Journal des débats 2022-avril-14 contenu A | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

It’s been really great to be able to be here over these last four years. Before I get into the nuts and bolts of Bill 78, I just want to take an opportunity, since this may probably be one of my last opportunities to speak here in the House, to say a big thank you to a few people, if you’ll indulge me, Speaker.

The first of those is my wife, Kim, and my kids at home—well, they’re at school right now, but we’ll see if anybody recorded this: Hi, Jaxon. Hi, Maverick. Hi, Ryder. Hi, Emeric. Hi, Gemma. And, of course, hi, Kim. One of the things that I think we overlook in this House quite a lot is our family back home and the sacrifices that they make for us to be able to do the good work that we do here. So, thank you to all of your families, to every member in this House.

Of course, I really want to express my thanks to the staff of the Legislative Assembly—everyone from the sound and video folks, to Hansard, to those keeping our facilities clean, of course, and safe and running. Thank you to everybody here who keeps this place going on a daily basis.

I want to give a big shout-out to my staff, everybody at the office back home in Waterloo region, and, of course, to my staff here in Toronto. They do a fantastic job. Quite honestly, none of us could do our job if we didn’t have great staff helping us, so I think a big round of applause for them is very fitting as well.

And, of course, I could not be more grateful to my colleagues here in our caucus for making my first term in this esteemed House so very remarkable and rewarding. A big shout-out to, of course, the Premier for his leadership and support.

Thank you very much to all of you. It’s been really great to get to know you all over these last four years. I knew some of you a little bit beforehand, as I’ve been running around this place for—oh, gosh—30-plus years, which is kind of crazy when you think about it. But it’s neat because I’ve actually had some staff that are still here, that were here during my dad’s tenure as Premier, and they remember me running around the halls when I was a wee lad. It’s neat to hear some of those stories. I know that the Solicitor General remembers me from those days as well. I can hear her making a couple of little remarks down there.

Listen, I just want to say thank you, as well, to the opposition members. I know we don’t necessarily always get along, but it has been really great to have you here keeping us accountable, and we look forward to the upcoming election and seeing what happens. Hopefully the majority of us are back here come June.

Why don’t we get a little bit into this bill? I think it’s a good segue when we’re talking about the service that we, as parliamentarians, provide to Ontario, and I want to talk a little bit about the service that our police services, police personnel, provide to this province. That’s really what the spirit of Bill 78 seeks to address.

As we’ve talked about before, Bill 78 is looking to expand the eligibility criteria for the Queen’s Commission to be granted to municipal and First Nations police services. I was listening intently to all the speakers during second reading and to the many questions and comments that we had throughout committee earlier this week. What I heard really served to underscore how timely and necessary Bill 78 is, especially given the challenges that our first responders have really been facing over the last couple of years.

I was very moved by the member for Algoma–Manitoulin’s heartfelt remarks earlier this week at the Standing Committee on Justice Policy. I was also struck by how many members of the committee had police officers in their families, or were, in fact, former police officers themselves. Speaker, you may know this, the committee chair, the member for Hastings–Lennox and Addington—almost said his name there; had to stop myself for a second—served as an OPP officer for many years. I would like to thank him for his service, and of course his service here in the Legislature, as he’s going to be retiring after the 42nd Parliament. So the individuals who Bill 78 addresses are among us. They’re family members, friends and, in many cases, our very own colleagues.

As has been said many times, municipal and First Nations police officers face tremendous risk and challenges in performing their duties. Not only that, but they also very often serve their communities above and beyond—this is something that we talked quite a bit about at committee—what is to be expected of the day-to-day job of a police officer.

Currently, the Queen’s Commission is only granted to OPP officers, but much of the work that these fine officers do is very similar to that of their municipal and First Nations counterparts. It just makes sense to acknowledge the work that they do with equal recognition and honour.

Bill 78 is widely supported by police services across the province and, while this bill was so widely supported in committee this week, there were a few amendments made and I just want to touch on those quickly. Two sections of the bill were being amended to include the mention of a certain rank, and this is to ensure that officers granted this honour in the future have met the exacting and high standards of the Queen’s Commission, and should possess a long-standing record of service and excellence benefiting their communities as commissioned officers. Another amendment pertains to consultations with First Nations with respect to nominations so that the process of granting the commission to First Nations officers is as inclusive and as considerate as possible.

Just to quickly wrap up, I’m greatly looking forward to hearing a little bit more debate on Bill 78 here today. I know we’ve got some good speakers lined up. I know that everybody agrees with the merits of this bill and look forward to seeing it supported later on this morning.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Further debate? The member for Hamilton Mountain.

Miss Monique Taylor: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and good morning. It seems like we just left this place just before 10 o’clock last night and now we have a bill before us this morning that we weren’t quite expecting but happy to have the opportunity to speak to all the same.

0910

As I said, I haven’t had a lot of time to prepare for this, but I will definitely do my best to represent it well and to thank the member from Kitchener–Conestoga—is that correct?—for bringing this bill forward. We definitely know that police have been champions within our ridings, within our province, within our country. They are a very important piece of our communities. Although there have been serious issues with police—there’s no doubt—without our police, we would definitely have chaos in our communities, so it’s important that we recognize them and we give them the kudos when they do well. It’s awards like this that really raise the bar and help others be inspired to do well in our communities also, so I think it’s a good initiative.

What I was able to find—oh, I guess I didn’t bring that piece. No, I did not.

The preamble of this bill is, “The Queen’s Commission is an award of recognition granted to police officers for exemplary performance of their duties. Under existing legislation, only police officers serving with the Ontario Provincial Police qualify for the Queen’s Commission.

“The Police Services Amendment Act, 2022 will provide that the Queen’s Commission may be granted to exceptional municipal police officers and First Nations Constables, thereby honouring those officers who demonstrate leadership consistent with seeking justice, applying the law, respecting human dignity, and upholding the democratic principles which sustain our society.”

That in itself is, I believe, the goal, and it’s uplifting those police officers who have to face horrible scenes on a daily basis. When a police officer shows up at your house or to where you are in the event that’s happening in your life, it’s probably one of the worst days of your life that they’re having to respond to, so ensuring that there are things in place to help those police officers is really important.

Awards do that. They do lift the bar. But also, there are financial strains that affect our police service boards across all of our municipalities that have their own significant risks and consequences and further create that burnout, possibly a situation going bad when police are faced things that no human should probably have to face and have to deal with, but yet they put their name on the list and put a badge on their chest to take on that extreme responsibility within our communities.

But you know, they face struggles themselves. Think of PTSD and mental health issues, something that I know my police service is asking for, to ensure that they have those tools necessary to them, so that when they are not well and they are struggling, or they are facing PTSD, they are respected in the same way. Let’s give them that award also by awarding them WSIB for PTSD, by providing our municipalities the funding to be able to ensure that we have enough police officers on our streets, because that happens quite often also.

I know that in one of the last meetings that I had with my police services, they definitely talked about the need for increasing staffing, because for other services that are cut in our communities—mental health, housing—that creates a whole realm of issues where the police have to show up. So they need to have those funds. They need to ensure that they have enough police on the street.

I can tell you, in Hamilton we have definitely seen an increase in crime rates going up and not having enough police officers on the street. That visibility definitely leads to that, and that’s something they were really clear about. We have actually one of the lowest police-to-population ratios in the entire country, and that comes with great concern. Without having that proper funding to maintain that police level, it puts police in danger. It puts our community at risk and does not lead to those exemplary awards that we’re speaking of today, because that’s where things definitely fall through the cracks and things go wrong.

The bulk of our calls in Hamilton and Stoney Creek are due to mental health. I’m really proud of the COAST program that we have in our city, where a mental health worker is with our police services on those mental health calls—but not near enough of what we need for the increase of mental health that we see in our community.

I had the opportunity to do a ride with police, and one of our calls was a mental health call, so I did get to experience the COAST person joining the police on a call. It was really nice to see. Even though this woman didn’t really seem to be in full crisis to us, she obviously felt that crisis enough to be able to call the police and say that she was concerned for her own well-being. The COAST worker talked to the woman about her issues—and it was almost like she was just lonely and was feeling that within her own mental health issue. I believe she is someone who calls often, so they were very familiar with her. The relationship that you could see there and the importance of that relationship was very apparent to me at that time.

So ensuring that we have more funding to have those COAST capabilities on our streets and to be able to support our police officers, who are not mental health workers, is really important.

We also have a social navigator program that works directly with our homeless population. It helps with encampments, and it builds those relationships to try to build trust within our communities between these folks who are struggling and our police services. So having this social navigator program is really quite something—it’s police officers, it’s a health worker, as well as a mental health worker. There’s a team of them, and they travel around to different encampments or where they know that people are at risk or are falling through the cracks or are just not doing well. They help them with doctors’ appointments. They help them to get, hopefully, some kind of housing or stability in their lives. They help them with job programs. I wish I had time to find the actual article where one of our police officers who does this social navigator program was highlighted in our city for doing this exemplary work and the relationships that he built, and people who had experienced homelessness were giving their testimony as to what a difference this made in their lives.

Many people who are struggling on our streets sometimes just need a friend. They just need somebody they can trust, somebody they can talk to, somebody who will help them get that start and find those supports they need.

These are the kinds of things that are important to our police community. These are definitely the asks that they have asked me to ensure that I keep in my mind while I’m speaking about my community—and to call on those extra supports to ensure that we do have enough police officers on the street to meet this great need of mental health in our communities.

I think we definitely need more mental health supports so that police are not attending to mental health calls the way that they do. As I said, they’re police officers; they’re not mental health workers, and they’re not nurses or doctors. They are law enforcement folks who have now been given the task to assist in ways that they’re really not comfortable with either. They know that they need more mental health supports in our community. They need to ensure that they’re not having to be the one to show up when someone is in crisis, when really what they need is to have that proactive mental health support so that they’re healthy in their own lives, so that they’re able to stay home. I’m sure there’s nothing worse than putting someone who is having a mental health breakdown in handcuffs, because that would only make that situation worse and make that person feel that they’re doing something wrong, when really what they need is mental health attention. They also talked about that—officers getting stuck in hospitals with mental health calls.

Just like our ambulance services, they are also backtracked, staying in hospitals 45 minutes to a few hours, an average 90-minute wait to be able to offload that person into our mental health hospitals, into our emergency rooms. That takes two officers at a time off the streets for law enforcement, where they’re needed. So that is definitely a backlog in our system that we see clearly in Hamilton.

0920

The other thing is we have a lot of speeding in Hamilton and we have a lot of issues. We’ve had way too many deaths for speeding incidents. Just recently, we lost Boris Brott to a car accident—not to a car accident, to a hit-and-run in our community that is now under investigation. I believe there were also some police officers injured. There was a whole mess that day. It was tragic in the loss of Boris Brott, who is quite famous as an orchestra conductor.

That is, again, where police officers are needed: to ensure that we have that speed enforcement. I hear on a regular basis when I’m knocking on doors on the main streets in my riding—my riding is very much a grid, so our north-south streets just become speedways. We lost a young boy, 10 years old, a couple of years back—Jude Strickland was killed by a speeder because those roads just don’t have that ability to have that law enforcement.

I know, due to the fact that I worked for a city councillor before I was elected, that, even then, it was a major problem—speeding in our communities. You cannot have a police officer sitting in various spots, waiting for those people to speed by. Various things have been put into place to help with that: speed cameras, traffic monitors to tell you your speed, speed bumps—all of those things. I know that Hamilton is actually working on a task force currently, working together with communities to try to find other ways to find speed enforcement capabilities and to be creative, to ensure that we don’t lose any more lives—because we’ve definitely lost too many when it comes to speeding in our communities.

It’s an example of the lack of police cars that we’re seeing on our streets. If you’re driving down the street and you know that police are in the area, you’re not as likely to be speeding as when you have no police in sight. I can tell you, I don’t seem to see police in my riding very often. It’s very seldom that I’m actually seeing a police car on the street, and that’s unfortunate. We have 140,000 residents just in my riding, so not to see enough of a police presence is always concerning. That is definitely one of the things that I wanted to highlight today, to ensure that we do get that extra funding, that the province does help our municipalities to provide that extra funding, to provide those extra police officers on our streets and to take some of that strain off of our community and ensure that our communities can be safe.

There is definitely a lot on the rise—again, drugs, overdoses, mental health concerns are all issues that our police have to attend to. By ensuring that we have proactive measures, that we have drug rehabilitation to get people off drugs, to help them recover—just that in itself would take a load off of our police services. I remember being out one night and seeing a young woman on the street. She was obviously quite high, inebriated. I had never experienced someone to that extent of her body behaviours. I’m told, after the fact, that it was crystal meth. The police obviously had to attend to her. There was no hostility, but she was very lost. It was winter. She didn’t have her boots on her feet. Like I said, her body was flailing like something I hadn’t experienced before, and it was interesting to see. But then I saw the police come, and how they managed her and how they dealt with her was exemplary. So I know that they do have to go over and above.

By ensuring that they have that training—I’m sure everyone has had naloxone training these days, and police have probably become very frequent masters of providing that life-saving drug to many folks who are facing addiction. But how many homes are they showing up to where it’s just too late and the person has already succumbed to an overdose? It’s happening way too frequently in our communities.

Awards like this will definitely go a long way to ensure that we’re highlighting those exemplary models, that we’re giving young police officers something to strive for. I know that in Hamilton we do have an awards ceremony that happens every year during police bravery week, which allows Hamilton to have the ability to highlight those exemplary officers, but this will just add an extra layer of gratitude to those folks who go over and above. Hopefully it weeds out some of the bad apples and makes them want to do better because they have something to strive for. But ensuring that we have that funding, ensuring that we’re providing mental health services to our front-line officers, ensuring that they have WSIB, ensuring that they have presumptive legislation for PTSD—it’s an award that will go much further than a plaque for them.

I think it’s important and incumbent on this government to think about these issues, to ensure that municipalities across our province have the funding. We’re seeing an increase in population in Hamilton, but not an increase in police services in our community.

I’m glad the minister is here. I’m hoping that she hears the cries from Hamilton police, because the notes that I read from in their ask is directly from my meeting with them and it is about the increased need for staffing. They’re having to deal with services because of other cuts to our community that the police are having to deal with. They need the staff to keep our community safe. We have the lowest police to population; we need that capacity increase.

Again, these programs like Social Navigator and the COAST program are the programs that really highlight the wonderful ability of our police. We also have police in our schools to ensure that our young people have that relationship with police and that it’s not: “I can’t talk to the police because the police are bad.” No, we have to change that dialogue. We have to welcome the police into our communities, and the police have to welcome us in that same fashion by having that built-in relationship. They’re there to protect us and to serve our communities.

I’m grateful to have the ability to speak to this award. I look forward to participating in awards for Hamiltonians that will receive this award.

I apologize, Speaker; I didn’t even get the opportunity to speak to the Indigenous communities and police officers, where their acts of bravery are, again, probably focused on a lot of those same issues—mental health, homelessness, and just the need for more funding in their communities, which leads to crime in other places where people fall through the cracks.

I’m out of time. Thanks for the opportunity. Thanks to the member for bringing this bill forward. I look forward to supporting it.

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

Mr. Will Bouma: I want to keep it really short, but I wanted to sincerely thank our front-line professionals, essential workers and first responders for everything that they have done and how they’ve really stepped up through the last two years of uncertainty.

I also want to thank my colleague from Kitchener–Conestoga. He has this nasty habit of making me very emotional on his private member’s business when I have the opportunity to speak.

0930

As you know, Speaker, I am a first responder. I’ve been a volunteer firefighter with the county of Brant fire service for 14 years this year, and I can remember my first call, where a gentleman passed away of a heart attack in a van before he hit the guardrail. I didn’t even have proper equipment. My bunker pants came up about mid-calf, and I was just wearing safety shoes. I remember carrying him out of that accident scene and feeling like I was in on a very, very dirty little secret. A whole of bunch of other people’s days were going to get really, really miserable really, really quick, but I was in on this secret.

When I think of our first responders, our police officers—I do this as a volunteer. I am a professional firefighter, NFPA level II certified, but our police officers see these things every single day, and to be able to see them treated with equity through this private member’s bill really, really means a lot to me. I wanted to quickly quote from my police chief on Six Nations with respect to this proposal. Police Chief Darren Montour said, “I have read over MPP Harris’ letter proposing the Queen’s Commission be made available to First Nations and municipal police officers. We all do the same job for the communities we serve and we should be on the same page as far as recognition of exemplary performance.”

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more. I am the first non-Indigenous, non-police officer to ride along with Six Nations Police Service. I have had the opportunity to do so twice. They do incredible work in our community, and it’s so good to be seeing them treated equally.

One more quote I want to get out here: “I want to thank MPP Harris for all of his work on this bill that will see First Nations and municipal officers be eligible for the Queen’s Commission. Officers serving First Nations communities face unparalleled challenges daily, yet rarely see or garner the recognition that is deserved. Officers in municipal service of all sizes are dedicated to keeping their communities safe and are called upon daily to do so knowing the risks of every call are never fully known. First Nations and municipal officers do amazing work to ensure public safety and trust. It is great to see that through this bill we will be eligible for the Queen’s Commission.” That was from Chief Robert Davis from Brantford Police Service.

I want to thank the Solicitor General. It’s been so incredible to be able to work with her in order to do more on the equity front for our Indigenous police services across the province of Ontario. I don’t have time to get into that here, and yet this is a really good day for police officers across the province. Thank you, Speaker. I’ll end there.

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

Mr. Michael Mantha: It is a pleasure and an honour to rise and talk to you—en français, le projet de loi 78, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les services policiers, and the translation, Bill 78, An Act to amend the Police Services Act.

Listen, we don’t get to talk enough about our brave men and women who are in our communities, and today is one of those days where we can actually brag about them. We can highlight not only what they do when they’re wearing the blues or wearing the badge but the other things that they do in our communities that make them exceptional community members. We just don’t talk enough about that.

When these opportunities come by, like here this morning, I’m going to use every second I possibly can in order to highlight some of these individuals that I have in my riding of Algoma–Manitoulin. The riding is quite large. My riding is comprised of 37 municipalities, 22 First Nations and I have plenty of unorganized areas who have services and police who participate in community, in parades and activities.

I want to go back just to yesterday, when I was sitting with the member from Kitchener–Conestoga along with others in committee, and we had one particular amendment that was made to this bill—well, there were three amendments that were made to the bill. A couple of them were kind of housecleaning and definition as a whole, but the one that I really enjoyed was an amendment to not just issue a Queen’s Commission award, but it was also to reach out and get support from communities, from Indigenous communities, to support their police officers. I said, “Wow, that’s something that we wouldn’t have thought of doing.” But having seen that we’re thinking of actually not just imposing something but getting the support from the community members, making sure that they’re on board as well with recognizing one of their own, was a very welcome amendment. It was highlighted at committee, and I was glad I was at committee to understand the background as to why that amendment needed to be made and why it was introduced.

On n’a pas tout le temps la chance ici en maison pour parler des officiers qui sont dans nos communautés. On regarde tout le temps nos officiers comme des gens qui sont fermes, qui sont solides, qui sont non reprochables—parce que c’est la police de la communauté, coudonc. Il faut qu’on suive les lois, et puis elles sont tellement rigides. Mais quand on regarde nos officiers d’aujourd’hui, les officiers d’aujourd’hui sont différents. La raison pourquoi j’explique qu’ils sont différents c’est qu’ils sont tellement connectés, on va dire; ils sont tellement intégrés avec la communauté. On les regarde, les policiers, et souvent le même policier est aussi l’instructeur à la classe de karaté. Il est le coach à l’aréna pour l’équipe de peewee qui joue au hockey. Il est la personne clé qu’on utilise pour des organisations dans la communauté. Ou c’est la personne que tu trouves à côté de toi quand tu es au gym un samedi matin qui est en train de t’encourager à te pousser à vraiment soulever des poids plus pesants. Ce sont eux qui sont les officiers et puis les policiers qu’on a dans nos communautés dernièrement.

