Journal des débats 2023-mai-10 contenu A | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Bill 75, An Act to enact the Queen’s Park Restoration Secretariat Act, 2023, and to make certain amendments to the Legislative Assembly Act and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act / Projet de loi 75, Loi édictant la Loi de 2023 sur le Secrétariat de la restauration de Queen’s Park et apportant certaines modifications à la Loi sur l’Assemblée législative et à la Loi sur l’accès à l’information et la protection de la vie privée.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’ll look to the Minister of Legislative Affairs to lead off the debate.

Hon. Paul Calandra: I’m pleased to be able to lead off debate today on this. At the outset, let me just take a moment to thank my parliamentary assistant, the member for Kitchener–Conestoga, and the Chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the member for Oshawa, for the tremendous work that they’ve both done in helping guide us here today, as well as the members of the standing committee, who have done a tremendous amount of work in helping, as I said, guide us to where we are today on the bill which we are on third reading of.

Just as a quick overview, Mr. Speaker, as you know—I’ll let others talk about the building and why we’re doing this—the bill itself just establishes the framework by which we will begin the process of restoring the Legislative Assembly. It will obviously necessitate a decanting of this building, finding another location for the Legislative Assembly to temporarily do its business before we’re able to come back into the building at the conclusion of that.

What the bill does: It does establish a secretariat which in itself will help oversee the reconstruction of the building. What that does, by establishing a separate secretariat, is ensure that the accountability mechanisms that are required through government—through estimates, through budgeting—are of primary concern when it comes to the financial outlay, and that parliamentary oversight of the project, parliamentary oversight of parliamentarians—what happens to this building rests with the members of provincial Parliament.

It is an exciting project in the sense that, as was raised by many of the committee members, frankly, this is a project we are undertaking that—probably most of us will never sit in this chamber after we vacate the chamber; well, maybe a couple. I have never been that lucky to be loved in opposition, Mr. Speaker, so I tend to ride away. But that is the good part of what we are doing here.

It also, I think, reflects the growing importance of the work that the members of provincial Parliament do, which was really highlighted—it’s been highlighted ever since the place opened and since Ontario’s first Parliament sat. Certainly, during COVID we were able to see some of the restrictions and impediments that not having made changes or upgrades to the place—the position that it put us in in trying to communicate, often, with people. Mr. Speaker, that’s why we’re very, very excited to be here.

As I say, the committee has done a tremendous amount of work, both in ensuring that it is a depoliticized process and that members put first and foremost their needs, the needs of the people who work here, and the future needs of parliamentarians who will be sitting in here, reflective of the fact that Ontario is a very large trillion-dollar economy and it is the fifth-largest government in North America. If it was a country, it would be a G20 country all on its own. This institution needs to reflect the growing and continued importance of the province of Ontario, not only, frankly, in national affairs but also in global affairs, in the sense that we are an economic powerhouse and the work that needs to be done by all members on all sides of the House needs to be done in a way that they can undertake their roles.

It also needs to reflect, Mr. Speaker, the abilities of Canadians and Ontarians to actually come to this place. We know full well the challenges that many Ontarians face in accessing this place. We will be able to undertake all of that in the project in the coming years ahead.

I didn’t want to speak too long, but before I conclude, I just wanted to highlight that the bill does come back virtually the same as at second reading, but there were a couple of important changes led, again, by the committee in helping us improve the bill. The first one I wanted to speak of was just some clarity in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. It was highlighted through the committee process that the original bill left open for interpretation what documents would be protected and which ones wouldn’t be. To avoid those types of misunderstandings or debate over what would be protected and what wouldn’t be protected, the committee came with amendments that would clarify that, at the same time as protecting the authorities of the House. Members will see that reflected in the copy that’s in front of them.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker—again, I thank members of the committee for their help on this—it does also include changes to legislative protective services. Again, members will see some of the changes in that, reflecting the fact that we are, of course, eventually going to be decanting. We will have a much wider parliamentary precinct. We will have, potentially, a precinct that is over a number of places. Offices could be different than the chamber; we don’t, obviously, know. Our legislative protective services, although they continuously currently are being asked to do more and more, just given the increasing amount of threats that all parliamentarians face and the assemblies across the country face—but, in addition, Speaker, the reality of what will be a decant and trying to protect parliamentarians and the people who work in Parliament over multiple locations could not be done, in our estimation and the committee’s estimation, with the current rules under which the legislative protective services operates, so you’ll see that the bill does ultimately allow certain members of the LPS to act as peace officers, frankly, across the province of Ontario, and a number of other important upgrades to the already fine work that the LPS is doing for us.

0910

Ultimately, those are the two big changes in this. Again, I thank the committee members for their work on this. I thank them in advance for what will be a very long, difficult and challenging process. I think they’ve seen that reflected in the meetings that they have had already, not only with other jurisdictions that are doing changes but over the complexity of some of the issues that we will, as parliamentarians, be asking them to reflect on over the next number of years.

Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, just to say that I’m very excited by the opportunity that this affords us, very excited by the ability for us to truly make this place accessible to all Ontarians, excited by the opportunity that this gives us to allow parliamentarians to do their jobs better and more effectively—the work that we can do not only with the legislative protective services but with the employees through the Clerk’s department to make sure that the work that is done here, Ontarians can truly appreciate and access.

But also, it gives us such an opportunity to showcase this place not only as the main working place where rules and laws are debated and brought forward but also a place where we can potentially celebrate the works and the treasures that we have. The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport often talks to me about the amount of treasures that we have sitting in archives across our various museums. This is a place that we can think about bringing those here as well.

It really does give us an incredible opportunity. Again, just to conclude, I thank all of the members for their incredible work on bringing this bill back in a better form than it left after second reading.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’ll invite questions to the Minister of Legislative Affairs, if there are any.

Further debate?

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s always an honour to be able to stand in this House and today speak on Bill 75 on behalf of the official opposition, the third reading of An Act of enact the Queen’s Park Restoration Secretariat Act, 2023, and to make certain amendments to the Legislative Assembly Act and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and to follow the government House leader.

I’ve been here for 12 years. This is—I believe all Parliaments are, but this is the only I’ve experienced—a unique place, a unique work environment, and a place very few Ontarians have the privilege of ever working in. What we should strive for is that as many Ontarians as possible can experience this place. That’s one of the goals of the restoration act.

But to truly understand what this place means, just think about what we’ve discussed in the last week. Bill 60, a health care act: The official opposition are incredibly opposed to that. We made it very clear, which is our right. The government believes in what they’ve proposed, which is their right. We voted. The vote was over. The mining act: We will be voting on that after. We voted for it in second reading because we believe in the principles. How we vote in the end will be based on what we heard in the committee.

They are both partisan but very important. This one is as important, but this one is non-partisan. We all want to serve. We want this place to serve the people of Ontario, to allow those of us who are lucky enough to get elected to represent the people, who are fortunate enough to work here, to be able to serve the people of Ontario to the best of our abilities and their abilities. I think this bill and how it has come to this point is an example of how sometimes this Legislature can work very well, where amendments are proposed that actually weren’t even in order, but we agreed to put them forward. I will touch on them a little bit, but it shows how, when there are issues that we all—when we need to, when we should, that we all can pull in the same direction, and I think that’s very important.

I think everyone, when they walk through the doors for the first time, and I’m sure the vast majority—I can’t speak for all of us, but I still have that feeling when I walk through the doors that it’s something special to walk through the doors in this place. When I walked through the first time, I thought it was the most—it was like walking into a cathedral for me, a cathedral of democracy. It really was. That’s one thing that we don’t want to lose, ever.

But now that I have worked here for 12 years, there are structural things that prevent or make it harder for the people here to do their jobs. There comes a time when—can you imagine how big a project this was to build in the first place? There was a picture once in the cafeteria—the cafeteria is one of my favourite places, by the way. There was a picture in the cafeteria of this building and University Avenue, and University Avenue was all trees. It was forest. Can you imagine what it took for parliamentarians to decide to build a place like this? And when part of it burned, what it took to rebuild again?

Now it’s time to rejuvenate. If you’re going to rejuvenate the precinct, the legislative building, it is a major undertaking, because, yes, if 12 years ago, before I walked into this building somebody said, “Well, everybody is going to have to move out and we’re going to have to do”—I would have said, “No, no, you can just do a piece at a time.” But that’s not how this place works, because in this hall, in the legislative chamber, there will be a time today where emotions run high and we will, at points, not be very friendly to each other, and that wouldn’t work in a setting where we are much closer. It just wouldn’t work. There is a reason why there are these spaces. There’s a reason: to allow us to do our job, to allow us to debate, to allow emotions to run high, and now to allow them to cool down.

To rebuild, to rejuvenate this structure so that it actually can perform the way modern buildings should, but that it can maintain this cathedral of democracy, is going to take a lot of effort, a lot of planning. The effort and the planning actually have just begun. I would also like to commend the committee for the work they’ve done so far, and I’d like to commend the Legislative Assembly staff for the work they’ve done so far, but the work is just beginning. It’s just beginning, because we have the opportunity now to actually make this cathedral of democracy accessible to all, accessible to all cultures, all people, and that’s not a small undertaking. I would like to say, we—particularly the staff—have all done what we could to make it accessible with what we’ve got. But we have a chance now to truly make it accessible, to make democracy accessible to all Ontarians.

0920

If you look at the carving of the Seven Grandfather Teachings from Indigenous people, we need to take the time—and the committee is going to do that—to truly make not only the structure but our system a partner to Indigenous people in this province so that they see their own history here. Because in many ways, the history of this building starts in 1867, but that’s not when the history of Ontario starts. We should think about what we can do to make sure the history before this building was built is included now that the building is going to be reconfigured.

I don’t want—we don’t want—the building to be rebuilt. There are parts of this building, many parts, that we all treasure, that Ontarians treasure. When schools come, when kids come—my riding is a long ways away; I don’t get as many children, school kids coming as others sometimes. But when I do get them coming, for many, if you’re coming from New Liskeard or Cochrane and you tour through this building, it’s a place like you’ve never seen. We don’t want to lose that. But it has to be a place that functions and a place that includes everyone.

I would also like to speak to the two fundamental changes that have been made—“fundamental” is perhaps not the right word—to the bill itself. One is the clarification of, as the project continues, what is subject to freedom of information and what won’t be. Quite frankly, that is a concern among some people, and rightfully so. Sometimes, this is a fractious place. This is and would be a G20 economy, this province.

Just to clarify, what is not subject to freedom of information for 20 years is any documentation that comes from the assembly itself. As for what comes from the new secretariat—the contracts to build—that would still be subject. It’s not that we’re throwing this in a big dark hole and no one will ever know how much this is going to cost or did cost. That’s not the case. But there is very sensitive information that the assembly holds, and some of that is going to be needed for the secretariat to make these decisions. That documentation is also not subject to freedom of information now, so when that is going to be used in the future, it should also not be subject to freedom of information laws for 20 years. That, I think, is a good clarification.

The second, regarding legislative protective services: When—it’s a word I have never used before until I got here. When we do decant, when we move en masse to another location, the legislative protective services are going to have to not only follow us, but protect not only us but the information that flows. It’s going to be much more spread out, so it makes sense that they should have the ability to do that off this site. It makes sense. Also, it makes sense that they have the training—in the subject matter where they are trained, they are equivalent or better trained than any other police service in this province. It also makes sense that they should have the ability to be peace officers outside this legislative precinct; for example, in our constituency offices. I think in both cases, those changes make sense.

This is going to be a long, long road. There’s no doubt about it. I think there are times we are all going to shake our heads and wonder what we’re going to do next. When we toured the Parliament buildings in Ottawa—I personally didn’t truly understand the scope of the project until I did that tour. I can’t remember his title, but to the person who was giving us this tour I suggested it would be the best reality home reno series ever seen, because it was incredible.

I look at this place differently now. When I walk through and I see cables taped to the wall, I say, “Well, they’ve got to go, but wait a second, that moulding, that can’t go. That is going to have to be taken apart, to be coded, stored somewhere, perhaps refinished—for sure—and placed back.” That is a lot of—I’m a bit of a rough carpenter myself, and I like to demo; you just take the sledge hammer and demo everything, you buy all new and put it back in. That’s not the case here, and it certainly shouldn’t be. We want to rejuvenate, but we also want to protect so people who walk through these doors for the next hundred years have the same feeling that we do. If we can use the spaces in this place that aren’t used efficiently now, because times have changed—the legislative library was full of books. We don’t use a lot of those books anymore. It’s digital.

There’s room for big ideas, and I encourage Ontarians to think big. We encourage Ontarians often: “Don’t settle. Think big.” With this project, I encourage parliamentarians from all sides, because there isn’t really a side on this one, to think big. If you think too big, you know what, it’s not going to happen, but we’re at the point where there’s no such thing as a bad idea right now. Now is the time for ideas. The first big one is that we are deciding to actually take this step, and it’s a big one. Now that we’re deciding, now we have the chance to really envision what our forebears envisioned when they built this place in the middle of a forest, what they envisioned and what Ontario has become.

We disagree on some of the things that happen in this province, but we all agree that it is one of the greatest places in the world to live. That is why we work so hard to get here to represent the views of the people in our various part of the province. Always in the back of my mind is, what can we do to envision the next 100 years?

We are in favour of Bill 75. We want to work together with all parliamentarians, with all the staff, with all Ontarians. Often when we introduce people, we say, “Welcome to your House.” We now have a chance to do everything we can to make sure that people from all walks of life, all parts of the province, all races, all colours, all creeds, feel like this is their House. I encourage all parliamentarians, all Ontarians, to think big and to take that chance.

With that, Speaker, I would like to move the adjournment of the debate. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Mr. Vanthof has moved adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Motion carried.

Third reading debate adjourned.

House sittings

Hon. Paul Calandra: Just on a quick point of order: Pursuant to standing order 7(e), I wish to inform the House that tonight’s evening meeting is cancelled.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Orders of the day?

Hon. Paul Calandra: No further business.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): There being no further business, this House is recessed until 10:15.

The House recessed from 0932 to 1015.

Members’ Statements

Cadets

Mr. Will Bouma: As many of you are aware, my riding of Brantford–Brant is home to a vibrant, motivated and active cadet movement. Our community is home to 135 Admiral Nelles, Royal Canadian Sea Cadets; 104 Starfighter, Royal Canadian Air Cadets; 2659 Royal Canadian Army Cadets; and the Admiral Landymore Navy League Cadet Corps.

Today, we welcome the top cadets as chosen by their commanding officers for their dedication, excellence and willingness to make our community the best that it can be. The cadets of Brantford–Brant are back to full training this past year from a challenging past two and a half years of virtual and hybrid training. These cadets made the transition back to in-person training with ease.

For the Royal Canadian Sea Cadets: Chief Petty Officer First Class Aurora Linnington and Chief Petty Officer Second Class Charlie Downey, joined by Acting Sub-Lieutenant Kyle Au Coin.

For the Royal Canadian Air Cadets: Corporal Danika Parasram and Sergeant Tobias Ven Berkel, joined by commanding officer Captain Celina Corner.

For the Royal Canadian Army Cadets: Master Warrant Officer Kyrianna Jorgensen and Warrant Officer Ethan Russell, joined by commanding officer Captain Josh Jennie.

For the Navy League of Canada, we have Leading Cadet Alissa Bartlett and Ordinary Cadet Nathan Learned, joined by commanding officer Lieutenant Richard Carpenter and Sub-Lieutenant Celina Barnard.

Cadets, officers, the people of Ontario salute you for your hard work and contribution to Brantford–Brant. Thank you.

Highway safety

Mr. John Vanthof: Last week, I made the House aware of three events that happened near the town of Engelhart on Highway 11: a tragic head-on transport crash, a transport driver who forced a school bus into a ditch and fled the scene, and another transport who passed another transport on a hill.

On Saturday—and I posted the video—a transport passed another transport with another car plainly in view and pushed it off the road. This is within a few kilometres of a little town. This happens right across our two-lane Trans-Canada Highway.

I am imploring the government: We want to work together with the government to make sure that transport drivers and all drivers are adequately trained, but that we actually get aggressive drivers off the road and the companies that hire them. The names of the companies are on the sides of the trucks. We know it’s happening. It’s happening every day—four times in a month just outside my hometown.

We cannot keep on letting this go, because the next people who get killed—it’s on us because we know it’s going to happen. We all know it’s going to happen.

Coronation of King Charles III

M^me Dawn Gallagher Murphy: Mr. Speaker, Saturday, May 6, at 6 a.m., I held a coronation viewing event at my local Aurora Royal Canadian Legion for my community members of Newmarket–Aurora. It was absolutely amazing to have the community come together for this momentous, historical event. The fascinators and vintage hats were as beautiful as the smiles on everyone’s faces. I think the tasty scones and the coronation quiche also helped with those smiles.

The holy coronation service was all so riveting, officiated by Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby. We were all eagerly watching the traditional event: the recognition, to the coronation oath, to the anointing, to the investiture and, finally, to the enthronement and homage.

One of my personal points of interest was the Sword of Offering, which symbolizes the protection of good and the punishment of evil. It was delivered to the archbishop and then placed in the King’s right hand. The King rose, and the sword was fastened to His Majesty’s waist using the sword belt.

1020

I would like to quote the archbishop, from his sermon at the coronation: “With the anointing of the Holy Spirit, the King is given freely what no ruler can ever attain through will, or politics, or war, or tyranny: the Holy Spirit draws us to love in action.”

May God bless our sovereign. Long live the King.

Edith Cavell Public School Fresh West Market

Mr. Jeff Burch: I want to take a moment to acknowledge the incredible work of some grade 4 and 5 students in my riding in west St. Catharines at Edith Cavell Public School. Last week I toured their Fresh West Market, which has provided over 400 bags of fresh fruit and vegetables to families in the community with the support of the United Way, Niagara Region Public Health, Links for Greener Learning and a great team of educators at the District School Board of Niagara.

In February, they provided close to 800 pounds of fresh fruit and vegetables, and surpassed that in the following month by providing over 1,200 pounds of fresh produce. On why they started the program, students told me, “We realized that although there are some grocery stores in our area, it is hard to get fresh fruits and vegetables at a low cost. Our goal is to increase our communities’ access to a variety of fresh, affordable produce.” With almost 300 pounds total provided to the community, Speaker, I would say they are well on the way to reaching their goal.

Special thanks to all those involved with this program, including public health nurse Austin White, teacher Alison Edward, principal Robyn Scheubel, Ashleigh Doyle from United Way and, of course, the incredible students at Edith Cavell. I look forward to their next market dates taking place on May 11 and June 8.

Manotick Legion Youth Education awards

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: On April 30 I had the pleasure of attending the Manotick Legion Youth Education award ceremony organized by the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 314, one of the many amazing Legions located in my riding of Carleton. The Royal Canadian Legion’s youth education program plays an essential role in my riding of Carleton in fostering the tradition of remembrance amongst youth, not just across Ottawa, but across Canada.

The awards that 25 winners from my riding received are in recognition of the excellence they have shown in the Legion’s youth education program. However, the journey of completing their work is much more important than the awards they received. Whether it be through artwork, a poem or an essay, what they have created provides an important bridge between today’s world and some of the most important and defining moments in Canadian history. Those defining moments in our history were made possible by generations of heroes whose hardships and sacrifices created the template for Canada to become the best country in the world.

Through the Legion’s education program, we are not only teaching our youth about our past but are preparing them to become leaders in the years to come. So thank you to Roy Blair, Lynn Charron, the entire legion and all 25 students for helping keep our rich history alive. I was honoured to present all 25 youth with certificates on behalf of the province of Ontario, to recognize and honour their artwork and poems about Remembrance Day.

Colour the Night Gold

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: Working without thought of self or thought of reward is the true nature of service. On Saturday, I had the honour of attending the London Central Lions and East London Lions Clubs’ Colour the Night Gold event in support of Childcan—two great clubs working together for a wonderful cause.

I sat with Greg and Catherine Millar, who had sent me many petitions about optometry since 2021. It is a small world sometimes, as I also ran into Greg and Catherine face-to-face at their home when I was out knocking on doors, speaking with the good people of London North Centre.

At our table, Luca told me about how nurses should be paid what they’re worth, allowed to bargain fairly and that there should be incentives to bring back retired nurses whom this government has insulted, demeaned and pushed out of practice. Luca also told me, “I used to be anti-union. But since Premier Ford, I am pro-union. You can tell him that.” Message delivered, Luca.

I want to thank the Lions for supporting Childcan. Families of children who receive the diagnosis of cancer are on the most difficult journey one could imagine. We heard about how Childcan helps families right from diagnosis, treatment, and through their recovery or bereavement journey. This great organization helps take the burden of external worries, allowing families to focus on what matters most: their children and their care.

Thank you once again, Lions and Childcan, for your true service to people in our community.

Public safety

Mr. Graham McGregor: I want to rise in the House this morning and raise a very important issue to not only my riding of Brampton North, but, quite frankly, the province of Ontario. In Ontario, a car is stolen every 48 minutes. Auto theft has been on the rise over the last number of years, with a 72% increase from 2014 to 2021; last year, that increase was 14%.

As we know, the GTA is a hot zone for crooks to steal cars. And the hard-working residents of Brampton North are fed up. They work hard for their money, and with 90% of homes in my riding having a driveway, they deserve to feel safe and to have the peace of mind that their cars will stay on their driveway—not poached by some low-life scumbag. But since 2021, in Peel region, carjackings have risen by 45%.

Peel Regional Police Chief Nishan Duraiappah has described the impact of vehicle theft on public safety as “tremendous.” He also stated: “It is one of the fastest-growing problems that we have in not just the Golden Horseshoe, but right across Ontario.”

Speaker, that’s exactly why our government is taking decisive, strong action. Last week, our Solicitor General announced a $51-million investment to combat auto theft. We’re supporting new measures to help police identify and dismantle organized crime networks and put thieves behind bars, where they belong. Our government is providing police services with the resources they need to make Ontario safer for all car owners, reduce auto theft, and bring those involved in these criminal networks to justice. I support it wholeheartedly. Let’s get it done.

Events in Beaches–East York

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: While the member from Guelph may disagree, I think I have the greenest riding in all of Ontario. The climate activist groups and eco-tastic events are making changes in Beaches–East York and beyond.

This past weekend, I participated in the EcoFair held by Beach United Church and organized by the amazing Mary Anne Alton and her terrific team. There were 35 vendors, exhibitors and speakers, all with one major thing in common: a love of the planet.

