. It represents the massive investments that we have made in clearing our roads in the north—1,100 pieces of new equipment, changes to our contractors’ model, and new weather information stations.

Mr. Speaker, we have been working very closely with our contractors to make sure that we meet those standards and continue to improve road cleaning in northern Ontario.

Business of the House

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I’m just rising in accordance with standing order 59 to outline our work for next week.

On Monday, December 5, in the morning, we will be dealing with Bill 51, the Legislative Assembly Amendment Act. In the afternoon, we will be on Bill 36, which is the Progress on the Plan to Build Act.

On Tuesday, December 6, in the morning, we will continue with Bill 36. In the afternoon routine, there will be two statements by ministers: the first by Minister Fullerton on the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, and a statement by Minister Mulroney on the modernization of the French-language act. In the afternoon, on Tuesday, December 6, we will go to Bill 51 again, which is the Legislative Assembly Amendment Act. And in the evening, we will go to a private member’s bill standing in the name of the member for Kingston and the Islands, the Think Twice Before You Choose Natural Gas Act.

On Wednesday, December 7: Bill 39, the Better Municipal Governance Act, and in the afternoon, Bill 39, the Better Municipal Governance Act. In the evening, we will do the PMB from the member for Mushkegowuk–James Bay, Bill 43.

And on Thursday, December 8, there will be a tribute to a former member of provincial Parliament, Mr. David Rotenberg, and then the afternoon is yet to be determined.

Great Union Day

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

Ms. Natalia Kusendova-Bashta: Today is Romania’s National Day and I would like to invite all members to participate in the flag-raising at 12, followed by a reception in room 230.

Notice of dissatisfaction

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Pursuant to standing order 36(a), the member for Ottawa South has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing concerning the greenbelt. This matter will be debated on Tuesday, following private members’ public business.

Deferred Votes

Less Red Tape, Stronger Ontario Act, 2022 / Loi de 2022 visant à réduire les formalités administratives pour un Ontario plus fort

Deferred vote on the motion that the question now be put on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 46, An Act to enact one Act and amend various other Acts / Projet de loi 46, Loi visant à édicter une loi et à modifier diverses autres lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang 1139 to 1144.

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

On November 28, 2022, Mr. Gill moved second reading of Bill 46, An Act to enact one Act and amend various other Acts.

On November 30, 2022, Mr. Yakabuski moved that the question be now put.

All those in favour of Mr. Yakabuski’s motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Anand, Deepak
Babikian, Aris
Bailey, Robert
Barnes, Patrice
Bethlenfalvy, Peter
Bouma, Will
Brady, Bobbi Ann
Bresee, Ric
Byers, Rick
Calandra, Paul
Cho, Raymond Sung Joon
Cho, Stan
Clark, Steve
Coe, Lorne
Crawford, Stephen
Cuzzetto, Rudy
Dixon, Jess
Dowie, Andrew
Downey, Doug
Ford, Doug
Fullerton, Merrilee
Gallagher Murphy, Dawn
Gill, Parm
Grewal, Hardeep Singh
Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Mike
Hogarth, Christine
Holland, Kevin
Jones, Trevor
Jordan, John
Kanapathi, Logan
Ke, Vincent
Kerzner, Michael S.
Kusendova-Bashta, Natalia
Leardi, Anthony
Lecce, Stephen
Lumsden, Neil
Martin, Robin
McCarthy, Todd J.
McGregor, Graham
Mulroney, Caroline
Oosterhoff, Sam
Pang, Billy
Parsa, Michael
Piccini, David
Pierre, Natalie
Pirie, George
Quinn, Nolan
Rae, Matthew
Rasheed, Kaleed

Rickford, Greg
Riddell, Brian
Romano, Ross
Sabawy, Sheref
Sandhu, Amarjot
Sarkaria, Prabmeet Singh
Sarrazin, Stéphane
Saunderson, Brian
Scott, Laurie
Skelly, Donna
Smith, Dave
Smith, David
Smith, Graydon
Smith, Laura
Smith, Todd
Surma, Kinga
Tangri, Nina
Thanigasalam, Vijay
Thompson, Lisa M.
Tibollo, Michael A.
Triantafilopoulos, Effie J.
Wai, Daisy
Williams, Charmaine A.
Yakabuski, John