Je veux prendre le temps de vraiment expliquer aussi, dans nos communautés autochtones—c’est vraiment ceci le principe de ce projet de loi : c’est aussi d’offrir la reconnaissance aux officiers dans les communautés autochtones. Dans la mienne, ma région, Algoma–Manitoulin, on a les United Chiefs and Councils of Mnidoo Mnising Anishnaabe Police Service. On a l’Anishinabek Police Service puis on a la Wikwemikong Tribal Police Service. On regarde nos policiers qui sont dans nos communautés autochtones, ou au municipal ou provincial. Je dis tout le temps qu’un officier, c’est un officier, c’est un officier. Je veux prendre un petit peu de temps de vraiment apporter une « concerne » que j’ai, surtout pour les officiers dans les communautés autochtones. Ils donnent les mêmes services, ils prennent les mêmes démarches, ils rencontrent tous les mêmes standards, mais les fonds qui leur sont donnés par les deux niveaux de gouvernement ne sont pas équitables. Si tu regardes les environnements et puis, on va dire, les services qu’il faut qu’ils donnent à l’égard des endroits où ils travaillent, ils ne sont pas égaux. Les fonds ne sont pas là. Les pensions sont différentes pour les officiers, les salaires sont différents pour les officiers et puis les environnements sont vraiment différents pour ces officiers. Ce qui fait que, si on est pour dire qu’un officier c’est un officier c’est un officier, on devrait les considérer, peu importe dans quelle communauté ou à quel niveau de service ils sont en train de donner, on devrait les reconnaître équitablement dans toutes leurs communautés.

I really want to spend a little bit of time talking about the importance of the Queen’s Commission. But I also want to talk about a few other things, because we don’t get an opportunity to talk about the duty officer and police officer services that we have in our community, and I want to raise a few things. We’ve always had a saying that a police officer is a police officer is a police officer. Whether you’re a police officer from Anishinabek police, municipal police or provincial police, you’re performing the same basic duties. The one concern I do want to raise is if we are recognizing them as equals, then we should be funding them as equals, because there are a lot of challenges within First Nations police services, particularly in providing those services. The funding is not at an equal level.

0940

When you’re looking at a police officer from the Anishinabek police or the UCCM police force or the Wikwemikong tribal police, are the pensions equivalent to what provincial police are getting? Are the wages equivalent to what the provincial police are getting? We’re recognizing these individuals as equals in potential awards, so why aren’t we providing that same recognition so they can shine as well, and they can thrive in pursuing their goals and pursuing their services and their training, and have the ability to give their all?

Yesterday in committee, I touched on a couple of stories, and I think it’s worthwhile bringing them here to the floor of the Legislature. There was this police officer who was caught in Espanola playing in a water sprinkler with some children on a lawn—I’m sure he didn’t know he was being caught or that somebody caught him in a picture. This is a good story. Anyways, these are some of the things that we don’t even see, but it caught my attention, so I pulled the picture off of social media, on Facebook.

I didn’t know this officer or who he was, but he did strike a tickle point with me, so I used that photo and I put it up on my own social media. I put a contest out there. I told people across Algoma–Manitoulin, “if you can identify this police officer”—I put a little prize that people could win. I said, “I want to know who this police officer is,” because not only did he bring a smile to my face, but what it did is that just this one little picture—even the person who I got the picture from off of Facebook and using that picture—generated a buzz. The positive comments, just the engagement and people trying to guess who this police officer was—it was simply amazing. You know, we are politicians, and we figure, oh, we’ve got a good post to put up. Well, lo and behold, that was one of the best posts I think I’ve put up in 11 years.

Interjection.

Mr. Michael Mantha: It’s true, and it just shows how human a police officer is and what they do in a community.

Anyways, lo and behold, I did find out who that police officer was. If I remember correctly, it was Constable Tripp, Evan Tripp. He was a police officer from the Espanola detachment. I prepared a scroll, and I have to admit, it was just before we got into the midst of the pandemic. I’m ashamed to say that I haven’t had the ability to deliver that scroll yet. I really want to deliver it, because he made so many people smile. I say this because there’s this saying that comes to mind. It was one act of kindness that changed so many lives, changed so many perspectives and made so many people smile during that day.

Quite frankly, I think he deserves an award for having stepped out of his uniform—although he had his uniform on. Just imagine what he thought of, how much that would have been and how important it was to him to engage with those kids in that water sprinkler. That’s the type of police officers that we have in Ontario.

When I leave here—and all of you, we do that. You know, this pandemic has raised certain concerns. I said this in committee and I said this when we talked at first reading. How many of you, when you’re walking by a police officer’s cruiser, go knock on his door, shake his hand and say, “Thank you for what you’re doing”? How many of us actually do that? It’s something that I’ve really enjoyed. Actually, sometimes those same police officers, for whatever reason, enjoy pulling me over when I’m driving on the highway. They pull up to my window, they knock on my window and they say, “Hey, Mike. How are you doing?” too.

But it is that type of a relationship that we have in many of our communities, because those same police officers, as I was saying earlier in my speech, are the peewee hockey coaches you see at the arena, or they’re that guy you see at the gym in the morning—and I know; it has happened to me. There are a couple of retired police officers who go to the gym that I go to, up at Elliot Lake, over at Muscle Factory—hey, Yanick. Hi, everybody at the gym this morning. I’ll be there on the weekend. It’s those individuals who come in there when you’re struggling with that last push; they come over, and they’re there to motivate you and to help you. That’s who we have as far as police officers in our community. The police officer who is there is the individual you will see just providing some help—volunteering with an organization, being part of generating an economy in the community, where a community is promoting an event. Those are the police officers we have across this province.

Police officers that we have are police officers who will take the time to fill a cruiser—they go out of their way to make sure that there’s food; or if it’s not food, it’s clothes; and if it’s not clothes, it’s teddy bears. They take the time to go into the schools and make a connection between a police officer and the comfort of a small stuffed animal for a child, so that a child, when he sees a police officer, doesn’t back away and they go to the police officer, because he’s there to protect them. They take that time to establish those relationships with some of our young people when they visit our schools.

There are also many challenges that come in the role of police officer—and I want to spend a little bit of time on this. We look at police officers as men and women who are firm, who are strong, who are confident, but we forget at times that they’re human, that they have family, that they have feelings—and it’s so easy for us to turn and say how negative, and the actions and how it was tough, and the actions that a police officer had to take.

A few years ago, I was in the House, and there was a tragic accident that happened just on the outskirts of Wawa. Normally, the first on the scene is either an OPP officer or the fire department. A police officer showed up—and there were reasons why that accident happened. There was a quick flash of freezing rain, and the salt came out, but it came out too late. The accident happened at the time of Christmas. When the police officer got there—it was tragic. I don’t even want to describe what happened there. There were Christmas gifts that had flown and been ejected out of the vehicle. Not only did police officers suffer from what they had seen—but also individuals from the fire department. Again, I don’t want to go into the details of what happened. There were fatalities at this accident. Through the course of the work that they do and the commitment they put into their work, there’s a lot of mental issues and post-traumatic stress disorders that are unseen or aren’t spoken of, and it’s difficult. “I’m supposed to have it all together.” You deal with those issues. But, lo and behold, there are individuals who were exposed to some very traumatic scenes that were there, that to this day, when Christmas comes around—for us, when we look under a Christmas tree, we see Christmas gifts, and it brings joy. For certain police officers, depending on what they were exposed to, it also brings traumatic memories.

I bring that up because those police officers, in their daily lives, also need the support so that they can deal with those stresses. Again, they are always the first ones who are on the scene; they are always the first ones who are making sure that others who are coming to that environment are safe. This Queen’s Commission award is a testimony of what many of those officers deserve, and I’m going to look forward to going back across my riding of Algoma–Manitoulin and promoting this, and looking at an opportunity where I can share this information with the many bases throughout my riding, so that names can come forward.

0950

When we were in committee, we actually had a really good committee. We had a really good exchange at committee, and I want to commend the member from Kitchener–Conestoga for bringing this forward. This is something that will go a long way in recognizing police officers from different forces, and it’s very key that we do that.

I want to take a moment to talk about the UCCM police and talk about a fatality of a police officer that happened on Manitoulin Island. We often gather and find a way to come as one. The one police officer, Constable Marc Hovingh from Manitoulin Island, succumbed to an incident that happened on Manitoulin Island. What that did to this province, what Marc’s memory did to the area, what Marc brought in honour to this province: If there’s anything that deserves an award, it’s that.

We came as a province so united in sorrow, but we came united in pride in regard to Marc Hovingh’s memory that he brought to this province: the pride that he brought to wearing the blues; the pride that he brought to wearing that badge, to doing the job, to waking up unquestionably and going to work to make sure that he provides that service that is second to none for each and every one of our communities. He brought the best out of everybody in this province, because those overpasses, those highways were just full of love, is what I want to say. I actually prepared this morning to be able to say this without choking up, but that’s what he did. That’s what he did, he brought this province: our pride and the love of a profession, of an individual, and what his contributions were to this province.

And I was so proud as an Ontarian, because I remember that day I drove back just a little bit ahead of the parade that was leading into Manitoulin Island. Driving onto Manitoulin Island those next few days and seeing the big blue hearts that were all over every single highway post, in every building, on every porch—lights were lit; trees were decorated in blue. People were out, and they weren’t crying; they were celebrating. They were just wanting to show their pride that they had for this fallen police officer.

And I remember Marc’s wife, who—my God, I don’t know where this woman gets the strength to do what she did, but her eulogy was one that I will never ever, ever, ever forget. She was just amazing.

So I am going to close off on my comments by saying to the member from Kitchener–Conestoga that from this side of the House, as I said in committee yesterday, you can count on our support. I’m not exactly sure what you guys are going to do, but I can tell you that this is one of those bills where it’s been a pleasure talking to the services that our police force provide us throughout this province. I would encourage each and every person, the next opportunity you have that you see a police officer who’s pulled over on the side of the road or sitting in a parking lot, do yourself a favour: Go knock on his window, extend your hand, and say, “How are you doing?” And give him a little bit of a thank you. I swear, I’ll tell you something, the feeling that you’ll get back in your heart will be like issuing an award and it’s going to be like receiving one for those police officers.

It’s a good bill. Congratulations to the member for Kitchener–Conestoga

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

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: It’s an honour to rise in the House today to represent the people of Scarborough–Guildwood on such an important bill. I want to commend the member from Kitchener–Conestoga on putting forward Bill 78, which recognizes the bravery of police officers and extends that to a group that really does need that recognition, in terms of our Indigenous police services and, frankly, others who are being called forward to put their lives on the line as well.

The work of policing in this province is a challenging one. I recently met with a member of my community who was trying to improve, in fact, the training that police officers receive so that they receive training that is in keeping with the job that we’re asking them to do in society and that they have that professionalism. She’s pushing that forward within the police services in Toronto and actually working nationally as well to do that.

Our police officers are the ones who run in when others are running away. I do want to commend the member for putting this forward and making sure that we extend the recognition of the Queen’s Commission to those who are First Nations constables, as well as with the municipal police services.

The work of policing is challenging these days. When you think of, for instance, and I hope the member will agree with this, the issue of gun violence, it’s one that I have raised in this House often, because this is an issue that is not only happening—every weekend, you see this happening. It’s almost happening every day. That puts the lives of our police services at risk, and we need to do something to address that concern.

I see that the city of Toronto has taken some actions. They’ve established the Brave Program, which is being run out of Sunnybrook Hospital. What that program is doing is, it’s a hospital-based violence intervention program. It recognizes that when an incident of violence occurs, if someone is involved and they are taken to hospital, that that is a moment in time in which you can provide supports to that particular individual and those who are around them to make a change in their life and break that cycle of violence. It’s not an expensive program. It requires a violence intervention worker who is trained in the field, and they deal with whatever victims come forward.

What Sunnybrook Hospital has noticed is that, over the past year, incidents of gun victims coming to that particular trauma centre has doubled, so there is the need to invest in those types of programs. In fact, St. Michael’s Hospital, which is one of our trauma centres in Toronto, is also going to be implementing the Brave Program, because the results speak for themselves.

It is for those reasons why I’ve stood in this House time and time again to ask for support for my bill, which actually was at the same committee that Bill 78 was reviewed at in such an expeditious way. I’m really looking for the same because Bill 60 has the potential to save lives, and that saves the lives of police officers and it puts them at less harm.

1000

Making gun violence a public health issue, according to Toronto’s Medical Officer of Health, Eileen de Villa, is really about the effects that gun violence is having on the community at large. Making it a public health issue is about public safety. It’s about community safety.

It’s also about mental health. We talked a lot about that today. I was listening to the debate from the member from the official opposition about the need for how we respond to mental health. The city of Toronto has also taken steps through partnerships with organizations like TAIBU, which is a community health centre in Scarborough that serves the unique needs of the Black community and the francophone community. TAIBU is piloting a community response program for mental health calls. Rather than routing them through the police, they’re being routed through this community organization.

What we’re hoping is that this too is a response that puts the health and the well-being of people first and, frankly, also reduces the stress on the police officers and police services, because they are not trained in mental health. It’s not their specialization. Putting the needs of those individuals first is something that is also helping. I really look forward to the results of that program and to see that it is helping.

I have reached out to the members opposite, to the government. I sent a letter in February—an urgent letter—because a shocking incident occurred in Scarborough at one of our high schools, David and Mary Thomson Collegiate. A grade 12 student, 18-year-old Jahiem Robinson, was shot and killed on school property. When I attended the parent council meeting, we had members of the community there: parents, of course; students; school administration; the principal and the vice-principal; and there were partners who work with the school. The owner of the McDonald’s across the street was there.

But also, the police were there. No one ever wants to attend on a scene where you’re dealing with such horrific tragedy, because it’s not only the victim’s family that has been irreparably changed, the perpetrator’s family is also destroyed by what has happened. The police officers who were first to come in on that scene and to attend to it did that bravely. Then they came back to comfort the school community and to do their best. But they need us to do more. As I was speaking with the parents and speaking with the police officers and speaking with the school administration, they do acknowledge that we need to do more as a society.

That is what Bill 60 is intended to do. It’s intended to provide trauma-informed counselling, paid for through OHIP, so that when there are communities that are shattered like this because of an incident of gun violence, they get the help and the support they need. You would think that they can do that right now, but they can’t. We don’t have that built into our system.

Unfortunately, this is not the only school-type shooting that has occurred. In my riding of Scarborough–Guildwood, just over a year ago, in February 2021, a young man by the name of Safi was shot while he was walking home from school. He was literally passing the bus stop, because where he lived is across the street from the school which he attends.

When that occurred, I did attend his funeral. It was held at a mosque and I was invited by leaders in the community to come out. When I attended that funeral, I spoke to his elementary school teachers, who said what a beautiful student he was and that losing him in this way was such a tragedy.

Just recently, I was out in my community, and I went to the door of Safi’s father. When he spoke to me, I didn’t know that this was Safi’s father, but a neighbour two doors down said that to me, so I went back and I knocked on his door. As I was speaking to this gentleman, the pain of the loss of his son was physical and visible. This man was really a shell of who he was. He said to me, “Mitzie, my family was a happy family before we lost our son. We were a normal family.” Now, he and his wife wake up to the pain of the loss of their son each and every day. It is impacting them physically. He lost most of his teeth because of the stress and the grief. His wife was not able to come to the door. Most days, she really isn’t able to do anything. A family like this needs us as a Legislature to be compassionate and to respond to their needs.

When people get the trauma counselling they need, they can put the pieces of their life back together and heal from that violence. But if we leave them in their grief, they suffer in silence, and I saw that with Safi’s dad. Every day, he opens his front door and he looks at the bus stop at which his son was taken from him, just in the act of walking home from school.

Another family that I met recently—a young man was shot and killed in front of their window, and their two sons were outside when the incident occurred, so this family is really suffering from PTSD. The mom is having difficulty going to work and the sons live in fear. They, too, need us as a community to respond and to provide the help and the support they need.

Proximity to a violent incident should not leave people without a means of healing from the trauma. The reality is that our young people are feeling left out. I had a round table this week with the Boys and Girls Club East Scarborough, and in speaking with the students, they were telling me that this is how they are feeling: that no one is really listening to them and that they are left to cope with the pain. They tell me that violence is something that is being normalized in their schools and in their communities, and I think this is something that we can’t afford. We can’t afford to sacrifice our children’s future by inaction. We can’t afford to say that this is happening somewhere else, because really, the violence is spreading in ways that are very random.

I mentioned to you that just this week, five shootings occurred in the Niagara Falls area. One teen died and two teens are left in hospital. We also saw the very, very tragic shooting of Kartik Vasudev, who was an international student who came to pursue the dream of an education. He was exiting the Sherbourne subway in daylight and he was gunned down. That very weekend, we are learning, another man was gunned down as well by the same shooter, just a few days before. Thanks to the brave and intelligent work of police officers, that alleged shooter of these two people has been apprehended.

1010

But do we feel safer, as a community, in the wake of such violence, in the wake of the randomness of this violence? Isn’t it incumbent upon us to do all that we can to end gun violence? Isn’t it incumbent upon us to keep our communities safe? Yes, the exemplary role of police officers needs to be recognized. I agree with that. At the same time, giving help and support to victims, to communities—I think of that whole school community at David and Mary Thomson; I think of the janitors who had to clean up the blood that was spilled in that school. And you know, when I went to the school it was all clean, because they did their jobs. But what help and support do they need, having borne witness to such senseless violence?

The police in my area tell me—and I want to recognize Dave Rydzik, who is the superintendent of 43 division—that shootings in Scarborough have gone up by 43%. There have been more homicides in this city than weeks in the year. We need to do something. I’ve written to Minister Elliott, because I don’t believe that making gun violence a public health issue is a political or a partisan issue; I think it’s a public safety issue. So I’ve asked the minister—I’m still waiting for this response—to support the bill.

I want to thank the Attorney General for her office attending the news conference that we held, because it shows interest. This is the right thing for us to do, to support this bill that puts community safety first, that puts the safety, health and well-being of our police officers and our community first, by breaking cycles of trauma and violence and getting to the root cause issues so that violence does not occur in the first place. If we reduce the level of violence in our community, then everyone is safer.

Toronto, Ontario, Canada is safe, but it is safe because we invest and we provide the supports that are needed in our communities to make them safe. So when we see escalations happening like we are seeing right now—it’s not just on a weekend; it’s every day that we see these shootings occur—we have to do something about it. We cannot turn away; we cannot ignore it. We have to do something about it. This bill, Bill 60, just like Bill 78, was in justice committee. It is in justice committee right now. We can move it forward. We can pass the bill. I ask you, also, as you support Bill 78, to give your support to Bill 60.

I want to go back to Safi’s dad. I told him I would come back. I want to go back to him, and I want to say, “You and your wife don’t have to live in this pain anymore. The way that it’s eating at your flesh can stop, because you get the help and the support that you need. Your community, your government cares about you.” Not just in words—because he said that to me; he said, “People have come by with good words.” But he needs to see action to support that.

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

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): It being 10:15, I am compelled to interrupt the proceedings and now begin members’ statements.

Members’ Statements

Affordable housing

Mr. Jeff Burch: People in Niagara Centre need affordable places to live right now. I’ve been telling this government that repeatedly since 2018. The affordable housing crisis has been getting worse and worse over this government’s term, and they’ve done nothing to address it. Wait-lists in Niagara are out of control, and with rising costs, folks are becoming more and more desperate.