Out of my office, we run Green East, a community group engaged and interested in serious climate action. To name just a few others: Terrific Toronto East End Climate Collective are residents concerned about and fighting the climate crisis. Sensational 32 Spokes is comprised of cycling champions promoting cycling safety. The great garden at Kimbourne church is a project using permaculture principles to grow food in the community. Sensational Save Small’s Creek is a group working to preserve the nature of beautiful Small’s Creek ravine.

If we could replicate the care and climate action from Beaches–East York across the province, we could make a real difference in addressing our environmental footprint.

To my eco-tastic residents and all Ontarians, I will continue to represent you as an environmental and climate advocate at Queen’s Park.

Thank you for listening so intently.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We’re going to wait a second. I’m going to ask the House to please quiet down.

Members’ statements.

Community Living Day

Mr. Anthony Leardi: The month of May is recognized as Community Living Month here in Ontario. This year’s theme is “#InclusionMatters.”

Community Living Ontario and its over 115 Community Living associations across the province support over 80,000 people with an intellectual disability and their families.

From my community of beautiful Essex I’d like to welcome Community Living Essex County, who is here with us today. Thank you for all that you do.

1030

These agencies offer a wide range of supported living, social, respite, planning and employment supports, all with the goal of fostering inclusive communities by supporting the rights and choices of people with an intellectual disability. It’s important to recognize the hard work of staff in developmental services sectors because without them, none of this would be possible.

This year, Community Living Toronto is celebrating its 75th anniversary. I’m happy to share that Community Living Ontario and Community Living Toronto would like to invite all members to their reception today at 5 p.m. in the dining room. I look forward to seeing everyone there.

Loreena McKennitt

Mr. Matthew Rae: It’s my pleasure to rise to recognize the talented Loreena McKennitt of Stratford. Many will know Loreena for her work as a talented singer, actress and composer. She is also a two-time Juno Award winner.

However, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Loreena on a new accomplishment: Loreena was recently inducted into the Canadian Songwriters Hall of Fame. She also received a fine tribute at the Opera House in Toronto during International Women’s Day. This is a great achievement and will add Loreena to an exclusive list of Canadians to receive such an honour, including Alanis Morissette, Bryan Adams, David Foster and many other legends. Along with these great accolades, the Canadian Songwriters Hall of Fame at the National Music Centre in Calgary is dedicating a permanent exhibit to Ms. McKennitt.

Loreena has been a lifelong resident of the city of Stratford and has contributed so much to our community through her volunteer work and by putting on many charity performances. She has also long contributed to the yearly Remembrance Day ceremonies at the Stratford cenotaph. As an honorary colonel in the Royal Canadian Air Force, she has worked hard to keep our memories of our veterans alive and in the minds of all Canadians.

Congratulations again, Loreena, on all of your hard work and all the success you’ve had over the past four decades.

Wearing of ribbons

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I understand the member for Markham–Unionville has a point of order.

Mr. Billy Pang: If you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to allow members to wear purple ribbons in recognition of May 10 being Lupus Awareness Day.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Mr. Pang is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to allow members to wear purple ribbons in recognition of May 10 being Lupus Awareness Day. Agreed? Agreed.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I understand the member for Guelph has a point of order.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I’m seeking the unanimous consent of the House that, notwithstanding standing order 100(a)(iv), five minutes be allotted to the independent members as a group to speak on second reading of private member’s Bill 100.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Mr. Schreiner is seeking the unanimous consent of the House that, notwithstanding standing order 100(a)(iv), five minutes be allotted to the independent members as a group to speak on second reading of private member’s Bill 100. Agreed? I heard a no.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): We have with us today in the Speaker’s gallery Mr. Harman Idema, who is the consul general of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Toronto. He is joined by Elizabeth Witmer, who served as MPP for Waterloo North during the 35th and 36th Parliaments and Kitchener–Waterloo during the 37th, 38th, 39th and 40th Parliaments. Please join me in warmly welcoming our guests to the Legislature.

Also with us today in the Speaker’s gallery is Dr. André Lecours, the president of the Canadian Political Science Association. He is joined by Dr. Peter Constantinou, academic director of the Ontario Legislative Internship Program. For over 47 years, the Ontario Legislative Assembly has partnered with the Canadian Political Science Association to host the OLIP program. Later today I’ll be joining Dr. Lecours and Dr. Constantinou at the annual OLIP spring reception and I hope that many members and other program alumni will be there as well. Once again, welcome to the Legislature. We’re delighted to have you here as well.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: It’s a pleasure to be able to join and have people welcome Michael, Kate and Elizabeth Demczur and mom Jackie. We’re here because Kate is the page captain today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Miss Monique Taylor: I would like to welcome all of the folks from Community Living who are here today. I had the pleasure of meeting with the chief operating officer, Joe Passaretti, and executive project manager, Sarah MacDonald. They will be having their reception in the dining room today from 5 until 7. I hope all members will join in, and I’d like to welcome everybody to the House today.

Mr. David Smith: I’d like to welcome the Nigerian delegation to Queen’s Park. They are a 50-member delegation. They are from all parts of Nigeria. The team ranks from mayor, commissioners, senior staff and CFOs. They are here today to observe our parliamentary session and to visit and tour the legislative facility. They will be having a gathering in room 247 from 11:45. All are welcome.

I’d also like to recognize the team that has put all the pieces together: Glenn De Baeremaeker, former deputy mayor; Jim Karygiannis; Mike Yorke; Tom Perdikis and Jeremy Beamer, along with my two staff, Ms. Novlette Mitchell and Cathy Quinton. Thank you.

Mr. Chris Glover: I’d like to welcome from the Save Minden Ontario Emergency Room group: Brenda Culver; Diane Forbes; Cathy Barnes; Wendy Ladurantaye; Kim Galen; Deloris Bailey; Jim and Bernie Davis; Dave Hammond; Judy Toye; Dean Curtice; and Pat Bradley. Thank you so much. Welcome to your House.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I would like to welcome everyone from Community Living Ontario, and especially welcome Judy Noonan and Michelle Maloney, constituents of mine from Community Living Guelph Wellington who are at Queen’s Park today.

I would also like to welcome CareNow Ontario to Queen’s Park for their lobby day and acknowledge that May 12 is international awareness day for chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia and environmental sensitivities. Thank you for the work you do and welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Joel Harden: I have a smile on my face because my Kingston family is in the House today. That’s my brother Adam up there, his partner Jen, and my two nephews, Ethan and Jonah. Welcome to this House; this is your House.

Mr. Will Bouma: For those who missed them earlier, proudly representing Brantford-Brant in the chamber today are: for the Royal Canadian Sea Cadets, Chief Petty Officer First Class Aurora Linnington and Chief Petty Officer Second Class Charlie Downey, joined by Acting Sub-Lieutenant Kyle Au Coin; for the Royal Canadian Air Cadets, Corporal Danika Parasram and Sergeant Tobias Ven Berkel, joined by commanding officer Captain Celina Corner; for the Royal Canadian Army Cadets, Master Warrant Officer Kyrianna Jorgenson and Warrant Officer Ethan Russell, joined by commanding officer Captain Josh Jennie; for the Navy League of Canada, we have Leading Cadet Alissa Bartlett and Ordinary Cadet Nathan Learned, joined by commanding officer Lieutenant Richard Carpenter and Sub-Lieutenant Celina Barnard. Thank you for joining us today in your House.

M^me France Gélinas: I’d like to introduce a few more members of Save Minden ER: my good friend Louise Baker, who’s from Minden now; Randy and Pat Baker; Sue Sisson; Wendy and Dave Mycroft; Linda Boulton; Darla Noris Sward; Kathy Lee; Diane Forbes; Linda Cutler; Martha Indovina; and Gary Spring. Welcome to your House.

Hon. Michael S. Kerzner: Please let me introduce some great Ontarians, leaders in the agri-food business that help keep Ontario fed every day and the founders of St. Helen’s Meat Packers: Robert Bielak; his wife, Gloria; and their daughters Rachel and Jaclyn. Welcome to the Legislature of Ontario.

1040

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

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: From my area, I’d like to welcome everyone from Community Living, but especially Community Living Essex County. Karen Bolger and the team at Community Living Essex County do an incredible job, not just for Essex, but for all of Windsor and Essex county. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Nina Tangri: Later this morning, joining us from India is the high priest Swami Govind Dev Giriji Maharaj. I’d like to welcome him to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I am also pleased to welcome folks from Community Living Ontario, specifically from my riding, Amber Taylor, who is a council member, and the vice-president of CLO council, Niko Pupella. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos: I’d like to welcome Community Living Oakville: Alexandra Hoeck Murray, the executive director, Nazeem Lahashmi, Hugo Troccoli and Andrea Interior.

Mrs. Daisy Wai: I would like to welcome Carlene Wisdom and April Cleugh, area and regional managers from Christian Horizons. Christian Horizons is a non-profit organization providing services for adults with developmental or intellectual disabilities in Ontario and Saskatchewan. Back in 2019, I met their central district executive director Irene Moore and listened to their ideas of supporting for more affordable housing access. They now—

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

I’ll next recognize the Minister for Seniors and Accessibility.

Hon. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: I’d like to welcome the grade 10 students from Francis Liebermann Catholic High School who are visiting Queen’s Park today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I want to give a special welcome to Elizabeth Witmer. Kitchener–Waterloo was well-served by her and that continues today. Thank you very much, Elizabeth.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I have two remarkable constituents who are here today, the president of Community Living Ontario, Michael Jacques, and his father, Marcel. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Billy Pang: Today being Lupus Awareness Day in Ontario, I am excited to welcome an amazing delegation from Lupus Ontario who have done so much to improve the lives of people. They include Diana Bozzo, Tanya Connacher, Yadira Castro, June Alikhan, Linda Keill and 16 others.

Mr. Todd J. McCarthy: I welcome to the Ontario Legislative Assembly today Mr. John Olah, leading Ontario trial lawyer and a 1973 fellow graduate of Osgoode Hall law school with the late Honourable Jim Flaherty.

Ms. Natalia Kusendova-Bashta: Good morning. I’d like to welcome my fellow Polish Canadian Kryss Weiss from Community Living Toronto. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

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

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Thank you, Speaker. I knew it would come around to me eventually. I see that Patricia Franks is here from the beautiful riding of Dufferin–Caledon, no doubt to mark Community Living Day, so welcome.

Ms. Jess Dixon: I’m welcoming Allan Mills and Devon Fernandes to the House this morning, the executive director and vice-chair of Extend-A-Family Waterloo Region.

Hon. Michael Parsa: I’d like to welcome Community Living Ontario, Community Living Toronto and other local Community Living agencies across the province to the Legislature this morning. I’d like to, in particular, give a shout-out to Brad Saunders, Chris Beesley, Jo-Anne Demick, Shawn Pegg, Petronilla Ndebele, Brianna MacLellan, Sarah MacDonald and Julia Silani. I look forward to meeting with all of you later on this afternoon at the reception. Thank you, and welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Anthony Leardi: On behalf of myself and the member from Chatham-Kent–Leamington and the member from Windsor–Tecumseh, we would like to welcome Karen Bolger, executive director of Community Living Essex County, and Brianne Taggart, Ray Renaud, Beth Renaud, Marilyn Godard, Shelbey Pillon, Cynthia Castellucci, Amanda Pritchard and Kirti Ladwa. Welcome.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. That concludes our introduction of visitors for today.

Question Period

Doctor shortage

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

Over 2.2 million Ontarians do not have a family doctor; more than 360,000 of them are children. That number increases each and every month. It will reach three million people by 2025, as fewer medical students choose family practice and more family physicians retire. The growing physician shortage will put more pressure on already overwhelmed hospitals, emergency departments, urgent care and even our long-term-care homes.

Family doctors need this government’s support to continue to provide top-quality care to us, like access to team-based care, like reduced administrative burdens, like an electronic health record that actually works. Will this government listen to Ontario family physicians and act upon their recommendations?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Not only are we listening, we are working with the OMA, our partners in universities. When we made our most recent expansion of residency spots, both students incoming and post-secondary and post-graduate, I had university provosts and presidents say this is the largest expansion they have seen in their university health expansions in historic numbers. They are thrilled that, as an example, we are seeing more individuals choose to study medicine, and we, as a government, are committing through residency spots increases to ensure that those young people who want to practise medicine in the province of Ontario have that opportunity here in their communities. Thank you.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question: the member for Humber River–Black Creek.

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: Minister, more than 500,000 people living in Toronto and Mississauga don’t have a family doctor, including over 136,000 of the lowest-income earners. Half of the people without a doctor in Toronto and Mississauga live in racialized neighbourhoods.

Doctors are only human. They can only take about 1,000 to 1,200 patients, although many doctors have much larger rosters. At this rate, the GTA will need about 400 more doctors to meet the demand in the region. What plans does this government have to immediately recruit hundreds of more doctors in the GTA?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: As we passed Bill 60 this week, it was very exciting to now have the opportunity to have as of right in the province of Ontario. As of right means that physicians who are practising in other Canadian jurisdictions right now have the opportunity to practise in the province without having to go through the red tape.

Why are we making those investments? Because we understand that there are short-, medium- and long-term plans that we can put in place and that we have put in place, including an investment of $33 million to make sure that an additional 100 graduates are going to have the positions and availability to practise, train and teach and practise in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Next and final supplementary, the member for Kiiwetinoong.

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: In northern Ontario, there’s a shortage of 350 family doctors and specialists. We also know that nursing stations on reserves are staffed by federal and agency nurses. It’s like this: Federal nurses have to reach out to on-call doctors by phone to provide a diagnosis. That’s normal in the north. That doctor shortage leads to unnecessary suffering. It leads to unnecessary deaths of patients in far northern Ontario.

I ask, how is this going to immediately help the people of northern Ontario suffering because of the doctor shortage?

1050

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Since 2018, we have added an additional 1,800 physicians in the province of Ontario. We have put in place programs specifically for northern Ontario to match emergency departments with peer-to-peer ED doctors to make sure that they have access to peers who are there for them to be able to work through issues and problems as they appear before their emergency departments.

We’ll continue to do that work. It is not one issue; it is not one solution. We are doing everything with our partners, including in a partnership to increase family medicine by a partnership between Queen’s University and Lakeridge that actually is focused on training new family docs to make sure that we have the capacity in the province of Ontario to serve our growing population.

Doctor shortage

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is for the Minister of Health.

Nearly 65,000 people in Kitchener-Waterloo do not have a doctor. A quarter of those people are among the lowest income earners. They can’t afford to pay an annual subscription to a clinic or fees for virtual care. Thousands of people who could be getting proactive, preventative care are going to the emergency room when their illnesses have progressed. So many lives can be saved with early intervention.

What will this government do to support family doctors to hire more administrative and clinical support so that they spend more time with their patients, as the Ontario College of Family Physicians has recommended this government do?

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

Hon. Jill Dunlop: I find it very rich coming from the opposition today while every one of you stood up yesterday and voted against Bill 60. If you had read the bill, do you understand—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I will ask the minister to take her seat. I’ll ask the official opposition to come to order.

The Minister of Colleges and Universities can conclude her answer.

Hon. Jill Dunlop: By passing Bill 60, we are adding an additional 24,000 PSWs, 1,000 registered nurses, 500 RPNs, 455 new physicians, 52 new physician assistants and 150 nurse practitioners. You’re asking us what we’re doing? You’re voting against every single measure we take.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Members will please take their seats. The House will come to order.

Restart the clock. The supplementary question, the member for Oshawa.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Minister, the shortage of family doctors puts additional pressure on our hospitals and emergency rooms. Angie in my community went to Lakeridge hospital’s ER with chest pains and emailed me while waiting in emerg. She was told that only one doctor was on duty and there were 119 patients waiting. I wonder how many of those people could have received faster care or avoided the ER if they were able to have seen a family doctor?

Premier, over 44,000 people in Durham region don’t have a family doctor. Can I tell people who are writing to their MPPs from the emergency room to keep waiting, or that help is on the way?

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

Hon. Sylvia Jones: This is really an important opportunity to highlight the many different programs that we’ve put in place to assist our ED physicians, to assist our hospitals, to assist our paramedics. One of them I would highlight is, of course, the Dedicated Offload Nurses Program—funding specifically to ensure that a nurse, a respiratory technician or a paramedic is off-loading and taking care of those patients to ensure the paramedics can get back into community.

Another one of course is the 911 models of care, where we don’t just force paramedics to take individuals to emergency departments. We have the opportunity now, whether it is for long-term care, palliative and now actually expanding it into diabetes and epilepsy—

Interjections.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I understand that the members opposite don’t want to hear the good things that are happening in the province of Ontario, but I will tell you that I am getting feedback that says these changes are making a difference and are working—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Member for Waterloo will come to order. Member for Hamilton Mountain will come to order. The member for Brantford–Brant will come to order. The Minister of Energy will come to order.

Restart the clock. The final supplementary: the member for Thunder Bay–Superior North.

MPP Lise Vaugeois: The region of Thunder Bay has at least 45,000 people without access to primary care. Greenstone is losing two doctors at the end of the month, and seniors are being left without access to any care whatsoever.

There are solutions: Further increase enrolment and create a learn-and-stay program for doctors at the Northern Ontario School of Medicine. Establish more nurse practitioner-led clinics. Reduce the administrative burden on doctors and create a centralized electronic records and referral system now, not in five years.

Will the government finally invest in the solutions so clearly identified by medical professionals that are not happening now?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Speaker, Northern Ontario School of Medicine: 20 additional residency spots were just announced last week.

There is no one in this chamber who doesn’t understand and appreciate that with a growing and aging population, we need to do better. What I will say to the NDP and the Liberals is, where would we have been if they hadn’t cut those 50 residency spots? We would have had 250 additional practitioners in the province today.

We’re putting the work in. We’re making those investments. The member opposite can either choose to work with us or continue to complain. But you will see that there are already improvements happening in community because we are making the investment, as a government.

Hospital services

Mr. Chris Glover: I just heard the Minister of Health talk about getting care into communities. We have people from Minden today whose emergency room is being shut down. You’re taking the care out of their community, and it’s absolutely shameful.

When I asked in this House about the closure of the Minden emergency room last week, the Minister of Health said that the decision was made at the local level and refused to take responsibility for it. The Ontario Health Coalition informs me that this is the first time in Ontario that a Minister of Health has refused to take responsibility for a hospital closure. Because of this closure, lives will be at risk over the summer because of the long ride to the Haliburton hospital.

Does the minister understand that those lives will be her responsibility?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Speaker, while I appreciate that I cannot correct a member opposite’s record, the Minden hospital is not closing. I want to be clear. The local decision made by hospital leadership, supported by a volunteer-voted board, has made a determination that in Haliburton health sciences, they want to combine the Minden and Haliburton emergency departments. All of the other critically important services that currently happen in the Minden hospital will continue to happen in the Minden hospital.

There is no doubt that when changes happen, including emergency department closures, it is very challenging for the community. But I want to reassure and remind the member opposite that these are local decisions made by local leadership, local hospitals.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The official opposition, come to order.

The supplementary question. The member for Nickel Belt.

M^me France Gélinas: The emergency department in Minden needs to stay open.

A police officer arrives at MilCun Training Center for pistol, carbine or rifle training—sometimes things go wrong. They’re 11 minutes to the emergency department in Minden.

The brand new Nesbitt arena has tournaments and training camps all year round. A kid gets hurt—it is three minutes’ drive to the Minden emergency department.

The 62 residents who live at Hyland Crest Long-Term Care need urgent care—it’s a zero-minute drive. They are attached to the hospital, but they won’t be able to go there anymore.

The residents of Minden and the surrounding area are here today at Queen’s Park. They came to Queen’s Park to ask for the minister’s help. They want her to use her power as Minister of Health to put a one-year moratorium on the closure of the emergency department of Minden hospital. Will she listen to them? Will she help them?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Health.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Speaker, so often in this chamber, we talk about the importance and value of community leadership, of ensuring that community has a voice. And now the member opposite is suggesting that we need to override community hospital leadership decisions and board-supported decisions. It is very unfortunate that they have not supported the local decision made by hospital leadership at the Haliburton health sciences.

1100

Life sciences sector

Mr. Graham McGregor: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade.

Ontario is home to a world-class life sciences sector, with our researchers continually pushing the envelope for better health outcomes for all. But if there’s anything that the last few years have shown us, it’s the importance of having an established medical manufacturing sector that tops the life sciences agenda. That’s why last week’s Moderna announcement was so welcomed.

Will the minister please speak further to the progress that this government is making to ensure that Ontario will never again be left behind and left reliant on others for critical goods?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, supply chain issues caused by the pandemic created global shortages of many vital health care devices. One such shortage was epidural catheters, the medical standard when it comes to providing adequate pain relief during labour—or so we’ve been told.

We put out a call to re-shore manufacturing of epidurals right here in Ontario. One company, Canadian Hospital Specialties, answered that call and will now manufacture epidural catheters at their plant in Oakville. Last week, with our MPPs from Oakville and Oakville North–Burlington, CHS announced a $1.5-million investment to fill that critical supply gap and hire 10 people along the way. What a great example of seeing a problem and solving it right here in Ontario. Premier Ford calls that “the Ontario spirit.”

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

Mr. Graham McGregor: Thanks to the minister for his answer and, quite frankly, for his leadership on the file.

It’s great news that Ontario will now domestically produce epidural catheters. This announcement is a welcome relief to hospitals that struggled to manage their supply of epidural catheters and secure inventory.

Because of the leadership demonstrated by the Premier and this minister, Ontario manufacturers have begun to produce an increasing number of critical medical supplies.

With the ongoing rollout of the life sciences strategy, what further initiatives can we expect to see from our government as we continue to bolster our manufacturing industry, create jobs and position Ontario as a world leader in the medtech and biotech sectors?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, Ontario has a very rich history of life-saving medical breakthroughs. From discovering insulin right here in Toronto to detecting the gene that causes cystic fibrosis to developing the world’s first cardiac pacemaker, millions of lives have been vastly improved because of the groundbreaking work being done right here in Ontario’s life sciences sector.

Our new Life Sciences Council will help to accelerate commercialization and encourage adoption of made-in-Ontario health innovations. Much like when we did the auto sector’s Driving Prosperity plan, we’ve now introduced Taking Life Sciences to the Next Level. It’s their plan for Ontario’s first life sciences strategy in over a decade. This will ensure that Ontario is the global life sciences centre for our world’s innovators.