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): All those opposed to Mr. Yakabuski’s motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Armstrong, Teresa J.
Begum, Doly
Bourgouin, Guy
Bowman, Stephanie
Burch, Jeff
Collard, Lucille
Fife, Catherine
Fraser, John
French, Jennifer K.
Gates, Wayne

Gélinas, France
Glover, Chris
Harden, Joel
Hsu, Ted
Karpoche, Bhutila
Kernaghan, Terence
Mamakwa, Sol
Mantha, Michael
McMahon, Mary-Margaret
Pasma, Chandra

Rakocevic, Tom
Sattler, Peggy
Shamji, Adil
Stevens, Jennifer (Jennie)
Tabuns, Peter
Vanthof, John
Vaugeois, Lise
West, Jamie
Wong-Tam, Kristyn

The Deputy Clerk (Mr. Trevor Day): The ayes are 74; the nays are 29.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I declare the motion carried.

Mr. Gill has moved second reading of Bill 46, An Act to enact one Act and amend various other Acts. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This is a five-minute bell.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I apologize. I declare the motion carried.

Second reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon. Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): There being no further business, this House stands in recess until 1 p.m.

The House recessed from 1149 to 1300.

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I beg leave to present a report from the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs and move its adoption.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Mr. Wai Lam (William) Wong): Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 36, An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact and amend various statutes / Projet de loi 36, Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre les mesures budgétaires et à édicter et à modifier diverses lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Report adopted.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I beg to inform the House that today the Clerk received the report on intended appointments dated December 1, 2022, of the Standing Committee on Government Agencies. Pursuant to standing order 110(f)(9), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

Report deemed adopted.

Introduction of Bills

Right to Timely Mental Health and Addiction Care for Children and Youth Act, 2022 / Loi de 2022 sur le droit des enfants et des jeunes à des soins de santé mentale et au traitement de toxicomanies en temps opportun

Ms. Karpoche moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 53, An Act to enact the Right to Timely Mental Health and Addiction Care for Children and Youth Act, 2022 / Projet de loi 53, Loi édictant la Loi de 2022 sur le droit des enfants et des jeunes à des soins de santé mentale et au traitement de toxicomanies en temps opportun.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Would the member for Parkdale–High Park care to briefly explain her bill?

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: Yes, Speaker. Thank you. This bill, the Right to Timely Mental Health and Addiction Care for Children and Youth Act, requires the minister to ensure that a person who is less than 26 years old, resides in Ontario and has been deemed to require a mental health or addiction service receives access to the required mental health or addiction service within 30 days of being deemed to require the service.

Petitions

Social assistance

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: I’d like to thank Sally Palmer for sending me the petition. It reads, “Raise Social Assistance Rates.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas ... social assistance rates are well below Canada’s official Market Basket Measure poverty line and far from adequate to cover the rising costs of food and rent: $733 for individuals on OW and soon $1,227 for ODSP;

“Whereas an open letter to the Premier and two cabinet ministers, signed by over 230 organizations, recommends that social assistance rates be doubled for both Ontario Works (OW) and the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP);

“Whereas the recent small budget increase of 5% for ODSP still leaves these citizens well below the poverty line, both they and those receiving the frozen OW rates are struggling to live in this time of alarming inflation;

“Whereas the government of Canada recognized in its CERB program that a basic income of $2,000 per month was the standard support required by individuals who lost their employment during the pandemic;

“We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly to double social assistance rates for OW and ODSP.”

I fully support this petition and will affix my signature to it.

Social assistance

Ms. Chandra Pasma: “Petition to Raise Social Assistance Rates.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Ontario’s social assistance rates are well below Canada’s official Market Basket Measure poverty line and far from adequate to cover the rising costs of food and rent: $733 for individuals on OW and ... $1,227 for ODSP;

“We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly to double social assistance rates for OW and ODSP.”

I wholeheartedly endorse this petition, will sign my name to it and send it the table with page Kalila.

Social assistance

Mr. Chris Glover: This petition is entitled, “Petition to Raise Social Assistance Rates.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Ontario’s social assistance rates are well below Canada’s official Market Basket Measure poverty line and woefully inadequate to cover the basic costs of food and rent;

“Whereas individuals on the Ontario Works program receive just $733 per month and individuals on the Ontario Disability Support Program receive just $1,169 per month, only 41% and 65% of the poverty line;

“Whereas the Ontario government has not increased social assistance rates since 2018, and Canada’s inflation rate in January 2022 was 5.1%, the highest rate in 30 years;

“Whereas the government of Canada recognized through the CERB program that a ‘basic income’ of $2,000 per month was the standard support required by individuals who lost their employment during the pandemic;

“We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly to increase social assistance rates to a base of $2,000 per month for those on Ontario Works, and to increase other programs accordingly.”