The government has an obligation to all Ontarians, regardless of their background, to ensure they can keep a roof over their heads. Housing is a human right.

Yesterday, 34-year-old Steve Stirling of Welland showed up at my office with his 83-year-old grandfather on his arm. He was trying to help his granddad resolve an outrageously high water bill. Steve has been living with his grandparents since his trade apprenticeship went off the rails last year, through no fault of his own, and he ended up back in a low-wage job.

Steve’s grandparents are moving into a supported living community next month. Steve has put out application after application for places that he can afford to live in. When he factors in car insurance, gas and groceries, basement apartments are the only thing in his price range. He has a small but steady income. He says landlords don’t care and they are in the driver’s seat. If Steve can’t find a place by the end of next month, he will be living in his car.

Mr. Speaker, there is an affordable housing crisis in Niagara. The government has had four years to fix it, and it has only gotten worse. When will we start treating housing affordability and homelessness like the crisis that it clearly is?

Retiring members of provincial Parliament

Mr. Michael Parsa: Good morning to all my colleagues. For my last member’s statement here at Queen’s Park and before the election, I’d like to dedicate my minute and a half to the members who are retiring as MPPs.

I’d like to start off by thanking the member from Windsor–Tecumseh, who sat in the chair for my very first inaugural speech here in the chamber. As a new member in 2018, when I was delivering my first remarks, I was excited and happy but also incredibly nervous. When I paused for a brief moment and looked up at the member sitting in the chair, just like yours, Mr. Speaker, his calm, comforting and supportive smile helped me get through the rest of my speech.

I’d also like to thank the member from Don Valley West for her remarkable 19 years of service and leadership to her community and the residents across Ontario.

For my colleagues on this side of the House, I’d like to thank and congratulate the member representing Burlington and the member from Hastings–Lennox and Addington for their many years of service and dedication to the people of this province. I’d also like to thank the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka, who served for a remarkable 23 years as MPP.

I’d also like to congratulate the Deputy Premier, Minister of Health and the member representing constituents in Newmarket–Aurora. It was an honour and a privilege to serve alongside you representing the great people of Aurora. Thank you for all you’ve done in the past four years, in particular the last two. I know it hasn’t been easy.

I’d also like to thank the member from Perth–Wellington. He sets the bar extremely high for all of us members here, and I’m incredibly grateful to have served with him. And of course, the member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, who has been a great friend these past four years.

Speaker, last but certainly not least, I’d like to extend my congratulations and sincere appreciation to the member representing Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound. Thank you for not only being a great colleague but also a wonderful friend and mentor to me and so many people here.

I’d also like to thank the families of each and every member for allowing them to serve here. Fulfilling duties as an MPP is a great honour, so I hope that you get to spend some time with your families and loved ones.

Speaker, they will all be missed here at Queen’s Park, but their legacies will never be forgotten. The good work they have done over the years and, for some of them, from different Parliaments will continue to serve Ontarians long after retirement. Thank you for your service.

Member for Parkdale–High Park

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: I’d like to thank my community of Parkdale–High Park for placing their trust and hope in me, for tasking me with the responsibility of representing us at Queen’s Park. I’m proud to say that in the last four years, we have done some incredible work together. We protected local jobs by saving the Ontario Food Terminal and successfully pushed the government to designate it as a provincially significant employment zone.

With the love and support of my community, I stood in this House with my newborn son in my arms and shone a bright light on the issue of maternal mental health, which so many new mothers struggle with silently. We made history by passing my bill, becoming the first jurisdiction in the world to recognize July as Tibetan Heritage Month, and worked across party lines to create the Ontario Parliamentary Friends of Tibet summer program, a paid opportunity for youth to learn more about Ontario politics.

The creativity and passion our community has to solve the biggest challenges, whether it’s the housing crisis or the climate crisis, led to my tabling of over 20 bills and numerous motions during my first term.

1020

We fought back against illegal evictions and successfully kept some neighbours housed. Thanks to the perseverance of local small business owners, we were able to secure funding for many who were denied grants and helped them weather the lockdowns. We assisted local organizations with accessing millions in funding, from COVID-19 outbreak management funding for Copernicus Lodge to infrastructure funding for High Park Nature Centre. The Stone Soup Network joined me to raise funds and distribute more than 15,000 free N95 masks to our neighbours who needed them most.

Speaker, there simply isn’t enough time to share all the amazing things we have accomplished together in Parkdale–High Park. I am so proud, and I know that we can and will do so much more. Thank you.

Anti-racism activities / Religious holidays

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: Last week I had the pleasure of welcoming the Minister of Education to my riding of Mississauga–Erin Mills. I was honoured to join him in announcing a new $249,000 in grants for Anba Abraam Charity and the Canadian Egyptian Heritage Association. These grants will go a long way towards helping our new immigrant students feel welcome and adjust to their new home, as well as combating racism and discrimination in Peel.

Mr. Speaker, I’m thankful for Minister Lecce’s strong support for Peel and the steps he took to clean many years of neglect from the previous government, when actions were urgently needed to stop anti-Black racism and discrimination in our Peel schools.

Mississauga is a fantastic representation of the rich cultural mosaic we have in Ontario and across Canada, and I am honoured I had the chance to reach out and serve each and every community in Erin Mills.

I would like to take a moment to celebrate our rich diversity and the many celebrations of these coming weeks. Mr. Speaker, as we are approaching the weekend, I would like to wish our Christians and Roman Catholics a very blessed Good Friday and a happy Easter; to our Ontario Jewish community, a blessed Passover; to our Sikh community, I wish you a wonderful Vaisakhi. Also, I extend my wishes to Eastern Orthodox, Coptic Armenian and Antiochian Orthodox Christians for a happy Easter next week. For all Muslim Ontarians who are observing the holy month of Ramadan, Eid-Ul-Fitr Mubarak.

Mr. Speaker, Ontario’s rich and diverse communities are our strength. As we approach the end of the 42nd session of Parliament, I wish Ontarians a wonderful summer and a time of peace and celebration with their families.

Member for Algoma–Manitoulin

Mr. Michael Mantha: Since there is a theme of stretching this morning, I’ll see that I can stay within my timelines. I want to take this time to thank the good people of Algoma–Manitoulin for having provided me with the honour and privilege of representing them for the last 11 years. I don’t know if this is going to be my last opportunity to speak to them before going on the doorsteps.

I look across the way and on this side as well and over my shoulders—we’ve established some really good friendships here and there’s a lot that we have to be proud of. I look at my friends across the way—the many discussions that we’ve had—from the class of 2011, and new friends that I’ve made just this term. I look forward to working with many of you, going forward.

I really want to put a big thank you to our team, our House team, here: the members from Hamilton Mountain, London West and Timiskaming–Cochrane. You’ve made me a better person because—and a little bit of thanks to the government House leader as well, because when you don’t know what’s coming at you, you have to react really quickly. And we’ve been punching pretty friggin’ good.

It’s funny, I’ve always used this expression: I pride myself on the relationship that I’ve built, and I’m not one to throw stones across the way. What I will do is grab that stone, I will walk over and I will put it in your pocket, so that when you leave from here, you will remember that I asked the question and that I need your help. That’s how I choose to look at things. Those are the choices that I make.

As you all go home this weekend to celebrate in the way that you see fit, make sure you spend time with your family. Roch, Matthieu: Dad’s going to get you in the alley, playing bowling.

Protection of transportation infrastructure

Mr. Roman Baber: Speaker, the right to liberty is enshrined by section 7 of Canada’s charter, but radical left-wing ideology undermines 21st-century liberty. It mocks and demonizes everyone who even uses the phrase “liberty” and bullies governments into undermining it.

Basic, well-agreed-upon principles arising out of the right to liberty, most notably the presumption of innocence, are being eroded. The presumption of innocence imports the right to due process. Governments can’t simply convict a person of an offence and impose a penalty without a hearing. Speaker, Bill 100 does exactly that. It prescribes the conviction of a person and imposition of a penalty without a trial. I quote from the explanatory note of the bill, as drafted by legislative counsel: “Section 9 empowers the registrar of motor vehicles to make orders, without a hearing, suspending or cancelling the plate portion of a permit for a commercial motor vehicle or trailer or a CVOR certificate....”

Bill 100 expressly denies due process. It allows government to convict and punish Ontarians without a trial. Our rights should not be determined by political persuasion or ideology. There is no harm resulting to government or people from a fair hearing—which takes away someone’s ability to make a living.

Every Ontarian, regardless of their views on any political issue—every lawyer; every legislator—must oppose this erosion of liberty.

I ask the government to respect the rule of law. Respect Canada’s democracy. Do not submit Bill 100 for royal assent.

Brian Renken

Mr. Bill Walker: I want to start by saying thank you very much to the member from Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill for his kind words and his friendship. It makes it a little easier to leave this place knowing that our House is in good shape with GQ and the leadership of our young people who are coming in behind us.

I also want to say thank you to MPP Mantha from Algoma–Manitoulin for his kind words.

Speaker, I rise today to recognize a milestone achievement by one of my constituents in the great riding of Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound. Mr. Brian Renken of Meaford recently celebrated his 25th year as race director of the very successful and popular Meaford Harbour Run/Walk, which I participate in. For the past 25 years, Mr. Renken has served as one of the leaders of this very important event.

The Meaford Harbour Run/Walk is a fundraising event for the Meaford Hospital Foundation, and in its 25-year history has raised more than $750,000 for the local hospital. This is an incredible achievement and a true reminder of the amazing things all of us can accomplish when we work together, volunteer our time, and strive towards improving our communities.

The 2021 Meaford Harbour Run/Walk was Mr. Renken’s last as race director. I want to offer him my sincere congratulations for his efforts and volunteerism to make this event such a massive success.

The great thing about the Meaford Harbour Run/Walk is that it is open to everybody. Whether you’re a competitive runner testing your skills against other top local runners or you’re out for a leisurely stroll around the course in beautiful Meaford, everybody is welcome.

As I said, I myself have competed as a runner—although I probably look more like a walker—and I’ve always had a lot of fun, although I must admit I have not yet emerged as the race winner.

I have no doubt the Meaford Harbour Run/Walk will continue to be an outstanding event and fundraiser under its new leadership. Mr. Renken’s legacy of selfless dedication to this terrific cause will continue to live on into the future as the event continues to run and raise money for the Meaford Hospital.

On behalf of all the residents of Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, thank you to Mr. Renken, his team and everyone who volunteers in any capacity.

Injured workers

Mr. Jamie West: Yesterday I filed a motion for the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to provide an official statement of apology to Ontario’s McIntyre Powder Project miners, and today I’d like to explain why the apology is warranted.

Between 1943 and 1979, more than 25,000 Ontario mine workers were forced to breathe a finely ground aluminum dust known as McIntyre Powder. Before the start of each and every shift, the doors of the dry—that’s the mining change room—were sealed shut. The ventilation would be turned off, and a fine mist of aluminum dust was pumped inside. It made the air turn black. The miners sealed inside were told to breathe deeply, so the dust could coat their lungs and protect them. If they refused, they were fired. Unfortunately, McIntyre aluminum powder didn’t protect these miners. Instead, they experienced immediate and long-term health effects.

Fortunately, we’ve come a long way since this began. Decades ago, despite expert evidence that recommended against the use of McIntyre Powder, this practice was supported and sanctioned by the Ontario government. But this year, the Ministry of Labour announced that the diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease linked to McIntyre Powder aluminum dust will be formally recognized as an occupational disease under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act—good news indeed.

This apology is important to more than 25,000 miners and their families from all across Ontario. These are valued community members, loving husbands and wives, supportive mothers and fathers. These are people who dedicated their lives and work to the betterment of our province.

With the McIntyre Powder Project, I’m asking the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to provide an official statement of apology to these McIntyre Powder Project miners. What happened wasn’t fair, and they deserve to hear this apology as soon as possible. They know the apology is symbolic, but many of these miners are elderly. Most are health-compromised. It remains incredibly urgent and important to them, and as well, it is now possible to be heard in person.

1030

I look forward to working with all members of this Legislature, including Janice Hobbs Martell from the McIntyre Powder Project, to schedule a time for these miners and their families to hear this very important apology.

Parkinson’s disease

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: Today, I rise to bring awareness to all members of this Legislature and all Ontarians about Parkinson’s.

April is Parkinson’s Awareness Month across Canada. Parkinson’s is chronic, progressive and results in increasing disability and dramatic impacts on individuals, families and communities everywhere in Ontario and in Canada.

Over 100,000 Canadians are living with Parkinson’s. That number is expected to rise, with 30 Canadians being diagnosed every day. They include constituents like mine, Greg Griggs, who is watching today. This statement is dedicated to you, Greg.

Greg lives in Barrie and he has become a Parkinson’s ambassador. He wants all Ontarians to know that Parkinson’s does not discriminate based on age and that you can be diagnosed at any age, and very young. Greg was 39 when he was first diagnosed, and at the time of diagnosis, he was informed that he had been living with Parkinson’s for 10 years; he just didn’t know it.

But Greg has not let that get him down. He has not let it stop him from advocating for fellow Canadians with Parkinson’s. He has held events and fundraisers like Show Me Your Shake and has been a tireless advocate with his son Tyler.

I encourage every member of this Legislature to think about their constituents living with Parkinson’s and to take the time to learn more by visiting the Parkinson Canada website and talking with your constituents with Parkinson’s.

Thank you, Greg, for all your efforts, and thank you to your son Tyler. I look forward to all your advocacy in our community and across Canada.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): That concludes members’ statements for this morning.

House sittings

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I beg to inform the House that pursuant to standing order 9(h), the Clerk has received written notice from the government House leader indicating that a temporary change in the weekly meeting schedule of the House is required. Therefore, orders of the day on Monday, April 25, 2022, shall commence at 9 a.m.

A number of members want to raise points of order. We will start with the member for Niagara Centre.

Mr. Jeff Burch: I seek unanimous consent to move a motion regarding the immediate passage of Bill 81, Protecting Vulnerable Persons in Supportive Living Accommodation Act, 2021, to better ensure the health and safety of vulnerable residents in need of special care, and that the question on the motion be put without debate or amendment.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Mr. Burch is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion regarding the immediate passage of Bill 81, Protecting Vulnerable Persons in Supportive Living Accommodation Act, 2021. Agreed? I heard a no.

Correction of record

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Scarborough–Guildwood has a point of order.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: Point of order, Speaker: I’d like to correct my record from this morning’s debate. I was referring to the victim as Safi. I’d like to put into the record his correct name. It’s Safiullah Khosrawi. He was a 15-year-old young man who was killed on January 20, 2020, at Markham and Ellesmere in Scarborough.

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

Another point of order: the member for Scarborough–Guildwood.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: Point of order, Speaker: I am asking for unanimous consent to move a motion without notice to pass Bill 60, Safe and Healthy Communities Act (Addressing Gun Violence), and that we bring forward this legislation to pass second and third reading without notice.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Scarborough–Guildwood is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion with respect to the immediate passage of Bill 60. Agreed? I heard a no.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Chris Glover: I’d like to welcome to the House today Brennan’s grade 6 class from Bishop Macdonell and CityPlace in my riding of Spadina–Fort York. I want to welcome Matthew, Christian, Gabriel, Anson, Jana, Nikolas, Olivia, Emma, Marco, Kristen, Jet, Giulia, Sienna, Leffe, Mariah, Jean-Marck, Kyla, Naomi, Nahom, Catalina, Maria and Jiya. Welcome to the Ontario Legislature.

Mr. Lorne Coe: It’s my pleasure to welcome the family of page Rhythm Panchal to the public gallery today. They’re visiting Queen’s Park from the great riding of Whitby. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Jamie West: It’s my pleasure to introduce everyone to my mom. Bev West is meeting with us today. My mom was able come down this week because of our legislative schedule to spend some time with her best friend Daphne Greene.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: I’d like to welcome Andrea Dent and Rolando Ong, who are coming from my team. I’m really grateful for everything that you do.

Mr. Jeff Burch: It’s my pleasure to welcome to the Legislature my brother Mike Burch, and my mother—and page Jackson’s grandmother—Jane Burch.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: An incredibly hard-working member of the Premier’s office team is Emily Vassos, and her very proud mother Krystyna is here today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Jamie West: Sitting beside my mother is Jessie Shrimpton. Jessie is my LA. She started just before the last lockdown, and this is the first opportunity she’s had to actually come and see us in person and not on TV. Welcome, Jessie.

Mr. Mike Harris: She’s not here, but I know she watches this almost every day at home. Barbara Stevens from the beautiful riding of Kitchener–Conestoga, thank you very much for tuning in today.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: In that same spirit, I would like to virtually welcome my mom, my aunt Janette and uncle Wayne. They will be watching. They’re very faithful.

Hon. Steve Clark: She’s not in chamber, but she’s close to the chamber. I just want to wish my daughter Caitlin a very happy birthday.

Hon. David Piccini: Again, in the spirit of virtual welcomes, I just wanted to give a big shout-out to the constituency office team in Northumberland–Peterborough South, especially Bonnie Harrison, my remarkable office manager who has been with me from day one. Thank you for all that you do, Bonnie. And a special welcome to our policy team: Andrew Evans, Josh, Kyle and Rob, who will be watching question period today.

Hon. Paul Calandra: I’m actually correcting the record. I think Emily brought her sister and not her mother.

But to wish the Deputy Clerk a very, very happy birthday—I know he really enjoys getting birthday wishes, so happy birthday.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Happy birthday.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Virtual greetings today: I wanted to wish my granddaughter happy birthday on her 19th birthday.

Ms. Donna Skelly: I would like to bring this to the attention of my son, who is watching today. I want to congratulate him and his partner—so my son Dane Pirro and his partner Rachel—on the birth of their baby boy, Rino Jack Pirro. I’m now a grandmother.

Mr. Toby Barrett: A virtual welcome to one of my staffers. He was first here in 1995. He’s probably not watching: Mike Lofquist, also known as “Dive Bar Mike.”

COVID-19 deaths

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Timiskaming–Cochrane has a point of order.

Mr. John Vanthof: On a point of order, Speaker, I seek unanimous consent for the House to observe a moment of silence for the 72 Ontarians who have succumbed to COVID-19 over the past week.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member from Timiskaming–Cochrane is seeking the unanimous consent of the House for a moment’s silence in memory of the 72 Ontarians who have succumbed to COVID-19 over the past week. Agreed? Agreed.

Members will please rise.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

1040

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

Question Period

Government appointments

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday the Solicitor General agreed that the political campaigning by the former Peterborough Police Services Board chair was wrong. The man is the MPP’s friend, vice-president of his riding association and is the MPP’s so-called wingman. The Solicitor General said, “The police services board member in question did do something inappropriate and tendered his resignation, which, of course, we have accepted.”

Does the Premier agree it’s inappropriate for a chair of a police services board to campaign for the PCs?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: I guess you know you’re coming towards the end of a session when the NDP start to sink even lower. Look, I understand this is what the NDP have. They don’t want to talk about the economy, because we are seeing changes that are really unleashing the power of the Ontario economy. They don’t want to talk about health care, because we’re making so many important investments in health care. They don’t want to talk about long-term care, because they know that we’ve made enormous investments in long-term care.

The reality is that Ontarians elected a strong, stable Progressive Conservative majority government in 2018 to get the job done. They also know that in order to continue on the progress that we have made over the last four years, the only way to do that is to continue to elect a strong, stable Progressive Conservative majority government on June 2.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: Judging by that answer, it’s obvious he didn’t want to answer the actual question.

In 2018, the Premier appointed long-time PC donor Ron Chatha to the Peel regional police services board. He is now the board’s chair, and the Premier just reappointed him in December for another three-year term. But on April 3, the Premier had Mr. Chatha with him at a campaign event in Brampton.