Consumer protection

Ms. Chandra Pasma: Five years after paying deposits to Greatwise Developments, homebuyers in Ottawa West–Nepean are still waiting for their promised homes. They’ve been sent notice of delay after notice of delay, with no delivery date currently provided. The developer also gave inaccurate information, blaming the city for delays when actually the developer failed to file the permits. My constituents complained to the Home Construction Regulatory Authority, expecting some support. Instead, 22 months later, they haven’t even received a decision.

Why is the Premier continuing to allow unscrupulous developers to run roughshod over Ontarians who just want to move into their new homes?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery.

Hon. Kaleed Rasheed: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. It is this government that believes all Ontarians deserve a home and will not waiver when it comes to protecting new home buyers’ investments in their future.

Under this Premier, it is this government has not only committed to building 1.5 million new homes, but it is adding new ways to improve protection for Ontarians across our province. The changes we implemented over the last few months have put bad developers on notice and made bad developers think twice before trying to take advantage of our homebuyers. Hard-working Ontarians can rest assured that our government has their backs when they make the biggest purchase of their lives, with or without the support of the opposition.

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

Ms. Chandra Pasma: Two years to get a decision from the HCRA isn’t protecting anyone but developers, Speaker.

It gets worse. While my constituents are in limbo, receiving bad information or no information, a clause in the contract allows the developer to unilaterally cancel the home purchase if the developer believes there is a dispute between the homebuyer and the developer. This means that if my constituents speak up publicly, they lose their new homes. It is unfair that a developer can behave with impunity and then take away someone’s home if they complain.

Will the Premier protect homebuyers in Ontario by banning gag order clauses from home sales contracts?

Hon. Kaleed Rasheed: Thank you to the member for the question. The member opposite has a lot to say about helping Ontarians, but when push comes to shove, they choose to play politics rather than vote for real support for Ontarians. Speaker, when our great Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing introduced a bill in the fall that would not only punish bad developers with fines of hundreds or thousands of dollars, but for the very first time the money will go—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Opposition, come to order.

Hon. Kaleed Rasheed: —back into the pockets of the affected individuals, what did the members opposite do? They voted against that bill. They voted against stronger protection for the people of this province, voted against providing families the relief they needed in this bill.

Speaker, on this side and on that side too, we are here—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member will take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. Opposition, come to order. The House will come to order.

The next question.

Municipal development

Mr. Hardeep Singh Grewal: My question is for the honourable Premier. Peel region is one of Ontario’s fastest-growing municipalities, and over the next few years we know that thousands of individuals, families and newcomers to Canada will settle in our communities.

With an abundance of job opportunities available, along with thriving businesses, community organizations, schools and health care facilities that are already there, Peel region is a great place to call home. However, we know that there’s a shortage of available housing throughout Peel region and throughout Ontario.

For too many Ontarians, finding the right home is still too challenging. Our government must keep moving ahead with measures to tackle the critical shortage in housing. Can the Premier explain how our government is increasing Ontario’s housing supply?

Hon. Doug Ford: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank the member from Brampton East. You’re doing a fantastic job. As a matter of fact, all five members from Brampton are doing a great job.

We’re in a housing crisis right now, a desperate housing crisis. No matter if it’s new Canadians coming in or young people looking for a house to buy and they just can’t afford it. It’s very simple: It’s supply and demand. We’re going to build 1.5 million homes.

We’ve set a record here in Ontario. We’re the fastest-growing region in North America—not just in Canada, not in Ontario but in North America: 445,000 people moved into our great province last year, the reason being, that’s where they see the economic growth in North America—right here. Because of my great friend, right beside me, the Minister of Economic Development, about 650,000 more people are working today than there were under the previous Liberal government.

1110

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

Mr. Hardeep Singh Grewal: It’s good news that so many housing projects are under way and that our government is creating conditions for more construction to take place. This will benefit my community of Brampton East and benefit other communities across our great province.

Rapidly growing communities like mine need access to convenient transportation networks. The previous Liberal government ignored the need to build and expand vital transportation infrastructure, like roads and highways, to keep up with future growth. Their failure to address the needed expansions to public transit and highway networks is making life inconvenient for individuals, families and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is vital to address the highway congestion, create jobs and support Ontario’s economy.

Speaker, can the Premier please explain how our government is building stronger transportation networks which will further support our communities?

Hon. Doug Ford: Again, another great question from the member from Brampton East. As we see the population grow, as we see the economy grow, we need to get people from point A to point B. Through our great Minister of Transportation and Minister of Infrastructure, we’re spending over $184 billion not just building new highways like the 413 or the Bradford Bypass, but also, where I was yesterday in Kitchener-Waterloo, we’re building Highway 7; in southwestern Ontario, we’re widening Highway 3.

Mr. Speaker, we’re pouring money into infrastructure, no matter if it’s 50 projects and the $50 billion through new hospitals and expansions, or long-term care through the Ministry of Long-Term Care. The previous government built, what, 618 in 12 years? We’re building 68,000 new long-term-care beds to make sure that when the population grows, they have a place to live and call home.

Right now, Ontario is on fire and we’re going to continue making it sure the economy grows, putting money back into people’s pockets.

Tenant protection

Ms. Jessica Bell: My question is to the Premier. A new report by the city of Toronto is raising fears that the Conservatives want to override Toronto’s laws and make it easier for developers to knock down rental buildings, kick out tenants and replace rent-controlled homes with luxury condos. When renters are facing a demolition, they need better protections, not an eviction notice.

To make our city more affordable, can this government commit to strengthening municipal rental replacement laws instead of weakening them?

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

Hon. Steve Clark: We have not made any changes to existing rental replacement bylaws that are currently in effect in some municipalities. They remain in place. In fact, we’re proposing to build on those bylaws by explicitly requiring that municipal rental replacement bylaws include compensation and the right for the tenant to move back in at the same rent. For example, we’re exploring right now a framework where a municipality could require that replacement units have the same core features, like the same number of bedrooms, as they did previously, and requiring that tenants are given the right of first refusal to move into that new, modern accommodation at a similar rent. Those are the facts, Speaker.

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

Ms. Jessica Bell: Minister, we’re currently debating a bill where you’re looking at taking these rental protections away, so that’s a very interesting response.

My question is back to the Premier. Average rents in Toronto have reached an alarming high of $3,000 a month, which means losing your home to demolition is devastating. Right now, there are 73 rental homes approved for demolition and conversion in Toronto, putting over 3,400 rental homes at risk. Tenants living in these buildings, like those at 55 Brownlow, 25 St. Mary and 145 St. George, are rallying at city hall today because they want to save their homes.

I’m going to ask the minister again: Can you commit to strengthening rental protections when a tenant is facing a demolition instead of weakening them?

Hon. Steve Clark: Again, Speaker, I have to continue with this member to express the facts about what this government is doing. Again, the question I have back to her is: Are you going to support the tenant protection measures that this government is putting into Bill 97? Do you support the tremendous work that the Attorney General has done to ensure that the Landlord and Tenant Board moves forward with double the amount of adjudicators and also staff support to deal with the backlog? That’s the question before the House. Do you support tenant protections, yes or no?

Transportation infrastructure

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. I rise for the third time since last August to ask about the reconstruction of the Caledonia Argyle Street bridge. I will continue to stand in this House on this issue until reconstruction begins, because it’s a matter of safety.

Last August, the minister said the detailed design of the Argyle Street replacement was already complete and that the ministry was in the process of obtaining final approvals to proceed to construction. The minister also said, “We will not take any shortcuts when it comes to getting critical infrastructure built.”

The ministry may not take shortcuts, but the long way around could see this bridge collapse under this government’s watch. My constituents are fearful to cross the bridge and they become anxious when they are stopped in the middle during bumper-to-bumper traffic.

Speaker, through you to the minister: What is the holdup? What is the date reconstruction will begin?

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: I want to thank the member opposite for her important question. Our government understands the importance of the Argyle Street bridge in her riding as Argyle Street is the main street that connects Caledonia and Haldimand county. The bridge remains safe for limited use, including emergency service vehicles. The bridge is closely monitored by MTO and load limit restrictions are enforced.

As the member opposite knows, for years the previous Liberal government simply ignored important infrastructure investments like this one in rural Ontario. This bridge, which was built in 1927, has reached the end of its service life and it needs to be replaced. That’s why our government is saying yes to making these investments in rural Ontario and that’s why we’re investing in replacing the concrete Argyle Street bridge with a new five-span steel arch bridge.

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

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady: Once again, this is cold comfort with respect to a reconstruction project that is more than 20 years overdue. The ministry has said it’s a priority and the minister said that again. This government has had five years to get the job done and yet reconstruction is idling.

Ministry staff has said that the structure is safe and the minister alluded to it this morning by saying that for some traffic, including emergency service vehicles, provided that the load restriction is followed and enforced, the bridge is safe.

The truth is, the majority of Haldimand county is crossing over that bridge on a daily basis. If the bridge is only safe if load restrictions are followed, the travelling public has a right to know how many infractions have occurred and are occurring on a daily basis. Locals know what is travelling that bridge.

Speaker, through you to the minister: How many fines have been issued since the load restrictions were put in place?

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: I can report that the ministry has not observed a high rate of offenders. The ministry has installed an electronic road monitoring system to assist with load restriction enforcement—the issue that the member opposite is raising. Letters are sent to commercial vehicle operators reminding them of the posted load limit restrictions, and all commercial vehicles that are repeatedly found to be in violation of the restrictions after receiving the notification letter may face sanctions and the loss of their permission to operate their commercial vehicle.

I can assure the member opposite, as well as all members of this House, that safety has always been and will continue to be our top priority.

Public transit

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: My question is for the Associate Minister of Transportation. Public transit is the primary form of travel for many people living in my riding of Markham–Thornhill and also for many people living across the GTA. It should be easy for them to travel across the entire transit network. However, the transit fare system under different transit agencies is unfortunately inconsistent. This leads to confusion and misunderstandings for many individuals.

People who rely on public transit are counting on our government to remove barriers so that using public transit is simple and convenient.

Can the Associate Minister please share what our government is doing to deliver more options for riders to make transit a more convenient experience in Ontario?

1120

Hon. Stan Cho: I’m very happy to talk about transit this morning—a much better subject than talking about hockey.

Speaker, through last summer and into this winter, we introduced Presto’s credit card tap option for riders on the GO network and the 905 with terrific success, and over one million credit card taps have successfully been logged.

I’m happy to say that last Tuesday, our government, under the leadership of this Premier, launched a debit card tap feature on Presto and GO Transit and major local transit agencies in the 905—that includes York region, in that member’s riding. This is game-changing stuff, changing the way that people are able to get from point A to point B and pay their transit fares. With a simple tap of a debit card or a credit card, riders can now take transit and get to work, school, appointments, everything in between—

Interjection.

Hon. Stan Cho: I meant to say “tap,” of course.

This is something that the Liberals simply didn’t do. They left behind the commuters of this province. This government won’t do the same. We’re building record transit and making the experience better all along.

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

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. It is good news that our government is providing new payment options that make it easier to travel on our public transit networks. Access to more payment options is long overdue and is important to many individuals and families.

Public transit is an essential service, and our government must continue to invest in public transit infrastructure so that people can be better connected to jobs and travel.

Can the associate minister please explain what our government is doing to ensure that reliable and convenient transit service is available for all Ontarians?

Hon. Stan Cho: Speaker, the member is absolutely right; the world moves at a fast pace, and there’s a language young people today are speaking that I really don’t understand. There are things being developed that are very quick and difficult to keep up with.

The government has a responsibility to keep up with the times. That’s why we can’t limit ourselves to just paying for transit through physical cards. That’s why people on the GO, 905 and UP Express network can now use their credit and debit cards and smart phones or smart devices—with a simple tap of your smart device—to ride transit.

It doesn’t end there, because new Presto devices are also being installed on the TTC to deliver new payment options—like credit, debit and smart pay—to Toronto riders later this year. Progress has been very solid. In fact, I’m glad to update the House that the hardware refresh has been completed on buses and streetcars; the work is ongoing for stations.

Unlike the down bad opposition, this government is getting it done for commuters in Ontario.

Long-term care

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

Last year, we learned that Orchard Villa, owned by Southbridge and one of the worst private long-term-care operators in our province, wants a 30-year licence renewal. Now Southbridge wants an MZO from the province to expedite a planned expansion. Pickering council saw first-hand the neglect at this company and firmly said no to their plan at a recent council meeting.

Will the Premier listen to the concerns of residents, families and the city of Pickering, or does he plan to renew these dangerous for-profit homes with a 30-year licence renewal and fast-tracked expansion?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Long-Term Care.

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

Let me be very, very clear: The Premier of this province gave me a very clear mandate to ensure that I build 60,000 new and upgraded long-term-care beds across the province of Ontario. Part of that mandate was to increase the level of care to four hours. Part of that mandate was to hire 27,000 additional health care providers, health care workers, for those 60,000 new beds.

Let me be clear to the people of Pickering: They are waiting for a long-term-care home. What we are talking about here is tearing down an old, outdated home, Orchard Villa, and replacing it with a brand new, state-of-the-art home for the people of Pickering. And let me be very clear to the member opposite: Although he is opposed to this, I will do whatever it takes to remove the obstacles, to make sure that that home is built, because the people of Pickering deserve nothing less.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

The supplementary question.

Mr. Wayne Gates: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier: I just want to stop the dying in these long-term-care homes.

Back to the Premier: The Premier wants to build more beds, but under a private, for-profit owner-operator, those are just more beds for seniors to die in.

To the minister and the Premier: Look at the history of this company—military intervention, bedbugs, a staff shortage, rotten food, residents left in soiled diapers, a class action lawsuit. Eighty residents died, some from dehydration. It seems likely the government will not only grant them a 30-year renewal, but are advocating for them to expand further.

We know the public, not-for-profit system is safer. How can the Premier justify even considering renewing the Orchard Villa licence? How can you even consider that?

Hon. Paul Calandra: To be very clear, the very same unionized people—the Ontario Nurses’ Association and SEIU—work in the same long-term-care home that he is now criticizing, Mr. Speaker. Let’s be very clear about that.

What we are talking about in Pickering is tearing down an old, outdated home that should have been torn down long before we came to office. That is what he is advocating against.

This really isn’t the first time in Pickering. We have two applications for brand new homes in front of Pickering council. One was this brand new Orchard Villa. The second home was an Afro-Caribbean-centred home, the first of its kind in Ontario, and they turned it down. That is who the NDP are protecting, Mr. Speaker.

What I’m going to do is tell this member, tell the NDP, and tell Pickering council very clearly: The Premier gave me a mandate to build 60,000 new beds for seniors across Ontario. I’ll remove the obstacles and I will get it done despite the fact—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Order. The member from Niagara Falls come to order. The government House leader will come to order. Thank you.

Start the clock. The next question.

Public safety

Mr. Hardeep Singh Grewal: My question is for the Solicitor General.

Sadly, I’m hearing concerns from the people of my community about increased criminal activity. Of course, the issue extends beyond our local community of Brampton East. We’ve all heard media reports about a rise in attacks on religious institutions and hateful graffiti. Hate-motivated incidents that target individuals, families and businesses based on their ethnicity, religion, race or gender have many feeling vulnerable and threatened.

The public safety of all Ontarians must be our government’s highest priority. The people of my community and all Ontarians are counting on our government for support and solutions.

Speaker, can the Solicitor General please explain how our government is addressing crime and increasing protection for Ontario communities?

Hon. Michael S. Kerzner: I want to thank my friend from Brampton East for his question. As I said before, everyone in Ontario has a right to feel safe and free from harassment, hate and discrimination. That’s why we’re building an Ontario for everyone, where everyone belongs and everyone can contribute and prosper. This is our Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure this House that our police work day and night to protect all Ontarians from violence, and this government will always have the backs of everyone that keeps Ontario safe.

Recently, I visited the Ontario Police College, where I saw for myself the police training—the training for investigations and hate crimes, so that they are prepared to keep us safe.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear: Our government has a zero tolerance towards hate and violence of any kind.

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

Mr. Hardeep Singh Grewal: I appreciate the Solicitor General’s direct response in addressing this very serious issue, and his continuous efforts in keeping all Ontarians safe.

It’s reassuring that our police services are well-trained and well-equipped to protect our communities. We value the dedication and service of our front-line police officers.

Ontario is one of the most diverse places in the world, and everyone is responsible to be respectful and welcoming to all. The words and actions that we all use must help build stronger, safer and more inclusive communities across our province.

Speaker, can the Solicitor General please explain what other actions our government is taking to support the safety and protection of all Ontarians?

Hon. Michael S. Kerzner: Speaker, I want to thank my friend again for the question. I am proud to say that just last Friday I joined our great Minister of Citizenship and Multiculturalism in announcing a new $25-million anti-hate security and prevention grant. This grant will help religious and cultural organizations enhance safety and security measures to prevent hateful incidents. We were joined in that announcement by leaders of multiple faiths. Our government is working on all fronts to combat hate, and I commend my colleague for this initiative.

1130

Let me be clear: There is no excuse for anti-Semitism, Islamophobia or racism of any kind. It’s totally unacceptable. Hate is toxic to our democracy. And if anyone here or anywhere engages in this type of behaviour and feels you can double down or triple down on this, we have a message for you: We will call you out.

Kashechewan First Nation

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: Ma question est pour le premier ministre.

Premier, once again, due to flooding, the community of Kashechewan had to be evacuated to multiple communities across northern Ontario. Families with children are bound to live in hotel rooms for a recurring issue: the spring flooding.

Five years ago, the federal and provincial governments, with Kashechewan, signed an agreement to move the community to a safer location. My question: Premier, what has your government done in those five years to move Kashechewan to their new location?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Northern Development.

Hon. Greg Rickford: As we support the ongoing logistical challenges of that community, there is no question that there is a need for us to move on that location—“us” involves the community itself and some neighbouring communities. The federal government and the provincial government remain committed to that process and continue to work with not just Kashechewan but Fort Albany First Nation to ensure that they actually want to do this and we can proceed with a couple of important processes to make that move. Our door remains open, and we’d like to facilitate that process. It shouldn’t take this long. It’s twice in my own political career that this has happened.

I can assure the member opposite that we remain committed to facilitating that, providing it has the support of the nearby communities to Kashechewan.

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

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: Again to the Premier: I had the opportunity to speak to community members of Kashechewan who have been evacuated in Kapuskasing. They tell me that nothing has been done. The road has not even been built to access the new site.

Premier, what will your government do to expedite the moving of the community that has to be evacuated year after year due to flooding?

Hon. Greg Rickford: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the city of Timmins, Cochrane, Kapuskasing, Val Rita and Thunder Bay for their extraordinary efforts to support the move. I think that’s the thing that should be acknowledged first and foremost in this place. People do tremendous work—volunteers. It’s a real community-based effort.

Frankly, we continue to urge, particularly, Fort Albany First Nation to work with Kashechewan First Nation so that we can proceed with things like the environmental processes that are required to actually build the road that the member speaks about. It’s not that nothing is being done. Efforts are being made to get things started. That has been going on for a couple of years. I suspect the member knows that.

We would be happy to have a conversation with the leadership of those First Nations communities to trigger those processes and move that community to a place where we signed on the dotted line that we were committed to do that.

Housing

Mr. Graham McGregor: My question is for the Associate Minister of Housing. As Ontario faces an affordable housing crisis, individuals and families are struggling to keep pace with the costs of housing due to rising mortgage and interest rates. These economic challenges are, unfortunately, preventing many hard-working Ontarians from achieving the goal of home ownership.

Unfortunately, years of inaction by the previous Liberal government left vulnerable individuals without the housing supports that they desperately need. That’s why it’s crucial for our government to take immediate action to increase the construction of safe, stable and affordable housing for those at risk.

Speaker, can the associate minister please share what steps our government is taking to deliver great housing supply to Ontarians?

Hon. Nina Tangri: I really do want to thank the member from Brampton North for this very important question.

It was a pleasure to be joined by my Peel caucus colleagues and representatives from the region’s municipalities last month to echo our government’s investment of an additional $202 million every year in our Homelessness Prevention Program and Indigenous Supportive Housing Program. This brings our total annual investment to nearly $700 million. It’s record investments.

But this funding is vital as it helps service managers, like the regional municipality of Peel, provide supportive housing and other supports for people experiencing or at risk of homelessness.

Speaker, we know that supportive housing provides stability that opens doors to better health, employment and independence for those in need. That’s why our government is stepping up and delivering greater investments to the people of this province, which benefit our communities and our economy as a whole.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Graham McGregor: Thanks to the minister for that answer. That 38% increase for Peel is just massive for the region, massive for the community. I was happy to be there with the minister and a lot of Peel caucus colleagues as well. And good gosh, Speaker, after that election, we’ve got a lot of PC caucus members in Peel, don’t we?

These investments are welcome news and demonstrate our government’s commitment to provide support to the housing needs of all Ontarians. However, many constituents in my riding of Brampton North are very concerned about the surging costs of rent and mortgage interest rates. Now, many individuals and families are worried about finding an affordable place to live. That’s why our government must take urgent action to support those who are experiencing hardships and implement practical and long-term solutions to address homelessness.

Speaker, can the associate minister please elaborate on what our government is doing to improve housing services for the people of Ontario?

Hon. Nina Tangri: Once again, thank you to the member from Brampton North for his question.

Our government met with partners and stakeholders right across our province this past fall, and their valuable feedback was key to our improvements to Ontario’s supportive housing system. We recognize that the availability and affordability of housing are closely linked to the supply of homes in our communities. That’s why we’re committed to increasing the supply of housing in the coming 10 years.

We’re pleased to see that many municipalities in Ontario share this goal, like Brampton, Mississauga and Caledon, who have collectively pledged to build a total of 246,000 homes. These pledges demonstrate a solid commitment to increasing housing supply and ensuring that residents have access to affordable housing.

Speaker, only by working together can we ensure that all Ontarians have access to safe, affordable and suitable housing.

Social assistance

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Premier. Last week, the Middlesex-London Health Unit wrote to this government urging an increase to social assistance rates. Their letter states, “Middlesex-London residents with low incomes cannot afford to eat after meeting other essential needs....” At a time of unprecedented inflation, food insecurity is higher than ever before. Our health unit is telling this government that people on ODSP and Ontario Works are not eating.

Speaker, why is this government keeping social assistance rates so low that those who rely on social assistance are force to go without food?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

Hon. Michael Parsa: I thank my honourable colleague for the question. It’s been this government that has been there for every single Ontarian when we said we’re not going to leave them behind. I will just remind the member of all the decisions that they have voted against.