I fully support this petition and will pass it to page Scarlett to take to the table.

Land use planning

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: I’d like to thank the almost 1,000 Parkdale–High Park residents who have written to me to protect the greenbelt. This petition reads as follows: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Bill 23 is the ... government’s latest attempt to remove protected land from the greenbelt, allowing developers to bulldoze and pave over 7,000 acres of farmland in the greenbelt;

“Whereas Ontario is already losing 319.6 acres of farmland and green space daily to development;

“Whereas the government’s Housing Affordability Task Force found there are plenty of places to build homes without destroying the greenbelt;

“Whereas” the Premier’s “repeated moves to tear up farmland and bulldoze wetlands have never been about housing, but are about making the rich richer;

“Whereas green spaces and farmland are what we rely on to grow our food, support natural habitats and prevent flooding;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately amend Bill 23, stop all plans to further remove protected land from the greenbelt and protect existing farmland in the province by passing the NDP’s Protecting Agricultural Land Act.”

I support this petition and will affix my signature to it.

Land use planning

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I have a “Petition to Protect Ontarians from Catastrophic Floods.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the government’s More Homes Built Faster Act ... continues to erode the powers of Ontario’s conservation authorities; and

“Whereas the government’s recently tabled housing legislation will repeal no fewer than 36 regulations that give conservation authorities oversight over development in order to protect Ontarians from catastrophic floods; and

“Whereas the work of conservation authorities reduces the risk of flooding, which is only getting worse due to climate change;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To instruct the Ontario government to please amend your housing bill and repeal all the changes you have introduced since coming to office that limit the important role of conservation of authorities.”

I support this petition, will sign it and ask page Hussain to bring it to the table.

1310

Climate change

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: I’d like to thank Leadnow for this petition. It reads, “For Meaningful Climate Action Withdraw Bill 23.

“Whereas our planet is undergoing significant warming with adverse consequences for health, for agriculture, for infrastructure and our children’s future;

“Whereas the costs of inaction are severe, such as extreme weather events causing flooding and drought;

“Whereas Canada has signed the Paris accord which commits us to acting to keep temperature rise under 1.5 degrees” centigrade;

“We, the undersigned, call upon the government of Ontario to withdraw Bill 23 and to create a new bill to meet our housing needs that is compatible with protecting the greenbelt, creating affordable housing in the current urban boundaries, and meeting our climate targets.”

I fully support this petition and will affix my signature to it.

Social assistance

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I’d like to thank Dr. Sally Palmer for sending in this petition.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas an open letter to the Premier and two cabinet ministers, signed by over 230 organizations, recommends that social assistance rates be doubled for both Ontario Works ... and the Ontario Disability Support Program...;

“Whereas the recent small budget increase of 5% for ODSP, with nothing for OW, could be experienced as an insult to recipients, who have been living since 2018 with frozen social assistance rates and a Canadian inflation rate that reached 12%;

“We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly to double social assistance rates for OW and ODSP.”

I fully support this petition, will sign it and ask the page to bring it to the table.

Injured workers

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: This petition is titled “Workers’ Comp is a Right.” It reads, “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas about 200,000 to 300,000 people in Ontario are injured on the job every year;

“Whereas over a century ago, workers in Ontario who were injured on the job gave up the right to sue their employers, in exchange for a system that would provide them with just compensation;

“Whereas decades of cost-cutting have pushed injured workers into poverty and onto publicly funded social assistance programs, and have gradually curtailed the rights of injured workers;

“Whereas injured workers have the right to quality and timely medical care, compensation for lost wages and protection from discrimination;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to change the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act to accomplish the following for injured workers in Ontario:

“Eliminate the practice of ‘deeming’ or ‘determining,’ which bases compensation on phantom jobs that injured workers do not actually have;

“Ensure that the WSIB prioritizes and respects the medical opinions of the health care providers who treat the injured worker directly;

“Prevent compensation from being reduced or denied based on ‘pre-existing conditions’ that never affected the worker’s ability to function prior to the work injury.”

I fully support this petition and will affix my signature to it.

Injured workers

Mr. Chris Glover: A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario: “Workers’ Comp is a Right....