Speaker, if it was wrong for Peterborough’s police services board to campaign for the PCs, it’s just as wrong for the Premier to campaign with the Peel services board chair. Does the Solicitor General, a member from the Peel region, agree that this is also inappropriate? What action is she going to take to address the matter?

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

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I think, for the purposes of clarity, we should review exactly what the process is for individuals who want to serve on the many agencies, boards and commissions that are in the province of Ontario. Of course, they must first submit their interest in serving. Then there is an interview process. Then there is a police record check. Then there is an order in council. Then, and most importantly for the members opposite, there is the Standing Committee on Government Agencies. You may be familiar with it. It does have the opportunity to review the intended appointments of persons to agencies, boards and commissions. That opportunity was provided twice with the member involved.

I find it frustrating that people who want to serve their public—they’re automatically suggesting, by the member opposite, that if they support Premier Ford, if they support our government, they should automatically disqualify. Well, guess what? There are a lot of people who support Premier Ford in the province of Ontario, and many of them want to be part of the solution by serving as board—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. I couldn’t hear the Solicitor General. Order.

Start the clock. Final supplementary.

Mr. John Vanthof: I appreciate that answer from the Solicitor General, because in 2018 we did call for Mr. Chatha to appear before the government agencies committee board, and the PCs didn’t allow it to happen. Now, the Premier is campaigning with him, after giving him a three-year contract renewal at the Peel Police Service Board.

Police service is a bit different. There should be a definite separation—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Mr. John Vanthof: —between politics and civilian oversight of the police. If it was wrong for the member for Peterborough, then I don’t see why the government doesn’t have a policy on it. Why do we have to find out in pictures that this is being done? Why? Civilian oversight of police is a different matter than many other appointments.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Government House leader.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Maybe it’s just me, Speaker, but I find it kind of creepy that the NDP are searching through pictures to see who they can find at different events.

How about they spend their time worrying about how to build a strong economy for the people of the province of Ontario? I guess that is why they are disappointed when they hear that jobs are coming back to the province of Ontario. We’ve done it since 2018. We were elected on a promise to reignite the Ontario economy, an economy that had suffered because of the policies of the Liberals and the NDP, an economy that was overregulated—red tape. We had more red tape in the province of Ontario than any other jurisdiction, not just by a little bit but by twice as much. We started to eliminate that. We put in place the policies that would bring jobs back to the province of Ontario.

The job is not done, Mr. Speaker, and the people of the province of Ontario know that. And they know that the only way to continue what we had started in 2018, to ensure that our economy continues to grow, is to elect a strong, stable Conservative majority government on June 2. I am very confident that they will do just that.

Health care funding

Mr. Gurratan Singh: My question is to the Minister of Health. Yesterday, the Minister of Health admitted that the Conservative government doesn’t care about Brampton’s health care system. She said herself that she doesn’t believe that Brampton, a city of over 700,000 people, the ninth-largest city in Canada, one of the fastest growing—it doesn’t deserve three hospitals.

Let’s be clear: Brampton deserved a second hospital 10 years ago and Brampton deserves a third hospital today. Will the Minister of Health admit that she was wrong and that Brampton does require three hospitals, and more importantly, will she commit to the funding today to make it happen?

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

Mrs. Robin Martin: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. I’m delighted to talk about Brampton because this government is getting it done for Brampton.

As part of our plan to build a stronger, more resilient, health care system that is better prepared to respond to crisis, the Ontario government is investing $21 million to expand the William Osler Health System. The funding will help transform Peel Memorial into a new in-patient hospital with a 24/7 emergency department and expand cancer care at Brampton Civic Hospital. These projects will improve access to much-needed services in Brampton so that local families continue to receive the high-quality care that they need and deserve close to home.

For decades, previous governments, supported by the NDP and the members of the opposition—

Interjection: Members of the coalition.

Mrs. Robin Martin: The coalition. Previous governments, supported, aided and abetted by your members, didn’t do anything for Brampton, but this government is getting it done for Brampton.

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

Mr. Gurratan Singh: Back to the minister: Let’s look at how badly Brampton is being left behind. Windsor is a city of over 200,000 people and they have two hospitals. Hamilton is a city of around 600,000 and they have three hospitals. Mississauga is a city of over 800,000 people and they have three hospitals.

I want to ask the Conservative Minister of Health to name me another city in Canada that has over 700,000 people and only one hospital. Brampton is the only city in the entire country that is being left behind in such a terrible way, and the Conservative government is allowing it to happen.

On top of it, they’re denying that our city and our residents want better. Well, Bramptonians do deserve better and we in the NDP are going to fight to make it happen.

Will the Conservative Minister of Health admit that she was wrong, that Bramptonians do deserve three hospitals, and more importantly, commit to the funding today to make sure that our city has three hospitals and three emergency rooms?

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

Mrs. Robin Martin: Thank you again to the member opposite. It is great to be able to talk about all the great things that we’re doing in Brampton.

As part of our 2021 budget, the government announced $18 million to expand Peel Memorial urgent care centre to 24/7 operations while awaiting plans for the new in-patient hospital.

1050

Today, the government is building on that investment. We’ve got another $18 million with a new 24/7 emergency department, new in-patient hospital services, enhanced seniors care, mental health and addictions, rehabilitation and complex continuing care for patients and their families in Brampton, which is what we all want to see: making sure that Brampton has the care that they deserve.

Let me just quote the chair of William Osler Health System: The “announcement is a momentous step forward for Osler and the future of health care for our community. As Brampton and the surrounding region continue to grow, Osler is committed to building a strong, vibrant hospital system that will bring innovative, life-saving care to patients for years to come.”

I know the people of Brampton are happy that this government is getting it done.

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

Mr. Gurratan Singh: Back to the minister: The Conservative Minister of Health had the audacity to say that Bramptonians don’t deserve three hospitals. Does that mean that the Conservative MPPs from Brampton are not advocating for the people of Brampton, who clearly want three hospitals? Does that mean that the Conservative MPPs themselves are not advocating for three hospitals in Brampton? Because if the Conservative government spoke to the people of Brampton, they would hear how people are struggling with one emergency room that is chronically overcrowded; with the fact that people in Brampton are struggling, being treated in hallways in the thousands because there’s not enough space; with the fact that for some surgeries, like hip replacements, wait times are twice as long in Brampton.

Despite all of this, does the Conservative Minister of Health still believe that Brampton doesn’t deserve three hospitals?

Mrs. Robin Martin: Thank you again to the member opposite for this question. The Minister of Health has done an incredible job focusing on the places where we need to enhance hospital care. That is why we’re doing so much in Brampton. We have already delivered a lot.

The mayor of Brampton was quoted as saying that what we’re doing is a huge step in the right direction, actually six times larger than the original project that was planned only a few years before that. This government is enhancing all of the work that we can offer to Brampton to make and deliver the best health care possible for the people of Brampton, thanks to the excellent advocacy by the member for Brampton South and the member for Brampton West, who have done a great job to make sure this government delivers for Brampton.

Anti-racism activities

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the government House leader. Six weeks ago, Bill 86, Our London Family Act, was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice Policy without having been debated in this Legislature. The bill is named to honour four beloved members of London’s Afzaal family, who were murdered in a horrific Islamophobic attack on June 6, 2021. It was developed by the official opposition in partnership with the National Council of Canadian Muslims to channel the collective grief, trauma and anger of the Muslim community and all Ontarians into real action against Islamophobic hate.

There are mere days left before this Legislature must dissolve. My question is, when will Our London Family Act be called before this Assembly so it can be passed into law before the election?

Hon. Paul Calandra: As I’ve mentioned to the member opposite, it is our belief that the bill needs more work in order to strengthen it. It is too important. What we saw happen in London, I think we all agree, was a tragedy, and there is a tremendous amount of work that we have to do as legislators to ensure that we honour that, that we respect that and that we work to—not only Islamophobia but all forms of racism.

As I have mentioned to the member opposite on numerous occasions, we think that the bill needs to be strengthened. In the current format, it does not do what I think we all collectively want it to do. The Minister of Citizenship and Multiculturalism has been working directly with stakeholders to ensure that the bill gets strengthened.

It doesn’t end just because an election is called. There will be new people sitting in this Legislature after June 2, and they will ensure that the proper bill, a strengthened bill, a bill that meets the needs of the community and the spirit of what the community wants, is brought forward and passed.

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Speaker, the government House leader just said that Bill 86 is not coming back before this Legislature. This is a bill that sets out a detailed, concrete plan to tackle Islamophobia, white supremacy and organized hate in our province. Thousands of emails have been sent, urging the government to support the plan. We need to move beyond words to meaningful action. We need to learn from the lessons of our tragedies and work together to do everything possible to prevent more deaths.

As Muslims in Ontario and around the world are observing and celebrating the holy month of Ramadan, MPPs have the opportunity to make systemic, lasting changes to address Islamophobia, hate and racism in our province.

Will this government commit to this assembly with a specific date for Our London Family Act to be called and debated, so it can become law in Ontario?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, it may be good enough for the opposition to pass a bill that does not meet the needs of the community, that is not strong enough. It is simply not good enough for the government of Ontario.

We want to pass a bill that meets the needs of the community, that respects what happened in London and makes real progress and takes action. The Minister of Citizenship and Multiculturalism has been working directly with stakeholders.

Now, I don’t know why it is that the opposition assumes that on June 2 we’ll just stop talking about racism in this place—about improving the province of Ontario. I know that on our side of the House, it doesn’t stop on June 2. But I simply will not allow a bill to pass that does not meet the needs of the community, that does not live up to what the community wanted to come out of it. We will ensure that we continue to work with the stakeholders and that when a bill comes back, it does exactly what the community wanted it to do: respect the tragedy that happened in London, in a bill that we can all be proud of.

Public transit

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: My question is for the Associate Minister of Transportation. For years, residents in Mississauga have hoped to be better connected to transit that will get them where they need to go. That’s why I was excited when our government announced its support for the Eglinton Crosstown West extension. This rapid transit line would connect the Mississauga Transitway to Toronto’s rapid transit system.

Steven Del Duca spent four years as the transportation minister, and the people of the GTA did not see any transformational transit projects. While the Del Duca-Wynne Liberals sat on their hands and didn’t make it easy for people to get from point A to point B, this government is finally getting it done.

Speaker, can the Associate Minister of Transportation please tell the House about the government’s progress on building the Eglinton Crosstown West extension?

Hon. Stan Cho: Thank you to the great member from Mississauga–Erin Mills. I know that he works his tail off for his constituents.

I’m glad to let that member know that earlier this week we did something huge: We officially started the tunnelling at the Eglinton Crosstown West extension—a huge milestone for the seven-stop extension, which will bring reliable, modern rapid transit to the communities of Etobicoke and Mississauga. The extension is estimated to support as many as 4,700 jobs during construction annually, and, within 20 years, attract 37,000 daily boardings.

Speaker, when the extension is complete, there will be a continuous rapid transit line along Eglinton Avenue from Scarborough to Etobicoke. That’s part of our $28.5-billion GTA transit plan, the largest transit expansion in Canadian history.

For 15 years the Liberal-NDP coalition said no to delivering any sort of transit for the people of Toronto and Mississauga to get around. Our government is doing what that coalition failed to do. After decades of inaction from the opposition, we’re getting it done.

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

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: Thank you to the associate minister for your response and for this terrific news for the people of Etobicoke and Mississauga.

Speaker, the Eglinton Crosstown West extension will make it easier for people to get across the city of Toronto. By helping move people faster, families can spend more time on what matters most: time with their loved ones.

1100

Despite this, the Liberals and the NDP have again and again voted against our government’s historic plans for transit. In fact, I do not believe Steven Del Duca or the Leader of the Opposition have committed to any of our transit projects in their party platforms. How can Ontarians believe the Liberals or the NDP are serious about building transit?

Can the associate minister explain how this government’s historic transit plans will benefit the people of Ontario, and the danger of what would happen if we moved backward on transit?

Hon. Stan Cho: That’s a very fair question, because the Liberals and the NDP voted against our government’s Getting Ontario Moving Act and Building Transit Faster Act. In other words, they said no to building the Eglinton Crosstown West extension, no to reducing gridlock and emissions, no to community benefits, no to construction jobs, and no to transit for the people of Etobicoke and Mississauga. They also voted against all four of our subway projects.

With an election coming, we don’t hear a peep from the Liberals or the NDP on their transit plans. Maybe they’re not committed to the Scarborough subway extension. Maybe they would cancel both the Ontario Line and the Yonge North subway extension to Richmond Hill. With Steven Del Duca building upside-down bridges and the NDP saying no to homegrown subway projects, they clearly can’t build transit.

Well, our government is building transit. We’re doing it the right way because we said yes to community benefits, yes to jobs, yes to transit-oriented communities, yes to reducing emissions, and yes to cutting gridlock, all while helping people get from point A to point B. Why? Because we’re getting things done for the people of this province.

Long-term care

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Remarks in Oji-Cree.

Good morning. My question is to the Premier.

Sioux Lookout’s Meno Ya Win Health Centre operates a 20-bed long-term-care facility. If you live in Kiiwetinoong, the wait for a bed is between three and five years. The long-term-care-bed shortage is forcing elders to go hundreds of kilometres away. Thunder Bay and Fort Frances are still very far from home. For people in Toronto, this would be like sending your parent to Sudbury or Ottawa. This is very far from their homes, and it isolates them from their family, language and way of life.

Meno Ya Win has been asking for years for these desperately needed long-term-care beds. I know this government listens, but when is this government going to hear us?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: I appreciate the question from the honourable member.

I’ve actually already approved an allocation of 76 new beds in Kiiwetinoong in Meno Ya Win.

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

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: The long-term-care ratio in Kiiwetinoong is one bed for every 1,500 people. I know the minister just announced that they approved the beds—I know words are good, but we need action; because if we get those beds, it will be one bed for every 300 people. It keeps reaffirming the election promise of a 76-bed facility in Sioux Lookout. It has been four years. Again, there’s no movement on the file. Meno Ya Win hasn’t even heard about the announcement.

When is this government going to make good on this promise to the people of Kiiwetinoong to expand the facility?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Again, we have made the allocation there.

But he’s right; long-term care in northern Ontario is something that was greatly ignored by the previous government—indeed, by the NDP as well, when they held the balance of power. In order to fix that, we knew that we had to make some serious changes and bring some beds to the north.

In Timiskaming–Cochrane, I’ve allocated 46 new beds and 82 upgraded beds; in Algoma–Manitoulin, an Indigenous allocation of 96 new beds—another allocation of 37 beds and 59 upgraded beds; in Kenora–Rainy River, a new allocation of 64 beds as well—64 new beds in Kenora, 96 upgraded beds; in Kiiwetinoong, 76 beds; in Mushkegowuk–James Bay, 32 new beds. In Thunder Bay, I allocated 96 new beds. And because he mentioned Sudbury—I’ve allocated 92 new beds and 644 upgraded beds for Sudbury, and in Nickel Belt we’re upgrading 256 beds to brand new facilities at modern standards.

Protection of transportation infrastructure

Mr. Roman Baber: My question is to the Solicitor General.

In the last four years, we’ve seen this government consistently attack our democratic rights. It forced businesses to post political slogans. It made it difficult to hold itself accountable in court, with the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act. It invoked and passed section 33, the “notwithstanding” clause, to overturn a court that was worried that the government’s election reform may benefit the government.

Bill 100, which currently awaits royal assent, is a further assault on Ontario’s democracy. Section 9 empowers the registrar of motor vehicles to make orders and suspend permits without a hearing. Bill 100 denies basic due process and the presumption of innocence.

Will the Solicitor General respect our charter and not send Bill 100 for royal assent?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: When the member has an opportunity to review the debates that participated in Bill 100, he will see that, in fact, Bill 100 is very scoped, and it is all about protecting international borders so that Ontario can continue to be a leader in our economic powerhouse.

We have made investments that are frankly unprecedented in the history of Ontario, with Stellantis in Windsor, with our car manufacturers in Windsor, in Oshawa—

Interjection: Oakville.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: —in Oakville, in Woodstock. The amount of work that we are doing to signal to the international community that Ontario is open for business and wants people to invest in the province of Ontario is exactly why we needed Bill 100—because we want to send a message.

We’re open for business. Come to Ontario, invest in Ontario, and you will have a government that has your back.

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

Mr. Roman Baber: Speaker, the right to liberty is enshrined by section 7 of the charter. The presumption of innocence, one of our democracy’s most sacred rights, arises out of section 7 and our right to liberty.

Despite what the Solicitor General says, the explanatory note to Bill 100, as drafted by the legislative lawyer, states that section 9 empowers the registrar to make orders suspending plates, licences and permits without a hearing. Bill 100 expressly denies due process and the presumption of innocence. It allows the government to convict and punish Ontarians without a trial. This is another assault by this government on our democratic rights.

I ask the Solicitor General again: Will she respect our democracy and not submit Bill 100 for royal assent?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I think everyone in this House understands and appreciates that Ontario has a very strong history of allowing and ensuring the right for people to protest and share their opinions publicly in a public forum.

What we are protecting in Bill 100, with a very scoped piece of legislation, is to ensure international borders, trade pathways, are allowed to remain open.

In a very short period of time, six days in Windsor, we were impacting literally hundreds of workers, hundreds of businesses that either had to ramp back their production or, in fact, stop it. Bill 100, in a scoped way, is going to ensure that that never happens again in the province of Ontario.

Long-term care

Mr. Vincent Ke: My question is for the Minister of Long-Term Care.

Speaker, when our government formed, we saw the state that previous governments had left long-term care in. From 2011 to 2018, the Del Duca Liberals, propped up by the NDP, only managed to build 611 net new beds across the entire province. That is an increase of only 0.8%, while the population of Ontarians aged 75 and over grew by 20%. That is 611 beds for over 176,000 people.

I know my constituents in Don Valley North and all Ontarians are counting on our government to fix long-term care in Ontario. I know our government has committed to fix long-term care in Ontario, and I know our government has committed to building 30,000 new long-term care beds in the province, and we’re developing thousands more.

Speaker, through you, could the minister please give us some locations where these beds are being built?

1110

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Oakville North–Burlington.

Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos: Thank you for that excellent question from the member from Don Valley North.

The member is right that the previous government’s legacy in long-term care is one of neglect and massive wait-lists for seniors waiting for long-term care beds. Our government wasted no time fixing the gaps in the sector that the previous government left behind.

Earlier this month, our government announced projects in Etobicoke and North York that will see new and redeveloped beds for communities that desperately need them. Dom Lipa will see 22 upgraded beds for the Slovenian community through renovations in the existing building, resulting in a modernized 58-bed home. Eatonville Care Centre will add another 320 upgraded long-term care beds. And the project at North York General Hospital will see another 384 seniors with a new place to call home.

Speaker, these projects bring our running total to 27,148 new and 23,504 upgraded beds in our development pipeline.

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

Mr. Vincent Ke: Thank you to MPP Triantafilopoulos for the response.

These new beds will certainly help seniors live in comfort in their communities. But we have heard from Ontarians across the province that meeting the cultural needs of our seniors is vital to ensuring their well-being.

Back in March, I was pleased to join the minister when he announced 256 upgraded beds in the Hallcrown Seniors Home project. This home provides culturally appropriate care to the Armenian community in my riding of Don Valley North and across Toronto.

Speaker, could the minister please tell us what else our government is doing to ensure that the cultural needs of our seniors in long-term care are met?

Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos: Thank you once again to the member for the question.

Thanks to the advocacy of our PC caucus members, our government has made it a priority to provide culturally appropriate long-term care in Ontario.