First of all, the largest increase to support the most vulnerable here in the province—what did the opposition do? They voted against it. Then the rates were aligned to inflation, which was the right thing to do to provide more support for Ontarians at a time of high costs and everything as a result of the carbon tax that they supported, that we are against, Mr. Speaker. Time and time and time again, it’s this government that’s fighting for Ontarians. The NDP will say one thing when the lights are on and the cameras are rolling, and then when it comes to actually voting and supporting Ontarians, they’ll continue to turn their back on them, just like they failed, supporting the Liberals in 15 years, Mr. Speaker. We said from the beginning—

Interjections.

1140

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

Supplementary question.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Again to the Premier: Food banks in London and across Ontario are stretched to the limit. In just the last year, the London Food Bank saw a 40% increase in demand. The Emergency Food Cupboard at the Northwest London Resource Centre in my riding is seeing five or six new families a day. When people can’t afford food, their physical and mental health suffers. It causes more chronic conditions, more non-communicable diseases, more infections, depression, anxiety and stress.

Speaker, will this government listen to the Middlesex-London Health Unit, lift people on social assistance out of legislated poverty and increase social assistance rates?

Interjections.

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

The Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

Hon. Michael Parsa: Mr. Speaker, we have invested more than $1.2 billion towards helping communities through the Social Services Relief Fund—$1.2 billion to help with food, to help with the cost of housing; investing $83 million through the Ontario Trillium Foundation to support non-profit organizations, including food banks; $8 million in support for funding Feed Ontario. Mr. Speaker, every single measure that we’ve taken to help Ontarians during the cost of high prices everywhere, the NDP continuously votes against. They will never support lowering costs in this province. You’ve seen them; you’ve heard them. They’ll say one thing here in the House, but as soon as it comes to actions, they’re MIA. They don’t exist.

It’s this Premier and it’s this government that says we’ll make sure that every single Ontarian is supported and no one is left behind, and we’ll put—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

The next question.

Red tape reduction

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Red Tape Reduction. Reducing red tape is a key part of building a stronger economy and improving services for all Ontarians. That’s why our government must bring forward red tape reduction solutions to deliver on our promise to improve government services and make it easier to do business in Ontario. The Less Red Tape, Stronger Economy Act should help to pave the way for better services, provide greater support for businesses to grow and help to save people time and money. While it is unfortunate that the opposition does not believe in the benefits of cutting red tape, this legislation could help ensure Ontario remains a key destination for investment, opportunity and prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, through you, can the minister please explain how our government is reducing regulatory burdens on people and businesses in Ontario?

Hon. Parm Gill: I want to thank the member from Carleton for that important question.

Time and again, the only thing we ever hear from members opposite is no. What they fail to realize is that reducing red tape is about the impact these changes are having on real people and businesses across our great province—changes like helping businesses embrace new technologies like carbon capture and storage. Reducing red tape on these projects will unleash innovation, and it will create hundreds of millions of dollars in new investments right across our great province.

While our government knows there is a tremendous economic and environmental potential for carbon storage, the opposition wants to keep the red tape barriers in place. Mr. Speaker, we are never going to let that happen. Our government will never stop fighting for a better future for Ontarians and make sure our province is prosperous.

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

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Thank you to the minister for his response. It’s clear that the changes our government is making to eliminate red tape are working. For example, removing the ban on carbon sequestration enables new technologies and supports Ontario’s economic competitiveness. Efforts to reduce unnecessary burdens that are holding back Ontario’s economic growth and prosperity are vital, perhaps now more than ever. We saw what happened to our economy when the previous Liberal government introduced destructive economic policies and burdensome regulations that made life more difficult. That’s why it’s so crucial for our government to continue to listen to the people of Ontario and the solutions they bring forward.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, can the minister please explain how these red-tape-reduction changes can create real benefits for people and businesses in our province?

Hon. Parm Gill: I want to thank the member for the important question once again. I always look forward to receiving great ideas, recommendations from Ontarians right across our great province through our red tape portal on Ontario.ca.

I also want to point out that I’ve yet to receive a single idea from any of the members opposite. They don’t even have a critic responsible for red tape reduction. While this is disappointing, it is not unexpected. That’s because, as we all know, the Liberals, supported by the NDP, came up with the highest burden the province had in the country.

However, since 2018, our government has taken strong action to cut Ontario’s regulatory burden by over 16,000 regulatory compliance requirements, which helps businesses big or small with, on average, $700 million annually.

Workplace safety

MPP Lise Vaugeois: This question is to the Premier.

Young people are particularly vulnerable to permanent brain damage due to diesel fuel exposure. With young people beginning skilled trades training as early as grade 11, can the Premier explain to parents why the government has not reduced the diesel exposure limits to the level long recommended by health and safety experts?

Mine workers have been lobbying this for years. In fact, members of the United Steelworkers have stickers on their hard hats recommending it be much reduced from the level that the government has recently moved to. For me, particularly knowing how badly WSIB is serving the interests of injured workers, I can’t imagine how parents will feel.

My question is: Why has the ministry not moved the rate down to the recommended level?

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

Hon. Monte McNaughton: Mr. Speaker, the health and safety of every worker is our government’s top priority. That’s why I was proud to go to Sudbury to be joined by the Minister of Mines, to stand with the United Steelworkers union, to lower diesel particulate requirements in mines to the toughest standards in all of North America. This was a request by the United Steelworkers union.

But, Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to those 29,000 miners across northern Ontario who are building the future of this province. They are in well-paying jobs with pensions and benefits. These are the jobs that our government, under the leadership of Premier Ford, is investing in to ensure that we have more young people joining these amazing careers out there. As we’ve said before, and as the Premier often says, when you have a career in the skilled trades, you have a career for life.

Reception

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

Mr. Billy Pang: I would like to invite members to join the delegation from Lupus Ontario for a group picture at the grand stairs after the question period.

Visitors

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

M^me Dawn Gallagher Murphy: I would like to introduce one of my constituents, William Hulme, who just made it to the gallery with his group, Community Living Ontario. Welcome to the chamber, William, and I hope you enjoy your day at the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks apparently has a point of order.

Hon. David Piccini: Yes. Thank you, Speaker. My apologies. I’d like to welcome Robert Smith to the Legislature, who I’m having lunch with. He’s with Community Living Ontario as well. I look forward to speaking with you later today. Thanks for being here.

Reception

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Scarborough Centre appears to have a point of order.

Mr. David Smith: I’d like to remind the House that in room 247, the Nigerian delegation is there. You’re welcome to join us there today.

Deferred Votes

Building More Mines Act, 2023 / Loi de 2023 visant l’aménagement de davantage de mines

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

Bill 71, An Act to amend the Mining Act / Projet de loi 71, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les mines.

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

The division bells rang from 1149 to 1154.

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

On May 8, 2023, Mr. Pirie moved third reading of Bill 71, An Act to amend the Mining Act.

On May 9, 2023, Ms. Kusendova-Bashta moved that the question be now put.

All those in favour of Ms. Kusendova-Bashta’s motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Anand, Deepak
Babikian, Aris
Bailey, Robert
Barnes, Patrice
Bethlenfalvy, Peter
Bouma, Will
Brady, Bobbi Ann
Bresee, Ric
Byers, Rick
Calandra, Paul
Cho, Raymond Sung Joon
Cho, Stan
Clark, Steve
Coe, Lorne
Crawford, Stephen
Cuzzetto, Rudy
Dixon, Jess
Dowie, Andrew
Downey, Doug
Dunlop, Jill
Fedeli, Victor
Flack, Rob
Ford, Doug
Ford, Michael D.
Gallagher Murphy, Dawn
Ghamari, Goldie

Gill, Parm
Grewal, Hardeep Singh
Hardeman, Ernie
Hogarth, Christine
Holland, Kevin
Jones, Sylvia
Jones, Trevor
Jordan, John
Kanapathi, Logan
Kerzner, Michael S.
Khanjin, Andrea
Kusendova-Bashta, Natalia
Leardi, Anthony
Lecce, Stephen
Lumsden, Neil
MacLeod, Lisa
Martin, Robin
McCarthy, Todd J.
McGregor, Graham
McNaughton, Monte
Mulroney, Caroline
Oosterhoff, Sam
Pang, Billy
Parsa, Michael
Piccini, David
Pierre, Natalie

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

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

Nays

Armstrong, Teresa J.
Bell, Jessica
Blais, Stephen
Bourgouin, Guy
Bowman, Stephanie
Burch, Jeff
Collard, Lucille
Fife, Catherine
Fraser, John
French, Jennifer K.

Gates, Wayne
Gélinas, France
Glover, Chris
Gretzky, Lisa
Harden, Joel
Kernaghan, Terence
Mamakwa, Sol
Mantha, Michael
McMahon, Mary-Margaret
Pasma, Chandra

Rakocevic, Tom
Sattler, Peggy
Shaw, Sandy
Stevens, Jennifer (Jennie)
Tabuns, Peter
Taylor, Monique
Vanthof, John
Vaugeois, Lise
West, Jamie
Wong-Tam, Kristyn

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 78; the nays are 30.

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

Mr. Pirie has moved third reading of Bill 71, an Act to amend the Mining Act. 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 1159 to 1200.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): On May 8, 2023, Mr. Pirie moved third reading of Bill 71, An Act to amend the Mining Act.

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

Ayes

Anand, Deepak
Babikian, Aris
Bailey, Robert
Barnes, Patrice
Bethlenfalvy, Peter
Bouma, Will
Brady, Bobbi Ann
Bresee, Ric
Byers, Rick
Calandra, Paul
Cho, Raymond Sung Joon
Cho, Stan
Clark, Steve
Coe, Lorne
Crawford, Stephen
Cuzzetto, Rudy
Dixon, Jess
Dowie, Andrew
Downey, Doug
Dunlop, Jill
Fedeli, Victor
Flack, Rob
Ford, Doug
Ford, Michael D.
Gallagher Murphy, Dawn
Ghamari, Goldie

Gill, Parm
Grewal, Hardeep Singh
Hardeman, Ernie
Hogarth, Christine
Holland, Kevin
Jones, Sylvia
Jones, Trevor
Jordan, John
Kanapathi, Logan
Kerzner, Michael S.
Khanjin, Andrea
Kusendova-Bashta, Natalia
Leardi, Anthony
Lecce, Stephen
Lumsden, Neil
MacLeod, Lisa
Martin, Robin
McCarthy, Todd J.
McGregor, Graham
McNaughton, Monte
Mulroney, Caroline
Oosterhoff, Sam
Pang, Billy
Parsa, Michael
Piccini, David
Pierre, Natalie

Pirie, George
Quinn, Nolan
Rae, Matthew
Rasheed, Kaleed
Rickford, Greg
Riddell, Brian
Romano, Ross
Sabawy, Sheref
Sandhu, Amarjot
Sarkaria, Prabmeet Singh
Sarrazin, Stéphane
Saunderson, Brian
Scott, Laurie
Skelly, Donna
Smith, Dave
Smith, David
Smith, Laura
Smith, Todd
Surma, Kinga
Tangri, Nina
Thanigasalam, Vijay
Thompson, Lisa M.
Triantafilopoulos, Effie J.
Wai, Daisy
Williams, Charmaine A.
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

Armstrong, Teresa J.
Bell, Jessica
Bourgouin, Guy
Burch, Jeff
Fife, Catherine
French, Jennifer K.
Gates, Wayne
Gélinas, France
Glover, Chris

Gretzky, Lisa
Harden, Joel
Kernaghan, Terence
Mamakwa, Sol
Mantha, Michael
Pasma, Chandra
Rakocevic, Tom
Sattler, Peggy
Shaw, Sandy

Stevens, Jennifer (Jennie)
Tabuns, Peter
Taylor, Monique
Vanthof, John
Vaugeois, Lise
West, Jamie
Wong-Tam, Kristyn

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Todd Decker): The ayes are 78; the nays are 25.

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.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): There being no further business at this time, this House stands in recess until 3 p.m.

The House recessed from 1204 to 1500.

Introduction of Visitors

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: Speaker, there are friends throughout the gallery; I think it would take up the five minutes that we have if I went through the list.

I do want to welcome all of my friends and supporters who are here today. Thank you for taking the time and for supporting me in the decade that I have served.

I would like to acknowledge that my mom, Yvonne Hunter, is here. My eldest brother, Maurice Hunter, is here. And I always call him my little brother—my youngest brother, Andrew Hunter, is here, as well.

I also want to acknowledge my constituency staff who are here. Mohammed Patel is here. Julianna Atanasovski is watching—and Jonathan Patch, and also my intern, Daniel.

Thanks to all of you for being here and for joining me today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Chris Glover: I’d like to introduce Richard and Sandra Bradley from Save the Minden ER. And there are two other Minden residents up above who are also with Community Living Ontario.

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Justice Policy

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: I beg leave to present a report from the Standing Committee on Justice Policy on the estimates selected by the standing committee for consideration.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Mr. Christopher Tyrell): Ms. Ghamari from the Standing Committee on Justice Policy presents the committee’s report as follows:

Pursuant to standing order 63, your committee has selected the 2023-24 estimates of the following ministries for consideration: Ministry of the Attorney General; Ministry of Francophone Affairs; Ministry of Indigenous Affairs; Ministry of the Solicitor General; Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery.

Report presented.

Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs

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

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Mr. Christopher Tyrell): Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 85, An Act to implement Budget measures and to amend various statutes / Projet de loi 85, Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre les mesures budgétaires et à modifier diverses lois.

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

Report adopted.

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

Introduction of Bills

Superior Corporate Services Limited Act, 2023

Mr. Fraser moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr25, An Act to revive Superior Corporate Services Limited.

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

First reading agreed to.

Parrington’s Food Market Limited Act, 2023

Ms. Brady moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr24, An Act to revive Parrington’s Food Market Limited.

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

First reading agreed to.

Petitions

Hospital services

M^me France Gélinas: It is my honour to present 17,107 names that were collected by Save the Minden ER. That’s 95% of the population. It reads as follows:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Haliburton Highlands Health Services board of directors has, without consultation with the affected stakeholders, announced the permanent closure of the emergency department located in the municipality of Minden Hills, Ontario, effective June 1, 2023;

“We, the undersigned, petition” the Legislative Assembly “that a moratorium of this decision be implemented by the” Ministry of Health “immediately for a period of a minimum of one year to allow for consultations with all affected stakeholders to occur.”

I fully support this petition, Speaker, will affix my name to it and ask page Christopher to bring it to the Clerk.

Police services

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: My petition is titled, “Petition in Support of Ontario Getting More Boots on the Ground by Making It Easier to Recruit and Train Police Officers.

“To the Solicitor General:

“Whereas the government of Ontario is committed to ensuring the safety of Ontario communities; and

“Whereas the government of Ontario is committed to supporting our hard-working women and men in blue, who put their lives on the line every day in police forces across the province of Ontario to keep our communities safe;

“Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

“To support the passage of Bill 102, Strengthening Safety and Modernizing Justice Act, 2023, to ensure the following:

“(1) Make it easier for police services across the province to recruit and train more police officers by removing tuition fees for the basic constable training program at the Ontario Police College, known as OPC, and immediately expand the number of recruits that could be trained each year;

“(2) To expand the Basic Constable Training Program at the Ontario Police College, OPC, immediately to accommodate an additional 70 recruits per cohort from 480 to 550;

“(3) Starting in 2024, expand the Basic Constable Training Program to four cohorts per year instead of three;

“(4) Additionally, to support recruitment efforts at a time when local police officers have signalled challenges in doing so, introduce legislation that, if passed, will eliminate the post-secondary education requirement to become a police officer as set out in the Community Safety and Policing Act, also known as the CSPA, and if passed, the act would amend the Community Safety and Policing Act, CSPA, to provide that a secondary school diploma or equivalent is sufficient education for the purposes of being appointed as a police officer; and

“(5) To make the elimination of the tuition fee for the basic constable training program at the Ontario Police College retroactive to January 1, 2023, and recruits who paid for their 12-week basic constable training earlier this year to be reimbursed.”

1510

I proudly affix my signature to this petition, and I will give it to page Sophie.

Homelessness

M^me Lucille Collard: I have a petition entitled “To Address Homelessness in Ottawa.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas, per the 2023 Ontario budget, the province of Ontario has allocated $48 million in additional funding to address homelessness in Toronto, yet only $845,100 for the city of Ottawa;

“Whereas this amounts to 60 times more funding for Toronto, despite being just three times the population of Ottawa;

“Whereas this shortfall in funding for Ottawa will severely compromise the city’s 10-year housing and homelessness plan;

“Whereas this will result in the cancellation of 54 new housing units scheduled to be completed within 18 months, and hundreds more over the next 10 years in the second-largest city in the province;

“We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly to provide Ottawa with its fair share of funding to address the homelessness crisis and alleviate the suffering of its most vulnerable citizens.”

Mr. Speaker, I agree with this petition. I will sign it and give it to page Mackenzie to bring to the table.

Education

M^me Dawn Gallagher Murphy: “In Support of Improving Accountability and Transparency in Ontario.

“To the Minister of Education:

“Whereas the government is committed to delivering a world-class education system that helps prepare students for the jobs of tomorrow; and

“Whereas the legislative changes proposed through the Better Schools and Student Outcomes Act, together with future regulatory amendments, would, if passed, lay the groundwork for a truly world-class education system, unified with a singular focus to improve student outcomes in important lifelong skills like reading, writing and math; and

“Whereas Ontario school boards are not consistently working toward the same priorities, school board performance varies across the province on indicators related to literacy, math, graduation and student attendance; and

“Whereas some parents can review and assess their school board’s performance while other boards do not proactively share this information; and

“Whereas in response Ontario is taking action through proposed legislation to set student achievement priorities and expectations for Ontario’s education sector, and proposed legislative and future regulatory changes, if passed, would allow the Minister of Education to set provincial priorities to:

“—focus boards in important areas of student achievement like reading, writing and math;

“—require school boards to report on progress toward these priorities and enable the Ministry of Education to support struggling boards sooner;

“—allow the minister to require school boards to make any report that the minister may require from the board available to the public;

“—require enhanced school board financial reporting on funding and spending, planned and actuals;

“—allow the minister to strengthen rules around financial accountability and transparency;

“—allow the minister to prescribe school board limitations in participating in business activities that could place school boards in financial risk;

“—allow the minister to enhance the financial accountability of school board-controlled entities, promote greater school board-municipality co-operation on delivering child care and enable an accelerated apprenticeship pathway;

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

“To support the Better Schools and Student Outcomes Act, 2023, and ensure its passage.”

I’m happy to sign my name to this petition and provide it to Christopher.

Hospital services

Mr. Chris Glover: What I hold in my hand is just part of 17,107 signatures.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, petition that a moratorium of this decision be implemented by the Ministries of Health and Long-Term Care immediately for a period of a minimum of one year to allow for consultations with all affected stakeholders to occur.”

I fully support this petition. I will affix my signature and pass it to page Frederick to take to the table.

Homelessness

Mr. John Fraser: I have a petition to address homelessness in Ottawa:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas, per the 2023 Ontario budget, the province of Ontario has allocated $48 million in additional funding to address homelessness in Toronto, yet only $845,100 for the city of Ottawa;

“Whereas this amounts to 60 times more funding for Toronto, despite being just three times the population of Ottawa;

“Whereas this shortfall in funding for Ottawa will severely compromise the city’s 10-year housing and homelessness plan;

I agree with this petition. I’m signing it and giving it to Liam.

Hospital services

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I was very pleased to meet with some of the folks from Save the Minden ER today at Queen’s Park. I want to thank Richard and the folks who set up signing set-ups at coffee shops and corner stores to get 17,107 names. I just have a couple of pages here, though, Speaker.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

I’m pleased to affix my signature and will send this to the table with page Maya.

Land use planning

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady: I have a petition here:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Haldimand county has requested a ministerial zoning order to accelerate the development of a proposed city of 40,000 people on industrial-zoned buffer land in the Nanticoke industrial park; and

“Whereas the housing development will grow the population of the Port Dover-Nanticoke area from approximately 7,000 to 47,000 people; and

“Whereas this development will have a significant impact on infrastructure such as roadways; and

“Whereas 40,000 people living in the Nanticoke industrial park buffer zone is a threat to area jobs in steelmaking, oil refining and the related trades;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to not grant the Haldimand county request for an MZO.”

I support this petition. I will affix my signature to it and send it to the table with page Sophie.

Taxation

Ms. Natalie Pierre: “Whereas the federal government is increasing the escalated carbon tax by 14%, on April 1, 2023;

“Whereas carbon tax cost increase will put more pressure on consumers who are already struggling with inflation;

“Whereas we call on the federal government to stop the carbon tax, which is a tax hike that Ontarians and Canadians cannot afford;

“Whereas the government of Ontario is helping to reduce the cost of living by keeping taxes low, freezing and eliminating licence plate renewal fees and scrapping the requirement to have licence plate stickers for passenger vehicle, light-duty trucks, motorcycles and mopeds and building on these measures in Bill 85, Building a Strong Ontario Act (Budget Measures), 2023, the government continues to help Ontarians with the cost of living;

“Whereas we call on the Ontario government to urge the federal government to halt the carbon tax increase, that will raise the cost of everything;

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

“To support the passage of Bill 85....”

I support this petition and sign my name to it and give it to page Akshitha.

1520

Hospital services

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: It’s my honour to present the following petition on behalf of Save the Minden ER group with part of the 17,107 signatures—collecting 95% of the population’s signatures is a pretty strong mandate.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, petition” the Legislative Assembly of Ontario “that a moratorium of this decision be implemented by the Ministries of Health and Long-Term Care immediately for a period of a minimum of one year to allow for consultations with all affected stakeholders to occur.”

I fully support this petition, will affix my signature and deliver it with page Mridul to the Clerks.

Homelessness

Mr. Stephen Blais: I have a petition regarding homelessness in Ottawa.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas, per the 2023 Ontario budget, the province of Ontario has allocated $48 million in additional funding to address homelessness in Toronto, yet only $845,100 for the city of Ottawa;

“Whereas this amounts to 60 times more funding for Toronto, despite being just three times the population of Ottawa;

“Whereas this shortfall in funding for Ottawa will severely compromise the city’s 10-year housing and homelessness plan;

“Whereas this will result in the cancellation of 54 housing units scheduled to be completed within 18 months, and hundreds more over the next 10 years in the second-largest city in the province;

I agree with this petition, will sign my name and pass it on to Randall.