We have the Mon Sheong homes in Markham and Stouffville that will provide care for the Chinese community, thanks to my colleagues from Markham–Unionville and Markham–Thornhill. We have the Guru Nanak Long-Term Care Centre and the Indus Community Services project for the South Asian communities, and that’s thanks to the members in Brampton, as well as two new long-term-care homes with 640 new beds approved for Oakville North–Burlington, which will also provide culturally appropriate care for the South Asian community.

We have the project at Villa Colombo, which will see 256 upgraded beds for seniors in the Italian community, thanks to the member for Eglinton–Lawrence, and of course the hundreds of beds we have allocated for our francophone communities across Ontario thanks to the Minister of Francophone Affairs and the member from Mississauga Centre.

Speaker, our government understands and values meeting the cultural needs of seniors in long-term care, and we are getting it done.

Laurentian University

Mr. Jamie West: Speaker, you’ll remember that a year ago Laurentian declared insolvency in Sudbury, terminating more than 190 employees. That created countless other job losses. They eliminated 36% of their programs. They cut 72 programs, including 29 courses de français. They affected the academic career plans of 932 students, and it was a terrible blow to the community.

Yesterday, the Auditor General tabled a report on Laurentian University. The auditor wrote, “For its part, the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, which is the primary government ministry responsible for monitoring the financial health of post-secondary institutions, did not proactively intervene in a timely manner to provide guidance to help Laurentian slow—or ultimately respond to—its worsening financial deterioration.”

Will the Premier agree with the Auditor General that the ministry did not proactively intervene to protect my community of Sudbury from all of this hardship?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Colleges and Universities to reply.

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Thank you to the member for that question.

I want to thank the Auditor General for this preliminary report, and I know Ontarians are looking forward to seeing her final report.

My top priority has been and will always be ensuring post-secondary students across the province are able to receive the world-class education that institutions have to offer in this province.

When Laurentian University made the decision to file for CCAA, we provided direct financial supports for students who needed to enrol at a new institution to continue their studies. Our government also stepped up to replace the former debtor-in-possession loan lender and appointed five new members to the board to provide a stable pathway for Laurentian to reach a plan of arrangement with its creditors and assure that students’ education year would not be in jeopardy.

Every action our government has taken and will continue to take will be in the best interest of students.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Nickel Belt, supplementary.

M^me France Gélinas: My question is to the Minister of Colleges and Universities.

Speaker, my community has endured 14 months of hardship because of the CCAA process at Laurentian University.

Will the minister agree to act proactively, as recommended by the Auditor General, to make sure that Laurentian University does not continue with the CCAA process?

The auditor’s report says, “There are certain principles held high in the public sector—including transparency, accountability and the primacy of the public interest—that make the CCAA—court-ordered protection—a detrimental choice for public entities.”

Laurentian University should not have used the CCAA process. This process has gone on too long. It must end now.

The government can and must get Laurentian University out of the CCAA process before the court-ordered date of May 31. The ministry knows that CCAA is wrong. Will the minister put an end to it right now?

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Thank you to the member for the question.

I’d like to take the opportunity now, as the Minister of Colleges and Universities, as the academic year is wrapping up for post-secondary education students in the province, to wish them the best of luck on their exams. I have three daughters who are reaching exam time and feeling the stress right now.

As the Auditor General stated in her report, Laurentian is an autonomous institution that has sole responsibility over its academic and administrative affairs. While my ministry has been working with Laurentian throughout this period, the decisions that they have made in regard to program offerings, staffing and navigating the CCAA process have been at the sole discretion of the institution and its advisers.

As the CCAA process is still under way, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further at this time. But, again, I want to thank the Auditor General for tabling her preliminary report, and we will continue to co-operate with her office throughout this process.

Éducation en français / French-language education

M^me Lucille Collard: Ma question est au ministre de l’Éducation.

Monsieur le Président, depuis 25 ans, les francophones de l’Ontario ont construit et gouverné un système d’éducation avec des taux élevés de réussite et des inscriptions toujours en croissance. Pourtant, l’appui du gouvernement n’a pas suivi le rythme, et une pénurie chronique d’enseignants menace la viabilité du système. En plus, il y a un mépris envers la gouvernance des conseils scolaires.

Que ce soit en contournant l’autonomie des conseils scolaires de langue française dans la prestation de l’apprentissage en ligne ou en retardant la mise en oeuvre des mesures urgentes identifiées par le groupe de travail sur la pénurie d’enseignants de langue française, ce gouvernement laisse tomber l’éducation francophone.

Le ministre écoutera-t-il son propre groupe de travail et les éducateurs francophones et s’engagera-t-il aujourd’hui à mettre en oeuvre immédiatement toutes les recommandations du rapport sur la pénurie d’enseignants?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: I want to thank the member opposite for the question.

We would agree that there has been an explosion of interest and enrolment within the French-language program in Ontario, which is a brilliant outcome, and it’s something we support through investment. It’s why we’ve increased investment in French-language education by $37 million this year alone. It is the highest it has ever been in Ontario history.

Speaker, to specifically address the question cited: The member opposite will know that this has been a national issue that has existed for well over 15 years. It is regretful that the former Liberal government did not have the foresight to bring together labour, school boards, faculties of education and government to devise a plan—which our government announced, a $12.5-million program, to incentivize more educators to enter, to retain them, and to recruit them internationally from the Francophonie.

I’m actually very proud that for the first time, this working group and this initiative have produced educators from around the world who are now working within Ontario schools. We’re going to continue to make this a priority to meet the needs of French-language students today and well into the future.

1120

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

M^me Lucille Collard: Monsieur le Président, le Parti libéral n’a pas nui à l’éducation française de la même façon que le gouvernement conservateur l’a fait dans leur dernier mandat. Le ministre ne fait, également, que choisir les recommandations du groupe de travail qui lui conviennent.

Pourquoi refuse-t-il de travailler avec les universités francophones de l’Ontario pour créer davantage de places pour la formation des enseignants? Il faut souligner que le gouvernement a permis à la deuxième plus grande faculté d’éducation bilingue de couper dans son programme sous le prétexte d’une crise d’insolvabilité que la vérificatrice générale a qualifiée de non accidentelle.

Récemment, alors qu’il s’engageait à réformer l’Ordre des enseignantes et des enseignants de l’Ontario pour mieux servir les Ontariens, le ministre a réduit la représentation des francophones. Aujourd’hui, pas un seul membre du conseil de l’ordre n’a une connaissance pratique des conseils scolaires de langue française en Ontario.

Ma question est : le ministre fera-t-il preuve de respect à l’égard des Franco-Ontariens et des conseils scolaires de langue française en rétablissant une représentation compétente et équitable des francophones au sein de l’ordre?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: We share the conviction of the member opposite that we have to continue to recruit French-language educators. It is a challenge that precedes our time in office, but we have resolved to get the job done and to fix it.

Mr. Speaker, I’m very proud that, under the leadership of the Minister of Francophone Affairs, we now have UOF and Hearst as two independently governed francophone universities for the French community by the French community. That is important progress. And of course, in our high schools and elementary schools, we have increased investment, increased resources, and hired more French-language teachers—so much so that we are now literally recruiting from the Francophonie. We have educators, for the first time, from France as part of the agreement, working within Ontario schools.

There’s clearly more work to do. Together with the minister and our Premier, we will all continue, enterprise-wide in this government, to ensure, for French-language students, that the preservation of their history, their language and their culture remains true in the hearts and in the curriculum of our schools, of our curriculum across our province.

Housing

Ms. Donna Skelly: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

We all know that Ontario is facing a housing crisis, driven by a severe shortage of homes. The housing supply shortage impacts all Ontarians, regardless of where they live or their budget. But our government has made significant progress to build more housing for Ontarians who simply need a little bit of help. Unfortunately, it seems that members opposite have trouble understanding the concept of supply and demand.

Through you, Speaker, could the minister tell us how creating more housing will help Ontarians who are simply trying to realize the dream of home ownership?

Hon. Steve Clark: I want to thank the member from Flamborough–Glanbrook for her incredible advocacy on the housing file.

Our government is using every resource at our disposal to build more housing of all types, of all shapes and all sizes.

Recently, I made an announcement with the mayor of Vaughan that our government is providing surplus lands there to a non-profit housing provider at a location that is really a beautiful spot. It’s ideal because it’s close to amenities and to public transit. It really is going to be a wonderful development.

We’re also not going to sit on our hands when it comes to surplus properties. We’re making better use of them to be able to advance the priorities of Ontarians, which is exactly what the announcement in Vaughan is all about.

We’re also providing nearly $1.2 billion to our community and to our Indigenous partners to build thousands of supportive housing units and deliver on services in all corners of the province.

I’m very excited to hear the supplemental, because I’ve got lots more that our government is doing.

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

Ms. Donna Skelly: And, of course, we’re all anxious to hear it.

Speaker, our government continues to make historic investments in housing and homelessness. We are also making these programs more sustainable and efficient over the long term. We are ensuring that every single taxpayer dollar counts and is being put to its best use—unlike the wasteful previous Liberal government.

One pillar of addressing housing is dealing with homelessness. So through you, back to the minister: How are that ministry and our government working to improve housing and homelessness programming?

Hon. Steve Clark: Unlike the previous government, who ignored the housing file for 15 years, our government is actually trying to improve the opportunities for housing supply in Ontario.

Speaker, I’m going to be very interested to see how the members opposite vote on Bill 109 in a few moments.

Continually, our government has brought forward very pragmatic, forward-thinking policies to get shovels in the ground faster. We realize, unlike the opposition, that dealing with the housing supply crisis is a long-term strategy. It needs long-term collaboration and co-operation from all three levels of government.

I’ll tell you something, Speaker: The official opposition and the Liberal Party are going to get their chance to stand with us, to stand for that couple who wants to realize the dream of home ownership, for those seniors who want to downsize. We’ve got a plan: More Homes for Everyone. I’m looking forward to seeing the vote in a few minutes.

Flooding

Mr. Faisal Hassan: My question is for the Premier.

I have often stood in this House and asked for provincial government support towards the ongoing devastating flooding situations in York South–Weston. Homeowners continue to be frustrated with the inaction from the province as they yet again deal with flooded basements and the emotional distress that occurs.

I have reached out to all three levels of government for support, and back in March, I outlined my concerns in a letter to the Minister of the Environment. Rockcliffe Riverine Flood Mitigation Project, a seemingly quick-fix solution, does nothing to address the ongoing building and land use development along well-documented flood plains.

When will this government join their municipal and federal partners in investing both the time and money for proper flooding mitigation that residents so dearly need?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.

Hon. David Piccini: I thank the member opposite for the very important question.

Speaker, we understand the impact that climate change is having: extreme weather events and flooding. I hail from a community along Lake Ontario, like that member, and I know how important this is. I would say that’s why this government was the first government in Ontario’s history to launch a comprehensive climate change impact assessment, working with municipalities, upper- and lower-tier, to build climate change resiliency. Furthermore, I joined Mayor Tory in Toronto to make strategic investments long-term.

You see, there’s a fundamental difference between the members opposite and this government: We understand that we need to plan for growth. We need to make the necessary investments to build resiliency, to plan for growth long-term, and we’re doing that.

I’ll have more to say in the supplementary.

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

Mr. Faisal Hassan: Speaker, through you, my question is back to the Premier.

I have yet to receive a response from the environment ministry regarding my letter on flooding. In fact, residents who did receive a response on an ongoing environmental air quality issue were extremely disappointed with the reply they received. Residents have made it very clear that the flooding mitigation efforts seem not well planned and short on provincial investment.

The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has identified the flood plain in York South–Weston as one of the highest-risk flood plains in the jurisdiction, yet the province has not spent any of their own money. When I see nearby communities receiving financial support—and rightfully so—I am left wondering why residents who have suffered ongoing flooding damage in York South–Weston are neglected and not treated equally by this government.

We would like an answer here today. When can they expect the assistance and attention they require from this government?

Hon. David Piccini: Thank you to that member opposite. Perhaps we could speak after and discuss the specific issue there.

I will say, climate change and climate-change-related events don’t treat all Ontarians equally. That’s why we launched the climate change impact assessment.

The member opposite also mentioned air, and we’ve got some members on our team at MECP here today who worked diligently on the most comprehensive SO₂ sulphur-related regulations in Ontario’s history, after years when Liberal members stood by idly and saw nothing. We worked with industry, with the tremendous leadership of MPP Bob Bailey, to get it done with Aamjiwnaang First Nation.

We’ve launched a climate change impact assessment, working with Mayor Tory, to provide much-needed supports. He appreciated that. We were joined by Councillor McKelvie and a number of others who appreciated the work that the province is taking to look long-term.

That’s the difference between the Liberal-NDP coalition and the strong, stable Conservative government—we’re planning for growth, making record transit investments, launching the first and most comprehensive climate change impact assessment, and we’re not going to stop.

1130

House sittings / Ontario budget

Mrs. Belinda C. Karahalios: My question is for the government House leader.

This week, the government didn’t give much of a legislative agenda or schedule, as per standing order 59, to all of the MPPs of this House. It goes without saying that notice of when bills will be debated and voted on is a fundamental aspect of the parliamentary process and the democratic process.

Last night, Bill 100 was called for debate, after hours, without notice to all MPPs. On that note, I would like to congratulate the member for Chatham-Kent–Leamington for maintaining a very friendly relationship with the same government that he claims his party is challenging, as he both received notice of last night’s debate and had the House leader defend him during question period yesterday.

My question for the House leader is, will the House be resuming for legislative matters after next week’s constituency week, and does he plan on holding further evening sittings without notice?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Speaker, I couldn’t be clearer—I think it was three weeks ago that I tabled a motion that said that we would be having night sittings going forward in order to deal with government legislation. There were members on all sides of the House who were here. There were some great speeches from the members of the NDP. The member from Chatham-Kent–Leamington had a great speech; I didn’t really agree with it, and I think he appreciates that.

It can’t possibly be the government House leader’s job to also do the scheduling for the New Blue Party. If New Blue can’t even schedule their time, how in God’s name do they expect to run a province? I’m sorry. I will do my best from now on. If you want to send your schedule to me, I’ll see if we can’t help you schedule your time.

When we say that the House is sitting, we expect that members will want to be here to debate what is before the House. Everybody else can do it; I’m not sure why the member can’t.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’ll remind members that we don’t make reference to the absence of other members.

The member for Cambridge, supplementary?

Mrs. Belinda C. Karahalios: In February, the government rewrote the law to delay tabling their 2022 budget for two months after it was required by the law. The budget is a fundamental part of responsible and good government. It is important that Ontarians know how their hard-earned tax dollars are being spent.

We haven’t had a budget from this government in over a year, as it continues its reckless spending and greater deficits than anything seen by the prior Liberal government.

I don’t see any other legislative matters on the docket for this session, so I would like to know from the House leader—does this government plan on still tabling a budget prior to the next election? Yes or no?

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

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Thank you to the member opposite, through you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I answer that question, I do want to say that it has been an honour and a privilege to stand in this House—all 124 of us. It has been the privilege of my life, so thank you very much. But I will add that I plan to be here four more years. That is the plan. We have a plan.

We’ve worked hard for four years. Obviously, we inherited a health care system that needed to be fixed, a long-term-care system that needed to be fixed. We needed to invest in broadband. We needed to invest in housing. We needed to invest in public transit. We needed to invest in highways.

So, Mr. Speaker, stay tuned. Restez à l’écoute. The budget will be coming shortly.

COVID-19 response

Mr. Michael Mantha: My question is to the Premier.

The Chief Medical Officer of Health confirmed that Ontario is in a sixth wave of COVID-19 infections. Cases are on the rise in communities, and hospitalizations due to COVID are increasing in many parts of the province.

At the same time, we have seen the Premier abandon public health measures that will slow down transmission of the virus in communities. Allowing COVID to run rampant through Ontario will be detrimental to the most vulnerable people in our society.

As the situation changes in Ontario, it is the government’s job is to ensure they react quickly to protect public health.

Will the Premier reassess the rolling back of public health protections in the face of the new wave?

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

Mrs. Robin Martin: Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

In Ontario, we have taken a cautious and phased approach to removing public health measures. We expected, when we started to remove them, indicators such as cases and hospitalizations to increase as Ontarians interact more with each other.

However, thanks to our very high vaccination rates, the amount of natural immunity out there, as well as the arrival of the anti-viral medications, Ontario has the tools necessary to manage the impact of the virus. A few weeks ago, Dr. Moore said that we have the tools we didn’t have just two years ago, including highly effective vaccines that have changed the course of the pandemic, the high vaccination rates that continue to improve as more and more Ontarians see the value of getting boosted, and the anti-viral drugs that I mentioned—Remdesivir and Paxlovid. Those medications are there.

We think we’re managing the impact of the virus, and we will continue to do so.

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

Mr. Michael Mantha: Again to the Premier: We know that one of the best protections out there against COVID is wearing a properly fitted mask. We also know that N95 respirators offer people the best protection against catching and spreading COVID-19.

For months, this government has been mandating that hospitals, long-term-care facilities and other high-risk settings require visitors to put on a three-ply medical mask when entering these premises.

The CDC recently changed its masking policy to require hospitals to allow individuals to use respirators with higher levels of protection if they chose.

It makes no sense to disarm people and lower their level of protection against infections.

Will the Premier revise and update Ontario’s policy?

Mrs. Robin Martin: Thank you again to the member opposite.

As always, this government is listening to the Chief Medical Officer of Health, who continues to review all of the data at all times, along with the minister and other people within the Ministry of Health, to make sure that we’re doing everything we can to ensure the safety and well-being of the people of Ontario, and we will continue to do that. We have, as I said, tools that we’ve never had before to protect people.

One of the great stories of this pandemic is that this government, under the leadership of the Premier, decided right at the beginning that we would never let ourselves not have enough PPE. This government did something about it. Currently, 46% of Ontario’s PPE needs are met domestically, and within 18 months 93% of Ontario’s PPE needs will be met domestically. That is a great success story, thanks to the leadership of this government in getting it done.

Hospital funding / Community safety

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: My question is to the Premier.

In 2018, the Ontario Liberal government budgeted $1.1 billion for investments in Scarborough hospitals, and it has now grown to $1.5 billion as it has sat in the treasury for four years under this Conservative government.

After so much silence and delay from this government, the Scarborough Health Network submitted a revised plan last year to invest $1.9 billion in Birchmount and Centenary hospitals. This will result in a 30% increase in bed capacity in Scarborough. Ontario Liberals said yes and committed to SHN’s revised plan and to the people of Scarborough, as we always have.

Why has it taken this government and their Scarborough members four years to commit to Scarborough health care? Why is it that now, mere days away from an election, there is still not a single shovel in the ground?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Let’s hear what the member just said. Basically, what the member said is, had they had a fifth mandate, they would have gotten around to taking care of Scarborough. They didn’t have time to do it in 2003, and they didn’t have time in 2004. By 2013, they still hadn’t had time to concentrate on Scarborough. In 2017, they didn’t have time to concentrate on Scarborough. But a couple of days before an election—unbudgeted, with nothing in it—all of sudden they thought, “Oh, we better pay attention to Scarborough.”

We started paying attention from day one. We brought a new medical school to Scarborough. We brought a three-stop subway to Scarborough. Over four mandates, they couldn’t get that done.

Today, we made an enormous announcement for the people of Scarborough. It didn’t take us five mandates. It didn’t take us 15 years. It’s taking us one mandate. We’re getting it done for Scarborough.

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

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: Our hospitals like SHN do their best, each and every day. I want to thank our health care workers. They do their best, for instance, to help victims of gun violence.

I’ve talked to emergency room doctors, and they have said to me that they are tired of stitching people up and sending them back into the same environment.

I find it extremely disappointing that this government does not take the health impacts of gun violence seriously.