Member for Scarborough–Guildwood

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: Speaker, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to allow the member for Scarborough–Guildwood to immediately make a 10-minute statement concerning her upcoming retirement from this House.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Mr. Calandra is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to allow the member for Scarborough–Guildwood to immediately make a 10-minute statement concerning her upcoming retirement from this House. Agreed? Agreed.

I’m pleased to recognize the member for Scarborough–Guildwood.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: I rise for my final time in this chamber. I am resigning my seat this week to seek elected public office and to continue my public service in another venue. I do so with no regrets, as there are big issues to attend to elsewhere in my city, Toronto.

However, I cannot help but reflect on my tenure in this place. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to do so.

I was elected in a by-election in 2013 and re-elected three times since. I am proud to have served the people of Scarborough–Guildwood.

Scarborough is the community where my family and I ended up when we emigrated from Jamaica. Scarborough is where I grew up and came of age, where I went to public school and to university, where I started my working life. I love my community, and I am proud to have advocated on the community’s behalf for better hospitals, for better health care, for better transit and for better services for my constituents.

In my nearly 10 years in the Legislature, I have sat on both sides of this House: minority government, majority government and opposition. What can I say? It has been a journey.

I was proud to serve in cabinet as the Associate Minister of Finance and also as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Community and Social Services—I know Community Living is here today, one of those great social service agencies—as Minister of Education and as Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Development.

At finance, I was charged with designing a made-in-Ontario pension plan, the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan. The ORPP was really the catalyst for the Canada-wide expansion of the Canada Pension Plan. I call it CPP 2.0. That really benefited all working Canadians, now and far into the future.

I also helped to create the foundations for multi-employer pension plans, or MEPPs, which created the University Pension Plan, making sure that we have retirement security for those workers, and also for financial literacy being mandatory in grade 10.

I was very proud to be the first Black woman in the history of our province to be Minister of Education. In this role, I found myself in a position where my ministry team said, “Minister, great news. Graduation rates have hit a record high of 86.5%.” Wonderful, but then I was forced to ask the uncomfortable question: Who is in the 13.5%? The ministry team had all the numbers, and it was so revealing: Black students, especially Black male students, half of whom were not graduating. Who else? LGBTQ2SL+ students, students with disabilities, Indigenous students, students in the care of children’s aid—all of them not graduating in the numbers they should be. I told my ministry team there’s nothing wrong with our students; it’s not the students who need to change. It’s the system that needs to change. It’s the system that must change: change to support our students, change so that they can succeed.

That’s why I am grateful for the opportunity to have been the Minister of Education. It meant that I had the opportunity to implement Ontario’s Education Equity Action Plan, created to improve education outcomes for students—all students of all backgrounds. It meant working with parents, educators, principals, board staff, trustees, labour unions and representatives and the entire community to identify and eliminate discriminatory practices, systemic barriers and biases from the schools and the classrooms.

It meant shifting the culture in our classrooms by applying an equity, inclusion and human rights perspective to the entire Ministry of Education, then tracking our progress to measure success and results. It meant increased fairness in the hiring and promotion of staff and educators by removing barriers for under-representation and under-represented communities.

When students see themselves reflected in their learning environments, they are more likely to feel a sense of belonging, a sense of inclusion, a sense of well-being. It meant doing everything possible to ensure that race, disability, gender and socio-economic status do not prevent students from achieving the success they deserve. Instead of the system leaving some students behind, we changed the system so no students are left behind, including students with learning disabilities. I’m very proud of that.

In opposition, I’m proud of my private member’s Bill 232, Local Choice for Local Elections, which would have restored the ability of municipalities to decide for themselves, without needing to go to the province, if they want to elect their local representatives by ranked ballot elections.

I am so proud of my private member’s Bill 60—and this bill was introduced a few times—the Safe and Healthy Communities Act (Addressing Gun Violence), which was designed to treat gun violence as a public health issue, permitting health boards to develop programs to address gun violence and amend the Health Insurance Act to ensure that OHIP funds trauma-informed counselling for survivors, essentially breaking the cycle of violence in our communities. Although the bill did not pass, and I’m sad to say that, the main elements were adopted by Sunnybrook Hospital and St. Mike’s hospital, and it is working.

1530

I am so pleased that this bill was also endorsed by Toronto city council, and I look forward to many more opportunities in the future to put initiatives in the public interest before council for their endorsement.

In closing, I wish to thank friends and colleagues here, all around the chamber—I see you—for all your support. And I want to say thank you to all parties on both sides of the aisle as well. I wish to thank you for your hard work.

I want to also thank the hard-working staff of the Ontario public service whose support ensures that everything we do in government gets done.

I wish to thank my wonderful constituents from Scarborough–Guildwood. Thank you for your support these past 10 years.

Thank you to my friends and my family and my supporters who are here today, especially those from the Ontario Liberal Party. You are family.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity. I want to say thank you to my colleagues in my Liberal caucus, my wonderful friends. I want to say thank you to my seatmate, the leader of our party. Thank you so much for all you’ve done. We were elected on the same day and have gone through so much together. Thank you to the member from Ottawa South.

So, finally, all I want to say to all of you is thank you. Stay tuned. The best is yet to come.

Applause.

Mr. John Fraser: Point of order. I just want to say thank you to Mitzie. We love her. We’ll miss her. We were elected on the same day together. It is a hard day for us. I just want to say thanks, Mitzie, who’s busy over here—

Interjection.

Mr. John Fraser: No, it’s okay. Don’t worry about it. I just want to, on behalf of all of our colleagues here—there’s not a lot of us, so when one of us goes, it’s a big deal.

Orders of the Day

Queen’s Park Restoration Act, 2023 / Loi de 2023 sur la restauration de Queen’s Park

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 10, 2023, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further debate?

Mr. Will Bouma: Firstly, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge and thank our officials from the Ministry of Legislative Affairs and our partner ministries for their incredible work on the Queen’s Park Restoration Act to get us where we are today.

I’d also like to take a moment to thank the parliamentary assistant, the member from Kitchener–Conestoga, for his work on this file.

I would also be remiss if I did not also thank the Ontario legislative staff, who work so hard day in and day out to keep this place running, as well as our colleagues on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs who have dedicated their time and efforts to bring us one step closer to beginning this important work.

Speaker, when we last sat here in the Legislative Building to debate this legislation, I was very keen to hear members from both sides sharing their first-hand experience with the current state of the building. We know the history of the building, and the special significance it holds for each of us will share common themes but also some unique perspectives. We know that we all care equally about the important work of democracy and legislation that takes place within these walls and the sense of public service and duty each of us has towards the work that we do here.

But each of us has also witnessed the little quirks and the deficiencies of the physical space too: the shoddy wiring; the outdated infrastructure; the almost complete and total inability to regulate the internal temperature in just about any season; the leaks through the ceilings, through the floors—the list goes on, and I’m sure we’ll hear more about the shortcomings that need to be addressed.

One thing I believe we agreed on in second reading debate was the necessity to not delay the vital task of restoring and modernizing this building.

Speaker, during second reading, I looked back at the history that has taken place since the last major renovation here at the Ontario Legislature. So let’s take another look: A north wing addition to the Legislative Building was completed in 1912 and soon accommodated a new legislative library; the original was destroyed during a 1909 fire in the west wing. The west wing was rebuilt using Italian marble and the addition of two more floors to house government departments. Since the television had not been invented at the time of the last major renovation, parliamentarians of the day would have read about the project in daily newspapers. Perhaps they picked up a copy of the Globe or a copy of the Mail and Empire, which would later merge and form the Globe and Mail several years later. Or maybe they saw coverage in the Toronto Daily Star, as it was known in those days.

Given that the Toronto Maple Leafs take to the ice tonight as they try to fight off a sweep, let’s take a look at what has changed in the NHL over the last 100 years. The Maple Leafs, led by Syl Apps from my riding of Brantford–Brant and Turk Broda, became the first NHL team to come back from being down three games to none in a playoff series. That was in 1942, 30 years after the addition of the north wing. Of course, the Toronto Maple Leafs did not even exist the last time this building underwent a major restoration. They were known as the Toronto St. Pats at the time, changing to the Maple Leafs a few seasons following the completion of the project. Maple Leaf Gardens also did not exist at the time parliamentarians walked through that recently renovated building. The NHL’s all-time leading scorer at the time was Newsy Lalonde. The penalty shot was introduced into the league in 1934, over a decade after the last major renovation to this place. The Zamboni was invented in 1949, several decades after the last major renovation to the Ontario Legislative Building. And then several years later, helmets would become mandatory for new players entering the NHL.

Speaker, all hockey references aside, it has been a long time since this building saw a major renovation—an unacceptably long time. The Ontario Legislative Building was built in 1893, more than 130 years ago, and has not undergone any major restoration work in over a century. Major infrastructure components of the building—including HVAC, electrical, plumbing, IT systems and physical security—have greatly exceeded their lifespan. To date, only minor, piecemeal repairs have been made to cover up these deficiencies. Further piecemeal repairs may buy some time, but they are only temporary and pretty much equal to putting a Band-Aid on a broken leg. If we want to save and restore the building for future generations, we must take action now and get the job done right.

As I mentioned, we have all witnessed these building deficiencies personally over the years—offices with wiring coming out of the floors, unsafe drinking water and inefficient heating and cooling, just to name a few. These are critical building systems and features that must be in good working order and that are essential to meet modern safety and operational standards. The vast amount of restoration work is increasing day after day. This is not something we should delay any longer.

Speaker and colleagues, we have an obligation to restore and save the Legislative Building. Queen’s Park symbolizes our enduring commitment to democracy and responsible government, and we need to uphold that commitment for the constituents we serve and the people of Ontario. To define it simply, I would say that the Legislative Building serves as the centre of government where Ontario’s elected representatives debate and pass laws. That definition really does not do much justice to the importance of the space and all the tangible effort that it takes to keep things running smoothly. I mean that in reference to our healthy democracy and the day-to-day operations of this building. Queen’s Park houses the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, offices of the members of the assembly, offices of members of the press and the Office of the Lieutenant Governor. And although we are privileged and fortunate enough to walk through the building every day, the Legislative Building really belongs to the people of Ontario.

1540

It took six years to build. It is made of pink sandstone quarried from the Credit Valley near Orangeville, Ontario, and carved on the grounds by English stonecutters, giving it its characteristic nickname, the Pink Palace. It stands tall and proud in the heart of Toronto. We have all felt our eyes drawn to it when driving or walking up University Avenue. Queen’s Park holds great architectural and cultural significance in Ontario’s heritage. It is lined with beautiful wood carvings from mahogany and sycamore trees. It houses beautiful paintings and artifacts, each telling a piece of our province’s and our country’s unique history.

At its very core, Ontario’s Legislative Building is a public space. For many generations, it has been a place for people to come together, to connect with one another, to express themselves and to make real change in their communities. It has been a place of discovery and curiosity, where students and visitors can learn about the history, the traditions and the operations of our Parliament and our democracy, where people can even envision themselves sitting one day to help make a positive difference to and for the people of Ontario.

The Ontario Legislative Building has endured a rich and complex history since its construction in 1893. The building has stood the test of time and has remained a symbol of democracy, public service and civic engagement in Ontario to this day. It represents an important part of the province’s cultural heritage and history.

Speaker, colleagues, we stand here to debate bills as part of our job. And while we certainly don’t agree on everything, I am confident that we can all agree on one thing, and that is that we share a commitment to public service and to serving the people of Ontario to the best of our ability. To uphold that commitment, the time has come for us to give back to the building that we all know and that we all hold so dear. That is why, in March of this year, our government introduced the Queen’s Park Restoration Act, 2023, which would create the stable foundation for a complex multi-year restoration project of the Ontario Legislative Building. A full restoration of the building and fundamental infrastructure systems, including HVAC, electrical, plumbing, IT services and physical security, is needed to bring it up to modern safety, environmental and accessibility standards. Not only is this needed to address health and safety risks, but this restoration work will also help meet the needs of elected representatives who work in the building and enable them to serve the people of Ontario for years to come.

This project would be led by the government in collaboration with the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and overseen by parliamentarians from all parties. With this legislation, we are laying the foundation to set the project up for success. To guide this work, if passed, the Queen’s Park Restoration Act would establish a governance structure for the restoration project by establishing a robust accountability, collaboration and reporting framework.

First, the act would establish a ministry called the Queen’s Park Restoration Secretariat that would be responsible for overseeing and bringing the restoration project to completion.

Second, to ensure that the needs of the assembly are respected and taken into consideration, the act would define the oversight role of parliamentarians and set clear reporting and consultation requirements between the secretariat, a standing committee of the assembly and the Board of Internal Economy. The secretariat would be responsible for maintaining strong relationships with key internal and external stakeholders, partner ministries and the Office of the Lieutenant Governor.

To enable and support the work that the secretariat will spearhead, we are also proposing amendments to the Legislative Assembly Act and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Amendments to the Legislative Assembly Act would provide appropriate oversight for the project by mirroring the roles and responsibilities that would be assigned to the secretariat. These amendments would also ensure the continued operation of the Board of Internal Economy by allowing the board to appoint alternate commissioners if a member is absent or unable to fulfill their duties and upon dissolution of Parliament. This would mean that the Board of Internal Economy could remain fully constituted to ensure the continuity of board operations and the ability to carry out its powers and duties, including providing advice to the secretariat for the restoration project.

In addition, the amendments to the Legislative Assembly Act would tie the role of government House leader to the minister of the secretariat. This ensures that the minister responsible for the execution of the restoration project is closely linked to the Office of the Assembly stakeholders and the oversight bodies, the Board of Internal Economy and a standing committee of the assembly.

Furthermore, the amendments to the Legislative Assembly Act would allow the responsibility for the legislative precinct to be temporarily assigned to the secretariat to facilitate the relocation of the assembly during the restoration work on the Ontario Legislative Building.

I want to touch on the subject of decanting the Legislature for the duration of the restoration. It is a vital step in this process and intended to keep everyone safe and our business of governance running smoothly. With all the risks to our health and safety that we have in this building—the asbestos, the fire hazards, an inefficient steam heating system—there is no way to complete this project properly other than decanting, to get us all out of here. This means moving us all out of Queen’s Park and into another location to allow for the critical restoration work to happen.

If passed, these legislative changes would provide for consultation with stakeholders on options for a potential temporary location to house legislative business. While the government will be responsible for preparing a temporary location for the Legislature, parliamentarians will have approval of the decision to relocate through the Board of Internal Economy.

To protect the autonomy of the Legislative Assembly and allow for the free flow of information between the assembly and the government throughout the project, we are proposing an amendment to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, also known as FIPPA. This amendment would create a time-limited exemption for records prepared by the assembly in respect of the Queen’s Park restoration project until 20 years after the repeal of the Queen’s Park Restoration Secretariat Act, 2023.

This time-limited FIPPA exemption is necessary to maintain the existing exemptions which the Legislative Assembly currently has through the duration of the project. This would ensure that the assembly records and advice can be freely shared with the secretariat without the need for redaction or concern over disclosure. Any project records created by the secretariat would remain subject to FIPPA as well as the Archives and Recordkeeping Act.

Given the extensive scope of the project, the creation of a secretariat with a single focus is essential to ensure an appropriate governance structure is in place to implement such a large-scale project. The complexity and scale of this project and the relationships among stakeholders require a distinct administrative unit of government to oversee it.

We have seen how well an all-party committee has worked with the Board of Internal Economy and in many other situations. By collaborating with the Office of the Assembly, the Board of Internal Economy and a committee of members from all parties, we can leverage our significant expertise in managing large-scale infrastructure projects. This also means that, regardless of which government is in power, the project will be completed effectively, efficiently and in a way that is responsive to the unique needs of parliamentarians and the people that they serve.

We have taken so many strides forward and made history as a society. Over the past 130 years, we have seen the discovery of X-rays in 1895, which revolutionized medical imaging; the first commercial radio broadcast in Canada, in 1929, which was made by station CKGW in Toronto; the first human space flight, in 1961; the signing of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in 1982, a cornerstone of Canadian democracy; and the growing popularity and production of electric cars and self-driving cars in more recent years.

Just in the past few decades, we have seen technology continuing to advance at such an unprecedented rate since the introduction of the Internet, which has now arguably become essential to our lives. From how we work to how we communicate, technology has made life easier and more convenient. It has made us feel more connected than ever before.

At the time the Legislative Building was built, these things were never, ever considered. We obviously did not have all of these technological advancements that are so deeply rooted in our lives today. We cannot allow ourselves to fall behind and to remain behind. The Legislative Building—the core of Ontario’s democracy—needs to be modernized to keep up with the digital world and to serve Ontarians better.

1550

Ontario’s Legislative Building sits on the traditional territory of the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation. The area of Queen’s Park, where we are today, was an important gathering place for First Nations communities. This land was once home to other Indigenous groups, including the Huron and the Haudenosaunee. With this restoration, we have an opportunity to reimagine the building, to make it meaningful and accessible for Indigenous communities and for all Ontarians. And, Speaker, both the Mississaugas of the Credit, their territory is in my riding—and the Haudenosaunee people, the Six Nations’ territory is in my riding.

We need to restore the physical elements of the building and also to really look at the building from the top to the bottom, to evaluate its potential and how we can enhance the role it plays in the lives of all Ontarians. Consultation with stakeholder groups and the public will be a critical element of the project. It will be a considerable undertaking, but this is absolutely necessary. The important public role of the Legislative Building means it is imperative that all Ontarians have the opportunity to provide input on its future state.

While security has been enhanced in the building over time and it is always top of mind, we need to consider and incorporate accessibility and inclusivity also. The restoration project also creates a unique opportunity to consult with specific populations, to ensure that the reconstructed Legislative Building reflects the diversity, the needs and the experiences of all Ontarians. Whether you are a visitor or whether you work in the building, all Ontarians should see themselves in the work that has to be done here. We need to consider how we can represent the people we serve and create a sense of belonging for everyone. We need to make it open and accessible for everyone, so people can access the building and places of democracy.

As part of the design and implementation of the restoration project, we will take on a variety of approaches to integrate best practices around accessibility, security, environmental sustainability and energy-efficiency standards. This includes the creation of advisory committees with relevant subject-matter experts, including persons with disabilities, accessibility groups and industry experts, who will provide advice and work with the secretariat to incorporate lessons learned from similar infrastructure projects.

While costs may be significant, the state of the Legislative Building’s systems leaves us with no alternatives. A comprehensive restoration of this 130-year-old building is extremely overdue. Speaker, if we delay this project any further, we will risk critical failure of fundamental building systems and additional safety risks that would prevent Parliament from operating.

I’m going to stop there, Speaker, because I have a few pages left, but I see my time is winding down. A few months ago, I had the opportunity to sit in your chair and to be Speaker for a model Parliament for high school students that were visiting. It was an incredibly moving opportunity to see young people filling all the seats in this chamber, debating legislation. They gave me the opportunity to speak, and I had no idea what I was going to say, but I reflected on the feeling that I had the first time—and I share with Mr. Romano in the back, there, every time we stand back there and look at this place. This is a very special place.

What makes our democracy function is a sense of faith and confidence in a system that works. That requires, after 800 years of the Westminster system, that we hold on to things that are old. We need to hold on to traditions. To me, that’s what makes rebuilding this place so critically important. We could do something else, and we could do it somewhere else, but holding on to these pieces of history, renewing them for future generations, is critical in order to maintain that faith that we have been handed and must pass on to those who come after us.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Questions?

MPP Lise Vaugeois: I thank the member for his presentation. This building has not been welcoming to some groups through its history, and many recognize the foundational colonial and paternalistic history of this place. I’m wondering what ideas the member would suggest for ensuring a more equitable space, working towards a Legislative Building that would be experienced more positively in the future.

Mr. Will Bouma: I think that’s a great question, but I don’t think I’m the person to answer that question, actually, because if there’s one thing I’ve learned in working with Indigenous people, it’s the idea of the two-row wampum, for those who know what it is—the Hiawatha Belt, as it’s also called. It was actually made with Dutch settlers to New York 400 years ago. It was the idea of two nations walking side by side in perpetuity without mixing each other up.

We have spent hundreds of years destroying that belt, tearing it to pieces and scattering those beads all over the place. But with a project like this, I believe we have an opportunity to knit those pieces back together. We owe that to the people who were here before us. I really look forward to hearing the input on how this could be a place that Indigenous people could also call home.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further questions?

Mrs. Robin Martin: Thank you to the member opposite. I was listening to his speech, which I enjoyed very much. All of us are delighted to work in this very beautiful building, but we all know that it has taken many years for it to reach the state that it currently has. I just wanted to ask the member about his experiences with this place and whether he could share some of that with us, because I think it’s important that people understand in this debate what we’re actually talking about in our day-to-day experiences here.

Mr. Will Bouma: I think that’s such an excellent point. Thank you to the member from Eglinton–Lawrence. Something like sitting at my desk one morning and having water dripping on my head, and that these systems break down. The fact that, already this morning, I think I have sweat through a couple of shirts—or by this afternoon I have, for sure. There are so many deficiencies in this building and it takes something that supersedes and is a major thing.

The building systems are at end of life. The fact that there’s things posted all around the building: “Don’t drink the water because there’s lead in the pipes.” I think we should be something that should be a place for all Ontarians and that actually shows something that is good and top of the line for every single person, too.

And then just the spaces that we have—they’re all so different. We need something that’s equal for everyone who’s here. I’ll end there for now.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further questions?

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: Thank you to the member opposite here for actually starting off with a little bit of history with the Toronto Maple Leafs. There might be a little history tonight with people picking up their lawn chairs and taking them home off the parade route. I’m a Boston fan, right?

However, this building has tremendous history, as well, as you have eloquently said. But hopefully we see a bright future for this building. How does the member think we can protect heritage aspects of this building while involving new ideas and telling the stories for future generations, like my grandchildren, that might come here and enjoy the structure of this historical building?

Mr. Will Bouma: Again, I think the legislation speaks to that, because I don’t think any of us claims to be that sort of historical expert. I’ve had meetings with Architectural Conservancy Ontario over in the Whitney Block when I was there and the things that they wanted to save there, too.

I don’t know. I walk through here and I look at everything. I had the cadets in here earlier today and I said, “Have a good look around, because if this piece of legislation passes, this building will be closed for the next 10 years.” And I wonder how many of us will still be here when it’s done. I hope we can all come back and see each other again.

But I think we have the know-how in Ontario in order to be able to be realistic and to preserve the pieces that are very, very important. But even more than that, I envision what could be new that brings other people together into this building. I think it’s very, very important. We have a unique opportunity to build a space where my colleague from Kiiwetinoong wouldn’t feel like he’s walking into something that was built by people that oppressed his people, but a place that also belongs to him.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further questions?

1600

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I want to congratulate my colleague for a wonderful speech. He has been a great addition to this Legislature since he came here five years ago.

The one thing I have a question on—because I’ve been here for six terms now, almost 20 years. Of course I’ve seen people come and go, but what has been a staple has been the Lord’s Prayer, as one example, and there’s a story behind that. But we have fought as women to have spaces here that have been safe for us, including for our children. That wasn’t something that was readily available in 2006 when I first arrived here.

I’m wondering, in the spirit of the conversation that you just had a few moments ago where you referenced the member from Kiiwetinoong—and I think it’s important that we do have a reflection of the Indigenous peoples and our First Nations here. But I want to talk a little bit more, and if you could expand on how you see women and newcomer communities that traditionally weren’t here—actually, they were not here when this first building was constructed—and how it will be in the future.

Mr. Will Bouma: I just think that’s such a fabulous question, if I could commend the member. We were speaking about it yesterday, and I just looked at her, and I said, “Thank you so much,” because we’re all broken. We all have trauma; we carry trauma with us. And yet, I would say, more than anyone else, my colleague has said, “It’s okay to be here and to be broken. It’s okay.” I would like to commend her for that.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Are you calling me Humpty Dumpty?

Mr. Will Bouma: No, I’m calling myself Humpty Dumpty. It’s okay to talk about those things that have ripped us apart, especially through COVID and the horrible things that have been perpetrated.

As far as what this place could be, I look around. I’m an immigrant. Speaker, you’re an immigrant. I look across the way: Dozens of us are new to this country. In how many countries in the world can you come here and end up here? That’s unique. That’s worth preserving. That’s worth expanding upon and making it even better for everyone.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further questions?

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: I’d like to thank the member from Brantford–Brant for his comments and his discussion about the history behind this building. As we look around, everything that is within here has been created by artisans, has been created with a tremendous amount of craftsmanship. It has been created with meaning, with purpose, and it has also significance.

I wanted to ask, though, with this tremendous history that our building has, how does the member think we can protect the heritage aspects of this building while also incorporating new ideas and telling the stories of future generations?

Mr. Will Bouma: I think it’s a great question. Again, it isn’t my forte, but when I look up here, I see just this amazing piece of artwork that matches what has been here, is here now, and creates something that’s truly special and more inclusive and speaks to the people who walked this land before we got here, before this place was built. It’s a testament to the fact that this has been a meeting place for hundreds of years before we were here. I think that’s important to remember. I don’t know what all those things look like.

I hope that the Latin stays. I’ve got to look them up once in a while, but things like “Hear the other side.” What I love about incorporating old stuff like that is—people call Latin a dead language. That may or not be fortunate, but I love the fact that a language that isn’t changing anymore—the meanings stay the same, so when you look at “Audi alteram partem,” they don’t change. It stays valid.

When I see the owl and the eagle staring down at us up here, those concepts don’t change: Be wise, listen and lead well. I think those pieces should stay. But there’s other pieces that need to be brought in as we’ve seen here in the building already.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further debate?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I am glad to be able to again take my place in this House and add, hopefully, some thoughtful comments as we’re again debating Bill 75, which is the Queen’s Park Restoration Act. I’m going to take a bit of liberty during this debate to—I’m going to stay focused on the title. I’m going to talk about the restoration side, recognizing, though, that this bill is actually quite specific in what it set out to achieve and we hope will be successful in achieving the creation of a specific secretariat that will—I’ll use the term loosely—oversee the next steps for this Legislature in terms of that restoration, rehabilitation of parts of it. I’m going to focus a bit on the restoration side and what comes after this bill, as I think many members are interested in.

As Chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I can’t go anywhere without running into someone who has a suggestion about the future of the building, whether that is an accessibility technology—“Oh, you and the committee need to talk about this; this is something Queen’s Park should have”—or it’s something about solar panels and about a sustainable future for the building or what that looks like. Everyone, I think, is quite interested in the what could be, what should be or the emotional side or the—not to diminish when I say sentimental side, but the meaningful aspects that folks want to either see protected or highlighted. It is my privilege to work with the committee on this project and others. I think it’s an interesting opportunity for the committee to figure out what its roles and responsibilities are going to be, because it’s a significant umbrella, when its Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs—things that have to do with the workings of this space, or that precinct properties may come before the committee, which is why we are talking about, broadly, the restoration.

Specifically, this bill came before committee—we didn’t have a lot of community interest in this part. I think we anticipated we were going to have a long line out the door of people wanting to come to committee to present about this bill, but I think folks watching are maybe more tuned into what will come next, the story that unfolds, where this building will go, what future parliamentarians will do once it’s decanted—decant, pouring off the wine into another space—how the operations will go, what it will cost, what it will look like, if it will be changed, all of that sort of thing. But the specifics of this bill, with people coming and weighing in—we didn’t have a lot of that. The government put forward a few amendments that the committee discussed. We had briefings. And we have an understanding that there are a few things that we’re hearing from the operations side of the building. Those who keep us safe and secure wanted to make sure that there were accommodations but factored in when we have a future precinct, an existing precinct, that transition—what that looks like and all of that. The public—we didn’t hear from them; we didn’t have folks signing up for that part of committee. I would guess that the next part, as the committee continues to undertake the work of the study, is when we’re going to have that kind of enthusiastic and invested engagement.

I think in the first speech that I gave about this, I went through the first interim report on the study of the rehabilitation and restoration of the legislative precinct that the committee had done. If you look through that report, you’re going to see a lot of pictures, behind the scenes, with wiring technology challenges, the potential for system breakdowns and whatnot, and the nuts and bolts of the space. But there are a lot of things that aren’t in those pictures about why this work is going to be undertaken. It’s going to be a big project.

We did hear, though, from one group—and I’ll share that as I stay focused on Bill 75. It was a brief submitted to our standing committee by Equal Voice, an organization that works to elect more women at all levels of government. Their recommendation to the committee and, broadly, to the House, “We recommend Ontario develop physical spaces that support requirements for hybrid participation and family-friendly considerations to increase the diversity of parliamentary participation.”

They have said this “is an excellent opportunity for the Ontario Legislature to take full advantage of restoration in a physical and functional sense that promotes inclusivity and full participation.... The physical building can impact how work is carried out, and we encourage restoration considerations that promote hybrid participation and family-friendly infrastructures....

“Hybrid proceedings are part of gender-sensitive Legislatures,” as they recommended.

They said, “Physical modernizations and updates are needed to accommodate family realities of MPPs....

“Hybrid proceedings and family considerations have the potential to attract more women to politics.”

1610

And they’ve given stats and all sorts of—well, I’m not meaning to cut it short, but this is the kind of thing that I think we anticipated at this stage but we know is going to move forward as the committee continues to do its work, that we’re going to hear from people on different issues and, I’ll say, through different lenses.

Some of the work that we are currently undertaking is reaching out to Indigenous partners, to First Nations, to start that process, a bit of an introduction to the work of the committee and then a more formal process inviting input. But what I’ve already heard from some of the calls that I’ve been making is such an interest in walking these halls, in feeling this space, in touring to actually see what is here, not behind the scenes in the wiring, but experiencing this building and grounds as-is now—because I think we’re going to find, with any group that is interested in giving us feedback, they’re going to want to know what’s already here, and they’re going to experience it in a way that I don’t, that you might not, Speaker, that others of us don’t, and have considerations and have thoughts to share with us, and I think the committee is looking forward to doing the work of gathering that information, maybe making recommendations, maybe reporting it back to this House. So if members of this House have good ideas about what they would like the committee to consider, send it our way. I think we’re at the very early stages of what is going to be a very big and hopefully meaningful project, frankly.

But when it comes to accessibility, as Equal Voice had referenced—well, my colleague from Hamilton Centre experiences this space in a very different way than I do. We have seen some modifications of the physical chamber and the building broadly to ensure that she can access the work that she does in this building. We want to ensure that people can work here in the future with different accessibility needs. It’s about entering the space, using the space, hearing the space, being heard.

One of our colleagues has raised the issues around French-language translation and how people can watch the Legislature, and that is something that we are facing currently, but what are going to be challenges that we face in the future? And, also, what does accessibility mean? It isn’t only a matter of getting into the building or getting around the building; it’s also who feels welcome here, who is welcome here, how is this building designed and for whom.

I know that I have colleagues in this room—this is not a partisan comment: There are MPPs on both sides of this House who may have hidden disabilities who know that they access this space slightly differently; there are people who have been elected and are not welcome and never were. A long time ago, women were a new thing in this place, and they were not welcome. Who else has not been welcome, historically? But I will say that anybody who isn’t welcome in this space, who takes their seats, whether because of their family story or their cultural background or their ideology or understanding or beliefs or any of that, this building is going to be carving their names into the wall. This building will forever have their names, and that is something that I think is the power of this space, that each person who is elected here has earned being here. What they do with it is up to them, but their name will be carved into the wall.

That’s a heck of a fight just to get here. We want more people to run for public office; we want more people to imagine that they can. Equal Voice mentioned family-friendly. I have met some of the members’ children, and I cannot get over how fast they grow. I’ve seen some pretty tiny ducklings that all of a sudden now look to be teenagers, and I think: What just happened? That’s a special part of being here, getting to know each other a little bit and some of the family pieces. But there are a lot of folks who never put up their hand to run for office because they might have—whether it’s child care needs or balancing things. That will always be true, that people will always have their own individual decisions to make, but what are we doing about it here in terms of child care, in terms of accommodations that might be raised as they come up?

Every single one of us in this House is elected to do the same job, but we do it all so differently. There are some people who keep a day of the weekend kind of sacrosanct, that that’s family time, and others of us work seven days a week, 24 hours a day, or somewhere in the middle. What will future parliamentarians look like? Who are they going to be? Can they get here? And when they get here, how will they experience the space? All of this is sort of pie-in-the-sky stuff, and a little bit like, “Oh, that would be neat,” but one of the things that the committee learned when we went to Ottawa was that we’re not designing the space for what we wish had: “It sure would be great to have a charging port in the desk”—well, for what technology? What is that charging port going to look like? It’s not about future-proofing this space for the foreseeable future; it is making sure that this building can continue to change as needed.

We’ve talked about the heritage, we’ve talked about the grandeur of this space, but I have been proud to stand here and say, “Yes, there is beauty and there is grandeur, but there is oppression and there is some pretty ugly stuff up on the walls.” Until it’s pointed out to you, you might be like, “Oh, that’s a fun carving,” and then you have someone else explain to you what that message is, what that means not just in Latin, but what the story tells. Maybe we preserve, or maybe we explain, or maybe we change, and that’s for not just the committee, that’s for the future to decide with this work.

Even walking through the halls—have you ever done a walking tour of this building and looked at the art? There’s some dark stuff up on the walls. Not to say it shouldn’t be on the walls, but there are some things that—can we not have an explanation? We as a building have a significant collection of art that is off-site, and I think that there’s an opportunity to show it or to share it or to tell the story or to find it a better home if it’s not for us. How do we make space for new art, new stories, better stories—the real stories? I think that this Legislature will have a lot of that work to do as we go forward broadly.

We’re debating Bill 75, but it is the restoration act, and I think that act of restoration is not just bringing it back to its former glory, but I would say—and I’m taking liberty, because in the seat as the Chair of the committee, I have to be non-partisan—whatever; I’m off-leash right now, saying what I want. I want us to realize that it’s not just a restoration, it is maybe an opportunity to reimagine. And I would say that we have a responsibility.

We’ve heard a bit about—and not enough, but we had a question asked earlier about equity, about colonization. We talked about or briefly mentioned how we work towards a Legislative Building that will be experienced more positively in the future. So inviting people to come through, feel the space, make recommendations—I know the committee is looking forward to gathering that information. What is done with it could be 10, 15, 20 years down the road; I don’t know. But there is a lot of important work ahead of us, I would say, not just as a committee but as a Legislature.

1620

As you’re hearing from groups in your community, whether it’s the landscape architects who were here the other day—we have Queen’s Park and the grounds. We’re going to have an area where we decant—what do you say, decant to, decant into—where we will be working for a while. What does that space need to be? All of this, as you are hearing from people in your communities with ideas, with concerns. We’ll find ways to funnel that back so that we do shape this next chapter, I would say, in a good way, in a way that reflects the needs of Ontarians now and going forward in the future.

Something else that came up recently was the community impact. We have a building in, I’ll say, the heart of the Toronto—although every neighbourhood would say it’s the heart of Toronto. But, anyway, geographically, here we sit, and around us we’ve got neighbours who like us, neighbours who count on us, neighbours who might not love us. I cut my teeth as a young activist on the lawns of Queen’s Park, and I don’t imagine that everybody loves that part of it. I loved being on the front lawns of Queen’s Park; it was quite cathartic. But the neighbours, the businesses, the community members around us—how are we factoring them in to a massive construction project? There are a lot of unanswered questions about what’s under the front lawns—and I know, the subway, yes, but what else, in terms of wiring, in terms of all of that?

There’s a lot of information to parse through, and that’s why what we’re debating—or discussing, I guess, really—is the creation of the secretariat. That creation, that body, is going to have a lot of work ahead of itself. But like we saw in Ottawa, having it separate and apart from the Legislature but still connected to the Legislature, so that it’s not just a private company over here making decisions, where they’ve never served the people of Ontario as legislators—we do need that body to be as nimble as it can be but also to have that long-standing goal. This is a big project. We learned that in Ottawa. There are other committee members here who remember that we heard from the folks in Ottawa that you have to keep your eye on the prize. There’s a big long-term plan here, but you do have to make decisions about bulk-buying when it’s cheap or taking advantage of the opportunity to store something when you can actually buy those materials—all sorts of big pieces that are not for the committee and not for the legislators but more for the secretariat and the different people doing that work.

I want to say thank you to the folks who make the magic happen behind the scenes, the operations side of this building, whether food service, mailroom—I would do a big round of applause or bang on my desk for broadcast and recording, but I don’t want to hurt your ears—but the folks who make everything work. It’s going to be a lot of work to factor in the specifics required as we decant to a new space. How will they function? What does that transition look like? This is the beginning of that work that is not just, what art do we put on the walls—not to diminish that—but it’s also, how do we keep getting messages from this building out to the community? How do we continue to engage with community during the transition time as well as the next chapter when we’re back into—there’s the new space, and then there’s the new old space. So I look forward to doing that work with this House.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Questions?

Hon. Greg Rickford: I want to thank the member for her intervention. In particular, reflecting over the course of time, I was really struck by the access and equity piece, the groups of people, if you will, who haven’t had access to this place for one reason or another—and some of them, if not many, just bad stuff.

But as a guy who comes from Kenora, to her second point about where she is most concerned, what does this look like after—I’ve actually been thinking about what happens in between. I know we have to have a precinct here, but to your point about equity and access, I actually live two and three-quarter hours away from the Manitoba Legislature. Then here in Toronto—and I realize that this is the capital city of this province, but, Madam Speaker, I wondered what the member thought about improving access and equity for us, to have a roaming Legislature every once in a while where we could convene in cities around the province so that people had more access. Because I can tell you, not too many people from Kenora or Kiiwetinoong find themselves down in this neck of the woods.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: It’s that reminder that we come from all over the province. That’s why I was saying, every neighbourhood is going to say that they are the heart of their area. I don’t know what the committee will ultimately recommend, but if I were to imagine the opportunity to travel more, I would say that we have that opportunity with different committees, and maybe we make that a priority—the government can make that a priority in different ways.

Back to what I had been saying about the operations of this space—and not to limit, but I do know that broadcast and recording folks have to come with us when we travel. They came with us—and thank you—when we went to Ottawa so that we could ensure that we had Hansard, that we were accessible to Ontarians in the work that we did there. Whatever we do, we’re going to have to factor in everybody who works behind the scenes to make the magic happen, whatever that looks like.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Question?

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: I’d like to thank the member from Oshawa for her presentation. Every time we see individuals and groups—often school groups, young people—visiting us here in this Legislature, I think of them in the visitors’ galleries. The pitch of those stairs is really quite something that is shocking until you are actually in that position. I wonder if the scrollwork was added after the fact for safety purposes.

But particularly, my question is about education and those groups who come to visit us. How could this building and how could this precinct be made more engaging for schoolchildren and to other tour groups? How does the member envision this space being responsive to the needs of educational groups that come to visit us?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I think a big part of the importance of this space is that it is a public building, and how the community broadly accesses it has to be a big part of the next chapter. When we were in Ottawa—they have different opportunities; they’re digging underneath and building a massive education centre with a cafeteria and all of this, for school groups and for those who come. We have a subway, and we will have to figure out what we as a precinct can offer where that’s concerned. But even imagining different use of the space, safety things—I’ll leave that to the professionals and the experts to make recommendations there.

But as a former educator, what if we had a section—and I’m just making this up—that was more of a museum? We have dark chapters in our history and we have bright spots in our history. What if we had a section that told about the power of government and the massive responsibility, the bad decisions when things go badly, and tell that story and actually educate in this space? I think that would be worth considering.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further questions?

Ms. Christine Hogarth: I just want to thank the member for her presentation today. I was one of the fortunate people who was able to go on a tour of this amazing facility that we have the privilege to work in every day. I wanted to ask the member and the Chair of our committee if you could just expand upon, for those who are watching today: When we were up on the roof, looking through the ceiling, what did you see that surprised you, which may be some reasons why we really need to get on with our decanting?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: It’s my understanding—and the folks behind the scenes might think, “Ugh, no, that’s not what we told you”—that when the roof work was done, they were able to put in a new HVAC system, which is not a small thing for a building of this size. Well, once the HVAC system needs any work—to the people who keep things working and running, thank you. But for the big jobs like that, what are we going to do? Take off the roof to move it out?

1630

There’s a lot of stuff that happens in here that has been patchwork—and done really well. I’m standing here feeling safe and secure. However, we do have to plan for that inevitability of things requiring not just repair work but replacement work. As we’re fine-tuning some of the pieces, there is way bigger stuff behind the walls, in the roof—it’s really remarkable to know what happens behind the scenes here.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further questions?

MPP Lise Vaugeois: I’m interested to know a little bit about the logistics. It’s an enormous amount of work to plan the future of this building but also an enormous amount of work to plan where we’re going to be in the interim. I’m wondering about where advice will be coming from in terms of the accessibility of both spaces.

I think of how often it happens that a space is not accessible because the right people weren’t asked; they weren’t part of the conversation. I’m thinking of AMO in Ottawa in the fall. When the escalators weren’t working, you couldn’t actually get to the fourth floor. I wonder if you could speak to that.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I will say that the committee hasn’t yet started to look at the specifics. But much of what is going to come, I think, from the secretariat is hopefully a bit of a back and forth so that the committee can be useful in specific ways and then broadly useful, yes. But we don’t have an idea of where we would be going as a committee. There are folks looking into options.

But what you have flagged I think is—at the forefront of everyone’s minds is that we want to do this well. The people who we’ll be consulting will have far more expertise than I or than others. You run into people who say, “Oh, you know where you should move? You should move to this building, or that building, or maybe Ontario Place”—just kidding, too soon?

But I would say that wherever we go, it’s going to end up being hopefully well-planned, and that’s part of the work of the secretariat, to do this in a way that takes the time it deserves.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further questions?

Mr. Dave Smith: To the member from Oshawa: The building was first opened in 1893. It has served the people of Ontario very, very well. But one of the things that we see in it—and I know it has been talked about already and some questions asked about it already—is when you look at the grandeur of this building, when you look at the style of everything, no one in 1893 took into consideration that there may need to be accommodations made for different people, whether it’s mobility challenges, whether it is audio, whether they have challenges with their eyesight. None of that was thought of in 1893 because that’s not what the world was thinking of.

Has thought been given to making changes so that we are accommodating a lot of other things that weren’t considered in 1893?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: What I can say for those of you interested in following along is to read the Hansard of what has been unfolding in committee. But I think the committee—and I’ll speak for them right now because I think it’s stuff that we’ve all shared, that we want to do this well and that we don’t want to leave out voices we should be listening to. But this is also about gathering information from those with lived experience, from experts.

Really, at this point, it’s learning from precinct properties. They have heard every complaint from all of us, and they have done their best to accommodate that. So what are some of their recommendations for during the transition and the next space and then the space after that, which would be to come back here? I’d say that we are looking forward to doing that work well. If anyone has an expert in their back pocket, send them our way.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further debate?

Ms. Christine Hogarth: I rise today in support of Bill 75, the Queen’s Park Restoration Act.

Someone told me once, before I was an MPP, “There’s no bad seat in this Legislature.” We are so privileged. Now, it is nicer to sit on this side; I’ll give you that, but there is no bad seat. We’re all so fortunate to have one of these desks that’s in front of us, and if you look at the little gold bar in front, it says “1901.” This place is fantastic. I walk in every day. It’s like living and working in a museum. We are all so privileged to be part of that.

Today, we’re debating an important bill. It’s not health care or education, but it’s actually this building and what we’re going to do with this building in the future. It’s really not about any of us who are sitting in the room right now; it’s about the future. It’s about future parliamentarians. It’s about our pages, who may end up being MPPs one day. It’s for us when we’re really, really old and coming to visit and hoping to see a nice restaurant or have—I don’t know—something to eat with our family. That is great history and great stories that we can tell.

These old bones that we feel every time that we walk through the halls, the massive oak doors and the massive hallways—to us, this is a grand old Legislative Building, and it reminds us daily of our obligations and our responsibilities and our duty to all of Ontario.

To the citizens of Ontario and to the residents of the city this place stands as a looming symbol up and down the grand promenade of University Avenue, and it’s a precious heart that beats democracy. Anywhere you go in downtown Toronto and you look right up University—it doesn’t matter what time of year—you see this beautiful pink building at the end of the street, and we’ll never forget that. We are so fortunate to be able to have that opportunity to take part in this little piece of our history.

It’s more than a bunch of offices. It’s more than some relics of the old era. We walk down the halls. We see photos. There’s a picture of my great-uncle from the late 1920s. It took me forever to find him, because there’s that one photo that—I guess that year when they took the pictures, they didn’t do it alphabetically, so he was a little hard to find, and then I found out it was down the hallway. Every day during COVID—at that time, we were sitting in Daryl Kramp’s office—I’d walk by. I finally found the photo. I finally found him, and I took a picture and I shared it with my mom, because that’s part of my history, the Hogarth family, who was able to be a member back here so very long ago. Families from all around will come and look at the pictures and see our history. But, again, we’re just a piece of that history. There’s so much future.