Just moments ago, this House had an opportunity to provide leadership by moving Bill 60—a bill that would address the health gap that communities are coping with due to the effects of gun violence—through to third reading. We could have passed this bill today. However, the UC was denied by the government side of the House.

Speaker, people are suffering—like Safiullah Khosrawi’s parents, who I have met. How can we stand here and just be indifferent in the face of suffering?

How can you say no, government House leader, to passing Bill 60?

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

Mrs. Robin Martin: Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

Honestly, the people of Scarborough deserve better, and I’ve always said that. I’m so delighted to see that this government is making significant investments in Scarborough, as the government House leader just indicated. This government has started the subway in Scarborough, which they waited forever for. This government got it done.

As the government House leader just mentioned, we’ve started a medical school in Scarborough, at U of T. This government got that done.

And, as the government House leader just mentioned, there was an important announcement today in Scarborough. This government is getting it done for health care in Scarborough.

This government has made all kinds of investments. Unfortunately, for 15 years the opposition, aided and abetted by the NDP-Liberal opposition, did nothing. They did nothing to get it done.

This government is getting it done for the residents of Scarborough because we care.

Correction of record

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Sudbury has a point of order.

Mr. Jamie West: I rise on a point of order, just to correct my record. Yesterday I was speaking about the recent passing of Paul Falkowski during the member from Timmins’s motion. I inadvertently said that the member from Timmins worked with Paul Falkowski in Elliot Lake, that they worked together as steelworkers. The member from Timmins worked in the Timmins uranium mines, and Paul Falkowski worked at the Elliot Lake uranium mine.

Member for Hamilton Mountain

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for London West has a point of order.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: The government House leader mentioned the debate last night. I want to acknowledge our colleague the member for Hamilton Mountain, who spoke on An Act to proclaim the month of June as Myasthenia Gravis Month. She shared her very powerful, moving and emotional words about her own experience with that condition. It was really an extraordinary moment in this Legislature. and I encourage all members, if you have the opportunity, to watch the video of that debate. We were very proud of our member for Hamilton Mountain.

House sittings

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I beg to inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 9(g), the Clerk received written notice from the government House leader indicating that a temporary change in the weekly meeting schedule of the House is required. Therefore, the afternoon routine on Wednesday, April 27, 2022, shall commence at 1 p.m.

Deferred Votes

Pandemic and Emergency Preparedness Act, 2022 / Loi de 2022 sur la préparation aux pandémies et aux situations d’urgence

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

Bill 106, An Act to enact two Acts and amend various other Acts / Projet de loi 106, Loi visant à édicter deux lois et à modifier diverses autres lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Next we have a deferred vote on a motion for closure on the motion for third reading of Bill 106, An Act to enact two Acts and amend various other Acts.

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

The division bells rang from 1144 to 1149.

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

On April 12, 2022, Mr. Sarkaria moved third reading of Bill 106, An Act to enact two Acts and amend various other Acts.

On April 13, 2022, Ms. Jones moved that the question be now put.

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

Ayes

Bailey, Robert
Barrett, Toby
Bethlenfalvy, Peter
Bouma, Will
Calandra, Paul
Cho, Stan
Clark, Steve
Coe, Lorne
Crawford, Stephen
Cuzzetto, Rudy
Downey, Doug
Dunlop, Jill
Fullerton, Merrilee
Harris, Mike

Hogarth, Christine
Jones, Sylvia
Kanapathi, Logan
Ke, Vincent
Khanjin, Andrea
Lecce, Stephen
Martin, Robin
McKenna, Jane
Miller, Norman
Mulroney, Caroline
Oosterhoff, Sam
Pang, Billy
Parsa, Michael
Pettapiece, Randy

Piccini, David
Rasheed, Kaleed
Rickford, Greg
Sabawy, Sheref
Sarkaria, Prabmeet Singh
Skelly, Donna
Smith, Dave
Thompson, Lisa M.
Tibollo, Michael A.
Triantafilopoulos, Effie J.
Wai, Daisy
Walker, Bill
Yakabuski, John

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

Nays

Andrew, Jill
Burch, Jeff
Collard, Lucille
Gélinas, France
Hassan, Faisal
Hunter, Mitzie

Karahalios, Belinda C.
Karpoche, Bhutila
Mamakwa, Sol
Mantha, Michael
Morrison, Suze
Nicholls, Rick

Sattler, Peggy
Schreiner, Mike
Stevens, Jennifer (Jennie)
Taylor, Monique
Vanthof, John
West, Jamie

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 41; the nays are 18.

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

Mr. Sarkaria has moved third reading of Bill 106, An Act to enact two Acts and amend various other Acts. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard some noes.

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 another five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1152 to 1153.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): On April 12, 2022, Mr. Sarkaria moved third reading of Bill 106, An Act to enact two Acts and amend various other Acts.

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

Ayes

Bailey, Robert
Barrett, Toby
Bethlenfalvy, Peter
Bouma, Will
Calandra, Paul
Cho, Stan
Clark, Steve
Coe, Lorne
Crawford, Stephen
Cuzzetto, Rudy
Downey, Doug
Dunlop, Jill
Fullerton, Merrilee
Harris, Mike

Hogarth, Christine
Jones, Sylvia
Kanapathi, Logan
Ke, Vincent
Khanjin, Andrea
Lecce, Stephen
Martin, Robin
McKenna, Jane
Miller, Norman
Mulroney, Caroline
Oosterhoff, Sam
Pang, Billy
Parsa, Michael
Pettapiece, Randy

Piccini, David
Rasheed, Kaleed
Rickford, Greg
Sabawy, Sheref
Sarkaria, Prabmeet Singh
Skelly, Donna
Smith, Dave
Thompson, Lisa M.
Tibollo, Michael A.
Triantafilopoulos, Effie J.
Wai, Daisy
Walker, Bill
Yakabuski, John

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

Nays

Andrew, Jill
Burch, Jeff
Collard, Lucille
Gélinas, France
Hassan, Faisal
Hunter, Mitzie

Karahalios, Belinda C.
Karpoche, Bhutila
Mamakwa, Sol
Mantha, Michael
Morrison, Suze
Nicholls, Rick

Sattler, Peggy
Schreiner, Mike
Stevens, Jennifer (Jennie)
Taylor, Monique
Vanthof, John
West, Jamie

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 41; the nays are 18.

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

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

Fairness in Petroleum Products Pricing Act, 2022 / Loi de 2022 sur l’équité en matière d’établissement du prix des produits pétroliers

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 91, An Act to regulate the price of petroleum products / Projet de loi 91, Loi réglementant le prix des produits pétroliers.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Call in the members. This is another five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1155 to 1156.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): On April 13, 2022, Mr. Vanthof moved second reading of Bill 91, An Act to regulate the price of petroleum products.

All those in favour will please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Andrew, Jill
Burch, Jeff
Gélinas, France
Hassan, Faisal
Karpoche, Bhutila

Mamakwa, Sol
Mantha, Michael
Morrison, Suze
Nicholls, Rick
Sattler, Peggy

Stevens, Jennifer (Jennie)
Taylor, Monique
Vanthof, John
West, Jamie

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): All those opposed to the motion will please rise and remain standing until recognized.

Nays

Bailey, Robert
Barrett, Toby
Bethlenfalvy, Peter
Bouma, Will
Calandra, Paul
Cho, Stan
Clark, Steve
Coe, Lorne
Crawford, Stephen
Cuzzetto, Rudy
Downey, Doug
Dunlop, Jill
Fullerton, Merrilee
Harris, Mike
Hogarth, Christine

Jones, Sylvia
Kanapathi, Logan
Karahalios, Belinda C.
Ke, Vincent
Khanjin, Andrea
Lecce, Stephen
Martin, Robin
McKenna, Jane
Miller, Norman
Mulroney, Caroline
Oosterhoff, Sam
Pang, Billy
Parsa, Michael
Pettapiece, Randy
Piccini, David

Rasheed, Kaleed
Rickford, Greg
Sabawy, Sheref
Sarkaria, Prabmeet Singh
Schreiner, Mike
Skelly, Donna
Smith, Dave
Thompson, Lisa M.
Tibollo, Michael A.
Triantafilopoulos, Effie J.
Wai, Daisy
Walker, Bill
Yakabuski, John

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 14; the nays are 43.

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

Second reading negatived.

More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022 / Loi de 2022 pour plus de logements pour tous

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 109, An Act to amend the various statutes with respect to housing, development and various other matters / Projet de loi 109, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne le logement, l’aménagement et diverses autres questions.

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

The division bells rang from 1158 to 1159.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): On April 13, 2022, Mr. Clark moved third reading of Bill 109, An Act to amend the various statutes with respect to housing, development and various other matters.

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

Ayes

Bailey, Robert
Barrett, Toby
Bethlenfalvy, Peter
Bouma, Will
Calandra, Paul
Cho, Stan
Clark, Steve
Coe, Lorne
Crawford, Stephen
Cuzzetto, Rudy
Downey, Doug
Dunlop, Jill
Fullerton, Merrilee
Harris, Mike

Hogarth, Christine
Jones, Sylvia
Kanapathi, Logan
Ke, Vincent
Khanjin, Andrea
Lecce, Stephen
Martin, Robin
McKenna, Jane
Miller, Norman
Mulroney, Caroline
Oosterhoff, Sam
Pang, Billy
Parsa, Michael
Pettapiece, Randy

Piccini, David
Rasheed, Kaleed
Rickford, Greg
Sabawy, Sheref
Sarkaria, Prabmeet Singh
Skelly, Donna
Smith, Dave
Thompson, Lisa M.
Tibollo, Michael A.
Triantafilopoulos, Effie J.
Wai, Daisy
Walker, Bill
Yakabuski, John

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

Nays

Andrew, Jill
Burch, Jeff
Collard, Lucille
Gélinas, France
Hassan, Faisal
Karahalios, Belinda C.

Karpoche, Bhutila
Mamakwa, Sol
Mantha, Michael
Morrison, Suze
Nicholls, Rick
Sattler, Peggy

Schreiner, Mike
Stevens, Jennifer (Jennie)
Taylor, Monique
Vanthof, John
West, Jamie

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 41; the nays are 17.

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

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass as entitled in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

Legislative pages

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Before I recess the House, I’m going to ask our legislative pages to please assemble.

It is now time for all of us to say a word of thanks to our legislative pages. Our pages are smart, trustworthy and hard-working. They are indispensable to the effective functioning of this chamber. They cheerfully and efficiently deliver notes, run errands, transport important documents throughout the precinct, and make sure that our water glasses are always full. We are indeed fortunate to have them here.

Our pages depart having made many new friends, with a greater understanding of parliamentary democracy and memories that will last a lifetime. Each of them will go home and carry on and continue their studies, and will no doubt contribute to their communities, their province and their country in important ways. We expect great things from all of you. Maybe someday some of you will take your seats in this House as members or work here as staff. We wish all of you well.

Please join me in showing our appreciation to our legislative pages.

Applause.

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

The House recessed from 1203 to 1300.

Introduction of Visitors

Mrs. Belinda C. Karahalios: Good afternoon. They’re not here yet, but shortly in the east gallery we’ll see Jim Karahalios and Maggie Segounis, hailing from Waterloo region.

Introduction of Bills

Fostering Privacy Fairness Act, 2022 / Loi de 2022 renforçant l’équité concernant la vie privée

Mr. Bailey moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 119, An Act to amend the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 / Projet de loi 119, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2017 sur les services à l’enfance, à la jeunesse et à la famille.

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 Sarnia–Lambton care to briefly explain his bill?

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’ll be very brief; I’ll go into more detail with the bill. Essentially, this would reform the family services act to secure the private information of wards of the court through children’s aid. Unlike young offenders, whose records are sealed at 18, with these young men and women they’re available forever and a day, so we’re going to change that.

Motions

House sittings

Hon. Paul Calandra: Speaker, I move that when the House adjourns today, it stand adjourned until 9 a.m. on Thursday April 28, 2022.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The government House leader has moved that when the House adjourns today, it stand adjourned until 9 a.m. on Thursday, April 28, 2022.

The member for London West.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I would like to rise to speak to the motion that the government House leader has brought before us today. I have to say how deeply disappointed I was during question period to hear from the government House leader that they have no intention of moving forward with the Our London Family Act.

This was a bill that was written by the National Council of Canadian Muslims. It was written by the Muslim community in London and across the province, and members of that community had received commitments from this government that that bill would proceed. Six weeks ago, it was referred to a standing committee of this Legislature, where it could have had the input that the government House leader said was needed to strengthen it and pass it before the election, but this government chose not to call that bill forward. Now, with this motion, we are losing sessional days following the constituency week that could have been used to deal with this bill and ensure its passage.

My community of London has suffered a horrific loss with the Islamophobic attack on three generations of one Muslim family. Four members of that family lost their lives on that terrible day in June 2021. Coming out of that tragedy, trying to heal from the trauma that our community experienced, that Muslim communities across the province experienced, we could have moved forward with concrete action to combat Islamophobia, white supremacy groups and hate in this province. It is shameful and shocking that the government House leader is now proposing to recess the House until April 28 and not proceed with the procedural steps that are necessary to ensure that that bill becomes law.

But more than that, there are many, many issues in this province that still need to be addressed. We’re going away for one week, in constituency week. We were set to return on April 25. No one knows what’s going to be happening with this sixth wave of COVID. Government is expected to be accountable. Accountability is demonstrated by attending this Legislature, being present in this House, responding to the questions and issues that are brought forward by members of the official opposition. This government, with this motion, has chosen to hide from that accountability, to not be here to answer to the people of Ontario. Who knows what situation we’re going to be in on April 25 and 26 and 27? There are pressing priorities that should be addressed by this Legislature, and this government has chosen not to be here to listen to those priorities and concerns that are brought forward by members on this side of the House. It is an abdication of responsibility, as I said, and we cannot support this motion that’s before us.

We also don’t know what’s going to be happening in our schools. Thames Valley District School Board reported 1,000 staff absences at the last Thames Valley District School Board meeting. That’s what trustees were told, and in many cases, that is because staff are becoming infected by COVID because of the lack of a mask mandate in our schools. And those increasing cases of staff absences have happened very quickly, and as I said, the government is talking about more than a week and a half before we will be back in this place to deal with some of these pressing measures.

We have a housing crisis in this province, and all of us on this side of the House, I think, want to raise issues of concern to our constituents who are dealing with evictions on a scale that we have not seen before in this province, and the problem with evictions is—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. The member for London West has the floor.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: The problem with evictions is not just all of the backlogs at the Landlord and Tenant Board and all of the problems of the Landlord and Tenant Board hearings; the problem is that once low-income tenants are evicted from the places they’ve lived—last night, I talked about a London West constituent, a school crossing guard, and his wife. They’re both school crossing guards. They’ve lived for 14 years in the same two-bedroom apartment in Wortley Village in London West, paying $1,100, a month, and they’re being evicted and expected to find somewhere else to live. They can’t find somewhere else to live for $1,100 a month on two school crossing guards’ salaries. These are the kinds of issues that this government needs to hear. They need to hear every day that the House is scheduled to be in session about the real issues, the real problems that Ontarians are facing, and the issues that need to be addressed.

So Speaker, we are opposed to this motion. We believe strongly that we have an obligation to the people who elected us to be here, to be their voice in this Legislature, to bring forward the issues and concerns that matter to them. We have that obligation and we are prepared to fulfill that obligation. This government is, obviously, not prepared to fulfill its responsibility to be accountable for its failure, frankly, to address the real challenges that people are facing.

1310

We know from workers in this province who are struggling to make ends meet on a minimum wage—that this government froze for three years before they finally decided to take action. The minimum wage today would have been $15.75 if the government had not cancelled the planned increase to the minimum wage almost immediately after it got elected. A $15.50 minimum wage today not only falls short of what it would have been, but it is nowhere near the kind of income support that minimum wage workers need to be able to afford to live in their communities.

We are seeing a crisis in affordability—in housing, number one. Housing is probably the biggest affordability pressure that people are facing in this province, but also with wages. Wages are simply not keeping up. When you have a 6% or more rate of inflation, there’s no way that a minimum wage is going to enable people to pay the rent, buy groceries and make their utility payments. These, again, Speaker, are just another example of the kinds of issues that should be addressed.

We have an ongoing crisis in our health care workforce, and the pandemic, much as this government would like to believe going into an election, is not over. The pandemic is not over, and we continue to rely on those front-line health care workers who have showed up every day for us in this province since the global pandemic was declared more than two years ago, and long before that. Those front-line health care workers, those essential workers who work in vital community services, have been unanimous in calling on this government to repeal Bill 124. Allow workers to negotiate wages that reflect the contributions that they make and that reflect what they do for us, the support that they provide for us.

We could have been talking about repealing Bill 124 next week. That would have been a welcome bill for this government to bring forward, and I can assure the government House leader that there would have been no pushback from the official opposition to see the repeal of Bill 124 move forward.

There are very few sessional days left in this 42nd Parliament, but there remain really important opportunities to make the changes that people have been calling for, that would help address some of the pressures that people are facing. We could have been discussing real rent control legislation that removes that exemption on buildings that were built after November 2018.

I know that Toronto members, for sure—but in my community in London, also, there are a lot of new builds. London is one of Canada’s fastest-growing municipalities, actually, Speaker, with a 10% increase in population over the last five years. There have been a number of new apartments and condos constructed in the downtown core, which is welcome for the downtown core, but there are many young people who have rented units in those apartments at a rent that was set at an amount that would attract new tenants, and then all of a sudden they’re faced with notices of 10%, 20%—I think some of our members have talked about even 30%, 40%—rent increases, because there is no rent control on those new apartment buildings or condominiums.

That, again, is legislation that this side of the House would have had no problem supporting. We could have dealt with that very expeditiously in those three sitting days that are being lost because this government doesn’t want to face the public and be accountable for its lack of action on the real issues that Ontarians are facing.

We know that mental health continues to be in crisis. We have seen a huge spike in people who are experiencing a deep mental health crisis as a result of two years of the pandemic, whether it’s social isolation, whether it’s financial stress. We’ve seen a huge spike in calls to women’s shelters and gender-based violence services because women and others who are at risk of gender-based violence have been forced to remain in their homes and have not had access to the services that they would have had previously to support them.

We just had Equal Pay Day earlier this month. Financial security and closing that gender wage gap would make a huge difference for women and others who are at risk of gender-based violence, because we know that often what keeps someone in an abusive relationship is the inability to leave. It’s financial dependence on the partner. It is the inability to find a place to live.

I’m proud, Speaker, of the legislation that I introduced previously that provides paid leave for workers who have experienced domestic violence and sexual violence, because it at least allows that couple of days of paid leave that give employees who are experiencing violence in the home the ability to seek counselling, to seek medical treatment, to find a new place to live. But of course, as I said earlier, finding an affordable place to live is a near impossibility in my community, in London West, and I know in many other communities across—in all communities across the province. It is a provincial—it’s actually a national crisis that we are facing right now with housing affordability.

Speaker, we could have been looking at what young people need to be supported with their mental health challenges. Again, I talked about social isolation, financial stress, but young people in particular have suffered enormously by a government that has closed schools longer than any other province in Canada, forcing young people to try to learn online, forcing harried parents to try to juggle their own working at home with supervising online learning, without access to affordable child care.

The mental health needs of young people in this province have soared. We are seeing young people having to wait two years or more. I actually heard from a social worker at London Health Sciences Centre on the weekend that they are looking at three-year waits for access to children’s mental health services. Again, this is the kind of issue that this Legislature should and could have been dealing with in those three sessional days that are being lost.

I mentioned the families who don’t have access to child care. We have yet to see from this province a child care workforce strategy with a wage grid that will attract and retain child care workers in this province. We are asking the skilled professionals who provide care for our most precious resource, our children, our infants and toddlers—and pre-school-age and after-school care as well—to work at wages that are appallingly low.