When we’re in committee rooms, you see these old photos of these men and their white hair—white men, of course, with their white hair—and that’s not who we are today. If you look at this room, it’s diverse. It’s eclectic. It represents the people of today. But even if you go back in time, someone like myself, someone like you, Speaker, wouldn’t be standing here. We would be the secretaries in the secretary pool. There was a secretary pool, and I’m sure they called it the ladies of the secretary pool, because—what was their job, to pick out curtains?

Mr. Robert Bailey: The stenos.

Ms. Christine Hogarth: The stenos—because, well, maybe we were capable, but society maybe didn’t say, “It’s your turn.”

I was very fortunate to grow up in a house of strong women. My great-grandmother ran a hotel, and my grandmother ran hotels, and my mom never told us we couldn’t do anything, so I never, ever, thought that I couldn’t take a place in this Legislature. But maybe in the late 1920s, when my great-uncle sat here, smoking—and I’m sure they were smoking right in this room and probably even having a cocktail—times were different. And when you see the amazing faces here today, things have changed. Things have changed for the better, and we will continue moving that forward.

And as we look at this building and the future of the building, we’re just in the beginning steps. We have a great committee from all parties, and I think we work very well together. We know it’s not about us; we know it’s about our future and the future of this facility, where we go and how we get there. We want to take our time, and we want to make sure we get it right. From touring the ceiling, inside the rafters, we were actually right up there in the ceiling, looking down and watching proceedings happening, and it was quite fascinating how old this building was.

1640

My colleague from Peterborough mentioned that, in 1893, what were they thinking of? Well, they certainly didn’t think of the Internet back then. They didn’t think of heating and lighting, and they didn’t think of cable. So much has happened, and if you go to any of the rafters, you can see cable, about this much cable. There is so much cable in this building. I’d like to see once they decant and take this all apart and how many kilometres of cable are actually running through this building. Anyway, I’ve probably lost the part where I was in my speech. I don’t know where I am.

But as I said, this is more than just the Pink Palace. Right now, this is a place of our business, our work and a place where history is made, a place where we create laws, a place where we create friendships and have debate on issues that affect the future.

Today, as we debate what happens with this building, we want to make sure that the people of all of Ontario are included in those discussions. It doesn’t matter what walk of life, who you are or where you come from, we want to hear from you. We want to make sure that this place is for everyone because it really is the people’s House.

We learned a lot of lessons from Parliament Hill when we were on our tour in Ottawa, things that went well, things that they could have done better, things that they should have thought of, and I think you always learn from mistakes of how we can do it better. One thing we have to do is—this is non-partisan, because it’s not about us. It is once again about our future.

I can go back in time when I worked here in the mid to late 1990s when we restored the roof. They actually took the roof down. It was actually little slates and you could go to the gift shop and buy a part of the roof. I bought some for everyone for Christmas, so a little plug for the gift shop here in the Legislature. They’re little slate tiles, which are coasters actually from the original roof. I have them at my house. We have them at my mother’s house, and my sister has them at her house because it’s a great memory of this building.

When you look at the roof being fixed, it was another piecemeal renovation, and that’s something our committee learned, that there were a lot of piecemeal renovations that maybe we don’t see here because this is all well put together, but if you go behind the walls—if anybody is a renovator and has an old house, once you open up those walls, there’s a lot that happens behind that. We want to make sure that we have a building for our future, for future parliamentarians. Sometimes when something gets too far gone, we can’t just do patchwork. There’s probably not enough duct tape, as the maintenance crew would say, to fix this place. We have to make sure we preserve all the important pieces. We sit here and look at the walls, we look at the wood structures, we have to make sure that those are all preserved for our future.

And the roof, I remember back in the 1990s when they started taking down the roof, and before in the 1990s, as a staff member, I used to sit up on the top—it used to be all white, and when they started cleaning it off, that’s when they noticed there were some designs behind it. Who knows what else we’re going to find in this place, but we have to make sure that we document and we preserve all the pieces of this building for the future.

One thing we can talk about when we are looking at building a new building, it’s not really just for cosmetic purposes. One thing we found out—there are not enough fire sprinklers here. The steam-supplied radiators are obsolete. The original piping is dated back to 1893. It’s encased in masonry and apparently it’s insulated with asbestos. There’s not enough power to various parts of the building. There are vast amounts of hazardous cabling which would be difficult to remove, as I mentioned. There is inadequate emergency power for the building, and there is a lack of smoke management systems for interconnecting floor areas. So there’s a lot of issues that we need to really look into and that’s why we can’t just fix this building; we need to rebuild this building.

For everyone’s safety, it’s best—as we learned from Parliament Hill and our tour there—to vacate these premises entirely while the work is under way. I know the committee will be looking at locations where we can go, and that’s why there is an importance that there’s a secretariat, because it leaves it in the hands of somebody who’s going to be there beyond our stay who can manage the project. So, again, if anyone’s had a renovation project in their house, you usually have someone in charge and they continue to make sure it happens as people come and go.

Now, I’m fully aware that the bill before the House today would impose a significant cost, and it means a new location for the business of government. Sometimes that is a political risk, but we need to be blunt about that and I think it’s an example of decades of long debate over what to do. In Ottawa, they’ve had years and years of debates over what to do with 24 Sussex Drive. They’re still debating on that location: Do you fix it or do you not? And as you wait for something to be fixed, it falls apart even more quickly, and then it becomes a fire trap. So what do you do? And that is the home of the Prime Minister of Canada. Well, you know, maybe we should be looking at some of these historical buildings and making sure that we prioritize them for our future.

After years of inaction, finally they agreed that 24 Sussex Drive might as well—“face the wrecking ball” was apparently a quote that someone had said. The cost for its replacement, if that day ever comes, will be astronomical. Could discussions continue to happen? But, again, it’s not being done. So here we want to make a decision to move on, making sure that we have a place for the future, a place that captures the history of the past, but also builds on the missing elements that—when this building was built in 1893, people weren’t included. I think that is the most important thing, that everybody in Ontario is included in this Legislature. Small towns, large cities—there should be something of every culture. We need to make sure that no one is forgotten.

To do that, I believe that we need to have a lot of public consultations and we need to hear from people about what is missing: “If you did a tour of the Legislature today, what would you like to see?” I think we can all go back to our hometowns and ask those questions, because the most amazing thing here is that we all come from somewhere different. Some of us come from small-town Ontario and some of us come from the big city. It’s easy, if you live in Toronto, to come to the Legislature, but as the minister said earlier, if you’re from Kenora, you probably don’t make it down as much. So let’s make sure that every community is incorporated in our final design and I think that’s something that we can bring to the table when we have those discussions.

We have to make sure that, when we do move out of this place, we don’t lose what we have. In Ottawa, we actually were able to stand on the floor of their Legislature and look around at the desks and be part of it, and it looked very similar to what Parliament Hill would look like. I hope that, when we have those discussions, we will make it look similar to this as well, because we certainly don’t want to miss the nostalgia of this room and the things we see every day. I think it’s extremely important that when we are moving, wherever that place may be, we remember the excitement of our desks and our little clip on our table and we don’t forget what’s here, because those parliamentarians that will be here—hopefully I get to still be here, but if not, those people who replace us will get to have that same experience, historical experience, I would say, that we all get here today.

Now, I think I want to ask if everybody could just look up at this amazing place we have. You know what? I do every day. I’m in awe of having the opportunity to stand here, speak to you, speak to the people at home, speak to my family and get to stand here in this place. We still have a lot to do so we can continue those traditions for future parliamentarians and making sure that we preserve the craftsmanship, the artistry, the artwork, the new artwork, the old artwork—everything that is important to the history of our democracy. We look at the marble, the brass, the panelling, the gargoyles that dot the exterior, the intricate mosaic tiles on the floor—these are the fingerprints left behind by generations of artisans, of history, of historians, for those who loved and just made the spirit of parliamentary democracy that’s embodied here. Speaker, we can’t let that go. I’d hate to go as far to say that this would be inappropriate if, as the temporary custodians of this place, we were to let it erode away any longer. We have a responsibility as parliamentarians to make sure that we preserve and make sure that we create a physical appearance of this building that speaks to us over the next century.

1650

Now, it’s often been said that this place was built on a site of—let’s now say—a facility of persons experiencing psychological challenges. And it’s true: The then-University Hospital maintained a complex here as far back as 1842. And that some of the residents, they say, have haunted these halls. There’s actually a book that you can get downstairs at the Legislative bookstore that show some of the pictures of the ghost and the rumours of the ghost in this building. They say there’s a lady—and I don’t know if anyone’s seen her—known as the White Lady. She’s said to be dressed in long, flowing robes and long hair, and she’s bearing a mournful look. Maybe you’d be mournful too if you were trapped in here for over a century. There are tales, Madam Speaker, as documented on the website torontoghosts.org, that talk about further illustrations of ghosts in these halls. So if one were needed this way, that captures our hearts, but it also captures our imaginations. This is truly a piece of history.

Speaker, let me express my full support for the Queen’s Park Restoration Secretariat Act, 2023, and each and every one of the administrative provisions therein. This is not a vanity project for politicians. Most of us likely won’t be here when the job is finally done. It is an act that represents a celebration of our past and the promise of Ontario’s future. All you have to do is walk down the halls, go into the corridors, walk up the stairwells, go to the top floor and walk all the way down and you’ll see these old artifacts that are just a piece of our history.

I remember being staff here and we spent some time walking throughout the building when we were running from meeting to meeting, and there’s no place like it. There’s no place like it anywhere. We are so fortunate to be able to have that opportunity. I always say, when kids come to visit or young people come to visit, “Get lost in the building. Go see the fun parts. Go look at the pictures, and hopefully you can see yourself in the pictures. And if you can’t, well, then we have got to make that change.” Because that’s the important thing, that people see themselves as belonging to this place, that they see themselves as taking a seat in this place. That’s what Ontario is all about, and that’s what democracy is all about.

I guess I’ve had the privilege of working here since 1995. It’s been a long time. I have, as I said, sat in the rafters. I’ve had an office down the floor. I sat in the back lobby there, and then I actually finally got a seat in this House. So for me, there’s a lot of history in this place, and I think we have a great task to do. I’m honoured that the House leader put me on this committee and I have an opportunity to make a difference and work with this great group of politicians to make sure that we do the best for the people of Ontario. It’s important. It’s important that we get it right. It’s important we get it right not just for today, but for our future. It’s important that we don’t forget anybody. History will tell us who was forgotten in the past, and we have that opportunity to correct that right here in our pictures, in our statues, in our words we say, in the tone we use in this place.

Madam Speaker, I’m honoured to be a politician. I’m honoured to stand in this place, and I look forward to hopefully having a great debate and passing this legislation.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Question?

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: I’d like to thank the member for her presentation. Recently, on the day to acknowledge missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls and two-spirited individuals, I had the opportunity to attend my alma mater, Althouse College, who had taken and repurposed their library into an Indigenous learning space as well as an outdoor area.

Specifically, we are sitting on quite a vast footprint here at Queen’s Park. My question to the member: How would you like to see the outdoor space reimagined to include Indigenous peoples? How can you foresee us making sure that this is a welcome and open space, building on those relationships?

Ms. Christine Hogarth: Thanks for the question. I think everything is on the table right now. We’re having those discussions. We’re just really in the early stage.

I think the most important thing is consultation. It’s not for a small group of us to make those decisions. This is Ontario’s place. This is for Ontario. This is for Ontarians. This is for future politicians and parliamentarians. Certainly I’d love to do a design, but it’s not just about me. It has certainly never been about me. It’s about our communities. It’s about all of us. It’s about our history. It’s about our future.

Any type of information that they would like to share, please share it with the committee, because I think we all have something to say on how we’re going to make this place even better than it is today.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further questions?

M^me Dawn Gallagher Murphy: Thank you to the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore for her speech. I have to say, it has been a privilege sitting on the committee for procedures and House affairs with you, under the chairperson as well.

I appreciated all the speeches. One thing that I’ve heard, a common thread, and I’d like to see if you could elaborate on that, is when it comes to technology and our, how shall I say, technology challenges currently in this building—I think we’ve all experienced it; in certain places, you can’t get WiFi.

Talking about the future, and even when we were in Ottawa and seeing how they did up the current chamber with technology and what the future may hold—if the member could elaborate on her thoughts on our challenges currently and into the future related to technology.

Ms. Christine Hogarth: Thank you for that question. I know you were on the tour in Ottawa with us. I’m not sure if you did the tour here with us. It was pretty spectacular.

I actually have to applaud the staff. The staff who work here have done a phenomenal job making this work. I’m sure they all walk around with a roll of duct tape—my goodness, some of the stuff that you’d think was duct-taped together. But they’ve done a phenomenal job to make sure that we can debate; to make sure that these lights allow the proper lighting to come down, so when the cameras are rolling, we’re seen; the work that they do to make sure that when we’re called upon, our speaker comes on; and the translation, so we can certainly have our debate in multiple languages for those francophones in our province.

Technology is certainly something that is important, and it’s also the future. I think I was on the top floor, the third floor, when we saw the one room where a lot of the tech—I guess the background, where they have all the knobs and tubes and all that type of business. There’s lots of work to be done at the technology stage. All you have to do is go into any of these offices, and you will see a lot of cable, and none of that cable is even used today.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further questions?

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: To the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore: As you spoke, you spoke about how mystical this place is, how magical it is. I often FaceTime my granddaughters in Halifax and say, “Grammy is at her castle again.” When you talked about the gargoyles outside and the history that’s in this building, you made it sound so wonderful—which it is.

Right outside my office on the third floor is that wonderful, large stained-glass window. When the sun came in today, it just made me feel just as proud as you and every member in this place that we do have a seat here. We are privileged to be here to serve the people in our ridings.

1700

Now this building, as I said, has tremendous history, and the future of the Queen’s Park restoration and renovation is a perfect opportunity to be able to do it right. What are some of the things that you think the committee might be able to join together and express how we can keep some of the history here for the future?

Ms. Christine Hogarth: That’s a great question, because I think one of the most important things is to not lose what is here, and one of the things we saw when we were on Parliament Hill was that every piece was actually numbered, brought somewhere and then stored somewhere so it could be put back when the time came. So, that’s all going to be part of the decanting, and that’s why it’s such a large project, because they do want to take it out, they number them and then they’ll put them back in place. So we can’t—you are right. For your granddaughter and everyone’s grandchildren, we can’t lose what we have. It has to be remembered and the engineers have a system in place to make sure that that does happen.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further question?

Ms. Natalie Pierre: Thank you, Speaker, and thank you to the member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore for her remarks. I enjoyed listening to stories about your family and stories about when you worked here in the 1990s, and I’m just wondering if you might take a moment or two and tell us about some of the changes you’ve seen in the building since the 1990s and if they’ve been effective.

Ms. Christine Hogarth: Well, the 1990s, yes. I was just 10.

Well, as a staff member, you have a little bit more time on your hands, so you’re running around and seeing the stairwells. What changed is the roof; it’s changed, and I believe there was—this was red at one time, if I’m not mistaken. The carpet was red. So that changed, and some of the chairs are newer.

When it comes to the offices, I remember there were vaults in some of the offices in this place, which is pretty cool because we used to have a party in the vaults down the hallway there. There were actual vaults, and at one point I think that’s where the money was, although this place doesn’t have any money.

So, what has changed? Well, technology, of course, has changed. We were not allowed cellphones. No one could have a cellphone or a computer. As staff, my goodness, BlackBerrys didn’t even exist. I remember we had pagers, so they’d have to find us. If you wanted to reach your member, as staff you actually had to send notes in. You couldn’t text them automatically. Certainly technology has changed, and what’s allowed here as an MPP now versus then is twofold. That didn’t even exist at the time.

That’s just in a short period of time. Imagine what’s going to happen in 20 years. Technology’s going to change so much. We can’t answer all those questions because it’s yet to come. So we have to be prepared for the future.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further questions?

MPP Lise Vaugeois: I wonder if we could just have a little imaginative exercise. So the Minister of Northern Development mentioned earlier the idea of possibly having a movable Legislature, which I think is a very interesting thought, especially if we don’t think about the cost or the mechanics, but the idea of it. I wonder if we could think also about language. English and French were made as the official languages of Canada as a colonial state. What if we were able to hear Cree, Oji-Cree, Ojibway, Mohawk? How would things have been different if those languages and thought processes had been part, and is there a way we can incorporate that into our future?

Ms. Christine Hogarth: Well, I think when it comes to language, a lot of that’s dictated by the federal government, having two official languages here in the province of Ontario. As we said, everything’s on the table. We’re looking for advice, outside-of-the-box thoughts on legislative possibilities. Who knows? The sky’s the limit.

Certainly we want to keep it within cost. We don’t want the cost to go skyrocketing, but there should never be a “let’s not look at something.” I think this is an opportunity to get it right. We’ll want to take our time and look at it, and we want advice from everybody. As we’ve said, it’s important to get it right because it’s not about us; it’s about the future. So let’s continue those conversations.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further debate?

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Meegwetch, Speaker. I’m very honoured to be able to speak on Bill 75.

We know this place was not built for people who look like me. As a First Nations person, as the First Peoples of these traditional territories and our ancestral lands—I guess, first off, I’d like to welcome everyone to our territories, to these lands that we now call Ontario.

I’ve been here close to five years, and when I first came, I didn’t feel at home. I knew that this place was a colonial place.

Coming from a northern reserve, being born in an Indian hospital—actually, in Sioux Lookout, we had two hospitals. Sioux Lookout had about 4,000 or 5,000 people, and we had two hospitals. One was a federal hospital, and the other one was a provincial hospital. The provincial hospital was for white people. The federal hospital was an Indian hospital for people like me, so that’s where I was born. And then I had to go up to my reserve, which is a small—at that time, it was probably 200 or 300 people. I had to go to school. I started kindergarten there, and I finished grade 8 there. When I went to school, I started learning about the ABCs, the language, the colours—it was in kindergarten. They call them Indian day schools now—and it’s that approach to, where I should not learn about my ways of life, my language. And then, I had to leave for high school, because we don’t have that school.

I’m just sharing this, Speaker, because it will go into what I think should be part of the changes to this building.

Then, I went to grade 9, and I went to a Mennonite school—and through that whole time, there were things that were happening that I thought were acceptable, but later in life, I found out that it was actually an Indian residential school. I moved out of there, and I went to a public school in Sioux Lookout, Ontario, which is where I live right now, and the name of that school was Queen Elizabeth District High School.

So there’s all this colonialism you see, and it becomes a way of life.

The land that, again—and going back to here—makes up what we now call Ontario includes traditional territories and multiple treaty territories. I always talk about treaties in this place. Again, some are shared, but I think the ones that most people are familiar with now have towns and cities in them—including this place, where Queen’s Park is, where Toronto is.

Queen’s Park is on the traditional territory of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, but the people of this nation do not live here. Their First Nation is over 100 kilometres away from Queen’s Park. These are stolen lands. These lands have been taken from First Nations. When I’m here, I’m always reminded of, it has always been the aim of most legislation in Canada’s history and Ontario’s history, including—it was to displace First Nations people from their lands. That’s why I grew up on the reserve. Reserves were created to take away people from their traditional territories. Reserves were created to put us on a small piece of land where we are provided with access to housing, access to health care, and to take away the people from these lands and the resources that are in those traditional territories. That’s how it displaces people.

1710

Right now, I think on-reserve you’ll see the high rates of language loss, dependency on government, dependency on other things such as welfare. We never created welfare. There was never welfare before we had reserves. We were surviving on our own until we were placed on-reserve.

One of the ideas I always talk about as well is about Indian residential schools. We know that Indian residential schools in Canada and Indian residential schools in Ontario are one of the country’s most shameful legacies. These places were church-run. I went to a Mennonite school, and they strapped people, those Mennonites. Even though they pray to their God, and they hold—you know, they do things and they still did the things that they did. We were forced to cut our hair. We weren’t allowed to speak our language. They were government-funded institutions that Indigenous children, against their will and subject to—again, I talked about some of the abuse, the neglect, the dangerous living conditions, again to further the goal of assimilation, which is Canadian culture, religion. That’s what colonizers considered civilized.

I’m not supposed to be here, but I am here. I talk about that, and I think those are some of the things that when we start developing the concept on how we’re going to make this place more real, where you share the truth-telling stories of the real history of Canada—again, these schools I talk about are just one of the many tools that were used to displace us from our lands by removing the language, by removing the children.

Even in this place, I cannot even speak my language. If I started speaking my language to you, you would stop me. I know it. It’s just that way. But I know it’s not individually to you. This place does not accept me as a First Nations-language person. I cannot even speak it. It’s not allowed. That’s how it works, where it makes sure that I have no connection to my lands, to who I am as a First Nations person from northwestern Ontario, from Kiiwetinoong, from my reserve. There’s no connection to my language. There’s no connection to my way of life. Language is a way of life.

Speaker, I don’t really have time to say more about the Indian residential schools, but, collectively, I think there are many people still working for justice for the survivors of residential schools, and not only that, but for their families, who are still recovering, generations later.

One of the methods of learning we needed to be done for justice for the survivors was the 2008 creation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, a government-sanctioned body that spent years hearing testimony from residential school survivors within First Nations, within Métis, within Inuit communities, compiling the accurate report on the atrocities committed and the intergenerational effects of Indian residential schools.

The systems of colonialism are not broken; they’re working exactly the way they’re designed to, which is to take away the rights of the people whose lands we live on today. I know recommending far-reaching policy changes and fostering comprehensive educational programs would prevent such atrocities from ever happening again.

Speaker, I would also like to say that when the Truth and Reconciliation Commission released its final report in 2015—only eight years ago—it recommended 94 calls to action for the Canadian government to right the wrongs that have been done to Indigenous people. It was only the first step to begin dismantling the systemic racism, to stop the oppression, to stop the colonialism that has devastated our people as First Nations.

This is very relevant to what we’re talking about today, because what we have in this building is history. It’s your history. I don’t see any history of First Nations people here. There might be a painting up there. We have a room of First Nations paintings in 228 and 230. I look around this place and I only see one aspect of Ontario’s history. That’s your history.

This building is a physical representation of heritage and commemoration, but shouldn’t all Ontarians be able to look around and see themselves here at Queen’s Park, in this place where we say, “everyone’s House”? First Nations people—we are people too. We are from Kiiwetinoong. We are the Oji-Crees, we are the Ojibways, we are the Crees. We are all over. We have been here since time immemorial. We’ve been here for thousands of years.

“What is it like for you to be in this building?” I ask myself that. People ask me that. Sometimes I say, “It’s so colonial here.” It is for me. But where do we see ourselves as First Nations people in this building, when we start the work of this restoration of this building? I think that with this act this government has an opportunity to implement call 79 and call 82 from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Call 79 says:

“We call upon the federal government, in collaboration with survivors, Aboriginal organizations, and the arts community, to develop a reconciliation framework for Canadian heritage and commemoration. This would include, but not be limited to:

“(i) Amending the Historic Sites and Monuments Act to include First Nations, Inuit and Métis representation on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada and its secretariat.

1720

“(ii) Revising the policies, the criteria and practices of the National Program of Historical Commemoration to integrate Indigenous history, heritage values and memory practises into Canada’s national heritage history.

“(iii) Developing and implementing a national heritage plan and strategy for commemorating residential school sites, the history and the legacy of residential schools and the contributions of Aboriginal peoples to Canada’s history.”

That’s Call 79 from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

“Call 82,

“We call upon provincial and territorial governments, in collaboration with survivors and their organizations, and other parties to the Settlement Agreement to commission and install publicly accessible, highly visible residential school monuments in each capital city to honour survivors and all the children who were lost to their families and communities.”

That’s what we need to do. That is the real history of Ontario. That is the real history of Canada. There’s an opportunity there.

To all the pages who are here, they are the change-makers. The kids—I know they’re listening. I know they do not understand that history that we didn’t learn.

There is an opportunity here in this bill to build on these calls and make sure that there’s a recognition of not just Indigenous people but our history, our real history.

We need to make sure that this act integrates Indigenous history, heritage values, our languages and memory practices into Ontario’s heritage and history that we see in this building. This can only happen with First Nations’ full consultation. This can only happen with our input, with First Nations’ input. We have to be able to see ourselves in this building. We have to be able to see that we are part of this place.

One of the things that I see—a very minor change—is the carvings up above the main entrance to the chamber. We have the wolf that speaks about humility; we have the beaver that speaks about wisdom; we have the bear that speaks about bravery; we have the turtle that speaks about truth; we have the raven that speaks about honesty; we also have the buffalo that teaches respect; but most importantly, we have the eagle as well that teaches you love.

Sometimes when I listen to everybody here doing business, especially during question period, you are not following those teachings. There might come a day if you continue that way when First Nations will ask for that back because you’re not respecting it. Meegwetch.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Questions?

Mr. Anthony Leardi: A lot of people are going to have a lot of suggestions as to what they would like to see in a redesigned Queen’s Park and in a redesigned legislative precinct. Some people will want various different things, and then those suggestions will have to be vetted and some kind of decisions will have to be made. So I’d like to invite the member from Kiiwetinoong to give us his idea of what would be the mechanism or the way suggestions would be received and then discussed or vetted and then decisions would be made. If he can give us an idea of what he thinks about that.

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Certainly. Meegwetch for that question. I think it’s always important to listen to people, listen to First Nations. Again, typically, we are not listened to in this place. In this provincial Legislature, Queen’s Park, government, sometimes things are done in a way that makes it look as if they’re doing something without really doing anything. They give us the minimal stuff. That’s not acceptable anymore. You cannot be 10% colonial. You might as well be 100% colonial. I think it’s important to have some type of Indigenous group that you will be able to engage with, and that you will listen to us.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further questions?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I appreciated being here and listening to your remarks. I have so many thoughts. I’m going to try and distill it down. One of the things that you had said was about making this place more real, telling the real history of Canada, and I think history is a big part of when we look around this place. It is a big part of the story, but I also think that the future and the next chapter is an important part, because it’s one thing to say that everyone is welcome here, but that feels very polite. That we open the doors and say, “You are allowed in,” that’s about permission and manners. It’s a very different thing to say that people belong here. How can we approach this process to ensure that more people belong in this space?

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: I think it’s certainly important, again, to have dialogue. There’s got to be a process. There’s got to be a sense of belonging. Right now, where I come from—actually, this coming Friday morning, there are students from Webequie that will be here at Queen’s Park, and I haven’t seen them since I’ve been a member of provincial Parliament. But we need to be able to have a process, again, where we are properly engaged, not just—we are not check marks anymore. We are not ticking a box anymore. We are here. We will continue to be here. We’ve been here for thousands of years. There’s an opportunity here for the government. There’s an opportunity here to build a better place.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further questions?

Mrs. Robin Martin: Thank you to the member opposite, the member from Kiiwetinoong, for his comments, which I enjoyed listening to. The member mentioned that we don’t see Indigenous peoples reflected here and that we have an opportunity with this legislation to be able to see Indigenous peoples reflected here. I would say that I think we’ve made a little progress on that. We have the Seven Grandfathers—is that what they’re called—and we also have the member from Kiiwetinoong himself here, so some Indigenous people will see some reflection of themselves. What else would you suggest we can do in a reimagined Queen’s Park or Legislative Building?

1730

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: I think it’s important to acknowledge some of the things that we see—the paintings. I go to some offices and when I try to get Indigenous art or woodland art in my office, most of it is taken, and it’s taken by other MPPs, it’s taken by other offices. Reconciliation is not having woodland art in your community. That’s not reconciliation. We need to be better than that. But I think it’s important to, again, commission and install—publicly accessible, highly visible—a residential school monument on the grounds. Meegwetch.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further questions?

MPP Lise Vaugeois: Thank you for your presentation. I’m wondering, really, if we were observing the Seven Grandfather Teachings, what it would look like in the decision-making process. We had a decision made today about a mining bill, and it was objected to by the nine First Nations of Matawa, by the Chiefs of Ontario, 131 First Nations, by members of Treaty 9 and Whitesand—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Sorry. I just want to keep us on track with discussion of the restoration, of the bill. Thank you.

MPP Lise Vaugeois: I’m asking a question about the speech and what truth and wisdom would look like in our debates about policy.

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: The Seven Grandfather Teachings are there for a reason. I think a lot of times, when we talk about the Seven Grandfather Teachings—they were just ways of life. All of a sudden, somebody came in and started calling them the Seven Grandfather Teachings, but that’s how, before, when we were living on the lands—and still, some people, those are just teachings of life.

I think we would be able to move forward in a good way together as a—not First Nations, not as parties, those party lines that sometimes we don’t agree upon. I think we would be able to move things further, to have better communities, to have a better province, but also a better Canada. Most importantly, I think if we work together—we always want the same thing, and that’s to have a better society. Meegwetch.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further questions?

Mr. Anthony Leardi: Another speaker had made the very good point that, thus far, this physical structure has lasted us over 100 years, and I think that’s a remarkably good record for any physical structure. And going forward, we should perhaps have a physical structure that will last us for the next 100 years without having to decamp, as I will say it. So I would like to ask the member to offer his ideas of how we can have a physical structure going forward that will last another 100 years.

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: I think it’s always important to take time in the process. There’s always a teaching from our parents, our grandparents, growing up on the land: Whenever you want to build a teepee or a tent, you have to make the foundation very sturdy. You have to start in a good place, and you have to take time for it. I think that’s the same thing that we need to be able to—the actual physical structure of the building where the future will sit in.

I think it’s important, again, to acknowledge some of the historical practices, the historical things that have been done to, again, First Nations. And if it was up to me, if I had the translator in the box that could speak my language, I would really like that.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further debate?

Mr. Dave Smith: I look at the timer here; I’ve got 20 minutes, and I turn and I look at the clock, and it is 25 to 6. So I guess I’m the last batter of the day, because when we throw in the questions, it will take us past 6 o’clock.

I’ve listened to a lot of the speeches today on this. I’ve listened to a lot of the conversation on it. I’ve had lots of conversations with people about it. Typically, when I come in to do a speech, I have a number of things I want to talk about, and then, as I listen to other people talk, I change my mind on what I’m going to say. I don’t want to repeat things that others have talked about. So this is going to be a very meandering and wandering type of speech, and I’m actually curious to see where I’m going to go with it myself.

When we look back at the history here, though—and I’ve done a fair bit of research on the history of it. I find it interesting that in 1850—that’s when the first cornerstone was actually laid for the first building that was here—the original property was leased. This is one I think is really interesting, because when you look at what that lease was—

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: From who? I’m just kidding.

Mr. Dave Smith: It was from the city of Toronto. It was from the University of Toronto, and it was from some landowners. A 999-year lease is what was signed for the property. Why wouldn’t you just sell the property? Why create a lease that’s almost 1,000 years long?

Mr. John Yakabuski: That’s good ink on that paper.

Mr. Dave Smith: That would be very good ink on that paper.

And then the building was built. The first Legislature that people sat in here was in 1893. When you look at the building itself, the grandeur of the building, when you look at the carvings that have been put in here, the structure of it, it truly is an amazing monument. But as we all know, when you have an older building and you need to make renovations to it, it’s something that’s going to be costly. You know that it’s something that’s going to take a significant amount of time, and unfortunately, there is nobody alive today that was alive when this building was being built. So when we open up the walls, there are going to be things that we’re going to find that we have no idea were there that we’re going to have to address.

I’ve owned a number of homes, and I’ve renovated pretty much every home I’ve had. I tend to buy a home that is very dilapidated, and I gut it, and we build it back the way I want—well, actually, honestly, we build it back the way my wife tells me she wants it, but I pretend that it’s the way I want it as well, because it makes her happy if she thinks that I like what she’s suggesting to it. The last three homes that I’ve done that with, we have found things in the walls that when the home was built someone purposely put in there as a time capsule. Sometimes I think it was by mistake, because we found a T4 slip in the wall of the house I’m currently in. It was from 1981. I don’t think they really meant to leave their T4, but it was interesting to see what they made in 1981 as a school principal. We found notes in the walls of some of the houses. We found dead mice, or the remains of dead mice. There are a lot of different things that you will find, and when we take these walls down, I fully expect that we’re going to find some time capsules that the craftspeople left behind because they could.

One of the things when I was first elected that I thought was really interesting—we all get a tour of Queen’s Park, and we hear some of the history on it. In certain areas, there are faces that are carved into the walls. When we look across, there are two of them of Queen Victoria. One of them is a very good representation of Queen Victoria; the other one, I’m told it was during a labour strike, and she kind of looks more like a jack-o’-lantern than she does the Queen. I’m wondering whether or not that was put up that way as a protest because of a labour strike.

1740

The craftspeople weren’t able to put their names on anything. Someone who is a painter will put their name at the bottom of a painting, but those who did the woodcarvings couldn’t, and what we’ve been told is that most of the images that have been carved into the walls—the angels that are there—were either self-portraits or portraits of their family members. And that’s something that I think is very valuable to keep.

When we do the demo—it’s been talked about already; the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane talked about that, that it’s not like you can come in with a sledgehammer and just tear everything out and start afresh. There is some significant history that is in this building that is going to need to be saved. All of the woodcarvings are going to need to be saved. Another member talked about the ceiling and, in 1996, when they started to do that renovation and they took the white off, they found that there were actually still paintings on the ceiling. It would be a shame to lose that history. I don’t know how they’re going to take those down without doing some kind of damage to it, but I’m sure that we’ll bring in some craftspeople that will do their very best to preserve as much of that as possible.

The member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore talked about the amount of cables that are here and some of the challenges with WiFi throughout the building. But I want to point out, they had wireless technology when this building opened in 1893. Now, I’m sure all of you are looking at me like, “Are you off your rocker? They didn’t have wireless technology.” The lights in here were not electric. The four main lights were lowered and they would light the candles in the kerosene lamps that were in it and then they were raised back up. That’s wireless technology from 1893. That is something that I hope we don’t lose, the grandeur of these. When they made the renovations way back when, they were able to preserve the look and feel of it and put in electric lighting. And then the secondary lights that were added when television cameras were put in here, because it wasn’t bright enough for it, it was done in a way that makes it look like it was part of the original design of this building. My hope is that as we go through the renovations, we make sure that we preserve as much of that as possible because it truly is a grand building. It truly is a work of art.

Now, I recognize that there are a lot of things that we can do moving forward to make sure that we are accommodating what new technologies are. One of the things I did want to talk in particular about in the bill is the Legislative Protective Service. I want to put a slightly different perspective on it, and I’m going to touch on some personal things for me. The Legislative Protective Service, they are here in the precinct, but they don’t have peace officer abilities outside of the precinct. It’s been said a couple of times by other members that having the Legislative Protective Service able to do things at your constituency office or outside of the precinct, being recognized as peace officers that way, is something that would be very valuable, because all of us rely on our local police forces for it. And there are people, I’m sure, who are saying, “Why do you need to do that? Why do you have to have extra policing capabilities on it?” And this is where I’m going to get into a couple of minutes of my own personal experiences.

I was first elected in 2018. I came into being an elected official with certain expectations on it. I am a 53-year-old straight white male. There is no demographic in North America that is more privileged than the demographic that I come from. I have had death threats. I have had threats to be kidnapped and tortured. My staff have had death threats. My home has been graffitied. The wheel nuts on my truck were loosened and I had a wheel come off while driving. I know it was not because we did something wrong with the car, because the tires had been changed 12,000 kilometres earlier, five months earlier. If the tire was going to come off because we hadn’t put the lug nuts on tight enough, it would have come off in the first couple of hundred kilometres. We know who did it; we can’t prove it.

As I said, I’m a 53-year-old straight white male. There is not a more privileged demographic in our society than what I am. I’ve had voice mail messages. My wife works at the police department and she has had threatening voice mail messages left at the police department. They blocked their phone so that they couldn’t get through.

So why do we need to have the Legislative Protective Service have these extra powers outside of the precinct? Because if someone like me can have that happen to them, imagine what can happen to any other member who is not 6 foot 3 and 260 pounds and from that demographic. That’s why we need to be looking at some of those things.

There are some changes in here to FIPPA, to freedom of information. I’ve had people reach out to my office about that and ask why; what are we trying to hide? Well, there are certain security things that are going to have to be put in place in this building, that will have to be constructed into the building, and you don’t want someone to be able to do a quick Google search and find out what the security system is here at Queen’s Park, because we live in a different place today than we did just six years ago, when I first thought about entering politics. Not releasing the security information about this building makes perfect sense, and that’s why we’re doing some of those things, because we don’t want to find ourselves in a position where someone can circumvent it.

Now, I’m not suggesting that we’re going to have some person come in and try to attack us all, but we know that with cybersecurity, we are constantly under attack from hackers who want to try to break into the system, who want to try to take down the government computer systems. So having the ability to not release that makes perfect sense. It’s not necessarily for the security of us as members, but it’s for all of Ontario, to make sure that their government can still function appropriately. As I said, I had some constituents reach out to my office about that and question why we were doing something like that.

Going back to the physical aspects of the building, though, there are a number of things that we’ll have to look at, that we’ll have to have more consultation on. I’ve talked about the fact that the building opened in 1893. Really, when you look at how this building has served the people of Ontario, how this building has served those who have been elected, those who have been working here with the government, they did a fantastic job—they truly did—when they designed it, because it has served the people of this province for 130 years. There really aren’t a lot of things that you can say have only had minor tweaks to them over 130 years and are still functioning very, very well, but this grand building is one of those things that, for 130 years, has served the people very well.

But it’s time. It’s time to take it back to the studs, bring it down to bare bones, and then build it back up again, so that we can have it functioning for us for the next hundred-plus years. No one in 1893 ever anticipated that we were going to have computer equipment. They didn’t have electric lights in this room, so electricity wasn’t even something that they had considered. Fibre optics is how we send data now, but is fibre optics going to be the way that we do it a hundred years from now? I can’t tell you that.

I went to university. My first year was in 1989. My one computer prof talked about five-and-a-half-inch floppies and how we would never—five-and-a-quarter-inch floppies and three-and-a-half-inch floppies; sorry—leave the five-and-a-quarter, that people wouldn’t adopt the three-and-a-half because all of IBM’s technology was based on five-and-a-quarter. Well, that lasted for about a year, and then we were into the three-and-a-halfs, then we had Zip drives and we had a whole bunch of other technologies that replaced it. So to be arrogant enough to say that we’re not going to need a new technology 100 years from now is just ludicrous.

1750

One of the challenges we’re going to have, then, when we rebuild this building is what types of things we’ll put in place to allow for that expansion, for that new technology, when that new technology comes. Yes, we can put conduit all throughout the building so you can run more cables, but perhaps we’re not talking about something being cabled 100 years from now; I don’t know. I’m going to leave it to the design engineers, those guys who are a lot smarter than I am on those types of things, to try to figure out what we’re going to need and give enough flexibility that we can do it.

When you look at the electricity in this building—I don’t know for sure, but I would bet a steak dinner, for anyone who wants to come over to my place for a barbecue, to say that we probably have a whole lot of knob and tube in this building. For those of you who don’t know what knob and tube is, think of an insulator on a wall and you run two tubes with electrical wire through them. There’s no electrical box that your light fits on. It’s just two tubes that come out of the ceiling, and you attach your light to that. I would bet there is a ton of knob and tube in this building.

We use copper piping for running water. This building has lead piping in it for running water.

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: It adds flavour.

Mr. Dave Smith: It adds more than flavour to it, that’s for sure.

The standard now is ABS pipe for waste water. What we have here is cast iron, and it’s wrapped with horsehair. When the cast iron breaks, obviously the horsehair gets all wet as well, and it causes a real problem cleaning it up, but it’s in places now where you can’t even get to it.

One of the good parts I’ll say about the age of the building is, we didn’t use asbestos in 1893, so they’re probably not going to find a lot of asbestos when they tear this down, but we don’t know. That’s why it’s going to take close to 10 years for this building to be decanted and then rebuilt. There are so many unknowns when they start taking down the walls, and they have to do it in a way that is going to preserve some of the fantastic, historical artwork that is here.

But it’s not just the physical aspects of the building. There are other things that this building can be used for to represent all of Ontario.

At one of the committee meetings, there was a discussion around art and what art should be here and what should be displayed and what art perhaps shouldn’t be displayed. As the member from Oshawa talked about, there’s some very dark art that’s here. She has said to me a couple of times that one of the pieces of art right beside the member from Sudbury’s office—it’s called The Foreclosure, and you have a farmer who is lying on his deathbed with his family around, and you have the banker foreclosing on the farm because the farmer is too sick to continue on. That is a piece of art that we have here. It’s worth keeping—it’s worth reminding ourselves, because those who don’t learn from history are destined to repeat it.

So, as we put this back together, we have to make sure that we’re putting in all of those things that remind us not only of the good things that have happened in Ontario, but also some of those dark things that have happened in Ontario. As legislators, one of our jobs is to improve the lives of the people we represent, and the only way we can be assured that we are doing those things is by thinking of and recognizing the mistakes that had been made in the past and not repeating those mistakes. So it’s very, very important that as we put the building back together, we’re putting in those types of things that do remind us of not only the good things that have happened in Ontario, but also some of the darker history in Ontario.

Decisions are going to have to be made on all of that, and the only way that we can make that decision appropriately is to make sure that we have the appropriate feedback from everybody.

I did love the one comment that was made by the Minister of Northern Development and Minister of Indigenous Affairs about the possibility of travelling the Legislature, and what I’ll point out is that, in British Columbia, I had the opportunity to go to the BC Legislature, and they actually did that for the 100-year anniversary. They went back to the original city that served as the capital city and they turned the hockey rink into the Legislature for seven days. So it’s been done before in Canada. That would be a great opportunity for us to take, and I would love, more than anything else, to use the 900,000 square feet of GE in Peterborough and bring the Legislature to Peterborough for a week.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Questions?

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: I’d like to thank the member from Peterborough–Kawartha for his presentation. I listened intently. You mentioned the Gustav Hahn ceiling that was uncovered, as well as all of the carvings that we find here, the Latin—and I believed it happened in the millennium. There’s “Gubernatio bona fructumparit,” which means “Good government bears fruit,” as well as “Pax sit tempus nostrum,” “Peace in our time.” Sometimes we don’t see peace during question period, that’s for sure. But you also mentioned the Seven Grandfather Teachings by Garrett Nahdee. It’s a very small portion of this entire precinct.

The member from Kiiwetinoong recommended a monument to residential school children who were stolen and survivors as well as those who suffered generational trauma. I’d like to know from the member, would you like to see a plan that incorporates Indigenous ways of being, thinking, and make this place culturally safe for Indigenous people?

Mr. Dave Smith: I’m actually going to go a little bit further than that, because I think we might be missing an opportunity when we are just talking about the physical aspect of the building and the physical things that we do here.

If you recall, when the Seven Grandfather Teachings was put up, there was a smudging ceremony that went on. I would love to see something like that at the beginning of each of our sessions, having a smudging ceremony, because it’s cleansing your mind, your eyes, your ears, your nose, your mouth and your heart. If we were to do something like that to incorporate some of those traditions—not just the physical part of it, but actually some of the things that are done as a ceremony for different reasons by different groups across Ontario. I’d love to see something like that incorporated in what we do.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further questions?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I appreciated the member’s comments about the idea of the potential of a time capsule. Really, everywhere we look is a time capsule. For those of us with these water things, if you pick it up, underneath that, if you’d like to guess what it’s for, there was a hole there—

Interjection: An inkwell.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Yes, an inkwell; but it has served its time.

As we talk about what comes next, I think of the idea of futureproofing this space and giving opportunity for, whether it’s cables that come in or some other technology that doesn’t involve wires or what have you—I mean, right now we’re overloading power bars, which is dangerous. So what are some thoughtful ways that we could futureproof this in terms of technology or the “guts” of this space, as you said?

Mr. Dave Smith: It’s a really interesting question, actually, because how do you futureproof it? You have to allow for flexibility to do things that you’re not thinking of today. One of the things that I mentioned in the speech, and I’ll stand by it, is conduit throughout. Having the ability to run cabling where you need to run cabling after the fact is something that we really should be looking at, making sure that we’re putting in aspects of the building that allow for easy change. Perhaps we should be putting in panelling that can be easily removed but doesn’t look like it can be removed so that we can get behind the wall, rather than having it plastered the way it is right now.

There are different technologies that we have today that can be incorporated into the building of the building of this building—say “building” three times—that allows for flexibility in the future because it’s easy to remove and put back and no one would know that it had been removed. Having that type of flexibility I think is something we should be looking at.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Thank you.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): It is now time for private members’ public business.

Report continues in volume B.