1320

I attended a webinar on the child care workforce crisis and I saw child care workers in tears—in tears—because they could not afford to continue to do the job that they love, that they dreamed their whole life of doing. They get such joy and satisfaction from that work, but they are not compensated appropriately by this government. The announcement that came later than every other province in Canada that Ontario had finally signed the child care deal with the federal government did not come with any assurance that child care workers would begin to be compensated at the rate that they should be for the vital work that they do.

And PSWs in our long-term care sector: I met yesterday with the Ontario Medical Students Association—and kudos to those young people. They were second- and third-year medical students who are looking forward to practicing as physicians, and they have focused their advocacy this year on our long-term-care sector. One of their first asks was that the profit be taken out of long-term care. They’ve seen the research. They’ve seen the evidence that for-profit long-term care delivers far worse outcomes for residents of long-term-care homes—more deaths, more cases of COVID infection—than non-profit or municipal long-term-care homes. They talked about the need to compensate PSWs appropriately so that they could deliver the four hours of hands-on care that every long-term-care resident deserves.

When we were talking, I was reminded of that challenge that we received from Unifor a couple of years ago, the six-minute challenge, which represents the amount of time that a PSW in a long-term-care home has to get a resident out of bed, dressed and fed because of the shortage of staff in long-term-care homes. There is a 60% turnover of PSWs across both that sector and the home and community care sector. This is a crisis as well that this government could have been dealing with and chose not to. In fact, what they’ve offered PSWs is an insult and attack on their pay equity and equality rights that are guaranteed under the charter.

I am disappointed with this motion and will not support it.

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

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: I came into the chamber this afternoon to clean my desk. That’s what I was doing, as I always do at the end of a session. Thanks to the good people of Scarborough–Guildwood, this is my third session. One of the things that I know is that democracy does matter, that it’s fragile, and that just because you have a majority does not mean that you should trample on that. It should be that you respect the debate that occurs in this House, that you respect the official opposition that has been duly elected by the people of this province and that you respect all members of the provincial Legislature, because our democracy requires debate, it requires that we listen to each other and it requires that decisions that are made in this Legislature are done in the best interests of the people of this province. We can’t take that democracy for granted.

In fact, right now in the world we see that there’s a great attack on democracy, when we look at the war that’s happening in the Ukraine, and we look at how one day people are living peacefully in a democratic nation and the next they are defending themselves from an attack. So we can’t take that for granted. It’s something that we have to recognize and that we have to treasure, that even in this country lives were lost to preserve and to protect that democracy.

The government might think that cutting the opportunity for debate, the opportunity to advance the bills and the legislation that are before this House almost in half is not significant, but it is significant. It is important, and it demands consideration not just of one side but of all sides. I’m not hopeful that the government is going to listen.

In fact, I can remember in 2018, one of the first acts this government did was to cut the city of Toronto council in half in the middle of a municipal election that was already under way. That’s what it did: trampling on local democracy, trampling on citizens’ rights to decide who represents them. And the government went further. This Conservative government, under Premier Ford, went further than that by invoking the “notwithstanding” clause to get its way—a tremendous misuse of power. Just because you have power doesn’t mean you have to use it. It does not mean that you have to use it.

Interjection.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: I’m sorry, but we never invoked the “notwithstanding” clause. I hear the heckling coming from the NDP side as I put my arguments forward as to why this motion lacks consideration for the democratic process in this Legislature. In my view, it does demonstrate a pattern and a habit by this government of overusing its power because it has a majority.

Speaker, shutting down debate has grave consequences—grave consequences. I know that. Bill 86, Our London Families Act, deserves debate, it deserves discussion, but by cutting the sessional days remaining almost in half, where is the space for that debate to occur so that Muslim families, Muslim women, Muslim students, Muslim people in our province feel that this Legislature is serious about combatting Islamophobia?

I remember in June of last year, I stood in this Legislature on the heels of one of the most horrific occurrences that I have seen, where a family out for an evening walk, like many families do in my riding of Scarborough–Guildwood—out for an evening walk, multi-generational, which is the custom—were mowed down and killed because of their faith. I stood in this Legislature to put forward motion 10, condemning Islamophobia, because of that terror attack that took place in London, and demanding an unequivocal response from this Legislature. I was quite surprised that a member of the government side said no to that unanimous motion. But we persevered and we got it together and the government actually took my motion and wrote their own and brought it back, and everybody, all parties—I was in the House at the time—just agreed, because it was the right thing to do, and it should have been done initially when I tabled that motion. We should have been unequivocal about our support for combatting Islamophobia and not caught up on procedure.

1330

Out of much work and effort with the Muslim community—because I attended in fact one of the sessions that was held at the Munk School to do the research on putting together the legislation that later became Our London Family Act, put forward by the NDP. Bill 86 is an important piece of legislation. In fact, by this government using its majority to push through what I called a “bully” motion—I remember that—that debate never happened. It never happened. We were told that it was going to the justice committee so that it could be expedited. That’s what we were told. And yet, we have not seen that bill studied at committee, we have not seen that bill receive its due, and it has not been brought back to this House and this floor for debate.

Democracy matters. Debate matters. By cutting the remaining sessional days almost in half, this government is denying that opportunity for the debate, the discussion and really, for bills like Bill 86 to pass.

Another bill that I care deeply about, for all the things that I said today in this House when I’ve been given the opportunity to speak, is Bill 60, which is a bill that makes gun violence a public health issue. It is about community safety. Today, the government House leader said, “Oh, nothing happens to the bills when we dissolve Parliament to go to the election.” Actually—and I do “how government works” for our grade 5 students, and that’s not true. I am agreeing with my official opposition member here: It is not true. When the Parliament is dissolved, all the bills die. In fact, when you prorogued in September after the federal election, my Bill 129, the Safe and Healthy Communities Act (Addressing Gun Violence), died, which is why I had to retable the bill as Bill 60.

And so, there are consequences when you cut the days that we have to debate almost in half, because the opportunity for us to have a democratic process that involves debate and discussion on policies and programs for the benefit of the people of Ontario is constrained and is limited, and I cannot support that, because Bill 60 deserves the opportunity to be passed. It deserves the opportunity to benefit so many people who are hurting, who are suffering from the trauma of gun violence. It deserves that opportunity, and it is being denied. It is being denied.

I know that the government House leader did not come and speak to our caucus, the Ontario Liberal caucus, about cutting in half the number of sessional days and its impact on our bills and how he could make us whole as a result of that. He didn’t do that. I’m pretty sure he didn’t do that for the official opposition based on the discussion that I just heard.

I told Priyanka Iqbal, a mother with two children under the age of three who are on the autism spectrum—her children have been waiting, languishing on the wait-list of an autism program that has yet to happen by this government. Thousands and thousands of children are waiting for therapy and for support from the Ontario Autism Program, which this government has been incapable of implementing. Since 2020, it has been telling families to wait. When 2021 came around, its promised due date, it said, “Wait some more.” Now we are in April 2022 and families like the Iqbals are still waiting. This family has spent everything they have on trying to get therapy and support for their two daughters, so that they can have a better life.

The children of my community in Scarborough deserve to have a better future. They deserve to have a government that is listening and acting in their best interests, but it really seems that this government is acting in its own best interest, when you look at the fact that it did not spend $5.6 billion in unallocated, unspent reserve funds that were provided to this government by the federal government to intervene at the time of a global pandemic for the health, safety and well-being of the people of this province.

Instead, the government didn’t spend it, because it wanted to have its own spending spree just before the call of an election. As if people are not going to remember that you didn’t invest in schools to reduce class sizes, to make schools safer; that you didn’t step up when it was needed to provide the renovations to the air quality that was needed in those schools; that nurses and personal support workers are pleading with this government to withdraw Bill 124, so that they can bargain and negotiate fairly for wages that they have well earned, because they’re the ones who protect all of us and care for all of us when we are at our most vulnerable. And yet, you’re keeping that Bill 124 in place so that they cannot bargain freely, as it is their right under the charter of human rights to do.

So it’s very disappointing that with just seven sessional days remaining in this Parliament in this honourable House, this government has chosen to cut that time almost in half and, in so doing, deny the opportunity and the right of all members—including those of us in opposition—to debate and to discuss bills that are important to our constituents and to the people of Ontario.

You may say it doesn’t matter; I know it matters to Safiullah’s family that Bill 60, Safe and Healthy Communities Act (Addressing Gun Violence), 2022 is discussed, agreed to and passed. Because I have seen the suffering of that family, ripped apart by the loss of their son due to senseless gun violence, with no support for their healing. They’re just left there. I’ve seen it. I went to the door and I saw it.

1340

And I know that there’s a solution right in this Legislature. It is at the justice committee right now. We could call that bill forward, which I tried to do this morning and was denied by the government, who said no. Who said no to grieving families. It’s not going to cost this government anything to allow someone who has lost their son in such a senseless way to get the counselling that they deserve, because I can tell you the issues based on the grief, the stress and the trauma—it’s coming out whether we acknowledge it or not, in terms of health outcomes. So why not give people the opportunity to live better, when we’re able to do that? Why not give them the opportunity to receive the support so they can heal from that trauma? Why not?

Why would we say no to that? Because it’s partisan? Gun violence is not partisan. It is about public safety. It is about community safety. It is about the health and well-being of all of us and the communities which we represent. It is not localized to any one place in this province. It’s actually happening in more places than you think. It’s happening to women. If you look at femicides, they’re increasing. An attempt was made just yesterday on a woman’s life by an intimate partner, at the hands of a gun.

Giving support to Bill 60 and giving the opportunity for the support, as is our democratic right to do, is our job as legislators. Yet the government has slammed the door and has said no and, by cutting three days out of the session, has reduced even further the opportunity to support Bill 60, Bill 86 and all of the other legislation that will die once the writs are issued.

Speaker, I cannot support this motion, because I believe that this motion is an abuse to our democracy, because it cuts off debate that we need and it cuts off the opportunity for us to do the work that the people of Ontario have sent us here and are entrusting us to do on their behalf as their representatives.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s always an honour to speak in this House on behalf of the people of Timiskaming–Cochrane. I think it’s a sad day today. Without any warning—without any warning at all—the government has decided to move a motion, which they have the numbers to do, to basically recess the House until the 28th, so three days less. People are going to say in the government, “Well, what can you do in three days?” One thing: question period.

Question period is one of the most important parts of our democratic process. It’s the one time that we can hold the government to account. I didn’t appreciate myself as much as I thought, until—I’m the whip of the party, and sometimes, pre-COVID, whips from other legislative bodies would come here. We had the whip—I believe it was from Ohio. I think it was Ohio. He was sitting in the members’ gallery and I came to talk to him. He was watching question period. I said, “So what do you think about this?” He said, “This is the most incredible process I’ve ever seen.” Honestly, I said, “What?” He said, “You get to hold ministers to account. In our system, for instance, the secretary of agriculture doesn’t even have to be in the Legislature.” So there’s no way in that state to hold the secretary of agriculture—you can’t stand up and ask a question. It’s incredible.

The government has now eliminated that for three days, right before an election, right before a budget, at a time when the government is pretty sensitive to questions, as you can see during question period. The government House leader—we disagree on many issues, but I give credit where credit is due: He is very good at deflecting questions. He is a master. Whenever the government House leader gets up to answer a question, you know you’re hitting home because he is very good at deflecting questions. If you look even at today’s question period, there were a few times when the government House leader got up and basically punched a questioner in the face. And that’s his job.

But question period has a purpose, and denying those three days of question period is the most egregious thing of all. It is the most egregious thing of all. I will give you an example. Actually, I will give you three examples. We are getting close to the end, and as anyone who’s been here for a while knows, there is a pretty heavy-duty—what’s the word I’m looking for?—competition for questions. There is, because everyone in the opposition—and on the government side, but the government side’s questions tend to be pretty favourable, like, “Minister, can you tell me how great a job you have done to date?” That’s a government-side question.

But on the opposition side—and it is one of the few tools we have—question period is very important. There is a competition to get a question in question period, specifically for local questions, for regional questions. For me, that is almost the most important function in this House. I’m not a proud man, but I pride myself on being able to have relationships with ministers across the way and to work with them. I give criticism where it’s due but I give credit where credit is due as well. I try to be very fair.

We’re going to talk about three issues that could have been, should have been and are now going to be put on the record in this House so that the ministers can have a chance to work on them.

The first one: In Evanturel township, the Laurila family—can you imagine this, Speaker? Waking up in the morning, you’re 250 feet from a river, and you hear something. You have a normal house, a normal duplex house. You hear something and your whole front yard slides into the river. Now the house is sliding into the river. And guess what? They don’t get insurance, because insurance doesn’t qualify for landslides. They go to the township. They come to our office and they’re trying to get this area declared a disaster area, because then provincial funding can be provided. And they need it.

Now, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs’ credit, we sent the information to his office and I spoke to him twice, and both times he looked at the file, to his credit. And this very well could be being solved as we speak; I don’t know. But my plan was that if it wasn’t solved this week—next week is constituency week and the week after is the week we’re talking about—if it wasn’t solved—because there are only a couple of days left before the election—I was going to try and help and get this issue fixed. Because this family has a mortgage to pay on that house. They can’t live in it. It’s sliding into the river through no fault of their own. It slid into the river in February—unheard of in my part of the world; unheard of.

1350

Again, I give credit where credit is due. I’m sure the minister is looking at it, but that would have been a question. The Laurila family house in Evanturel township needs to be declared a disaster area, because it is a disaster. It’s a natural disaster. It didn’t hit the news because it wasn’t 50 houses; it was one. But that one family is basically going to be ruined because they’ve got a mortgage to pay on a worthless house and they can’t buy another one or replace it. So that is worthy of question period.

A second one—I have brought this forward to the Minister of the Environment, I believe twice to his office—again, they very well could be working on this, and that’s why I wasn’t really excited about it, because I was hoping we’d get some closure to it, but now those three days are gone, so I’m going to give you the scenario. In Armstrong township, one of the most—anyone who’s been to the plowing match in 2009 in Armstrong township, in Earlton—that’s one of the most agricultural places in northern Ontario. The Ministry of the Environment approved a human waste sewage lagoon—okay, that’s fine—on a former dairy farm, using as the base the former dairy farm’s lagoon.

They don’t have a problem yet, but when the neighbours were supposed to be contacted, that didn’t happen because the neighbours have post office boxes in Earlton, so the consultation didn’t really happen. When the neighbours did find out, they asked the question, and the question was, where is the former well on that dairy farm? Where is the former well? It was a dairy farm. When I was on the board of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario, I knew that dairy farm very well. They milked, I believe, 80, 90 cows. They needed a lot of water.

When we asked the ministry and their consultants, “Where is that well, because we don’t see it on your plans?” we were told, “Oh, no, no. It’s an abandoned farm, and the house is abandoned. There’s no well there.” Now, somewhere, there’s a well. I’ve milked cows for a long time. You don’t milk cows without an adequate water supply. I brought that up to the minister. I’m sure he’s working on it, but if it hadn’t been addressed, I would have been asking this question in question period, hopefully in those three days, and now all of a sudden, the seven days of questions are compressed so you’re going to have less questions.

The last one I’m going to bring up—

Mr. Mike Harris: What are you going to do all summer?

Mr. John Vanthof: You know what? I work hard all summer. I don’t know what the member from Kitchener–Conestoga does, but I work hard all summer.

The member from Kitchener–Conestoga is somehow inferring that question period doesn’t matter, and I would totally disagree.

The third one—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I hesitate to interrupt the conversation that’s going on between the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane and the member for Kitchener–Conestoga, but I think I have to because he’s got the floor.

Member for Timiskaming–Cochrane.

Mr. John Vanthof: And the third one—this week, I brought forward an issue regarding a tragic accident that happened in my riding, and since that accident we have been flooded with dash cam pictures of other near-accidents on Highway 11. It is absolutely, unbelievably scary. And you know what? That should definitely be on the question period lineup every day. When I talked about that accident, I said, “You know what? I don’t think any government is going to be able to change everything in one day. I don’t expect that.” I wasn’t partisan—I’m not trying to be partisan, but there are things that we need to do, things we need to look at, like why are there only eight inspectors, not only for the 400 driving schools but for all the colleges in Ontario? Why? Why doesn’t the government change that?

Why aren’t the inspection stations along the Trans-Canada Highway open more often so that trucks actually get inspected more often? Why doesn’t the OPP have enough funds to actually do the job that they want to do patrolling those highways? Why? I think those are all very worthy questions for question period.

The people of Timiskaming–Cochrane, the people across northern Ontario are very interested. And why? Because they know they risk their lives every time they get on that highway, just like those two families last Thursday who lost their children and one adult life. Those are worthy questions for question period, and any time that a government takes the opportunity—especially right before a vote, right before an election—to deny the rights of members to hold the government to account, that is a travesty, and that is why I am so opposed to this motion.

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

Ms. Jill Andrew: I appreciate the opportunity to stand and speak against this motion to essentially silence the voices of not only MPPs in this Legislature, but the government’s decision to silence the voices of Ontarians, of the very folks who place us in these seats to represent them, with this motion that takes away three vital days of debate in this House, of question period in this House, of our chance as the only official opposition party in this House to actually challenge the government and bring forth the concerns that we are hearing from our ridings.

I want to speak a little bit about small businesses, not only in St. Paul’s, not only in midtown or Little Jamaica and our neighbourhoods, but across Ontario. Our small businesses are the heart of our communities. As I’ve said oftentimes in this House, our small businesses aren’t only businesses; they are families. They are families, in some cases, who have lived decades-long in our community, or certainly have become like family to many of us who call our ridings home.

I’m thinking about one person—I don’t have the consent of using her name today, but her initials are A.N.W.—who has a wonderful dance studio—or had a dance studio in St. Paul’s that she lost, because this government would not provide adequate funding for our small business owners, funding that they had and were sitting on and did nothing with.

I’m thinking about another person in my community, a wonderful artist who had 100 or so students, little kids she would work with, teach visual arts to, painting, dance and whatnot—theatre, even—all through arts. She’s now got about 10 kids that she’s working with. She applied for the grants, didn’t get the grants, was told she had a small error, tried to fix that error. Things never fully worked out. She’s still without access to grant money.

It’s the reason why we’ve stood before, in this House, demanding an appeals process, demanding a way for our small business owners to actually get help from this government. Instead, the grant application was closed on March 11, even though they had heard from me; I know they had heard from members in this Legislature, from the NDP; they had heard from our constituents that there were fundamental flaws with that program. We asked for extensions, we asked for an appeal process to help our small business owners, and none of that was granted.

I want to commend all of our London members on this side of the official opposition for the hard work that they have done alongside the Muslim community, taking their lead, bringing forth a bill, Bill 86, Our London Family Act.

1400

I want to say a special thank you to the National Council of Canadian Muslims for their work as well, standing up against Islamophobia.

This is a bill that should have been passed already. This government has the power to rush through, frankly, anything they want. Who doesn’t want to rush through a bill that addresses Islamophobia when we see—what was it?—three generations of families killed by hate? There’s a bill on the table, a bill that we put forth to address an issue that, frankly, should be a non-partisan issue, and there could be time to rush this bill through. There is time, and the government has taken that off the table by ripping away these three additional sessional days that we could be using.

We’ve stood in this House, many of us, on this side, whether it was tackling Islamophobia, whether it was talking about the rise of anti-Semitism, particularly in my riding, in St. Paul’s and, I would even argue, in the riding of Eglinton–Lawrence, where we have physically seen swastikas on our synagogues, on our homes, on our streets, where myself and community members have taken to the walls, trying to scrub them off. Now is the time for us, for me, for any of our members here to be able to stand up and make the case for including mandatory Holocaust and genocide education so that folks can understand why it’s necessary for us to battle anti-Semitism, no matter how young or old they are in the school process. It’s the reason why we’ve asked for the same about Indigenous education. It’s the reason why we’ve wanted to stand up in this House and address incidents of anti-Black racism that happened in our schools and in other sectors. We’ve lost three days to address this.

I also want to say plenty on the issue of housing, where we have seen—I’ve got 14 minutes left, unless I’m told otherwise.

Interjection.

Ms. Jill Andrew: Alrighty. Okay. I’m not quite understanding what my colleague is saying, but I’m thinking I need to wrap up.

The point of the matter is, here in the Legislature, Speaker, I’ve got questions on affordable housing. I’ve got answers that I need to get back to my friends on Raglan who are being demovicted. Myself, the member from Toronto Centre, the member for University–Rosedale, we re-tabled our “no COVID evictions” bill. I’ve got friends on Heath, I’ve got friends on Mount Pleasant who are saying, “Jill, I’m struggling. Jill, I’ve got mental health crises. What’s the government doing for me? How is the government going to help me pay my rent? How is the government going to help me get access to mental health care services that aren’t going to make me bankrupt?” These are all questions that I could be asking the government in those three days.

How much time do I have left?

Miss Monique Taylor: You’re done.

Ms. Jill Andrew: I am done. Alrighty.

Well, last but not least, I’d like to say this, Speaker: Repealing Bill 124, repealing Bill 106—I’ve spoken about that ad nauseam. We’ve got to put workers first.

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

Mr. Faisal Hassan: On about February 23, we tabled Bill 86, Our London Family Act, in good faith that this government would do the right thing and ensure timely passing of this bill. Our London Family Act was carefully and thoughtfully crafted by the official opposition, with close input by the National Council of Canadian Muslims. This was not a partisan bill; it was and is a moral bill that all sides of this House should have supported.

With hate crimes and Islamophobia on the rise in Ontario and after the tragic killings of four family members on June 8, 2021 in London, we needed this legislation passed and passed quickly. I was shocked and surprised when the government took the unprecedented steps of avoiding second reading debate and putting the bill into committee for hearings. It is not quite clear that the government had no intention of having public hearings and had no intention of passing Our London Family Act into law during this session.

With an election weeks away, this government cynically refused to pass or debate anti-hate and anti-Islamophobia legislation. I am deeply disappointed and, indeed, insulted that this government will not enact legislation like Our London Family Act that will address hate and violence.

To add insult to injury, the government has decided to walk away from this House and not debate the many important issues we have, by not returning to work until April 28. That is not responsible leadership, Mr. Speaker. This government focus on the upcoming election at the expense of important issues that will help the citizens of this great province should and will not be forgotten. We should be holding this government accountable three more days, but instead this government is not working for the people until April 28. It’s so sad, Mr. Speaker.

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

Ms. Suze Morrison: It’s certainly a pleasure to rise in the House today. I have to say how disappointed I am that the members opposite are adjourning this Legislature for what will effectively be the next two weeks. Obviously, we know we’ve got a constituency week in-between. But what this means for all of our communities is that the voices of our communities are going to have no place in this chamber until April 28, which, like I said, is almost two weeks away. So we aren’t going to have access to question period, we aren’t going to have access to members’ statements and we aren’t going to have access to move any business through this House.

As my colleagues have noted previously, the loss of question period—taking away half the number of question period days that are left in this session—is particularly shameful. Question period is one of the strongest accountability tools that we have in this House. It’s our opportunity, as opposition members, to hold the government accountable, to shine a light on the important issues that are going on in our community. Arguably, it’s one of the most foundational pieces of a Westminster parliamentary system.

I would remind the members opposite that this is carved into the walls of this very chamber, the roles that we play as government members and as opposition members. When we look up at the arches on the sides of the walls, as government members you sit and you face the carving of an owl; it’s up above my head here. That owl is to remind you to be wise with the power that the people of Ontario have given you. We, as opposition, stand and face an eagle in the opposite arch, a bird of prey, reminding us to always keep a watchful eye over the government members and to hold them accountable fiercely. Without the opposition accountability measures that we have in place, what would any government of any colour look like in this province, if we had absolute power with no accountability? That accountability piece is really the role of opposition.

One of the best accountability tools that we have in our tool box, Speaker, is question period, where we can stand up and ask ministers directly to defend their actions, to be accountable to the people of this province for the decisions that they’re making. As this government, at this point in time, continues to bury its head in the sand over the state of COVID-19 in our communities and across this province, just ignoring the wave that we are in, taking no action to address the rising case counts, taking no action to improve testing, taking no action to address the rising number of admissions to ICU beds and the rising number of deaths, just pretending everything is A-okay and hunky-dory until you can check out of here and head into the campaign, we’re not going to be able to ask you those difficult questions.

Speaker, some questions I would like to pose to the government members that I won’t necessarily have the opportunity to over the next few weeks: I have a private member’s bill before this House that’s in committee right now, a bill to improve access to gender-affirming health care that I have been fighting to get passed before this House rises. It’s a really important bill that would improve health care—access to health care and the experience of health care, for people who are trans, two-spirit, non-binary in our communities.

1410

We know that that’s currently a horrendous experience for folks who are waiting up to five years right now on wait-lists for transition-related procedures. Not all of the transition-related procedures that folks need access to—which is life-saving care, I might add—are covered by OHIP. And the quality of care that people receive as they move through the health system as people who are trans, non-binary, two-spirit, intersex is an incredibly dehumanizing experience, when they’re constantly deadnamed, when their pronouns are not respected, when their health care teams don’t understand, don’t have the competency to provide safe care to people who are trans. A notable story I heard from someone recently was a trans woman who was asked when her last pap smear was at her family physician’s office—quite laughable.

I would love to ask this government what its plans are to help me bring forward that bill and help get it passed in the remaining days that we have left, because there are only a handful of days left, and you have now taken away half of them to move forward on the important business that’s before this House.

I also want to mention—I know our colleagues have spoken to this one, as well—what happens with the Our London Family Act, a really important bill that was supported by the Muslim community, by the National Council of Canadian Muslims, and would bring forward a real, tangible action plan to address Islamophobia in our communities. I am incredibly disappointed with the comments made by the government House leader this morning that this wasn’t the correct bill. This is the community’s bill. It is not the government House leader’s job to determine how correct the bill is. The community has said, “This is the action that we need. We don’t want to see partisan rhetoric or interference around this; we need action done and we need it done quickly.”

The government House leader, in question period this morning—again, speaking to why we need question period—indicated that they will not be bringing this bill forward to get it passed, and I think that is incredibly disrespectful to the community, who have put their heart and soul into the development of this bill. This is a bill that came up out of the community, from the community directly.

I do want to thank the member from London West, who I know is in the House, who asked that question this morning. I think it was incredibly important, and I want to thank you for your work on that and for all that you’ve done to support your community in London as they’ve worked to heal from the tragic incident that happened last year.

Speaker, I’m going to wrap up, but I want to say that these are two examples of bills that can and should be moved forward, that we are now arguably not going to have time for, and also why we deserve to have the remaining question periods that are being cut from the schedule as a result of this adjournment.

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

M^me Lucille Collard: I want to start by saying that I really agree with all the comments that I’ve heard today about the fact that lots of members in this House will be missing out on opportunities to hold the government accountable. This is especially important being so close to the election. In fact, myself, I had my last member’s statement that was due Tuesday, April 26, which I was very looking forward to delivering, to pay tribute and thank all the members in the House—well, I guess, everybody, you’re just going to all be missing out on that.

But more importantly, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that all these tricks that the government has been pulling out of its sleeves have been very unsettling, especially over the last two weeks, where everything has been changing at the last minute. It has prevented me from participating in debate as much as I would have liked to, because of all those last-minute changes. This is an impediment to my ability to do my job to represent the people of Ottawa–Vanier, the job I was sent here to do.

I just want to say that those three days of debate that we’re missing out on are very important. It is really just because the government decides to use its majority to completely manipulate the work in this House, and it has real consequences on all the members.

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

Miss Monique Taylor: I’m not happy to be rising at this point to be talking about the Legislature being shut down, on recess until April 28. This is time that the official opposition should have to be able to hold this government to account. We definitely have seen many reasons that they need this question period to be able to have that accountability in this province. We have certainly brought forward severe, serious questions when it comes to accountability measures that we will not any longer have the opportunity to during the 42nd Parliament.

This is truly shutting the lights out in the Legislature while the Premier is off campaigning into the election. He will have plenty of time during the official writ drop, but until that time, it would have been helpful to have him be in the House, to hold him to account for his government’s inaction, lack of funding and lack of providing what the people of this province have definitely been asking the official opposition members for. I’m not quite sure how we hear a different story from the government benches, but the official opposition truly brings the real voices of the people of Ontario to this House, and it’s something we’re really proud to do.

Question period is something that will be missed, because that is the time when we bring those critical issues to this floor. You heard earlier from my whip, the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane, about how we’re all trying to get in in question period, because we have serious questions that we want to bring to this floor. This morning I was hoping to have the availability and the option—not the option, because I had a question prepared—to be able to have the ability to bring a question to the floor, so now I’ll share that question with you.

Since 2016, 11 people have died by suicide while receiving treatment at St. Joe’s in Hamilton, either within the hospital or while out on passes. Family members of some of the deceased St. Joe’s patients and the coroner, Dr. Reuven Jhirad, conducted a review of the suicides and drafted recommendations to prevent more from happening. The group issued 17 recommendations.

The Hamilton Spectator reported in late 2021 that family members of psychiatric patients at St. Joe’s are calling for the creation of an independent group to review hospital suicides and to ensure the implementation of all recommendations from the more recent report. This has been echoed by the family advisory council of the mental health and addiction program.

Speaker, my question to the Premier would have been: Can the Premier report back to this House what his government has been doing to ensure that they’re creating this independent review group and to implement these important 17 recommendations?

Because I didn’t get that question this morning, the next question period back, I would have had the ability to ask the Premier that very important question, as you can imagine, for so many families in my community who have lost loved ones to suicide, while either in St. Joe’s psychiatric hospital or out on leave and still in stay. So you can see the importance of question period for me, to be able to highlight that issue to the government, to ask those critical questions. When we lose those valuable question periods, I lose that ability to bring my constituents’ voices to the floor of the Legislature and to the government’s attention.

We will definitely see the government again on April 28, with days missed in this Legislature, with bills that have died on the order paper; with bills that are sitting in committee; with the Our London Family Act, which this government House leader discharged from this House. He took that private member’s bill from our member and put it into committee under discharge, saying that it was going to be worked on and brought back to this Legislature. We didn’t see any of that happen, and now we’ve heard that that will not happen and that it will have to come back after the election. That’s critical time lost for Muslim families and communities across our province. That is definitely going to be a slight against that community.

1420

That’s really unfortunate. This is what the Legislature is here to do. We are here to do the important work of our communities, and to see that bill die on the order paper after it was promised that it would be brought back is so disheartening, and it’s not the democracy and the government that the people of Ontario want to see. I’ll tell you, knocking on doors, I hear quite often that they want us to work together, that they want us to get along. That is what democracy is supposed to be.

It is a fantastic example of what democracy is supposed to be that we’re seeing happening right now in Ottawa, where our leader, Jagmeet Singh, has worked to ensure that we are bringing universal dental to the people of Canada, and that is happening through a minority government. That is happening because they have to work together to make democracy work. We have a Conservative government here with a majority, and they have definitely strong-armed this entire House. They have changed the rules to suit their needs. They have changed more standing orders than we have ever seen: some standing orders for the good, absolutely, as we move into the future, but many standing orders we’ve seen changed have been to the benefit of this government, of moving their agenda forward and to be able to push their bills as quickly as possible. Now that they’ve had that ability, that they’ve done all that work, that they’ve pushed everything through as fast as they can, now they’re going to take the last few days and few moments that we have left of the 42nd Parliament and just shut the lights out.

So it’s another sad day in the Ontario Legislature, Mr. Speaker. But I’m happy I’ve had the opportunity to rise and to be able to speak to this motion. I will now pass it off to my colleague. Thank you very much for the opportunity.

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

Mr. Michael Mantha: Many have risen this afternoon and talked about the disappointment of recessing this House and returning only on April 28. Listen, Speaker, I take great pride in doing my job for the good people of Algoma–Manitoulin and bringing their issues here to the floor of the Legislature. There are many tools that I have at my disposal in dealing with those issues, and some of them I go through—you’ve seen me, Speaker, on many occasions walk across the floor. You’ve seen me amongst the benches of the government members, where I’ve had one-on-one discussions with them in order to address really important issues. And I have to say, I’ve been successful. I think that’s part of my role. As I said this morning, part of my role is not to keep throwing stones across the way—yes, it’s to oppose, but we’ve also proposed many things to this government. I pride myself on walking across and having discussions, building relationships, talking and making government understand from a northern Ontario perspective.

When I said this morning that I don’t throw stones—I like to walk across and grab that stone and put it in one’s pocket so they can remember what my issue was, so that they can take the time to go back to their ministry and come back with an answer for me. When that answer does not come back, well, that’s where question period is very useful to me, because now it’s another opportunity for me to elevate the issue as important.

I do want to tell you right now, Speaker—and I don’t know if you know, but I had a chat with the minister of northern development and forestry a little bit earlier: He’s not getting home. He’s not going home today. He’s snowed in. He can’t access his vehicle. I can tell you something else: Based on the social media that I’m seeing, I’m going to be receiving a call from Gilles Cyr from Wawa. Why? Because the roads are shut down now. Men and women can’t get to and from work. People can’t get to their destinations. The roads are just absolutely horrible.

So I’m going to lose out on an opportunity in the following week to come back and really put questions to this government about what happened, because right now there are still remaining issues. Believe it or not—I know there’s no snow down here, but in my area of northern Ontario, there’s plenty of it. There’s still plenty of it, and the roads are being shut down and there’s quite a bit of concern.

I just want to stay on the theme of roads. I’ve approached the government in the past and talked about some concerns that I’ve had. I want to go to Goulais River. Goulais River has this one area in front of the trading post on Highway 17 where we absolutely need a turning lane to get into one of the government’s LCBO businesses that’s on the side of the highway. We’re getting some revenue from the purchases that are being done over at the LCBO, but what’s happening in front of it is a really big hazard. Because there is no turning lane and the high volumes of vehicles that travel on that road, there are many close calls. There have already been two deaths that have happened there. Now, that’s an opportunity that I’ve approached the government to talk about, but when the issue is not moving fast enough, I raise it through question period and put the test to the government to respond a little bit quicker.

I’ve approached the Minister of Health on many occasions. I know she’s fully aware of the challenges that we have on the North Shore, particularly in Thessalon, where we are filling the emergency department right now with locums. Those locums—we’re thankful that we have them and I’m thankful to the minister for having helped us in providing the extension of the funding to continue to fill the needs with locums at that hospital to keep the emergency department open, but we still need to deal with doctor recruitment and retention in northern Ontario. These are many things that we can put the test to the government to find out what your policies are. What actions are you taking to make sure that we have doctors in northern Ontario?

Another one that I’ve raised in this House many times—and we just went through OGRA. And I know many municipalities from across Algoma–Manitoulin from Chapleau to Wawa, Hornepayne, White River, Dubreuilville were all up here, and I know they had a delegation with the Minister of Transportation on the issues that we’re having with DriveTest. DriveTest is not meeting the needs of northern Ontarians. There’s a huge backlog in the area that I’m from, and we’re seeing it time and time again where this is having a negative impact on many of our communities.

By shutting down question period, it takes away a tool that we have in order to elevate the issues and concerns that are pressing to all of us in our ridings. This is my opportunity as an MPP to take my place on behalf of the good people of Algoma–Manitoulin and say, “Hey, this is not just coming from me. This is coming from those that I represent. This is coming from them. These are their issues that they’re dealing with. These are their matters.”

I want to try to bring up a couple more. The public offences office in Gore Bay: The public offences office in Gore Bay has been financially negatively impacted because of COVID and the closures of the courthouses and the collections. The Gore Bay municipality is paying extra funds in order to cover the funds that are missing, to the tune of almost about $50,000. Now, I’ve talked to the Attorney General about it, and I know that he’s working on it—he keeps telling me he’s working on it—but question period gives me the opportunity to put that on the public record: “What are you are you doing? When am I going to get a response?” Now, I don’t always have to go through question period, and the work that I’ve been doing with him is much appreciated, but again, it’s a tool that I have in order to bring more pressure on this government.

Mr. Brent Quackenbush off of Manitoulin Island, who has had no response from the MTO in regard to his land being landlocked and trying make some development: He’s trying to get some response from this government. I’ve been working with the Ministry of Transportation on it in order to help Mr. Brent Quackenbush, but again, when the responses aren’t coming, hence, we have question period really to put pressure on this government.

The last thing that I want to raise is we’re going into the month of May, and I want to remind everybody that this is an issue that is very near and dear to me: May is Lyme awareness month. When we were first elected not that long ago, in April I brought this document and I walked it over to the Premier and to the Minister of Health. To this day, I still haven’t had any action whatsoever on this.

These are questions—just because we got hit with COVID, there’s a lot of people who are suffering as well, but there are a lot of people who are continuing to suffer with Lyme disease in this province. I need to know what this government is doing, and May would have been raising that awareness.

Speaker, there are reasons why it is important to have question period, and that’s to hold this government to account. It’s our opportunity to oppose, to be diligent in our jobs, to bring the issues and concerns that are out there, but it’s also our opportunity to propose and to come with ideas and to put pressure on this government to be held accountable and to answer a lot of our questions that we have from our constituents across this province.

I see the countdown is going down, and I’m going to use every second that I can—three, two, one, and that’s it.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you for your co-operation.

Pursuant to standing order 32(b), the time allotted for the afternoon routine has expired. I am now required to put the question.

Mr. Calandra has moved that when the House adjourns today, it stands adjourned until 9 a.m. on Thursday, April 28, 2022. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard some noes.

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 will be a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1431 to 1501.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Bailey, Robert
Bethlenfalvy, Peter
Bouma, Will
Calandra, Paul
Cho, Raymond Sung Joon
Cho, Stan
Clark, Steve
Coe, Lorne
Crawford, Stephen
Cuzzetto, Rudy
Downey, Doug
Dunlop, Jill
Elliott, Christine
Fullerton, Merrilee

Harris, Mike
Hogarth, Christine
Jones, Sylvia
Kanapathi, Logan
Ke, Vincent
Khanjin, Andrea
Lecce, Stephen
Martin, Robin
McKenna, Jane
Miller, Norman
Mulroney, Caroline
Oosterhoff, Sam
Pang, Billy
Parsa, Michael

Pettapiece, Randy
Piccini, David
Rasheed, Kaleed
Sabawy, Sheref
Sarkaria, Prabmeet Singh
Skelly, Donna
Smith, Dave
Thanigasalam, Vijay
Thompson, Lisa M.
Tibollo, Michael A.
Triantafilopoulos, Effie J.
Wai, Daisy
Walker, Bill
Yakabuski, John

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

Nays

Andrew, Jill
Collard, Lucille
Hassan, Faisal
Hunter, Mitzie

Karahalios, Belinda C.
Mantha, Michael
Morrison, Suze
Sattler, Peggy

Schreiner, Mike
Taylor, Monique
Vanthof, John

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 42; the nays are 11.

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

Motion agreed to.

Business of the House

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Point of order, the government House leader.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Pursuant to standing order 59, just to outline the order of the business for when we come back.

On the morning of Thursday the 28th, we will dealing with private bills, and in the afternoon the presentation of Her Majesty’s budget.

Report continues in volume B.